Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: More Hypocrisy from the Fiscal Hawks

  1. #21
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cedk;4316730]What!

    They made the deal to cut defense. They forced this to happen by not raising
    the debt limit for Obama.:whipper:[/QUOTE]

    Read the article this thread is based on.

  2. #22
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4316738]Read the article this thread is based on.[/QUOTE]

    I did. What of it?

    These cuts originated because they refused to raise the debt. Thanks Tea party.
    They made a deal if this committee could not come up with cuts these automatic cuts come into play.

    I hope this brings you up to speed.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,784
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cedk;4316747]I did. What of it?

    These cuts originated because they refused to raise the debt. Thanks Tea party.
    They made a deal if this committee could not come up with cuts these automatic cuts come into play.

    I hope this brings you up to speed.[/QUOTE]

    ok, here is the first paragrph of that article

    [QUOTE]
    Congressional Republicans are still full throttle in their efforts to dismantle the automatic spending cuts that would be particularly painful to the Pentagon.
    [/QUOTE]

  4. #24
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    484
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4316762]ok, here is the first paragrph of that article[/QUOTE]

    No **** sherlock!!!

    I never said that the regular big spending politicians do not want to undermine these cuts.Repubs and dems
    But the House Tea Party forced these cuts!!!!!!:D
    congratulations to them




    [QUOTE][B]Some Democrats want to avoid the automatic cuts,[/B] too, but haven’t been as vocal about it as the Republicans who want to do away with the defense sequester. That’s where Kyl thinks he can pick off some Democratic support.[/QUOTE]

  5. #25
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,787
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cedk;4316779]No **** sherlock!!!

    I never said that the regular big spending politicians do not want to undermine these cuts.Repubs and dems
    But the House Tea Party forced these cuts!!!!!!:D
    congratulations to them[/QUOTE]

    13 percent approval rating for Congress! Great job! :rolleyes:

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4316198].
    Don't expect a Romney Admistration to balance the budget. He has already been bought and paid for by the Military Industrial Complex. And they expect results.





    Video and Transcript

    [URL="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/campaign_01-06.html"]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/campaign_01-06.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

    This is why I cannot vote for him either. Ron Paul and is the only candidate that is not bought and paid for by the private defense companies. And the main stream media paints his foreign policy platform as dangerous :rolleyes:

    One of the biggest exercises in hypocrisy is listening to the "fiscal conservatives" running for office this election season. Listen to them talk about lowering taxes and cutting wasteful spending. But with the exception of Paul, every one of them is full of **** because they do not even mention the amount of tax payer waste, which is in the BILLIONS, that goes on.

    :rolleyes:

  7. #27
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4279116]that's not actually what happened WB

    the commission's plan was never agreed to by committee members. If that had occurred, the congress and President would have been bound to put it into action.

    What actually happened was the commission fell apart, they could not come to a vote that would pass, and the 2 non partisan leaders released their best ideas as kind of a side project. Hey look at this failed plan sorta thing.[/QUOTE]

    He's talking about Simpson Bowles

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4316198].
    Don't expect a Romney Admistration to balance the budget. He has already been bought and paid for by the Military Industrial Complex. And they expect results.





    Video and Transcript

    [URL]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/campaign_01-06.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

    LOL. Dude has enough money to last several lifetimes, the vast majority made before he got anywhere near politics - and you think he's been "bought and paid for"?

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4320099]He's talking about Simpson Bowles[/QUOTE]

    Im fairly sure that's what happened to S-B. Obama didn't have to do anything with the proposal because the committee couldn't come to a vote.

    In fact most of their recommendations made it into the debt showdown.

    [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-says-president-barack-obama-threw-def/[/url]

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4320102]LOL. Dude has enough money to last several lifetimes, the vast majority made before he got anywhere near politics - and you think he's been "bought and paid for"?[/QUOTE]

    So let us understand; wealthy people do not continue to make deals to acquire more power/wealth.

    Instead, your contention is that wealthy people leave private sector jobs that in some cases, pay millions of dollars only to take jobs that pay between $100,000 to $200,000 a year. And they forgo millions of dollars for the sole reason to make a difference and serve the public.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 01-09-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  11. #31
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4320646]So let us understand; wealthy people do not continue to make deals to acquire more power/wealth.

    Instead, your contention is that wealthy people leave private sector jobs that in some cases, pay millions of dollars only to take jobs that pay between $100,000 to $200,000 a year. And they forgo millions of dollars for the sole reason to make a difference and serve the public.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    In most cases power.
    Truman - a financial disaster
    Eisenhower - did he enrich himself
    Kennedy - he wanted more women, had plenty of money Ditto your buddy Bobby BTW
    Johnson - already suoer rich through Lady Bird
    Nixon - Ultra control freak power hungry looking for revenge
    Ford - never figured him out. Didok but was aroiund forever
    Carter - had money - a Bible thumping do gooer wanter change
    Reagan - plenty of money. wanted change
    Bush Sr. Rich family - an extension of his early gov career
    Clinton - THE CLASSIC CROOK AND WOMANIZER - his objective
    GWB - again rich. Wanted power AND revenge.
    Obama - he has milked this deal for all it's worth. The most unprepared man ever to be president ( at least in 150 years).

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,954
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4320646]So let us understand; wealthy people do not continue to make deals to acquire more power/wealth.

    Instead, your contention is that wealthy people leave private sector jobs that in some cases, pay millions of dollars only to take jobs that pay between $100,000 to $200,000 a year. And they forgo millions of dollars for the sole reason to make a difference and serve the public.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    He's worth a quarter of a billion bro... He has plenty of money to make more money... He doesn't need a few million a year from a private sector job... Once you accumulate that vast amount of wealth, a salary no longer matters...

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,787
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4320829]He's worth a quarter of a billion bro... He has plenty of money to make more money... He doesn't need a few million a year from a private sector job... Once you accumulate that vast amount of wealth, a salary no longer matters...[/QUOTE]

    All ego with Mitt....:yes:

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4320124]Im fairly sure that's what happened to S-B. Obama didn't have to do anything with the proposal because the committee couldn't come to a vote.

    In fact most of their recommendations made it into the debt showdown.

    [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-says-president-barack-obama-threw-def/[/url][/QUOTE]

    And what kind of leadership is that? He can't come up with a plan, so he dumps in on a bi-partisan committee that is doomed to deadlock, and even when they come up with an approach HIS party leadership calls it dead on arrival(and I doubt they had even read it).

    It is beyond weak. It is deplorable and embarrassing.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,482
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4320646]So let us understand; wealthy people do not continue to make deals to acquire more power/wealth.

    Instead, your contention is that wealthy people leave private sector jobs that in some cases, pay millions of dollars only to take jobs that pay between $100,000 to $200,000 a year. And they forgo millions of dollars for the sole reason to make a difference and serve the public.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Actually, I contend that wealthy people are a hell of a lot less easy to "buy" than people without means. And that it takes a remarkably cynical person to argue that any wealthy person running for office [B]must[/B] have some side deal on which they are making money, because otherwise they wouldn't run.

    It's a sad argument, IJF, more reflective of the arguer than of the subject.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;4322145]And what kind of leadership is that? He can't come up with a plan, so he dumps in on a bi-partisan committee that is doomed to deadlock, and even when they come up with an approach HIS party leadership calls it dead on arrival(and I doubt they had even read it).

    It is beyond weak. It is deplorable and embarrassing.[/QUOTE]

    so let me get this straight you are embarassed at Obama for not railroading changes through, even though he didn't have bi-partisan support. You want the President to run roughshod over the duely elected officials in congress. He's not doing that enough. that is your complaint?

