December 10, 2013

Paul Ryan, Patty Murray Announce Budget Deal; Sequester Out, Spending Up
— Ace

"Compromise."

They're announcing it now, live, on FoxNews (and I imagine a lot of other stations).

National Journal laid out the basics:


Budget negotiators were tantalizingly close Tuesday afternoon to reaching a two-year deal that would set annual spending levels around $1 trillion and replace some automatic spending cuts with non-tax revenue, according to aides and lawmakers familiar with the situation.
s set to hold a press conference.

...

Even as a deal appears certain, significant hurdles remain to final passage. Some conservatives have recently voiced opposition to swapping out sequester cuts for "user fees," while liberals have criticized any deal that does not extend unemployment insurance or protect federal employees from paying more into their pensions.

As I understand it, the actual cuts of the sequester will be replaced by "future cuts," also known as "not cuts at all," and a host of new or increased taxes which aren't called taxes because they don't want to call them taxes.

Drew discussed the deal yesterday, or at least the hints that had been public as of yesterday.

It became clear months ago when the House only passed appropriation bills that increased spending and not the ones that actually cut spending that the fix was in.

And don't buy the nonsense about fees (aka "taxes") or higher pension contributions offsetting some of the spending. First, like almost all stopgap gimmicks they are...gimmicks. Second, in the case of higher pension contributions, that should happen even with the sequester in place to reduce costs, not to offset new ones.

The biggest problem with the "off-set" flimflam is that even if it helps offset hiking the budget and the debt, it does nothing to shrink the size and scope of government. I've said it before and I still mean it, I'd rather a federal budget that takes up 17-18% of GDP and was out of balanced than a budget that consumes 24% and is balanced. Size and scope of government matter more than perfectly balancing the books.

More Details: At the Washington Post.

Yes, you'll be paying more in "non-tax revenue," or, I call it, Ryan Taxes.

Sequester's out, and Ryan Taxes are in:

Those savings would be replaced by roughly $63 billion in other policies, including fee increases for airline travelers, cuts to federal-worker and military pensions and higher payments for federal insurance of private pensions, according to people familiar with the talks.

Ryan and Murray were rushing to file legislation before midnight so the House could vote as soon as Thursday and leave town for the year by the weekend. The Senate, which is scheduled to leave town next week, would vote thereafter.

The agreement would set the budget for the Pentagon and other federal agencies at $1.012 trillion for fiscal 2014 and $1.015 trillion for fiscal 2015, preventing a new $20 billion hit to defense spending from taking effect in January.

Domestic agencies would get a bump up of equal size, according to people familiar with the deal. The $63 billion pricetag would be covered with a mix of policies, roughly half spending cuts and half new non-tax revenues.

Posted by: Ace at 02:18 PM | Comments (270)
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Increased spending and taxes - I have no idea why people don't love the GOP.

Posted by: gm at December 10, 2013 02:20 PM (/kBoL)

2 Next stop: Shamnesty!



Fuck you, Paul Ryan.

Posted by: mugiwara at December 10, 2013 02:20 PM (hpYnL)

3 Electable!

Posted by: eman at December 10, 2013 02:20 PM (n6NK7)

4 They're making it easier and easier to stay home next November. Just give me some sweet amnesty and my voter info goes right in the shredder.

Posted by: hindmost at December 10, 2013 02:21 PM (t6Jvs)

5 I have no idea why anyone ever supported this fraud Ryan.

Posted by: bender at December 10, 2013 02:21 PM (aztXB)

6 It's making a lot more sense how Ryan ended up on the ticket with Romney.

Posted by: gm at December 10, 2013 02:21 PM (/kBoL)

7 Kaboom. Never gets old.

Posted by: NCKate at December 10, 2013 02:21 PM (R2eVV)

8 We've simply got to reverse the damage done by these ruinous spending cuts forced by the sequester.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 10, 2013 02:22 PM (+lsX1)

9 Paul Ryan likes ten year plans. Ten year plans are his way of saying he thinks we are stupid.

Posted by: Ook? at December 10, 2013 02:22 PM (FBkKA)

10 Dissappointed!

Posted by: pep channeling Kevin Kline at December 10, 2013 02:22 PM (6TB1Z)

11 Patty Murray is hot.

Posted by: The Guy Who Used To Dig Janet Napolitano, But Now Digs Patty Murray at December 10, 2013 02:22 PM (8ZskC)

12 Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory... Because.... Republican....

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2013 02:22 PM (lZBBB)

13 With friends like these...

Posted by: Lauren at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (hFL/3)

14 If I may borrow from Spoony... BETRAYAL!!!!!

Posted by: Methos at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (hO9ad)

15 But if you don't vote Republican you will get bigger government and stuff.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (S+wJC)

16 Defense Hawks won.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (ZPrif)

17 A Budget in our time!

Posted by: Neville Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (jucos)

18 9 Paul Ryan likes ten year plans. Ten year plans are his way of saying he thinks we are stupid. Posted by: Ook? at December 10, 2013 06:22 PM (FBkKA) Yeah... because the Soviets had 5 year plans, and we are TWICE as gooder as them!

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (lZBBB)

19 The spirit of Nelson Mandela led to this magnificent compromise.

Posted by: MFM at December 10, 2013 02:23 PM (uakI+)

20

#MakingLifeWork

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 02:24 PM (kdS6q)

21 kabuki at it's finest

Posted by: newrouter at December 10, 2013 02:24 PM (dsgCY)

22

"User fees"  =  new  taxes

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) at December 10, 2013 02:24 PM (PZ6/M)

23 Fun fact: Despite Ryan being 2x as tall as Murray, they actually have the exact same weight.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at December 10, 2013 02:24 PM (ZPrif)

24 Just a miniscule tiny pin prick budget.  No one will even notice.  A rounding error.

Posted by: Neville Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:24 PM (jucos)

25 11 Patty Murray is hot.
Posted by: The Guy Who Used To Dig Janet Napolitano, But Now Digs Patty Murray at December 10, 2013 06:22 PM (8ZskC)
Nice shoes.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at December 10, 2013 02:24 PM (S+wJC)

26 Eeeeh...Mitch loves his sequester ... No way in hell he lets it get gutted that easily.

Posted by: Phil at December 10, 2013 02:25 PM (QzdcC)

27 Fuck You, Paul Ryan. Let's Primary him.

Posted by: RobM1981 at December 10, 2013 02:25 PM (zurJC)

28

We have averted all crisis' in our time, and we will now be waiting on The Crisis to end all Crisis'.  Ya know... the unsolvable one.

Posted by: Neville Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:26 PM (jucos)

29 Non-tax revenue is user fees. Do you want to live in America? Bam - user fee. Do you enjoy eating food? Bam - user fee. Does your luxury home consume built-in sewage and electrical services? Bam - user fee.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 10, 2013 02:26 PM (+lsX1)

30 There's got to be something we're missing here.

I find it hard to believe that they'd agree to both higher spending and higher taxes "fees".

I could see giving up some of the sequester cuts in exchange for entitlement reform, but there was no mention of it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 10, 2013 02:26 PM (SY2Kh)

31 "Top aides cautioned, however, that several sticking points remain. Chief among them is Democratic opposition to hiking the contributions made by federal employees to their pension plans. That charge has been led by Reps. Steny Hoyer and Chris Van Hollen, both of whom represent Maryland districts heavily populated with federal workers."



Yeah no shit, they wanna protect the hive.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at December 10, 2013 02:26 PM (WdbF7)

32

Drunken sailors are pikers.

Posted by: Paul Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:26 PM (wAQA5)

33 If you like your sequester, well your out of luck buddy

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2013 02:27 PM (t3UFN)

34 Next up??? AMNESTY! Note.... on Fox Business Channel they have started a show in the evening hour... called 'The Independents"... Because Neil Cavuto figured out that with more than 1/3 of the Electorate NOT self describing as Repub or Dem... there IS another view out there... which is Pro Constitution, Small Government, Social Laze Faire....

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2013 02:27 PM (lZBBB)

35 "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." -- Paul "Wimpy" Ryan

Posted by: wooga at December 10, 2013 02:27 PM (TXmih)

36 15 But if you don't vote Republican you will get bigger government and stuff. Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at December 10, 2013 06:23 PM (S+wJC) THIS.

Posted by: Guido - 'now with 75+% more hate!' at December 10, 2013 02:27 PM (LsF5M)

37 My sister was prez of a real estate PAC in Washington State many years ago.  She had the opportunity to interview Patty Murray when Patty was beginning her career as the "Mom in Tennis Shoes" politician.

Sis says she has never met a dumber woman in her life (and that's saying something).


Posted by: kathysaysso at December 10, 2013 02:27 PM (6H6o8)

38 Fun fact: Despite Ryan being 2x as tall as Murray, they actually have the exact same weight. And they have the same length.

Posted by: Methos at December 10, 2013 02:27 PM (hO9ad)

39
Fees - its the new taxes.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 10, 2013 02:28 PM (MaP11)

40 So, if I understand this right, for the next forty years it's PARTAY!

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2013 02:28 PM (XUKZU)

41 Patty Murray? Seriously, Patty Murray? I have now lost every bit of respect I had for Paul Ryan. Patty Murray? What did he think he was just too darn smart and needed some stupid to drag him down?

Posted by: Paranoidgirlinseattle at December 10, 2013 02:28 PM (RZ8pf)

42 32 Drunken sailors are pikers. Posted by: Paul Ryan at December 10, 2013 06:26 PM (wAQA5) I must say, that as a Retired Long Term Inebriated nautical Professional... I take umbrage at ANY comparison between my Peers, and Repubs... We would only spend OUR money... not our Kids money....

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 10, 2013 02:28 PM (lZBBB)

43
Since the House is leaving on Friday for another well deserved vacation:

1. Critical legislation passed once again at the deadline.
2. Running out of town to avoid blowback.
3. No 72 hours to review legislation
4. "Majority of the Majority" rule ignored once again.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 02:28 PM (kdS6q)

44 Nice to see our VP candidate going full RINO and crossing the aisle to shit on us.  I can see why they want to run all the real conservatives out of the party.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (T2V/1)

45 I guess looking forward to shutting down the government in February is off the table. Let It Burn

Posted by: Mephitis at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (GLwVs)

46 The Navy was going to build a fleet of thirty solid gold submarines, but now, thanks to these draconian cuts, they're only going to build twenty. That's $2 trillion in savings right there.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (+lsX1)

47 By the way. aren't our moderate intellectual superiors always telling us that we can't hold out on debt ceiling increases because budget negotiations is where all the hills to die on really are? Please, put me some knowledge because I'm not seeing the win here.

Posted by: Methos at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (hO9ad)

48 Wasn't Paul Ryan supposed to be the conservative balance on the Romney ticket?

Yeah, about that. . . .

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (ZMzpb)

49 Fees - its the new taxes. Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 10, 2013 06:28 PM (MaP11) Well.... Penalties are already taxes.... soooo....

Posted by: John Roberts at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (lZBBB)

50 "Another issue is that the package would not include an extension of unemployment benefits, due to expire at the end of December."



For some reason dems want to keep the unemployment numbers high, that is pretty weird. Better check with Obama first. I'm sure he would gladly kick everyone off unemployment if it protected his legacy.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (WdbF7)

51 Christ, even Hollowpoint is confused.  Well done, Ryan.  Fucker.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 02:29 PM (CnSTG)

52 I canÂ’t believe this! I read somewhere today that Ryan is almost certain to run in 2016, great!

Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 02:30 PM (z4WKX)

53  So, if I understand this right, for the next forty years it's PARTAY!

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 10, 2013 06:28 PM (XUKZU)

_________________

Fuckin' A right man..... I will be dead or euthanized by then anyway so who cares!!!!

Posted by: Neville Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:30 PM (jucos)

54 Well, just what we needed, just another demonstration of why we are well and truly kcufed by the Republican Party.

Posted by: Hrothgar at December 10, 2013 02:30 PM (o3MSL)

55 I'll give you five hundred for that trillion dollar coin.  Cash money. Hundred dollar bills. Today.

Posted by: Chumlee at December 10, 2013 02:30 PM (wAQA5)

56 Sorry, Hollowpoint, but Ryan is not going to call you. He did leave a twenty and some mints on the dresser for you.

Posted by: eman at December 10, 2013 02:30 PM (n6NK7)

57 dear Lord.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at December 10, 2013 02:31 PM (u8GsB)

58 Paul Ryan makes me wonder about the extent of the NSA snooping. Or about his ability to keep his pecker in his pocket when he has p90x abs. I would not put anything past the current administration to get what it wants. Though if it was me, obviously caught or blackmailed, I'd have the balls to resign and sing like Pavarotti on cocaine.

Posted by: resident of pennsylvania at December 10, 2013 02:31 PM (HFPlm)

59 "Another issue is that the package would not include an extension of unemployment benefits, due to expire at the end of December." My daughter who is a manager at Macy's said this continued extension of unemployment is making it impossible to hire people since why should they work when they can just collect benefits for ever. I told her welcome to the Republican Party. ( I mentioned this last night ) Live and learn

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2013 02:32 PM (t3UFN)

60
Hey I know..... McCain/Ryan 2016

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 10, 2013 02:32 PM (MaP11)

61 You see, THIS is why we need to elect more Republicans! Fucking purists!

Posted by: You know the nicks at December 10, 2013 02:32 PM (1Y+hH)

62 The only good news in this deal is that now we can return to all ObamaCare, all the time. It is sad though to see Paul Ryan go all Buddhist on us, and self-immolate his career on the steps of the Capital.

Posted by: MTF at December 10, 2013 02:32 PM (qCtp4)

63 Makes you wonder what they had on John Roberts. 

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 10, 2013 02:33 PM (jucos)

64 Does.not.compute.

Seriously, compromise does equal surrender, GOP.

Posted by: Lizzy at December 10, 2013 02:33 PM (JRmiD)

65

>>>>Paul Ryan makes me wonder about the extent of the NSA snooping. Or about his ability to keep his pecker in his pocket when he has p90x abs.

 

 

well you are sorta close

 

think harder on it

Posted by: Justice John Roberts at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (W6iIX)

66 So... tell me, what are the Republicans gonna run on in 2016?

Posted by: soothsayer at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (yYfK/)

67 I canÂ’t believe this!
I read somewhere today that Ryan is almost certain to run in 2016, great!

Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 06:30 PM (z4WKX)



Good; let him, Huntsman and Fat Fuck grovel for all the RINO votes and have Scott Walker coast to victory.  Memo to self:  Make Santorum disappear.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (CnSTG)

68

Send in Godzilla.

 

Godzilla vs. Fedzilla.

 

Why do they never make giant monster movies destroying Washington, DC?

 

I wanna see congresscum screaming like little girls.

Posted by: wheatie at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (+SY5G)

69 Remember when the 1 trillion dollar deficit was supposed to be temporary "stimulus"?  It has become permanent every year since Obama took office.



And remember one other thing about this BS deal.  It is a "budget".  When they had the first big fight they said it was only a "recomendation".  Actual spending is done by the annual allocations.


As I said, even with "sequester" we are still exceeding $1T in deficits.

Posted by: Vic[/i] at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (T2V/1)

70 Good thing Obama's at 38%, huh.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (0LHZx)

71 This is proof that Ryan is running in 2016 as a Romney clone. Ryan at one time had the admiration of the middle class, now he is just another fucking establishment sellout. The Republic is fucked. Sa'n.

Posted by: Jimmy Gee at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (gM/n2)

72 Makes you wonder what they had on John Roberts.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 10, 2013 06:33 PM (jucos)

 

 

if you only knew.....

Posted by: Justice John Roberts at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (W6iIX)

73 I'm busting ass to get a job and get off unemployment!

Posted by: Said no one ever at December 10, 2013 02:34 PM (1Y+hH)

74 This just goes to further illustrate something I mentioned earlier today. If Obamacare is to be repealed, it will be done by the Democrats and in the next 4 months if the public ire has grown so great that they feel it's the only way they'll save their own hides.



Does anybody here actually believe that if we slog it out, win the Senate and then the White House, that we'll see it repealed in 2017?

Posted by: mugiwara at December 10, 2013 02:35 PM (hpYnL)

75 Between these projected ten year savings and the surplus generated by Obamacare, I'm worried that our children will become soft. They'll never know the hardships we had to endure to produce the bounty they will enjoy in the future.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 10, 2013 02:35 PM (+lsX1)

76 If you like your balanced budget, you can keep your balanced budget. OWTF? I'm on drugs

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (HVff2)

77 Llmit on unemployment extension for budget purposes. To be fixed later by Boehner -- gift to Dems.

Posted by: gracepmc at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (rznx3)

78 tell me, what are the Republicans gonna run on in 2016? Whatever the media says are winning, photogenic issues.

Posted by: t-bird at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (FcR7P)

79 The Federal Government does not shrink.  It only grows at greater or lesser levels of rapidity.

Posted by: Revenant at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (Cjjf6)

80 Look at the bright side....thanks to the Fed created inflation, $1T today is what $800B was in 2009. So we've really cut spending $200B. ______________________________ - Things I expect to hear from the RNC in the coming days

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (0LHZx)

81
So basically they both started with wanting spending less than $1T, and compromised up to $1T.

Brilliant.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (MaP11)

82 Any actual details yet?

Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 10, 2013 02:36 PM (ZPrif)

83 Sis says she has never met a dumber woman in her life (and that's saying something). Her major in college was, get this, recreation. The reason she got into politics was because she was teaching a "parenting" class at community college that nobody was taking. When the class was cut due to lack of interest she said, "Nuh ungh."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (sByIH)

84 Eric Cantor ‏@GOPLeader 41s Pleased Chairmen Ryan and Murray have presented an agreement that reduces deficit, makes long term pension reforms and doesnÂ’t raise taxes.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (DmNpO)

85 Makes you wonder what they had on John Roberts. It was a two-fee.

Posted by: Paul Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (FcR7P)

86 "tell me, what are the Republicans gonna run on in 2016?" "Don't worry, we aren't conservative either!"

Posted by: Rovin' Rovin' Rovin' at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (1Y+hH)

87 NRO saying Mandela is the new George Washington.

Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (ZPrif)

88 two-fer, dammit!

Posted by: Paul Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (FcR7P)

89 Hey I know..... McCain/Ryan 2016

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 10, 2013 06:32 PM (MaP11)

 

Campaign slogan:  Nothing To Fear My Friends

Posted by: wth at December 10, 2013 02:37 PM (wAQA5)

90 Kcfu You, America! You'll pay and you'll like it!

Where ya' goin' to go?

Posted by: Ryan and Murray at December 10, 2013 02:39 PM (eHIJJ)

91
The Senate poses few problems. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed openness to it on Tuesday afternoon.




Hey, remember when certain nominally conservative bloggers berated you this morning about how awful you were if you wanted to primary Mitch McConnell?

This here.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 02:39 PM (kdS6q)

92

74...Does anybody here actually believe that if we slog it out, win the Senate and then the White House, that we'll see it repealed in 2017?

