Official Stop OBAMA Express!!!

You don't understand much about this fiscal cliff, do you?  I mean, I'd try to answer your question, but it doesn't make any sense.  It won't be this year, for a number of incredibly obvious reasons.  "Next fiscal cliff" is an asinine statement, seeing as in order for there to be a next one, it would be on purpose, like this one.

Love the personal attacks. You guys pretty mature for adults...


I understand the fiscal cliff, plenty. 

1. this fiscal cliff (for the next budget) was supposed to be passed a long time ago.. I don't see where our president was adding teachers.

2. Next year's fiscal cliff (since he's done nothing to think that he'll do anything different than the past two years) is not asinine. 

3. Are you saying this yer was on purpose by the president? Since he did not submit his budget plan then?            

Love the personal attacks. You guys pretty mature for adults...

It's not a personal attack.  By all means, report it, and see if it gets upheld.

I understand the fiscal cliff, plenty.

THen why do you keep asking about "the next fiscal cliff?"

This is also not a personal attack - you are about to explain exactly how little you understand about the fiscal cliff:

1. this fiscal cliff (for the next budget) was supposed to be passed a long time ago.. I don't see where our president was adding teachers.

Budgets don't have fiscal cliffs, and this fiscal cliff wasn't supposed to be "passed a long time ago."  And the teachers goal, as has already been pointed out, is over the next 10 years, not this year.

The fiscal cliff has nothing to do with a budget, or a lack of a budget.  The fiscal cliff is a combination of two primary things, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the debt ceiling deal between the WH (White House) and GOP in Congress. 

The Bush tax cuts, in 2010, after the GOP took back the House, were extended for 2 years.  That means the Bush tax cuts are going away on Jan 1, 2013, unless they, all or in part, are extended again.  That is part one of the fiscal cliff - that all AMericans will be paying more income tax, AMT will affect more people, etc.

Part two comes from the failure of the WH and GOP in Congress to agree on meaningful cuts during that debt ceiling debate.  So what they did was pass a kick-the-can-down-the-road bill - called the Budget Control Act of 2011, which increased the debt ceiling, but required that a ton be cut from the federal budget, and if not, mandatory cuts would go into effect at the end of 2012.  HUGE cuts, across the board.

The problem is that the cuts and additional taxes are deemed to be too much of a shock to the US economy, pulling too much money out at one time.  The CBO thinks this could cause another recession, if not avoided - and THAT is the fiscal cliff.

2. Next year's fiscal cliff (since he's done nothing to think that he'll do anything different than the past two years) is not asinine. 

Incorrect, the fiscal cliff was created by politicians, as has already been explained, and would have to be created again, if this one is avoided.

3. Are you saying this yer was on purpose by the president? Since he did not submit his budget plan then?            

No, I'm saying that the GOP and the Dems passed bills in 2010 and 2011 that made this perfect storm of cuts and tax increases.  The President did not create this one, certainly not by himself.  Both bills were passed by the GOP House, and signed into law by Obama.  It was a joint effort, I guess.

Also, Obama has submitted a budget, the GOP in the House just refused to pass it.  It's their right, but you cannot pretend that Obama didn't submit a budget - he has, every year.  He can't make the House pass it, however. And they can't make him sign the ones they pass.  And since they all refuse to work together... well... we get what we are facing right now - we've kicked the can about as far as it will go, and the end of the road is fast approaching...

Also, Obama has submitted a budget, the GOP in the House just refused to pass it.

Quit lying. Both House and senate voted it down without one vote for it.... 

He can't make the House pass it, however. And they can't make him sign the ones they pass.  And since they all refuse to work together... well... we get what we are facing right now - we've kicked the can about as far as it will go, and the end of the road is fast approaching...

Someday the leader in charge will have to lead by compromise, as always. Until then, this what we get. More division than ever...
   

Also, Obama has submitted a budget, the GOP in the House just refused to pass it.

Quit lying. Both House and senate voted it down without one vote for it.... 

UH... how does the House and Senate vote on a budget that hasn't been submitted?  That's impossible.  Obama submits his budget for a vote, then it has to be brought to a vote, then the actual vote occurs. 

And, actually, the vote to which you are referring was NOT on a budget submitted by Obama, but a budget submitted by Jeff Sessions, a GOP senator from Alabama, that was a pure political stunt.  The one rejected by the House was rejected because a spending bill had already been passed that superceded that budget.

But don't take my word for it:

[http://www.politico.com/news/storie
s/0512/76418.html]

Or hell, you have access to google, find a source you trust - Jeff Sessions submitted that Obama budget, and it wasn't really Obama's budget.

Btw, I thought you were above the personal attacks, and here you are, calling me a liar, when you're obviously wrong, no less...

Someday the leader in charge will have to lead by compromise, as always. Until then, this what we get. More division than ever...

Unfortunately, Obama's been the only one to compromise.  But by all means, blame just one party, hell, just one person, and ignore that both parties in Congress refuse to work with one another.

Why is this thread still Going?


Its over.  Go Home.


Nothing left to see here

















Your still here?

Go ahead, Go. 

 I thought you were above the personal attacks, and here you are, calling me a lia

NO SIR!!  THAT IS INDEED A FACT!!!



    Sorry.   Couldn't resist.



Stop leaving softballs like that!  YOu know I cant help myslef!     

Also, Obama has submitted a budget, the GOP in the House just refused to pass it.

Quit lying. Both House and senate voted it down without one vote for it....

UH... how does the House and Senate vote on a budget that hasn't been submitted?  That's impossible.  Obama submits his budget for a vote, then it has to be brought to a vote, then the actual vote occurs. 

Nope... Sorry, but it was true...

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday,  when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's  budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate  floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that  the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran  thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's  numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point  out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no  Democrats took up.

 [Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times] [http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog
/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-
budget-defeated-99-0-senate/#ixzz2C
8ktKwZE]

      

Someday the leader in charge will have to lead by compromise, as always. Until then, this what we get. More division than ever...

Unfortunately, Obama's been the only one to compromise.  But by all means, blame just one party, hell, just one person, and ignore that both parties in Congress refuse to work with one another.

Sorry the GOP compromised until the president had last add on, it was well covered in the Bob Woodward book.. 

But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed
Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal -- a miscalculation, in
retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he'd already gone.

Nope... Sorry, but it was true...

LOL.  Except what you posted is what I said, not what you said...  Did you even read it?

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate  floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that  the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran  thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's  numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sorry the GOP compromised until the president had last add on, it was well covered in the Bob Woodward book..

I can only hope you don't think this is convincing.  Btw, I don't even know what "compromise" to which you are referring.  There have been numerous examples, very few of which involve "president had last add on." 

But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed
Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal -- a miscalculation, in
retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he'd already gone.

So because this one guy said it like this, it must be accurate...  Is this about the debt ceiling?  Just curious.

Nope... Sorry, but it was true...

LOL.  Except what you posted is what I said, not what you said...  Did you even read it?

Laugh all you want, but you are once again, wrong.

Republicans forced the vote by offering the president's plan on the Senate  floor.

Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that  the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran  thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's  numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, even challenged Democrats to point  out any errors in the numbers and he would correct them — a challenge no  Democrats took up.



Funny. You left that part out. It had to be a mistake, or was it the grammar?

 

But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed
Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal -- a miscalculation, in
retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he'd already gone.

So because this one guy said it like this, it must be accurate...  Is this about the debt ceiling?  Just curious.

Getting pretty desperate if you need to attack Bob Woodward on this.. Your sentence structure and grammar were pretty horrid...

Sorry the GOP compromised until the president had last add on, it was well covered in the Bob Woodward book..

I can only hope you don't think this is convincing.  Btw, I don't even know what "compromise" to which you are referring.  There have been numerous examples, very few of which involve "president had last add on." 

Sorry. The president hasn't compromised or even attempted for over a year on the budget. Just making it up to hide doesn't help.. 

Laugh all you want, but you are once again, wrong.

LOL.  Yes, you proved me wrong by posting exactly what I said happened...

The emoticon really drives the point home....(?)

Funny. You left that part out. It had to be a mistake, or was it the grammar?

It was irrelevant.  None of that changes that this was not Obama's budget, and the whole thing was a political stunt.

Getting pretty desperate if you need to attack Bob Woodward on this..

I didn't attack him, but your victim card has to be threadbare, lol.

Your sentence structure and grammar were pretty horrid...

I figured I'd dumb it down for you.

Sorry. The president hasn't compromised or even attempted for over a year on the budget. Just making it up to hide doesn't help

You still haven't told me where I'm hiding.  The president, btw, absolutely has tried to compromise, but you haven't let any facts get in your way yet, don't start now.

And STILL no policy to discuss, just more whining.

It was irrelevant.  None of that changes that this was not Obama's budget, and the whole thing was a political stunt.

It was Obama's budget, that's why nobody could point to any errors. That is a fact. Or point out the errors... I'll wait.. 

And STILL no policy to discuss, just more whining.

Fifth time, did the obama administration obstruct by not answering questions on Bengazi?


Quit dodging and answer the question.. 

Getting pretty desperate if you need to attack Bob Woodward on this..

I didn't attack him, but your victim card has to be threadbare, lol.

Still can't prove him wrong.
   

Fifth time, did the obama administration obstruct by not answering questions on Bengazi?


Quit dodging and answer the question....

...waiting and hoping for a watergate moment too, huh?...

It was Obama's budget, that's why nobody could point to any errors. That is a fact.

Nobody bothered to point out errors, that's not the same thing.  And why would they?  It was a political stunt.  Dems decided not to play that game.  I wouldn't have either.  The republicans, had this been in reverse, wouldn't have sat down and gone over the numbers either.

Or point out the errors... I'll wait.. 

Why would I bother?  It won't change your mind about anything.  I mean, do you still think that fiscal cliffs occur every year there isn't a budget?

That very same day, the democrats put forth a butchered version of Paul Ryan's budget too (actually, there were 5 total budgets submitted, and all 5 lost, handily - and everyone knew beforehand that all 5 would lose.  It was all political theater).

Check it out for yourself:

[http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_1
36/Senate-Votes-on-Budgets-Set-to-F
ail-214541-1.html]

With pundits, economists and even some lawmakers warning of a fiscal policy meltdown by year’s end, the Senate will embark today on a series of budget votes that appear designed for political show and are destined to fail.

“These are people basically positioning themselves on budget issues,” Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Senate Democratic and Republican leaders agreed to hold up to five votes today. Those will include dueling votes in which one party introduces the other party’s plan to make the point that it can’t pass.

Fifth time, did the obama administration obstruct by not answering questions on Bengazi?

I've already told you I don't know.  I get it now though - when you don't know something (and you and I both know that you don't really know anything about the inner workings of the administration), you just make something up, and assume it to be true.  So, in this case, instead of just admitting you don't know shjt about shjt about why the administration has responded in the way they have, you just subscribe to whatever conspiracy theory nonsense you can find.

Quit dodging and answer the question.. 

Admitting you don't know something isn't dodging the question, LOL.  That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. 

Still can't prove him wrong.

There was nothing to prove, it was an opinion, lol.  Woodward says the deal fell through because of Obama, other people say it was Boehner, neither are right or wrong, it's all just an opinion.  Arguments can be made for either.

How about this - I think black is a better color than pink, prove me wrong.

Nobody bothered to point out errors, that's not the same thing.  And why would they?  It was a political stunt

Yes, for the democrats. Pointing out any errors (which were minimal) would have only hurt Obama. That was why it was submitted and that's why the democrats wouldn't answer..

Fifth time, did the obama administration obstruct by not answering questions on Bengazi?

I've already told you I don't know.  I get it now though - when you don't know something (and you and I both know that you don't really know anything about the inner workings of the administration), you just make something up, and assume it to be true.  So, in this case, instead of just admitting you don't know shjt about shjt about why the administration has responded in the way they have, you just subscribe to whatever conspiracy theory nonsense you can find.

Ahhhh. Sorry! Not answering questions on this for over two months is completely obstructing and you (as well as everyone else) know that. I am asking the white to answer questions. Without answers, then the alternative information from the sources carry weight.

Quit dodging and answer the question..

Admitting you don't know something isn't dodging the question, LOL.  That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard

 Sorry, Bill. That just doesn't fly anymore.
   

Still can't prove him wrong.

There was nothing to prove, it was an opinion, lol.  Woodward says the deal fell through because of Obama, other people say it was Boehner, neither are right or wrong, it's all just an opinion.  Arguments can be made for either.

How about this - I think black is a better color than pink, prove me wrong.

He was given access to the president and knew what happened on both sides of the conversation. It was, unfortuantely for you, complete fact.
   
   

Yes, for the democrats.

LOL.  If you truly think that only one party in DC engages in political theater, you would be mistaken.

Pointing out any errors (which were minimal) would have only hurt Obama.

Oh, so you know exactly what the errors were?  Otherwise, how could you claim they are minimal? 

Anyhow, you are incorrect - playing the GOP's game would have only hurt all the democrats who decided to play.  Just like playing the Dems game - when they submitted a similar version of the Ryan budget - would have hurt the GOP.  So it was all just for show.

That was why it was submitted and that's why the democrats wouldn't answer..

Wrong again.  It was submitted so that everyone could play the position-themselves-on-the-budget game.  Just like why the dems submitted a version of Ryan's budget.  That's why there were 5 total budgets submitted that day, and all 5 were voted down.  It was nothing more than political gamesmanship.

Ahhhh. Sorry! Not answering questions on this for over two months is completely obstructing and you (as well as everyone else) know that

The point is that no, I don't know that, and neither do you.  You are jumping to the conclusions you WANT to be true, not what is actually true.

I am asking the white to answer questions. Without answers, then the alternative information from the sources carry weight.

So if Obama answered the questions, but didn't give the answers you wanted to hear, you'd just believe him?  Excuse me if I don't believe you...

Admitting you don't know something isn't dodging the question, LOL.  That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard

 Sorry, Bill. That just doesn't fly anymore.

Well, I can't help it if you honestly think that, but like I said, it's literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life.

He was given access to the president and knew what happened on both sides of the conversation. It was, unfortuantely for you, complete fact.

Uh... so because he had access to both, that makes his OPINION on who was to blame a fact?  Wow.  Just... wow.  I don't even know what to say.  Opinions aren't facts, THAT is complete fact.

By:Nathan2940

November 13, 2012  2:58 pm




2. Next year's fiscal cliff (since he's done nothing to think that he'll do anything different than the past two years) is not asinine.

Incorrect, the fiscal cliff was created by politicians, as has already been explained, and would have to be created again, if this one is avoided.

[http://cnsmaryland.org/2012/11/08/a
s-fiscal-cliff-looms-van-hollen-see
s-short-term-solution/


]WASHINGTON – Maryland Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen is confident that Congress can avoid falling off the “fiscal cliff” of mandatory federal spending cuts come January, but a comprehensive budget solution may still be out of reach.

“I believe that there is a very decent chance that we can come up with a plan to replace the sequester for six months while we negotiate a longer term solution,” Van Hollen said, adding that he would prefer a long-term deal.


1. A comprehensive budget solution. Better start attacking the congressman. Apparently he thinks the fiscal cliff is ties to the budget too!

2. The talk of pushing this down the road by democrats has already begun.


   

      

  

Maryland Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen is confident that Congress can avoid falling off the “fiscal cliff” of mandatory federal spending cuts come January, but a comprehensive budget solution may still be out of reach.

“I believe that there is a very decent chance that we can come up with a plan to replace the sequester for six months while we negotiate a longer term solution,” Van Hollen said, adding that he would prefer a long-term deal.


1. A comprehensive budget solution. Better start attacking the congressman. Apparently he thinks the fiscal cliff is ties to the budget too!

2. The talk of pushing this down the road by democrats has already begun.

You must not have read your own source.  In response to your questions/statements:

1. Like the Congressman said, the fiscal cliff can be avoided WITHOUT a comprehensive budget solution.  The mandatory cuts half of it could be resolved with a new budget, but could be avoided without one.  And a new budget would likely be passed separately from whatever tax rate changes/extensions get passed, which is the other half of the cliff.

2. Sure, it's begun on all sides, don't kid yourself.

You must not have read your own source.  In response to your questions/statements:

1. Like the Congressman said, the fiscal cliff can be avoided WITHOUT a comprehensive budget solution.  The mandatory cuts half of it could be resolved with a new budget, but could be avoided without one.  And a new budget would likely be passed separately from whatever tax rate changes/extensions get passed, which is the other half of the cliff.

2. Sure, it's begun on all sides, don't kid yourself.

1.You spent two days personally attacking me on my comment that this will get pushed back to next year and now you are finally agreeing with the original comment. Hilarious..  

2. you said the fiscal cliff has absolutely nothing to do with the budget, now listen to everything you are saying....


 

1.You spent two days personally attacking me

LOL, that must be why you never submitted those posts as attacks.  You either have the thinnest skin in the world, or just love playing the victim card.

that this will get pushed back to next year and now you are finally agreeing with the original comment. Hilarious..  

That you took my comments as agreement that this will get pushed back to next year is indeed hilarious, because I said nothing of the sort.

you said the fiscal cliff has absolutely nothing to do with the budget, now listen to everything you are saying....

***facepalm***  You don't understand how the fiscal cliff was created, don't understand what can be done to avoid it, and apparently don't understand my comments on the fiscal cliff, and yet... you still want to pretend like you know what you're talking about...

The creation of the fiscal cliff, btw, had nothing to do with the budget. 

Love the fact that we now have three new fiscal cliffs for next year, considering it was asinine to think that just one might happen...

Prediction: Boehner will not be Speaker in the next Congress.  He has smartly made every republican mad at him.  He doesn't want the job with these radicals in charge.  Cantor thinks he wants it but only a fool would want it.

Gerrymandering has divided this country.  We have to change the system.  Have independent state authorities (evenly balanced - conserv, moderates and liberal) set up districts based on area needs.  Some want Congresspeople elected by state.  That would be more expensive but could be worth it (maybe paid by taxes and not donors would lesson the costs).  Where does pork come from?  More from congressional districts than from state needs.

Having elected officials responsible to a spectrum of voters will not divide us as much.

Some might say any change with favor democrats more.  I think a change will favor more representation by the people.