Another example of why people are bucking the establishment

For the last 7 plus years, a substantial swat of republicans both in the House and Senate ran and won their respective elections on a platform of blocking the Obama agenda, and especially the big spending and big government growing machine, only to disappoint. Case in point, this shit:

The U.S. Senate’s first spending bill of 2016 allocates $261 million more than President Barack Obama requested and lacks significant conservative amendments, but it still sailed to passage Thursday in the Republican-led chamber.

An overwhelming number of senators on both sides of the aisle approved the energy and water development appropriations bill, by a vote of 90-8. Conservatives had objected to the higher spending levels and lack of policy riders in the weeks leading up to the vote.

In the end, it didn’t seem to matter.

It’s a victory for Republican leadership and an initial step toward achieving their goal of funding the federal government by passing 12 appropriations bills.

Why the fuck pretend you are going to buck the left’s big government, ever growing nanny-state, when at every fucking opportunity the entrenched and entitled party leadership seems to do exactly the opposite? It would be one thing to find yourself in the minority and being outvoted by the collectivists, but when you up the ante and choose to fund government by some $261 million more dollars than was even requested by the hopenchange candidate, something is fucking wrong. Really fucking wrong. Why in creation’s name would the leadership do something as idiotic as this when so many of their supporters label the over spending by government and the need to get both that spending and the deficit/debt under control as a top priority? well, here you go:

Moving legislation and avoiding fights has been a top election year priority for Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican wants the Senate to prove that Republicans can govern by avoiding a one-and-done omnibus spending package at the end of the year.

The fucking bootlickers want to impress the DNC controlled media, because I am certain that their constituency, including everyone else that understands one of our biggest problem has been the ridiculous amount of growth in government and the over spending, are not going to be impressed by their oneupmanship of the nanny state party leadership. At least some people were against this crap:

Sen. Mike Lee described the legislation as “simply unacceptable in a time of rising debt and slower economic growth.”

The Utah Republican told The Daily Signal that “we’re never going to get our nation’s rising deficits under control until we can stick to our previous agreements on spending levels,” referring to the limits set in the 2011 Budget Control Act.

Voting no along with Lee were seven other Republicans: Ted Cruz of Texas, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Arthur Heller of Nevada, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did not vote.

And they wonder why more and more people are bucking the establishment and looking for outsiders instead of members the consummate political aristocracy which all seem to be corrupt to one degree or another, regardless of party affiliation. Selling yourself as the less corrupt party isn’t going to work much anymore..

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    See, Alex, this is another illustration of your dementia on politics. The bill that just passed:

    1) is mostly discretionary spending, not entitlements.

    2) is an increase in the budget of less than 1%, well below baseline and consistent with keeping spending under control.  You know … spending restraint? That thing that cut the deficit by 2/3 when you were insisting that only throwing old people out on their ears would do that?

    3) mainly increased because the GOP wanted to allocate more money to defense-related programs and army Corp of Engineers. They cut a lot of what Obama wanted.  But sure, let’s let river wash away cities.

    4) returns us to a normal budget process without continuing resolutions which ultimately saves money

    So to sum up: the GOP cut spending the President wanted, got spending they wanted, kept the entire bill below baseline and got it through with a veto-proof majority. But the Republicans didn’t hold their breath until the entire country passed out and bonked their head on their coffee table so SURRENDER CAUCUS! RINO!  111!!!!

    This is the problem with the entire conservative movement. You simply can’t accept progress unless you get absolutely 100% of everything you want. Which is doubly hard because you have no idea what you fucking want. You just know that this isn’t it.

    You don’t want a government. You want a reality TV show.

    Thumb up 1

  2. AlexInCT *

    Shit man, you should quit whatever it is you do and go work as a mouthpiece for the DNC propaganda machine dude.

    I love how you say that since this isn’t a social spending bill and they only went 1% over, which is WAAAY lower than they usually do, we should give these fuckers a pass. People like you is why we are where we are today. At this time we should be slashing the budget. Not increasing it by anything.

    This is the problem with the entire conservative movement. You simply can’t accept progress unless you get absolutely 100% of everything you want.

    Actually this has nothing to do with conservativism, unless not spending more than you take and paying off your debt is now something that has become exclusive to the conservative movement, which it is not. We are spending too much, and doing so at a time when we are taking in record taxes. Period. Nice strawmean you erect there though so you can knock it down and feel all superior. We need to cut spending back because things are out of control. Yes, even a 1% growth is about 20% or more in the wrong direction.

    You don’t want a government. You want a reality TV show.

    I want government that is about 10% of what it is today. If that is what you consider to be a reality TV show then so be it.

    Thumb up 2

  3. richtaylor365

    Alex, you are wasting your time. Hal is one of those “Baseline Budgeting” converts (ya know, where I project I will gain 20 pounds this year and when I only gain 10, I can say that I lost 10 pounds and achieved a 50% weight loss). It is all hocus pocus numbers because the starting point is already skewed.

    is an increase in the budget of less than 1%, well below baseline and consistent with keeping spending under control.