 

Only if we elect that guy who wants to "Make Washington as inconsequential to our lives as possible".

Posted by: wheatie at December 10, 2013 02:39 PM (+SY5G)

93 The only way we are ever going to get these scumbags attention is if Conservatives directly target the leadership. We need to let them know that if this comes to the floor they lose their seat period. We need to be willing to hand that seat to the Dems, as a last resort of course, but we need to be willing to go that far in order to hammer the point home. We primary them first, if they manage to disqualify our guy then we publicly put all our support and effort behind anyone who is third party, but close to us. If not we need to openly go for the write in. But we must be absolutely clear that they will be punished when they double cross us.

Posted by: southdakotaboy at December 10, 2013 02:40 PM (Baypg)

94 14 If I may borrow from Spoony...

BETRAYAL!!!!!


Posted by: Methos at December 10, 2013 06:23 PM (hO9ad)


What's a "sequester?"

Posted by: the goddamn Avatar at December 10, 2013 02:40 PM (e4elg)

95 Makes you wonder what they had on John Roberts. Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 10, 2013 06:33 PM (judos) Truck Monkey, Two or three months ago, a man called Howie Carr, radio show host in Boston. He said that Roberts adopted Irish kids illegally, by having the pregnant women go to South America to have the babies. Ireland has very strict adoption laws, they must be done through the countryÂ’s system & they must me Irish citizens. Howie hadnÂ’t heard that & neither did I. After the break he came back & said that itÂ’s all over the internet. Roberts lied, he should never have taken Supreme Court job.

Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 02:40 PM (z4WKX)

96 As Rush explained today, with obama dropping like a rock due to O'care, they will do ANYTHING to avoid shutdown...ANYTHING. But why not shut up and let sequester roll...let the dems argue for more spending...

Posted by: getonwithit at December 10, 2013 02:41 PM (p1x/J)

97 We need to let them know that if this comes to the floor they lose their seat period. As someone who has watched other people parent, I say "Don't make a threat on which you can't follow through."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 10, 2013 02:41 PM (sByIH)

98 Pleased Chairmen Ryan and Murray have presented an agreement that reduces deficit, makes long term pension reforms and doesnÂ’t raise taxes.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 06:37 PM (DmNpO)



Increased budget, reduced deficit, and no new taxes! It even tastes great on ice cream!!!

Posted by: mugiwara at December 10, 2013 02:41 PM (hpYnL)

99 There seems to be a dearth of GOPe defenders suddenly. Gone into hiding like the trolls when things go really bad.

Posted by: Rovin' thru the woods at December 10, 2013 02:42 PM (1Y+hH)

100 7 Kaboom. Never gets old.

Posted by: NCKate at December 10, 2013 06:21 PM (R2eVV)


I was just watching the MST3K version of "Parts: The Clonus Horror" and laughed out load when they made a Kaboom reference.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke's solid gold diaphragm at December 10, 2013 02:42 PM (e4elg)

101 So it's confirmed.

We have the Progressive Party and the Progressive Party as options.

The GOP just can't stand the thought of being an alternative POV. State-ist is as State-ist does. They really don't want my vote and I'll be glad to not give it to them.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 10, 2013 02:42 PM (eHIJJ)

102 So the GOP is trying to give Ace his sense of wonder back? As in "WTF???"?

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at December 10, 2013 02:42 PM (vjQ/G)

103 You can have any budget you choose, you just will have to pay more for it.

Posted by: Ezekial Emanuel at December 10, 2013 02:43 PM (wAQA5)

104 It's a trap!

Posted by: Admiral Ryanbar at December 10, 2013 02:44 PM (1Y+hH)

105 What are the reforms Paul Ryan claims are in the deal? Any details?

Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 10, 2013 02:44 PM (ZPrif)

106 Eeeeh...Mitch loves his sequester ... No way in hell he lets it get gutted that easily. Posted by: Phil at December 10, 2013 06:25 PM

If Reid brings this up just before the Senate goes on its over-extended Christmas break. Bitch will squeal and agree to pass it, so long as he can get home for presents and eggnog.

Posted by: MrScribbler at December 10, 2013 02:44 PM (veRXo)

107 "Parts: The Clonus Horror" Clonus: a violent confused action. What clonus sounds like, "Dammit Grandma, your clonus is showing again."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 10, 2013 02:44 PM (sByIH)

108 Increased budget, reduced deficit, and no new taxes! It even tastes great on ice cream!!!
Posted by: mugiwara at December 10, 2013 06:41 PM


It's both shit and Shinola!

Posted by: huerfano at December 10, 2013 02:44 PM (bAGA/)

109 Did the comments thing change while I was at the store?

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2013 02:45 PM (JJBXq)

110 Took a peruse at HuffPo....the moonbats are mad over this because 100% of the Pentagon wasn't closed.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 02:46 PM (0LHZx)

111 Obama's approval is cratering into the 30's. Hey, I know, let's adopt some of his policies!

Posted by: Paul Ryan, Boy Genius at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (FcR7P)

112 I can haz disvention plez.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (DL2i+)

113 Did the comments thing change while I was at the store? Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2013 06:45 PM (JJBXq) *makes note, lets out evil laugh*

Posted by: Pixy at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (1Y+hH)

114 Let's not all panic at once. Pace yourselves.

Posted by: Godzilla at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (ZshNr)

115 Did the comments thing change while I was at the store? Nope, still at 0.7 alpha, same since 2005.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (sByIH)

116 So the savings in the Ryan deal come from ... military pensions? NRO says higher taxes on airlines and cuts to military pensions are part of the deal.

Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (ZPrif)

117 105 What are the reforms Paul Ryan claims are in the deal? Any details? Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 10, 2013 06:44 PM (ZPrif) ___________ The word tax has been reformed to the word fee. Good news: you will not pay any more taxes. Bad news, you will pay thousands more in fees. TA-DAH!!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (0LHZx)

118 Posted by: getonwithit at December 10, 2013 06:41 PM (p1x/J)

Don't forget, this "deal" will be followed in the spring by bipartisan AMNESTY and Obamacare "fixes".  Boehner and McConnell have many many ways to surrender quietly without a messy public display of integrity.

Posted by: Hrothgar at December 10, 2013 02:47 PM (o3MSL)

119 Ace, I see that Michael Barone linked to your MacGuffin post. http://t.co/DHEwJn6JQ8

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 02:48 PM (DmNpO)

120 Ooooh, do we get to call the FisCons wackos, idiots, dopes, and other fun names like they enjoy doing to SoCons?

Posted by: Libtardo at December 10, 2013 02:48 PM (R7uOf)

121 Pace yourselves. Suck it fish-breath. You should have consumed Matthew Broderick when you had the chance.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 10, 2013 02:48 PM (sByIH)

122 I'll give you five hundred for that trillion dollar coin. Cash money. Hundred dollar bills. Today.
Posted by: Chumlee
Chumlee, you dumb ass, that's not made out of silver, you know.
I'll give you $50 for it and even then I'm barely breaking even.

Posted by: the Old Man at December 10, 2013 02:48 PM (vjQ/G)

123 82. Supposed to be on website tonight. Senate budget Comte I think.

Posted by: gracepmc at December 10, 2013 02:49 PM (rznx3)

124
Boehner Statement on House-Senate Budget Agreement

“I am grateful for the work done by Chairmen Ryan and Murray. While modest in scale, this agreement represents a positive step forward by replacing one-time spending cuts with permanent reforms to mandatory spending programs that will produce real, lasting savings. This framework is consistent with sequester replacement legislation passed by the House in 2012. It would also help to further reduce the deficit without tax hikes that would hurt our economy. Lastly, this agreement would help protect important national security priorities.

“Federal spending remains on an unsustainable course. Whether it is offering a plan to balance the budget, strengthen the federal safety net, or cut wasteful spending on behalf of hard-working taxpayers, only one party has led efforts to bring fiscal sanity back to Washington. Republicans will continue to lead that effort because it is essential to growing our economy, expanding opportunity for all Americans, and preserving the American Dream.”



Speaker Boehner then teared up and wept like the little bitch he is.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 02:49 PM (kdS6q)

125 I'm not getting the useless buttons and such. Also, the whole place is thinner.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2013 02:49 PM (JJBXq)

126 Posted by: MrScribbler at December 10, 2013 06:44 PM (veRXo)

Bitch and Orange John wouldn't want to miss the K-Street Christmas presents being delivered to their homes of legislative record.

Posted by: Hrothgar at December 10, 2013 02:49 PM (o3MSL)

127 We're boned.

Posted by: that guy that always thinks we're boned at December 10, 2013 02:49 PM (FqwVW)

128 As long as we're all depressed:
http://is.gd/InPBOR


I hate everything.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 10, 2013 02:50 PM (ZKzrr)

129 The most dangerous action in Washington is standing in between Republicans and surrender.

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 10, 2013 02:50 PM (kUgpq)

130 Serious. You all look like you dropped 20 lbs.

Posted by: garrett at December 10, 2013 02:50 PM (JJBXq)

131 Good man that Ryan.

Posted by: Senator John McCain at December 10, 2013 02:50 PM (5ikDv)

132 Speaker Boehner then teared up and wept like the little bitch he is before heading back to his office with a fresh fifth of Jim Beam and a pack of Luckies.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 06:49 PM

Fixed.

Posted by: MrScribbler at December 10, 2013 02:51 PM (veRXo)

133 In a world of constant change it is nice to know we can cling to one eternal truth. Any time something is hailed as a "bipartisan compromise," it means Dems get something they want and the GOP gets nada.

