Texas senator Ted Cruz is critisized by both parties

[Seawytch]

well I guess his constituents wanted him to be a grandstanding hypocrit who trashes the honorable service of a man who is his better.

good plan.

omg, you all trashed Bush and McCain and they served honorable..

This is joke, right?

Unless you're talking about George H W Bush and as far as I recall, no one ever trashed his record or McCain's either, for that matter. The only record dragged through the mud was that of John Kerry by the swift-boaters.

Though I will admit, Libs and Dems did have a bit of a go at GW's record of service with the Texas Air National Guard. Fair game, as desertion is hardly honorable.

Those that "had a go" at Bush's record...were they sitting Senators and Congressmen?

 

[Occamstazer]

omg, you all trashed Bush and McCain and they served honorable..

This is joke, right?

Unless you're talking about George H W Bush and as far as I recall, no one ever trashed his record or McCain's either, for that matter. The only record dragged through the mud was that of John Kerry by the swift-boaters.

Though I will admit, Libs and Dems did have a bit of a go at GW's record of service with the Texas Air National Guard. Fair game, as desertion is hardly honorable.

you just like to see yourself talk don't you

No, but I do feel the need to call out and correct erroneous perceptions and statements when I see them. It you don't want that done to you, stop making them.

 

[percysunshine]

It is obvious we need to discuss Obama running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

 

[Stephanie]

It is obvious we need to discuss Obama running guns to Mexican drug cartels.

good luck, anything Obama and his administration does is aok with this bunch

 

[Redfish]

You will be hard pressed to find a liberal or a Democrat or even a liberal Democrat that doesn't believe that we need to "trim the fat" of government. It is in what gets trimmed that the differences arise.

We must do both, raise revenue and cut spending. It's called a balanced approach. Look into it.

lol, a blanced approach...call raising taxes on people anything that sounds pretty...but we the people are taxed enough...this government can trim its fat and leave the rest of us alone

Federal taxes are at historic lows. We continually give tax breaks and subsidies to companies that are making obscene profits. 26 large corporations paid no federal taxes in 2011. 10 of the most profitable companies in the US paid 9% in 2011. We're not taxed enough already.

I do agree that we need to "trim some fat". Let's start by closing bases in Europe, stop making planes the military doesn't want and can't use because they can't fly in the fucking rain, and reduce our nuclear arsenal. Do you have any idea what the cost of maintaining one nuclear missile is? Do you know how many we have? You should look into it, I'm tired of doing all the work for you (especially since you'll ignore it all anyway and try to make some pithy response (that usuall isn't, BTW))

I agree with you on closing bases. But I would tell the host country that if they want us there to protect them, then they will have to pay the entire cost of the base.

As to corporations and "obscene profits" Oil companies average 7-8%, defense contractors average 7%, big pharma averages 25%, software companies average 20%. But only oil and defense are characterized as making obscene profits, why is that?

If you dont like the tax code, blame the party that has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years---the democrats.

another point, tax credits and deductions are not subsidies. Subsidies are direct payments from the govt. Farmers get subsidies to let their land sit idle in order to keep prices up.

another point---corporations do not pay taxes, consumers pay taxes. corporate taxes are passed along to consumers in the price of the product.

 

[Occamstazer]

omg, you all trashed Bush and McCain and they served honorable..

This is joke, right?

Unless you're talking about George H W Bush and as far as I recall, no one ever trashed his record or McCain's either, for that matter. The only record dragged through the mud was that of John Kerry by the swift-boaters.

Though I will admit, Libs and Dems did have a bit of a go at GW's record of service with the Texas Air National Guard. Fair game, as desertion is hardly honorable.

Those that "had a go" at Bush's record...were they sitting Senators and Congressmen?

Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.

 

[Redfish]

This is joke, right?

Unless you're talking about George H W Bush and as far as I recall, no one ever trashed his record or McCain's either, for that matter. The only record dragged through the mud was that of John Kerry by the swift-boaters.

Though I will admit, Libs and Dems did have a bit of a go at GW's record of service with the Texas Air National Guard. Fair game, as desertion is hardly honorable.

Those that "had a go" at Bush's record...were they sitting Senators and Congressmen?

Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.

Respect has to be earned. Obama has not earned any respect.

 

[FJO]

The old men's" boys club". McCain is way past his time.

It's nice to see the young bucks challenge him.

True!

There are an unfortunately large number of egotistical, overly proud, overly insane, overly senile and overly overpaid useless fossils in both chambers, in both parties.

They obviously don't have the sense of realizing that the stamp on their forehead reads "Best before 1970" so it is not surprising that they don't have the sense to go away and/or die already.

TERM LIMITS to save what's left of America!!

term limits limit the choices of the American people.

They keep the house and senate turing over in a way its easeir for the wealthy to puchase the favors of the incoming new people with very little power.

Term limits weaken the peoples strength

Term limit for the Presidency is in the Constitution.

Give me just one good reason why term limits for representatives and senators should not be similarly, constitutionally enshrined.

Look at some totally useless brain dead but perpetually elected yahoos like the Levin brothers, one in the House, one in the Senate. Look at fossils from a bygone age like Lewis and Clyburn. Look at McCain and McConnell. Look at Harry Reid. Look at Maxine Waters. Look at pathetic clingers-on like Sheila Jackson Lee.

If after an honest look at these (and MANY MANY more similar losers) you still don't support term limits, you need to look at your own values.

 

[Seawytch]

lol, a blanced approach...call raising taxes on people anything that sounds pretty...but we the people are taxed enough...this government can trim its fat and leave the rest of us alone

Federal taxes are at historic lows. We continually give tax breaks and subsidies to companies that are making obscene profits. 26 large corporations paid no federal taxes in 2011. 10 of the most profitable companies in the US paid 9% in 2011. We're not taxed enough already.

I do agree that we need to "trim some fat". Let's start by closing bases in Europe, stop making planes the military doesn't want and can't use because they can't fly in the fucking rain, and reduce our nuclear arsenal. Do you have any idea what the cost of maintaining one nuclear missile is? Do you know how many we have? You should look into it, I'm tired of doing all the work for you (especially since you'll ignore it all anyway and try to make some pithy response (that usuall isn't, BTW))

I agree with you on closing bases. But I would tell the host country that if they want us there to protect them, then they will have to pay the entire cost of the base.

As to corporations and "obscene profits" Oil companies average 7-8%, defense contractors average 7%, big pharma averages 25%, software companies average 20%. But only oil and defense are characterized as making obscene profits, why is that?

If you dont like the tax code, blame the party that has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years---the democrats.

another point, tax credits and deductions are not subsidies. Subsidies are direct payments from the govt. Farmers get subsidies to let their land sit idle in order to keep prices up.

another point---corporations do not pay taxes, consumers pay taxes. corporate taxes are passed along to consumers in the price of the product.

Funny, I don't believe I mentioned Big Oil. I provided links to the corporations that paid little or no taxes, that's all.

Why is "big oil" brought up so much? Maybe because that's what we pay for most often and can see, in the most stark relief, every time it goes up. (We also get to see their profits when they get released quarterly) That's why.

And do the oil companies get tax breaks other companies do not? Yes they do...despite their obscene profits.

New Rule: If your company is profitable, you get no special breaks or subsidies from the government. How 'bout that? It's like kicking people off Welfare once they're making a living wage.

 

[Seawytch]

True!

There are an unfortunately large number of egotistical, overly proud, overly insane, overly senile and overly overpaid useless fossils in both chambers, in both parties.

They obviously don't have the sense of realizing that the stamp on their forehead reads "Best before 1970" so it is not surprising that they don't have the sense to go away and/or die already.

TERM LIMITS to save what's left of America!!

term limits limit the choices of the American people.

They keep the house and senate turing over in a way its easeir for the wealthy to puchase the favors of the incoming new people with very little power.

