HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Republicans SERIOUSLY...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:01 PM

The Republicans SERIOUSLY fucked themselves with the FAA thing

Back a couple months ago, when we passed the very modest tax cuts on the rich, the Republicans were all running around talking about how that now just enough of them fell on their swords to keep the country from falling into default, the Democrats were going to have to give them huge entitlement cuts because, after all, fair is fair.

They may have wanted huge entitlement cuts; what they got was exempting the FAA from the sequester. Oh shit.

Across-the-board cuts were a stupid idea in the first place. There are a lot of posts on here about how the rich needed the FAA cuts to end...probably so their private jets wouldn't be affected. Well gee guys, tell a little girl whose new kidney is two time zones away, a family going to Walter Reed to visit one of George Bush's victims or a hundred factory workers in Minnesota who won't work tomorrow if a critical machine part doesn't get here from California by 9 am that air service isn't important. The reality is that everything the government does is important to someone.

57 replies, 6955 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Republicans SERIOUSLY fucked themselves with the FAA thing (Original post)
jmowreader Apr 2013 OP
n2doc Apr 2013 #1
cutroot Apr 2013 #17
Whisp Apr 2013 #20
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #30
Post removed Apr 2013 #40
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #43
cutroot Apr 2013 #45
demwing Apr 2013 #53
woo me with science Apr 2013 #41
n2doc Apr 2013 #25
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #31
MNBrewer Apr 2013 #54
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #48
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #2
pink-o Apr 2013 #3
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #21
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #26
DonViejo Apr 2013 #32
pink-o Apr 2013 #57
L0oniX Apr 2013 #5
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #22
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #27
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2013 #9
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #28
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2013 #29
damonm Apr 2013 #55
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #4
L0oniX Apr 2013 #6
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7
CTyankee Apr 2013 #16
bvar22 Apr 2013 #24
CTyankee Apr 2013 #34
bvar22 Apr 2013 #35
CTyankee Apr 2013 #38
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #47
bvar22 Apr 2013 #49
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #50
Hekate Apr 2013 #51
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #52
woo me with science Apr 2013 #8
99Forever Apr 2013 #10
jmowreader Apr 2013 #13
99Forever Apr 2013 #14
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #11
markpkessinger Apr 2013 #12
City Lights Apr 2013 #15
treestar Apr 2013 #18
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #19
DallasNE Apr 2013 #23
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #33
kudzu22 Apr 2013 #36
bvar22 Apr 2013 #37
RobertEarl Apr 2013 #39
woo me with science Apr 2013 #42
mick063 Apr 2013 #44
alarimer Apr 2013 #46
Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #56

Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

1. Both sides voted overwhelmingly for this

How does this make it a 'republican' thing? If it had passed by party vote in the house, and with only a few D's in the senate, sure, I could see it. But this is a 'CONgress" issue, and one where voters who care will hold both sides and Obama responsible. At least the ones who aren't happy about it because they aren't being inconvenienced any more (otherwise known as the ones with $$$ to travel and businesspeople who travel as part of their jobs)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:29 PM

17. not both sides

The Senate already proposed a bill to avoid the sequester on Feb 28. It included an elimination of tax subsidies to big oil, closing loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas, and lowering itemized deductions for incomes over $4 million S.388 American Family Economic Protection Act.

Every single republican voted against it.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cutroot (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:42 PM

20. thank you, and welcome to DU. You are needed here.

 

lots of crazy talk lately and every bit of reality like you spoke out on, is appreciated.

short memories and long knives out for Obama since he came into office (well, before that really). and it's allowed here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:46 PM

30. In your rush to defend the Pres you failed to notice that the poster #17

 

apparently didnt understand the discussion. The OP is about the FAA vote which was supported by both parties but only blames Republicans. Post #1 aptly calls them on it. Post #17 is babbling about something else entirely.

It should ring alarm bells when the Democrats decide to roll in the mud with the Republican pigs. But no, Pres Obama couldnt wait to sign the bill that will ensure the 1% are not inconvenienced. There is a war between the 1% and the 99% and guess who is winning and guess who Congress is supporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)


Response to Post removed (Reply #40)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:01 PM

43. I am sorry, did I speak too fast?

 

The OP was referring to the FAA vote and blamed the REpublicans. Post #1 correctly pointed out that both parties voted to pass the FAA furlough waiver. To be clear we are discussing the FAA furlough waiver vote. You responded by bringing up an entirely different congressional vote. AN ENTIRE DIFFERENT VOTE. Hello?

Now you are making a half-hearted attempt to bully me by calling me a "romney voter". Plez. Is that the best you've got.

ps: I am putting you on ignore because I cant be bothered with this crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:24 PM

45. thank you

The next time I need your opinion, I will pay your boss to give it to you. What is it now nickel? two nickels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cutroot (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:33 PM

53. welcome to DU :)

 

enjoy the time while it lasts, you can never tell what tomorrow brings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:49 PM

41. Well said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cutroot (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:09 PM

25. Could have fooled me

Here's the vote on the real bill, that actually passed, that wasn't a grandstanding effort that will be dismissed like the many other grandstanding efforts by both sides of CONgress:

House:

On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass: H R 1765 Reducing Flight Delays Act
Number:
House Vote #125 [primary source: house.gov]
Date:
Apr 26, 2013 (113th Congress)
Result:
Passed
This was a vote to pass a bill or agree to a resolution. It was taken under a procedure called “suspension of the rules” which is typically used to pass non-controversial bills. Votes under suspension require a 2/3rds majority. A failed vote under suspension can be taken again.

TOTALS REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT
YEA 361 84% 202 159
NAY 41 9% 12 29
NOT VOTING 30 7% 17 13
REQUIRED: 2/3

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h125

All 100 Senators voted to pass this as well
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/26/1204941/-Sequester-Cherry-Picking-Senate-Passes-FAA-Relief

Note, had the House Dems not gone along this would have failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cutroot (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:49 PM

31. He is referring to the recent vote on the FAA where both parties supported it. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to n2doc (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:33 PM

48. In fact I think it's worse for the Democrats. While this could have been an issue in the coming

 

election, now it isnt. We expect this behavior from the Repubs but not the Democrats. They choose keeping airplanes on time over Meals on Wheels. DEMOCRATS DID THAT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:35 PM

2. Why is the FAA funded by the government?

Shouldn't the Airlines and Private Pilots fund this thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:58 PM

3. I didn't see that drippy sarcasm thingy...

So I'll take at face value that you're asking a serious question. And I'll answer you seriously: the FAA is like the EPA, it makes certain that private corporations are in compliance to safety regs and consumers don't get hurt.

Do you think the Koch Bros should fund the EPA...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink-o (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:44 PM

21. So what! Make sure that the money funding the FAA comes from sales of tickets and

from fees on the privilege of using airports, not from the same general fund from which we fund Medicaid (which helps pay for kidney transplants) and other rock-bottom necessities.

The costs for maintaining our network of airports should be paid by those who fly. As it is, the airlines are externalizing (imposing on the public) the costs of maintaining the airports and privatizing (keeping for themselves and their shareholders) the profits.

If we have to cut the federal budget, we should not permit this kind of big corporate profiteering off taxpayers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink-o (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:38 PM

26. Yes Business should fund Agency's that Regulate them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:54 PM

32. Hey! Having the gun manufacturer's fund the NRA

has worked real well for them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:04 PM

57. So Wall Street should fund the SEC...there's a brilliant idea!

don't be so naive! Money talks and whomever is the recipient is beholden to the wishes of who hold the purse strings.

