08 Apr 11
I just wish the Federal government had to be as responsible as State governments. At the Federal level they act as if money means nothing. At the state level employees are feeling the pain of having to make sacrifices. On the Federal level people act as if going deeper into debt is meaningless.
08 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI just wish the states would be more appreciative of the federal stimulus money.
I just wish the Federal government had to be as responsible as State governments. At the Federal level they act as if money means nothing. At the state level employees are feeling the pain of having to make sacrifices. On the Federal level people act as if going deeper into debt is meaningless.
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by normbenignI have to add that the Democrats should have passed this budget months ago when they had a chance.
Nearly all the Republican gains last election were Teaparty candidates. Already in this cycle, at least 4 incumbent Republican Senators are going to be challenged in primaries.
The Republican establishment is more afraid of losing seats to the Tea Party than to Democrats. That gives the Tea Party clout in the caucus.
09 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaStimulus money?
I just wish the states would be more appreciative of the federal stimulus money.
Let me ask you, what provisions have the Democrats embraced from Obama's appointed experts who formed the Congressional bipartisan debt commission? Also, do you not agree with the commission that the debt is the greatest threat to the Republic and what is needed is drastic spending cuts and increased revenue?
Why is it that Obama and the Dems point to "experts" when it comes to such things as global warming but somehow when it comes to "experts" such as government appointed individuals such as Ben Barnanke on economic matters they act as if they are deaf and mute? In fact, couldn't Helen Keller do a better job?
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by whodeyYou missed the point of my post. Without the stimulus money, state governments would be in worse shape than they are now. And yet, state politicians put up the facade that they would turn down stimulus money, since they felt the need to adhere to ideology, when in fact they turned around and accepted the money to keep their governments afloat.
Stimulus money?
Let me ask you, what provisions have the Democrats embraced from Obama's appointed experts who formed the Congressional bipartisan debt commission? Also, do you not agree with the commission that the debt is the greatest threat to the Republic and what is needed is drastic spending cuts and increased revenue?
Why is it that Obama and ...[text shortened]... rs they act as if they are deaf and mute? In fact, couldn't Helen Keller do a better job?
But hey, don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Here's Wisconsin Senator Scott Fitzgerald's take:
"The stimulus money was the only thing that helped bail out the states across this nation two years ago and it's not available this time, it's real. And if we don't do something about it, our bond rating, our debt rating, everything associated with the state of Wisconsin is going to be in fiscal trouble."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41973309/ns/msnbc_tv/
Now, on to your point. Yes, I agree that the U.S. needs to address its deficit problem, and it needs to address it more aggressively than it has done to this point. But it also needs to address the problem reasonably, without starving various programs and risking reversing economic recovery. It looks as though Representative Ryan, although in my opinion overreaching, has laid the foundation for a more comprehensive strategy over a longer time-frame. We need more debate about long-term reform than we need bickering about instant gratification (especially for the sake of the Tea Party). After all, you won't find many a doctor who warns his 400-pound patient, with classic risk factors for a heart attack, that if he doesn't start running 8-minute miles within a week that he will die.
09 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaWhat an apt analogy, you don't make him run those miles but you don't keep dosing him with fat and sugar, and the doctor that allowed him to become 400lb get's the boot, you're pretty good with them analogies ww, keep it em coming.
You missed the point of my post. Without the stimulus money, state governments would be in worse shape than they are now. And yet, state politicians put up the facade that they would turn down stimulus money, since they felt the need to adhere to ideology, when in fact they turned around and accepted the money to keep their governments afloat.
But he tack, that if he doesn't start running 8-minute miles within a week that he will die.
09 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaBut you act like the federal government is doing the states this huge service by giving them federal loans when in reality the federal government mandates states pay for things like medicaid, which for states like Texas accounts for half their state budget.
[b]You missed the point of my post. Without the stimulus money, state governments would be in worse shape than they are now. And yet, state politicians put up the facade that they would turn down stimulus money, since they felt the need to adhere to ideology, when in fact they turned around and accepted the money to keep their governments afloat.
Pfttt.
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaSo you agree that cuts need to be made, however, government programs should not be touched?
Now, on to your point. Yes, I agree that the U.S. needs to address its deficit problem, and it needs to address it more aggressively than it has done to this point. But it also needs to address the problem reasonably, without starving various programs and risking reversing economic recovery. It looks as though Representative Ryan, although in my opinion o ...[text shortened]... heart attack, that if he doesn't start running 8-minute miles within a week that he will die.[/b]
What exactly is your proposal?
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell lets see, the GOP wanted $60 billion in cuts and the Dems wanted $30 billion. In the end, they agreed to $38.5 billion.
[b]US Congress agrees last-minute budget deal
Republicans and Democrats have reached a deal on the US budget, an hour before a deadline that would have forced the government to close many services.
Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13022575[/b]
From my vantage point the Dems won the first round. Congrats!!