Skip to main content

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor speaks at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Illinois, October 28, 2011. REUTERS/John Gress (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)
Who could imagine a group allied with him would push lies?
Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is getting some backup for his opposition to Jack Lew, President Obama's nominee to be Treasury secretary, in the "Young Guns Network." The group, allied with Majority Leader Eric Cantor, launched a "Spending Hullaba-Lew" page (yes, they are that unsubtle—what do you expect from a group that thinks it's cool to call themselves "young guns"?), “10 Questions on Spending & Debt for the Obama Administration & Treasury Nominee Jack Lew.”

And, yes, the questions are as predictable and silly as you would expect. And as blatantly dishonest as you would expect. Like this one:

4. Has The Obama Administration Ignored Paying Off Old Bills, Instead Using The Debt Ceiling Increase On New Spending? If Not, What Past Bills Did The Obama Administration Pay With The Last Debt Ceiling Agreement (Considering Our Debt INCREASED Since Its Passage)?
These guys used to work for Cantor, they know how the debt ceiling works and they know that the debt ceiling needs to be raised to pay for the spending that Congress has already authorized.

And then there's this one:

5. As President Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Will Jack Lew Ensure That Using Past Bipartisan Debt Reduction Agreements As Precedent Remains “The Right Way To Do It”?  If So, What Spending Cuts And Entitlement Reforms Will The Administration Be Open To Negotiating?
House Republicans still haven't released what specific spending cuts to entitlements they want, so to that one, show us yours first, young guns.

If nothing else, it's a good preview of the rhetoric we're going to be seeing coming from the Republicans over the interminable fights they're going to create over the next sequester fight, the debt ceiling negotiations, and the Lew confirmation.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (18+ / 0-)

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:18:48 PM PST

  •  Probably more "Kabuki Theater. . .." (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pragmatus, mindara, wasatch, howd, thomask

    This tactic allows Repubs to pander to, and solicit donations from their "Teaparty Base."

    They also reap one other benefit, which I've already observed all over the left blogosphere.

    Repubs could not possibly be that unhappy over Lew's nomination (fiscal hawk, that he is).  So, they hope that their public objections to him (and apparently it's working), will activate the liberal base to "fight for Lew."  

    In the end, it's a 'win-win situation' for both Republicans and the Administration.

    Mollie

    “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

    by musiccitymollie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:25:42 AM PST

    •  If the gun is TOO young... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mindara, Ginny in CO

      ...it is very, very tiny.

      I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

      by Pragmatus on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:55:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  However, if it is too old, very rusty? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        1Nic Ven

        Remember the 70 year old Coors dude who ran against Ed Perlmutter for CO 7?  He was considered one of those young guns - because he was going to win, of course!

        Lamest, stupidest campaign next to Mittens.

        As far as question #4,

        ...What Past Bills Did The Obama Administration Pay With The Last Debt Ceiling Agreement (Considering Our Debt INCREASED Since Its Passage)?
        Are they referring to the increase from our interest rate being RAISED after they made the debt increase a hostage and or credit was downgraded for their juvenile tactics?

        Well, hopefully Timmy kept the gov check register properly filled out so he can tell them what got paid and who is still wanting checks by EFT.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:44:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Young-uns." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rolet, Gooserock, mindara

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:48:18 PM PST

  •  I think these guys are setting themselves up (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rolet, Pragmatus, mindara, Icicle68, NCJan

    for a great big fall.
        Lies, like milk have an expiration date.

        Their stuff is smelling nastier all the time.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:48:43 PM PST

    •  They are heading off a cliff (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ginny in CO, elwior

      Every one of Obama's cabinet nominations except Kerry gets obstructed?  

      You know, Kerry, the one they think they had a hand in selecting?

      Do they really think it isn't obvious?

      Do they really think they can pull it off?

      What's their game anyway, if it isn't Masterpiece Seppuku Theater?

      "Historically, the most terrible things--war, genocide and slavery--have resulted not from disobedience, but from obedience." --Howard Zinn

      by NCJan on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:14:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They need to make a proposal and make it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pragmatus, mindara

    public.

