Would anyone care to offer an explanation of this?

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline

rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Don't have a clue. What

Don't have a clue. What exactly was the bill? All I know is it was the "Reid amendment" and it passed.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

rab wrote:

Don't have a clue. What exactly was the bill? All I know is it was the "Reid amendment" and it passed.

 

The bill was re-instituting pay-as-you-go. 

 

Look at the Republican votes. None of them voted for it.

 

It is an extremely conservative (in a fiscal sense) move, as it limits any new bills by only allowing ones that fit inside the budget, rather than expanding the budget to fit the legislation. It puts a cap on our government's spending essentially. It is the "you can't spend it if you don't have it" mentality of legislating that balanced our deficit in the last century when Bill Clinton was president.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
What's puzzling is that no

What's puzzling is that no republicans voted for it. Aren't they the ones into fiscal discipline?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:What's puzzling is

rab wrote:

What's puzzling is that no republicans voted for it. Aren't they the ones into fiscal discipline?

The conservative line is to be appearing to be in favour of fiscal discipline, but only in the sense that one's platform is to decry every cent deemed worthy of spending by a liberal representative... LOL.

 

Sadly, it's worse than that, conservatives seem to have it in their head that government should be operated like a capital investor company, limits on spending are not favourable to that end because what happens if they need to spend more to secure a vital resource for an american business interest? then they'd have to let liberals (heaven forbid those humanist scum) decide if it is in the interests of the public and not just the businessman personally, and sometimes you can't buy the whole liberal bench for these things.


 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
The Republicans aren't

The Republicans aren't fiscally conservative.

I feel like politics is bizarro-style these days. We have big government conservatives (that should be an oxymoron) and we have the so-called liberals supporting corporatist bills. And for this bill we have the party that is supposed to be conservative uniformly rejecting a bill that upon cursory examination looks fiscally conservative.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:What's puzzling is

rab wrote:

What's puzzling is that no republicans voted for it. Aren't they the ones into fiscal discipline?

They wont vote for anything if someone other than their club gets credit for it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:The bill was

ClockCat wrote:
The bill was re-instituting pay-as-you-go.

 

Look at the Republican votes. None of them voted for it.

 

It is an extremely conservative (in a fiscal sense) move, as it limits any new bills by only allowing ones that fit inside the budget, rather than expanding the budget to fit the legislation. It puts a cap on our government's spending essentially. It is the "you can't spend it if you don't have it" mentality of legislating that balanced our deficit in the last century when Bill Clinton was president.

 

I can explain it easily. You let Rachael Madcow do your thinking for you.

 

This piece of shit legislation simply does not do what you were told to think. It, in fact, increases the public debt to over $13,000,000,000,000.00. After all, it is clearly “fiscally conservative” to grant oneself all the money that one would like to spend before promising not to spend more than that.

 

Um, it also says that the senate is going to send a nice letter to the president of the University of Alabama because the Crimson Tide has won the Rose Bowl 32 out of 59 times. Just about the number of victories that would be expected in a coin flip model.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

ClockCat wrote:
The bill was re-instituting pay-as-you-go.

 

Look at the Republican votes. None of them voted for it.

 

It is an extremely conservative (in a fiscal sense) move, as it limits any new bills by only allowing ones that fit inside the budget, rather than expanding the budget to fit the legislation. It puts a cap on our government's spending essentially. It is the "you can't spend it if you don't have it" mentality of legislating that balanced our deficit in the last century when Bill Clinton was president.

 

I can explain it easily. You let Rachael Madcow do your thinking for you.

 

This piece of shit legislation simply does not do what you were told to think. It, in fact, increases the public debt to over $13,000,000,000,000.00. After all, it is clearly “fiscally conservative” to grant oneself all the money that one would like to spend before promising not to spend more than that.

 

Um, it also says that the senate is going to send a nice letter to the president of the University of Alabama because the Crimson Tide has won the Rose Bowl 32 out of 59 times. Just about the number of victories that would be expected in a coin flip model.

 

 

Care to site sources for any of that? And did Rachael Maddow talk about this?

 

I looked over the bill itself and I see limitations on budget, but nothing that says what you did. I see caps placed on government spending that were not there previously.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Dude, it was right in your

Dude, it was right in your link that I got that from. You are asking about an amendment to the Rose Bowl thing, which is itself an amendment to the original legislation that grants the government the right to go into further debt.

 

Face fact here. It is a turd of a bill that was tacked onto a bit of feel good legislation so that it could be a slam dunk. Basically it is no better than adding pork barrel spending onto some new version of Meagan's Law. If anyone dares to vote against it, then when they are up for reelection, their opponents can make the bullshit claim that they are opposed to protecting children.

