I generally like your posts even if I disagree, but a few things here.
I will reply to both you and bama_wayne.
The ACA act was made into law, which had funding and taxation requirements that would pay for it.
Note the President lied and said it wasn't a tax until the Supreme Court said it was.
The 2013 budget is a series of piecemeal funding legislation and eventual continuing resolution of the 2012 budget. Both the Senate and House made budgets, but neither were even close to resembling something realistic.
Did Obama make a budget? Did it get voted on? I believe the Constitution mandates the PRESIDENT is supposed to go first on this thing but perhaps I'm in error on that. I know those were the rules when Congress demanded Bush 41 raise taxes back in 1990. (And btw - if you want to see why Republicans don't trust Democrats on the budget look no further than there and 1982).
The time for negotiation was then, not now when we are in essence having put a good bit of our expenditures on credit card,
Like the $16 trillion that's already on the Visa?
and now that the bill is due, we are just saying "Nope. I don't wanna pay unless you give me a pony, a unicorn, and whatever else I want."
Actually, that's not at all what's going on since the money is going to be borrowed anyway. Make no mistake - I concur with much of what you say regarding the whole thing, but I'm not going to let Democratic talking points simply slip by without a response any more than I will the Republican ones.
Re: Money to pay for it.
The Democrats are too weak willed to come after the Republican holy grail.
Really?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/14/politics/congress-spending-cuts/index.html
The package made public by
Senate Democratic leaders calls for replacing the so-called sequester cuts with a combination of increased tax revenue from millionaires, ending agriculture subsidies and
reducing defense spending after the war in Afghanistan ends.
Now I don't know how it can get any plainer than this. You're saying they won't go after it - and that's EXACTLY what they did because it's what they always do. This was to halt sequester, yes, but it's the same principle.
Defense spending gets ridiculous amounts of money
Do you think Social Security and Medicare get ridiculous amounts of money? After all - they make up a larger portion EACH ONE of them than Defense.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
The Democratic attack on "wasteful bombs and missiles" is just as predictable as the Republican attack on welfare queens who drive Cadillacs.
and has continued to get funded at levels higher than the DoD asked for (except for after the sequestration, which was an across the board cut).
Having worked in the DoD for 13 years, I HIGHLY doubt this is true. I'm sure they were told to submit lesser amounts and then the Democrats went, "See, they don't need all that money." I actually agree there are a TON of wasteful things in defense we can toss overboard (Tops in Blue is a great example, flyovers too) but let's not pretend the DoD did this all on its own.
The point is, that there is a significant amount of money that could be saved just by not blowing other people up.
How many people have we blown up lately? Oh and btw - how many of those were at the direction of the Head Clown? Oh that's right since he's the Commander in Chief...ALL of them!!!! Libya, Arab Spring, blah blah blah
And how much you think that mission into Pakistan to whack Bin Laden cost? Wait a second because I'll have more to say about that in a second.
But Obama and the Democrats are too cowed by the fact that the Democrats, Republicans, TSA, NSA, CIA, and Fox News have convinced all Americans that not only is terrorism real,
Well if terrorism isn't real then why did the Head Clown send Seal Team Six over to Pakistan? When was the last time Bin Laden attacked us? The guy was living a peaceful life for ten years and never hurt anybody. Sure, he had that one really big attack but nothing since then. Why waste money getting him, right?
but you are just a few tapped phone calls
This used to bother Democrats....
when Bush was doing it. I'm just saying.
and underwear bombs from never seeing your precious children ever again.4
This sure does sound a LOT like some anti-gun rhetoric out of the White House.
"As long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns, then we've got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children ... to do more work to make it harder," (Barack Insane Obama,
nine days ago)
All that being said, if Obamacare hadn't been about to turn on (and technically actually turned on today) I seriously doubt that the Republicans would be throwing a hissy fit, even though the budget technically would have still been increasing the national debt.
Agree totally with you here. Of course, if there wasn't fear of what the electorate would do to them, you'd think the Democratic controlled Senate would have passed a budget sometime in the prior four years, too - right?
With or without Obamacare the budget for 2013 operated under a deficit. So to say that this is purely over fiscal responsibility because we are operating under a deficit is misleading at best. Where were all these stalwart fiscal hawks when we put two wars on credit card?
Well, at least they weren't for the war before they were against it - like a certain Secretary of State I know. (Sorry man, just couldn't pass that one up).
That the Republican Party is in "poser mode" here is something I don't dispute for one nanosecond. Then again - so is the President. He keeps saying he's "for cuts" in entitlement programs he knows full well the Democrats will never approve (which is the only reason he says it) but as is always the case with them - he wants an immediate increase in taxes but wants the cuts to start two years or more down the line. That happened in 1982, 1990, and 1993 - and the only reason anything got cut was that Gingrich and Company opted to impose the 1995 cuts when they took over.
The fact is there's nobody worth a flip in this whole thing, everybody is posing, and it's little more than a political version of the WWE.
In the end, everything will work out and as I noted, nothing will really change. Nobody will win or lose their next election based on this. Seriously. Not one.