    Or, perhaps, sequester is their proposal.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:53:34 PM PST

  •  Young Guns Network need control as they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pragmatus, mindara

    jump on unspecified spending cuts to entitlements, without dignifying them by using their names.

    Politifact, the lie of the year is. - Yoda

    by gakke on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:57:58 PM PST

    •  They can't show suggestions they don't really have (0+ / 0-)

      and that's why they keep asking for the suggestions of others, especially from those whom they hope they will thereafter meet in confirmation hearings, so they can decide whether they want that person to have any voice at all in the fiscal battles to come. Wouldn't do for them to approve or allow to be approved anybody who would fight for Obama's position.

  •  Let's hope for that: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mindara, wasatch, mmacdDE
    House Republicans still haven't released what specific spending cuts to entitlements they want, so to that one, show us yours first,
    There's no reason whatsoever for Dems to put anything at all on the table. Make Repubs own every headline about cutting Social Security and Medicare.

    And then don't give it to them.

    Not just from vengeance over their past behavior. Their plan is to share the stink of screwing over the entitled with us. We could tout a "bipartisan compromise" as some kind of Beltway win, but the damage done to the democratic brand, and the human beings who'll be screwed... that's the definition of "Pyrrhic victory."


    Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

    by Jim P on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:58:51 PM PST

    •  And yet with each new hostage-taking situation (0+ / 0-)

      Obama simply can't avoid offering such specific cuts, like CCPI or raising the age to 67,  presumably to look "serious", which is really stupid politically unless he has other reasons for doing it.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:32:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  kovie, I respectfully disagree. After all, poll (0+ / 0-)

        after poll shows that "the American people" do not want these cuts.  You'd agree, right, that it is not just Democrats that oppose the cuts?

        So, who is it that the President wants "to look serious to?"  

        The smartest thing (not to mention the best policy) that he could do is tell Republicans and "the American people" that cuts to the social safety insurance programs are simply unacceptable.  Period.  End of story.

        [But, to each their own.  You obviously have the right to think that he needs to do otherwise.]

        Mollie

        “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

        by musiccitymollie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:45:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you might misinterpret (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie

          the comment. I think it was aimed at the foolishness of looking "serious" not a rationale for going along with cuts.

          Maybe I'm wrong on that.

          But looking "serious" to a bunch of clowns, which is what the entire Beltway is... well, there's only one way you look when meeting clown standards.


          Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

          by Jim P on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:55:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Of course Americans don't want these cuts (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ginny in CO, citylights, Jim P

          But apparently Dems have fallen for the beltway CW that there's this politically significant group of indie centrists who DO want these cuts and view pols who are "willing" to cut them as "serious" and "responsible" and vote for them in droves. Which I think is wrong. There are such people, but not many of them, and most of them are either going to vote GOP no matter how accomodating Dems are to Repubs, or claim to want these cuts in theory, but would turn on anyone who actually cut them if it happened. This is an extremely unreliable group of voters for Dems and it's a fool's errand to go after them, especially this way. You won't get most of them, and you'll lose many more on your side than you'll gain among them. It's like trying to see the back of your neck on a mirror by spinning around REAL fast--you'll only look stupid and hurt your neck.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:18:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah that's one of our big mistakes... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim P, NCJan, howd, mmacdDE

      We (Democrats), wanting to structure a deal that we think will pass, volunteer cuts. The Republicans then say "Look they want to cut (insert benevolent program here)!"
      We shouldn't volunteer a damn thing. If they want the cuts, let them name them.

      Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

      by Icicle68 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:34:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And never get them either. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        howd

        If the House refuses to legislate, throw the nation into peril, let it be on their heads. Voters won't be confused except the already die-hard Republicans.


        Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

        by Jim P on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:53:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the trouble with their 'no plan from them' (0+ / 0-)

          strategy, save the now voted down Ryan plan. They keep insisting that all fiscal bills must originate in the House, which means them, and the last thing they want to do is to have to state their actual intentions, not somehow recognizing that if they don't put it in a bill, it will not be enacted under their own rule.

          •  It's not what they keep insisting (0+ / 0-)

            It's the way the constitution is written.

