Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: RepubliCons LOVE America! XOXOXOXs

Posted 5 years ago on Sept. 19, 2013, 4:24 a.m. EST by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The GOP hopes you'll remember the OXOXOXs come 2014 & '16!

PLEASE PLEASE Remember! Don't Forget like in 2010!!

Hardball: The GOP Is Willing To Tank The Global Economy

The Congressional GOP Will Vote To Repeal ObamaCare Or Shut The Government Down

CNN'S John King & Dr. Sanjay Gupta On The ObamaCare Fight: At What Point Do Republicans Realize They Lost? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHBMtUsACTY

House Republicans Also Set On Vote To Cut $40 Billion From Food Stamps

House GOP doubles down on bad hand http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-republicans-government-shutdown-96968.html

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/homework-364336/randis-homework-wed-sep-18-2013-11664602/#ixzz2fKAqLhJJ



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

these people are so boring and useless

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Which is why we should never repeat 2010 which let them in!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Why do Republicans hate children?

By Joan McCarter, Daily Kos | Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 01:32 PM PDT

Here's what else Republicans want to do when they say they want to defund Obamacare: gut the children's health insurance program, denying health insurance, health care, to eight million moderate-income children.
CONTINUED: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/19/1240044/-Why-does-the-GOP-hate-nbsp-children


[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

What You Need To Know Before This Week’s House Vote On Food Stamps

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

House to vote on deep cuts to food-stamp program

By Ed O’Keefe, Published: September 18

The years-long fight over federal funding for food stamps is set for another showdown Thursday when House Republicans plan to vote on a proposal to dramatically curtail aid to needy Americans. Every Democrat is expected to vote against the proposal.
CONTINUED: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-to-vote-on-deep-cuts-to-food-stamp-program/2013/09/18/98cbfdfe-2080-11e3-8459-657e0c72fec8_story.html

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33688) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Well if this helps get that bunch of assholes out of government - State & Federal - I say go for it shit heads.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33688) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Those Bastards!

In a narrow 217 to 210 vote, House Republicans just passed an outrageous bill cutting food stamps by $40 billion and kicking 3.8 million people out of the program by 2014.

Click here to sign the petition from Daily Kos and Ultraviolet denouncing House Republicans for deep cuts to food stamps that would devastate children, seniors and the working poor.

The Senate already passed a bill cutting food stamps, but House Republicans just took it ten times further. Under their proposal, over 1.7 million people will lose food stamps this year, another 2.1 million next year, and even more in the following years.

House Republicans know these cuts aren't going to become law—they are using their psychotic proposal to try and pressure the Senate into make even deeper cuts than the ones they already passed.

But here's the thing—Republicans held this vote without holding a single public hearing because they know these cuts are deeply unpopular. If we raise our voices together, we can put the pressure on them by making sure they don't get away with this quietly.

Sign the petition from Daily Kos and Ultraviolet denouncing these cuts—and demand that Congress make no cuts to food stamps at all.

Keep fighting, Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos

I added:

HEY - assholes - Yeah - U - all of U are completely out of touch with reality. Notice the droves of people leaving the corp(se)oRATist party? Yeah that's correct as all of you stopped serving the people/republic years ago. The Party name means nothing anymore. You serve only the very wealthy and the major corp(se)oRATions.

Your own supporters are leaving ( finally )as you have slapped them along with the rest of America too many times in the face with a 2x4. They are beginning to realize ( what the hell took so long I don't know )that they are out in the cold as far as you are concerned.

Looking forward to 2016? I am - as you all may just have finally committed political suicide. None to soon for the American People and the environment.

I wonder - how well would you fare on minimum wage? I would really like to see you in that position.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22973) 5 years ago

Moral Turpitude. This is not the America I want to live in.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33688) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I do not see how any of em could survive this term. How blind are people when they keep supporting the guy smacking em in the face with a 2x4 ? Over and over and over and over................................

