Which GOP Congressman surrendered to Obama?

Here’s the roll call of votes from last night’s vote of infamy.

[House Clerk web site]

About these ads

27 responses to “Which GOP Congressman surrendered to Obama?

  1. Let’s all refer to the sell-outs as “never to be re-elected” and make sure it stays that way. These people are all so proud they put a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. Words fail me on the magnitude of the idiocy of government.

  2. Whenever I see one of these bills that gets passed and the “and for other purposes” at the end of the description, I wonder what that actually means.

  3. Westchester Bill

    I am astounded by the acrimony against the Fiscal Cliff legislation. The Bush tax cuts were due to expire after 10 years because everybody knew they were unaffordable over the long term. (I wish they all went away.) But we have a problem with the hoarding of cash. Increasing tax rates on those families earning $250,000 or more makes a lot of sense as one needs high income to hoard cash.

    Congress is responsible for a huge enterprise. Spouting childish talking points doesn’t cut it. President Obama consented to a two year extension of the Bush’s tax cuts a while back. He is not the center of moronic intransigence.

    • Why should you be astounded? It was a giant media circus for political gain by both major parties — one which solved NOTHING, fiscally, in the long run — and yet you are surprised that individuals on both sides of the aisle are upset?

      If Congress were a body “responsible” in its own mind for anything other than its own continued existence, you’d have made a point I could agree with; talking points won’t solve anything in any direction. (I, too, have noticed both the precipitous rise in gun sales, as well as the re-invigorated talk by both parties in regards to banning/confiscating them.)

      Nevertheless, I agree with you in re: the President. He is not nearly capable enough (personally, or by strength of position) to be the ultimate captain of this ship of fools, regardless of the direction in which one thinks it may be travelling.

    • Increasing government revenue isn’t “affordable?”

      Tax cuts increase Federal revenue. It works every time its tried, be it by Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

    • Westchester,

      I guess that running trillion dollar deficits that our children and grandchildren must repay or suffer from non-repayment is just hunky dory.

      When did your brains leak out by the way, or is it a congenital defect??

    • I thought that ‘hoarding cash’ meant saving for the future. Further, if it is my money shouldn’t I get to do with it as I please? Finally, 2009 was my last year in Minnesota. My total tax burden was 41%. Thats right. 41% of my income went to the government in one way or another, property tax, state tax, social security, federal tax, etc. That did not include sales tax and gasoline tax. How much more do you want ?

    • I’m replying a little late (1/5/2013), but could not refrain. Your economic illiteracy is astounding. What’s “unaffordable’ is the excessive spending. Why is it so hard to understand that no matter what the “revenue” (taxes), if spending is more than income then you end in the red. And the fact that the Democrats finally agreed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent verifies that they were and will be good for future economic growth.

      • Westchester Bill

        My understanding is that Revenue was 18% of GDP and Expenditure was 21% for many years. The Bush tax cuts made matters worse. And the unnecessary Iraq war didn’t help. Over the decade of the tax cuts, Americans have become older and heath care more expensive. Getting health care costs under control is needed along with getting revenue to a higher level.

  4. I am not saying that the tax cuts should not have gone away. I asked in 2009 how the government could continue to spend with an effective tax rate of less than 10%. However, as a credit counselor, I can tell you 100% that ANYONE, individual or group, who spends and spends and spends with no restraint will bankrupt themselves. Even Bill Gates could do this if he spent long enough. Mathematical reality: Earn $100,000 spend $200,000 and you go bankrupt.
    The question is why the government is hellbent on going bankrupt. The answer: Right now, the political parties behave as I have seen divorced couples. Democrats are the free-wheeling, you can eat whatever you want and stay out all night parent. Republicans were the parent who made you go to school, etc. Now, we have two parents doing no parenting at all because no one wants to be the adult. Just hand the kid a credit card and let them run wild. Okay, politics were supposed to involve adults, but in a society where parents can cover their adult offspring’s insurance through age 26, I think it’s fair to say there are few adults. Would you give your adult child a credit card that you pay for and has no limits on it? How long before they max it out and cry about you being mean because you aren’t supporting them enough?
    “Hoarding cash” used to be called responsible savings. Again, the spoiled child demanding he be given more money-who gives a crap if mommy and daddy had to work to get it. Spoiled child is ENTITLED. This is like giving cocaine to a coke addict, alcohol to an alcoholic. If your child was a drug addict, would you empty your savings and give it to him?

  5. Any person who claims that increasing the tax liability on any portion of society will fix anything has not investigated the issue. If you taxed the entire American populace 100% for an entire year, how long would our government be able to run at just its current rate of expenditure? When, as a nation, our deficit spending is approaching 20% of global GDP, there is fast approaching a time where no amount of money can fix the problem.

  6. A nation attempting to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket attempting to lift himself up by the handle.

    America doesn’t have a tax problem, it has a spending problem.

  7. Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog and commented:
    Kick these no-good for nothings out of the peoples sit of power.

  8. Richard T. Fowler

    Has anyone else who is reading this actually managed to notice that Paul Ryan voted for the $4 trillion bill?

    If nothing else, you can’t say Ron Paul didn’t warn us.

    Fool you once, fool you twice … how many times do you have to get fooled before you will see the reality rather than the fiction they want you to see?

    It’s time to wake up.

    RTF

  9. RTF: That is a rhetorical question, right? :)

  10. My current estimate is you can fool people an infinite number of times so long as you keep sending checks. Until hard reality kicks in, fooling people is really, really easy. Look at the internet scams. We live in a world where people are caught up in fantasy–social media, online games, “reality TV” that most certainly is not. As long as people have cell phones, a place to live, internet and food, it seems unlikely they will care at all about politics and what taxing “the rich” does. The role of the rich is completely foreign to these individuals.

    • Richard T. Fowler

      I was speaking of Paul Ryan fans. I don’t think most of them are supporting Paul Ryan for these reasons. Icertainly don’t think the role of the rich is foreign to them.

      I think they’re just brainwashed by a socialist Republican elite that has a one-trick playbook to keep its voters tagging along. That one trick is “the soft sell”.

      Here’s how it goes, basically. “Look at us, Winston Smith. Look in our eyes right now: We are not doing to you what we are doing to you. We are not doing to you what we are doing to you. You did not see what you just saw. You did not see what you just saw. You see that thing over there? You didn’t see that. You imagined it. It’s all in your head. You know that thing we told you yesterday? Yeah, that. No, not that, I mean that other thing. Yeah, that. We didn’t say that. That was just your imagination. You don’t want to believe rumors like that. You’re better than that. You wouldn’t want to associate with people who believe we said something like that. You know that thing we did yesterday? That wasn’t us. We didn’t do that. Actually, nothing happened yesterday. That event didn’t happen. You are not hearing us right now. We are not speaking. There is no sound in this room. You are not here.”

      That ridiculous tactic is not succeeding because of fantasy, social media, or payoffs with public money. Fundamentally, it’s succeeding because folks have just become a lot stupider and mentally weaker due to a lifetime of being deliberately steered away from mentally challenging activities. The solution: keep pointing out the “inconvenient” facts that contradict the programming. Repeat thousands of times, and be nice as much as possible … except when you encounter a liar, and then the liar has to be called out and exposed.

      I think Steve Milloy is great, because he seems, from his posts, to have clued into these realities, even if he is not always willing to openly discuss them. Steve, please keep up what you’re doing (and yes, you are doing it! ;) ) I think it’s making a bigger difference than we can see now.

      RTF

  11. To me, instant communication, constant entertainment, etc would seem to contribute to the stupidity and anemic mental states. It may not be the cause, but watching people texting and driving, teens texting in class, and buying computers to entertain toddles can’t be helping.
    Your solution is what I have been doing for years–just keep telling people the truth, backing it up with facts.
    One note: This “enslaving” of the population is part of a long-term trend. Thirty years ago, when I was a social worker, the elderly were being talked into taking government help. I watched the refusal to take government help morph into “I’m entitled” often followed by “because I’m old”. NOT everyone thought this way, but it was starting. Even then, the goal of the government was to encourage dependence. They are succeeding.
    My senators voted for the “cliff bill”–saying it wasn’t perfect, but it preserved tax rates for working class people. I suppose this is the same logic as looking at a house on fire and spraying out the fire on the bushes out front while ignoring the house. At least you still have the bushes……

  12. Richard T. Fowler

    The Republicans (including many supposed conservatives such as Ryan) with their “yes” votes, doused the whole property with gasoline and then told the country it was water, and that they were trying to save the house by putting water, but they just didn’t have a lot of water, but they did what they could.

    Anyone who’s going to believe that, while being a TEA partier or a conservative activist and aware of what the bill says — well, it takes a lot more than slick gadgets, texting, and mindless entertainment to induce that level of dementia. It takes the hypnotic power of the soft-sell.

    RTF

  13. I was thinking that Paul Ryan voting for the fiscal cliff sellout bill could explain why many Republicans didn’t bother to vote this election. It was clear to them any vote was for the Democratic party. Seems they were very perceptive.
    (I like your analogy–may I borrow it where appropriate?)

  14. Richard T. Fowler

    Yes, by all means! And anything else I’ve written.

    Richard

  15. Richard T. Fowler

    Heh, here’s my headline for what happened in Congress:

    “Fire Department” shows up with gasoline in tanks, says “Oops, our bad”

    RTF

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s