The Difference

The perfect illustration of the problem between Liberals and Conservatives just happened to me yesterday.

I have a job where you have set of performance goals you HAVE TO meet. So I have a job based on my performance of THEIR goals.

And if you meet or exceed those goals every March there is a Bonus if the company was profitable and grew over the last year. (so yes, you can meet the goals and if the company is not profitable your going to get next to bubkiss).

I got my bonus yesterday.

Now a Liberal would mostly go all hardcore anti-capitalist but let’s try make this simpler than that.

Liberal: Is it “Fair” that you get a bonus and others don’t. Gee, why not lower your prices instead of giving the money to your employees so that everyone benefits in this terrible post-Bush economy.

Don’t be so greedy and selfish. Your company is just looking out for profit. 🙂

Actual Conservative: 44% Tax taken out before you even see the check. Man that sucks. Something needs to be done about that!

Liberal: 56% is plenty when you consider no one else around you gets a bonus and they have to struggle blah blah blah…

What? do you want the government to shut down and for poor people to “fend for themselves” and old people to just die in the streets because of the lack of tax money because you just want to be a greedy,selfish bastard!

Conservative: Yeah, but 44%!! Really…

See the difference. 🙂

It’s not like I’m “rich” or anything. Far From it. Solidly middle class. Actually, I make less than everyone else in my family.

But don’t worry, to a Liberal, I just want to screw the poor and the elderly because I think taxes are too high and they don’t think they are high enough.

That’s the difference.

Now “Compromise” on those polar opposites. 🙂

Senator Patty Murray, the Democratic chair of the Senate Budget Committee, finally released a budget today. Year over year, in this proposed budget, spending jumps dramatically. 

SURPRISE! 🙂

For instance, from this year’s budget to next year’s proposed budget, spending would increase by $162 billion. This year, the federal government will spend $3.599 trillion; under Murray’s budget, the federal government would be on track to spend even more.

Over the next decade, spending under Murray’s budget would increase by 62 percent. Here’s a chart from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee detailing the increase in spending over the next decade:

As the chart shows, the budget would increase a bit each year, under the Democratic plan.

“Murray’s budget spends $2.2 trillion more in 2023 (the last year of the budget window) than the 2013 levels – a 62% increase (significantly outpacing inflation),” says a staff member on the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.

In an interview that aired earlier today, President Obama said, “[W]e don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place.”

Obama has not released his own budget yet. (WS)

You’d never know that the National Debt is: $16,690,614,000,000

Would you? 🙂

Liberal: When  in Debt Tax More & Spend Even More

Actual Conservative: Cut Spending because we spend too much.

That’s the Difference.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez1,307 Days no child left a dime

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Budget, We Don’t Need No Stinking Budget!!

We need more conferences and summits!

If we obfuscate enough may they will just get tired and go away!

We have to put off doing anything hard or effective because we don’t wanna! 😦

In what a senior Republican aide calls “a dramatic turn of events,”
Senate Democrats have — at least for now — forestalled plans to
release their alternative to Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget.  Why?
Because the White House has called for yet another bipartisan summit.
This week’s forthcoming White House meetings are not to be confused
with the bipartisan fiscal commission the president appointed then
ignored, mind you — nor should they be conflated with the new round
of Biden-supervised bipartisan talks the president outlined in his
awful debt speech last month.  No, these are new meetings — and
they’re scheduled to occur on the exact days Senate Democrats were
preparing to, at long last, present their own concrete 2012 fiscal
blueprint.  How curious.

After much cajoling, Senate Republicans finally managed to win
assurances from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.)
that his party would reveal an on-paper plan to counter the Ryan
budget.  “We were preparing for it,” the GOP aide says, suggesting
that the mark-up process was expected to begin mid-week.  Then, a few
things changed:  Sen. Conrad briefed his Democratic colleagues on the
contents of the plan (behind closed doors, of course; the public still
hasn’t gotten a whiff of Democrats’ plans), and Harry Reid immediately
began expressing reservations.  He cautioned his caucus against
prematurely endorsing the document.  “[Reid seemed] less than enthused
about Sen. Conrad releasing something that would be on paper, and
therefore subject to analysis,” the aide says.

Facing a possibly embarrassing rift within the party and a soft but
looming deadline, the White House has intervened just in the nick of
time by requesting meetings with both Senate caucuses.  As a result,
public consumption and examination of the Senate Democrats’ budget has
been postponed indefinitely.  “The mark-up is off for now.  Instead we
have yet another summit,” the Republican laments.

I’m no budget expert, but wouldn’t it make more sense for the White
House to hold off on hosting these grand gatherings until after
Democrats produce their alternative to the Ryan budget?  If the
president is going to assume the role of mediator-in-chief, it seems
intuitive that the mediation process would unfold more effectively if
there were two separate plans on the table, each of which would serve
as a basis for negotiation.  Instead, the president has summoned
Senators to the White House before a second plan can be released.  Why
is that?  “Good question,” the aide responds.  The likely answer is
simple:  Political gamesmanship.  Democrats would prefer to focus the
public’s attention on a twisted caricature of the GOP plan.  Putting
their own document on the table invites scrutiny and comparisons, and
complicates their all-in Ryan demonization campaign.  That might be a
positive development for good-faith negotiations, but it’s detrimental
to Democratic point-scoring.  In short, this White House stunt looks
like little more than a political lifeline for Harry Reid.

UPDATE –  The Senate Budget Committee’s ranking Republican, Jeff
Sessions, seems suspicious and dismayed:
“The announcement of these summit meetings at the White House is a
stunning development. It has been 740 days since the Democrat Senate
has passed a budget. This week Senate Democrats were finally going to
unveil their plan for saving this nation from fiscal disaster and
present that plan in the Senate Budget Committee. The plan has been a
closely guarded secret, and Republican requests to make it public and
to share it with members before they meet to work on it have been
rebuffed. And now, by calling for this summit, it would seem the
president has effectively cancelled this week’s planned unveiling of
the Democrat budget.”
Oh, and here’s a tidbit for YOUR Budget (to remember in 2012 when “Rambo” Obama is trying to obfuscate with the help of his Liberal Media Minions):

The most recent Negative Equity report from CoreLogic showed 11.1 million, or 23.1 percent, of all residential properties with a mortgage were in negative equity at the end of the fourth quarter of 2010. With falling house prices, CoreLogic will probably show more homeowners have negative equity in Q1.

More than half of single-family homes with mortgages in Phoenix have negative equity, that is homeowners owe more than their home is worth.(KFYI)

Don’t worry, Be Happy. He’s a Likeable Guy, so re-electing Obama will not doom this country in the slightest!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert