Can you say ... Speaker Boehner

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Can you say ... Speaker Boehner
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Jan 8, 2011 4:54 PM
ptown_trojans_1;629961 wrote:Sort of, but farm subsidies are awful and need dramatically reformed/ cut. It is more of the subsidies toward new areas, tech jobs, nuclear power, breaks for small businesses that favor a new technology, breaks for businesses that can help improve infrastructure, etc. those sort of things.
I get what you're saying... BUT... isn't that just sweeping the dirt under the brand new pretty rug and exclaiming how pretty your living room is?
Jan 8, 2011 4:54pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 10, 2011 9:26 AM
“Well, listen, I have — I promised a more open process,’’ Boehner said. “I didn’t promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill. Or, as I said yesterday, we went through a whole Congress, two years, without one — without one open rule. And as I said yesterday, there will be many open rules in this Congress, and just watch.’’

Good start for the tan man. You all got fooled again.
Jan 10, 2011 9:26am
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 11, 2011 5:18 PM
BGFalcons82;629958 wrote:Do you mean subsidies similar to the wonderful "Cash for Clunkers" program that stimulated...ummm...uhhh....well....nothing? Or farm subsidies, where people are paid not to farm and have prices held artificially high so that everyone pays for it? Those kind of programs?

Please provide the supporting link that "Cash for Clunkers" program was a failure. Try and see if you can use a source other then from some right wing blogger or a news entertainment network.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-486
Jan 11, 2011 5:18pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Jan 11, 2011 5:25 PM
Bigdogg;634550 wrote:Please provide the supporting link that "Cash for Clunkers" program was a failure. Try and see if you can use a source other then from some right wing blogger or a news entertainment network.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-486

How can you consider something that only pushes sales forward -- and destroys the used car market -- a success?

The economy didn't improve one iota with that program. Unemployment was the same or higher; nothing changed. Except now when you try to find some types of used cars, you can't. Because they were foolishly destroyed. As a result, people looking for used cars get to pay higher prices than they would have without this program.

Is that really your idea of success?

Since you backed (apparently) this program, how about the burden of proof of its success fall to YOU?
Jan 11, 2011 5:25pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Jan 11, 2011 7:12 PM
Bigdogg;634550 wrote:Please provide the supporting link that "Cash for Clunkers" program was a failure. Try and see if you can use a source other then from some right wing blogger or a news entertainment network.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-486
Without reading the link, is that a ".gov" link that is probably giving the thumbs up to a government program?
Jan 11, 2011 7:12pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 11, 2011 7:43 PM
CenterBHSFan;634686 wrote:Without reading the link, is that a ".gov" link that is probably giving the thumbs up to a government program?

Not the GAO, Government Accountability Office.
Most if not all government agencies hate the GAO as all of their reports call for leaner, more efficient, effective metrics for government programs, if not the eradication for programs. Think of them as those annoying account people that always say what are your metrics and why can't you do it better and with less?

There are numerous GAO reports ripping programs from the Defense Department, to the Nuclear weapons labs, to the budget system.
(I know as I've had to read many reports for my job lol.)
Jan 11, 2011 7:43pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 11, 2011 7:50 PM
ptown_trojans_1;634722 wrote:Not the GAO, Government Accountability Office.
Most if not all government agencies hate the GAO as all of their reports call for leaner, more efficient, effective metrics for government programs, if not the eradication for programs. Think of them as those annoying account people that always say what are your metrics and why can't you do it better and with less?

There are numerous GAO reports ripping programs from the Defense Department, to the Nuclear weapons labs, to the budget system.
(I know as I've had to read many reports for my job lol.)
That may be the case Ptown, but the big difference between the non-profit GAO and private for-profit accounting offices is the first one is still a government agency. Who holds the GAO accountable for their "reports"? Oh that's right...politicians and bureaucrats beholden to politicians. ;)
Jan 11, 2011 7:50pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 11, 2011 7:58 PM
believer;634731 wrote:That may be the case Ptown, but the big difference between the non-profit GAO and private for-profit accounting offices is the first one is still a government agency. Who holds the GAO accountable for their "reports"? Oh that's right...politicians and bureaucrats beholden to politicians. ;)

Yep, which is why their recommendation rarely get fulfilled or implemented.
Still, they out out great work.
Jan 11, 2011 7:58pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 11, 2011 8:37 PM
Writerbuckeye;634553 wrote:How can you consider something that only pushes sales forward -- and destroys the used car market -- a success?