            Money bills must originate in the house. Of course, any house bill that makes it to the senate can be totally rewritten and sent back, so such a bill would have originated in the house.

            Just not in remotely the form it returned from the senate.

      •  Yes, we should pull their tricks (0+ / 0-)

        And I think Obama is starting to do that.

        Just say 'we'd consider some cuts, what do you have in mind?'

        Which, of course, gets.... Crickets.

  •  Wtf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE

    Do any of those have to do with the Treasury Secretary?   That's like saying, has Eric Shinseki done everything he can to curb partial birth abortion?

  •  What's with the capitalizing of every word? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    simple serf, lotac

    Is that supposed to make it look more serious? If so, it's a fail. It's also harder to read.

  •  Of course, this only obscures (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    birdboy2000, Wes Clark Democrat

    the substantive reasons to oppose Jack Lew:

    Treasury nominee Jacob Lew is a big part of the banking problem
    1/11/2013 by Chris in Paris
    AMERICAblog

    Timothy Geithner was often criticized for being intimately involved in the failed Wall Street bailout.  Obama’s choice to replace him as Treasury Secretary, Jacob Lew, may be even worse.

    While Geithner was working out the plan to rescue the lifestyles of the rich and famous, Jacob Lew was one of the rich and famous being rescued.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:05:52 PM PST

    •  Being rich and famous doesn't by itself (0+ / 0-)

      disqualify someone from being fit for the job, or else we'd all be hating on Al Gore and John Kerry.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:28:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But IMHO, his union busting past (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Simplify

        disqualifies him as someone who would represent my interests.

        http://www.salon.com/...

        •  How much impact does the Treasury sec (0+ / 0-)

          have on labor policy, vs. Labor, Commerce or the Trade Rep?

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:19:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Geithner's policies (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citylights

            have had a tremendously negative economic effect on working men and women.  Lew's past hostility towards labor is one indication that those policies will continue.

            Both Geithner and Lew represent the interests of the financial sector over the vast majority.

            •  I think we long ago had to abandon the illusion (0+ / 0-)

              that Obama was anything more than an establishmentarian incrementalist, so this is just par for the course. Better a competent than an incompetent one, I suppose. Anyone looking for a serious and viable alternative to what the two party system has to offer is really on the wrong site.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:07:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then who are YOU suggesting who is perfect on all (0+ / 0-)

                points, and can be confirmed? It's not enough around here to dislike everything O does, without having namable alternatives.

              •  But why should we hold back (0+ / 0-)

                on advocating for the people and policies that best represent what we think is right for the country? Out of fear of giving the Tea Party a feathers their caps?

                Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

                by Simplify on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:18:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because it won't be listened to (0+ / 0-)

                  He doesn't like or respect the left, and seems to think that by going against it, he scores points with Joe the Plumber types. Hey, look, I'm willing to cut SS! I'm a serious person, unlike these crazy lefties! Take me seriously!

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 05:52:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  They are really making me sick (0+ / 0-)

    and tired....
    They know all SPENDING bills must originate in the House of Representatives. They should be directing these questions to the House majority.
    The Executive branch,  or President Obama, is charged with carrying out the budget appropriations and/or spending direction(s) issued by congress.
    Raising the debt limit is necessitated to pay for past congressional actions.
    I am really getting tired of typing these statements over-and-over again...
    they cant be that stupid, so they must be deceiving on purpose...right?
    Sigh...

    •  Yep, and somehow I don't think they want Nancy (0+ / 0-)

      to introduce anything, pointing out each time that this is O's plan. That still won't get them any bills initiated in the House, because they hate Nancy a lot more even than they hate Obama.

  •  Oh my god, they need to just grow the fuck up... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citylights

    And get their lazy asses into the House and pass a clean Sandy relief bill. One Sandy relief bill. And stop holding the people of NY & NJ hostage. It's been two months, which is unconscionable. Aid for Katrina was passed in like, what? 10 days? Or, keep obstructing passage of Sandy relief, keep slashing the amount (cause that's what you all did for the many Katrina relief bills you passed, right?) and keep trying to force matching spending cuts from our social safety net...go ahead. The optics are beautiful!