Posted by: Wyfaggro at December 10, 2013 02:51 PM (QG0gy)

134 Is it asking too much that the whole friggin lot leave DC and never come back?

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 02:51 PM (aUQgu)

135 Guess who is the co-sponsor in the House? Henry Waxman. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about how much of a surrender this is, nothing else will. Henry Fucking Waxman.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 02:51 PM (0LHZx)

136 I've started to believe that the GOP's big money donors want to see the Democrats win.

Posted by: --- at December 10, 2013 02:51 PM (MMC8r)

137 As Rush explained today, with obama dropping like a rock due to O'care, they will do ANYTHING to avoid shutdown...ANYTHING. But why not shut up and let sequester roll...let the dems argue for more spending... I agree. This is worse than nothing. I get that we can't get spending cuts with an irresponsible Democrat party and a lying media. Fine. Just let it ride. And he's negotiating with Patty Murray? Hell, you could get a poison pill in there that would end all welfare spending tomorrow and she wouldn't notice. How do you not pull one over on that idiot?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2013 02:52 PM (T0NGe)

138 But it's a great deal, Patty Murray wouldn't lie to me?

Posted by: lando ryan at December 10, 2013 02:52 PM (Jsiw/)

139

Remember, the sequester itself is a monument to GOP cowardice and fecklessness.  It was their way of avoiding the socially unbearable and politically suicidal option of, ya know, actually fighting for a different fiscal situation.  That might involve passing approps bills and leaving town, actually arguing your case (relentlessly, vituperatively, in detail) in the public square (to a public that is very receptive to most of the message).

 

So now they've even abandoned the sequester.  "But unacceptable defense cuts! 11eleventy!!".  Uh, budgeting and making choices are the principal responsibility, even purpose of the Congress (esp. the House) in our system.  Making choices, setting priorities, winning or losing arguments.  You can't "both" win and just print/borrow/pretend/cook the books.  But that's what's been happening.

 

And for the (sometimes seemingly very callow, yet mouthy) commenters here who have no Hill experience or other apparent serious understanding of the process - yes, the GOP has tried to win elections utterly and purely for the purpose of winning elections (it was rather laughably obvious in the 2010 cycle).  There's a way to win while doing it in a way that means as little as possible (standard Dem procedure for 2 decades now), or in a way that's close to a referendum (1980 on presidential level, 1994 on House level).  And lots of hybrid situations in between.  But when arguably, the stakes and import are as high as they've been since the Civil War era ...... the GOP adopts as empty, tactical, and pathetic an approach as we have ever seen.

 

Posted by: non-purist at December 10, 2013 02:52 PM (afQnV)

140 Good call, Ryan.


Good call.

Posted by: IRS at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (5ikDv)

141 Let me just offer one possible bright side to this. Amnesty probably won't pass now. GOP "negotiates" and gets nothing, again. The base is going to demand they hold the line somewhere. That is going to be amnesty.

Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (crkWb)

142 Wait ... so Republicans have cut a deal with an actual, card-carrying Communist to increase big government. Tell me again, Ace, why I should vote Republican?

Posted by: someguy at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (xlCX2)

143 Have the burning times gotten here yet?  Do I need to reset my alarm clock?

Do you know how hard it to a alarm clock that only rings when it is time to burn?

Posted by: GMB Bucket (Thats pronounced Boukay dammit!) at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (nkPV9)

144 I was more than happy to continue chowing down on blue whales and the odd submarine crew here and there, but everything got so Hollywood so fast, my lizard brain lost sight of what is really important. Eating the little rice-flavored yellow ones.

Posted by: Godzilla at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (ZshNr)

145 Shannon Bream ‏@ShannonBream 1m Pres Obama on budget deal: "ItÂ’s balanced, and includes targeted fee increases and spending cuts..."

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (DmNpO)

146 What are odds I'll be arrested?  Or over/under?

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (aUQgu)

147 NRO says higher taxes on airlines and cuts to military pensions are part of the deal. Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 10, 2013 06:47 PM (ZPrif) Not just Military, all Federal Pensions

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (t3UFN)

148 So Cruz's actions in October were wrong? Now Ryan folds like a cheap tent. Just wtf are we do squishy wing of the GOP?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (HVff2)

149 Obviously Republicans are looking to protect their brand as The Stupid Party.

Posted by: ChicagoRefugee who still likes Sam Clovis for Senate at December 10, 2013 02:53 PM (b/pvK)

150 By the way, have a friend who says he has spent at least 30 hours either on Healthcare.gov or directly with BCBS. The site always flops before the end. BCBS has lost his snail mail application. BCBS can't get him approved at the site due to last page won't say he's eligible. Customer said, "I thought everybody was eligible now." BCBS says, "Oh no, there are exemption, exceptions etc." He's 63, financially independent, has a heart condition, and has been trying without success since October to buy heallth insurance.

Posted by: Meremortal, geesh at December 10, 2013 02:54 PM (1Y+hH)

151 >>Why do they never make giant monster movies destroying Washington, DC? Professional courtesy.

Posted by: Aviator at December 10, 2013 02:54 PM (DI+ja)

152 What are the reforms Paul Ryan claims are in the deal? Any details?


Panda-cam operation at the National Zoo will be reduced to 12 hours a day on Mondays.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 10, 2013 02:54 PM (8ZskC)

153 The word tax has been reformed to the word fee. Good news: you will not pay any more taxes. Bad news, you will pay thousands more in fees.

TA-DAH!!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 06:47 PM (0LHZx)

 

And don't forget the penalties.

Posted by: wth at December 10, 2013 02:55 PM (wAQA5)

154 Shannon Bream þ@ShannonBream 1m
Pres Obama on budget deal: "ItÂ’s balanced, and includes targeted fee increases and spending cuts..."

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 06:53 PM (DmNpO

 

Shannon Bream = Yes

Obama = No

Budget = No

 

That's how I vote

Posted by: The Jackhole at December 10, 2013 02:55 PM (nTgAI)

155 So what about chocolate rations? Upped again?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 10, 2013 02:55 PM (eHIJJ)

156 141 Let me just offer one possible bright side to this. Amnesty probably won't pass now. GOP "negotiates" and gets nothing, again. The base is going to demand they hold the line somewhere. That is going to be amnesty. Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2013 06:53 PM (crkWb) Fucking funny, that is hilarious

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 10, 2013 02:55 PM (HVff2)

157  Remember, the sequester itself is a monument to GOP cowardice and fecklessness. It was their way of avoiding the socially unbearable and politically suicidal option of, ya know, actually fighting for a different fiscal situation. That might involve passing approps bills and leaving town, actually arguing your case (relentlessly, vituperatively, in detail) in the public square (to a public that is very receptive to most of the message).

So now they've even abandoned the sequester. "But unacceptable defense cuts! 11eleventy!!". Uh, budgeting and making choices are the principal responsibility, even purpose of the Congress (esp. the House) in our system. Making choices, setting priorities, winning or losing arguments. You can't "both" win and just print/borrow/pretend/cook the books. But that's what's been happening.

And for the (sometimes seemingly very callow, yet mouthy) commenters here who have no Hill experience or other apparent serious understanding of the process - yes, the GOP has tried to win elections utterly and purely for the purpose of winning elections (it was rather laughably obvious in the 2010 cycle). There's a way to win while doing it in a way that means as little as possible (standard Dem procedure for 2 decades now), or in a way that's close to a referendum (1980 on presidential level, 1994 on House level). And lots of hybrid situations in between. But when arguably, the stakes and import are as high as they've been since the Civil War era ...... the GOP adopts as empty, tactical, and pathetic an approach as we have ever seen.

Posted by: non-purist at December 10, 2013 06:52 PM (afQnV)

 

And This ^

Posted by: The Jackhole at December 10, 2013 02:56 PM (nTgAI)

158 Why can't we get a real fuckin godzilla to just stomp the fuck out of DC with everyone there?

Maybe I will start feeding Fukushima brand bottled water to my iguana.

Posted by: ASK21 at December 10, 2013 02:56 PM (hppbQ)

159

119 Ace, I see that Michael Barone linked to your MacGuffin post. http://t.co/DHEwJn6JQ8[/I]

 

Cool.

And he did it in a way that gives credit to the idea to Ace.

 

NDH...did you see RedEye on Saturday night?

Steven Baldwin was asked something about Barky...and answered:

"This Guy? I can't even stand to say his name. So I call him 'This Guy'"

 

Makes me wonder if Steven Baldwin reads the blog.

He's the youngest Baldwin, btw...the conservative one.

Posted by: wheatie at December 10, 2013 02:56 PM (+SY5G)

160 The hills are alive
With the sound of Republicans not dying...

Posted by: Rodgers and Hammerstein at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (8ZskC)

161 Ryan lost all creditability! I know Boehner & big business want amnesty. Primary everyone.

Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (z4WKX)

162 remember, the key word is "responsible": these are responsible policies, as opposed to what Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders and Andy Stern would come up with. It's unfortunate that we can't come up with some common sense laws about the first amendment and responsible speech.

well, we're fucked, so I'm going to start drinking now instead of when my coworkers leave (which will be in four minutes.)

And last one out of a job, remember to turn the lights off permanently.


Posted by: Mallfly at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (bJm7W)

163 I suggest that people who care about this country go and start digging a shelter in their backyard. The vast part of the GOP are screwing you almost as bad as the dickocrats.

Posted by: RIK at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (Y+gkm)

164 But when arguably, the stakes and import are as high as they've been since the Civil War era ...... the GOP adopts as empty, tactical, and pathetic an approach as we have ever seen. Posted by: non-purist at December 10, 2013 06:52 PM (afQnV) You are getting dangerously close to being critical there, watch it.