The economy didn't improve one iota with that program. Unemployment was the same or higher; nothing changed. Except now when you try to find some types of used cars, you can't. Because they were foolishly destroyed. As a result, people looking for used cars get to pay higher prices than they would have without this program.

Is that really your idea of success?

Since you backed (apparently) this program, how about the burden of proof of its success fall to YOU?

Did not back or oppose the program. I am not the one that called it a failure. I don't think it was real effective but I would not call it a failure either. I trust the GAO over some of the idiots on here.
Jan 11, 2011 8:37pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Jan 11, 2011 9:33 PM
I don't trust government to be honest on boondoggles like this. Too much political pressure.
Jan 11, 2011 9:33pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Jan 20, 2011 2:31 PM
I'm not suprised. Obama has sorta been forced to move closer to the center (Clinton-Style).
Jan 20, 2011 2:31pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 20, 2011 3:11 PM

Isn't it amazing what can happen when you actually start listening to the voters a little bit? Crazy stuff.
Jan 20, 2011 3:11pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:23 PM
Why Obama is in Better Shape Than Many Think
Chris Cillizza notes "a detailed examination of the national map heading into 2012 suggests that the president still sits in a strong position for reelection -- able to lose half a dozen (or more) swing states he carried in 2008 and still win the 270 electoral votes he needs for a second term."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303752.html


Pretty fun read....and you know he won't lose all those states either
Jan 24, 2011 1:23pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:27 PM
Ty Webb;650466 wrote:Why Obama is in Better Shape Than Many Think
Chris Cillizza notes "a detailed examination of the national map heading into 2012 suggests that the president still sits in a strong position for reelection -- able to lose half a dozen (or more) swing states he carried in 2008 and still win the 270 electoral votes he needs for a second term."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303752.html


Pretty fun read....and you know he won't lose all those states either

I didn't know it was 2012....

Also, didn't know the R's had a nominee.

I honestly, nor do most people, yet care for the 2012 election right now.
Jan 24, 2011 1:27pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:29 PM
ptown...right now...it honestly doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is

They are all getting destroyed
Jan 24, 2011 1:29pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:32 PM
Ty Webb;650476 wrote:ptown...right now...it honestly doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is

They are all getting destroyed

Really does it matter?
It is January 24, 2011. The election is just under 2 years away. A hell of a lot of things can happen.

It is like trying to predict who is going to win the 2012 college football national title.
Why spend time on it now. Focus on the more important issues, like policy.

Politics can come back once we hit 2012.
Jan 24, 2011 1:32pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:35 PM
Ty Webb;650476 wrote:ptown...right now...it honestly doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is

They are all getting destroyed

As Lee Corso says so frequently....Not so fast. Governor Christie is the only Republican who beats Obama, 43-40. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chris-christie-ahead-obama-poll_526715.html

Before you type he's not running, please add a word to the end of your sentence...."yet".
Jan 24, 2011 1:35pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:36 PM
The fact that the Post feels the need to start handicapping the 2012 election today tells me all I need to know.
Jan 24, 2011 1:36pm
Ty Webb's avatar

Ty Webb

Senior Member

2,798 posts
Jan 24, 2011 1:42 PM
BGFalcons82;650494 wrote:As Lee Corso says so frequently....Not so fast. Governor Christie is the only Republican who beats Obama, 43-40. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chris-christie-ahead-obama-poll_526715.html

Before you type he's not running, please add a word to the end of your sentence...."yet".

How many times does the man need to say he isn't running???

He's said it from the time he was elected...

He's not going to run....
Jan 24, 2011 1:42pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 24, 2011 2:00 PM
Ty Webb;650511 wrote:How many times does the man need to say he isn't running???

He's said it from the time he was elected...

He's not going to run....
You wrote, and I quote, " They are all getting destroyed". I stomped all over this drivel.

Point awarded to BG.
Jan 24, 2011 2:00pm
B

Bigdogg

Senior Member

1,429 posts
Jan 24, 2011 3:32 PM
BGFalcons82;650570 wrote:You wrote, and I quote, " They are all getting destroyed". I stomped all over this drivel.

Point awarded to BG.

Yes, you are a legend. I agree two years is way to long in politics, hell who knows maybe you will come to see the benefits of RomneyCare oops, I mean The Affordable Health Care Act by then;)
Jan 24, 2011 3:32pm