    Oh and you need to put your spending cuts on the table first. How many times do we have to play this silly little game before you all realize the Democrats aren't going to take the oh so obvious bait? And how about having the balls to ask the President and the House Democratic caucus these questions in person, like adults do and not on FB.

    As for Jack Lew, he'll be happy to answer any questions you might have for him during his conformation hearing.  

     

    "Enough" Gabby Giffords

    by mindara on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:21:54 PM PST

  •  What Fatuous Horseshit (5+ / 0-)
    1. Why Haven’t President Obama’s Deficits Gone Down “Considerably,” Despite YOUR Projections That They Will?  Is The Federal Government SPENDING Too Much?
    On the contrary, the government is spending too little.  The nation is still in the midst of an enormous economic recession, which has depressed tax revenues (or hadn't you noticed?).
    2. Has the Obama Administration Confronted The Deficit & Spending ‘Head-On?
    Yes, he has, and has been met by Deficit Peacocks and Disaster Capitalists who insist on defunding and "reforming" the wrong things.
    Are The Obama Administration’s Deficits Threatening Our Future?
    No more than Bush the Lesser's deficits.  Or Bush senior's.  Or Ronald Reagan's.  Or Bill Clinton's...  Oh, wait, Clinton didn't leave a deficit.
    3. President Obama Stated That He Won’t Negotiate With Congress To Cut Spending Around The Debt Limit.  Do You Still Believe Congress “Can’t Be Written Out Of The Process?”  If So, Is The President Prepared to Negotiate On Spending Cuts Asked For By The Congress?
    The President has always been prepared to negotiate -- too much, some might assert.  Sadly, most of the people he's been negotiating with are either evil or stupid.
    4. Has The Obama Administration Ignored Paying Off Old Bills, Instead Using The Debt Ceiling Increase On New Spending? If Not, What Past Bills Did The Obama Administration Pay With The Last Debt Ceiling Agreement (Considering Our Debt INCREASED Since Its Passage)?
    When you figure out what this question is supposed to mean, let those of us on planet Earth know.
    5. As President Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Will Jack Lew Ensure That Using Past Bipartisan Debt Reduction Agreements As Precedent Remains “The Right Way To Do It”?  If So, What Spending Cuts And Entitlement Reforms Will The Administration Be Open To Negotiating?
    How about defense?  How about single-payer or nationalized health care?  Oh, those are off the table.  Curious, that...
    6. Is A Deep Economic Spiral Needed In Order To Make The Obama Administration Take Serious Action on Spending & Deficits?
    Please provide, in excruciating and verifiable detail, precisely how excess government spending caused the current economic downturn -- or indeed any economic downturn.
    7. Have President Obama’s Ballooning Deficits And Debt Left An Inadequate ‘Cushion’ To Cope With Emergencies?  If Not, Has The Obama Administration Adequately Addressed Spending And Fiscal Responsibility Over “A Multi-Year Period?”
    No, it was not Obama's deficits that depleted the Rainy Day Fund.  That was expressly depleted by the Bush tax cuts, and exacerbated by the Iraq war, which was 1) Unnecessary; 2) Based on malicious lies; and 3) An abject failure in every measurable respect.
    8. Will The Obama Administration Agree That Any New Stimulus Spending Must Be Offset With Spending Cuts Elsewhere?
    Of course not.  If you increase outlays in one area by decreasing outlays in another area, then it's not a stimulus, is it?  Don't act so fucking stupid.
    9. President Obama Firmly Believes That Deregulation Caused The Financial Crisis. Would A Vastly Different View In The Treasury Department Cause Chaos In His Administration?
    No more than having Geithner or Bernanke running things, both of whom also clearly think the financial sector was blameless.
    10. Do President Obama’s Trillion Dollar Budget Deficits Prevent The U.S. From Financial Flexibility In Times Of Emergency & Natural Disaster?
    This is a restatement of Question 7.  (And where the fuck was your Very Serious fiscal concern in 2002/2003 when the Iraq war was being ginned up?)
  •  Unless one is to believe that Obama (3+ / 0-)

