Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   House GOP unveils its budget of fiscally responsible unicorns and market-driven rainbows   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

6169 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Mar 2009 at 4:27 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



932 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest

 
2009-03-26 7:34:26 PM  

krelborne: Obdicut: krelborne: Seriously guys, those of you calling it the budget are way off base.

So he lied when he said "here it is, Mr. President".

Sure, fine, he's a liar and a doodyhead. One might claim that he misspoke, but we'll go with "liar" if that makes you happy. That doesn't change what the facts are surrounding this document and the future document.


Okay, it took me a while to understand the point you were making and now I get it. I'm willing to concede that Boehner's may have been taken out of context, even though at face value they seem to be what they are.

Here's a quick question for you...

If the actual GOP budget makes little or no sense, how should we, we, as in people who are trying to makes sense out of this insanity, evaluate the Republicans?

From my perspective, I think Boehner made a serious error in judgment even presenting this document to us.
 
2009-03-26 7:34:50 PM  

Thrag: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Methinks people are confusing budgetary goals and objectives with a specfic bill proposal.

And by people, you mean Boehner and the rest of the GOP, right? Since it's obvious to most everyone else that their "budget" or "blueprint" or whatever they are backpedaling to call it now it nothing but a list of talking points with no substance whatsoever.


Right. It's not a bill.
 
2009-03-26 7:35:16 PM  

priestrape: this should keep the neocon douchebags from pulling that "unicorns and rainbows" crap out of their asses again. Right?


First thing I thought of:
img142.imageshack.usView Full Size


/nobody had better have beat me t-
//2009-03-26 07:30:35 PM
///shakes fist in impotent rage
 
2009-03-26 7:35:40 PM  

Mosey: But since you bring it up, Republicans have only had control of Congress and the Presidency what, 6 years since 1980 (2000-2006)?


Thank the Gods, because in those 6 years they erased a budget surplus, pushed through TWO of the biggest tax cuts ever (mostly for the wealthy), got us into an endless war in Iraq, and passed the biggest entitlement since WWII.

In six years they saddled America with nearly $10 trillion in Debt. Gods only knows how much more they could have farked us in the last two years.
 
2009-03-26 7:35:46 PM  

hyperspacemonkey: This is at the same level as any undergrad presentation by business students. Since wikipedia and the internet are replacing books, this is what passes for information and intelligence.

Seriously, in any university in North America, this budget would be given a pass. A 60, but the business students would be satisfied. and that is the only demographic that the budget needs to satisfy.


Is there a link to the damn thing somewhere? I can't find it on TPM.
 
2009-03-26 7:36:00 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Another one...brilliant!


I know, that was too easy. I feel terrible. Sorry, kid.
 
2009-03-26 7:37:16 PM  

hyperspacemonkey: This is at the same level as any undergrad presentation by business students.


You are high. This would have gotten a big fat "F" in most classrooms. It is at best the a bare outline of goals. There's nothing in it to even grade from the perspective of any business class.

Seriously, in any university in North America, this budget would be given a pass.

Seriously, you are completely and utterly wrong. Most professors would laugh you out of class for trying to present a document so devoid of anything but wishful thinking and blaming the other team as any sort of coursework.
 
2009-03-26 7:37:33 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Thrag: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Methinks people are confusing budgetary goals and objectives with a specfic bill proposal.

And by people, you mean Boehner and the rest of the GOP, right? Since it's obvious to most everyone else that their "budget" or "blueprint" or whatever they are backpedaling to call it now it nothing but a list of talking points with no substance whatsoever.

Right. It's not a bill.


So when he said Obama was lying and they did indeed have a budget, he himself was lying. Yes?

I mean, you really aren't grasping why this whole situation is hilarious?
 
2009-03-26 7:38:21 PM  

burndtdan: timmy_the_tooth: doling out tax cuts to the needy, like middle class people who make over $5,000,000 a year.

i could change "stimulus plan" to "budget proposal", but i'm too lazy.


Why bother when the two plans are the same idea?
 
2009-03-26 7:38:27 PM  

Thrag: And by people, you mean Boehner and the rest of the GOP, right? Since it's obvious to most everyone else that their "budget" or "blueprint" or whatever they are backpedaling to call it now it nothing but a list of talking points with no substance whatsoever.


Come on they are asking for moving the top tax bracket to 25%. There is some details about giving tax cuts for the rich!
 
2009-03-26 7:39:57 PM  
What. A. Farking. Joke.
 