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22973) 5 years ago

1 out of 7 Americans receive food stamps. Hopefully, they will all vote.

Not sure how these politicians live with themselves. Didn't Jesus say, "The meek shall inherit the earth." I bring that up because most of these idiots claim to be good Christians. They haven't got a clue.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33688) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

They should expect to be up against the organized AARP members in 2016. The poor generally do take more of an interest in politics. There are a hell of a lot of people on Social Security.

No they really do not seem to understand just what the fuck they are doing to people. That it is not all some fictional tv program for their entertainment.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (30680) from Coon Rapids, MN 44 minutes ago

So at what point does blackmail and coercion become chargeable offenses in government? [TREASON] ?

If the tables were turned (possible only in a GOP ~ Clinton BJ ~ Witch Hunt, exaggeration and fraud), Crimes Against Humanity and Treason Trials, Prosecutions, Impeachments and Executions would already be history!

As we have seen at occupations nationwide, the 1% control the police and MSN. So if Dems even hinted at taking action against Con treason, every media outlet would be screaming about a massive Dem coup d'etat! The police in every city would be put on marshal law! The national guard and military would be mobilized! Dems, teachers, journalists, union leaders, bloggers and OWS forum posters would be rounded up! And Wall Street would probably take the opportunity to drain the assets of every 99% account!

Massive painful, incarceration, theft, and death would ensue.

The exercise of our democracy is the only way or means WE have to handle this entrenched treachery, just as it was our neglect of our democracy that allowed this treachery to entrench. The Right would LOVE a Hot War over this ~ it's their wet dream ~ but WE only win with democracy. Which is why the Right Mushroom the People, Purge the Electorate, CU elections and Suppress the Vote.

Until many more Americans reach the point that they see the Kochs, Boner, McTurtle, Rush, O'Really and their 1% Cult as the evil, Un-American Activists, bastards they are, there will be no Reign Of Terror or Treason Trials. As disappointing as that is.

So We have to Vote for the lesser evils ~ which BTY are worlds (lesser and/or greater) apart ~ and constantly and vigilantly improve, include, diversify and progress.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Just Picking on the Poor: The Facts and the Faces of Cutting SNAP

Posted: 09/19/2013 3:05 pm

Today, the House of Representatives votes on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly food stamps. The proposal would cut SNAP by nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years. These cuts would hurt millions of people, namely seniors and the poorest among us. But it will most heavily affect low-income families with children where the parent(s) work for a living but don't make enough to adequately feed their families. Working families with kids are 72 percent of all SNAP beneficiaries.

According to the Census Bureau, food stamps kept 4 million people out of poverty last year. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the House proposal would cut assistance to nearly 4 million low-income people in 2014 and an average of 3 million more each year for the next decade. Christian leaders across the evangelical, Catholic, Protestant, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American church spectrum are reacting with moral outrage ~ http://www.circleofprotection.us/ ~ at this assault on the people that Jesus specifically instructs us to protect.
CONTINUED: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/just-picking-on-the-poor_b_3956677.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago
[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22973) 5 years ago

They are marching somewhere other than toward anarchy.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Anarchy is the RW, Corporate, 1% WET dream! Yes! They don't want unicorn chasers, blithering anarchy idiots to know that!

They want to encourage you to think that you NEO-ANARCHISTS have finally found the way around the horrible evils of UNITED, POLITICAL, COLLECTIVE, DEMOCRACY!!

Enjoy defeatism!

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22973) 5 years ago

Huh? I was talking about hell, they're marching toward hell because they are morally void.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Anarchy is their (1%-GOP) bliss and our (99%) hell, effective democracy is our bliss and their hell.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22973) 5 years ago

It's not anarchy they are looking for, it is corporatism. And, the entire political structure of America today is set up to favor corporatism.

[-] -2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Yes, they wish to Corporatize, Privatize and Kingdomize the country, facilitated and enabled by our slide into the disabling and disarming quicksand of anarchy.

[-] 1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 5 years ago

Please explain how you see anarchy and democracy on two different levels?

This outta be good.


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Try Google! HC

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 5 years ago

I was looking for actual thoughts from you, whoever you are.

Real thoughts and perspective. Would you like to discuss this?

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago


Sep 23, 2013 | By CAP Action War Room

GOP Takes Obamacare Meltdown To A Whole New Level

A mere seven days remain for Congress to pass a spending bill in order to avoid a government shutdown. But Republicans are farther away than ever from agreeing to a reasonable plan that would keep the government open.

On Friday, the House GOP continued its march toward shutdown by passing a bill that ties keeping the government open to–surprise!–fully defunding Obamacare. Once again, Republicans refuse to do the hard work of actual governing in favor of playing political games that threaten to sabotage the economy. But while the vote only solidified the GOP’s ideological and dangerous strategy, it opened the floodgates for more infighting among its owns members. Here is what a number of key GOP players and establishment thinkers have to say about the “defund at all costs” plan:

GOP Sen. John McCain (AZ): “I can tell you that in the U.S. Senate, we will not repeal or defund Obamacare. We will not. And to think we can is not rational.”

GOP Strategist Karl Rove: The GOP defunding strategy is “self-defeating…It is an ill-conceived tactic, and Republicans should reject it.”

Fox News Host Bill O’Reilly: Defunding Obamacare is “fanaticism on the right,” O’Reilly says. “There’s no way Obamacare is going to be defunded. It’s not gonna happen.”

GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (OK): “Tactics and strategies ought to be based on what the real world is, and we do not have the political power to do this.”

GOP Sen. Rand Paul (KY): “I’m acknowledging we can’t probably defeat or get rid of Obamacare.”

GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH): “I don’t believe they should shut down the government to [defund Obamacare], and I don’t think that is a strategy that is good for America.”

GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA): “It’s total atrophy. We’re earning our 11 percent popularity. It’s easier to talk about Obamacare than the major sources of our problems.”

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: “Kamikaze missions rarely turn out well, least of all for the pilots… The kamikazes could end up ensuring the return of all-Democratic rule.”

Now, they all may just be trying to protect their party’s interests. But they seem to know what most Americans already do: the extreme demands by the GOP to push a narrow ideological agenda are out of touch. A new bipartisan CNBC poll released today proves that point. Almost six in ten Americans oppose defunding the health care law if it means a government shutdown, while just 19 percent support. A poll released last week found that only 23 percent of Americans want to make the health care law fail.

BOTTOM LINE: Republicans’ political games are threatening our nation’s economic recovery. Americans don’t want to shut down the government and want an end to the hostage-taking political tactics that place ideology over practical solutions for stability and growth.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33688) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

So at what point does blackmail and coercion become chargeable offenses in government? [TREASON] ?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

To appease their 1% Gods, the GOP will make Millions of innocent and needy Americans suffer unnecessarily.

We, the sleeping electorate, are the legal Navy Seal team meant to take these bastards out. How do you wake them up? ...and pointed in the right direction: studies show a large number of Americans are being introduced to the ACA as a "failed" bill.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Jon Stewart hammers Republicans for their double standard on guns and NSA spying

Depressingly Familiar Post-Tragedy Analysis - A Homicide Pact When it comes to guns the Constitution is ironclad, but with terrorism it's more a list of suggestions.


Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/articles/homework-364336/randis-homework-thu-sep-19-2013-11667692/#ixzz2fNleEzsw

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago
[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Rosy, after your heroics at the Ambassador, it was alright to cry.

After Nixon, Raygun and Cheney, we need to laugh.

"I am just an orange boy... cry and lie..."

The Boner: http://greenleegazette.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-boner-rocky-mountain-mike-song.htm

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The Great GOP Mental-Health Hypocrisy

by Michael Tomasky Sep 20, 2013 5:45 AM EDT

Since the D.C. shooting, Republicans care about mental health! Yet they opposed—and want to defund—the law that does more to advance the cause than any in history.