    really is in on some vast two-party kabuki con to continue the replacement of our democratic republic with a corporatist financialocracy, in which he plays good cop to the GOP's bad cop so that both sides can continue to seem to be trying to implement their side's policies while in reality advancing corporate and financial interests that they might each quibble over in terms of the details but which they agree upon in general, then Obama has absolutely no choice but to break the GOP, or else they will destroy the country through attrition. Whether it's through global warming, another and even worse crash, or something else, this is clearly what they're doing, and doing intentionally, because they know that their only viable long-term political path back to power is based on the Germany 1933 model (making Cantor, a Jew, all the more heinous for participating in it). I.e. destroy the country in order to take it over.

    Obama is fooling himself if he thinks that there's a viable bipartisan, split the difference solution to this problem. For the country to survive, today's GOP must be crushed. This isn't being partisan. It's being reality-based.

    And btw, those mythical centrist voters yearning for bipartisan kumbaya will thank him for it, because deep down they want this too.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:26:50 PM PST

    •  We agree on this one . . . (0+ / 0-)

      "For the country to survive, today's GOP must be crushed. This isn't being partisan. It's being reality-based."

      Mollie

      “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      by musiccitymollie on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:49:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dear Mr. President (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howabout, Minnesota Deb

    For the love of all that is holy, will you finally step on these guys' throats for once and for all? Surely you must know by now that they are completely out of line and the more you reward them by treating them like equals, the more out of line they go. It's time for our side to go completely ballistic. Hell it's past time, I'm 54, I can't live through another 30 years of this BS.

  •  Lew is problematic. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howd, citylights

    Bernie Sanders makes the best argument against him as yet another Wall street insider in the cabinet when what we need is an outside voice to stand up to corporate interests.

  •  I'd still like to know which "loopholes" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citylights

    the Republicans proposed to close. Carried interest? Would somebody put that on the table please?

    “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

    by RJDixon74135 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:46:44 PM PST

  •  specific cuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citylights

    "House Republicans still haven't released what specific spending cuts to entitlements they want, "

    Has the White House? Has Harry Reid? Just curious—maybe i missed it.

    •  Barack and Harry are not in the House of Reps. (0+ / 0-)

      Remember that only the House can originate revenue bills. And none which are not approved by a majority of the Rs, per the Hastert rule, will be allowed to go forward, not even Boney's.

      •  Civics class (0+ / 0-)

        This is only true in the textbook-trivial how-a-law-gets-passed version of things. If it were true that we need to sit around and wait for the House, then Obama and Boehner wouldn't bother to be talking, either. And yet, they are—go figure. BTW, it is also the case that the Senate is required to produce its own annual budget proposal, a matter which Reid et al. have studiously avoided for years now. Now that's civics for you.

  •  "What do you expect from a group that thinks it's (0+ / 0-)

    cool to name itself 'young guns'. . ."  Well, for starters, I expect hypocrisy and projection, lies and hyperbole, the roll out of the conspiracy du jour, followed by pound after pomd of false equivalency, and topped off with the poutrage to surpass any group of preschoolers' antics.  

    Oh, and if you ever think you've seen the absolutely most stupid or mean or crazy thing you'll ever see them do or instigate, just wait a bit.  They never disappoint; there's no level so low they can't go lower.

    "In politics stupidity is not a handicap." Napoleon Bonaparte

    by citylights on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:01:55 PM PST

  •  Deficit Reduction as a demand by the Rs (0+ / 0-)

    Shouldn't the response each and every time any republican makes demands to reduce the deficit be countered with the question, "Well, what do you and your party propose in the way of spending cuts?" Shouldn't they be required to provide specific information, their very own ideas about how to achieve what they are demanding be done, every time they bring it up?

    Isn't it Congress's job to determine the budget and all "pocketbook" issues of the federal government? In all of their whining and moaning and temper tantrums about deficit reduction and cuts in spending, congressional republicans and senators are always trying to shift that burden and responsibility onto the President. And, while the President can always put forth his ideas when/if he wants to, isn't it a constitutional mandate that that task falls to Congress, that that Congress must legislate budget and deficit matters and tax law, etc?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site