Posted by: Rovin' wid the GOPe. at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (1Y+hH)

165 I tell ya it's the RULING CLASS of both parties.

Help us Sarah ... your our only hope.

Posted by: Paladin at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (lP8dE)

166 Kick them and kick them again when they're down.

Posted by: FUBAR at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (Cs2tJ)

167 So the savings in the Ryan deal come from ... military pensions?

No savings, don't know what gets spent where, but total spending goes up up up.

In other words, total spending is rising despite cutting in some areas.  So meaningless graft and corruption grants rise, military gets boned.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (MaP11)

168 The base is going to demand they hold the line somewhere. That is going to be amnesty. Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2013 06:53 PM

Der Vunder Veapons are almost ready! Zuh skies vill be full of V-1s und V-2s und Me-262s und zose foolish Amerikaners vill not know what hit zem!

-- shit Herr Schicklgruber might have said

Posted by: MrScribbler at December 10, 2013 02:57 PM (veRXo)

169
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Tuesday said that he opposes the budget agreement reached by Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), calling the deal "irresponsible."




Sure Fredo, sure.  How about a little fishing?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 02:58 PM (kdS6q)

170 Let me just offer one possible bright side to this. Amnesty probably won't pass now. GOP "negotiates" and gets nothing, again. The base is going to demand they hold the line somewhere. That is going to be amnesty.

Posted by: Chris at December 10, 2013 06:53 PM (crkWb)



I'll believe there's no amnesty when that rodent on Cantor's dome starts talking in English.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 02:58 PM (CnSTG)

171 NDH...did you see RedEye on Saturday night? Steven Baldwin was asked something about Barky...and answered: "This Guy? I can't even stand to say his name. So I call him 'This Guy'" Makes me wonder if Steven Baldwin reads the blog. He's the youngest Baldwin, btw...the conservative one. *** No, I did't see it, but it makes one wonder.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 02:58 PM (DmNpO)

172 , cuts to federal-worker and military pensions WHUT??????

Posted by: John Roberts at December 10, 2013 02:58 PM (lZBBB)

173 why do we even have a GOP? Can we all just move to Maine and then secede?

Posted by: oeJay44incday at December 10, 2013 02:58 PM (QxSug)

174 How many times?? Just a month ago the D's were down and the R's had the high ground. Today, obamacare is a dead issue and now it looks like the Sequester is squashed and taxes are going up...thanks to Republicans.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 10, 2013 02:59 PM (yYfK/)

175 Just the tip, guys!

Posted by: Paul Ryan at December 10, 2013 02:59 PM (8ZskC)

176 I rather talk about Godzilla and thrash metal than the latest GOP stab in the back of conservatives.

Posted by: steevy at December 10, 2013 02:59 PM (zqvg6)

177 Cool. And he did it in a way that gives credit to the idea to Ace. *** I wouldn't expect less from Barone. He's a class act.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 02:59 PM (DmNpO)

178 Paul Ryan makes me want to punch the next Republican in the mouth,  By the way, Congressman Ryan will speak on the Mark Levin radio show top of the hour 7:00 PM EST.

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 02:59 PM (aUQgu)

179 "Help us Sarah ... your our only hope." Second look at the Godzilla from Wasilla?

Posted by: Meremortal, seeing Russia at December 10, 2013 03:00 PM (1Y+hH)

180 Not just Military, all Federal Pensions Now wait a minute. This is a silver lining. Pensions are the 6th biggest budget item: 1. Social Security $812B 2. Medicare/Medicaid $768B 3. Defense $602B 4. Welfare $348B 5. Interest on debt $255B 6. Pensions $230B (Deficit: $657B) As we've seen with local governments, pensions are a time-bomb. What we really need to do is make federal pensions and (dare I dream) union pensions illegal. Defined-contribution or nothin'.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2013 03:00 PM (T0NGe)

181 It's a good thing that I think all politicians are lying weasels- otherwise I'd think SMOD really is on the way- and the Republicans are just going along cuz well hell, we're all going to die anyway.

Posted by: naturalfake at December 10, 2013 03:00 PM (0cMkb)

182 cuts to federal-worker and military pensions Actually like all "Cuts" in the Washington, it is not a real cut but a cut in the future increases

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2013 03:00 PM (t3UFN)

183 Tell me again, Ace, why I should vote Republican? Posted by: someguy at December 10, 2013 06:53 PM (xlCX2) __________ Because if you don't....people like Patti Murray might get to write budgets. Oh wait...

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 10, 2013 03:00 PM (0LHZx)

184 And yet some commenters here are just stunned as to why we are looking to primary the leadership in dc.

Posted by: Buzzion at December 10, 2013 03:00 PM (kGheU)

185 Glenn Beck won't say TFG's name either.

Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 03:01 PM (z4WKX)

186 Truth be told, Ryan was finished, in my mind, when he sat next to Joe Biden and let Joe act like a six year old who the school nurse had just flushed his daily Ritalin ration down the crapper. Paul had nothing to say in comeback, just sat there like a petulant male caught fapping in the girls locker room. I wanna like him, I tried. But there's nothing left but derision.

Posted by: resident of pennsylvania at December 10, 2013 03:01 PM (HFPlm)

187 KY stocks soar.

Posted by: RWC at December 10, 2013 03:01 PM (Q6HBD)

188 184 Glenn Beck won't say TFG's name either. I like to call him "the lawyer". I think lawyers should have to own him. They created him.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2013 03:02 PM (T0NGe)

189
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) proposed to his girlfriend, Alica Mucci, in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, according to Politico.




The happy couple are registered at Toys R Us....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 03:02 PM (kdS6q)

190 It's not like they had any kind of leverage . Wait .......... what ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at December 10, 2013 03:02 PM (XWw96)

191 "What we really need to do is make federal pensions and (dare I dream) union pensions illegal." You don't understand politics. We cut them by an amount so infintesimal that it makes no difference. Win-win. Um, for us.

Posted by: Ryan's privates at December 10, 2013 03:03 PM (1Y+hH)

192 This still has to be voted on, doesn't it? Is there a chance this will fail to be passed? Are there enough actual conservatives in House to stop this? Or, heck, even liberals who don't think this "goes far enough"?

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at December 10, 2013 03:03 PM (KL49F)

193 Panda-cam operation at the National Zoo will be reduced to 12 hours a day on Mondays.Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 10, 2013 06:54 PM (8ZskC)
A Draconian cut !!

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at December 10, 2013 03:03 PM (S+wJC)

194 Re: That Eric Cantor tweet

They are not even trying to hide that they are in fact pissing in our mouths.

Posted by: [/i][/b]KG at December 10, 2013 03:03 PM (IPz9m)

195 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) proposed to his girlfriend, Alica Mucci, in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, according to Politico. The happy couple are registered at Toys R Us.... Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 10, 2013 07:02 PM (kdS6q) And she is from the Town I live in. I hope I never have to run into that ass at my local DD

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2013 03:04 PM (t3UFN)

196 We have 3 choices: 1. We start a 3rd nood party now, yes the D's will rule Congress in '15-'17, but we'll be ready for 2016. 2. We take over the GOP, which is nearly impossible. 3. We do nothing. We vote for the shit sandwiches, or we sit out. But we live with the status quo.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 10, 2013 03:04 PM (yYfK/)

197 Sooooo....... Mr. Alleged Fiscal Wonk makes deal with Senates' most gigantic retard...... ? Good, ....great, .....wonderful... The fuck.....

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at December 10, 2013 03:05 PM (hbsQo)

198 By the way, Congressman Ryan will speak on the Mark Levin radio show top of the hour 7:00 PM EST.

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 06:59 PM (aUQgu)



Thanks for the heads up; I'm streaming that sucker now.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 03:05 PM (CnSTG)

199 They are cutting payments to hospitals, according to The Hill, among other things. Are they deliberately trying to bankrupt doctors & hospitals?

Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 03:05 PM (z4WKX)

200 And you wonder why she took another gig at this time,

Posted by: jeffrey pelt at December 10, 2013 03:05 PM (Jsiw/)

201 we are talking about this Patty Murray, right?

"Murray said, according to the Vancouver paper, that bin Laden has been “out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven’t done that.” "

http:// www.wnd. com /2002/12 /16360/

Posted by: Mallfly at December 10, 2013 03:05 PM (bJm7W)

202 Are there enough actual conservatives in House to stop this? Or, heck, even liberals who don't think this "goes far enough"? Posted by: Aslan's Girl at December 10, 2013 07:03 PM (KL49F) No worries, we'll add some more spending and taxes in conference to get a few Dems on board and away we go!

Posted by: Saving Ryan's Privates at December 10, 2013 03:06 PM (1Y+hH)

203 Are they deliberately trying to bankrupt doctors & hospitals? Posted by: Carol at December 10, 2013 07:05 PM (z4WKX) What leeches and blood letting is not good for you?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 10, 2013 03:06 PM (t3UFN)

204 I guess it's safe to assume that the filing deadline for the WI GOP primary was yesterday

Posted by: phreshone at December 10, 2013 03:06 PM (Pr6hk)

205 Who woulda thunk Mr America Ryan would shove a pineapple up Uncle Sam's butt?

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 03:06 PM (aUQgu)

206 Pro tip: Sodomy is excellent, Allah-approved practice for "Ryan Taxes."

Posted by: jakeman at December 10, 2013 03:06 PM (vH4YP)

207 >>This still has to be voted on, doesn't it? Is there a chance this will fail to be passed? Are there enough actual conservatives in House to stop this? Or, heck, even liberals who don't think this "goes far enough"? Yes, it still has to be voted on. And no, there is no chance it will fail. Pretty much for the reason you noted, conservatives don't think it cuts enough and liberals don't think it spends enough. This wasn't negotiated in a vacuum. There were a total of 29 House and Senate members on the committee including liberals and conservatives. This is what you get when you have completely divided, polarized government, status quo.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 10, 2013 03:07 PM (g1DWB)

208 Nood Benghazi fun post up.

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at December 10, 2013 03:07 PM (vjQ/G)

209 People who focus on guns say that whether a politician supports gun rights is a measure of whether they back liberty in general. That works pretty well. I think mass immigration or amnesty is a measure of whether a politician will prove a back-stabber in general. Ryan is proving me right.

