Boehner and Paul: Courage of conviction
Two videos for you who feel a bit wishy washy today. Understandable, especially if you live in New England, eh? The first is John Boehner in his victory speech. Inspiring. The second from Rand Paul, defining American exceptionalism.
The new Speaker of the House (damn that sounds fine) John Boehner spoke elloquently about what the new Republican party stands for. He outlines what the party will do, and asks the President to join him. Unlikely, but for those who think the Republicans didn’t hear you, listen up.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_tAsR9SETo
Rand Paul had his own special moment last night. Taking the time to explain American Exceptionalism to not just the people of Kentucky, but America. Pay close attention lefties.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4rXlOHEe0
One final video to pick up your spirits, from the presumptive new Speaker. Boehner takes a little time to explain why he believes in America, because he sees the results of believing in oneself. Very emotional. Very nice.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwfOlzm20rQ
This is a new beginning. Make no mistake, they will not back down. This is not the end, this is not over, this is the beginning.
18 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
After hearing both victory speeches, which touched me, even hearing them in the heart of very deep blue liberal CT, they both give hope that, one day, and I do hope SOON, COMMON SENSE will COME back to CT.
Alleluia sister Anne.
And if we press forward on principle and common sense, the rest will follow.
And as far as being outnumbered here in CT. Well, as Captain James T. Kirk would say "Never tell me the odds."
Now it is time to go to work putting life to those convictions!
Either of these guys from CT? If not, don't expect that they will come to CT's (our) rescue.
chris: I remember the economy tanking after the Democrats were elected to control the purse strings of the government in 2006 (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln), and I remember Bush being blamed (to this day) for trying to stop it with his vetoes.
He can continue to be a lefty bully, and watch what happens to his party (and the country) in the next two years.
Anyone remember what happened when dems trounced repubs in 2006 and retook both the House and Senate? Did Bush suddenly respond by doing what dems wanted? Absolutely not. He behaved as if absolutely nothing had changed, and in the rare instances when dem-sponsored legislation got to his desk, he immediately vetoed it. Obama is under absolutely no obligation to do a single things want, despite their so-called “mandate”. I didn’t see repubs line up to go along with the dems when the dems crushed them in 2008…
Dims, the Bush recession began within the first year of George Bush's presidency. His administration managed to turn a surplus in the national budget to a deficit within the first 8 months. The Bush people never wanted to use the word recession but they began to talk about a …ummm…"down turn" shortly before Thanksgiving and began lying about having inherited a recession. With the two wars, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq…..one that had no bearing on 9/11.….the plunge in our GNP really took on high speed. Then his tax breaks for the wealthy 1% helped drive us down further.
I gave you the link. Do the work. This is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Click on the first choice and press the "graph" button.
<!–Session data–>
<!–Session data–>
@chris-os – Look, It's quite clear I'm not a fan of Republicans – or anyone else – who spend money they have no Constitutional authority to spend. That said, I find it interesting the first 18 to 24 months of the Obama administration, everyone is blaming the previous administration for the problems, yet for Bush (43) anything that happened to the deficit within the first eight months of his administration – as far as you are concerned – is all Bush's fault.
In Nov. 2008, I completed a detailed analysis of what happened to federal tax revenue during the period between 2001 and 2007. Certainly tax revenue went down in 2001, 2002 and 2003, but once the tax cuts were firmly in place, federal tax revenue jumped 36 percent, and the burden shifted – as a percentage – from individuals to business in a big way. The issue during this period of time – no matter how a liberal spins the "worst eight years evah" is almost exclusively the spending side of the ledger, not the tax cuts.
And now, chris, the second part of your assignment is to explain how this period under Øbama has not eclipsed Bush's as the "worst economy since the Great Depression".
Please write all your answers in your blue book! 😉
Steve, you "forgot" to mention that it took 4 years to attain the 36% increase (hardly an instantaneous jump). It took, more or less 3 years to get back to the level of 2000. But, who is quibbling, the mantra is always that when taxes are cut there always is growth (after things go down for a while).
I didn't know Boehner's story before. That was inspiring. And now 2 Pauls in Congress. Whoo Hoo!
And on the subject of surpluses to deficits: CT had a nice state budget surplus and rainy-day fund prior to the Dems getting a veto-proof state legislature a couple of years ago. That must be the fault of those almost-non-extistent Republicans also. Patterns. I see patterns…
Where did Steve say the jump was instantaneous?
When taxes are raised, do things get better (and not just in the public sector, I mean)? And you should indicate why the relatively low tax states are doing better (economically) than the big tax states.
@sammy22 – Don't you dare pull that crap with me about me "forgetting" something when it is quite clear in the post. Sorry, I'm not going to copy and paste the entire post here in a comment. You can't deal with the actual facts I post so you pull that?
The closest thing to instantaneous in DC is enacting their own pay raises.
Gov't and any big company have a lag time from action to reaction. Its like a dinosaur getting bit in the butt. It is so big it takes a week to swing its head around to see what bit it and another to decide what to do about it.
Now if we can get past arguing with each other about the Repubs tax cuts and Dems increase taxes, we can get on with what works – spending less of our tax money. Either by convincing DC that it is a common sense, common ground goal or by keeping our hard earned away from the fools in the first place. For those of us here in CT, we have that same battle to fight here.
regarding the original post:Boehner is in his tenth term. he's had plenty of time to change things, to see him as a savior is quite likely a mistake. He's as much a part of the problem as anyone else.
Steve, the snark you threw at sammy is unfounded. it would not have taken you long to type "(4 years)" after "but once the tax cuts were firmly in place". You didn't have to paste the entire post. Yes, the bar graphs in your linked post are easy to read, but it would be erroneous to assume we follow every posted link, especially given how easy it was for you to be more clear. Your post above was misleading.
The snark goes both ways. How hard is it to go to a link?
I went to the link, that is why I made the comment on this post and not on the original and ancient Nov. 2008 posting!