Just one?? Here, take three!

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

Then let it be incredible. Why is waste not waste if wasting has been going on?? Why is abuse not abuse if it's happened across elections?? Are you saying that if I can get away with a crime once, I can use that as my defense for getting caught later?

What I find lacking credibility is your berating me for being upset at my own government. Aim your nose elsewhere.

Waste is still waste, abuse is still abuse - what has changed is that you and Hoppy are picking up on every instance now whereas you were not before.

Am I not, as a member of this forum, allowed to comment? Especially when there's so much of it.

Enough! I'll say no more :-(

[Accountable]

I will take credit for my infinitesimal part in this.

House Leaders to Scale Back Funding for Air Force Jets - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- House leaders are dropping plans to spend $330 million on Air Force passenger planes for use by senior government officials that were not requested by the Pentagon.

Instead, the House will only seek $220 million to purchase one Gulfstream plane and three Boeing aircraft, as originally proposed by Department of Defense officials.

[BTS]

Originally Posted by Bryn Mawr

If it is normal practice then it is not reprehensible.

That's what I like about ya ol Brin..........

You just say Bend Over And Take it....

[BTS]

Things that go "BUMP" in the knight

Originally Posted by Accountable

You're kidding, right? Search my posts. I seem to remember a time or two that I opined that both of our controlling parties are *****.


Re: Just one?? Here, take three!
You're kidding, right? Search my posts. I seem to remember a time or two that I opined that both of our controlling parties are *****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
I always find it amusing when people actually believe there's a difference between the Democrat and Republican parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
Here's a question for those that are still under the delusion that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are separate entities with opposing views and goals:

Why is the bi-partisan, bicameral approach to "fixing" this government-created crisis focused on the corporate end without any consideration given to the citizens who have supposedly been duped & hoodwinked by those corporations? Isn't Obama yakking in his speeches about a "trickle-up" approach to the economy?

The Trickle-Up Bailout
By Jonathan G.S. Koppell and William N. Goetzmann
Wednesday, October 1, 2008; Page A17


The theory underlying the bailout plan stalled in Congress is that rescuing the finance industry will restore market stability and that the benefits will eventually trickle down to average Americans. Thus, solving the subprime mortgage crisis has morphed into a much larger challenge: reassembling the architecture of the financial markets, which seemingly requires giving the Treasury secretary nearly a trillion dollars and extraordinary latitude to pick winners and losers.

There is an easier and more politically palatable fix: Pay off all the delinquent mortgages.
(continues ... )



Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable

I think it's time for new party mascots!


Attachment 26148
REPUBLICAN


Attachment 26149
DEMOCRAT




Of course, they're interchangeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
... or Obama/Biden. Agreed. You of course acknowledge that it's on both sides, right??

No, only that not everyone is racist, as you apparently assume.

I agree about this country. I can't speak on other countries.

Yes, both of the major parties think the public are idiots. Republicans think we buy their crap about wanting smaller gov't; Democrats think we're too stupid to take care of our own affairs and need gov't to make decisions for us.

And you see the democrats' idea of centralizing everything under the federal umbrella as more "American" ?? Come on!

It was opportunism. The same would have happened if Obama's preacher was that white catholic priest screaming about Hillary.

I can't take anything either of them say seriously.

Agreed. They're moving further to the left every election. That big government power is an addictive drug.

'kay. If that's what you think you're doing. I only see you screaming conspiracy and turning people off. How are you educating people who turn away?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
US citizens, these are the people responsible for squandering our money ... this time. Find your representative(s) and find out how they voted. If you don't agree with their vote, FIRE THEM!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

House Financial Services Committee

Chairman Barney Frank represents Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District. The other Democratic members of the Committee are:
Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, PA
Rep. Maxine Waters, CA
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, NY
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, IL
Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, NY
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, NC
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, NY
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, NY
Rep. Dennis Moore, KS
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, MA
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX
Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, NY
Rep. Joe Baca, CA
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
Rep. Brad Miller, NC
Rep. David Scott, GA
Rep. Al Green, TX
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
Rep. Melissa L. Bean, IL
Rep. Gwen Moore, WI
Rep. Lincoln Davis, TN
Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
Rep. Keith Ellison, MN
Rep. Ron Klein, FL
Rep. Tim Mahoney, FL
Rep. Charles Wilson, OH
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO
Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, CT
Rep. Joe Donnelly, IN
Rep. Bill Foster, IL
Rep. Andre Carson, IN
Rep. Jackie Speier, CA
Rep. Don Cazayoux, LA
Rep. Travis Childers, MS

Republican Members

Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL
Rep. Deborah Pryce, OH
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE
Rep. Peter King, NY
Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK
Rep. Ron Paul, TX
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, OH
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL
Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC
Rep. Judy Biggert, IL
Rep. Christopher Shays, CT
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Rep. Tom Feeney, FL
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX
Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, FL
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA
Rep. Stevan Pearce, NM
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX
Rep. Tom Price, GA
Rep. Geoff Davis, KY
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
Rep. John Campbell, CA
Rep. Adam Putnam, FL
Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN
Rep. Peter J. Roskam, IL
Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, MI
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, CA
Rep. Dean Heller, NV

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senate Banking Committee

Democrat

Christopher J. Dodd Chairman (D-CT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Robert P. Casey (D-PA)
Jon Tester (D-MT)

Republican

Richard C. Shelby Ranking Member (R-AL)
Robert F. Bennett (R-UT)
Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Bob Corker (R-TN)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
He's the only one I've found in Washington that gives a tinker's damn about the Constitution. Everyone else, on both sides of the aisle, are bought and paid for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
Keeping the Democratic-Republican monopoly in federal government means business as usual. If you're cool with that, fine. If you're not, voting for a different Democratic-Repulican only changes faces, not directions.

Voting Democrat or Republican keeps us going toward the same destination, only changes which lane we're driving on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
People, vote for the person you judge to be most qualified to be President, PERIOD! Stop buying into the myth that you have to vote either Republican or Democrat.

Now that neither candidate is worth warm spit, the used party salesmen are trying to say it matters because the President nominates Supreme Court Justice, and you don't want 'the other side' making such important decisions!

Bullshit. Ther is no 'other side' when it comes to our party with two names.

Here's how much it matters who decides on Supreme Court Justice. The latest big decision is whether a state will be allowed their right under the Constitution how they will punish child rapists:
For allowing states their constitutional right to punish child rapists with the death penalty:

John G. Roberts, Jr
Nominated by President George W. Bush

Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr
Nominated by President George W. Bush

Antonin Scalia
Nominated by President Reagan

Clarence Thomas
Nominated by President GHW Bush


Against allowing states their constitutional right to punish child rapists with the death penalty:

John Paul Stevens
Nominated by President Ford

Anthony M. Kennedy
Nominated by President Reagan

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Nominated by President Clinton

Stephen G. Breyer
Nominated by President Clinton

David Hackett Souter
Nominated by President GHW Bush
Link to Story
Link to Supreme Court

See our political system for what it has become. Find a second party to help blow away the smoke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
That's hardly fair and you know it. In case you don't want your prejudices rocked, avert your eyes a sec. Fox spent a good portion of their program this morning discussing how the Senate - that's the entire Senate of both sides of our corrupt monopolistic party with two names - knew about the issue for weeks without making it public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
I think the line-item veto issue is a farce, a scam, a distraction, ..... stupid.

If any politician was serious about stopping secret pork projects, they would require separate bills for each law. That way, the Pres could veto the bad bits (or at least a pres, since Bush doesn't know how to veto).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

House to Vote on Presidential Line-Item Veto Power

Houston Chronicle

Julie Mason
June 22, 2006

Jun. 22--WASHINGTON -- The White House on Wednesday intensified a last-minute campaign to win line-item veto authority from Congress, but a top administration official conceded that the outcome was far from certain.
The House today is expected to vote on a bill that would allow the president to red-line specific expenditures in appropriation bills.

"It's not going to be easy to get this to the president's desk," said Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget. "This is a major change."

Portman, a former Republican congressman from Ohio, has been pushing the issue on Capitol Hill, and on Wednesday met with reporters from 13 regional newspapers, hoping to drum up more support for the plan.

"This is not about President Bush, this is something that's for the presidency," Portman said. "Forty-three governors have something quite similar to this, so it's not untested."

Congress in 1996 gave President Clinton line-item veto power, but two years later the courts struck it down as unconstitutional, in part because it gave too much power to the executive branch.

Complete story

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
The democrats and republicans are side-by-side near the left end of that continuum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
I would be surprised to find out that Obama has true vision beyond election/reelection/legacy. I believe he would ruin American culture and traditions in the long term to be seen in a positive light short-term. In that way he's no different from any recent president (post-GHW Bush).

I haven't heard 'tax & spend' in years. The repubs know they're on thin ice in summer on that issue.

I don't know how long the concept's been around, but in Washington the term "spending cuts" means a reduction in the rate of increase of spending. Congress came up with this nifty idea to put automatic budget increases in all their spending packages, so that the suck up more and more tax revenue automatically. They say it's not an increase since it is already planned. So when they want to look magnanimous, they reduce next year's increase in a pragram or two and crow about how they've reduced spending.
You won't see true spending cuts in Washington any time soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
I worked hard to get everything lined up right and the FG automatic editor dropped all the spaces out. Anywhoo here's the link:

U.S. Senate Vote Results for the Financial Rescue Plan (Table) - Bloomberg.com

Both of my senators voted YES. They have lost any chance of getting my vote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. Senate Vote Results for the Financial Rescue Plan (Table)
By Michael Forsythe
Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Following is the final vote for the financial rescue plan from the U.S. Senate.

================================================== ==========================
Dem., Ind. Term Financial Rescue Plan
Senator or Rep. Expires For Against
================================================== ===========
Democrats 49 n/a 39 9
Republicans 49 n/a 34 15
Independent 2 n/a 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
I was watching a financial channel yesterday, and a couple of guys on the panel think that the $700 billion plan is a setup, so that McCain can come in, oppose an unpopular president, reach across the aisle in bipartisan maverick fashion, and save the day. Why else would they loudly announce an agreement without first conferring with House Republicans?

On another pundit show, a political strategist called McCain's handlers geniuses for this master stroke maneuver of disagreeing with spending the $700b. The democrats would be afraid of fighting him because it would look like they were too eager to spend the money. Whether they fought or not, it would put Obama in a strained position for tonight's debate, which McCain will miraculously find a spare moment to attend.

Plausible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
Yes I do, absolutely. Never mind that they are both great ideas, especially that last one (gave me chills).

Look around. You're right what you say about marketing, yet you believe their marketing even as you talk about how sneaky (I can't remember the better word ) it can be. The "Conservatives", or those that currently claim the title in the gov't, want to rule the world. Ya can't rule the world with small gov't. Gov't grows no matter who's in charge.

Gun ownership has become just another wedge issue. It's a right. Let that go. Just as any other right, this one can be abused. Punish those guys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
*sigh* If you're talking about the federal gov't, democrats have had chances. They're just as good at fleecing as Republicans.

Holler at your state legislatures. You might have more luck. If a state places price caps imagine the additional revenue from neighboring states as people come looking for lower prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Accountable
Call them Democrat, please. They're no more democratic than the Republicans.

There are lots more, but I've got better things to do.
__________________



















There are lots more, but I've got better things to do.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by BTS

That's what I like about ya ol Brin..........

You just say Bend Over And Take it....

If you read the thread then what I was saying is that, if you didn't complain about the last lot doing it then why start now.

If you bent over and took it then .....

[Accountable]

I don't recall the "last lot" chastising executives for using their legally purchased private luxury jets for business travel, then trying to spend more money than was requested to buy extra luxury jets so that they may use them for business travel.


But my memory's not what it used to be.

[Bryn Mawr]

Originally Posted by Accountable

I don't recall the "last lot" chastising executives for using their legally purchased private luxury jets for business travel, then trying to spend more money than was requested to buy extra luxury jets so that they may use them for business travel.


But my memory's not what it used to be.

No argument Acc - had it not been for BTS's snidey little insinuation I would have said no more.