PDA

View Full Version : We Need Time for the Lobbyists



Buzz
09-23-2009, 04:46 PM
This is pretty telling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOyFt8pt0Hw&feature=player_embedded

YardleyLabs
09-23-2009, 09:56 PM
The bill has actually been available for a few days already. However, more than 500 amendments have been submitted, each of which will be discussed and tabled or voted on. The language will be changed through amendments every single day that the bill is under consideration. If you extended the time period another three days, there would be three more days of changes, the last several of which would probably be for more bridges in Alaska or Mississippi. By the time a final vote is held, anyone that wants to will have read the bill several times and heard each amendment along the way. By its nature, however, nothing about the legislative process stands still for 72 hours, including the most expensive, unfinanced set of tax cuts in the history of our nation.

TXduckdog
09-24-2009, 11:45 AM
The bill has actually been available for a few days already. However, more than 500 amendments have been submitted, each of which will be discussed and tabled or voted on. The language will be changed through amendments every single day that the bill is under consideration. If you extended the time period another three days, there would be three more days of changes, the last several of which would probably be for more bridges in Alaska or Mississippi. By the time a final vote is held, anyone that wants to will have read the bill several times and heard each amendment along the way. By its nature, however, nothing about the legislative process stands still for 72 hours, including the most expensive, unfinanced set of tax cuts in the history of our nation.


How expensive can tax cuts be, hmmmm?

Uncle Bill
09-24-2009, 11:57 AM
The bill has actually been available for a few days already. However, more than 500 amendments have been submitted, each of which will be discussed and tabled or voted on. The language will be changed through amendments every single day that the bill is under consideration. If you extended the time period another three days, there would be three more days of changes, the last several of which would probably be for more bridges in Alaska or Mississippi. By the time a final vote is held, anyone that wants to will have read the bill several times and heard each amendment along the way. By its nature, however, nothing about the legislative process stands still for 72 hours, including the most expensive, unfinanced set of tax cuts in the history of our nation.


What stops you from paying in extra, so you'll FEEL GOOD about paying your fair share. Don't worry. The oppression of HEAVY taxes will begin soon, so you should be delighted. As hypocrites go, you strike me as being the most hyp.

But then, we don't know if or how much you pay for your 'fair share' now, do we? So how could we know if the previous tax cuts lowered your burden any, as it did mine. You may have been dodging them already, so it would make sense to get the 'other' guy to pay for your shortfall.

Soon this nation will fall into the abyss you and your fellow 'messiah lobbyists' have been in favor of, and the various 'haves' will shrug, so it will be up to you to try to put Humpty Dumpty together again. It will be something to behold, I'm sure. Obama's brother's hut will be just what you can be looking forward to, because YOU will be paying for the programs of your corrupt leadership. May your children have pity for your soul.

UB

YardleyLabs
09-24-2009, 12:02 PM
How expensive can tax cuts be, hmmmm?
A deficit is a deficit whether it comes from tax cuts or spending. If you want to increase spending, increase revenues. If you want to cut taxes, cut spending. There are valid economic reasons for running a deficit to stimulate growth when the economy is shrinking. The are good reasons for the government to run a surplus to slow things down when the economy is growing too fast. Other than that, there is no good justification for not paying the bills on time, whether it it for tax cuts, a war in Iraq, or national health care. Anything else is voodoo economics. Bush played the game of voodoo economics and we will be paying the bills for years. Obama's budget proposals for the future call for more voodoo economics and will deserve the same contempt if he coninues down that road. However, I do consider the deificits being incurred now to be unfortunately necessary to counter balance the recession.

Henry V
09-24-2009, 12:16 PM
Soon this nation will fall into the abyss ......
UB
No, that happened about a year ago when the entire financial system was about to collapse. Seems like we are now trying to dig out.

How's that socialized medicare program working these days UB?

Bruce MacPherson
09-24-2009, 12:25 PM
How expensive can tax cuts be, hmmmm?

Great question/ answer. To a progressive there is no possible way to cut taxes and raise revenue. They just can't get their head around the concept. When Regan did it revenue went up. When Bush did it revenue went up. It's never your revenue that get's you in trouble, of course unless you have none, a strategy this administration seems bent on pursuing, it's your expenditures.

Bruce MacPherson
09-24-2009, 12:34 PM
This is pretty telling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOyFt8pt0Hw&feature=player_embedded

Lobbyists are the entire problem, not. Both sides have them, I pay money to groups that lobby to protect my interests. While we live in a representative democracy it doesn't mean we are necessarily represented. What are my options, just go complacently along with what I think are terrible ideas?

Buzz
09-24-2009, 03:47 PM
Lobbyists are the entire problem, not. Both sides have them, I pay money to groups that lobby to protect my interests. While we live in a representative democracy it doesn't mean we are necessarily represented. What are my options, just go complacently along with what I think are terrible ideas?

Both sides have them? Exactly what sides are there? How much money do you think each side has to spend, on a relative basis?

Bruce MacPherson
09-24-2009, 06:17 PM
Both sides have them? Exactly what sides are there? How much money do you think each side has to spend, on a relative basis?


Perhaps the word sides is problematic for you. Let's just say that lobbyists are available for almost every special interest or advocacy group. many of these groups represent ideas that I believe in many represent ideas I do not. As far as what each side has to spend, why could it possibly matter all I care about is that my side can do a more effective job than their side.