quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Slow down, take a deep breath, and read what Steven wrote. Bunning wasn't against the extension, he was against violating the new Senate "pay as you go" rule. Everybody knew that this bill would pass, its only the scaremongering far left freaks who refuse to let go of it because they think they have some political hay to make out of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Considering his voting record, that isn't praiseworthy but hypocritical. He voted for the millionaire tax cuts that got us into this mess in the first place. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a boondoggle border fence? No problem. Putting money into the pockets of those consumers who would revive the economy? Can't have that, "it will blow the budget".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven
Back on topic... I actually support Bunning in this.  He was not blocking the appropriations, but he was blocking it without the funding to support it.  If only that could be done for ALL bills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

Why don't you read them yourself, you might just learn something....

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Well, Steven claimed that Bunning was blocking it without funding for it. But under the Republican administration, Bunning didn't hesitate to vote in favor of cutting revenues and more spending - the very thing that caused the deficit to balloon. So, yes, hypocritical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Had the Senate just enacted a new "pay as you go" rule in the Bush years you're complaining about? No, they hadn't.

And how can you act like you really believe that these huge deficits are so bad on one hand, on account of Bush's budgets, and still bitterly criticize Bunning for being the lone politician in the land who is trying to tame them on the other?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Well, Steven claimed that Bunning was blocking it without funding for it. But under the Republican administration, Bunning didn't hesitate to vote in favor of cutting revenues and more spending - the very thing that caused the deficit to balloon. So, yes, hypocritical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Congress - including Senator Bunning - allowed "pay as you go" to expire in 2002. And Bunning actually voted against Pay as you go this time around, too, in January 2010. By the logic you ascribe to Bunning, Senators should only vote to reduce the deficit for a month or so after a pay-as-you-go law goes into effect.

Huge deficits are bad. Economic depressions are also bad. Bush ran up the deficit during a time of plenty - that's the difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

Its not my job to do your research...I read the federalist...now why don't YOU read them....

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

No Cadenas,the difference,and it is obvious,is Bush was a Republican (therefore good) and Obama is a Democrat(ipso facto....baaaad)...at least in the mind of the poster you are "discussing"this with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

yep, sure did read them.....and I am not bait...I am a Gator by residence and choice.... I live in Florida in the conservative panhandle....and we make sure that libs are not welcome here by any way we can on a daily basis....