Quantcast

Should the GOP Block All of the Democrats' Plans?

Politics 2010/12/02 15:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Most people expect that the Congressional lame-duck session will be contentious, but it's shaping up to be a real blood bath, as the two parties lodge themselves firmly in opposing camps, with the chasm between them growing wider every day.

GOP House leader Mitch McConnell sent a letter to Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, saying that the Republicans won't talk about anything the Democrats want - like the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," extending unemployment benefits or the DREAM Act - until the Bush tax cuts issue is settled.

The letter, signed by all 42 Senate Republicans, states:

"With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike."

Read More: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/dadt-no...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • ActionJackson 2010/12/02 17:27:34
    Yes
    ActionJackson
    +49
    Considering the fact that the most recent Democrat "plans" have been counterproductive and, in some cases, economically devastating I can fully understand why the GOP would want to put the brakes on. The Dems are out of control and need to sit in the corner for awhile and recover from their sugar high.

    For the record, I'm not GOP. I'm ex-GOP and am currently a member of the American Constitution Party. I vote for candidates who support the Constitution of the United States of America and who oppose Socialist Marxism.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • gloria joe 2010/12/08 21:44:58
    gloria
    JOE , JUST SAW THIS AND i FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO SA SOMTHING ABOUT IT. ''HOORAY AND HALLELULIA' YOU HAVE WRITTEN A MASTERPIECE
    gLORIA
  • ActionJackson 2010/12/02 17:27:34
    Yes
    ActionJackson
    +49
    Considering the fact that the most recent Democrat "plans" have been counterproductive and, in some cases, economically devastating I can fully understand why the GOP would want to put the brakes on. The Dems are out of control and need to sit in the corner for awhile and recover from their sugar high.

    For the record, I'm not GOP. I'm ex-GOP and am currently a member of the American Constitution Party. I vote for candidates who support the Constitution of the United States of America and who oppose Socialist Marxism.
  • toppalin ActionJ... 2010/12/02 19:53:28
    toppalin
    +7
    Do you enjoy paying taxes for the health care of American Congressmen? They receive the best medical care benefits possible at taxpayer expense. Also, isn't that system alone an example of Obamacare only limited to a select few?

    This is about tax cuts and spending cuts, yet American Congressmen place a huge tax burden on Americans and they receive the best medical care in the world for free. Why don't Americans come together and demand equality from those who represent them?
  • ActionJ... toppalin 2010/12/03 05:13:14
    ActionJackson
    +26
    Well ... we're supposed to fire them with our votes but it rarely works because of the insipid idiots who keep voting for the same representatives who keep screwing us. But even if we vote one out another asshat takes his or her place. A person must be of fairly low character to become a politician in the first place. I think it's a prerequisite.
  • toppalin ActionJ... 2010/12/03 05:33:24
    toppalin
    +3
    All it takes is people calling their representatives, writing letters to the editor and bringing it up at town hall meetings to force new legislation.

    If it would become an issue it would be forced to change. They would never say no.
  • boberry toppalin 2010/12/03 18:53:17
    boberry
    +12
    I just did that very thing. I emailed every AZ senator and rep (except Grijalva cuz he's anti-anglo and won't take mail outside his district) and told them that we elected and/or reelected them and we had expectations. If they didn't meet those expectations, they could plan on purchasing packing tape in advance.
  • toppalin boberry 2010/12/03 22:20:08
    toppalin
    +4
    I couldn't agree more!
  • doofieg... toppalin 2010/12/03 19:28:10
    doofiegirl  BTO-t- BCRA-F ~PWCM~
    +8
    If that was all it took, love, Odimwit would be Long gone, All the crooked conrgress would be history, and the government would be Greatly downsized!
  • Sawdust... ActionJ... 2010/12/04 00:35:53
    Sawdust_128
    +2
    There it is!!
  • Allbiz ... toppalin 2010/12/03 19:09:18
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +7
    Just to set the record straight, members of Congress pay for their healthcare. Reagan put a skids to all the Congressional freebies in 1986 with his Federal Employees' Retirement System Act.
  • toppalin Allbiz ... 2010/12/03 22:30:50
    toppalin
    +2
    The government pays 72% of the coverage, and they get the best care and insurance benefits of anyone in the world.

    "In addition, members of Congress also qualify for some medical benefits that ordinary federal workers do not. They (but not their families) are eligible to receive limited medical services from the Office of the Attending Physician of the U.S. Capitol, after payment of an annual fee ($491in 2007). But services don’t include surgery, dental care or eyeglasses, and any prescriptions must be filled at the member’s expense.

    House and Senate members (but not their families) also are eligible to receive care at military hospitals. For outpatient care, there is no charge at the Washington, D.C., area hospitals (Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center). Inpatient care is billed at rates set by the Department of Defense."

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009...
  • Allbiz ... toppalin 2010/12/03 23:01:34
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +3
    The gov't only pays 72%. Hell when I owned my business, I paid 75% for my employees. If you aren't aware, most employers pay anywhere between 50% and 75%. Some even still pay 100%.
  • toppalin Allbiz ... 2010/12/03 23:03:55
    toppalin
    +2
    But we are talking about elected politicians, many of which are very well off.

    Thank you.
  • Allbiz ... toppalin 2010/12/03 23:13:35
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +2
    Executives of major corporations are well off too. But they still get their company's healthcare.
  • toppalin Allbiz ... 2010/12/03 23:31:17
    toppalin
    +1
    Of course they do!
  • Allbiz ... toppalin 2010/12/03 23:57:27
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +1
    So then what was your point about well off politicians. You make it sound like its wrong for them.

    Look, I would never want the label of elected official. But we do elect them and we do expect them to do a job and they are at least entitled to the same benefits as anyone else doing a job.
  • toppalin Allbiz ... 2010/12/04 02:17:33
    toppalin
    +2
    You know what my point is. What is wrong is the LEVEL of health care they receive, their benefits and perks are like no other.

    What you pay for yours, which you said was comparable in price, is a rip-off because you do not get anything close to what they do.

    I can back this up, can you?
  • Allbiz ... toppalin 2010/12/04 04:31:08 (edited)
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    My coverage, actually, is even better than what congress members have.

    My wife's healthcare costs run in the hundreds of thousands a year. Including the cost for her nurse. In fact, one year was over $400K. I pay $256/mo premium and get 100% coverage. Our drug coverage runs $79/mo. We have $50 deductible, $10 co-pay, $700 out-of pocket expense and then all drugs are covered 100% with no limit.

    How's that for back-up? Is it close enough?
  • Cat Allbiz ... 2010/12/05 00:15:20
  • In vino... toppalin 2010/12/04 04:45:06
    In vino veritas
    Actually we wont be privy to same care as elected officials,which to me is incredulous to provide higher standard for them,lesser for ourselves and loved ones........I so much agree with a lot of your post.
  • Rodney ActionJ... 2010/12/03 20:16:09
    Rodney
    +3
    Yup, the Dumocratic policies have really worked. We just rose to 9.8% unemployment.
  • JL Rodney 2010/12/03 21:12:03
    JL
    +2
    AND, WE, OF COURSE, KNOW THAT IS AN ACCURATE FIGURE.....WOULDN'T DOUBT THAT FOR ACCURACY.......NAHHH!!
  • Rodney JL 2010/12/03 22:08:26
    Rodney
    +1
    http://www.bls.gov/news.relea...
    They are saying 9.8%, but I have seen two other independents that are reporting anywhere from 17 to 22.5% REAL unemployment. The later I would believe more.
  • kmay 2010/12/02 17:22:37 (edited)
    Yes
    kmay
    +7
    "...until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers,"

    Why are the Democrats not listening to the people?

    STOP SPENDING!
  • Tracker2 kmay 2010/12/02 18:43:35
    Tracker2
    +3
    Where is the GOP's plan to cut spending ?

    They voted for an earmark ban and less than a day later Kyl put a 2 million earmark in a bill.

    They voted to end unemployment benefits to 2 million people at Christmas while prushing for a tax cut for the wealthy.

    They are blocking START and repealing DADT that has overwhelming support of the majority of Americans.

    It is the GOP that is not listening to the people!
  • kmay Tracker2 2010/12/02 21:09:19 (edited)
    kmay
    +5
    Read beyond progressive talking points.

    Tax cuts do not cost us money, get it? It's just that the Government doesn't get our money to spend...we do and put it into the economy. That grows the economy. Therfore the Gov gets more taxes. Econ 101

    Kyle voted against the ban. He IS for earmarks not all R's.

    Unemployment bnefits will cost another 153 BILLION if exteneded and without the tax cuts 53 BILLION. Eliminating those cuts spending, get it?

    Please take a course in basic Economics before you spout talking points.

    START bill is NOT something to be rushed through at this session and neither is DADT.
    Obama allowed the previous START Treaty to expire on December 5, 2009. He could have implemented a five-year extension while Washington and Moscow negotiated a follow-on treaty or amended the previous one, but he chose not to.

    Yes, the GOP is listening to the people.
  • lurx: t... kmay 2010/12/02 21:19:25 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +2
    "Tax cuts do not cost us money, get it?"

    tax cuts cost money

    ...oh really? When has trickle down economics ever given us anything other than record deficits?
  • kmay lurx: t... 2010/12/02 21:22:06 (edited)
    kmay
    +4
    You can spin anything. Liberals like to say they cost us money becuase then they don't have that money to spend. Get it? Try using logic and study Econ 101.
  • lurx: t... kmay 2010/12/02 21:32:08
    lurx: the soda jerk
    You do realize that whenever supply side (trickle down) economics has been used, it has only resulted in record deficits. When the previous administration was informed by their own economic advisers that these tax cuts would balloon the deficit, Dick Cheney responded this way...

    "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"

    http://www.newyorker.com/arch...

    ...I must assume that you agree with Cheney's statement on deficits.
  • kmay lurx: t... 2010/12/02 21:34:42
    kmay
    +2
    Only in progressives spin!
  • lurx: t... kmay 2010/12/02 21:44:57 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Are you suggesting that the non-partisan Center on Budget Policy and Priorities (who put together the information for this graph) is a "progressive" organization?

    http://www.cbpp.org/

    ------------

    Are you suggesting that conservative Andrew Sullivan is actually a progressive?

    http://andrewsullivan.theatla...

    ------------

    Is the Colorado Independent a "progressive" website?

    http://coloradoindependent.co...

    ------------

    Is Business Insider a "progressive" website?

    http://www.businessinsider.co...
  • kmay lurx: t... 2010/12/03 00:05:29 (edited)
    kmay
    +2
    CBPP:
    According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."[4] The Democracy Alliance:
    Since its founding in 2005, the Democracy Alliance has helped direct nearly $150 million to progressive organizations.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    A.S.
    His opinion on an article. He is also liberal in many areas.

    C.I.
    David Bennahum is liberal progressive. Wants to end Electoral College.
    Frequent contributor to The News Hour with Jim Lehrer; National Public Radio
    John Tomasic is liberal progressive.

    B. I.
    Authors are liberal progressives.
    B.I."...they rerun a lot more stories from liberals and liberal publications than they do from conservative ones. They have run hundreds of Krugman's articles, hundreds of articles from the New York Times and Washington Post both, many stories from leftist Newdeal2.0. "
    http://www.businessinsider.co...

    Reality of who really pays the taxes:


    "When Warren Harding cut tax rates, revenues to the treasury increased. When JFK cut tax rates, revenues the treasury increased. When Reagan ...
    CBPP:
    According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."[4] The Democracy Alliance:
    Since its founding in 2005, the Democracy Alliance has helped direct nearly $150 million to progressive organizations.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    A.S.
    His opinion on an article. He is also liberal in many areas.

    C.I.
    David Bennahum is liberal progressive. Wants to end Electoral College.
    Frequent contributor to The News Hour with Jim Lehrer; National Public Radio
    John Tomasic is liberal progressive.

    B. I.
    Authors are liberal progressives.
    B.I."...they rerun a lot more stories from liberals and liberal publications than they do from conservative ones. They have run hundreds of Krugman's articles, hundreds of articles from the New York Times and Washington Post both, many stories from leftist Newdeal2.0. "
    http://www.businessinsider.co...

    Reality of who really pays the taxes:
    tomasic liberal progressive authors liberal progressives reality pays taxes

    "When Warren Harding cut tax rates, revenues to the treasury increased. When JFK cut tax rates, revenues the treasury increased. When Reagan cut tax rates, revenues to the treasury almost doubled. It's not a hard concept to understand ." jonathanj
    (more)
  • lurx: t... kmay 2010/12/03 01:54:55 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    I imagine that you must also believe that Dick Cheney was a progressive for saying...

    "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"

    http://www.newyorker.com/arch...

    __________________________

    Here's what conservative economist Bruce Bartlett has to say about the topic of Republicans and deficit spending...

    "The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag."

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/11...

    __________________________

    "When Reagan cut tax rates, revenues to the treasury almost doubled..."

    Here's what Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, had to say about "Trickle Down" economics...

    http://www.rationalrevolution...

    __________________________

    ...are you actually trying to suggest that the Bush and Reagan administration's were not mired in record deficits?
    I imagine that you must also believe that Dick Cheney was a progressive for saying...

    "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"

    http://www.newyorker.com/arch...

    __________________________

    Here's what conservative economist Bruce Bartlett has to say about the topic of Republicans and deficit spending...

    "The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag."


    http://www.forbes.com/2009/11...

    __________________________

    "When Reagan cut tax rates, revenues to the treasury almost doubled..."

    Here's what Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, had to say about "Trickle Down" economics...

    http://www.rationalrevolution...

    __________________________

    ...are you actually trying to suggest that the Bush and Reagan administration's were not mired in record deficits?
    (more)
  • kmay lurx: t... 2010/12/03 14:51:56
    kmay
    +1
    Begging the question.
  • lurx: t... kmay 2010/12/03 15:19:39 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    "O’Neill watched all this with anguish. Shortly before he was fired, he confronted Cheney about the Administration’s latest proposal to cut taxes by another six hundred and seventy-four billion dollars over ten years, pointing out that the country was “moving toward a fiscal crisis.” The Vice-President stopped him. “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said. “We won the midterms. This is our due.” In fact, Reagan didn’t prove anything of the kind. Early in his first term, Congress was forced to adopt emergency tax increases and spending cuts to restrain the ballooning budget shortfall. Despite this remedial action, it wasn’t until the early nineties, when George Bush Senior and Bill Clinton raised taxes, that the nation’s finances were put in proper order, opening the way to the longest economic expansion on record. "


    http://www.newyorker.com/arch...

    ...are you suggesting that Cheney never made this statement?
  • kmay lurx: t... 2010/12/03 16:46:42
    kmay
    +1
    Never said that.
  • lurx: t... kmay 2010/12/03 23:06:37 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    Then you didn't say much of anything.

    By the way, here is what Reagan's budget director now has to say about the Bush tax cuts...

  • kmay lurx: t... 2010/12/04 12:33:15 (edited)
    kmay
    Read the Constitution. Learn Econ 101.

    We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.
  • ☆Hitler... lurx: t... 2010/12/03 20:26:58
    ☆Hitler was a community organiz☆
    +1
    its never been given an honest chance...here you go

  • JL lurx: t... 2010/12/03 21:25:11
    JL
    PLEASE, ACCEPT MY APOLOGY FOR THE ACCIDENTAL RAVE......NONE WAS DESERVED.......

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/30 19:13:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals