# If you didn't vote or voted Republican midterm



## AZ Jim (Mar 27, 2015)

You got this as a gift and it is once again decidedly not senior friendly.

*Senate OKs Republican balanced-budget plan, following House*


    By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press                   WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans muscled a  balanced-budget plan through the Senate early Friday, positioning  Congress for months of battling President Barack Obama over the GOP's  goals of slicing spending and dismantling his health care law.

                   Working into Friday's pre-dawn hours, senators  approved the blueprint by a near party-line 52-46 vote, endorsing a  measure that closely follows one the House passed Wednesday. Both  budgets embody a conservative vision of shrinking projected federal  deficits by more than $5 trillion over the coming decade, mostly by  cutting health care and other benefit programs and without raising  taxes.

                   The Senate was beginning a spring recess after  approving the measure, leaving Congress' two GOP-run chambers to  negotiate a compromise budget in mid-April. The legislation is a  non-binding blueprint that does not require Obama's signature but lays  the groundwork for future bills that seem destined for veto fights with  the president.
                   "Republicans have shown that the Senate is under  new management and delivering on the change and responsible government  the American people expect," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch  McConnell, R-Ky.

                   Democrats viewed the document differently, saying it relied on gimmickry and touted the wrong priorities.
                   "The budget we passed today is irresponsible and fails to effectively invest in our future," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.
                   The budget's solidly ideological tenor contrasted  with a bipartisan bill the House overwhelmingly approved Thursday  permanently blocking perennial cuts in physicians' Medicare fees. It too  will wait until April for final congressional approval by the Senate,  with McConnell saying his chamber will handle it "very quickly when we  get back."

                   Though doctors face a 21 percent cut in Medicare  fees April 1, the government can delay processing those payments until  Congress' return. The measure, which also provides money for health care  programs for children and low-income people, would be partly financed  with higher premiums for top-earning Medicare recipients.

                   On the budget, only two Republicans voted no: Sens.  Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, a pair of presidential  hopefuls. Two other potential GOP presidential candidates, Sens. Marco  Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, voted yes.
                   All voting Democrats were opposed.

                   The Senate completed its budget work after enduring  one of its more painful traditions: A multi-hour "vote-a-rama" in which  senators repeatedly debate and vote on a pile of non-binding amendments  well past midnight. Senators offer the amendments because the votes can  demonstrate support for a policy or be used to embarrass opponents in  future campaigns.

                   Those approved included one by Sen. Brian Schatz,  D-Hawaii, entitling married same-sex couples to Social Security and  veterans' spousal benefits. It got 11 GOP votes, including from several  Republicans facing competitive re-elections next year.
                   Also adopted was one by McConnell aimed at thwarting Obama administration efforts to reduce coal pollution.

                   Congress' GOP budgets both matched the spending  plan that Obama presented last month when it comes to defense, proposing  $612 billion for next year, a 4.5 percent boost over current levels.  Some conservatives were unhappy because they wanted more of the extra  military spending to be offset with savings from elsewhere in the  budget.
                   But mostly, the Republican blueprints diverge starkly from Obama's fiscal plan.
                   While his leaves a projected deficit exceeding $600 billion 10 years from now, the Senate plan claims a surplus of $3 billion.

                   Over the decade, Obama would raise $2 trillion in  higher taxes from the wealthy, corporations and smokers while granting  tax breaks to low-income and middle-class families. He would boost  spending on domestic programs including road construction, preschools  and community colleges and veterans.
                   The Senate budget would cut $4.3 trillion from  benefit programs over the next 10 years, including annulling Obama's  health care law, a step the president would without doubt veto.

                   Those savings would include $431 billion from  Medicare, matching Obama's figure. The House budget would pare $148  billion from the health care program for the elderly and convert it into  a voucher-like program for future beneficiaries, a step the Senate  shunned.

                   The Senate budget would cut $236 billion from the  budgets of nondefense agencies. The House would go even further, slicing  $759 billion.
                   White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a  statement that the Senate-passed budget "relies on top-down economics  and gimmicks," and "refuses to ask the wealthy to contribute a single  dollar to deficit reduction." Earnest said the Senate bill would lock in  severe spending cuts "to investments in the middle class like  education, job training and manufacturing," and it fails to "responsibly  fund our national security."

_Copyright 2015 The  Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be  published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed._


----------



## Josiah (Mar 27, 2015)

This budget constitutes little more than a Republican wet dream that they can show their base and keep them from getting restless while nothing gets really accomplished in the chambers of Congress.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 27, 2015)

Josiah said:


> This budget constitutes little more than a Republican wet dream that they can show their base and keep them from getting restless while nothing gets really accomplished in the chambers of Congress.



