G.O.P. Succumbs To Rare Outbreak Of Sanity

"The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year no later than the first Monday of February."

Source: http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=276880

So, how hard should I LOL right now?

You mean how he was 2 months late in 2013?

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/09/176713146/obamas-late-budget-submission-a-strategic-move

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/4/obama-misses-budget-deadline/

Or how he missed it 4 times in 5 years?

Just relish in the moment, Fumiku. The irony is just setting in and it's glorious.

Ihna, your so anti-Republican that you are guilty of the same atrocities you claim about fox.

I don't think Raveal is, and I know I am not a republican, but this guy is not a good book keeper. He lies and distorts truths to get his way. They are all crooked though it's not just him.

(Btw, every source you covered was a liberal source. All papers have agendas and it is very hard to find one that is down the middle)

Alright, you got me on that one. I'll give you back your A for effort.

But you've been wrong enough times in this thread alone to warrant showing a bit of modesty.


@Fumiku
You're a bit off on your facts. Obama did let them expire, but in return, he allowed for 94% of the bush tax cuts to be permanent.

It would have been better if Obama had done nothing at all. This is why people call him a centrist.

That said, I don't think Obama is awesome. Like I said over and over and over and over again, he's just better than the alternative.

Better than what alternative?

I don't control half of the national conversation about policy. During the immigration reform debates, Fox news would bring on people who claim that mexicans were coming over and beheading people and starting fires in forests on purpose.

So no, don't pull the both-sides same-thing card here please.

Republicans.

A little sleepy here, but how are my facts off? (I don't see your point sorry)

Being wrong once demands modesty? Well, okay. I won't argue with that I guess. Regardless, I think it'll be an interesting year, because with midterm elections around the corner Congress could do some crazy things.

Obama gave millions to companies and banks that paid people their salaries and bonuses because they were too big to fail. How is that different to a republican?

billions*

And because 'better' is subjective.

For example:


The payroll tax deduction was something Obama wanted. That lowers taxes for the poor/middle class.

The bush tax cuts are what the republicans wanted. That lowers taxes for the richest people.

They are not the same thing, and that's something I picked up where your facts were a bit off. It was never a matter of letting the payroll tax cut expire, it was a matter of letting the bush tax cuts expire.

I just googled it and picked the first one.

Listen. It doesn't matter if the source is liberal or conservative. All that matters is whether the source regularly lies or tells the truth.

It's not that complicated. Before tonight, Rav thinks that Obama has never proposed a budget. Obviously, whatever news source he was using is not reliable and should be dismissed. This should be common sense. If Rav listens to the most extreme, right-wing media imaginable but they always tell the truth, they would be a viable and reliable source for news.

Yeah, you are right they are not the same thing, but the tax deduction has expired and there are higher rates for the $200K (figure may be off) dollar mark.

You know the tax rate expired in 2014 for the middle class? People making 40-50k pay an estimated 4-600 dollars more a year now right?

Am I missing something?

I don't see it that way. If it is liberal or conservative that means it has an agenda. If it has an agenda it will omit and include part truths and not paint the whole picture. I guess you could say that about any media source though.

Payroll tax deduction expired awhile ago.

Remember? Republicans were all whining and complaining that it expired (while they fought to get rid of it). The rest of us were trying to tell people that their taxes weren't raised, their tax cut just expired.

Just...read that paragraph again and you'll see my frustration with the republican party and people who buy into their propaganda. In general I mean, not specifically anyone here.

And I think it's the 250k mark; it's been awhile since I've checked though so I might be off.

Lol, I knew you'd bring me back into this. I honestly don't know where I heard that since I've heard it at least a few times and I don't follow any one news source. I think it was probably brought up during the 2012 campaign, which of course was a breeding ground for lies on both sides.

Edit: Okay, found a source for my statement. Romney said Obama never passed a budget. This was rated as "Mostly False" by Politifact.

You should be wary of agendas when it comes to opinions, but not for basic factual information. If fox news has video footage of Obama petting a cat, there's really no way around acknowledging that no matter what you think of them.

Why they decided to air that footage and how they decide to cover it, on the other hand, can be left to suspicion in regards to agendas.

In this case, they're just dates, which should be ok.

No I get your frustration, I don't trust a republican as far as I could throw one, but I don't trust a democrat either.

Yeah, I thought your links were fine. It would have been better to find a link where they were all listed, but that's me being picky.

You're a rarity in these forums. Post more. It'd be nice to hear more arguments from the center.

God I hate those words

Obama is a kenyan-born muslim who's out to destroy America and spends 200 million dollars/day on his trip to India.

Can you name me a claim by the left that's half as outrageous as that.

Democrats have their problems alright. I'm not a registered democrat; if I was, I'd resign immediately. But it's intellectually dishonest to put them on a level field.

I hate that argument just as much. "I clearly prefer one side over the other, but I refuse to identify myself with the side I agree with almost 100% of the time!"

The majority of us are centrists and the same could be said about most of our stances.

There's a reason why you think that and it's unfounded. Issues where both the democrats and republicans agree on usually don't get much press coverage, so there isn't much of an opportunity for it to come up with and have people disagree over.

But we can play that game if you want.

The Obama Administration wanted to know the effects of the keystone pipeline on the environment and they outsourced the report to a company that would profit if the keystone pipelines were approved of. Needless to say, they report came back and said everything would be fine.

Also needless to say, I disagree.

Shall we talk about that?


Or not, going to bed. Enjoy the last word.

Both NY City and LA are liberal as are most dense urban area's. NY state on the other hand is pretty well mixed. If you want to see the political leaning of a particular area just look at it's voting history and elected officials. Contrast a place like NYC vs a place like Dallas or Tulsa. It has absolutely nothing to do with minorities, especially if you knew that historically speaking it was the Democrat Party that was racist as f*ck (Southern Democrats specifically). It wasn't until the civil rights movement that they abandoned the Democrat party whole sale and eventually turned into the core of the current Republican party. NYC is liberal because it supports the concept of a welfare state where resources are extracted from those who succeed and distributed to those who don't in an attempt to create equal outcome amongst all people.

Pleebo. A centrist. That just might be the most unintentionally funny joke I've heard all week.

No most of you are only centrists if you compare yourselves to Europe which is itself extremely liberal. On the US political spectrum your decidedly liberal, just not extremely liberal.

The central difference is whether you support the concept that equal outcome is the indicator of social equality and that society should be composed of equal people. If you do, then congrats your a liberal. Modern liberalism is about extracting resources from the successful and distributing those resources to the unsuccessful in an attempt to create a society full of equal people. And since under liberalism all people are born equal, all advantages inherited to someone by birth should be removed. This is in contrast to Republicanism which is stress's individual freedom, economic freedom and personal freedom of choice.

These two philosophies are incompatible at a mechanical level as in order for liberalism to seek its' goal it must restrict the freedoms of it's citizens in order to enforce equality. In order for Republicanism to seek it's goal it most allow inequalities to be created through free markets. Free markets ALWAYS create inequalities as humans are not inherently equal. Some people are simply born better then others, smarter, faster or with economic advantages. It's the natural desire of parents that their children have a better life then they did and when this is applied over many generations you end up with social inequality as the better families established themselves over the years. This concept is again incompatible with liberalism as inequality by birth ensures an unequal society.

So yes, the majority of young people in the USA are liberals due to philosophical concepts taught in ivory tower universities. Most successful people are republican's (the philosophy not the party) due to them having first hand experience with what it takes to actually be successful. And contrary to the liberal hate speech, most inherited rich people are actually liberals.

For political parties, most voters are independents. The current political parties don't mirror their respective philosophies, the GOP is a liberal party that is socially conservative while the Democrats are just the American brand of European socialism. A party based on actual republicanism isn't in either major parties best interests and it couldn't be milked for economic advantage.

*Sigh*

These numbers again.

I'm going to let everyone in on President Obama's first big political mistake upon taking office. He campaigned on a platform of transparency in fiscal spending and upon entering office he directed his administration to publish spending openly. He did so without first researching exactly how spending had been handled previously and ended up with a giant number attached to his name that he's in no way responsible for. See the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't actually part of the DoD budget and were instead congressionally approved as emergency contingency spending. They were tacked on bills that authorized the treasury to borrow money from the federal reserve for the wars. Those numbers were never put on the official budget or debt, just kinda hanging out there. Well when Obama ordered his administration to use transparent publishing guess what happened to that hidden debt? It got nailed onto his first year "spending", or rather it was already spent but was added to the books that year. That was about 1tn USD. Then you had the previous years bank bailout, which was 700bn USD approved to be spent on banks, that was also added to his spending.

Here is a thing about government spending, it's programmed in years in advance, especially military spending. When congress authorizes something to be spent, the money isn't immediately gone. Instead the treasure transfers it into a separate account created for that law. The money is borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank but isn't spent yet, and sometimes won't be spent for years. So based on what numbers you look at, the amount borrowed one year may not be spent for five to ten years later. You see this with TARP, the first $350bn of it was spent fairly fast during the twilight of the Bush administration, but the last $350 was stretched throughout the first half of the Obama administration. The entire $700bn was tacked onto FY09 expenditures. It was enacted after 1 October and thus was part of the FY09 year.

That difference btw explains a lot of governmental spending. The new fiscal year starts in 1 Oct, so prior to that day an organization needs to spend its budget or face it being axed during the accounting period from 1 Oct to 31 Dec. See while the fiscal year begins in Oct, the budget for the next fiscal year isn't usually approved until after the Christmas recess in congress. This results in a mad rush during the period from July to September to buy everything on an organizations Christmas list. Otherwise known as "end of year spending". During my NCO time I was involved in this process and can attest to the insanity of it. Organizations are stingy throughout the entire year, but at the very end their buying anything and everything to prevent their budget from being reduced. Of course the reasoning behind that is bureaucratic positioning, the bigger budget you manage the bigger your position and the better your resume looks for promotion.

Anyhow I don't blame the current governmental spending on Obama, the President has very little control over what congress spends on pet projects. Most of our budget woes are from the 2008 financial crisis causing tax revenue to plummet and mass unemployment in a place where the bulk of the tax proceeds come from the middle class income tax.