Magox Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Pat Murray and Kerry both Named to the Super Debt Panel to reduce the National debt. Ok, Murray who is a super lefty and Kerry who just got done calling the S&P downgrade the Tea Party downgrade were both appointed by Harry Reid. Well, that was a big let down. I think we know how this is gonna end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I think we know how this is gonna end. A bipartisan agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Pat Murray and Kerry both Named to the Super Debt Panel to reduce the National debt. Ok, Murray who is a super lefty and Kerry who just got done calling the S&P downgrade the Tea Party downgrade were both appointed by Harry Reid. Well, that was a big let down. I think we know how this is gonna end. All very well qualified. Patty Murray - On the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget John Kerry - Committee on Foreign Relations Max Baucus - Chairman Committee on Finance Let's see who the Republicans announce. By the way, who did you want there? And let's face it the downgrade was in part due to the inaction of Congress. Who held the talks back? The Tea Party. Just a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 All very well qualified. Patty Murray - On the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget John Kerry - Committee on Foreign Relations Max Baucus - Chairman Committee on Finance Let's see who the Republicans announce. By the way, who did you want there? And let's face it the downgrade was in part due to the inaction of Congress. Who held the talks back? The Tea Party. Just a fact. Did the downgrade come before or after they voted on the debt ceiling/"deficit reduction" bill? Assuming deficit reduction needed to be part of any debt ceiling plan, what plan did the democrats have for that? What was Obama's plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Did the downgrade come before or after they voted on the debt ceiling/"deficit reduction" bill? Assuming deficit reduction needed to be part of any debt ceiling plan, what plan did the democrats have for that? What was Obama's plan? I'll give that Obama was sketchy at what he wanted to cut in spending, but it was reported that he was offering upwards of 3 trillion for 1 trillion in revenue. Which was denied by the right. The downgrade came after the vote, however the inefficiency of congress and their weak deal did play a part of the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I'll give that Obama was sketchy at what he wanted to cut in spending, but it was reported that he was offering upwards of 3 trillion for 1 trillion in revenue. Which was denied by the right. The downgrade came after the vote, however the inefficiency of congress and their weak deal did play a part of the decision. That's just a bunch of bs. The downgrade came because we didn't go far enough in reducing the deficit. If you actually think that S$P would downgrade the rating because there was bickering in congress over this you're just flat out crazy. Where is the link for the three trillion spending reduction and what were the specifics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 That's just a bunch of bs. The downgrade came because we didn't go far enough in reducing the deficit. If you actually think that S$P would downgrade the rating because there was bickering in congress over this you're just flat out crazy. Where is the link for the three trillion spending reduction and what were the specifics? Well, that's the particular straw that Pee has been grasping for the past week.... It only has to make sense in his/her own mind --- which is a cripple-fight between his/her last two brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 All very well qualified. Patty Murray - On the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget John Kerry - Committee on Foreign Relations Max Baucus - Chairman Committee on Finance Let's see who the Republicans announce. By the way, who did you want there? And let's face it the downgrade was in part due to the inaction of Congress. Who held the talks back? The Tea Party. Just a fact. They're where they are because they're politicians, not because they want to or can get anything done. With this slate, Reid just sent an overt message that Dems aren't going to give an inch. They'll want tax increases and any cuts they'll agree to will be heavily DoD (in a time of 4 wars) or phantom cuts. Talk about holding talks back. In other words, there will be no deal. Anyone with a brain who saw the news last week that part of the deal was to form a commission to see if they could possibly think about where to maybe cut government spending knew it's going to be just another blue ribbon panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 All very well qualified. Patty Murray - On the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget John Kerry - Committee on Foreign Relations Max Baucus - Chairman Committee on Finance Let's see who the Republicans announce. By the way, who did you want there? And let's face it the downgrade was in part due to the inaction of Congress. Who held the talks back? The Tea Party. Just a fact. Unlike you I have this thing they called objectivity, which you clearly don't. To answer your question, they will probably place a few idealogues as well that in my view won't do the process any good either. But Murray and Kerry were not good choices, Kerry has made some inflammatory comments towards the tea party, and if you don't believe that poisons the well then you're a dumbass. Murray, well, lets put it this way, she wont agree to any significant reform in the entitlements. Max, well he was a good choice. However they should of placed Kent Conrad in the mix. It's clear to any rational thinking person that this was more about politics than anything else. he's not concerned with solving this crisis as much as playing election politics. Two terrible choices. Which I'm pretty sure the right will make a few terrible one's as well. But, I believe we pretty much know how this is gonna go, STALEMATE! And in regards to what we just saw in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is a left-leaning state, and the Unions poured tons of money into this election, and the fact that they weren't able to effectively influence the outcome to their liking pretty much reaffirms the prediction I made two years ago, which was that the Unions were going to lose more power moving forward, considering the Debt that has been accumulated on the state and local levels due to the ridiculous unfunded pension liabilities that mainly democratic lawmakers and Union leaders struck. Big blow for the Unions and a big victory for the US taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 They're where they are because they're politicians, not because they want to or can get anything done. With this slate, Reid just sent an overt message that Dems aren't going to give an inch. They'll want tax increases and any cuts they'll agree to will be heavily DoD (in a time of 4 wars) or phantom cuts. Talk about holding talks back. In other words, there will be no deal. Anyone with a brain who saw the news last week that part of the deal was to form a commission to see if they could possibly think about where to maybe cut government spending knew it's going to be just another blue ribbon panel. As I understand things, if they don't come up with a bill it will automatically be across the board cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 Reid's trio of appointees sends "a mixed message," said Keefe Bruyette & Woods policy analyst Brian Gardner. "The choice of Baucus represents hope for some sort of compromise on entitlement and tax reform," he said. "But Murray being the head of the (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Kerry not being known as a moderate Democrat doesn't necessarily signal a willingness to compromise." Murray, a key member of the Senate Democratic leadership, was named co-chair of the panel. She is a close Reid ally. http://www.cnbc.com/id/44087734 Pretty much my assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Unlike you I have this thing they called objectivity, which you clearly don't. D-Shills has his own form of objectivity. He sees something that doesn't jive with his myopic partisan shillery, he objects. But, I believe we pretty much know how this is gonna go, STALEMATE! Stalemate is their objective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Unlike you I have this thing they called objectivity, which you clearly don't. To answer your question, they will probably place a few idealogues as well that in my view won't do the process any good either. But Murray and Kerry were not good choices, Kerry has made some inflammatory comments towards the tea party, and if you don't believe that poisons the well then you're a dumbass. Murray, well, lets put it this way, she wont agree to any significant reform in the entitlements. Max, well he was a good choice. However they should of placed Kent Conrad in the mix. It's clear to any rational thinking person that this was more about politics than anything else. he's not concerned with solving this crisis as much as playing election politics. Two terrible choices. Which I'm pretty sure the right will make a few terrible one's as well. But, I believe we pretty much know how this is gonna go, STALEMATE! And in regards to what we just saw in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is a left-leaning state, and the Unions poured tons of money into this election, and the fact that they weren't able to effectively influence the outcome to their liking pretty much reaffirms the prediction I made two years ago, which was that the Unions were going to lose more power moving forward, considering the Debt that has been accumulated on the state and local levels due to the ridiculous unfunded pension liabilities that mainly democratic lawmakers and Union leaders struck. Big blow for the Unions and a big victory for the US taxpayer. you might be a member of the the Objectivist Party and I certainly find you objectionable but you don't in the least have objectivity- sure you like Max Baucus he has "owned by Wall Street" tattooed on his forehead or at least should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 All very well qualified. Patty Murray - On the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget John Kerry - Committee on Foreign Relations Max Baucus - Chairman Committee on Finance Let's see who the Republicans announce. By the way, who did you want there? And let's face it the downgrade was in part due to the inaction of Congress. Who held the talks back? The Tea Party. Just a fact. Baucus might be, as might Murray. Kerry is eminently qualified, given the committee's mandate to "have a plan". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 10, 2011 Author Share Posted August 10, 2011 you might be a member of the the Objectivist Party and I certainly find you objectionable but you don't in the least have objectivity- sure you like Max Baucus he has "owned by Wall Street" tattooed on his forehead or at least should have. says the loon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Kerry is eminently qualified, given the committee's mandate to "have a plan". Did Al Gore ever let Kerry take that plan out of the Lockboxz? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 GOP names their players. http://www.cbs8.com/story/15243204/boehner-names-gop-members-of-super-debt-panel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 GOP names their players. http://www.cbs8.com/story/15243204/boehner-names-gop-members-of-super-debt-panel Haven't seen the House Democrats list of players yet, but if it's anything like the other 9/12 of the panel we'll witness a live action display of the definition of insanity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Aren't the rules of this game = we only need 7/12 to agree to get something done? I am pretty sure that's the case. So, Bacchus is your 1 Democrat. Kerry and Murray are simply there for show and soundbites, as are the rest of the House Democrats. Conversely the Republicans Senators Toomey and Portman are rookies from swing states...which means they get "experience" and "accomplishment" points out of this. But, Senator Kyl, whose job this is anyway, is the real guy here. My call: they will NOT put Paul Ryan on this. Why? Because even though we'd all like to see it, the Democrats have too much to lose by having Ryan gain even more credibility. They already know that in 9-13 years, they are going to have to face in a national election, and that he's already made his domestic policy bones. They don't want to just hand him "bipartisan" points too. So, if they put Ryan on this, the Democrats will raise hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Unlike you I have this thing they called objectivity, which you clearly don't. To answer your question, they will probably place a few idealogues as well that in my view won't do the process any good either. But Murray and Kerry were not good choices, Kerry has made some inflammatory comments towards the tea party, and if you don't believe that poisons the well then you're a dumbass. Murray, well, lets put it this way, she wont agree to any significant reform in the entitlements. Max, well he was a good choice. However they should of placed Kent Conrad in the mix. It's clear to any rational thinking person that this was more about politics than anything else. he's not concerned with solving this crisis as much as playing election politics. Two terrible choices. Which I'm pretty sure the right will make a few terrible one's as well. But, I believe we pretty much know how this is gonna go, STALEMATE! And in regards to what we just saw in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is a left-leaning state, and the Unions poured tons of money into this election, and the fact that they weren't able to effectively influence the outcome to their liking pretty much reaffirms the prediction I made two years ago, which was that the Unions were going to lose more power moving forward, considering the Debt that has been accumulated on the state and local levels due to the ridiculous unfunded pension liabilities that mainly democratic lawmakers and Union leaders struck. Big blow for the Unions and a big victory for the US taxpayer. You are seriously just cracking me up today... you have objectivity. How can you honestly say that? You only believe in your side, you only think the Republican way is right. Give me a break. Again, you are just wasting time. Now on to your nostradamous-like vision. First thing do you realize that recalls are ridiculously hard to do? I wished for that third seat, no doubt. However I am still happy with the two they gained. Plus, the numbers show that the bigger recall of Walker is truly possible. I am not worried about unions losing power.. if anything our members are offering concessions and paying more towards their benefits. Yet, that is still not good enough for the "I wish my benefits package was like that" crowd. They want more. I hope that unions do not give more back. It does nothing for them. They are still being bashed, still being demonized, etc., etc. Until that mentality calms down, why give in. The sad thing is that middle-class people are now fighting each other and some actually believe that the Tea Party and Republicans have their best interests in mind. They have not shown that they do. Not in any way. So go on... act like you're objective... act like you are independent... all you are doing is making a fool out of yourself. I can easily hang my hat the fact that I am true to my beliefs. I am a Democrat, I believe in unions and I can STILL see that both things CAN be improved upon. That they aren't perfect. But they are A LOT better than the filth coming from the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts