Congress Catch-All | House passes CR, no debt ceiling change

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 443
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
Wait, I thought you just said THIS bill cut all the pork.
this bill did cut the proposed pork. spending is at its current levels. no new pork included. unless you have read the bill since it just got the green light and seen that the proposed spending is still there.
 
Do you think either potus bush was a nazi or nazi sympathizer?
I don't know although the elder Bush had ex-Nazis working in his campaign. I don't assign any particular meaning to that but since you asked about connections, those particular ones existed.

What connection does that have with trading with the enemy?
 
Yes, because if he is instrumental in cutting out g'ment pork spending that is a bad thing and he should be condemned for it.
Were you not in support of government overpaying to stay at trump properties? Is that not pork, or is that how you like your pork?

Pork isn't the biggest issue in this country.
 
translation: With DOGE beginning in 2025 it is going to be harder to get our pork spending through so let's blow it out in 24 for old time's sake and we can start being fiscally responsible in 2025.
Neither party has been fiscally responsible in 50 years. The one party that came close was the dems.

Musk and trump don't care about government spending, they just want to figure out how to ensure that the government makes their net worth increase.
 


IMG_4095.jpeg



Musk tries to claim a victory — even though Trump did not get the only thing he wanted (debt ceiling relief).
 
You might be cf's twin brother.

So evil billionaire who is leading the way away from fossil fuels, supports free speech so much that he bought a social media platform because it was guilty of censorship, and wants to eliminate wasteful g'ment spending. Damn, he needs to be shot. Face it, you are just angry because he supports all the things you, as a liberal are supposed to support, but secretly don't unless it agrees with your pov.
Musk, leading the way away from fossil fuels? By supporting 'drill-baby-drill' Trump and supporting the AfD in Germany?
 
Last edited:
Neither party has been fiscally responsible in 50 years. The one party that came close was the dems.

Musk and trump don't care about government spending, they just want to figure out how to ensure that the government makes their net worth increase.

The last time there was a balanced budget congress was controlled by pubs. They forced bill to play ball.
That doesn't seem to apply to trump and elon has enough that he good. But getting rich does apply to some presidents.
 
Were you not in support of government overpaying to stay at trump properties? Is that not pork, or is that how you like your pork?

Pork isn't the biggest issue in this country.
The US could cut 100% of pork spending and that’ll amount to a hill of beans in comparison to the deficit.

Pretty certain we could cut 100% of “discretionary” spending and we’d still run a deficit.

“Discretionary” spending includes CDC, FAA, NIH, FBI, DEA, ATF, CIA, NSA, NOAA, NASA, FDA, TSA, Smithsonian, NPS, etc.
 

The last time there was a balanced budget congress was controlled by pubs. They forced bill to play ball.
That doesn't seem to apply to trump and elon has enough that he good. But getting rich does apply to some presidents.
I assumme the pubs will cut some stuff-on the edges. And cut taxes a bit more. The net-Net will be More debt A good bit more
I don't worry about that so much-compared to the shit show in foreign policy
 
If the bill is not available, how do you know the pork was cut?
If you and I are going to converse in good faith then you need to cut the bs lawyer act. I have tried to answer you in good faith. It's kind of hard to cram 1500 pages of spending into 115 pages so I'm relying on common sense and the fact that much of what was objected to wouldn't still be there if it was passed. Hoping you can be objective enough to give credit where credit is due and not be so partisan that all judgement is out the window. I'm not claiming that now but in light of how the events have unfolded and the damning comments made by johnson, I still don't understand how you see this as a bad thing.
 
If you and I are going to converse in good faith then you need to cut the bs lawyer act. I have tried to answer you in good faith. It's kind of hard to cram 1500 pages of spending into 115 pages so I'm relying on common sense and the fact that much of what was objected to wouldn't still be there if it was passed. Hoping you can be objective enough to give credit where credit is due and not be so partisan that all judgement is out the window. I'm not claiming that now but in light of how the events have unfolded and the damning comments made by johnson, I still don't understand how you see this as a bad thing.
he is an attorney. what is the bs lawyer act?

here's an idea. instead of telling others to be worse, why dont you raise your game?

you cant say there were cuts to spending relative to a proposed bill. that makes no sense. it is not a win any form.

cutting spending to make room for huge rich people tax cuts is not a win for anyone except the ultrarich
 
Back
Top