But we better hope we have the Presidency and veto power after the President leaves office, because these clowns will have 4 years in the senate left of their terms.


----------



## Josiah (Mar 27, 2015)

We're certainly in complete agreement on that point, Jim.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 27, 2015)

Not to mention possible Supreme Court nominations.


----------



## BobF (Mar 27, 2015)

Sure glad to see some sense being presented in the Congress.    We need more of it.   We also know that until Obama is gone not much, if any, of these ideas will ever get done.   Sadly for the future of the US these unexplained and unneeded debts will go on.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 27, 2015)

BobF said:


> Sure glad to see some sense being presented in the Congress.    We need more of it.   We also know that until Obama is gone not much, if any, of these ideas will ever get done.   Sadly for the future of the US these _*unexplained and unneeded *_debts will go on.



*eyes roll and begin to slowly glaze over*


----------



## BobF (Mar 27, 2015)

OH OH, reality is finally getting to Jim.   We do need to correct Obama's errors but that won't happen till he is gone.   I think even real Democrats will help to relieve some of Obama's bad errors.   He is playing dictator and not being a President as he should.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 27, 2015)

Here's Your DICTATOR!!  It's what makes me sick, but some fools didn't see that!


----------



## BobF (Mar 27, 2015)

Obama doesn't even have the courage to stand up and tell it like it is.   Obama just ignores public speech's, ignores Congress, and just spends, spends, spends, and on what does he spend on.   He does not tell us that either.   Our debts just go way up for no real reasons.   Not quite two years left of Obama.   Then, with a Democrat or Republican the country will be a lot better off.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 27, 2015)

I pity you Bob.  'nuff said!


----------



## BobF (Mar 27, 2015)

Oh that is OK.   Rather nice of you to say so.   But as soon as Obama is gone, you and I will both be better off.   You should be able to see that yourself.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 27, 2015)

Aww.... Come on.... You know you love Obama Bob.... just admit it...   We KNOW you do....  Maybe even a man-crush... lol!!


----------



## tnthomas (Mar 27, 2015)

Obama has been a breath of fresh air, after 8 years of deceit and wanton squandering of the nations assets by "dubya'.   But, the GOP organization is adept at "fooling some of the people..." with their advanced spin skills.  Maybe people will not tolerate a return to the _"rob from the middleclass and give to the rich"  _policies that the GOP embraces.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 27, 2015)

> Working into Friday's pre-dawn hours, senators  approved the blueprint by a near party-line 52-46 vote, endorsing a  measure that closely follows one the House passed Wednesday. Both  budgets embody a conservative vision of shrinking projected federal  deficits by more than $5 trillion over the coming decade, mostly by  cutting health care and other benefit programs and without raising  taxes.



This is roughly what happened over here when the Liberal/National government was elected. Their 2014-2015 budget was a shocker, breaking many of their election promises, making cuts that affect the least able to bear them and refusing to close tax loopholes and benefits to the wealthy. There was much made of the "budget emergency" and the "debt and deficit disaster" inherited from the previous Labor government.

The public was outraged at the unfairness of it all and the government was unable to push the worst of it through the Senate. Now, less than two months before the next budget is announced, they are still unable to implement the last one. 

The rhetoric has changed though. In spite of the fact that the debt has increased and there is no surplus in sight, suddenly the budget is no longer "in crisis". It is now "under control and manageable" and the 2015-2016 budget will be "dull" and "much less exhilarating" compared to last year's.

The hypocrisy of politicians can be staggering at times. They must have zero capacity to take a hard look at themselves and see themselves as others do.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 28, 2015)

Voting in Oz. 
NSW goes to the polls today to elect a new state government.

Voting is compulsory but there is no dress code.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 28, 2015)

It's all over and the conservative government has been returned but with a hefty swing against it.
The history is that we've had an independent corruption inquiry that caught out politicians from both sides and both leaders were new to their positions. The previous election saw the Labor Party reduced to an ineffective rump but they are now restored enough to form an effective Opposition.

My electorate should have returned to Labor: it was the seat with the narrowest majority (2 party preferred). However, our sitting member appears to have run the dirtiest campaign in NSW history against a very decent opponent. 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-state...re-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o&sa=D&usg=ALhdy28zsr6qiq

 I'm livid because Glenn Brookes is a real dud and Cameron Murphy would have been a ray of sunshine.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 28, 2015)

When I see some of the nonsense these politicians are coming up with....all over the world...I am often reminded of the words Sean Connery spoke in the final moments of the movie Red October...."Sometimes a Little Revolution Can Be a Healthy Thing".  If things keep going the way they are, and these politicians continue to be nothing but Puppets for the Wealthy, the day may come when it becomes necessary to bring out the Guillotines.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 28, 2015)

You don't need a full on revolution. Just a rebellious spirit that doesn't let them get away with too much.


----------



## Davey Jones (Mar 29, 2015)

Amazing, the Republicans have only had control of Congress for a few months and this is the best you got? 
BTW..Im not for either party,Im an independent and believe in giving the party of the people's choice a chance to see what they can really do.
Come back in a year and see what they accomplished if anything.


----------



## BobF (Mar 29, 2015)

Davey Jones, you speak so well about our Congress.   They do need time to do things different than the past Congress with a do nothing Senate in it.   But I do think Warrigal might have been talking about her own newly elected government in Australia.   She will correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## drifter (Mar 29, 2015)

Dame Warrigal,  I'm afraid you're stuck with these conservative guys and gals. It's been fun to watch some of the Labor gents and ladies react on some of those Australian forums. I've evened learned some new words.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 29, 2015)

drifter said:


> Dame Warrigal,  I'm afraid you're stuck with these conservative guys and gals. It's been fun to watch some of the Labor gents and ladies react on some of those Australian forums. I've evened learned some new words.



:lofl: Careful where you use those new words. 
They could get you into trouble.

I'm not at all worried that NSW has re-elected a conservative government. It is in fact quite moderate and will govern well.
There has been a cleanout of corrupt ministers recently and the leader is quite sound as far as I know. 

The Labor leader is very new to the job and his party is not yet ready to resume office.
Labor has also had a cleanout as the result of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
I recommend such a standing commission. It has wide powers to call witnesses, investigate and collect evidence but does not prosecute.
The Commission refers matters to the police who must mount their own prosecutions.
However, by shining a very bright light on politicians, police officials etc, it is very effective in weeding out the corruot ones.

The inept and incompetent are a matter for the voters.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Mar 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> Oh that is OK. Rather nice of you to say so. But as soon as Obama is gone, you and I will both be better off. You should be able to see that yourself.



Any American who suggests the "problem" is the President, not wishing to consider the entire political arena, is not being truthful or living in reality.  Before this President was inagurated, a partisan cult stated that they were sworn to make certain his tenure in office was a failure.  The first 4 years was nothing but obstructionism by that same partisan group.  Now that we do have both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans, hopefully, some good legislation can come through the system.  It's not started off that way.  We continue to hear "defund/repeal Obamacare".  We have seen traitorous Senators send a letter to a sworn enemy suggesting they would try to undo any negotiations by this Administration.  Those are not acts that pull the Country together.  Those are acts the will only continue the divisiveness.  

This constant and consistent obsessiveness with the President really bothers me.  Most of those suggesting nothing will get better until this President is gone offer no solutions to the issues of this Country or the global problems.  It has become an empty echo, that does nothing but continue spiking hatred and animosity between neighbors and fellow citizens.  Rather than pull together for the good of the Country, it seems to have become "en vogue" to show a derangement syndrome against a duly and legally elected leader of our Country.

Our son is currently deployed with the U.S. Army.  Due to the mission of his unit, we do not know where he is or for how long.  All we know is that he has been deployed numerous times, in harm's way, performing the mission handed to he and his unit.  Our son will not discuss politics.  Try to engage him in a talk about Presidential politics and he becomes quite agitated.  "If I hesitate because I have doubts about the President or Congress or any political ongoings... I'm dead.  I'm a soldier and a proud American.  My soldiers depend on me to be a leader, not a politician.  Don't ask me again about politics."  

So, instead of offering alternative solutions for affordable medical insurance or how to best defeat those who would wipe any free country from the face of the Earth or how to keep Americans from killing each other in the streets of our home towns... it's just easier to blame the President and say all will be better when he is gone.  That is NOT pulling together as Americans.  That is simply falling victim to those whose fortunes are made in a media where a more agitated public relates to a larger viewing audience.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 30, 2015)

It's not the President who has to take the blame for our current worthless government....rather it is our Bullheaded Two Party System that is run by extremists who can only sit around and point fingers at the other side.  Politics is supposed to be the Art of Compromise. but that theory has long ago been forgotten by these professional politicians that occupy Washington.  We could sorely use a strong 3rd Party which could insure that No One party can gain a majority, and they would Have to work together to find solutions.  I would also like to see a complete ban on private donations to political campaigns...and instead each candidate be given a fixed amount of Tax Dollars to run their campaign.  That would go a long way towards blunting the control the Oligarchy has over our government, and perhaps return some concern about the average/working people to the halls of Congress.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 30, 2015)

Last time I can remember Congress working with a President was when Tip O'Neal used to share a drink and settle things with Reagan.


----------



## BobF (Mar 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Last time I can remember Congress working with a President was when Tip O'Neal used to share a drink and settle things with Reagan.



More recently was the Republican Congress that worked with Bill Clinton  and helped him get a real working way of handling all the lazy and  unemployed back to work.   Clinton's bill had time limits on the amount  the unemployed would get money's and then the money would be reduced  until it was gone.   Seemed to work pretty good after Clinton got that  bill passed.   Not sure how it works now with our current government.


----------



## BobF (Mar 30, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Any American who suggests the "problem" is the President, not wishing to consider the entire political arena, is not being truthful or living in reality.  Before this President was inagurated, a partisan cult stated that they were sworn to make certain his tenure in office was a failure.  The first 4 years was nothing but obstructionism by that same partisan group.  Now that we do have both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans, hopefully, some good legislation can come through the system.  It's not started off that way.  We continue to hear "defund/repeal Obamacare".  We have seen traitorous Senators send a letter to a sworn enemy suggesting they would try to undo any negotiations by this Administration.  Those are not acts that pull the Country together.  Those are acts the will only continue the divisiveness.
> 
> This constant and consistent obsessiveness with the President really bothers me.  Most of those suggesting nothing will get better until this President is gone offer no solutions to the issues of this Country or the global problems.  It has become an empty echo, that does nothing but continue spiking hatred and animosity between neighbors and fellow citizens.  Rather than pull together for the good of the Country, it seems to have become "en vogue" to show a derangement syndrome against a duly and legally elected leader of our Country.
> 
> ...



i still say it is the President that is setting a bad scene for our Congress.   He has not allowed the Congress to do their job at all.   Just keeps doing things based on his say so.   Pretty sad and true.   Some may not like it but that is the way he has worked for his 6 years so far.

No alternative solutions for our medical system were allowed back then.   Both houses were run by Democrats and for them, no Republicans were allowed in many of the 'closed door' sessions.   Even when they brought the medical program up for votes there were no words involved, just titles and blank pages, an outline, were voted on and then they tried to get words and descriptions put together to give us what we have today.   No wonder our Democrat leader of the House back then said 'we would have to wait till it is implemented to see what it was about'.

Calling the Republicans a 'partisan cult' just does not sound good at all.   What were the Democrats doing when for several years they would not allow any discussions or votes on Republican submitted ideas to Congress?    Harry Reid is finally going to retire and that is good for the Congress in the future.


----------



## BobF (Mar 30, 2015)

Don M. said:


> It's not the President who has to take the blame for our current worthless government....rather it is our Bullheaded Two Party System that is run by extremists who can only sit around and point fingers at the other side.  Politics is supposed to be the Art of Compromise. but that theory has long ago been forgotten by these professional politicians that occupy Washington.  We could sorely use a strong 3rd Party which could insure that No One party can gain a majority, and they would Have to work together to find solutions.  I would also like to see a complete ban on private donations to political campaigns...and instead each candidate be given a fixed amount of Tax Dollars to run their campaign.  That would go a long way towards blunting the control the Oligarchy has over our government, and perhaps return some concern about the average/working people to the halls of Congress.



I do agree with your thoughts.   I wish we could vote the way our Constitution describes it.   Elections by state, districts, whatever, but just do away with these political parties.   They have over run their purpose and now just want to run this country their way and not the peoples ways.

As it is, neither party is winning the election base on their votes.    We only have about 30% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats as voters, the remaining 40% of independents are the real swing voters that will bring either the Republicans or Democrats into the winning positions.   Just do away with all political parties and run ballots with names and no parties attached to each.   Let the people decide on what they believe in and not what some party is telling them to believe in.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 30, 2015)

I would certainly like to see all reference to Party Affiliation removed from the ballots.  Far too many people just go down the list, and all they see is the D or R, and have no idea of what the candidate is really all about.  In this State, they used to have a D or R at the top of the ballot, so people could just vote the Party with one stroke...they finally got rid of that nonsense a few years ago.  I don't think I've ever voted a Party ticket, and have even voted for a Splinter Party candidate when I felt that both of the major candidates were just blowing smoke.  Elections are the only voice most of us have, and if people don't do some research ahead of time...or don't even bother to vote...they have no justification to complain when some deadhead wins the election.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Last time I can remember Congress working with a President was when Tip O'Neal used to share a drink and settle things with Reagan.



That's for sure...they could argue publicly about a given subject, but were Adult enough to sit down and talk it over away from the cameras, and find some means of compromise.  We haven't seen such actions from our politicians in quite some time, and it is hurting the entire nation.  There are good, and bad points about any given topic, but only those who Really Care are able to work through a given problem.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Mar 30, 2015)

Don M. said:


> I would certainly like to see all reference to Party Affiliation removed from the ballots. Far too many people just go down the list, and all they see is the D or R, and have no idea of what the candidate is really all about. In this State, they used to have a D or R at the top of the ballot, so people could just vote the Party with one stroke...they finally got rid of that nonsense a few years ago. I don't think I've ever voted a Party ticket, and have even voted for a Splinter Party candidate when I felt that both of the major candidates were just blowing smoke. Elections are the only voice most of us have, and if people don't do some research ahead of time...or don't even bother to vote...they have no justification to complain when some deadhead wins the election.



In Kansas, our local elections have always been non-partisan.  City Council/Commission... School Board...  There have been no "R" or "D" behind the names.  You have to know the person and what they stand for.
But, we now live in "Brownbackistan".   Brownback is pushing legislation through to move our local elections to the same cycle as the State and National elections and make every candidate declare party affiliation.  Our state has a majority of Republicans on the voter rolls.  So, rather than have every vote cast for a person, his thought is that many will vote party line.  Now, instead of a School Board being elected in April and taking office in June to have acclimation time before the school year begins... the election will be in November with the new board members taking office in January.  Makes sense, doesn't it.  New ideas come in right in the middle of the school year.  But, more will be Republican if Brownback's idea is successful.  

A three-party system won't solve the issues of today.  It still takes a super majority to do certain things in Congress.  Why not do away with any party affiliation on the ballots?  Vote for the candidate and not the Party.  Maybe we'd get more people elected with solutions than determined to follow the agenda of their specific political Party.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Any American who suggests the "problem" is the President, not wishing to consider the entire political arena, is not being truthful or living in reality.  Before this President was inagurated, a partisan cult stated that they were sworn to make certain his tenure in office was a failure.  The first 4 years was nothing but obstructionism by that same partisan group.  Now that we do have both houses of Congress controlled by the Republicans, hopefully, some good legislation can come through the system.  It's not started off that way.  We continue to hear "defund/repeal Obamacare".  We have seen traitorous Senators send a letter to a sworn enemy suggesting they would try to undo any negotiations by this Administration.  Those are not acts that pull the Country together.  Those are acts the will only continue the divisiveness.
> 
> This constant and consistent obsessiveness with the President really bothers me.  Most of those suggesting nothing will get better until this President is gone offer no solutions to the issues of this Country or the global problems.  It has become an empty echo, that does nothing but continue spiking hatred and animosity between neighbors and fellow citizens.  Rather than pull together for the good of the Country, it seems to have become "en vogue" to show a derangement syndrome against a duly and legally elected leader of our Country.
> 
> ...



Well said, I agree.  I hope your son stays safe, and I thank him for his sacrifice and service to our country.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Mar 30, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Well said, I agree. I hope your son stays safe, and I thank him for his sacrifice and service to our country.



Thank you!!


----------



## Don M. (Mar 30, 2015)

But, we now live in "Brownbackistan". 

A three-party system won't solve the issues of today.  It still takes a super majority to do certain things in Congress.  Why not do away with any party affiliation on the ballots?  Vote for the candidate and not the Party.  Maybe we'd get more people elected with solutions than determined to follow the agenda of their specific political Party.[/QUOTE]

We lived in Wichita for about 4 years, back in the late '60's....and it was pretty good back then.  However, the stories I'm hearing about Brownback make me wonder what has happened to Kansas.  I think he is just a puppet to the ultra rich in Johnson County....and of course, the Koch's who have created a dynasty headquartered in Wichita.

I think removing any and all reference to Party Affiliation on the ballot would be a good step in the right direction.  If the voters don't put some effort into learning about the candidate, they would be essentially flipping a coin when they voted.  Partisan Party politics is leading this nation down the wrong path.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 30, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Well said, I agree.  I hope your son stays safe, and I thank him for his sacrifice and service to our country.



My sentiments too.  Thanks SB for stating it so eloquently.  Cheers..GOM.


----------

