Exactly. But when liberals confront this issue, they spend 99% of their time talking about increasing revenue (tax hikes) and almost no time talking about menaingful cuts. Libs ain't about to statr saying "no" to labor unions, for example. And caving in to public labor union demands is a huge reason why most states are in dire financial shape.

As Gov Christie in NJ says, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If a 30 year-old NBA star is bankrupt, his problem isn't that he doesn't make enough money. His problem is that he needs to get a grip on his spending. Politicians are in the same boat...

If Obama vetoes all legislation, then the GOP having promised to reduce this year's budget is disconnected from reality. Why make a promise you can't keep? How did they expect to keep their promise? I know Obama will veto all legislation (just as I know this year's budget won't be lowered $100 billion). You can't promise you'll do something if there is no way that it will happen.

If they're able to lower the budget what they stated - good for them for accomplishing what they promised and let them be rewarded for that.

I don't want any legislators (Pelosi or the GOP) promising/stating anything that won't happen or they can't do. That is not party dependent - they're all the same.

Paul S, you and I are talking about 2 very different things, and I htink you know that.

You are describing a situation where a party runs on a platform, honestly tries to implement that platform, and gets blocked by the other party.

That is NOT REMOTELY analagous to what Pelosi did. She took one radical course of action (insane spending) and then AFTER THE FACT, claimed that she did the exact opposite.

(1) The GOP has made a promise. Time will tell if they can keep it, and if they don't, they should be honest about why.

(2) Pelosi is claiming that she did the opposite of what she actualy did.

You're comparing those 2 things. A child knows they are different.

I highly doubt that's the case. Obama still seeks to further his agenda and the interests of the American people. A stagnant government will produce none of this and could be quite disruptive.

More likely it will mean negotiation. The House isn't going to be let to run rampant, if they don't produce bi-partisan legislation it's not going to get through the Senate.

-spence

I'll be more than happy to oblige, have a nice season.

-spence

BEST picture I seen in years.

http://www.drudgereport.com/hr.jpg

Now if they can just get the other jackbag out of there we'd be all set :spam:

just saw that sign in half lengthwise

prolly pay $500.00 for a replacement

TOILET SEATS ARE $10K

THAT IS EASILY A $50K SIGN

[QUOTE=stcroixman;824441]Very true. Now they will be front and center and Pelosi won't be.

InQUOTE]

you really think Boehner is as nutty (on the right) as Pelosi is left?

Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?

BOTH! :)

Liar

you never cease to amuse me. Obama seeks to further the interests of SOME american people. He has been very outspoken about NOT furthering the interests of -
1. successful people who do not rely on government support
2. People making over 200K per year and even more damaging, FAMILILES making 250k per year
3. American citizens who compete for jobs with illegal aliens

He is working very hard to further the interests of those that rely on the government.

So you think I'm comparing 2 different things and I'm a "child"?

Paul, hurry up, call him "classy" !

No. I'm saying that you're comparing 2 things that are extremely different.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting an equivalence between...

(1) House republicans, who have been in occice 2 days, are pledging to reduce the debt.

(2) Nancy Pelosi, after increasing the debt by $5 trillion, says that debt reduction was her mantra.

The second thing is an irrefutable lie. As for the 1st thing, the GOP hasn't had time to do anything yet, so we don't know if they are being honest. In other words, there is no evidence (yet) that Boehner lied about reducing the debt. There is insurmountable evidence that Pelosi lied.

As I said, you seem to be comparing two very different things. You're comparing an obvious liar with someone who may or may not be proven to be a liar. Or did I misunderstand your post, which is quite possible?

Jim, think a little about this. I said his "agenda" and the "interests" of the people. There are little things like national defense that I think we'd all agree are important. Do you think Obama will let the Afghanistan war funding dry up because the House wants to cut some domestic program? Not likely...they'll work out a deal.

Perhaps you need to take a breather before responding to posts.

-spence

Spence, my opinion is that it appears Obama's agenda is very different than the interests of the American people (and I’m not including the free loaders of this great country as the American people). He doesn't seem to know the interests of the American people...

Yeah, I was surprised the "Condescension Police" didn't jump all over that....I've seen them bust other people's balls for less. :hihi:

Let's keep voting them out till they get the message.

you know classy, right? LOL

what I said in previous posts is that if the Repub. don't reduce the budget this year then they'd have to be 1 of the 3 you mentioned. I also said that if they do keep their promise, so be it and let them be rewarded for keeping it. I don't think they'll do it, but we'll see. There is no difference in my mind b/t the 2 parties and I don't think many people here recognize that.

there are INCREDIBLE ideological differences.

LOL, TWO govt. employees to take down a 3 ft 2 screw sign.
Wonder what the salaries, benes, retirement and screw gun cost us?

That about says it all. :smash:

on our way!

Washington (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates staged a pre-emptive attack Thursday in Washington's looming budget battles, announcing cuts of $78 billion to the U.S. military and defense department, including reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

In addition, Gates said the Army, Navy and Air Force had found $100 billion of savings that they would retain, allowing them to continue developing major weapons and modernizing their forces over the next five years.

"These reform efforts, followed through to completion, will make it possible to protect the U.S. military's size, reach and fighting strength despite a declining rate of growth and eventual flattening of the defense budget over the next five years," Gates said at the start of a lengthy opening statement at the Pentagon.

Under the Gates plan, the Marine Corps would slash 15,000 to 20,000 people, a 10% reduction. The Army would shrink by 27,000 active duty personnel, 4% cut, on top of an already planned reduction of 22,000 -- for a total of 49,000 fewer soldiers.

It's called a Union work. Probably had a mandatory break after the first screw came out and got hazard pay for needing to use a step ladder.

sorry, I thought the discussion was about their honesty.

Good for Gates. Our military budget is too large. Politicians should stop telling the military what weapon systems they need. Let the military decide what they need based on the threat and not on trying to keep $s in certain districts.

Seems to me there is a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery with several people putting up one small flag...sometimes good things take multiple people to make sure it is done!

I'd be happy to give you my number so I can ignore your call and you can get an idea what slashing the government employee rolls will be like...not that there isn't excess...just don't paint everyone with that brush...we don't come on here and claim that you are just saying that because you didn't get your check...

I heard she is going to pose topless in AARP magazine. She has great hooters.

Imagine what the GD sign cost in the first place. Pity the fool who scrathes it taking it down.

She has great hooters.

I agree. She is almost 70 I think I wonder what she looked like at 30?

In the words of Clemenza, Keep the hooters lose the head.