Posted on 07/06/2011 6:09:33 PM PDT by familyop
(Washington, DC) -- Republican congressional leaders are reportedly agreeing to billions of dollars in revenue increases as federal deficit discussions continue.
Republican Senator Jon Kyl announced the move today saying revenue increases don't necessarily mean tax hikes.
On the Senate floor Kyl said, quote, "If the government sells something and gets revenue from it, that's revenue."
He also suggested user fees for government services could provide additional revenue.
He says all the revenue increases Republicans have agreed to amount to between 150 billion and 200 billion dollars.
I agree with your take on this 100%.
Therefore, it should be the Republicans' first order of business to force the Democrats into doing what they least want to do, that is, pass a budget in the Senate.
As long as Boehner and McConnell let Reid defer to Obama on budget matters, they will again be giving up their greatest leverage against the Democrats.
Republicans must walk away from negotiations with the White House, and put pressure on Senate Democrats to complete the Congressional budget process.
-PJ
Who is Senator Kyle and where does he come from? We need to writr letters to the editor of whatever newspaper(s) his constituents live in and let them know what we think of them. That’s the only way this imbercile will get the message.
As I understand it these so-called revenue increases will not even go toward paying down the debt. They’ll be used by the political elite to pass out voter largess (aka more spending) so they can be reelected.
Tea Partiers should be outraged by this obvioius dis of voter’s will. We need to march on Washington silently and in great numbers soon.
Yeah! Let's charge a user fee for welfare benefits, health care benefits (Medicaid), food stamps, etc.!
Hazel!!! She would clean them out of the White House.
(Mrs)T
You attacked Palin long ago on this thread.
Let's recap the thread, for those playing at home.
Post #11 read:
To: familyop
There will be HELL TO PAY in 2012.
Boehner is a complete failure.
November 2012 can NOT come soon enough and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS! President Palin, we NEED you.
which contradicts what you wrote in Post #142 You were the one who introduced Palin into this conversation.
It wasn't me.
But you *replied* to Post #11, by posting in Post #24 the following:
To: Reagan69; BufordP; DoughtyOne
You sound like the conservative version of an O-bot crying that America needs a black man to clean up the mess.
Notice here, that you deliberately CUT-AND-PASTED from Post #11 to the words
"President Palin, we NEED you."
Your reply to the truncated post made it look like the OP was calling for "a woman" and falsely linked that to the Hopey-Changey call for "a black man" solely on the basis of membership in a preferred victims' group: which is a flat out lie.
I called you out on it in Post #83, where I wrote:
To: rabscuttle385
You, on the other hand, sound like pissant.
Cheers!
Which completely gives the lie to your statement that:
I merely made a remark comparing conservatives who agitate for candidates on the basis of their sex to liberals who agitate for candidates on the basis of their race. The comparison is true, and both types of individuals are nothing more than idiots and {race,sex,etc.}-baiters.
The Palin fans aren't doing that. You had to quote mine to be able to pretend that they were.
So, instead of just being a {race, sex, etc.}-baiter, I wish I could call you a master-baiter, but you even fail at being a tosser.
Cheers!
Cheers!
No.
Post 11 still stands as sexist. The poster wrote that
November 2012 can NOT come soon enough and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS!
and then added, in the immediately subsequent sentence (thought) in the very same paragraph, that
President Palin, we NEED you.
According to the poster's argument, the U.S. needs to elect a woman as president in 2012 to "clean up this mess." The next thought -- "President Palin, we need you!" -- implies that Palin should be elected because she is a woman.
Now, there are two possibilities here: the author of post 11 can't make a coherent argument; or the author of post 11 is arguing that Palin should be elected as president in 2012 because she's a woman.
Which is it, or do you want to continue playing the victim card and making lame excuses like quite a few (not all) of the Palin fans are prone to do?
You have once again run into people who write checks with their mouths, that their a$$ can’t cash ;-)
As for the morsels, Rush confirmed as much today. Obie is looking for cover from his base. Do I see egg on your face?
Heck, these days they’ve pretty much given up on writing the checks too.
“Can’t hold me accountable if I don’t promise anything.”
171½ posted on 07/07/2011 9:53:46 PM EDT by grey_whiskeys (Opinions subject to ch-change are un-unprince-unpr...STUPID!)
|
If you want off my ping list get over it!
Not to mention, lying.
As I already pointed out, you left out the mention of Palin in your lame response to Post #11, thereby changing the entire meaning of the post.
The "woman to clean up the mess" served as foreshadowing that the preferred candidate to be recommended was Palin, who happens to be a woman.
And in my reply to your post #24, I pointed out that the preference to Palin was because of her record.
There is no victim card: Palin is the most popular with the base, and still can draw crowds in the thousands even after a nationwide smear campaign plus all the dirt the PDS brigades and the Dem slime merchants could muster.
Look at her. She looks happy, eager, and confident. Not at all like a victim. And it is that joyous confidence which encourages people to back her putative candidacy, not her gender.
You're going to have to learn, when making scurrilous charges, that they need to have to bear at least a token resemblance to reality in order to have even a chance of success.
Cheers!
Sexual Frustration.
Projected onto fans of Palin.
Don't worry, cause have I got a girl for you.
BTW, you do realize that Foster Brooks died even before Palin was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, let alone became Governor, let alone named McCain's running mate?
Cheers!
Continuing to make apologies for sexism even when presented with the truth.
Disgusting.
There is no reason to bring up a PROSPECTIVE candidate's race, sex, or other irrelevant characteristic unless one is attempting to shut up one's opponents by implying that opposition to the PROSPECTIVE candidate is an act of racism, sexism, etc.
You’re Helen Thomas? No thanks.
Posting Helen Thomas pictures in defense of Sarah Palin™? That's a new low, even for the Palin™ brand Kool Aid guzzlers.
P.S. Mouse over "grey_whiskeys", Einstein, I mean Thomas.
Sure there is. When one mentions "a woman" in connection with "running for President" most people with immediately think of either Palin (not declared YET, but anticipated) or Bachmann (declared).
Nice try though, troll-boy.
Cheers!
I was too busy in this case right-clicking on the pic of Brooks to mouse over "grey_whiskeys".
Nice twofer.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.