Transparancy and Bipartisanship

[/dev/null]

I believe they were all trained there.

So you're saying the aliens that invaded the planet trained in Afghanistan.

 

So which WTC were the aliens in again? And did they plant the explosives or did Bush use the aliens explosives? And why plant explosives at all when they could have just blasted the towers from the mothership in orbit around Uranus

[GG]

I believe they were all trained there.

 

Some also went to school in Germany. What's your point?

[GG]

Really? Ok I'll explain myself to you two year olds....

 

None of them were from Iraq. They had nothing to do with Iraq and not relation to Iraq. Attacking Iraq did not help our national security, and nobody so far has listed a good reason why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

But if that was the justification to invade Afghanistan, why didn't we reinvade Germany?

[Chef Jim]

So you're saying the aliens that invaded the planet trained in Afghanistan.

 

So which WTC were the aliens in again? And did they plant the explosives or did Bush use the aliens explosives? And why plant explosives at all when they could have just blasted the towers from the mothership in orbit around Uranus

 

I heard Windows on the World had a bunch of aliens working there.

[Chef Jim]

Really? Ok I'll explain myself to you two year olds....

 

None of them were from Iraq. They had nothing to do with Iraq and not relation to Iraq. Attacking Iraq did not help our national security, and nobody so far has listed a good reason why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

Do you think there is any connection that since we've been in Iraq we have not had a major terrorist (hell not even any real minor ones) attacks in the US? I don't think it's so much where we went just as long as we went someplace to keep AQ occupied.

[Chef Jim]

So your 100% us going into Iraq is the cause of this?

 

Because if that's the case ... I'm going to say that us invading Iraq is the reason that aliens have not invaded and that cancer has not been cured. Ever since we invaded Iraq water has been wet.

 

Yes, I'm 100% sure. And your analogies suck, you can do better than that......oh wait, I doubt you can.

 

However do you think that having our military there drawing "fire" from AQ may just have kept them busy to the point of not being able to plan another attack here? And don't give me that crap about AQ not being in Iraq before we got there. Maybe not but we drew them there like flies to ****.

[DC Tom]

So your 100% us going into Iraq is the cause of this?

 

Because if that's the case ... I'm going to say that us invading Iraq is the reason that aliens have not invaded and that cancer has not been cured. Ever since we invaded Iraq water has been wet.

 

And ever since we pulled out of Mogadishu, you've been a !@#$ing moron.

 

So what's your point?

[OCinBuffalo]

They turned out to be right. Give me one good reason we went into Iraq? Nothing we did there helped our own security at all.

Ahh....so if its possible that the Democrats playing politics with the Iraq war is a good thing, since according to you, they turned out to be right....

 

then...

 

it must also be possible that the Republicans playing politics with the Economy/Global Horseschit/Health Care is also a good thing, since they may also turn out to be right...

 

or....are you just completely full of schit like so many here seem to think? You must really be hating my Course II teacher right now...because he demanded we learn logic and apply it.

[Nanker]

More of the same from - who else - Joe Biden.

Everybody should just relax and take it easy.

Unsubstantiated rumors that Vice President Joe Biden had suddenly gone a little loopy and ordered some of his official meetings opened to at least cursory public or media attention were just that -- unsubstantiated rumors.

[Magox]

Transparency and Bipartisanship my ass.

 

Senate Democrats are moving quickly on a jobs bill, with plans for the first procedural votes as early as Monday.

 

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday would not reveal any details about what’s in his bill, how much it would cost or how it would be paid for.

 

Moments after Reid was done speaking to the media Thursday morning, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sent out a blast e-mail to the reporters questioning the Democrats and the substance of their jobs offering.

 

"I watched the Democrat leadership's press conference just now and what I learned is that there will be a vote Monday on 'a bill.' But that they don’t know what’s in the bill or how many jobs they expect it to “save or create,” or when anyone beyond the Beltway will see it, or how much it will cost," the spokesman said. "They did have a nice sign, though, and a pretty handout, so they obviously gave this some thought."

 

The Democrats' refusal to answer about specifics of the legislation's funding — Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said repeatedly that those questions will be sorted out by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and the Finance Committee — underscores the pressure they feel to move on the new top priority. Yet it also shows Democrats are far from consensus within their own caucus on exactly what a jobs package will look like.

 

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y). is working separately on a jobs bill with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), but it’s not clear if that would be part of the larger Reid package.

 

With Brown slated to be sworn in later this afternoon, the Democrats might not even have enough votes on a motion to open debate Monday as they'll be one Dem short of the 60-vote threshold.

 

"This is a good faith offer from the Democratic side," said Durbin, who has been one of the leaders on his party on jobs. "We need to have a jobs agenda... It's the highest priority of the people, and it should be the highest priority of the Senate.”

 

Republicans aren’t ready to embrace anything until they see it.

 

"All I can say is that if it's anything like what passed in the House at the end of last year, then I'm inalterably opposed,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “It's just more of the same.... We'd like to examine it. We want to work with the President and the Democrats. But that means sitting down at the

 

Ok, so let me get this straight, There are no details of the bill that is being released, not even all their Caucus knows what's in the bill, but yet they want to start the process of passing it by next monday.

 

Sound familiar?

 

The president has been going all around the country the last few days, talking about how they had learned their lessons, they will try to be more bipartisan, they will try to be more transparent, and nothing has changed.

 

Where is the bipartisanship? Where is the transparency? You've got a few democrats that are crafting the bill amongst each other, keeping it a secret, and then they expect to roll it out and say "Tadaaaa!!!, Now let's vote on it"

 

It's all bull ****! Obama isn't a leader. If he was a true leader he would demand Reid to go about in a different way, instead Pelosi and Reid are leading the country, right in the !@#$ing toilet.

[IDBillzFan]

Ok, so let me get this straight, There are no details of the bill that is being released, not even all their Caucus knows what's in the bill, but yet they want to start the process of passing it by next monday.

 

Sound familiar?

I found this article inadvertantly yesterday while searching for something else. It's funny because prior to the epic health care reform failure, folks like myself never really gave any thought to the CBO. Suddenly, everyone agreed that the CBO was the most bipartisan group when it came to determining budget submittals. On this, everyone could agree, with the understanding that they only report on the data they're given. I don't recall this story being so highly touted when it come out a year ago.

 

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

 

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

 

The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts.

 

But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill.

 

The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out.

 

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

 

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

 

The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

 

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

[Doc]

That article is from January 4th, almost 3 weeks before the Massachusetts Democratic epic fail. Still, I wouldn't put it past the wonks to keep trying to force feed something most of the country doesn't want.

[Magox]

That article is from January 4th, almost 3 weeks before the Massachusetts Democratic epic fail. Still, I wouldn't put it past the wonks to keep trying to force feed something most of the country doesn't want.

Of 2009.

 

 

Very good Find LA, never saw that anywhere.

[pBills]

Yes, I'm 100% sure. And your analogies suck, you can do better than that......oh wait, I doubt you can.

 

However do you think that having our military there drawing "fire" from AQ may just have kept them busy to the point of not being able to plan another attack here? And don't give me that crap about AQ not being in Iraq before we got there. Maybe not but we drew them there like flies to ****.

 

 

I for one, do not believe that having our military drawing fire from AQ means that we are keeping them busy. Sorry. Just don't buy it especially when there is belief that AQ has smaller groups all around the world.