Republicans Agree To Revenue Increases In Deficit Talks

VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions,Nexstar Broadcasting,OzarksFirst.com ^ | July 06 2011 | VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions,Nexstar Broadcasting,OzarksFirst.com

[familyop]

(Washington, DC) -- Republican congressional leaders are reportedly agreeing to billions of dollars in revenue increases as federal deficit discussions continue.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl announced the move today saying revenue increases don't necessarily mean tax hikes.

On the Senate floor Kyl said, quote, "If the government sells something and gets revenue from it, that's revenue."

He also suggested user fees for government services could provide additional revenue.

He says all the revenue increases Republicans have agreed to amount to between 150 billion and 200 billion dollars.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your take on this 100%.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's clear to me that the one thing that the Democrats do NOT want to do is go on the record with a budget proposal, let alone with a vote on the matter. They would rather let the "Ryan Plan" in the House budget be the only issue out there that they can demagogue.

Therefore, it should be the Republicans' first order of business to force the Democrats into doing what they least want to do, that is, pass a budget in the Senate.

As long as Boehner and McConnell let Reid defer to Obama on budget matters, they will again be giving up their greatest leverage against the Democrats.

Republicans must walk away from negotiations with the White House, and put pressure on Senate Democrats to complete the Congressional budget process.

-PJ

[dools0007world]

Who is Senator Kyle and where does he come from? We need to writr letters to the editor of whatever newspaper(s) his constituents live in and let them know what we think of them. That’s the only way this imbercile will get the message.

As I understand it these so-called revenue increases will not even go toward paying down the debt. They’ll be used by the political elite to pass out voter largess (aka more spending) so they can be reelected.

Tea Partiers should be outraged by this obvioius dis of voter’s will. We need to march on Washington silently and in great numbers soon.

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

....user fees for government services could provide additional revenue

Yeah! Let's charge a user fee for welfare benefits, health care benefits (Medicaid), food stamps, etc.!

[trooprally]

Hazel!!! She would clean them out of the White House.

(Mrs)T

[grey_whiskers]

I’m not going to be baited into attacking Palin on this thread by you.

You attacked Palin long ago on this thread.

Let's recap the thread, for those playing at home.

Post #11 read:

To: familyop

There will be HELL TO PAY in 2012.

Boehner is a complete failure.

November 2012 can NOT come soon enough and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS! President Palin, we NEED you.

11 posted on Wed Jul 6 20:17:22 2011 by Reagan69 (First they came for Sarah Palin and conservatives said nothing...)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

which contradicts what you wrote in Post #142 You were the one who introduced Palin into this conversation.

It wasn't me.

But you *replied* to Post #11, by posting in Post #24 the following:

To: Reagan69; BufordP; DoughtyOne

and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS

You sound like the conservative version of an O-bot crying that America needs a black man to clean up the mess.

24 posted on Wed Jul 6 20:20:31 2011 by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

Notice here, that you deliberately CUT-AND-PASTED from Post #11 to LEAVE OUT the words

"President Palin, we NEED you."

Your reply to the truncated post made it look like the OP was calling for "a woman" and falsely linked that to the Hopey-Changey call for "a black man" solely on the basis of membership in a preferred victims' group: which is a flat out lie.

I called you out on it in Post #83, where I wrote:

To: rabscuttle385

No, we just know Sarah's track record in cutting corruption while Governor.

You, on the other hand, sound like pissant.

Cheers!

83 posted on 07/06/2011 7:41:33 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Which completely gives the lie to your statement that:

I merely made a remark comparing conservatives who agitate for candidates on the basis of their sex to liberals who agitate for candidates on the basis of their race. The comparison is true, and both types of individuals are nothing more than idiots and {race,sex,etc.}-baiters.

The Palin fans aren't doing that. You had to quote mine to be able to pretend that they were.

So, instead of just being a {race, sex, etc.}-baiter, I wish I could call you a master-baiter, but you even fail at being a tosser.

Cheers!

and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS

No, we just know Sarah's track record in cutting corruption while Governor.

[grey_whiskers]

Look! The troll called in all of his PDS friends.

Cheers!

[rabscuttle385]

You attacked Palin long ago on this thread.

No.

Post 11 still stands as sexist. The poster wrote that

November 2012 can NOT come soon enough and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS!

and then added, in the immediately subsequent sentence (thought) in the very same paragraph, that

President Palin, we NEED you.

According to the poster's argument, the U.S. needs to elect a woman as president in 2012 to "clean up this mess." The next thought -- "President Palin, we need you!" -- implies that Palin should be elected because she is a woman.

Now, there are two possibilities here: the author of post 11 can't make a coherent argument; or the author of post 11 is arguing that Palin should be elected as president in 2012 because she's a woman.