 

OMG! Think of the children!

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So the choice seems to be

So the choice seems to be between raising the debt ceiling and trying to stay under it and spending the country into oblivion without any pretense of fiscal responsibility?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

jcgadfly wrote:

So the choice seems to be between raising the debt ceiling and trying to stay under it and spending the country into oblivion without any pretense of fiscal responsibility?

 

Ceiling? There was no ceiling before. Bills have been passed for roughly 9 years now without considering paying for them or fitting them into the budget at all, the budget was merely a retro-active thing to show how much more "credit" has been spent.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Dude, it was right in your link that I got that from. You are asking about an amendment to the Rose Bowl thing, which is itself an amendment to the original legislation that grants the government the right to go into further debt.

 

Face fact here. It is a turd of a bill that was tacked onto a bit of feel good legislation so that it could be a slam dunk. Basically it is no better than adding pork barrel spending onto some new version of Meagan's Law. If anyone dares to vote against it, then when they are up for reelection, their opponents can make the bullshit claim that they are opposed to protecting children.

 

OMG! Think of the children!

 

 

Rose Bowl? I don't care about that. I was referring to the rest of what you were claiming. 


Please don't make wild claims. This is the first time I have seen a cap being placed (don't go over this amount) on wasteful government spending in years.

 

You DID read the same bill I did, right?
 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

This piece of shit legislation simply does not do what you were told to think.

Well, no it does reinstate the 'pay as you go' Act, at least, on that much it is true to its word.

Quote:

It, in fact, increases the public debt to over $13,000,000,000,000.00. After all, it is clearly “fiscally conservative” to grant oneself all the money that one would like to spend before promising not to spend more than that.

 

Ha, it's not like the republicans didn't raise the limit on national debt by 5 trillion, themselves, during their most recent stay in the Whitehouse. In fact every Administration has done it almost every year since the 1940's according to history of the legislation.

 

Answer in Gene Simmons wrote:

Um, it also says that the senate is going to send a nice letter to the president of the University of Alabama because the Crimson Tide has won the Rose Bowl 32 out of 59 times. Just about the number of victories that would be expected in a coin flip model.

 

Just like a republican to get all indignant about the other guy using sleight of hand to get the money they are after. Might as well face it, AIGene, conjuring up credit leeway and forcing it down with a ladel of sickly saccharin goodness is a tradition in US congress. What kind of a conservative are you to be questioning tradition?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
I can explain it easily. You let Rachael Madcow do your thinking for you.

You know that is bullshit and in media it is about pandering to a base.

Does Rush or Hanity do your thinking for you?

We lean different directions and the media and politicians we flock to are not interested in problem solving, they are interested in power and control.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Media is NOT journalism,

Media is NOT journalism, media is simply advertising. Over the past couple decades the line between reporting vs opinion has been wiped out ON BOTH SIDES. Journalism is not about being right or wrong. Journalism is simply stating an event as it happened. But the way Maddow and Hanity sell it, it might as well be Coke vs Pepsi ignoring that soda isn't really good as a default beverage all the time.

I happen to agree with Oberman and Maddow BUT THEY ARE NOT JOURNALISTS. They are in the same catigory as Hanity, ALL OF THEM ARE ENTERTAINERS.

For you to accuse me, or anyone of eating Maddow's bush blindly is funny since we both agree that neither of our parties are guided by magical super heros.

If I am smoking Maddow's carpet, then on the same scale you are stroking Rush's pole.

I think the reality is that you and I disagree and people with tons of money above us spend it convincing us why we should hate each other.

 

The truth is that our species cares more about marketing than it does about pragmatism

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Media is NOT

Brian37 wrote:

Media is NOT journalism, media is simply advertising. Over the past couple decades the line between reporting vs opinion has been wiped out ON BOTH SIDES. Journalism is not about being right or wrong. Journalism is simply stating an event as it happened. But the way Maddow and Hanity sell it, it might as well be Coke vs Pepsi ignoring that soda isn't really good as a default beverage all the time.

I happen to agree with Oberman and Maddow BUT THEY ARE NOT JOURNALISTS. They are in the same catigory as Hanity, ALL OF THEM ARE ENTERTAINERS.

For you to accuse me, or anyone of eating Maddow's bush blindly is funny since we both agree that neither of our parties are guided by magical super heros.

If I am smoking Maddow's carpet, then on the same scale you are stroking Rush's pole.

I think the reality is that you and I disagree and people with tons of money above us spend it convincing us why we should hate each other.

 

The truth is that our species cares more about marketing than it does about pragmatism

Olbermann and Maddow are not on the same level as Limpbone and The Manatee. They may only be offering commentary but at least it's reality based.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.