So now we’re being treated to the charming spectacle of Republicans, or a few of them anyway, purporting to care about mental-health treatment in the wake of the Washington Navy Yard shooting. How touching. This doesn’t mean, of course, that they care about mental health. They’re just coming up with something to say in the wake of the tragedy that sounds to the willfully credulous like action and that won’t offend the National Rifle Association. Meanwhile, they have devastated mental-health funding since you-know-who became president. And more important than that, they voted against, and are now preparing to vote en bloc to defund or delay, the law that will do more to address mental health and give society at least a chance that future Aaron Alexises will get treatment that could prevent them going on shooting sprees since ... well, pretty much since ever.
CONTINUED: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/20/the-great-gop-mental-health-hypocrisy.html

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

I'm a 35-Year-Old Veteran On Food Stamps

Posted: Jason Kirell | 09/20/2013 3:14 pm

My name is Jason. I turned 35 less than a week ago. My first job was maintenance work at a public pool when I was 17. I worked 40 hours a week while I was in college. I've never gone longer than six months without employment in my life and I just spent the last three years in the military, one of which consisted of a combat tour of Afghanistan.

Oh, and I'm now on food stamps. Since June, as a matter of fact.

Why am I on food stamps?

The same reason everyone on food stamps is on food stamps: because I would very much enjoy not starving.

I mean, if that's okay with you:

Mr. or Mrs. Republican congressman.

Mr. or Mrs. Conservative commentator.

Mr. or Mrs. "welfare queen" letter-to-the-editor author.

Mr. or Mrs. "fiscal conservative, reason-based" libertarian.

I do apologize for burdening you on the checkout line with real-life images of American-style poverty. I know you probably believe the only true starving people in the world have flies buzzing around their eyes while they wallow away, near-lifeless in gutters.

Hate to burst the bubble, but those people don't live in this country.

I do. And millions like me. Millions of people in poverty who fall into three categories.

Let's call them the "lucky" category, since conservatives seem to think people on welfare have hit some sort of jackpot:

Those living paycheck to paycheck? They're a little lucky.

Those living unemployment check to unemployment check? They're a little luckier.

Those living 2nd of the month to 2nd of the month? Ding! We've hit the jackpot!

The 2nd of the month being the time when funds gets electronically deposited onto the EBT card, [at least in NY] for those who've never been fortunate enough to hit that $175/month Powerball.

I fall into the latter two categories. But I've known people recently -- soldiers in the Army -- who were in the first and third. They were off fighting in Afghanistan while their wives were at home, buying food at the on-post commissary with food stamps.

And nobody bats an eye there, because it's not uncommon in the military.

It's not uncommon -- nor is it shameful. It might be shameful how little service-members are paid, but that's a separate issue.

The fact remains anyone at a certain income level can find it difficult from time to time to pay for everything. And when you're poor you learn to make sacrifices. Food shouldn't be one of them.

The whole concept is un-American. People living here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most abundant resources, should be forced to go hungry because of the intellectual notion of fiscal conservatism and the ideological notion of self-reliance.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I didn't risk my life in Afghanistan so I could come back and watch people go hungry in America. I certainly didn't risk it so I could come back and go hungry.

Anyone who genuinely supports cutting food stamps is not an intellectual or an ideologue -- they're a bully.

And nobody likes a bully. Except other bullies.

It's time for regular Americans to stand up to these bullies. Not cower in the corner, ashamed of needing help. Because if there's one thing life has taught me, it's that you never know when you'll be the one in need.

This post originally appeared on Jay's blog, the Sterling Road.

Veterans and Active MilitaryHardest Hit by Proposed Food Stamp Cuts!

Huffington Post Report Shows Dramatic Increase of Military Using Food Stamps | by Kristen Griffin

In a report issued on Monday, the Huffington Post found that Congress’ push to cut spending on supportive programs like food stamps would have a disastrous effect on veterans and active duty service members.