Term limits weaken the peoples strength

Term limit for the Presidency is in the Constitution.

Give me just one good reason why term limits for representatives and senators should not be similarly, constitutionally enshrined.

Look at some totally useless brain dead but perpetually elected yahoos like the Levin brothers, one in the House, one in the Senate. Look at fossils from a bygone age like Lewis and Clyburn. Look at McCain and McConnell. Look at Harry Reid. Look at Maxine Waters. Look at pathetic clingers-on like Sheila Jackson Lee.

If after an honest look at these (and MANY MANY more similar losers) you still don't support term limits, you need to look at your own values.

I see "Look at all the people I don't like (but that don't represent me anyway) getting re-elected to represent their constituents while I vote for the incumbent in my District"

 

[GuyPinestra]

This is joke, right?

Unless you're talking about George H W Bush and as far as I recall, no one ever trashed his record or McCain's either, for that matter. The only record dragged through the mud was that of John Kerry by the swift-boaters.

Though I will admit, Libs and Dems did have a bit of a go at GW's record of service with the Texas Air National Guard. Fair game, as desertion is hardly honorable.

Those that "had a go" at Bush's record...were they sitting Senators and Congressmen?

Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.

You are more full of shit than a septic tank!

 

[Redfish]

Federal taxes are at historic lows. We continually give tax breaks and subsidies to companies that are making obscene profits. 26 large corporations paid no federal taxes in 2011. 10 of the most profitable companies in the US paid 9% in 2011. We're not taxed enough already.

I do agree that we need to "trim some fat". Let's start by closing bases in Europe, stop making planes the military doesn't want and can't use because they can't fly in the fucking rain, and reduce our nuclear arsenal. Do you have any idea what the cost of maintaining one nuclear missile is? Do you know how many we have? You should look into it, I'm tired of doing all the work for you (especially since you'll ignore it all anyway and try to make some pithy response (that usuall isn't, BTW))

I agree with you on closing bases. But I would tell the host country that if they want us there to protect them, then they will have to pay the entire cost of the base.

As to corporations and "obscene profits" Oil companies average 7-8%, defense contractors average 7%, big pharma averages 25%, software companies average 20%. But only oil and defense are characterized as making obscene profits, why is that?

If you dont like the tax code, blame the party that has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years---the democrats.

another point, tax credits and deductions are not subsidies. Subsidies are direct payments from the govt. Farmers get subsidies to let their land sit idle in order to keep prices up.

another point---corporations do not pay taxes, consumers pay taxes. corporate taxes are passed along to consumers in the price of the product.

Funny, I don't believe I mentioned Big Oil. I provided links to the corporations that paid little or no taxes, that's all.

Why is "big oil" brought up so much? Maybe because that's what we pay for most often and can see, in the most stark relief, every time it goes up. (We also get to see their profits when they get released quarterly) That's why.

And do the oil companies get tax breaks other companies do not? Yes they do...despite their obscene profits.

New Rule: If your company is profitable, you get no special breaks or subsidies from the government. How 'bout that? It's like kicking people off Welfare once they're making a living wage.

Do you consider 7% profit "obscene" ? you guys get carried away with the zeros and forget that the profit % is what matters. If you spend $100 to make $7 you made 7%. If you spend 100,000,000 to make 7,000,000 you made 7%. Discovering and extracting and refining oil is a very expensive business.

They get to write off exploration costs---that is not a subsidy. I wish you on the left would learn what the word "subsidy" means.

 

[Stephanie]

Those that "had a go" at Bush's record...were they sitting Senators and Congressmen?

Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.

You are more full of shit than a septic tank!

no shit...I don't see anyone camping out and shitting in the bushes on Obama's property..or rushing up on the Sec. of State with fake blood on their hands
these Obamabots want everyone to forget how disrespectful these people were with Bush and whine how it's so much worse with the poor Dear Leader..

 

[Seawytch]

Those that "had a go" at Bush's record...were they sitting Senators and Congressmen?

Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.

You are more full of shit than a septic tank!

