Happy enough to lock it in?I'm more happy with the status quo than I have been in a long time.
Happy enough to lock it in?I'm more happy with the status quo than I have been in a long time.
Thanks.Big Del Hawk is either dumb or dishonest. SSDI enrollment more than DOUBLED under W and continued to rise under Obama's first term. HOWEVER, SSDI has actually dropped as unemployment has dropped in Obama's second term.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/01/prweb13186333.htm
I'd love to ask him for details about his plans.Don't you think its weird that people get likable from Bernie? I like much of what he has to sell, but if I had to sit next to him on a plane flight I would probably pretend to sleep. The man seems eternally grumpy.
Yes. If I was playing Deal or No Deal (that find the suitcase with the million bucks game show) and I had the status quo in hand, I would walk away. I think I'm sitting on $750k at least now.Happy enough to lock it in?
Its a "I don't think he's very pleasant and likable" perspective. What you are talking about isn't his likability, but his policy positions. I don't like conversing with grumpy people. I'm not talking about politics.I'd love to ask him for details about his plans.
I don't mind grumpy. Plenty to be grumpy about that should be generating aggressive efforts to make things better. One of those used to be restrictions on gay rights. That's improved, but there are many more issues to deal with.
Please tell me this isn't an "I've got mine" perspective.
OK.Its a "I don't think he's very pleasant and likable" perspective. What you are talking about isn't his likability, but his policy positions. I don't like conversing with grumpy people. I'm not talking about politics.
If you are having to put up with it, it follows its not a likable personality trait, correct?OK.
One person's "grumpy" is another's "sticking to the important issues." I'll put up with grumpy for good ideas and sincerity.
Because even more than rejecting anything Obama, Republicans refuse to consider raising sufficient revenues to pay the bills.
Obama could propose a balanced budget by cutting cherished D programs and, instead of cheering, the first thing the Rs would do is pass a tax cut for the well-off to make it "revenue neutral" - meaning they would restore the deficit and force more borrowing and debt.
It's a Republican thing. I don't understand.
Why do you think this is a good point? The number of people are at an all time high too ...... highest in history. Every year the government needs more money than the year before just to maintain, because we are a growing nation. Thats a good thing.Actually revenues for the government are projected to be at an all time high.......highest in history. We don't have a revenue problem............we have a ___________________ ( fill in the blank, any one with a brain. )
Well, I like grumpy cat. And I can be grumpy. So maybe not exactly likable, but not necessarily bad.If you are having to put up with it, it follows its not a likable personality trait, correct?
I think you can rephrase that to "how much" would that save us?Ok, how much did that save us?
The government (non-military) is growing at an all time high, that is NOT a good thing.Why do you think this is a good point? The number of people are at an all time high too ...... highest in history. Every year the government needs more money than the year before just to maintain, because we are a growing nation. Thats a good thing.
OK, what is the number?I think you can rephrase that to "how much" would that save us?
That's not at all clear. About a third of the federal budget is welfare for old people. We have a growing pool of old people. So a growing federal government is just a natural symptom of having larger numbers of people make it to age 65. How do you want to correct that circumstance?The government (non-military) is growing at an all time high, that is NOT a good thing.
I'm most intrigued by the fuel tax. Not exactly a carbon tax, but similar enough and easier to understand. Low enough to be easy to absorb at current low oil prices.
You would need to be a good shot to hit that one. That's a savings of about two billion. Keep going. Cut another 500 billion from the list.
If a D congress locked the R President out of the budget talks we would never hear the end of it. Years later it would be sighted as the reason for any and every problem with a dollar sign attached to it. But Ds are bad at marketing and will once again let the Rs off the hook.
Excuse, no. Opportunity, yes.For all we know, gas could cost $5 per gallon by July.
The current market price is not an excuse to slip a tax in there.
Excuse, no. Opportunity, yes.
I suggested we phase in something like this as the price began dropping. But, as usual, I was making too much sense.
Yes, I think that sort of shock absorber function makes sense. I'd lower it at a slower rate - because the goal is to get the market to price in damage to the environment - but some give-back to cushion the economy is a good idea.Index the tax to the price so it falls when prices rise, and you might have something halfway palatable (but it'll still stink like Limburger cheese)
Well, the Dems LITERALLY locked the Republicans out of Obamacare talks.......so there's that.
Of course those hundreds of amendments submitted and, in many cases, approved don't count?
Rather than do so, they just request enough to cover their inefficiencies (Multiple levels of approval to buy office supplies for instance)