Am I hallucinating here or what?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) is up on the floor admitting that the Republican budget is superior because it won't cut any spending and it cuts taxes.

 

And he's claiming the Democrats want to "raise our taxes".

 

To the Gentleman from New Jersey, the spending you advocate will force a tax hike eventually. And it will be a steep one too. That happens with deficit spending. That happens with the policies of "Credit Card Republicanism".

 

You can watch now, or read it on thomas.loc.gov soon

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

it's time for a vote..

 

and it's for National Military Appreciation Month.

 

Prediction: 416-1 (with Ron Paul voting no)

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

and a followup.. that bill passes 419 to 0 with a vote of present

 

and we have more resolutions and small bills coming up

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

And we're gonna name a post office in Arkansas.

 

Prediction: 422 to 0

 

EDIT: and we got a nay vote. RON PAUL IN THE HOUSE~!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oooook.

 

Uh, keep it coming. Riveting stuff here.

 

I, personally, mark out for Special Order Speeches...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

the dissenting votes

 

"Recognizing and honoring the United States Armed Forces and supporting the designation of a National Military Appreciation Month"

 

Kucinich voted present

 

"Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act"

 

Akin, Flake, Hensarling, Ron Paul, Shadegg voted no. (419 to 5 vote)

 

"Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and Supporting an International Geophysical Year-2 (IGY-2) in 2007-08"

 

Flake, Otter, and Paul voted no (420 to 3 vote)

 

and Special Order speeches rock.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ron Paul

Whoa, and it seemed like just last year he was doing the reggae backup in that Beyonce song.

 

 

 

No wait, that's another guy...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I sorta like Ron Paul. He's more of a pain to the Republicans than the Democrats anyways.

 

and he votes against random stuff too.

[Justice 0]

I think the fact that you are watching CSPAN at any time during the day is an indication that you are very high right now, Robbie.

[Firestarter 0]

I sorta like Ron Paul. He's more of a pain to the Republicans than the Democrats anyways

I love Ron Paul; he's fucking hilarious. He's not a pain for us, he's just like the court jester we keep around for kicks.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I remember watching CSpan when they were doing the marathon speeches thing last year.

 

Riveting stuff at 4 am in the morning..

[Guest Nanks]

Who is this Ron Paul character?? I really don't keep up with US politics that much, he sounds like a total fruit loop!! Who just votes against everything like that?!?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I sorta like Ron Paul. He's more of a pain to the Republicans than the Democrats anyways

I love Ron Paul; he's fucking hilarious. He's not a pain for us, he's just like the court jester we keep around for kicks.

Maybe it's just various Republicans who hold grudges against those who vote against the Iraq war.

 

Speaking of rebels..

 

What about Jim Leach?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Other than Ferguson.. another guy who made a questionable impression on me is the Budget chair from Iowa.

 

Once Thomas.loc.gov gets the CR up for today (which should be.. lord knows when.. the house is still in session).. I can bring up the quotes between him and this one Georgia democrat

 

EDIT: that Republican would be Rep. Nussle

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I remember watching CSpan when they were doing the marathon speeches thing last year.

 

Riveting stuff at 4 am in the morning..

The best part of C-Span is when they show the UK government in action yelling at each other. Great stuff.

 

And I will never forget this one Washington Journal where some middle-aged reporterette was just blasting Newt Gingrich and this little old lady called and ripped on her for wearing braces. The look on that journalist's face was just priceless...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Here's the speech from Rep. Ferguson

 

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate the gentleman from Iowa on putting together a budget that cuts taxes and cuts the deficit in half while increasing funding for our military and strengthening our homeland security.

 

  The minority has come before this House and tried to portray this budget as inadequate. Our friends in the minority talk about alleged cuts to programs. Let me set the record straight right now. This budget does not cut funding for any program. Actually, that is only half true. What this budget does do is cut taxes and cut the tax burden on working families, on seniors and on job-creating small businesses. This budget cuts taxes for every American who pays taxes. By allowing every American to keep more of what they earn, they have more to save and spend and invest.

 

  This budget locks in the $1,000-per-child tax credit, it protects marriage penalty relief, and it maintains the low 10 percent tax bracket. This budget also increases homeland security funding by $4.1 billion. That is on top of the tens of billions of dollars that we have spent since September 11 to strengthen our homeland security.