Why the HELL do you think the Congress Critters do the bidding of lobbyists instead of We the People? Because guess who has the $$$$$.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:00 PM

5. Soon to be deregulated and privatized? What could go wrong?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:45 PM

22. Make the FAA function as a separate non-profit with fees exacted from the airlines and

their customers -- no donations.

The FAA should be self-funded but still a federal agency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:39 PM

27. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:15 PM

9. The FAA's function is aviation safety. ATC is only a small part

of what the FAA does. Mostly, it regulates and inspects airlines, pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, dispatchers, and airports. It ensures that airplanes and their component parts meet certain standards; it establishes and enforces standards for the training and certification of everybody who requires an aviation-related license; it regulates and monitors airport operations and aids to navigation, and it does a whole lot of other things (see here: www.faa.gov ). I used to work for a major airline. FAA people were always around, and they were very thorough - as they should have been. I would not want the FAA to be funded by any private corporations or organizations - if there were ever functions that the government absolutely should handle, what the FAA does would be at the top of that list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:41 PM

28. I'm not saying that they should'nt Regulate, I'm saying who should fund them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:44 PM

29. Fundees end up answering to their masters, the funders.

If FAA is funded by the airlines it will end up dancing to their tune. The FAA needs to regulate aviation interests fairly, honestly and thoroughly, and that will not happen if their funding comes from those whom it is supposedly regulating.

Do you think meat processors and drug companies should fund the FDA? Those interests are under-regulated as it is. Should dangerous, polluting factories fund OSHA and the EPA? Should the railroads fund the Federal Railroad Administration? Should liquor manufacturers, tobacco companies and gun manufacturers fund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? How about the Mine Safety agency - let's have the mining companies fund them! The big factory farm companies can fund the Department of Agriculture!

I could go on, but you get the idea. Corporate interests have too much influence on government as it is; let's not sell it to them outright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:26 PM

55. Speaking as a Private pilot...

It already IS. The FAA is funded through sales & excise taxes on aviation fuel sales, which SHOULD not be going into the General Fund. User fees are something that AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - General Aviation's best friend) has been fighting against since the 1980s, as it would be the death knell for GA here as it has been in Europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:59 PM

4. Unless the military cuts are exempted,

I can't see it as a further loss to the Democrats. I agree with what you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:01 PM

6. Cuts to the sacred golden calf will be exempted IMO.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:04 PM

7. I'll wait to get upset until they try

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:08 PM

16. Which is why we are seeing Obama really hitting the repubs on this issue.

It looks really bad for them when he points out the obvious hypocrisy and cold selfishness in their doing this. Another nail to hammer in: THEY don't care about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:06 PM

24. Oh, did he " point out the obvious hypocrisy and cold selfishness"...

....while signing the FAA exemption?
I don't recall that.
Perhaps you can post the Video Clip?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:00 PM

34. Nope. But he's doing it now. Ever hear of something called "politics'?

It does get a little hardball, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:36 PM

35. I PRAY for the day when our Democratic Party leadership plays "hardball"..

..instead of seeking "bi-partisan consensus" and pandering to the Corporate Interests.

THIS is "hardball":
Read Up on "The Johnson Treatment".
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html







"Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."

--- Paul Wellstone[/font]
[/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center]
[/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:10 PM

38. Well, I would too, bvar, but we got what we got...

but, remember, too that with LBJ he was terrified of being called "soft on communism" by repubs so he escalated the Vietnam War. Give with onehand, take away with another...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:28 PM

47. I would like to respectively question your assumptions. What if Pres Obama is getting exactly what

 

he wants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:12 PM

49. He has made those claims himself.

The ONLY groups I have seen THIS White House "play hardball" with are the Progressive Caucus, The Congressional Black Caucus, Organized LABOR, and the Grass Roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #49)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:16 PM

50. We are fighting an uphill battle. Even supposedly "liberal minded Democrats" here in DU are

 

happy with the current status-quo. Things will have to get a lot worse to open their eyes. Denial is more than a river in Egypt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:22 PM

51. Hmm. How many times did LBJ get elected as prez?

etcetera

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:32 PM

52. We see Pres Obama hitting the repubs on this issue? Really?

 

Did you miss the fact that Democrats also voted for this? And the President signed it without a regret? Hellp?