Recently, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or more commonly known as the food stamp program, has come under fire with such egregious abuses that have fueled the call for drastic cuts. Further, some Senators, in support of slashing the supportive program, cite that these types of aid garner long-term reliance. In short, some believe that the prevalence of aid “makes it okay” for families to rely on food stamps instead of trying to fix their situation. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/20/hardest-hit-by-proposed-food-stamp-cuts-veterans-and-active-military/

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business

About 115 million families pay an average of $6,000= $690,000,000,000.00

That's more than an insult—it's an attack. [It's 1% Class War waged on the 99%.]


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Free to Be Hungry

By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: September 22, 2013

The word “freedom” looms large in modern conservative rhetoric. Lobbying groups are given names like FreedomWorks; health reform is denounced not just for its cost but as an assault on, yes, freedom. Oh, and remember when we were supposed to refer to pommes frites as “freedom fries”?

The right’s definition of freedom, however, isn’t one that, say, F.D.R. would recognize. In particular, the third of his famous Four Freedoms — freedom from want — seems to have been turned on its head. Conservatives seem, in particular, to believe that freedom’s just another word for not enough to eat.

Hence the war on food stamps, which House Republicans have just voted to cut sharply even while voting to increase farm subsidies.

In a way, you can see why the food stamp program — or, to use its proper name, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) — has become a target. Conservatives are deeply committed to the view that the size of government has exploded under President Obama but face the awkward fact that public employment is down sharply, while overall spending has been falling fast as a share of G.D.P. SNAP, however, really has grown a lot, with enrollment rising from 26 million Americans in 2007 to almost 48 million now.

Conservatives look at this and see what, to their great disappointment, they can’t find elsewhere in the data: runaway, explosive growth in a government program. The rest of us, however, see a safety-net program doing exactly what it’s supposed to do: help more people in a time of widespread economic distress.

The recent growth of SNAP has indeed been unusual, but then so have the times, in the worst possible way. The Great (GOP) Recession of 2007-9 was the worst slump since the Great (GOP) Depression, and the recovery that followed has been very weak. Multiple careful economic studies have shown that the economic downturn explains the great bulk of the increase in food stamp use. And while the economic news has been generally bad, one piece of good news is that food stamps have at least mitigated the hardship, keeping millions of Americans out of poverty.

Nor is that the program’s only benefit. The evidence is now overwhelming that spending cuts in a depressed economy deepen the slump, yet government spending has been falling anyway. SNAP, however, is one program that has been expanding, and as such it has indirectly helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs.

But, say the usual suspects, the recession ended in 2009. Why hasn’t recovery brought the SNAP rolls down? The answer is, while the recession did indeed officially end in 2009, what we’ve had since then is a recovery of, by and for a small number of people at the top of the income distribution, with none of the gains trickling down to the less fortunate. Adjusted for inflation, the income of the top 1 percent rose 31 percent from 2009 to 2012, but the real income of the bottom 40 percent actually fell 6 percent. Why should food stamp usage have gone down?

Still, is SNAP in general a good idea? Or is it, as Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, puts it, an example of turning the safety net into “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.”

One answer is, some hammock: last year, average food stamp benefits were $4.45 a day. Also, about those “able-bodied people”: almost two-thirds of SNAP beneficiaries are children, the elderly or the disabled, and most of the rest are adults with children.

Beyond that, however, you might think that ensuring adequate nutrition for children, which is a large part of what SNAP does, actually makes it less, not more likely that those children will be poor and need public assistance when they grow up. And that’s what the evidence shows. The economists Hilary Hoynes and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach have studied the impact of the food stamp program in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was gradually rolled out across the country. They found that children who received early assistance grew up, on average, to be healthier and more productive adults than those who didn’t — and they were also, it turns out, less likely to turn to the safety net for help.

SNAP, in short, is public policy at its best. It not only helps those in need; it helps them help themselves. And it has done yeoman work in the economic crisis, mitigating suffering and protecting jobs at a time when all too many policy makers seem determined to do the opposite. So it tells you something that conservatives have singled out this of all programs for special ire.

Even some conservative pundits worry that the war on food stamps, especially combined with the vote to increase farm subsidies, is bad for the G.O.P., because it makes Republicans look like meanspirited class warriors. Indeed it does. And that’s because they are.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The Complete Guide To The GOP’s Three-Year Campaign To Shut Down The Government

By Igor Volsky on September 20, 2013 at 9:01 am

In November of 2010, GOP leaders informally polled the incoming freshman and were surprised to discover that “all but four of them said they would vote against raising the ceiling, under any circumstances.” This response was the result of what the Washington Post described as a “natural outgrowth of a years-long effort” by GOP recruiters to build a new majority with uncompromising anti-tax, anti-spending candidates and it effectively hamstrung Republican leaders from accepting any kind of budgetary compromise from the Obama administration.


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The GOP’s body snatchers By: Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl | September 20, 2013 05:00 AM EDT

In the classic 1956 sci-fi film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, an alien race comes to Earth and begins turning humans into “pod people.” Their bodies are left intact, but their minds are regrown, rending them humanoid robots under the aliens’ command. Unrecognizable to neighbors, the pod people take over until nothing is left of human society.

[I've been say this since Raygun]


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The Real Welfare Problem: Government Giveaways to the Corporate 1%


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Where to Cut the Federal Budget? Start by Killing Corporate Welfare

Most politicians want to cut the federal budget in theory. Few want to cut it in practice. So it is with corporate welfare, which is enthusiastically supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.

The federal budget is filled with outrageous, inappropriate, useless, counterproductive, and simply wasteful spending. Washington has become an endless soup kitchen for special interests, with a grant or loan seemingly available for every interest group with a letterhead and at least three members.

Yet Congress resists making even the smallest cut in federal outlays. Every program has a constituency which argues that its favorite expenditure is more important now than ever before. Never mind that the U.S. has been running trillion dollar deficits since 2009. Never mind that Social Security and Medicare have an unfunded liability in excess of $100 trillion. Never mind that America faces a fiscal crisis. Every program must be preserved, lest the world as we know it come to a disastrous end.

Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/08/20/where-to-cut-the-federal-budget-start-by-killing-corporate-welfare/

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

A step-by-step guide to what’s next in the government shutdown showdown

By Sean Sullivan, Published: September 20 at 11:21 am

Continuing resolutions and Obamacare and a shutdown. Oh my!

The House on Friday passed a measure that would keep government running and defund Obamacare, setting the stage for a flurry of activity in both chambers of Congress leading up to Sept. 30, the deadline for the federal government to replenish its funding.

So, what’s next? Several things — some which we know with more certainty than others. Below we explain how we anticipate the debate playing out on Capitol Hill, step by step, with the caveat that there are a lot of moving parts, and things could change in a hurry.


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

House Bill Links Health Care Law and Budget Plan WASHINGTON — House Republicans muscled through a stopgap bill Friday that would fund the government only if all spending for President Obama’s health care law is eliminated. Senate Democrats and President Obama quickly made it clear they had no intention of going along, putting the government on a course toward a shutdown unless one side relents.


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

Chuck Todd: It's Not Media's Job To Correct GOP's Obamacare Falsehoods (VIDEO) ~ [ Admitting Collusion ? ]

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 5 years ago

The House’s Un-American Activities

September 18, 2013 | Richard Eskow

The Constitution does an admirable job of describing the way our government is supposed to operate, and nowhere does it say the House of Representatives has the power to shut it down in order to revoke a law that displeases it. In fact, it makes it clear that this is not how our system works.