Fine, prove us wrong then. Show us where a sitting Senator or Congressman questioned McCain's or Bush's record. Provide examples that are on par with "you lie" being shouted during a SOFU address. Show us in history where a cabinet appointment has been filibustered. Hell, show me a time in history where a President's appointments have been filibustered at the rate President Obama's has.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree with you on closing bases. But I would tell the host country that if they want us there to protect them, then they will have to pay the entire cost of the base.

As to corporations and "obscene profits" Oil companies average 7-8%, defense contractors average 7%, big pharma averages 25%, software companies average 20%. But only oil and defense are characterized as making obscene profits, why is that?

If you dont like the tax code, blame the party that has controlled congress for most of the last 75 years---the democrats.

another point, tax credits and deductions are not subsidies. Subsidies are direct payments from the govt. Farmers get subsidies to let their land sit idle in order to keep prices up.

another point---corporations do not pay taxes, consumers pay taxes. corporate taxes are passed along to consumers in the price of the product.

Funny, I don't believe I mentioned Big Oil. I provided links to the corporations that paid little or no taxes, that's all.

Why is "big oil" brought up so much? Maybe because that's what we pay for most often and can see, in the most stark relief, every time it goes up. (We also get to see their profits when they get released quarterly) That's why.

And do the oil companies get tax breaks other companies do not? Yes they do...despite their obscene profits.

New Rule: If your company is profitable, you get no special breaks or subsidies from the government. How 'bout that? It's like kicking people off Welfare once they're making a living wage.

Do you consider 7% profit "obscene" ? you guys get carried away with the zeros and forget that the profit % is what matters. If you spend $100 to make $7 you made 7%. If you spend 100,000,000 to make 7,000,000 you made 7%. Discovering and extracting and refining oil is a very expensive business.

They get to write off exploration costs---that is not a subsidy. I wish you on the left would learn what the word "subsidy" means.

I consider $375 million a day obscene. That's just me though, I'm sure others have a different obscene level.

They shouldn't get to write off anything if they are making a profit. I don't get to collect welfare since I have a job that "makes a profit". They should be the same.

 

[Redfish]

Funny, I don't believe I mentioned Big Oil. I provided links to the corporations that paid little or no taxes, that's all.

Why is "big oil" brought up so much? Maybe because that's what we pay for most often and can see, in the most stark relief, every time it goes up. (We also get to see their profits when they get released quarterly) That's why.

And do the oil companies get tax breaks other companies do not? Yes they do...despite their obscene profits.

New Rule: If your company is profitable, you get no special breaks or subsidies from the government. How 'bout that? It's like kicking people off Welfare once they're making a living wage.

Do you consider 7% profit "obscene" ? you guys get carried away with the zeros and forget that the profit % is what matters. If you spend $100 to make $7 you made 7%. If you spend 100,000,000 to make 7,000,000 you made 7%. Discovering and extracting and refining oil is a very expensive business.

They get to write off exploration costs---that is not a subsidy. I wish you on the left would learn what the word "subsidy" means.

I consider $375 million a day obscene. That's just me though, I'm sure others have a different obscene level.

They shouldn't get to write off anything if they are making a profit. I don't get to collect welfare since I have a job that "makes a profit". They should be the same.

You just don't get it. How much do they have to spend every day to make 375 M ?

like I said, you get carried away with the zeros and ignore the %.

If not for the write offs, the price of gas would be higher. Those were given by congress to encourage energy exploration. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Navy1960]

I've had the pleasure of reading this thread and one thing comes to mind about the new Senator from Texas and several others too both Democrat and Repbulican, and that is calling into question the honor and patriotism of any man or woman who carries the scares of defending this nation when they themselves didn't bother to pick up a weapon to defend the nation they call home is somewhat suspect. In the Senator from Texas case, I fail to understand what would quailify him given the fact he has never worn the uniform his country to actually be in a position to question this nations candidate for SecDef. other that being voted into office. While yes that gives him the ability to select a person based on his vote, but it DOES not quailfy him to question a man who has served in combat and worn the uniform of his country when he himself did not have the honor and courage to do the same. The same can be said for any number of people in congress both Republican and Democrat, past and present.