2009-03-26 7:40:08 PM  
Oh lord:

"Our health care system currently stands at a turning
point between more quality, more affordability, and more
freedom or inferior service, higher costs, and fewer
choices."

That's it, folks. Either we can turn this way and have AWESOMENESS. OR, We could turn that way and OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED.
 
2009-03-26 7:41:41 PM  
Usually I post because I have something to add. This is not one of those times.

I just want to be a part of this thread. Good lord this is funny.
 
2009-03-26 7:41:50 PM  
Phil Herup: Unfortunately the Dem budget replaces the "miracle occuring" quote with a "Who cares if it works or not? We all gettin' paid".


Better a gamble that might work, than a plan that hinges on wishful thinking and miracles.
 
2009-03-26 7:41:51 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks:
Rebuttal? The current ecominc plan is it's own rebuttal, combed through and dissected for weeks. Please consult previous threads, or perhaps news sources.


First of all, you've mistakenly assumed that I'm a 'liberal', not that I really care.

Second, I've actually looked into the proposed budget quite a bit, and have several concerns regarding specific points myself.

Third, the only thing that I've seen or heard from Republican leaders in Congress, or 'conservatives' on fark threads, is 'OMG Deficit! Socialist! Atlas Shrugged! Wharrgarbl!'. Until I see something that represents an actual rebuttal, something more than 'we need to cut taxes on rich people', I am going to feel perfectly within my rights to mock the Republican party mercilessly.


TPM? Please.

Talking Point Memo? ...What? No, really, I don't know what you're getting at there.

Which outline are you referring to in particular, if any?

Outline? I think we're not on the same page here. The majority of my comments have either been specific to this. (new window) Or have been in order to address another poster's comments directly.

Please read from an earlier post:

kasmel: The reason people are mocking him, this document, and the Republicans in general is that they were slated as the party of no ideas, to which they responded with a document that contains exactly no ideas. They staged a media event to present their 'plan' as a rebuttal. Their plan is a perfect example of why they're called the party of no ideas. That's the context, and that's why we're having fun mocking it.

If/when they actually present a budget plan that we can review that contains numbers and projections we'll analyze that for it's objective worth. Until then, they are performing theater just like the caricatures they've been described as.

 
2009-03-26 7:42:45 PM  

Hoarseman: It looks like they're trying to repeat the "Contract With America" which helped drive the Republican electoral gains during the 90's. However, it seems to have been turned over to a B-unit and what we got was Contract 2: Election' Booggaloo.


It does seem to me if the current group of republicans were the old New World Order wrestling faction, we're definitely dealing with the Mike "Vincent" Jones and Scott Nortons of the group as opposed...

Hey. This is a really good analogy! like the nWo, it was lead by a cadre of old fogies, who really weren't that good but for a time were popular anyway, lookin to protect their spots, who put down young kids, and when the young kids actually had to produce, they failed! And now they have a bloated group of people who can't do shyte and people are booing them out of the house!

/rereading "The Death of WCW" by R.D. Reynolds and Brian Alverez
//very, very highly suggested if you remember the time in the industry fondly.
 
2009-03-26 7:42:58 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Right. It's not a bill.


No kidding? 500 posts in and not one person has referred to this travesty as a bill. Thanks for the clarification.
 
2009-03-26 7:43:01 PM  

nevirus: Oh lord:

"Our health care system currently stands at a turning
point between more quality, more affordability, and more
freedom or inferior service, higher costs, and fewer
choices."

That's it, folks. Either we can turn this way and have AWESOMENESS. OR, We could turn that way and OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED.


Which way is which for you?
 
2009-03-26 7:43:48 PM  

nevirus: That's it, folks. Either we can turn this way and have AWESOMENESS. OR, We could turn that way and OH GOD WE'RE DOOMED.


Yes, but which way is which? How are we supposed to tell without a nonsensical flowchart??
 
2009-03-26 7:45:41 PM  
You notice how in threads attacking Democrats people don't quote what they actually said much, but in threads attacking Republicans it is full of people quoting what they actually said.
 
2009-03-26 7:47:17 PM  

Crunch61: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Right. It's not a bill.

No kidding? 500 posts in and not one person has referred to this travesty as a bill. Thanks for the clarification.


People sure seem to be acting like one. A "bill" would have specific numbers, allocations for funds, etc.

If people are crying that this doesn't contain these specifics, they are spouting off that this ISN'T a bill. It's not supposed to be.

Why would you characterize an economic platform as a "travesty"? Which one do you so vehemently disagree with?
 
2009-03-26 7:47:30 PM  
img91.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2009-03-26 7:47:32 PM  
"And even community organizers, such as
ACORN, performing "neighborhood stabilization.""

Well, "sentence fragment" is also a sentence fragment!
 
2009-03-26 7:47:32 PM  
And the saddest part of all of this is that these aren't even proper flowcharts!!
 
2009-03-26 7:48:41 PM  

Corvus: You notice how in threads attacking Democrats people don't quote what they actually said much, but in threads attacking Republicans it is full of people quoting what they actually said.


i180.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-03-26 7:49:01 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: People sure seem to be acting like one. A "bill" would have specific numbers, allocations for funds, etc.

If people are crying that this doesn't contain these specifics, they are spouting off that this ISN'T a bill. It's not supposed to be.




Jesus Christ LOL. You don't come out with your counter to the proposed budget with NO NUMBERS. Man, you guys just can't admit to screwing up. Its why your almost dead politcally.
 
2009-03-26 7:49:25 PM  

DamnYankees: The threat going around the Capitol is that some impish Democratic chairman will ask the CBO to try and score the Republican proposal.


That'll be worth it on just sheer entertainment value alone.
I can see it now....

Congressional Budget Office
Review of Republican Budget Proposal

Chapter 1- This shiat, WTF is it?
Chapter 2- Wait, they're serious?
Chapter 3- Bwahahahahahahahaha
Chapter 4- Crap charts
Chapter 5- Bwahahahahahahahaha revisited
Chapter 6- Conclusions and final score as expressed with random failblog and 4chan images
 
2009-03-26 7:49:52 PM  

gallo caldo: 64 pages of actual budget, 42 pages of "I didn't do it," 24 pages of summaries and conclusions, 7 pages of nothing.

That's about $62,500,000,000 per page. Statistically indistinguishable from the Republicans'.


Hey, arse, THE US HAS A LARGE BUDGET. "billions per page!" is a scare tactic and you should be farking ashamed to have used it.

Second, are there NUMBERS in Obama's budget? Well holy farking shyte that's an upgrade over the republicans!

you're pathetic.
 
2009-03-26 7:50:31 PM  
Here's a link to a video of the press conference. Now those arguing context based on a couple of quotes in a news article that summarized the conference can see the real context.

link
 
2009-03-26 7:50:39 PM  

nevirus: "And even community organizers, such as
ACORN, performing "neighborhood stabilization.""

Well, "sentence fragment" is also a sentence fragment!


Wait. ACORN is in there too? Did I miss that? Honest to God, if that is in there, Republicanism is dead. Completely dead. We can all go home. its over.

ACORN?
 
2009-03-26 7:50:50 PM  

captain_heroic44: 1. Lobbying is outlawed. Period. No lobbying, ever. No private meetings between representatives of large corporations and elected officials or their agents. No gifts or junkets.

2. Term limits.

Banning lobbying raises serious First Amendment issues. I agree in principle with banning or seriously capping lobbyist contributions to political campaigns, gifts, and junkets. But banning meetings amounts to banning speech, and I'd have to part ways with you.


There's a difference between stopping speech and stopping people from having paid for trips to expensive hotels and restaurants. If corporate reps want face time with a Congressman, they can do it in a public forum, not a private one, that's all I'm saying. Conflict of interest needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed soon.

Term limits are anti-democratic. They don't do anything to curb corruption anyway. Was Bush any less beholden to corporate interests in his second term because of Presidential term limits? How about Clinton? Reagan?

Republicans want them because incumbency is one of the few advantages Democrats ever have over Republicans, since Republicans generally have more money, friendlier media, etc., than Democrats. Term limits are the Republican answer to campaign finance laws.

Term limits suck.


I fundamentally disagree with you on several points.

First, please explain how term limits are anti-democratic.

Term limits have the effect of curbing corruption in that people will not become more interested in KEEPING their job than in DOING their job. The no-lobbying and term limits go hand in hand. There are several examples where congresscritters kept their jobs just long enough to land a lucrative contract with a lobbying group. Their entire careers were an end-goal run to a cushy 7-figure job as someone that works to bribe OTHER congresscritters. Remove lobbying, add term limits, and the people that RUN might actually be worth voting for.
 
2009-03-26 7:51:17 PM  
"Unfortunately, Democrats-with an entire energy agenda
aimed at keeping energy and fuel prices as high as
possible-..."

Oh, those durned Democrats!
 
2009-03-26 7:52:23 PM  
Anyone who labels themself as Republican will never match up to a Democrat.
Anyone who labels themself as Democrat will never match up to a Republican.

I allowing yourself to be divided and conquered is not very bright.
 
2009-03-26 7:52:25 PM  
I think I found the early draft!

img148.imageshack.usView Full Size

By ixijimixi
 
2009-03-26 7:53:38 PM  
Too late to chime in with an "epic"? This might be the post-coital cuddle part of the thread.
 
2009-03-26 7:53:58 PM  

Mosey: And when they did have control of Congress and the Presidency in 1992-1994, what did they push... almost exactly the same ideas, maybe slightly different technologies, but really the same ideas. As it turns out, that didn't really work out well for them. (that was more the corruption of controlling Congress for 40 years more than the ideas themselves).


Yeah. The ideas weren't implemented. So they are trying to implement them now. What's the problem?

Mosey: But since you bring it up, Republicans have only had control of Congress and the Presidency what, 6 years since 1980 (2000-2006)? Does that means you can't say they don't have "new" ideas either? Or at least can't say "haven't had a new idea since 1980?


But the GOP ideas they are touting now are quite literally the same ones that they put into affect in this decade. So its idiotic to think that if we do the same things we just did things will turn out different. The Democrats are at least saying "lets do something different than what we have been doing", while the GOP is saying "we need to keep doing the same things but just more of it".
 
2009-03-26 7:54:23 PM  
"Republicans believe the best antidote for market turmoil
is certainty and economic growth."

So insightful!
 
2009-03-26 7:54:37 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks 2009-03-26 07:06:48 PM
Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar. My last attempt at deflection using the latest talking point, "teleprompter" failed miserably, so here's another Obama red herring that completely avoids the issue.

Honestly, you should quit trying.
 
2009-03-26 7:56:18 PM  
Sadly my link above doesn't have the Q&A, just the statements. So it doesn't have hilarious gems reported in other articles like this:

Reporters -- mainstream, liberal and conservative -- greeted the Republican document with a collective scoff.

"Are you going to have any further details on this today?" the first asked.

"On what?" asked Boehner.

"There's no detail in here," noted the reporter.

Answered Boehner: "This is a blueprint for where we're going. Are you asking about some other document?"

A second reporter followed up: "What about some numbers? What about the out-year deficit? What about balancing the budget? How are you going to do it?"

"We'll have the alternative budget details next week," promised Boehner. Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had wisely departed the room after offering his opening remarks. ("Today's Republican road-to-recovery is the latest in a series of GOP initiatives, solutions and plans," he had offered.)

A third reporter asked Boehner about the Republican goal for deficit reduction, noting President Obama aimed to cut it in half in five years. "What's your goal?"

"To do better," said Boehner.

"How? How much?"

"You'll see next week."

"Wait. Why not today? Because he asked you to present a budget."

"Now, hold on," said Boehner. "The president came to Capitol Hill and laid out his blueprint for his budget during the State of the Union. He didn't offer his details until days later."

"In general, where do you see cuts coming?" the Huffington Post asked.

"We'll wait and see next week," he said.

Another reporter reminded Boehner that he has "criticized Democrats for throwing together a stimulus quickly and nobody knew what they were voting on. Are you saying that your budget will be unveiled on the same day that the House is expected to vote on it?"

"No, I expect it'll be out next week," he said, though the House is expected to vote on the budget next week. "But understand that a budget really is a one-page document. It's just a bunch of numbers."

/yeah, these are the guys we need running the country
 
2009-03-26 7:56:39 PM  
This is the funniest thing I have ever seen.
 
2009-03-26 7:56:47 PM  
Here is another gem in the "plan":

And despite expert agreement that nuclear power is
reliable, clean, and affordable without producing air
pollution or greenhouse gases, Democrats continue to
block its development. The federal government has no
approved a new nuclear power plant since the late 1970s


Well why the fark didn't you guys do it when you guys were in power for like 6 years?


Maybe because no one actually wants to do it?
 
2009-03-26 7:57:26 PM  

Corvus: You notice how in threads attacking Democrats people don't quote what they actually said much, but in threads attacking Republicans it is full of people quoting what they actually said.


Lord_Baull: 3_Butt_Cheeks 2009-03-26 07:06:48 PM
Sounds like the entire Obama campaign/Presidency thusfar. My last attempt at deflection using the latest talking point, "teleprompter" failed miserably, so here's another Obama red herring that completely avoids the issue.

Honestly, you should quit trying.


You were saying, Corvus?
 
2009-03-26 7:59:01 PM  
This might have been better:

i100.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-03-26 8:01:17 PM  

Thrag: Sadly my link above doesn't have the Q&A, just the statements. So it doesn't have hilarious gems reported in other articles like this:

Reporters -- mainstream, liberal and conservative -- greeted the Republican document with a collective scoff.

"Are you going to have any further details on this today?" the first asked.

"On what?" asked Boehner.

"There's no detail in here," noted the reporter.

Answered Boehner: "This is a blueprint for where we're going. Are you asking about some other document?"

A second reporter followed up: "What about some numbers? What about the out-year deficit? What about balancing the budget? How are you going to do it?"

"We'll have the alternative budget details next week," promised Boehner. Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had wisely departed the room after offering his opening remarks. ("Today's Republican road-to-recovery is the latest in a series of GOP initiatives, solutions and plans," he had offered.)

A third reporter asked Boehner about the Republican goal for deficit reduction, noting President Obama aimed to cut it in half in five years. "What's your goal?"

"To do better," said Boehner.

"How? How much?"

"You'll see next week."

"Wait. Why not today? Because he asked you to present a budget."

"Now, hold on," said Boehner. "The president came to Capitol Hill and laid out his blueprint for his budget during the State of the Union. He didn't offer his details until days later."

"In general, where do you see cuts coming?" the Huffington Post asked.

"We'll wait and see next week," he said.

Another reporter reminded Boehner that he has "criticized Democrats for throwing together a stimulus quickly and nobody knew what they were voting on. Are you saying that your budget will be unveiled on the same day that the House is expected to vote on it?"

"No, I expect it'll be out next week," he said, though the House is expected to vote on the budget next week. "But understand that a budget really is a one-page document. It's just a bunch of numbers."

/yeah, these are the guys we need running the country


Translation:

Do you have the specific numbers to give us to scrutinize yet?

"No. But next week we will have those numbers."

OMG!!!!! WHAT??????

"Yes. I'm not going to stand here and feed you false made up BS numbers. You'll have them when we have them. Next week."

B...B...BUT WE WANT THEM NOW!

"Sorry. We don't have them now. Next week."

Yea, how irresponsible.
 
2009-03-26 8:01:18 PM  

Thrag: "Are you going to have any further details on this today?" the first asked.

"On what?" asked Boehner.

"There's no detail in here," noted the reporter.



upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size

Hey reporters it says "REPUBLICAN PLAN" on the front cover!!!


Is that not good enough for you!
 
2009-03-26 8:01:20 PM  
Corvus:

Maybe because no one with any power or money actually wants to do it?
 
2009-03-26 8:01:53 PM  

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: This might have been better:


ROFL!
 
2009-03-26 8:01:58 PM  
kasmel:
There's a difference between stopping speech and stopping people from having paid for trips to expensive hotels and restaurants. If corporate reps want face time with a Congressman, they can do it in a public forum, not a private one, that's all I'm saying. Conflict of interest needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed soon.

Okay. So you're distinguishing between public and private meetings. I'd say there's still some freedom of association issues at stake. But it's a legit distinction.

First, please explain how term limits are anti-democratic.

They are anti-democratic because they deprive people of the choice of re-electing a possibly popular incumbent. For example, in 2000, it is very likely that Clinton would have won a third term. In 1988, Reagan may have won a third term. Term limits deprive people of a choice that could be made democratically.

Term limits have the effect of curbing corruption in that people will not become more interested in KEEPING their job than in DOING their job.

Popularly elected representatives keep their jobs by doing them. A second term president is less beholden to the public than is a first term president. Similarly, a term limited congressman would be less beholden to his constituents in his final term than in his previous terms. In fact, he would be more likely to cater to corporate lobbiests who would take care of him with sweet jobs when his term is up than to the constituents who have nothing more to offer him.

At least if his term is not limited, he's always accountable to his constituents.

I have to go at the moment. But probably more later.
 
2009-03-26 8:02:42 PM  
Which is more pathetic, this "proposal" offered by the republicans or 3-Butt's attempts to defend it?
 
2009-03-26 8:03:06 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Do you have the specific numbers to give us to scrutinize yet?

"No. But next week we will have those numbers."

OMG!!!!! WHAT??????


But they REPUBLICANS said they had those numbers TODAY!

See? You still don't get it?

This was supposed to be their plan until people started asking questions about it.

So you are saying the Republicans HAVE NO PLAN?
 
Displayed 50 of 932 comments


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.