And yet that’s exactly what House Republicans under John Boehner and Eric Cantor are attempting to do, through a series of arcane procedural maneuvers that involve a continuing resolution this Friday and an upcoming fight over the government’s debt ceiling. The Republicans are attempting to use these administrative processes to revoke or neutralize duly enacted legislation, and perhaps to hijack the governance process in other ways as well.

The Constitution doesn’t give the House that kind of unilateral power. It does, however, include these words: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned … and all executive and judicial Officers … shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

What the Republicans are attempting to do is, therefore, both unconstitutional and a violation of their own sworn promise – an oath sworn on the Bible they claim to revere. Their consciences must decide whether their behavior is un-Godly, but the Constitution they swore to uphold makes it pretty plain that it’s un-American.

Veterans of Cold War red-baiting will remember the emotional charge carried by the phrase “un-American,” so we’ll define it carefully here: Working within our system of governance is, by definition, “American.” Opposing or impeding it is therefore un-American.

The last time the Republicans threatened to shut down the government they insisted we were in a “fiscal emergency,” which they erroneously claimed had been brought on by federal deficits. Republicans have never really been concerned about government debt, which is why it skyrocketed under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But deficits can be a useful rhetorical gambit for politicians pushing tax breaks for the wealthy.

The GOP’s shutdown blackmail was unconstitutional the last time they tried it, and it’s unconstitutional now. The nation is now discovering what many people suspected all along: If you give in to the demands of blackmailers, they’ll just keep asking for more and more.

Republicans certainly got what they were demanding the last time around. The deficit’s plunging at a faster rate than at any time since the massive demobilization that followed World War II, and is projected to be slightly more than half of what it was in 2009. That’s a Pyrrhic victory no politician should celebrate, since it has led to both higher unemployment and a lower gross domestic product.

This year Republicans aren’t even pretending to tie their shutdown threats to government spending. Instead they’re holding the government hostage over health care policy. Once you get beyond the rhetoric, that’s what “Obamacare” is: health care policy.

Health policy is now the issue over which Republicans are prepared to violate a sworn oath – and, depending on your personal beliefs, perhaps to endanger their immortal souls.

Fortunately, President Obama and his fellow Democrats appear to be standing firm this time and insisting that there will be no negotiations. They’re right – not because of the specific policy in question, but because they’re honoring their oaths to protect the Constitution.

If you’re a Republican and you’re tempted to write something heated right now, stop for a moment and consider: What if Nancy Pelosi’s House had threatened to shut down the entire federal government unless President Bush and the Senate agreed to implement government-funded universal health care?

Would you have been okay with that?

Many people think government-administered health care for all is smart policy. Every other developed nation on Earth has a system like that, after all, and every one of them pays far less in health care costs for much better coverage than we do. The economic data suggests that most Americans, and most private enterprises, would be much better off if Pelosi’s Democrats had done exactly that.

But I suspect that most of us who support single-payer health care are nevertheless glad it wasn’t imposed through a legislative coup d’état like the one Republicans are trying to orchestrate.

We don’t know yet how this latest GOP gambit will play out. The extremists who run the Republican Party may or may not win Friday’s vote. Or they may concede on the continuing resolution, only to defer the hostage-taking to the upcoming debt-ceiling fight. Whatever happens, let’s hope the Democrats keep refusing to negotiate. The Constitution demands no less of them.

The Republicans lost. They lost the health care debate, which is why the law was passed. They lost two out of three branches of government in the 2012 election. (They lost the House too, by 1.4 million votes, but gerrymandering kept them in power.) They’ve lost politically, and they’ve lost constitutionally. They must not be allowed to trample on our system of government, to win by cheating what they lost under our system of government.

The cynical extremists running the GOP may very well think that elected officials who respect our country’s democratic processes are suckers, Marquis of Queensbury fighters who don’t know how to win. They’re wrong. They won’t win this way. They won’t win morally, and in the end they won’t win politically. There’s another, better word for the kind of people who prefer to play by the Constitution’s rules: