Paul Ryan

Post by **Warren Dew** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:19 am

Erskine Bowles, of Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction fame, and former chief of staff of president Bill Clinton, on Paul Ryan:

Post by **JimC** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:16 am

Clinton Huxley wrote:As a Mormon, could Romney not have more than one running mate?

If he was attempting to mate, they'd be running alright!

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:14 am

JimC wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:As a Mormon, could Romney not have more than one running mate?

If he was attempting to mate, they'd be running alright!

And if Ryan was got with child, he wouldn't allow himself to abort it.

Post by **Svartalf** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:22 am

He already has, look at that abortion of a budget.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:37 pm

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:38 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:

Well said that man.

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:43 pm

Svartalf wrote:He already has, look at that abortion of a budget.

Yes, the Democrat's and the President's budgets are much better...

....oh, wait...they haven't passed one in 3 1/2 years....

Post by **Svartalf** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:46 pm

Clinton Huxley wrote:Well said that man.

Post by **Svartalf** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:47 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Svartalf wrote:He already has, look at that abortion of a budget.
Yes, the Democrat's and the President's budgets are much better...

....oh, wait...they haven't passed one in 3 1/2 years....

thanks to whom?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:53 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Svartalf wrote:He already has, look at that abortion of a budget.
Yes, the Democrat's and the President's budgets are much better...

....oh, wait...they haven't passed one in 3 1/2 years....

thanks to whom?

Err... the Democrats....

In 2009 -- they had a majority in the House AND the Senate -- no budget

In 2010 -- same.

In 2011 -- House passes a budget. Senate votes all budget proposals down with all Democrats voting no.

In 2012 -- http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... 99-0-vote/

Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote

Democrats have a majority of seats in the Senate, and Obama is a Democrat. Senate Democrats unanimously voted against every budget proposal brought to the floor. In the words of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: “we don’t have a definitive solution…we just don’t like yours.”

In April, 2012, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, claimed that he would produce a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. And, just like the previous year, 2011, he turned around and refused to actually do so. As a result, Senate Democrats offered no budget of their own, and instead voted against every proposal offered.

In both 2011 and 2012 -- All Senate Democrats voted AGAINST the President's (President Obama -- a Democrat) own budget proposal!

Must be Republican obstructionism....

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:57 pm

What's the rationale for the senate democrats voting against the presidents budget? Couldn't happen in the UK, Tory MPs would never vote against the Chancellors budget for example. Not very democratic but I suppose it avoids deadlock. A budget gets passed, even if it is a shit one.

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:01 pm

Clinton Huxley wrote:What's the rationale for the senate democrats voting against the presidents budget? Couldn't happen in the UK, Tory MPs would never vote against the Chancellors budget for example. Not very democratic but I suppose it avoids deadlock. A budget gets passed, even if it is a shit one.

Simple -- if they don't pass a budget, they don't have to defend how bloated and wasteful it is. The press won't hold their feet to the fire, because the press, by and large, support Democrats.

Post by **Clinton Huxley** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:03 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:What's the rationale for the senate democrats voting against the presidents budget? Couldn't happen in the UK, Tory MPs would never vote against the Chancellors budget for example. Not very democratic but I suppose it avoids deadlock. A budget gets passed, even if it is a shit one.
Simple -- if they don't pass a budget, they don't have to defend how bloated and wasteful it is. The press won't hold their feet to the fire, because the press, by and large, support Democrats.

If they don't pass it, it still gets enacted?

Post by **Coito ergo sum** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:09 pm

Clinton Huxley wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Clinton Huxley wrote:What's the rationale for the senate democrats voting against the presidents budget? Couldn't happen in the UK, Tory MPs would never vote against the Chancellors budget for example. Not very democratic but I suppose it avoids deadlock. A budget gets passed, even if it is a shit one.
Simple -- if they don't pass a budget, they don't have to defend how bloated and wasteful it is. The press won't hold their feet to the fire, because the press, by and large, support Democrats.
If they don't pass it, it still gets enacted?

Nope. It's like a family that doesn't make a family budget. They just spend money on stuff, but not in accordance with a budget. But, they don't have to admit they are living outside their means.

Post by **Gawdzilla Sama** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:10 pm

Ever make an omelet under fire, C.E.S.?

rationalia.com

Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Re: Paul Ryan

Who is online