Where did you get your numbers? They aren't even close.

Here are just the ones in the Senate from last year:

AR – Mark Pryor (D)

AK – Mark Begich (D)
AK - Lisa Murkowski (R)

CA – Barbara Boxer (D)

CT – Richard Blumenthal (D)

CO – Michael Bennet (D)

CO – Mark Udall (D)

DE – Chris Coons (D)

DE - Tom Carper (D)

GA – Johnny Isakson (R)

HI – Mazie Hirono (D
)
HI – Brian Schatz (D)

IL – Dick Durbin (D)

IL – Mark Kirk (R)

IN – Daniel Coats (R)

KS – Jerry Moran (R)

LA – Mary Landrieu (D)

MA – Ed Markey (D)

MD – Ben Cardin (D)

MD – Barbara Mikulski (D)

ME – Susan Collins (R)

MN – Al Franken (D)

MN – Amy Klobuchar (D)

MO – Claire McCaskill (D)

MS – Thad Cochran (R)

NC – Kay Hagan (D)

NE – Deb Fischer (R)

NH – Kelly Ayotte (R)

NH – Jeanne Shaheen (D)

NM – Marin Heinrich (D)

NM – Tom Udall (D)

NV – Harry Reid (D)

NY – Chuck Schumer (D)

NY – Kristen Gillibrand (D)

OH - Sherrod Brown (D)

OH - Rob Portman (R)

OK - Jim Inhofe (R)

PA – Pat Toomey (R
)
RI – Jack Reed (D)

SC – Tim Scott (R)

SC – Lindsey Graham (R)

SD – John Thune (R)

VA – Mark Warner (D)

WA – Patty Murray (D)

WV - Joe Manchin (D)

WY – Mike Enzi (R)

I don't suppose this changes your mind? I could always post the House list too, but it is much bigger.

The defense rests.

 

Okay, I'm taking bets. Three choices: One, He goes on to be a "consultant" in DC; two, he returns to the line and flies with the swine; three, he reluctantly accepts the overwhelming demand for his unique talents and allows his name to be proposed as MEC Chairman, again.

 

The only problem with number 2 is that he would be taking a HUGE pay cut. I bet 1 or 3!

 

Deleted................

 

What provision?

 

It's still negative every year though which means our country is still increasing our debt every year, just not as much.

 

Yes, sir. That's what a deficit is. Trending towards smaller and smaller deficits is a good thing though. Right? Or, at least better than what happened to it from 2007-2008 and 2008 to 2009. Correct?

 

I got them from alpa.org, then PAC, then list of non-incumbent contributions. Here is a reposting yet again of those numbers:

This is from the list of non-incumbents to which ALPA PAC supported financially for candidates to win House and Senate seats:

2007-2008: Democrats 21...Republicsns 0

2009-2010: Democrats 24...Republicans 3

2011-2012: Democrats 40...Republicans 5

2013-2014: Democrats 21...Republicans 1

It clearly shows (as if we didn't already know) that ALPA PAC is a far left wing supportive political organization. The only way you can get away with that in a union that has primarily conservatives as its members is to lie about what you do. Use terms like "pilot partisan" etc. when the reality is that when it comes to getting new congressmen to unseat incumbents, ALPA PAC supports democrats almost always, and republicans almost never. Again, the data is from YOUR website.

Yes that's a part of the incumbents list where you necessarily have to contribute to both sides. When you look at the full list of incumbents (house and senate incumbents) it's 135 Democrats to 92 republicans. Even though there are more republicans than democrats in the legislative branch. So yet again, ALPA PAC leans heavily democrat...even among incumbents.

No need, just the numbers that I posted above regarding incumbents: 135 Democrats, 92 Republicans.

The defense either can't read, or you don't want to read. That non-incumbent list is complete proof of what ALPA PAC is...a very far left political support group.

The truth rests.

Carl

 

Not only that, but the deficit is a somewhat arbitrary number and in no way as critical as the debt. If we eliminated the deficit and balanced the budget tomorrow we'd still have debt interest payments close to the Reagan defense budgets…and that's with almost zero interest fueled by massive money printing and debt shackled to every US citizen, which obviously can't continue. When interests rise, and they will…a lot…and we throw a few more trillion in debt on top of the fire, we will be in a world of hurt. Both sides will try to put out the fire with more spending (and more debt) which will make things far worse for a long time before they get any better. We have some serious financial chickens that will come home to roost. Oh wait, someone already used that phrase, therefore it must be irrelevant.

The stock market is on steroids from trillions of "free" money floating around for them to gamble with, plus almost infinite malinvestment from the deep pockets that know Uncle Sugar will backstop any and all catestrophic risk from now on as long as its structured to have widespread damage if it isn't. That's a pretty nice system to gamble with taxpayer money. Keep the gains if you win, offlload the losses if you lose. Its ridiculous to use "the stock market" as a barometer of an administration's success, but to be fair if "the other guy" was in there right now his party's fanboys would be pointing to the same metric as proof of success.

I think its a horrible move for us to be blowing billions on short term "return to shareholders" as we will need that money for a rainy day, and it will rain hard eventually. We will deeply regret wasting that much money that ended up doing nothing long term to help us. At least we're paying down debt aggressively, which is critical. That and the refinery plus some of the other decisions (cheaper used AC that are paid for instead of everything having to be new high dollar inventory) will be what may make the difference in the deep trough times we will face. We will be wishing for that 2.5 Billion (and counting) in peak share price buybacks and exponentially increasing short term dividends back but oh well.

 

I LLOL'd (literally laughed out loud) at option 2.

Although I suppose its possible…for a short time to build street cred for the next hop. Career builders with far flung ambitions usually don't climb down the ladder very far unless they have no other choice.