Shared publicly  - 
If you want to stay out of trouble in California, don’t let your dog chase a bear. What unusual laws do you have in your state or town?
Mike Rankin's profile photoBlake Hooten's profile photoJay Carlson's profile photoMike Mac's profile photo
We really should all have a pattern of removing old, antiquated laws. But even more, we should have lawmakers who'd do that for us.

But since we can't count on them to MAKE A BUDGET IN FOUR FREAKIN' YEARS (DEMOCRATS) maybe we should do something completely different.
In Texas, if a man catches his wife in a tryst, he can kill her according to our laws. However, she does not have the same right.
+Brian Fahrlander  Isn't the House responsible for the budget?  Isn't the House Republican controlled?
Does anybody care that,in New Jersey,a mere civillian,one who does NOT move large sums of cash daily,can probably not qualify for a conceal carry permit.In fact self defense is not a right:-(
Mike Mac, How ya doing? Ok, the President submits a budget to the House, the House passes or kills it, they are Democratically controlled, If they approve it they send it to the Senate, Republican controlled.
+Mike Mac The house passed a budget in 2012 only to be held up by Harry Reid.  Reid never brought it up for a vote.  The president generally submits his budget first to indicate his priorities to congress.  HIs budget proposal failed to pass the Senate by a vote of 0-99.  Hardly a serious budget if all those Democrats voted against it.
Did I get them mixed up? I don't think anyone knows what's going on anymore
+Mike Rankin  then the House should have went back and formulated another budget proposal until they had one that would pass.   But wasn't  It was their plan to not pass a budget, and "no compromise" , and didn't many GOP supporters say it was better to not have  budget so we did not spend more?  +Brian Fahrlander use that argument during the election..........

But yes, there are many laws that should be removed , it's amazing what our elected officials will waste their "our" time on though....
+Mike Mac It was simply Harry Reid not putting the budget on the agenda that stopped it.  The actions of the House Republicans do not support the idea that they did not want to pass a budget.  They actually DID pass a budget.  It was believed at the time that it would have passed the Senate.  Harry "Gridlock" Reid refused to allow a vote on it.  

As for GOP supporters saying it was better to have no budget so we don't spend more; I have never heard that.  I wouldn't put much credence in it anyway unless it was said by a Republican Senator or House member.    

If the Senate would have voted the budget down, then yes, the House would then take it up again, but until the Senate does it's job, the House has fulfilled it's obligation.
It's a joke have a new laws all the time on the books. I agree with Fox why aren't the legislatures updating or changing old outdated amendments are laws to meet current standards and Times we live in.
+Mike Rankin  yes its more complicated than simply the House must pass it, but unless I am mistaken, the main reason the budget did not move forward was that it conflicted with the mandates set by the electorate in 2008  election and now again in the 2012 election.  The same basic reasons today are holding up the "cliff" negotiations.  The GOP will not support what the people have said they wanted, but are trying to bow to their party and the minority of American voters they represent..... but I disagree that they did their job by presenting a proposal that was not moved forward, no one did their job, everyone threw up their hands and did nothing because of their political fears, and screwed America.

But the "no budget is better then ..." argument  was used routinely from those that claimed to represent the Tea Party, not sure who +Brian Fahrlander  actually supports (not sure he knows either) but he used that argument when trying in vain to defend the "no compromise"  obstructionist members of the Tea Party in the House.
+Mike Mac It's not much more complicated.  The House passes a budget, the Senate passes any amendments, technical differences get worked out in a reconciliation conference and the President signs it.  And there you have it.  A spending plan for the next year.  

As far as why the budget process failed, I pretty much explained it in a nutshell.  If you choose to believe something else, that's your prerogative.

There is no such thing as a mandate set by the electorate.  That's just a way to try to suggest that a particular position has more validity than it deserves.  You know as well as I that your sole voice as a citizen is expressed in who you choose to send to Washington.  The people your state elects are not obligated to you in any way on particular issues.  It's your job to choose a representative that makes his/her views known to you and that closely aligns with your desires.

While you view the GOP (of which I am NOT a member) as holding up the "cliff" negotiations, it appears to me that they are the only ones willing to compromise at all.  Not that that's a good thing.  The President seems willing to raise taxes on all Americans because he won't give up 2 to 3 days of revenue increases.

Had the Tea Party been running the show, they would have told the President to pound sand when it comes to furthering class and race divisions in the country through tax code manipulation.  They certainly wouldn't be talking about where the cutoff for the people getting a tax increase should be.

I don't know why you would call the Tea Party House members obstructionist.  I see an obstructionist as someone who votes against you no matter what.  I'm confident that if the President or Congress proposed an idea that decreased the size of government and its burden on the American public, the Tea Party members of Congress would support it.  They simply view current liberal thinking as being contrary to the foundations that the country was built on.
+Mike Rankin   it is a lot more complicated than that... 

"If you choose to believe something else, that's your prerogative."

But when I believe what actually happened is what what members of both parties have openly stated, I tend to believe it a little more.

"There is no such thing as a mandate set by the electorate."

You are entitled to that opinion, but reality is, the majority of US voters spoke, no matter what word you choose to use, mandate is just one word to describe the results of the election.....

"I don't know why you would call the Tea Party House members obstructionist.  I see an obstructionist as someone who votes against you no matter what."

????????  Huh?  Did you not watch all teabaggers and GOP stooges openly, publicly state, on multiple occasions that their intent was to do exactly, almost word for word,  what you just described?
"I'm confident that if the President or Congress proposed an idea that decreased the size of government and its burden on the American public, the Tea Party members of Congress would support it."

The size of government has been shrinking, not because of the TP/GOP, in spite of them.....  the biggest controllable expense is defense, which the GOP put off limits, and actually wanted to increase spending.....
Well Mike, you certainly are living in a different world than I am.  

"The size of government has been shrinking" -  Only with the help of magical statistical trickery and a sprinkling of fairy dust.

Sorry +Mike Mac, use of the term "teabagger" earns you the permanent ban-hammer and the title of  *Commie Bastard Douchebag*.  You can be wrong, stupid and ignorant, but you can't be a boor.
Hey Judge, you like throwing that out about the government shrinking, when you know it's only National Defense that's really being cut. The rest of the government is continuing to grow out of control and BHO adding more and more to the debt every day. Hey, could we quit buying cell phones and minutes for people that don't want to work? That looks like a controllable expense to me.
+William Carlson   hah,  looks like I pushed your buttons yet again, and all you can do is lie when you know full well I am right

and you bring up the Republican Phone again?  The Reagan Phone?  you know, the one that is not part of the Federal Budget you asre saying it will reduce ?  LOL

I had not had to giggle through your posts for awhile, I figured that like most intelligent conservatives you had read your posts and realized how ignorant they made you sound.

Speaking of obscure laws, in SC fortune tellers are required to have state licenses. do you have one to spew your BS ?

+brenda dixon-hines  I noticed you +1'd his comment, but I have to ask why?  none of it is true and I know you have more integrity than that.....
Hey Judge, the phone thing is just an example of the things that can be done away with, and you can call it what you want and blame it on whoever you want. I don't care who started this, the fed gov has no business wasting taxpayer dollars on this kind of crap.

BTW, you and integrity are an oxymoron. 
Yo +William Carlson   psssttttttttttttt  the "phone thing" has nothing to do with federal tax dollars....not a dime.... eliminating it will not save a penny in federal expenditures.

How many times do you have to have this pointed out to you before you start to grasp it?

Is an oxymoron better than than just a plain `ol moron like you are?
Hey judge, your minuscule intellect is unable to grasp the concept that are all kinds of things like this that are supported by tax dollars and you are being dishonest saying that the phone program has nothing to do with tax dollars. Eliminating this and other programs like this will save the taxpayers dollars. BTW, I'm pretty sure this started with Clinton in 1996 and had nothing to do with Reagan.
+William Carlson the phone subsidy program started in 1985 under Ronald Reagan and is call Lifeline (in 2008 under GWB it was expanded), it accounts for about 20% of funds gathered from all telephone users in the Universal Service Fund, the majority of which is used to provide internet and telephone connectivity to schools. 

They say you should learn something every day, guess this is your lucky day.

In case you can find someone to read it to you, here is the link for it:

Eliminating this program will not save a penny in federal budget expenditures, nor will it reduce any federal taxes paid by anyone, period.  Your attempts to deflect from reality by insulting me is just your normal douche-baggary.
Hey Judge, you can go the the gov site. What was instituted under Reagan was not the same thing. See what I mean about you and integrity being an oxymoron?

The fees to support this program and others like it come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. You can call it what ever you want, but it's a tax that goes to a fund administered by the FCC.

You are still zeroed in on this one item which I used as just one example and there are certainly many others.The fed gov has no respect for what the earners earn and the taxpayers are being nickled and dimed to death. 
+William Carlson   LOL your cracking me up here
"Since 1985, the Lifeline program..."   = Reagan
"In 2005, Lifeline discounts were made available to qualifying low-income consumers on pre-paid wireless service plans"
Bush !
and Bush added the wireless service !  Thanks for helping to make it crystal clear, this was, is and has always been a GOP initiative LOLOLOLOLOL

and you zeroed in on this program not me, I am just correcting you, like I always have to do   LOL

But, back to the point you are trying to avoid, and what I said (not what you said I said)

Eliminating this program will not save a penny in federal budget expenditures, nor will it reduce any federal taxes paid by anyone, period

game,set,match, as usual......thanks for the easy pickings
Judge, Phone carriers are forced by the government to pay fees that go into a fund administered by the fcc, a government agency. These fees are passed on to the taxpayer. We call these fees taxes.

Should I type louder so you can get that it doesn't matter who started spending on what program. It has to stop. We cannot continue milking the taxpayer and building upon the debt the way we are.
+William Carlson  I never once said that we should not look at changes in them, but that is your argument, even though you you have no clue what you are really talking about, who is effected or the impacts  Typical tho....

Just like when you said entitlements need to be cut, you did not consider they are the exact same programs that pay veteran's benefit, military retirements....  after I pointed that out to you, over and over and over, then you changed your argument, just to argue....

so now you are saying that we need to stop subsidizing telecommunication services to government schools...Stop helping students have internet connectivity.  Poor Old ladies that are bed ridden should not have cell phones by their sides to call 911, or a landline by their bed to call 911.  Disabled veterans also stuck in bed should not have a nine fucking dollar government assisted phone service to call the VA or 911. really? that is what about 95% of this program goes too.
Hell, if you would have read (if you can) it clearly says only 20% of the total goes into the phone program.....

Your are representative of the main problem on the Right, you latch onto something without fully understanding it ebcause you heard it somewhere, have no clue of the scope of the program you are attacking, you make claims to eliminate it of make drastic cuts without any understanding the impacts of what you suggest, then when someone points out the error of your ways, you call them ignorant, stupid and "Judge"

Well son, again you look the fool......  when will you learn to understand your subject matter before trying to discuss with someone that actually does?

psst... this has nothing to do with the debt......again I point this out... good grief
Add a comment...