PDA

View Full Version : Obama House will leave Obama out of the talks?


HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 05:01 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN_BOEHNER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-22-18-01-17


Does not say much for the leadership when he is being bypassed.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 05:49 PM
Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing. You seam to be filled with it. I have yet to see you say anything negative about the republicans and their reckless approach to negotiations with the debt ceiling

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 05:50 PM
Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing. You seam to be filled with it. I have yet to see you say anything negative about the republicans and their reckless approach to negotiations with the debt ceiling

They passed a bill to extend it.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 05:53 PM
They passed a bill to extend it.

The Republicans passed the bill every time during the Bush era...this is just a propaganda stunt to get the white house in 2012. The republicans are playing chicken with Americas financial future , so they can try and gain the presidency in 2012....and this doesnt bother you at all ?

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 06:00 PM
they passed a bill. What more can they do? The senate killed it.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 06:10 PM
they passed a bill. What more can they do? The senate killed it.

A one sided bill LMAO...people like you bring this country down. You think one party knows best, and the other has nothing constructive to offer...you follow blindly like a rebuplicanboot

trndobrd
07-22-2011, 08:23 PM
A one sided bill LMAO...people like you bring this country down. You think one party knows best, and the other has nothing constructive to offer...you follow blindly like a rebuplicanboot

By constructive, do you mean something like the Senate budget?

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 08:41 PM
By constructive, do you mean something like the Senate budget?
Thank you for proving my point

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 08:45 PM
Not a single Democrat voted to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was POTUS, but multiple Republicans voted against it.

trndobrd
07-22-2011, 09:40 PM
Thank you for proving my point


What point is that?

That the Democrats in the Senate have failed to bring a budget proposal in over 800 days, that's 'constructive'? That the Democrats in the House refused to pass a budget for FY 2010 when they had the majority is somehow a 'constructive' proposal?

Perhaps your idea of 'constructive' is trying to run the United States Government, the largest enterprise in human history, without a written document, as required by law, stating how the money is supposed to be spent?

go bowe
07-24-2011, 09:07 AM
they passed a bill. What more can they do? The senate killed it.

what more can they do?

how about negotiating in good faith?

how bout compromise for the good of the country?

how bout fighting the budget war using any number of house votes on appropriations instead of the potentially devastating debt limit vote?

how bout not risking defeat at the polls because independents might see the house as obstructionist (and far too partisan) and vote for the other guys who made an offer of 4 trillion in cuts?

how bout returning our politics to some semblance of rational bipartisanship instead of defeat obama at (literally) any cost?

the house can do a lot more than they have that would actually benefit the country and win some independent voters at the same time...

i may be a little liberal on social issues, but i voted for president bush twice and i can assure you that as an independent voter i am thoroughly turned off by the house's postion in this debt ceiling debacle and will take that into consideration when i'm in the voting booth...

and i don't think i'm alone in this...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 09:10 AM
By constructive, do you mean something like the Senate budget?

the senate has a budget now?

if you're talking about the senate's version of the deal, then i'd agree that they need to take the notion of compromise a little bit further than they have and realize the political realities confronting them...

the risk of default is too great to be a political football...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 09:16 AM
Not a single Democrat voted to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was POTUS, but multiple Republicans voted against it.

so democrats are politicians too, what a shocker...

they also didn't have the majority in the house so their votes on the debt ceiling had no real impact...

both the republicans and the democrats are fools to play with something so potentially disastrous as not increasing the debt ceiling...

there's plenty of blame to go around, but this time it looks like we could actually default...

time to stop playing games and get back to the business of responsible governance...

mlyonsd
07-24-2011, 09:27 AM
what more can they do?

how about negotiating in good faith?

how bout compromise for the good of the country?

how bout fighting the budget war using any number of house votes on appropriations instead of the potentially devastating debt limit vote?

how bout not risking defeat at the polls because independents might see the house as obstructionist (and far too partisan) and vote for the other guys who made an offer of 4 trillion in cuts?

how bout returning our politics to some semblance of rational bipartisanship instead of defeat obama at (literally) any cost?

the house can do a lot more than they have that would actually benefit the country and win some independent voters at the same time...

i may be a little liberal on social issues, but i voted for president bush twice and i can assure you that as an independent voter i am thoroughly turned off by the house's postion in this debt ceiling debacle and will take that into consideration when i'm in the voting booth...

and i don't think i'm alone in this...I could take every one of your statements, replace the names to Obama and the dems, and they'd be true.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 09:45 AM
I could take every one of your statements, replace the names to Obama and the dems, and they'd be true.

maybe, but i don't think so this time...

it's pretty clear to everyone other than republicans that the dems are offering what amount to amazing concessions on cutting and the house repubs are rejecting it because of not wanting to appear to be increasing taxes by closing loopholes...

does compromise for the dems mean agreeing to everything the repubs want in the way of cuts and asking nothing in return?

i don't think john q. public will see it as a good thing if we default and right now a good case can be made for the public to blame the intransigent republicans...

i'm actually pretty conservative when it comes to spending, although i strongly support maintenance of the safety net (with appropriate cost cutting measures), and that's the way i look at it, together with most of the republicans i know (ok, ya got me, i only know one republican)...