    He's the President, he's not the King.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,353
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4322175]Actually, I contend that wealthy people are a hell of a lot less easy to "buy" than people without means. And that it takes a remarkably cynical person to argue that any wealthy person running for office [B]must[/B] have some side deal on which they are making money, because otherwise they wouldn't run.

    It's a sad argument, IJF, more reflective of the arguer than of the subject.[/QUOTE]

    How did I not recognize how smart you are sooner?

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4322175]Actually, I contend that wealthy people are a hell of a lot less easy to "buy" than people without means. And that it takes a remarkably cynical person to argue that any wealthy person running for office [B]must[/B] have some side deal on which they are making money, because otherwise they wouldn't run.

    It's a sad argument, IJF, more reflective of the arguer than of the subject.[/QUOTE]

    Since wealthy people are overwhelmingly the people who become elected politicians, especially on the state and national level, they are far more likely to be engaged in the form of corruption that we have discussed. Simply put,[B] they are the people in the position to do it. [/B]

    Also, your post offered a nice straw man argument because I never said that [B]all[/B] wealthy people [B]must[/B] enter into public office because they have side deals. Simply that [B]some do[/B]. My point was only that in light of the disfunctional state that our government is in it is prudent to question, from a general point of view, the motives of why millionaires leave ridiculously wealthy positions to work for peanuts in comparison.

    Its easy for you to understand why some might be skeptical of their motives considering the state of our elected politicians today; Just substitute Mitt Romney's name for say, Jon Corzine or a Rockefeller or Kennedy and you will have 50 posters shaking their head in unison.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 01-10-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,787
    Post Thanks / Like
    These guys get corrupted by power and their money enables them to get more power. The problem with most of these guys who come from the private sector is they are not surrounded by yes men and there are rules they have to govern by.


    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322360]Since wealthy people are overwhelmingly the people who become elected politicians, especially on the state and national level, they are far more likely to be engaged in the form of corruption that we have discussed. Simply put,[B] they are the people in the position to do it. [/B]

    Also, your post offered a nice straw man argument because I never said that [B]all[/B] wealthy people [B]must[/B] enter into public office because they have side deals. Simply that [B]some do[/B]. My point was only that in light of the disfunctional state that our government is in it is prudent to question, from a general point of view, the motives of why millionaires leave ridiculously wealthy positions to work for peanuts in comparison.

    Its easy for you to understand why some might be skeptical of their motives considering the state of our elected politicians today; Just substitute Mitt Romney's name for say, Jon Corzine or a Rockefeller or Kennedy and you will have 50 posters here shaking their head in unison.[/QUOTE]

  20. #40
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4322360]Since wealthy people are overwhelmingly the people who become elected politicians, especially on the state and national level, they are far more likely to be engaged in the form of corruption that we have discussed. Simply put,[B] they are the people in the position to do it. [/B]

    Also, your post offered a nice straw man argument because I never said that [B]all[/B] wealthy people [B]must[/B] enter into public office because they have side deals. Simply that [B]some do[/B]. My point was only that in light of the disfunctional state that our government is in it is prudent to question, from a general point of view, the motives of why millionaires leave ridiculously wealthy positions to work for peanuts in comparison.

    Its easy for you to understand why some might be skeptical of their motives considering the state of our elected politicians today; Just substitute Mitt Romney's name for say, Jon Corzine or a Rockefeller or Kennedy and you will have 50 posters shaking their head in unison.[/QUOTE]



    Corzine was a crook at Goldman Sachs, a crook as gov of NJ and then a crook again in his last corrupt venture. A lifetime bum.
    The Kennedy's were a totally corrupt lot - Joe P., JFK, Bobby and Teddy and their various offspring.
    Rockefeller a crook? Proof please. The original back when maybe but later versions - Nelson, David?
    Mitt? Evidence please?
    The Bushes have fair money. Violations?
    You are, as usual, over generalizing about people. And an RFK image? All we need to know.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us