This looks worse for Democrats because they are supposed to be looking out for the 99%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:06 PM

8. I know! Let's pretend it was only Republicans voting for this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:34 PM

10. You should try reality sometime, buddy.

It was just those "evil Republicans" that voted for the bill, by a long shot. Guess who will sign it into law. Is he a Republican? (Sometimes a person has to wonder about that one.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:47 PM

13. I know this was a bipartisan effort

I also know the Republicans said the sequester was an across the board deal. Which obviously it is not.

We have them right where we want them; they have shown us that they have weaknesses. Now if we have the political courage to exploit this (extremely big if) we might be able to start to undo decades of Republican malfeasance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:52 PM

14. So...

... obviously my suggestion that you try some reality isn't going to happen.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:39 PM

11. You misspelled "duopoly".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:43 PM

12. Methinks the OP is a case of whistling past the graveyard n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:55 PM

15. So the republicans are the only ones who voted for this?

Wow, thanks for the information! Up until now, I thought it was totally bipartisan, and you know, that even Obama was on board with it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:32 PM

18. The outrage on this is silly

Apparently there are some government functions that even Republicans think should be regulated. Who would want to fly with cutbacks in Air Traffic Control? There is more to it and commercial traffic, and a lot of that affects the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:36 PM

19. Sorry, but the choices are misrepresented in your post, jmowreader.

You state:

Across-the-board cuts were a stupid idea in the first place. There are a lot of posts on here about how the rich needed the FAA cuts to end...probably so their private jets wouldn't be affected. Well gee guys, tell a little girl whose new kidney is two time zones away, a family going to Walter Reed to visit one of George Bush's victims or a hundred factory workers in Minnesota who won't work tomorrow if a critical machine part doesn't get here from California by 9 am that air service isn't important. The reality is that everything the government does is important to someone.

It isn't s matter of slowing down traffic. It is a matter of imposing the cost of supporting air traffic on those who fly and not on seniors and the poor.

Do as Canada does and make the airports non-profits supported by fees and airline ticket charges to those who fly.

We should not subsidize the airlines. Those who fly should pay the costs of the airports.

The situations you describe -- a little girl who needs a kidney or delivery of a critical machine part are very rare. It is not worth imposing the entire expense of airport security, air traffic control and all the other costs that air traffic now impose on the general public on those who do not drive.

An elderly, disabled person should not have to do without meals on wheels so that the rich can afford cheap rates for their trip to Bermuda. The cuts to meals on wheels and the trips to Bermuda or wherever are everyday realities. The rushed delivery of a kidney or parts for a factory are relatively rare.

Airlines are one of the many big corporate bullies that externalize their costs and make those who do not understand the concept of externalizing costs pay for the airlines huge profits.

Sorry, but I have to call the faulty argument. It isn't personal. But you must understand that people will suffer in order to make cheap vacation fares possible for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:56 PM

23. All The FAA Thing Does

Is to allow the FAA to shift funds around. There is a chance there are not enough funds to shift around to end the employee furloughs completely and keep all of the flights on time. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has its own set of issues. This was a foreseeable issue with the sequester and now Congress is playing whack-a-mole thinking moves like this can save the sequester. It can't. John McCain is now saying we must do this with the military, citing Syria as one reason. That is just more deficit spending because he does not pay for any of this. So, what do the Republicans stand for -- everything is situational for them.

The sequester almost worked at one time. Obama and Boehner worked out a grand bargain that would have prevented the sequester from ever taking place but Boehner would not bring it up for a vote in the House because of the Hastert Rule that says you have to have a majority of the majority for bills that originate in the House. It amounts to a House filibuster and is just as harmful as this application of it shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:56 PM

33. I disagree. The Democrats seriously screwed themselves by getting in the mud

 

with the republican pigs. Piecemeal fixing the sequestration is a REpublican dream that the DEmocrats are buying into.

How do you hold this against Republicans when all they have to do is say, "The Democrats also supported it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:44 PM

36. Can't really blame the sequester on either side

Both sides agreed that if they can't agree on deficit measures, the cuts kick in. Well, they didn't agree so the cuts they passed kicked in. It's easy to point fingers, but last time I checked it takes two sides to disagree.

You can lay blame on Republicans for being obstinate in their refusal to compromise, or you can blame Democrats for not realizing that the Republicans actually wanted these cuts and had no reason to budge. Either way, both are at fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:51 PM

37. The OP is a bogus appeal to emotion.

The Sequester is DESIGNED to cause hardship.
Exempting the RICH and Privileged from the HARDSHIP
detsroys the whole basis,
and throws the HARDSHIP disproportionately on the shoulders of the Working Class and The Poor.

What makes THESE people
" a little girl whose new kidney is two time zones away, a family going to Walter Reed to visit one of George Bush's victims or a hundred factory workers in Minnesota who won't work tomorrow if a critical machine part doesn't get here from California by 9 am"


MORE important than:
The Unemployed
The Elderly Couple depending on Meals on Wheels
Head Start



This one is ESPECIALLY dishonest:
the imaginary "little girl whose new kidney is two time zones away"

Emergency Organ Flights are given special clearances and priorities that are unaffected by The Sequester. THOSE flight go-to-the-head-of-the-Line.

We have seen this tactic Over and Over in the last 10 years.
The Dishonest Brokers of Bad Information will pick out some extreme minority
and make an emotional appeal to justify giving away the store for a handful of beans.
SEE: Extension of Bush Tax Cuts to "save" that small minority whose Unemployment Benefits were about to expire.

The exemption of the FAA from the Sequester overwhelmingly benefits the RICH and Privileged.
They don't give a shit about that girl in the hospital,
but WILL use her to help THEM avoid the slightest inconvenience!

WORD!!!


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT,
but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font]
[/center]


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:36 PM

39. WORD!! Right on Bvar

 

What the republicans have done is decided to borrow some more money to keep them and their buddies flying.

Instead of passing a user fee to pay for the government expense of taking care of a few rich people who fly they decided to keep the deficit growing!

Republicans are a deficit. And Op's like this that protect the republicans are a deficit, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:51 PM

42. Thank you.

The propaganda has reached the point of shamelessness. It is nothing short of despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:11 PM

44. Outstanding post bvarr22

 


It is downright disgusting that the FAA was set aside for special treatment. If we take a hit, then share it equally.

Why? So that the pain felt is wide spread enough that a majority of people demand change.



This sequester was supposed to be across the board. Now Republicans are whittling away and playing favorites. The same old "divide and conquer" tactic that has fooled the numbnut voters for decades.

What happened to the "shared sacrifice" meme?

That's right.....there isn't one. Thank God the 1% can now depart to the Cayman Islands without delay. No need to complain about the sequester for them now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:26 PM

46. It's all about OUR representatives paying attention to who really matters to them.

Which is not most of us.

As soon as some rich fucks were inconvenienced by some travel delays, they ALL bent over backwards to fix it. But tell it to the family that just wants to visit a national park that they may not be able to because they can't afford to pay enough of their staff. Congress doesn't care about them, or about my ex, who runs the library at Randolph AFB in San Antonio, who is struggling to find enough money to keep the doors open.

Fuck Congress. All of Them. But that is where the blame belongs, not with the President for once. Still he could start using that bully pulpit a little bit more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:37 PM

56. We'll see. It comes down to votes. Republicans show up to vote for Republicans.

No matter what they do. What with the gun control thing and now this....we'll see if the Republican voters have had enough or gotten the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread