Petr Message Board
-
Blast from the past
The expert weighed in from whatever institution he's been committed to on rising gold prices back in 2009:
"It's amazing how there is all this hooting and hollering as gold broke through $1000 about how it never was going to fall again. This was gravely and symbolically important. The dollar was dead, dead, dead.
Now one week one later gold drops below $1000 and there is not a peep about it anywhere."
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/threadview?bn=26953&tid=28717&mid=28732
Those one week trends definitely prove something.-
doc... major differences between Romney's plan and BO's plan.
The most important difference being that it occurred on a State level, but many other differences as well.
States should have their own power to decide in such matters, our Federal government dictates way too much. -
<What's supposed to occur to me is that about 15 or so Republicans blocked it all by themselves with no help from any Democrats, and further that those 15 or so Republicans morph into all the Republicans.>
Do you know Rush Ilap every time that I post with you I come to an impasse and get to a "why bother" point. You are intelligent but lack any shreds of wisdom because you are so damned judgmental. In your warped view, conservatives are never wrong.
If an issue is important to one political party, and you have 15 members threatening an issue that is critical to your party, you do what you have to do to get them on board. That means paying them off, brow beating them, or humiliating them. That is how politics works, and that is not what was done here. The Republican leadership could have gotten ANWR drilling; it was just not that important of an issue to them to get it done.
<If one or two Republicans had voted for Obamacare, you would at some point be explaining that "the Republicans" had actually passed it.>
The key tenant behind Obamacare, the individual mandate on buying health care, was a Republican idea. See the link: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/04/19/conservatives-run-from-the-individual-mandate-they-once-embraced
In fact, Obamacare was based on Massachusetts state law that was signed into existence by Republican presidential front runner Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.
What is funny is that Mitt is the Republican front runner at this point and the conservative's choice, yet few sees the irony. Mitt Romney was for Obamacare before it was called Obamacare.
<Maybe I should even vote Democrat now if I want ANWR drilling!!>
When the Dems were in control, there was no ANWR drilling. And when the Republicans were in control, there was no ANWR drilling.
Why do you think who you vote for matters anymore? -
I see doc. Now you're saying all the Republicans are actually against drilling. That's the logical takeaway from a handful of moderates teaming up with all the Democrats to block drilling. That handful of moderate Republicans are actually all the Republicans now. I understand.
It shouldn't occur to me that if they had another few conservative Republicans in place of the Democrats that it would have passed. No sir. What's supposed to occur to me is that about 15 or so Republicans blocked it all by themselves with no help from any Democrats, and further that those 15 or so Republicans morph into all the Republicans.
And the fact that all the Democrats voted against it, well heck it's like they didn't even vote against it at all! Kind of like how the Obama administration apparently has nothing to do really with blocking GOM drilling. Maybe I should even vote Democrat now if I want ANWR drilling!!
And if that isn't what I take away from that, I'm a racist.
Another exercise in docjoe logic.
If one or two Republicans had voted for Obamacare, you would at some point be explaining that "the Republicans" had actually passed it. -
I posted, "When the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, they didn't pass a law opening up drilling on ANWR. They just blamed the enviro whackos when it was totally on them, and people like you were dumb enough to buy it."
You posted, "It was fillibustered by the Senate Democrats psychotic docjoe. You're a moron posting from an insane asylum somewhere."
Well, the truth was even worse than I suspected. The reason ANWR was not drilled was totally on the Republicans. They had won the vote!! The moderate Republicans wimped out at the last minute, and they not the Dems were responsible for us not drilling in ANWR.
And just to put this in perspective, Rush Ilap, the precious GOM ban you are yammering on about at worst costs this country 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Estimates on ANWR is that between 1.5 and 1.9 mbpd could have been produced. Now that is one heckuva lot of oil, and it could have reduced the amount of oil the U.S. imports by 25%.
Drill, baby, drill... not!!
<I do tell the truth.> No, you don't. You have lied and blamed every problem including ANWR on the Dems. You lied about me when I posted the Republicans could have had drilling on ANWR.
<Of course all that episode proves is that there's virtually no difference between moderate Republicans and Democrats.>
That is progress. Just take away the word moderate from that sentence, and we'll finally agree on something. -
It was also filibustered:
"On December 15, 2005 Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibuster of the bill on December 21, and the language was subsequently removed."
Your point about the moderates scuttling it is correct. Of course all that episode proves is that there's virtually no difference between moderate Republicans and Democrats.
"The moderates knew they had leverage, given the narrow margin of GOP control of the House. It only takes 14 Republican defections to scuttle a bill, assuming every Democrat opposes it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902029.html
I do tell the truth. I'm not a serial fabricator like you.
It was passed in 1995 and vetoed by Clinton. -
and you still think it is loyal.
On ANWR, "Last week, the Senate voted 51-48 to endorse a requirement for the Interior Department to begin oil lease sales in ANWR within two years. The House seemed on the same path."
So in 2005, drilling on ANWR passed the Senate and House, yet when the Senate and House met to hammer out the differences on the budget, ANWR drilling fell through.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-09-arctic-drilling_x.htm
"The decision to drop the the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill."
Oops!! The Republicans? Say it ain't so. What about Ilap and the Democratic filibuster?
"The budget bill is immune from fillibuster, but drilling proponents suddenly found it hard to get the measure accepted by a majority of the House."
So the reason there is no drilling in ANWR is the Republicans lost their cojones. Way to tell the truth, Rush Ilap!!
<The Republicans plan to go for much bigger cuts for the 2012 budget.>
Yeah, sure.
"The roots of Boehner’s problem stretched back to last fall’s elections, which propelled him to power. On the campaign trail, Republicans promised that they would cut $100 billion from Obama’s budget proposal.
Now, there were 87 new freshmen in the Capitol, and many of them believed that would happen.
But it was a promise Boehner couldn’t keep."
What else is new?
As for the tea party being an economic movement, it was once more shown to be a front for the same ol' same ol' Republican social conservative nuts masquerading as economic conservatives.
"With almost 24 hours to go until the government shut down, Obama gave Boehner an ultimatum on the speaker’s push to include abortion-related restrictions in the bill.
“John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I am not happy about it,” Obama said, according to a Democrat and Republican in the Oval Office. Boehner had been pushing to include both the restriction of government funding on abortions in the District of Columbia and a provision that would have placed limits on funds going to nonprofit groups that provide abortion services nationwide, including Planned Parenthood.
With the D.C. provision in hand, Boehner continued to push the president, aides said."
Yep, Boehner wanted to shut the government down over effing Planned Parenthood. -
I should add there several other occasions when opening up ANWR was fillibustered by Senate Democrats, starting in the Reagan administration, and once in the George H.W. Bush administration.
During the Clinton years, it wasn't fillibustered, because guess what: Clinton vetoed it psycho docjoe!!! -
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Michael-Ramirez-040511-pie.png
Anyone like you fighting over the difference between $33 billion and $61 billion should have the word MORON tatooed on his forehead.
Of the total budget, that means there is a 1% difference between Republicans and Dems, and that is really how much difference there is between them on everything else.- 5 Replies to docjoe999
-
"Anyone like you fighting over the difference between $33 billion and $61 billion should have the word #$%$ tatooed on his forehead."
It's also worth pointing out the Democrats originally proposed SIX BILLION in cuts. The Republicans originally proposed $61 billion. The $33 billion was a figure they moved to during the process. The Dems actually didn't want any budget cuts at all as anyone who has followed the process should know psycho doc.
The Democrats tried to pass a $1 trillion Omnibus spending bill in the lame duck session last year, which I posted about here, psychotic docjoe. Did you read it? It didn't pass because it was fillibustered by the Republicans. My guess is you did read it. How does your brain fit that into your "the two parties are the same" model, even if Republicans aren't always as fiscally conservative as many would like psychotic doc? -
You know what kills me about a lunatic like you psycho docjoe, is that the Tea Party, which wants larger cuts, and whose pressure was in all likelihood the reason they went for any immediate budget cuts, is hated by you, while you simultaneously complain conservatives like me who criticize Obama must be racist because the two parties are the same.
Can we say cognitive dissonance nutjob doc? -
Here ya go pschotic doc:
"I think there's no question that the debate over next year's budget is going to make the debate that we just had over the possible government shutdown look minor," Hanson said.
A vote on the 2012 budget is coming up very fast: the 2011 fiscal year ends in September. Hanson said the 2012 budget could boil down to one very controversial issue.
"That's going to involve a pretty serious debate over the future of Medicare," Hanson said.
He said Republicans plan on proposing a major overhaul of the program that he said will most likely be rejected by Democrats.
Your hero Obama and the rest of the Dems will be demagoguing any attempt to deal with Medicare. Meanwhile you'll defend Obama's position while calling anyone who criticizes him over it racists psychotic doc. Or maybe you'll say Obama's position is the same as the Republicans and anyone who doesn't see it that way is a racist. -
I didn't say anything about the budget battle psychotic doc.
The Republicans plan to go for much bigger cuts for the 2012 budget. What will your position be when they do that?
Tell us again how gold and oil aren't going up and people who think they are are idiots like you did in 2009.
What was the REAL reason you stopped being a doctor - if you ever were one? You're a moron posting from an insane asylum somewhere. You're mentally ill. -
Maybe part of the reason our pols get away with so much is that they think the population can't do math. I watched Bill Maher's show, and I got the typical line about how the rich aren't paying their fair share.
http://www.democrats.com/no-700-billion-tax-cut-for-the-rich
"The richest and greediest 2% of Americans are demanding an extension of George Bush's tax cuts for themselves, which would add over $700 billion to our national debt over ten years."
That amounts to $70 billion a year or less than 2% of the entire budget. IOW, this "tax cut for the rich" is trivial in budgetary terms.
From ZH today, "We have Congress debating over $30+ billion in spending at a time when the Federal Reserve is printing $100 billion per month or so to buy US debt."
I wish people would see then that "the rich" are just being used as a scape goat, and we saw the same with GE. They made $14 billion last year and paid no taxes. Even if they did, they would have paid around $5 billion. Again, this is trivia compared to what the fed is doing.
If you really want to know what is wrong with the budget, watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xzd3puYmiM&feature=player_embedded
Anyone who doesn't see that the real issue (and the one that no one wants to talk about) is excessive federal wages is kidding himself.
Why are some of the nation's wealthiest neighborhoods suburbs of DC?
This was supposed to be what the tea party was for not some fight over Planned Parenthood.
When I looked into Medicare a few years ago, I was shocked. Medicare was spending $1 for every 59 cents it brought in which is kind of like the whole budget today.
What needed to be done? The pain needed to be shared. The first and most obvious were the "death panels" that Sarah Palin stupidly was against. Hospitalizing severe dementia patients is as dumb as it gets. 21% of the total Medicare budget is spent on the terminally ill. That number should go down to 5%. That takes care of 16% of the budget shortfall and leaves 25%.
The payors and providers then should split the difference. Health care providers take a 12.5% cut and taxpayers and the elderly pay the remaining 12.5%. Voila, budget problem solved, and everybody is involved in the sacrifice.
To stave off problems in the future, the age that someone qualifies for Medicare should be bumped to 70.
So what has been done? Absolutely nothing, and Medicare collecting 59 cents for every dollar was when I looked into things five years ago. I am sure it is worse now.
So there is no significant difference between the Dems and Republicans. "The budget showdown" was over 1% of the budget. "The tax cuts for the rich" were about 2%. That means the Republicans and Dems are 97% the same.
Not one pol has talked about cutting services, cutting provider reimbursement, raising Medicare taxes, or raising the qualifying age of Medicare to save Medicare over the last five years. Not one. And that is just Medicare. The same is true for social security, Medicaid, and defense. The pols are all closing their eyes and wishing things get better.
-