Which is it, or do you want to continue playing the victim card and making lame excuses like quite a few (not all) of the Palin fans are prone to do?

[stephenjohnbanker]

You have once again run into people who write checks with their mouths, that their a$$ can’t cash ;-)

[chiller]

You heard, of course, Reuters pulled some old quote from Kyl regarding selling some US properties as a way to increase revenues.

As for the morsels, Rush confirmed as much today. Obie is looking for cover from his base. Do I see egg on your face?

[DoughtyOne]

Heck, these days they’ve pretty much given up on writing the checks too.

“Can’t hold me accountable if I don’t promise anything.”

[BufordP]

All this s-s-sex talk is mak-ing me horn-hor..HORNEY. I'm all for s-sex in the w-whitehouse. Just as long as the p-p-President doesn't findOutAboutIt.

Now this p-Palin fella seems like a nice guy. Lu-lu-looks good in a skirt, anyway. [wink, wink] [wink,wink,wink] [winkwinkwinkwinkwinkwink slams hand over left eye] ARRGGHH SPASM!

So let's ru-ru-raise our glasses to s-s-sex in the Whitehouse. Heres to...heres t-t...heres t...CHEERS!

171½ posted on 07/07/2011 9:53:46 PM EDT by grey_whiskeys (Opinions subject to ch-change are un-unprince-unpr...STUPID!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: 3D-Joy; 50mm; AGreatPer; Bockscar; calcowgirl; cindyTrueSupporter; concretebob; Disco Dave; ...

ping!

If you want off my ping list get over it!

All this s-s-sex talk is mak-ing me horn-hor..HORNEY. I'm all for s-sex in the w-whitehouse. Just as long as the p-p-President doesn't findOutAboutIt.

Now this p-Palin fella seems like a nice guy. Lu-lu-looks good in a skirt, anyway. [wink, wink] [wink,wink,wink] [winkwinkwinkwinkwinkwink slams hand over left eye] ARRGGHH SPASM!

So let's ru-ru-raise our glasses to s-s-sex in the Whitehouse. Heres to...heres t-t...heres t...CHEERS!

ping!

If you want off my ping list get over it!

[grey_whiskers]

You're changing the subject, Rabs.

Not to mention, lying.

As I already pointed out, you left out the mention of Palin in your lame response to Post #11, thereby changing the entire meaning of the post.

The "woman to clean up the mess" served as foreshadowing that the preferred candidate to be recommended was Palin, who happens to be a woman.

And in my reply to your post #24, I pointed out that the preference to Palin was because of her record.

There is no victim card: Palin is the most popular with the base, and still can draw crowds in the thousands even after a nationwide smear campaign plus all the dirt the PDS brigades and the Dem slime merchants could muster.

Look at her. She looks happy, eager, and confident. Not at all like a victim. And it is that joyous confidence which encourages people to back her putative candidacy, not her gender.

You're going to have to learn, when making scurrilous charges, that they need to have to bear at least a token resemblance to reality in order to have even a chance of success.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Oh, we get to the real cause of PDS.

Sexual Frustration.

Projected onto fans of Palin.

Don't worry, cause have I got a girl for you.

BTW, you do realize that Foster Brooks died even before Palin was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, let alone became Governor, let alone named McCain's running mate?

Cheers!

[rabscuttle385]

The "woman to clean up the mess" served as foreshadowing that the preferred candidate to be recommended was Palin, who happens to be a woman.

Continuing to make apologies for sexism even when presented with the truth.

Disgusting.

There is no reason to bring up a PROSPECTIVE candidate's race, sex, or other irrelevant characteristic unless one is attempting to shut up one's opponents by implying that opposition to the PROSPECTIVE candidate is an act of racism, sexism, etc.

[BufordP]

You’re Helen Thomas? No thanks.

[rabscuttle385]

You’re Helen Thomas?

Posting Helen Thomas pictures in defense of Sarah Palin™? That's a new low, even for the Palin™ brand Kool Aid guzzlers.

[BufordP]

...you do realize that Foster Brooks died even before...

P.S. Mouse over "grey_whiskeys", Einstein, I mean Thomas.

[grey_whiskers]

There is no reason to bring up a PROSPECTIVE candidate's race, sex, or other irrelevant characteristic unless one is attempting to shut up one's opponents by implying that opposition to the PROSPECTIVE candidate is an act of racism, sexism, etc.

Sure there is. When one mentions "a woman" in connection with "running for President" most people with immediately think of either Palin (not declared YET, but anticipated) or Bachmann (declared).

Nice try though, troll-boy.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

I've seen your posts before, with the 1/2 numbering and clever link on the poster's name.

I was too busy in this case right-clicking on the pic of Brooks to mouse over "grey_whiskeys".

Nice twofer.

Cheers!