dayman

I doubt Kagan did it but I'm sure in some manner or another Obama knows. At least more than we do.

Judge Smith is out of control.

Not a fan of that article.

It's hard to stare Shepard Smith directly in the makeup.

I wouldn't declare it dead but I think it's fair to acknowledge how difficult it is. If there is one thing that is forever talked about and never acted upon it is that issue so it's I wouldn't hinge the budget on reform. That said if you are willing to just say "yea, it will reduce revenue and I'm ok with that but there's a possibility with tax reform we can eventually approach the levels we have now" that's ok but to say that it doesn't reduce revenue is as disingenuous as anything Obama has said that enrages the right. I'm no tax expert but it seems people are all for it until the special interests get involved, the value of people's houses are thrown into jeopardy...etc...I mean am I wrong? I'm not trying to be some know-it-all in a competition with anyone on this just genuinely asking if you would agree that tax reform is a difficult beast to conquer politically. Or if it's even realistic that this congress could do it.

And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all) Eliminating loopholes w/ proposed tax reform is much easier said than done. Saying this to me is about the same as Obama saying "we'll reduce waste" to cover money for healthcare. It's pretty much meaningless until it's actually being done and real world way in front of our faces. This budget would deny the government revenue as far as I'm concerned.

Haha, clever Obama calling the Repubs budget not 1, but 2 things they don't really like.

Thing is these sort of tactics have a tendency to take a life of their own as of late. Just make sure all the right wing guys agree with you on this, and I'm ok.

You consider this a "serious" budget proposal? The Paul Ryan budget?

Amen to that. This Paul Ryan budget as a (strong) starting point in compromise is one thing. So long as that is what it is. Also, I am not so convinced "fixing tax loop holes" is as easy politically as this plan implies. But either way hopefully both sides are willing to compromise. And I hope those "on the street" that support this budget do so knowing how it impacts them and those in their community and not just on some vague ideological grounds that a few talking points drills into them.

Lighten up for Christ's sake. My God. lol and here I thought you had a sense of humor

Well if I eat crap and poop food as you suggested before I offered to place food in your mouth by ****ing, then the confusion over the censor becomes apparent. My apologies for being unclear I have confused myself.

Uh, food? Is that what you want to here?

Haha, wow. Nice one Joe

Now that was definitely your most creative post. (seriously made me laugh)

But even if CBO continues to play along with the Obamacare-as-deficit-cutter fairy tale, that still doesn’t preclude Congress from repealing it in reconciliation. All the House and Senate would have to do is couple repeal with some strategic cuts in spending (including, perhaps, retention of some cuts that were enacted in Obamacare itself). The total package would then be estimated to cut the deficit and therefore fall well within the normal boundaries of a reconciliation bill. From one of the links at the end of that article. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280274/reconciliation-option-james-c-capretta?pg=2 If Romney wins and all this repeal through reconciliation starts up **** is going to get absolutely brutal. Far more brutal than it has been at the most brutal moments as of late.

Well I added another sentence in there to clarify, in saying that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that is where it was drawn. Since I am not religious I have little sympathy for their line-drawing problem as everybody has line-drawing problems regarding issues that concern them (me included) and yet we all deal with it.

Well now to me that article clearly shows they could see there are potential problems why else would Obama meet with him? As for the lying part I don't agree but I can see how you can make the argument. I mean, I'm sorry that they can't define "hospitals, grade schools, universities and soup kitchens" however they like, but I don't think Obama ever told them they would be able to. Even if he did, I'm really not concerned about the governments encroachment on religion. Just don't care personally so it's hard for me to really dive into the issue the way someone who think they are being forced to commit mortal sin can. Not that it isn't important, just not one of "my issues" so to speak. The line has to be drawn somewhere...sorry they don't like where it was drawn.

Can't argue w/ ignorance.

LOL calm down man. You are on the internet first and foremost, and also can you imagine if I had the attitude you do? If people so much as say an "Obama neutral" comment on this board they're roasted yet you don't see me crying every time someone disagrees with me (often in snarky ways). Take a breath, it's ok, I don't mean to attack you personally or anything take it all w/ a grain of salt. Anyway, the presumption that legislation is constitutional is actually a form of judicial restraint and is important to the "checks and balances" that you think is so blown to hell. Basically your problem (as I see it) is our society isn't functioning according to the way you thing the constitution says it should. That's fine. You are probably wrong, but that's fine anyway. Either way the truth is most people running around waiving a constitution in people's faces at Tea Party rallies could use a nice crash course in constitutional law. Especially since many hot button issues prompt the far right to go off about federalism, First Amendment, and separation of powers principles....you would think they would take time to educate themselves on what those things really mean over the course of American history.

Haha, no. Not the same, and not what I was talking about. Gingrich is wrong (even though he knows he's wrong b/c he knows how it works he's just running his mouth to mislead the people), as those procedures (repealing law) are explicitly laid out in the Constitution. As for commerce clause jurisprudence, it's another story.

Believe that they didn't foresee it. The administration and drafting member of congress surely foresaw these problems, had counsel, and decided to go forward with it anyway because they obviously felt that politically/legally they could withstand said challenges. Haha, I didn't coin that. That is true. You can remain ignorant to blatantly simple and true aspects of law though. Feel free. A simple google search will do you good.

I feel bad for you if you honestly believe that. Also, you do realize Obama doesn't sit down at night and write the Bill himself right?

Fair point. But if there's one thing Obama & Co. will know/be ready for it's the healthcare plan. So I wouldn't go waltzing around making claims I can't back up in that arena if I were Romney. That's one area where the Obama camp will actively seek to clarify, explain, and debunk any and all claims. The real truth though is if gets by the SC then what is Romney going to do? Nobody expects the Dems to lose the Senate. It's the law. Contrary to what would-be Emperor Gingrich claims, no Repub President can just "sign an executive order day 1 repealing Obama care."

Bunch of geniuses crowding our state prisons.