    We have completely different definitions of “keeping spending under control”.

     That thing that cut the deficit by 2/3 

    Here we go again, the one-two ski-do nonsense front and center. Cutting a ridiculous $1 trillion deficit down to a $500 billion deficit (still deficit spending there, chief) somehow makes you austerity captain of the universe. Of course, those deficit numbers are now rising again, aren’t they? But no worries, when it reaches $1 trillion again, baseline budget stooges like Hal will proclaim ,” Yea for us, we have obtained zero deficit growth, staying at $1 trillion”.

     when you were insisting that only throwing old people out on their ears would do that?

    Sooooooo, since giving Obama more than he asked for saves those old people from their fate, Obama hates old people because he did not ask for that rescue money in the first place? Ah-oh, Hal and his ODS again.

    returns us to a normal budget process without continuing resolutions which ultimately saves money

    Normal budget process? You mean like no budgets at all for the last 6 years? Some normal. Besides, budgets are not necessary;

    Budget resolutions don’t have the force of law. Appropriations bills are where spending is allocated. While the budget provides a long-term framework for spending and revenue, lawmakers don’t actually have to pass one. While the Senate is legally required to pass a budget, there is no penalty for not doing so.

    “The fact is that you don’t need a budget,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said last year. “We can adopt appropriation bills and we can adopt authorization policies without a budget.”

    And this budget is only good for 2 years, big deal.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  4. JimK

    You might as well want a unicorn.

    Wow. In that case you might as well just give in and become a full supporter of increased spending and larger government. Kinda doesn’t matter which party you pick.

    The problem with an attitude like yours, Hal, is that you have conceded the fight, both now and more importantly, in the future.  40 years ago, if you told someone that gay marriage would be the law of the land, they’d have said “You might as well want a unicorn.” But people fought, they continued to keep the issue front and center, and slowly, the tide shifted. Large swaths of the political class died, and people with a far more open attitudes toward gay marriage took their place. There was a shift in the people as well. Every year, more and more people approved of the idea based on nothing more than it would be equality. People talked about it, and they taught their kids, and those kids taught their kids that being gay isn’t punishable, and the law should protect everyone.

    By conceding the fiscal fight, you are conceding the idea of ever changing people’s minds about the size, scope and role of government. I personally think that is exactly the wrong tack to take. If you don’t hold that position, then you should re-examine the things you are saying, because your words give the distinct impression that you have given up.

    is 10% reasonable? No. But we both know that’s hyperbole. 75% of what we have now? Yeah. With the right attitude and support, that’s doable over the course of a few decades. Could we cut 40% in 40 years? Maybe. If we fought long and hard and made sure that we were molding younger minds to believe that the federal government should not be the first answer to every problem.

    A significant reduction in scope, size and spending is a goal we should all be on board with, no matter what flavor of libertarian or conservative we are. Don’t ever give up the fight. Ask for the moon and settle for a country, you know what I’m saying?

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    You might as well want a unicorn.

    While Jim handled this already Hal, I want to add my two cents here. Seriously Hal, we are here today, $20 trillion (watch us find out after we finally have these crooks kicked out that it is twice that now and to double when the next scumbag takes over) in debt and with no end to the debt growth and over spending of our bloated and ineffective nanny state, because we gave up on these lying, cheating, stealing and conniving criminals and they figured out they could get away with this shit. They will only get serious when their ass is on the line. As long as we remain content that they are slow boiling us frogs, we are going to just get more frog soup made.

    America is toast. We have let a bunch of criminal minded credentialed assholes with delusions of grandeur run amok for too long, lying about them doing the horrible things they did because they were helping those less fortunate, while swindling us all. And we will never regain control without a fight it now feels like, leaving me dejected that so many people not only want to not end business as usual, but actually make excuses for these crooks.

    I plan to fight till the bitter end to make this government both live within its means – like it requires me to – and for it to service the productive instead of those that vote for a living. Yes, help the less fortunate, but make sure we are helping people that deserve it and not diluting the system, like it is today, by providing a safety net for people that just want to mooch. More importantly, lets make politics a service and not a career.

    If we don’t get our balance sheet in order we are going to have some real global shit go down. The last time we saw this millions died, and the evil ideology that our crop of elites now believes in enslaved billions in misery for decades . This time it will be worse because we have allowed, and in the case of this administration even enabled, all manner of scoundrels to get nukes.

    At the risk of pissing off the revisionists and the haters, I am going to point out that humanity got a bright period because of this country, and we are about to burn that all up because we let shitty and corrupt people take it over and destroy it from within.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000

    is 10% reasonable? No. But we both know that’s hyperbole. 75% of what we have now? Yeah. With the right attitude and support, that’s doable over the course of a few decades. Could we cut 40% in 40 years? Maybe. If we fought long and hard and made sure that we were molding younger minds to believe that the federal government should not be the first answer to every problem.

    Yes, except that the members of this site oppose the very actions that would get us there because it’s not fast enough.  If you hold spending steady or at every low rates of growth, the government shrinks relative to the economy.  It has already gone down from almost 25% of GDP down to 20% of GDP in just five years.  And if you hold the line on spending, it will continue to shrink. Programs will have to be cancelled, entitlements reformed in order to comply with spending caps.  This is EXACTLY how we balanced the budget and got the government to its smallest post-WW2 size in the 90’s. This is EXACTLY what has happened over the last five years. But it’s not good enough for Rich or Alex, who want spending cut 90% NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

    This is the problem. Politics is the art of the possible.  We have a window of what we can do given that about half the country votes Democrat, that we have a Democratic President, that we have massive swaths of the public opposed to cutting any spending beyond foreign aide. I’m interested in what we can do in reality, not in fantasyland. Holding spending flat can be done.  It has been done.  Holding spend flat can balance the budget. It did in the 90’s.  It has already cut the deficit by 2/3 and sliced tens of trillions of long-term projections, something you guys insisted was impossible with huge cuts in spending (and tax cuts, for some reason).

    So while you were ranting and calling Obama a traitor and proclaiming everything a disaster, the sellouts and RINOs kept spending under control. And they would have gotten entitlement reform too if the Tea Party hadn’t insisted on no tax increases whatsoever. (Cue paranoid screeds about how Obama the Criminal would gut entitlement reform on his own through some secret legal cabal).

    No Congress and no President — Republican, Democrat or otherwise — is going to gut Social Security. They are not going to gut Medicare. They are not going cut military spending in half. They are not going to close public schools. They are not going to fire half of federal law enforcement. They are not going to abandon corporate welfare. However, they will accept the kind of spending restraint that accomplishes these things over time. I saw it my own agency — NASA — which cut a lot of bullshit over the last five years because of the sequester but managed to keep all its science missions going.

    The conservative movement needs to decide: do they want to solve problems? Or do they just want to spout off at the mouth and accomplish nothing?  Actually, given their choice of Presidential candidate, I think their preference is now obvious.

    Besides, budgets are not necessary;

    So, for God’ sake, then why were you guys making a big deal about the budget not being passed for six years?  A budget isn’t passed and you say the Democrats are a criminal enterprise. A budget is passed and you say, “eh, whatever”.  Make up your mind.

    Oh, you did make up your mind.  Democrats suck.  Everything sucks. Hal is sucking the President’ dick. Fuck it all no matter what.

    Sooooooo, since giving Obama more than he asked for saves those old people from their fate, Obama hates old people because he did not ask for that rescue money in the first place? Ah-oh, Hal and his ODS again.

    Try to keep up, Rich. Alex has said we should gut Social Security and Medicare to get government down to the size he wants.

    And Rich, you keep hammering this baseline budgeting talking point even though I’m talking about spending in absolute terms.  1% increase is 1% increase.  Quit repeating things you heard on Rush Limbaugh 20 years ago as though they are relevant to what I’m saying.

    Thumb up 0

  7. richtaylor365

    But it’s not good enough for Rich or Alex, who want spending cut 90% NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

    Must be a progressive thing, both you and CM telling me what I think, and always getting it wrong, what are the odds? Nowhere no place have I ever said the government (or spending) should be cut by 90%. How about you not attributing comments others have made to what I said, deal?

    It has already gone down from almost 25% of GDP down to 20% of GDP in just five years.

    Except that the deficit is now rising again, or don’t you believe CBO numbers;

    CBO projects a $534 billion deficit in fiscal year 2016, about $100 billion more than in 2015. If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would increase from 2.9 percent to 4.9 percent of GDP over the next decade.\

    Holding spending flat can be done

    Again, we speak 2 different languages. See, to me, holding spending flat means no deficit, spending only that amount of money that you collect in revenue. Now, to be charitable and factoring it the massive size of the government we now have, I would would even settle for a lowering of the deficit year by year to the point where there is no deficit spending, Then, I would work on the national debt, spending less than the revenue brought in so that the debt can be lowered gradually. Crazy, huh?

     And they would have gotten entitlement reform

    You are delusional if you think this president would ever put his name to any entitlement reform legislation.

    So, for God’ sake, then why were you guys making a big deal about the budget not being passed for six years?

    Because it is their job, that’s why. Call it a formality, call it parliamentary procedure, call it any damn thing you like, but they are legally mandated to pass a yearly budget. Just because Harry Reid and company spent all their time while in the majority jerking off in the corner and could not be bothered does not mean that it should not be done.

    Hal is sucking the President’ dick. 

    What you do behind closed doors is your business.

      Quit repeating things you heard on Rush Limbaugh 20 years ago as though they are relevant to what I’m saying.

    It’s probably been that long since I last listened to Rush and thanks for complimenting my memory but since CBO projects a $100 billion increase in the deficit from 2015 to 2016, your 1% increase is again…………….bullshit.

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0