Re: So-Called “Tea Party” is Nothing But a Front for the Corporate

On 6/20/2010 4:58 PM, Clairbear wrote:
> “Sid9″ wrote in
> news:hvlp85$voh$1 @&*$?%news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> “First Post.” wrote in message
>> news:mios16ptim8hp5b7c0amf4si3jqpdub6h6 @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>> On 20 Jun 2010 18:36:28 GMT, Clairbear wrote:
>>>
>>>> C&*$?%r wrote in
>>>> news:chine.bleu-1EFDC8.23400219062010 @&*$?%news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> In article , sillapond
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/19/2010 06:41 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>>> Reagan left a destructive anti-government legacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are obsessed with Reagan who left us a vibrant economy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike you, some of us would like a balanced budget when the
>>>>> economy is good.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So since niether is now true and not likely to be so any time soon
>>>> you must
>>>> really hate Obama
>>>
>>>
>>> Congressional Democrats skip passing a budget-and hope no one
>>> notices.
>>>
>>> The 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act requires Congress to pass a
>>> budget resolution by May 15 of each year. Congress hasn’t done so yet
>>> in 2010. But that isn’t so unusual. Delays are common.
>>>
>>> They are usually the result of interparty or intercameral disputes.
>>> But this year is different. Congressional Democrats aren’t simply
>>> delaying, they’re deliberately refusing to offer a budget until after
>>> the November elections. They’re simply choosing to ignore the law.
>>>
>>> The politics are not complicated. Democratic leaders do not want to
>>> send members home to face their constituents after voting for a
>>> budget that would take the deficit to record levels. But the spending
>>> trajectory established by Barack Obama-and rapidly growing
>>> entitlements-leaves them little choice. The administration’s own
>>> proposal, offered in February, runs a deficit of 7-10 percent of the
>>> U.S. gross domestic product for the next nine-year budget window.
>>> That’s unsustainable and irresponsible. So rather than vote for such
>>> a grotesquely distended budget, Democrats reason, better to simply
>>> skip the vote and shrug off whatever criticism comes.
>>>
>>> This isn’t speculation. Representative Gerry Connolly, a Democrat
>>> from Northern Virginia with a competitive race this fall, confirmed
>>> the strategy in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “I’m not
>>> going to vote for anything with that magnitude [of deficit],” he
>>> said. He’s betting his constituents won’t care. “Name one person who
>>> won or lost an election because they didn’t get a budget resolution
>>> passed. It’s totally inside baseball.”
>>>
>>> If the politics are simple, the implications are real.
>>> In the short term, failing to pass a budget resolution almost
>>> guarantees even more irresponsible spending. A budget resolution sets
>>> spending targets for congressional committees and makes it
>>> procedurally more difficult for members of Congress (in either house)
>>> to increase spending. (In the Senate, for instance, adding new
>>> spending requires 60 votes after a budget resolution and only 51
>>> before.)
>>>
>>> Keith Hennessey, who served as senior White House economic adviser
>>> under George W. Bush, describes the short-term effects this way:
>>>
>>> Without an annual budget resolution, . . . discipline does not
>>> exist. Committee chairmen spend and tax as they see fit, because
>>> there is no overarching structure to rein them in. It can become
>>> budgetary chaos.
>>>
>>> And budgetary chaos means more spending.
>>>
>>> It’s win-win for congressional Democrats: Moderates get to avoid a
>>> tough vote and liberals get to spend more. “The Democrats get what
>>> they want and the taxpayers get the shaft,” says Representative Jim
>>> Jordan, a Republican from Ohio who’s a leading critic of the
>>> Democratic strategy.
>>>
>>> That’s bad. But the long-term problems are worse. If Congress does
>>> not pass a budget resolution before the election, Democrats will push
>>> one through during the lame-duck session before a new Congress is
>>> sworn in. Democrats will be able to ratchet up discretionary
>>> spending, and these increased levels of spending will be the fallback
>>> levels in the event that future spending disputes require Congress to
>>> revert to continuing budget resolutions.
>>>
>>> If ensuring budgetary chaos and locking in higher levels of
>>> discretionary spending isn’t depressing enough, there’s always the
>>> prospect of a genuine debt crisis.
>>>
>>> Virtually everyone agrees that the current level of federal spending
>>> is unsustainable. In congressional testimony earlier this month,
>>> Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged that something has
>>> to change.
>>>
>>> “We need to convince markets in the medium and longer term that we
>>> have a sustainable fiscal path for balancing our budget or at least
>>> bringing our deficits down,” Bernanke said. Although he does not
>>> favor immediate deep spending cuts, Bernanke acknowledged the “need”
>>> for a plan.
>>>
>>> Yet the Obama administration has shown no interest in cutting
>>> spending. Indeed, President Obama wrote to European leaders ahead of
>>> the upcoming G-20 summit in Toronto and warned that their austerity
>>> measures-including spending cuts-could slow our recovery. In that
>>> same letter, Obama raised the possibility of still greater U.S.
>>> government spending. “In fact, should confidence in the strength of
>>> our recoveries diminish,” he wrote, “we should be prepared to respond
>>> again as quickly and as forcefully as needed to avoid a slowdown in
>>> economic activity.”
>>> http://weeklystandard.com/articles/dereliction-duty
>> .
>> .
>> Lousy economics. (Republican Reagan voo-doo economics)
>>
>> In time of recession or getting out of this Republican recession
>> deficit spending correct as a stimulus.
>>
>> Increased taxes on 1099 income is also in order since it will have no
>> effect on the 70% of economy that is consumer driven
>>
> Yeah take more money out of the ecomy and fritter it away on porkulus2
> You are not only a stooge you are a fool too
>

A redundant fool that will do the same thing over and over expecting a
different outcome.

How many time does he need to see the Democrats waste and steal stimulus
money to get the idea that if you give them more money they’ll steal and
waste it also.