Posted by: Chromoly Man at December 10, 2013 03:07 PM (zNl/6)

210 Posted by: naturalfake at December 10, 2013 07:00 PM (0cMkb)


I have become convinced that the GOPe has realized that eventually we are all dead, so it is better to stay in a position with lots of perks even if it means abdicating the entirety of their Constitutional powers and abandoning any pretense of integrity, and just hope that the level of Hell reserved for traitorous representatives won't be quite as bad as Dante said it was.

Posted by: Hrothgar at December 10, 2013 03:07 PM (o3MSL)

211 Ryan won't be on Levin until 8.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 03:08 PM (CnSTG)

212 so we're kind of like back in the days when Johnson and Carter were presidents, except our party in name only controls the place where spending starts... ok, got it.

Posted by: Mallfly at December 10, 2013 03:08 PM (bJm7W)

213 Rand Paul 2016 ‏@RandForAmerica 1m Howard Deans Lib Group 'Democracy for America' is against budget, says not extending unemployment benefits is the real "War on Christmas"

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 10, 2013 03:09 PM (DmNpO)

214 >>Ryan won't be on Levin until 8. He's coming up soon on Fox.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 10, 2013 03:10 PM (g1DWB)

215 So to be clear, the House GOP caved and threw away the ONLY thing they've 'accomplished' since we gave them the House, the sequester And next they pass amnesty Pretty clear who they work for. Hint: it ain't us. Big Club, we ain't in it - George Carlin

Posted by: ginaswo at December 10, 2013 03:10 PM (Was8V)

216

You know, if Ryan has POTUS apsirations he's going about it completely the wrong way, and I personally like Ryan and would take him over Christie and slew of other "electable" candidates, since Ryan is genuinely Conservative on several issues ( particularly social issues) that being said, you really only get to go hardcore squish on one issue ( like immigration) Rubio understands that which is why Rubio will very quickly oppose this budget and any other "grand bargain". He's already proved his ability to "compromise" or capitulate to the establishment, so he doesn't have too. But Ryan has gone squish on Immigration ( even more so then Rubio) and Taxes ( at the beginning of the year) and Taxes gain ( on this Budget deal) along with Spending. That's Three major issues ( one of which he violated twice). Seriously how does he hope to get the nomination after egregiously betraying conservatives this often? Especially something so bread and butter as Taxes and Spending?

Ryan could drive someone to drink.

Posted by: midwestconservative at December 10, 2013 03:11 PM (eFTkY)

217 Why do they never make giant monster movies destroying Washington, DC?

They found people cheer for the wrong scenes.

Posted by: ID4 at December 10, 2013 03:11 PM (hO9ad)

218 Should I point out that Paul Ryan went to law school?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2013 03:11 PM (T0NGe)

219 says not extending unemployment benefits is the real "War on Christmas" And that's the other bit. Dems were screaming to try to extend UE benefits.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 10, 2013 03:13 PM (T0NGe)

220 213 >>Ryan won't be on Levin until 8. He's coming up soon on Fox. Posted by: JackStraw at December 10, 2013 07:10 PM (g1DWB) ....and then he can go suck a fuckin' dick. Fuck you, Ryan.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at December 10, 2013 03:13 PM (hbsQo)

221

Looks like the Rs looked at the poll numbers and figured they can win 2014 without the base.

 

 

Posted by: Ook? at December 10, 2013 03:13 PM (FBkKA)

222 Take comfort in the knowledge that what cannot continue, won't.

Posted by: toby928© of the banned at December 10, 2013 03:14 PM (eCq0t)

223 >>Should I point out that Paul Ryan went to law school? You could. But you'd be wrong.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 10, 2013 03:15 PM (g1DWB)

224 214 So to be clear, the House GOP caved and threw away the ONLY thing they've 'accomplished' since we gave them the House, the sequester

If I understand correctly, what they did was meet halfway on the top-line number while replacing $63B of the $181.351B in sequester cuts.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at December 10, 2013 03:23 PM (YjDyJ)

225 Paul *thinks* that he knows me.

He doesn't.

Posted by: Math at December 10, 2013 03:25 PM (5ikDv)

226 Tell you what Ryan, you and that half-witted fleshbag can go draw weapons, ruck-up, hump for days on end, travel in dangerous machinery to places National Geographic never went, sleep in freezing-ass cold, brutal heat and just above freezing slush. Eschew a family life because you'll end up divorced anyway. Forgo any sense of stability. Do that for 20 fucking years and get back to me on how you want to butt fuck the military for Generation Cheeto, you fucking jag-off. FUCK. You.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at December 10, 2013 03:26 PM (hbsQo)

227 223. Right. So they killed the spending caps

Posted by: ginaswo at December 10, 2013 03:26 PM (Was8V)

228 Do that for 20 fucking years and get back to me on how you want to butt fuck the military for Generation Cheeto, you fucking jag-off.

This is were the Twitterverse is so handy.  You can actually say that to his eFace, as it were.

Posted by: toby928© of the banned at December 10, 2013 03:29 PM (XYYsW)

229 185, This! I was standing there just waiting for Ryan to light him up for being a disrespectful bastard and he just took it like a little b**ch. Just another crapweasel.

Posted by: jjshaka at December 10, 2013 03:30 PM (lh/UW)

230 can we get a grassroots movement together that out "tea parties" the tea party? as in, im not paying another fucking red cent to these mental midget motherfuckers.

Posted by: rourke54 at December 10, 2013 03:33 PM (kwycl)

231 What's weird is that it seemed like yesterday's leak was designed to generate a R rank and file backlash, but nothing really happened because the story seemed absurd. They're giving up the sequester for chump change? So maybe this is a 'do you hear me now' moment so that the R rank and file scream and Ryan can use that impact to demand more. In short, kabuki.

Posted by: East Bay Jay at December 10, 2013 03:38 PM (7v8o1)

232 Also note that the Washington Post story, ostensibly straight reporting, has lots of numbers but nothing that answers the most basic question: what is the year over year change from fiscal 2013 to 2014? You have to assume it's an increase because why else would they hide the answer to most basic question? The media picked a side long ago. They're not hiding it anymore.

Posted by: East Bay Jay at December 10, 2013 03:42 PM (7v8o1)

233 225 "Tell you what Ryan, you and that half-witted fleshbag can go Â… You." Amen. Preach it brother.

Posted by: VADM(Red) Cuthbert Collingwood (Mentioned in Despatches) at December 10, 2013 03:48 PM (O7OxF)

234 Maybe we would have had more power via control of the Senate if you perfectionists had let us have decent Senate candidates in 2010 in Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware in 2010 and Missouri and Indiana in 2012. You cannot run the whole government from the House. Reagan raised fees and taxes each of his last six years. He was willing to accept Democrat promises to cut spending. You and I know he knew they would not actually cut. You cut Reagan some slack. Give Ryan the same break.

Posted by: Arkansas Yankee at December 10, 2013 03:53 PM (DlsJN)

235 The retards had their chance last time, so this is what happens when you insist on purity. 

But Cruz got to promote himself, that was always the main objective. Never mind that it took out Cuccinelli, destroyed the approval ratings of Republicans, and actually made Obamacare more popular.

The Republican House is not going to throw away its majority so a few keyboard warriors can thump their chest. 

No more shutdowns, start winning elections if you want change.

Posted by: Uniden at December 10, 2013 03:53 PM (pS6g3)

236 More taxes to get molested by the tsa? Fuck it. I will get a new comfy car and drive everywhere.

Posted by: pj at December 10, 2013 03:58 PM (ZWaLo)

237 Look 2 more in a row for the ignore bin.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at December 10, 2013 03:58 PM (DL2i+)

238 apparently i chimed in with the trolls, my bad.

Posted by: rourke54 at December 10, 2013 03:58 PM (kwycl)

239 Get the budget deal you want after you take control of both houses of Congress. Til then, no more stupid and pointless distractions. Got it?

Posted by: packsoldier at December 10, 2013 04:00 PM (Uv43m)

240 Dear GOP idjits, All it takes to get conservatives to for you is to move things in the right direction, or at least stop things from getting worse. Some strategic retreats are understandable, but a strategy based solely on retreat in despicable.

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 10, 2013 04:00 PM (XvHmy)

241 In short, kabuki.

Posted by: East Bay Jay at December 10, 2013 07:38 PM (7v8o1)


You, sir, are an optimist!

Posted by: Hrothgar at December 10, 2013 04:02 PM (o3MSL)

242 Paul Ryan has got to be the biggest dud in American politics in my lifetime. This guy has essentially taken on 40 years of staid establishment excresence in two years. From promising whiz kid and future of the party to hidebound lying RINO zombie. He might as well take his gold watch and go home. What a zero.

Posted by: rrpjr at December 10, 2013 04:04 PM (s/yC1)

243 Some strategic retreats are understandable, but a strategy based solely on retreat in despicable.

Posted by: The Political Hat at December 10, 2013 08:00 PM (XvHmy)



There are no really worthwhile hills to defend, let alone lose sleep over!

Posted by: Karl Rover, GOPe Consultant Extraordinaire at December 10, 2013 04:04 PM (o3MSL)

244 Levin with Ryan now; the JEF has already put out a statement praising the deal.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 04:08 PM (CnSTG)

245 I just love the idiotic "you gave Reagan the benefit of the doubt so you should also give this current politician it as well!" Bullshit. Yeah we gave Reagan the benefit of the doubt and he proceeded to get screwed over by the democrats on the promises of things to happen in the future. And yet now you are again demanding that we cave to democrats now because we have some promise of getting what we want in the future. Do you realize how stupid you sound for making that argument? Reagan got screwed on the deal and yet you want to repeat his mistakes all over again.

Posted by: Buzzion at December 10, 2013 04:10 PM (GkNx2)

246 226 223. Right. So they killed the spending caps

If by "killed" you mean broke the caps, yes, but they did not eliminate the sequester. As to why the Republicans chose to ease the caps, the only actual cut under the sequester was to defense spending and the Administration purposely made harmful cuts. All of this could have been avoided if the Republicans had initially insisted that mandatory take a greater hit but they obviously did not. With regards to deal's chances, judging by the negative reactions on both sides of the aisle in both bodies, they might have to draft a back-up plan.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at December 10, 2013 04:14 PM (YjDyJ)

247 Levin is calling the savings Mickey Mouse and Ryan isn't denying that.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 04:15 PM (CnSTG)

248 Ryan is claiming "savings" on TSA fees.  How bout ELIMINATING the TSA?  Ryan is a secret rat.

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 04:16 PM (aUQgu)

249 Ryan is claiming that this gives spending control back to Congress and Levin says NFW.  Ryan is trying to sell this as being pro military.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 04:17 PM (CnSTG)

250 Ryan claims this will create a precedent for future cuts by not caving on taxes.  I have to give him credit for being upbeat on what he thinks he's done; I just don't think he's realistic.

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 10, 2013 04:22 PM (CnSTG)

251 Ryan is going along to get along.  IMHO

Posted by: NCwoof at December 10, 2013 04:28 PM (aUQgu)

252 Ryan, a RINO sellout? I'm stunned, stunned I tell you.

Posted by: some dope at December 10, 2013 04:29 PM (+kznc)

253 Sorry to disillusion any LIC's, but this is the kind of thing Ronald Reagan did regularly as Governor of California - and it's the kind of thing that made him a serious Presidential candidate.

Posted by: Reagan Pollster` at December 10, 2013 04:39 PM (nLIMC)

254 234 eat shit

Posted by: the botnet at December 10, 2013 04:41 PM (Ar8jJ)

255 The Federal pension system (FERS) has been touted for years as being perfectly stable with income into the fund constant with the outflow. Now the congress says they need to *TRIPLE* the amount of money going into the fund, while not changing the payout one cent. This leaves just one question: Where will all this extra money be going? Has Congress found another Solyndra that needs a few billion dollars, or are they just going to steal the money right off the top?

Posted by: georg felis at December 10, 2013 04:56 PM (IsckG)

256 "Ryan Taxes" is brilliant! 

Posted by: Born Free at December 10, 2013 05:24 PM (xL8Hf)

257 Daily Mail reports that House GOP could "scuttle" deal:

http://tinyurl.com/lmynxzv

Guess it's time to call our reps... AGAIN! They sure do keep us busy...

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at December 10, 2013 05:24 PM (KL49F)

258 Damn but I sure miss the days when getting effed used to reference a pleasurable activity.

Posted by: Natasha at December 10, 2013 05:50 PM (pyYXJ)

259 Yeah you teabagger assholes! MIKE CASTLE WOULD NOT HAVE STOOD FOR THIS, YOU GODBAG RETARDS! MIKE CASTLE, I TELL YOU! I. JUST. CAN'T. LET. IT. GO!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rino Fucktard at December 10, 2013 05:55 PM (51moJ)

260 In regards to when Reagan was Governor, yeah, umm good 'ol Pat Brown left CA finances in the s-house.  Reagan was left with a huge deficit, and he did cut the budget but it wasn't enough, so yeah he did raise taxes, as a last resort in '67.

Ryan is a snake (along with that POS Cantor).  RINOs from the get go.  I don't know what's worse RINO sellouts or dhimmicrats.  Who's the actual enemy...both. 

Of course in the morning will have Beltway Boy Wonder Gabe defending the RINOs sellout deal, as SOP.  Whatevs Beltway Boy, whatevs. 

Posted by: Jim Scrummy at December 10, 2013 06:19 PM (+BGwj)

261 I posted this in the thread about primarying GOP incumbents, but it seems appropriate here. Basically, I no longer support the GOP and hope they lose big in 2014 and 2016. Because if we are going to get more spending, higher taxes, amnesty and Obamacare, I prefer to get my A** F***** from the DNC who admit they are my enemy then from the GOP who pretend to be my friends. Because energy spent being loyal team players and electing who our betters tell us to has accomplished exactly what conservative goal? When the GOP held the WH, Senate and House - did they reduce spending? No, they increased it. Did they reduce the size or scope of gov't? No, they increased it. Did they get rid of any stupid federal agencies, programs, or statutes? No, they added to them. And, since then, what has the GOP actually done? Capitulate. Say they are going to capitulate (McConnell just last week stated he did not intend to repeal Obamacare - only "fix" it). Say they are going to do really, really stupid things (amnesty). And just now, "compromise" away any potential for cutting spending or fixing entitlements (see Paul Ryan's newest crowning achievement). You people who are party loyalists rather than conservatives need to get a grip and realize the wasted energy is yours. The GOP not only is NOT conservative in any way - it hates conservatives and loves big government. The GOP wants to be a Center-left party, just to the right of the DNC. Anyone who doesn't believe this is an idiot. Actions count - not words. In elections, they tell us they are conservative. But they never act that way in office. I am going to pray that the GOP loses and I am going to vote for the dems. Fuck you GOP. Fuck you.

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 04:08 AM (sOx93)

262 I think we, as conservatives, need to sit out the next election. The GOP believes two things: 1) conservatives will always vote for them regardless of what they do; and 2) even if 1 isn’t correct, they can win without conservatives. Both of those notions need to be disabused before the GOP will move right. And, if the GOP doesn’t move right – then the GOP needs to be terminated. I urge everyone who considers themselves a conservative to sit out the next election. Yes, I know, we “have a good chance to win the Senate”. So what? What, exactly, do you believe that will get us?

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 04:22 AM (sOx93)

263 Serious question - user fees are like tolls right? So rather than everyone paying for a service that a few people use, a user fee would mean the people using that service pay for it. Am I missing something, I'd rather have the people using the service pay the fee for it rather than me flipping the bill, or am I misunderstanding something here?

Posted by: Reality Man at December 11, 2013 04:26 AM (Cs9Ps)

264 Serious question - user fees are like tolls right? So rather than everyone paying for a service that a few people use, a user fee would mean the people using that service pay for it. Am I missing something, I'd rather have the people using the service pay the fee for it rather than me flipping the bill, or am I misunderstanding something here? Posted by: Reality Man at December 11, 2013 08:26 AM (Cs9Ps) User fees for somethings are not bad in theory. the problem is that in use its a gimmick to raise money - its just a tax. when it is something the gov't should be doing, like roads, but can't pay for because it spends so much damn money on things it shouldn't be doing - then it is a problem. In other words, I'm taxed for the gov't to do things the gov't should do. Instead of using my taxes for those things responsibly, the gov't spends on all kinds of bullshit the gov't should not do and raises taxes to the point where it cannot reasonably raise taxes, then starts charging me - on top of my taxes - for the very things my taxes were supposed to pay for in the first instance. If we had a very low-tax, low spending gov't that was running efficiently, I would not have a problem with user fees. But we don't. We have an outsized, overspending, inefficient gov't that is simply hungry for more money - so they resort to user fees.

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 04:32 AM (sOx93)

265 Well okay - so the user fees for airline were explained this way. It's $5 for a security check, currently taxpayers pay 60% of that, and the traveler pays 40% through their ticket. If the user fee switch now means the traveler pays 60% and the taxpayer only pays 40%, then your not raising taxes per say, your just transfering the cost from the taxpayer who is not using the service to the traveler who is using the service. I really don't see that as a bad thing. Now if the cost went from $5 to $10 - that would be a tax increase to me.

Posted by: Reality Man at December 11, 2013 04:35 AM (Cs9Ps)

266 Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 08:32 AM (sOx93) Put another way, what if they added a user fee for public school? We are all paying a shitload of taxes for public education (spending per pupil is way out of control and does not bring results for a whole host of reasons, none of which are lack of spending). but then on top of that - to raise revenue - they start charging families who have kids in school a "user fee". Seems fair. A large percentage of people don't have kids in school, so they shouldn't have to pay (more) for the public schools. So why not charge each family with kids in public schools an additional $1,000 per year for public school? At what point does the gov't stop sucking up more and more money and instead cut spending?

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 04:38 AM (sOx93)

267 Posted by: Reality Man at December 11, 2013 08:35 AM (Cs9Ps) At what point does the gov't cut spending instead of increase revenue? I'm paying tons of taxes but those taxes all go to things the gov't should not be doing. So, now I have to pay more for things the gov't should be doing. Put another way - airline security does not just benefit the traveler. Air travel is a big economic mover. Just as roads are for trucking and rail is and shipping is. and, lets not forget that much of the high cost of security is due to federalizing the security guards and overpaying them and giving them too good benefits. Plus all the regulations (a lot of which are simply asinine). So, the cost is raised by the gov't itself, who then charges me more for the use of something they raised the price of. Meanwhile, they give my money away to layabouts, drug addicts, etc. They fund art I despise. they give money to planned parenthood to perform abortions. They give money to countries I don't think they should. they spend on all kinds of things I disagree with and which are counterproductive. Why do some people get free shit but I have to pay more for something the gov't should be doing?

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 04:44 AM (sOx93)

268 Why do some people get free shit but I have to pay more for something the gov't should be doing? Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 08:44 AM (sOx93) Or, in the alternative, give me the option of flying on an airline that doesn't have to use federal gov't security measures - that do their own security in whatever way they see fit at the expense they set, using their own employees rather than federal gov't employees. Or, go the other way - the gov't only operates things it can pay for through user fees. The gov't does not give out any money to anyone, anywhere.

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 04:47 AM (sOx93)

269 As I understand it, the actual cuts of the sequester will be replaced by "future cuts,"... Amazing how the Republicans keep doing the same shit over and over, isn't it?

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at December 11, 2013 12:54 PM (hBdnt)

270 I think we, as conservatives, need to sit out the next election. The GOP believes two things: 1) conservatives will always vote for them regardless of what they do; and 2) even if 1 isn’t correct, they can win without conservatives. Both of those notions must be disabused before the GOP will move right. And, if the GOP doesn’t move right – then the GOP must be terminated. I urge everyone who considers themselves a conservative to sit out the next election. Yes, I know, we “have a good chance to win the Senate”. So what? What, exactly, do you believe that will get us? I’m not offering “sit an election out” lightly. I’m offering it because it is the only way we will move the GOP right quickly enough to do any good (and I’m not talking about moving them to be as conservative as I am, I’m talking reasonably conservative here – which they currently are not). Energy spent being loyal team players and electing who our betters tell us to has accomplished exactly what conservative goal? When the GOP held the WH, Senate and House – did they reduce spending? No, they increased it. Did they reduce the size or scope of gov’t? No, they increased it. Did they get rid of any stupid federal agencies, programs, or statutes? No, they added to them. And, since then, what has the GOP actually done? Capitulate. Say they will capitulate (McConnell just last week stated he did not intend to repeal Obamacare – only “fix” it). Say they will do really, really stupid things (amnesty). And just now, “compromise” away any potential for cutting spending or fixing entitlements (see Paul Ryan’s newest crowning achievement). The GOP wants to be a Center-left party, just to the right of the DNC. Anyone who doesn’t believe this is an idiot. Actions count – not words. In elections, they tell us they are conservative. But they never act that way in office. I challenge everyone to explain the conservative “victories” your blind loyalty to the GOP has produced. Pointing to some nominees not getting through does not suffice. Because one liberal nominee is stopped, doesn’t mean another liberal nominee – not as vocal – is not confirmed. These are illusory victories, with little meaning. They feel good but accomplish nothing. Yes, if in control, the GOP will be slightly less liberal than the DNC. That is not the same thing, even remotely, as furthering any conservative goals. It is the opposite. I am arguing to change the entire GOP’s thinking. Those who argue we shouldn’t sit out, but instead support a “conservative” challenger in a primary or support a “conservative” candidate in the general election are talking about making insignificant changes – rearranging deck chairs. The GOP establishment (by which I mean incumbents, their staffs, the people working for the GOP, professional campaign people, and big money donors) easily works around the few true conservatives in its midst. Adding a few more here or there won’t change anything. We would have to replace at least 51% of GOP incumbents to change the GOP’s behavior. That is simply not possible. If we change 2 or 3 an election cycle, by the time we get near the 51% mark, the first 1/2 we put worked to elect will have been co-opted by the establishment, making us start all over. Incumbency is powerful, making challenges hard to begin with. Add to that most decent candidates don’t want to piss the party off – so don’t want to challenge, leaving us with a limited pool of potential challengers. Then add the power and organization of the GOP against independent challengers in multiple states, and we can never effect the change we need. We thought challenging incumbents would change other GOP incumbent behavior. It didn’t. We’ve been working on changing the GOP for over 30 years. Where has it gotten us? Here. Exactly here. Everything wrong with the U.S. – the GOP had a hand in. Everything except Obamacare. Remember that. The problem is that the party controls things. As voting for a conservative democrat is counterproductive – because in reality that allegedly conservative democrat merely allows the liberal democrats to run things and push its agenda, voting for a “conservative” GOP candidate (and they all CLAIM to be conservative at election time) is counterproductive because it allows the GOP – which is not at all conservative – run the show. So, we vote for a “conservative” GOP candidate. Someone who promises to be anti-amnesty, for cutting spending, for cutting the size and scope of gov’t, etc. And let’s assume they stick to those guns and vote that way (very rare). But, they help the GOP form a majority. The GOP leadership than pushes a budget that increases spending, increases the size and scope of gov’t, and pushes amnesty and instead of repeal of Obamacare – pushes a “fix” of Obamacare. And all of those things pass with majority republican votes. What has your vote for a “conservative” GOP candidate accomplished? And, even if we had, say, 40% of the incumbent GOP as true conservatives, the remainder would work with democrats to pass stuff – as they already do. For instance, this Ryan compromise will likely pass with more D votes than R votes – (so that R’s can go back and claim to be against it to their constituents and in primaries). That is the kind of party shenanigans I am talking about. The reality is, the primary system doesn’t work. A) incumbency has too much power, b) the ones who win get co-opted 90% of the time by the establishment and c) for the most party, the establishment ignores, works around conservatives. Why do you think Mitch McConell and Jim DeMint hate each so much? Why do you think all of the GOP establishment figures hate Cruz and call him names publicly? Why do you think Mitch McConnell and Boehner are publicly calling for the defeat of conservatives. We have made some progress. . But it is very slow progress and we won’t shift the GOP right for over 50 years at this rate. In that 50 years, we will see the collapse of SS, collapse of various state and local pension systems, exploding debt, exploding Medicare, and Obamacare costs. And the GOP will do nothing about it – instead we will get the same B.S. we have received til now – more spending, more gimmicks, more entitlements and more gov’t. Yes, in 75 years, if we work hard at it and challenge GOP incumbents here and there, etc., we will move the GOP right. But in 75 years it’ll probably be too late to do much good. In the meantime, voting for the people who will pass amnesty, agree to Ryan’s ridiculous “compromise”, increase spending, increase the size and scope of gov’t, and have stated, repeatedly that they have no intention of actually repealing Obamacare (both Boehner and McConell have publicly stated this). Voting for these people will not “reform” the GOP, but empower it to continue behaving in this way. Not voting and letting republicans lose will mean that the party must look at what it does and decide whether it will move right. Think of it as “primarying” the entire party. The reality is we have a 2 party system – that is unlikely to change. And none of the various third parties will win any time soon. So, voting for some third party will not do anything. And, voting the “conservative” line won’t really do anything because 97% of the time, it’s just the GOP candidate. And, in case you haven’t noticed, the party itself is fighting conservatives. The establishment is not conservative – never was (the GOP was not founded as and has never been a conservative party – it is merely a party with some conservatives in it and that is to the right of the DNC – that does not make the party conservative) and the current establishment people are unlikely to ever be ideologically conservative. They don’t want to be conservative because they like gov’t and believe in gov’t and the big-money donors make lots of money off big gov’t. So they fight against conservatives and conservative influence on the party. The only way to get them to toe the conservative line at all puts the fear of losing their jobs and their influence into them. The only way to do that shows them our voting power and that we WILL IN FACT use it by NOT voting for them. They currently believe we (conservatives) will ultimately vote for them no matter what they do. And, the reality is, they have been right about this because we have done just that. To change the dynamic, we have to prove they are not right about this – that conservatives are willing to sit out if they cross us. As someone else said in a comment: It demonstrates that the GOP *must* take the conservative base seriously, and behave more conservatively – even if it means they get walloped in an election – then it could be worth it. Otherwise, going the route we’ve been going down for decades now – just reinforces to the GOP they *can* continue to be ‘liberal lite’, take conservatives for granted, and there is *no* reason for them to behave conservatively because they *can* continue to be squishes, giving the Dems what they want, and there will be *no* penalty for doing so. Anyone who disagrees with this needs to explain how continuing to vote for the GOP – as we’ve done for decades – will suddenly result in something *different*, I’m afraid. The only way to win the fight is to change the party. We will not change the party through constant support of the party despite its actions. Voting for the GOP despite its behavior will not change the GOP. As an example – if a child does something wrong – do you reward the child for that behavior? If you do, you are fool because you are guarantying that behavior will continue. Well, the same is true with the GOP. If you reward the GOP by voting for it – you are incentivizing that same behavior in the future. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Voting for the GOP when the GOP is not remotely conservative and expecting them to act conservative fits well within the definition of insanity. I’m seriously asking you to look at the GOP’s actions over the last 20 years and think rationally. I realize that it goes against the grain to sit out and potentially allow the DNC to win. But, in reality, this is the only way we will change the GOP in our lifetimes. We have been trying to change the GOP through action, primaries, involvement, etc. for 30 years. And it has not happened.

Posted by: monkeytoe at December 11, 2013 01:15 PM (sOx93)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
217kb generated in CPU 0.0987, elapsed 0.3292 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2818 seconds, 398 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 161483
  • Files: 1781
  • Bytes: 4.9G
  • CPU Time: 157:00
  • Queries: 4660767

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5930392

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0