 

[Redfish]

I've had the pleasure of reading this thread and one thing comes to mind about the new Senator from Texas and several others too both Democrat and Repbulican, and that is calling into question the honor and patriotism of any man or woman who carries the scares of defending this nation when they themselves didn't bother to pick up a weapon to defend the nation they call home is somewhat suspect. In the Senator from Texas case, I fail to understand what would quailify him given the fact he has never worn the uniform his country to actually be in a position to question this nations candidate for SecDef. other that being voted into office. While yes that gives him the ability to select a person based on his vote, but it DOES not quailfy him to question a man who has served in combat and worn the uniform of his country when he himself did not have the honor and courage to do the same. The same can be said for any number of people in congress both Republican and Democrat, past and present.

Really? so only those who have been in the military should be allowed to vote. Cruz is doing the job he was elected to do---represent the people of his state. If they don't like what he has done and said, they can vote him out next time.

Personally, I am glad when anyone in congress dares to challenge the establishment. We need more of that, not more sheep blindly following the failed leadership.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Not hardly. And definitely not once he became POTUS. This is all new territory. Never in US history has such blatant disrespect been shown to a President or his appointees by another branch of the federal government.

You are more full of shit than a septic tank!

Fine, prove us wrong then. Show us where a sitting Senator or Congressman questioned McCain's or Bush's record. Provide examples that are on par with "you lie" being shouted during a SOFU address. Show us in history where a cabinet appointment has been filibustered. Hell, show me a time in history where a President's appointments have been filibustered at the rate President Obama's has.

Just off the top of my head there were TWO Democratic filibusters of Bush II Cabinet nominees.

2006, when the Senate had to get 60 votes for a cloture motion to force a final vote on President George W. Bush's choice for Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and for EPA nominee Stephen Johnson.

1989, when ex-Sen. John Tower was defeated in his bid to become Defense Secretary for the first President Bush.

Also, Democrats forced Republicans to get 60 votes on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you consider 7% profit "obscene" ? you guys get carried away with the zeros and forget that the profit % is what matters. If you spend $100 to make $7 you made 7%. If you spend 100,000,000 to make 7,000,000 you made 7%. Discovering and extracting and refining oil is a very expensive business.

They get to write off exploration costs---that is not a subsidy. I wish you on the left would learn what the word "subsidy" means.

I consider $375 million a day obscene. That's just me though, I'm sure others have a different obscene level.

They shouldn't get to write off anything if they are making a profit. I don't get to collect welfare since I have a job that "makes a profit". They should be the same.

You just don't get it. How much do they have to spend every day to make 375 M ?

like I said, you get carried away with the zeros and ignore the %.

If not for the write offs, the price of gas would be higher. Those were given by congress to encourage energy exploration. Why is that a bad thing?

Now see, there you go. I don't think write offs for energy exploration is such a bad thing. Why do the Republicans want to STOP these "write offs" for green energy exploration while keeping them in place for big oil?

"Eradicating subsidies to fossil fuels would enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits," said the IEA, the energy watchdog to 28 industrialized countries, in its annual World Energy Outlook. The report estimated such subsidies at $312 billion in 2009, mostly in developing countries, compared with $57 billion in subsidies for renewable energy.

President Obama has recently called for a similar action for U.S. fossil fuel subsidies. For decades, tax breaks and federal incentives have been a boon to the U.S. fossil fuels industry. Numbers compiled by the Environmental Law Institute reveal that those figures totaled $72 billion between 2002 and 2008—about $10 billion annually. Figures from the Washington-based nonprofit Oil Change International, put annual U.S. subsidies of these mature technologies somewhere between $6 billion and $39 billion annually, depending on what is included in the count.​

US Republicans Propose "Inexplicable" Cuts to Renewable Energy

Why not shift some of those incentives to alternative energy solutions?