 

  Specifically, homeland security funding includes the Urban Area Security Initiative. This program provides homeland security funding to cities considered to be at high risk of terrorist attack. Because of this initiative, States like New Jersey, my home State, will receive more funding for our first responders.

 

  This budget also provides our troops at home and abroad with the resources to keep America safe. Defense spending is funded at the President's requested level of $402 billion. Building on our earlier, approved appropriations, we will continue providing key funding for our troops, including body armor for our soldiers in Iraq. This budget resolution continues the Republican commitment to fund education, increasing budget authority by $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2005. Special education funding is increased, Title I funding is increased, funding for Pell Grants is increased.

 

  Our friends in the minority will promote a series of alternative budgets. Some of these alternatives will reflect different priorities even amongst the various Democrats themselves. But there is one issue that our friends in the minority all agree on. They speak in unison. They all want to raise our taxes.

 

  There is more than a philosophical difference at stake here. There are real-world consequences to the Democrats' consistent and unified call for higher taxes. America's economy is coming back, but the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Employment is growing, but the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Manufacturing production is increasing, but the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Productivity is high, but you guessed it, the Democrats want to raise our taxes. Interest rates are low, but Democrats want to raise taxes. Homeownership is at an all-time high, but you've got it, the Democrats want to raise taxes.

 

  To each and every ailment that our economy suffers, the Democrats have one solution, they want to raise our taxes. To each and every new success that the economy achieves, the Democrats have one response, they want to raise our taxes.

 

  Never in our history have tax increases promoted economic growth. Never in our history have tax increases created jobs for the American people. In fact, the Democrats' tax increases would stall the economic recovery and cost Americans jobs.

 

  This really is more than a philosophical difference in economic policy. There really are real-world consequences to the Democrats' policies of wanting to tax us again and again. It is telling to me that not one of the Democrats' proposals that they have put forward reflects their own presidential nominee's budget-busting spending. They know it is a political loser. And, even more, it is even more irresponsible than some of the crazy proposals that we have heard already.

 

  Imagine right now for a moment that the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party today is sitting 1 year from now in the Oval Office. Instead of just talking about raising our taxes, my friends, they will actually be doing it. They will be raising our taxes. That is why the debate on this budget matters.

 

  Our budget cuts taxes, makes the right investments in our troops, the right investments in the war on terror, in homeland security and in job creation. While the Democrats want to take us backward with higher taxes and runaway government, the Republican plan provides the services we need at a price we can afford.

 

"Let me set the record straight right now. This budget does not cut funding for any program"

 

Either that's a load of horseshit, or the "cut taxes/maintain funding" budget is deficit-a-riffic.

 

And coming up after that was Dennis Moore (D-KS)

 

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to respond that my friend, the last speaker, wants to cut taxes and have veterans' health care pay for it. My friend, the last speaker, wants to cut taxes and have money come out of the Social Security trust fund.

 

  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin

 

Well, it was a snappy little reply. There's alot more to attack from Ferguson's speech. Like the assertion that Democrats are openly planning to "raise taxes".

 

And here's part of the statement from Nussle that was a bit assholish

 

in reply to this from Ms Watson (D-CA): "Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Republican budget because it would place my USC girls' number one volleyball team, who were here at the White House yesterday, at risk."

 

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself half a minute just to say I certainly have enormous respect for people's opinions, but I have to say I do not see a volleyball team anywhere in the budget that was mentioned, that we cut a volleyball team; and I am looking through here, and I just do not see it.

 

  I am amazed by the conversation we are hearing here today. My guess is that there is not a volleyball team funded in any of the other alternative budgets either, and if there is, I hope to God that it does not pass.

 

  We need to make sure that we control spending, and I do not think volleyball spending should be part of the Federal budget.

 

and the reply: "Mr. Chairman, what I did say is it would have placed my number one USC volleyball team at risk because this bill eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Act"

 

and Nussle again: "Mr. Chairman, I would even provide the gentlewoman with some time if she can find that in the budget. I have got the budget here. If she can find volleyball or the Women's Athletic Act or anything in this budget, I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman if she can find that for me in my budget."

 

(Granted, I guess "at risk" now means "cut" and "Women's Educational Equity Act" now means "Volleyball team")