mlyonsd
07-24-2011, 09:54 AM
maybe, but i don't think so this time...

it's pretty clear to everyone other than republicans that the dems are offering what amount to amazing concessions on cutting and the house repubs are rejecting it because of not wanting to appear to be increasing taxes by closing loopholes...

does compromise for the dems mean agreeing to everything the repubs want in the way of cuts and asking nothing in return?

i don't think john q. public will see it as a good thing if we default and right now a good case can be made for the public to blame the intransigent republicans...

i'm actually pretty conservative when it comes to spending, although i strongly support maintenance of the safety net (with appropriate cost cutting measures), and that's the way i look at it, together with most of the republicans i know (ok, ya got me, i only know one republican)...Boehner has 800B in revenue increases on the table and an increase in the debt limit. Nothing?

go bowe
07-24-2011, 10:22 AM
Boehner has 800B in revenue increases on the table and an increase in the debt limit. Nothing?

well, almost nothing... :doh!:

i couldn't find anything on communist news network, but trusty fox had it...

is that debt limit increase until next year or until at least after the election?

and the 800 billion, is that over the same 10 year period?

if so, it doesn't seem like much...

but it would seem like a good-faith start for an agreement, which should be pursued by both sides...

vailpass
07-24-2011, 10:34 AM
Anyone care to comment on the OP? Lack of leadership on obama's part through this national crisis?

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 10:35 AM
Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing. You seam to be filled with it. I have yet to see you say anything negative about the republicans and their reckless approach to negotiations with the debt ceiling

Why is it every one from the left (I am assuming you are from the left, my apologies if you aren't) start up their conversations about how things will be screwed up if we mess up the debt ceiling?

The statement screams "We, as Democrats have been irresponsible for 5 years now, for 2 years so irresponsible that we didn't even design a budget; therefore, you had better fix this issue without cuts or you will destroy our credit rating because of the monster DEMOCRATS created".

Also what is the purpose of the debt ceiling? If we just arbitrarily raise it when we no longer like the number why don't we just raise it to 100 gajillion dollars? That way we can never surpass it. In other words, the Debt Ceiling has become nothing other than a number for the Dems and Reps in which to threaten one another. It doesn't even serve its original purpose any longer if we can just raise it willy nilly.

Finally, the MOST amazing thing of all to me is that every single news agency, including the conservative sided FOX, has decided to ignore the blinding fact that we are such a scary spending monster with the power to raise our own credit limit at will.

I know not raising the debt ceiling would have negative impact on this country in the short term. Raising it, however, is a kick in the teeth of those of us who budget and try to be responsible. And yes, I blame the DEMOCRATS entirely for getting us to this position, and I will be reminding everyone of just that come November 2012.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 10:40 AM
The Republicans passed the bill every time during the Bush era...this is just a propaganda stunt to get the white house in 2012. The republicans are playing chicken with Americas financial future , so they can try and gain the presidency in 2012....and this doesnt bother you at all ?

Does it bother you that the Dems have failed to plan a budget for more than 2 years. That their short term planning and arrogance failed to take into account that they would not be in control for forever and the budget and debt ceiling would eventually have to be reviewed and controlled?

I keep hearing liberals say "Two years isn't enough time for President Obama to clean up this mess" and then have the nerve to tell me after 2 years of screwing up our budget and spending EVEN MORE than GWB that this is the Republicans fault after less than a year of trying to fix the Democrat greed. Are you one of those people? If so, you should be ashamed.

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 10:45 AM
how bout compromise for the good of the country?

What if Obama's idea of compromise isn't good for the country?

go bowe
07-24-2011, 10:54 AM
What if Obama's idea of compromise isn't good for the country?

well, what's good for the country doesn't necessarily mean what's good for one party or the other...

i'm not supporting obama's idea of compromise, i'm supporting what i view as reasonable compromises that can keep the debt ceiling out of politics altogether...

i'm for much bigger cuts, but not on an across the board cut, some programs are more important than others (think border patrol and immigration agents)...

and i'd support bigger revenue increases, but no amount of either could convince me that we should use the debt ceiling to force a shotgun marriage (think gun to your head sort of thing)...

FD
07-24-2011, 11:00 AM
Anyone care to comment on the OP? Lack of leadership on obama's part through this national crisis?

This situation seems to be a perfect example of the paradox of Presidential power. The paradox is that everyone wants the President to "lead" by talking a strong position somewhere and try to convince the nation to agree with him. The problem is that in a highly partisan environment like we have now, as soon as he takes a position the opposition party immediately will take the opposite position and dig in. And in the American system of politics, you need the opposition to get anything done.

So to some extent, paradoxically, the best way to actually get something done is sometimes to stand on the sidelines and allow the parties to negotiate until a deal is within sight, then get on board and use the bully pulpit to push it over the top.

For instance, Obama wanted to cut payroll taxes in 2010. He didn't announce this until after the election because the GOP would have lined up as against it, simply because of who had proposed it. He ultimately got it into the tax cut deal, but he has proposed a further cut in payroll taxes, this time on the employer side, and sure enough, the GOP has come out against it, even after they had been advocating for it for years.

Now it looks like there may be a deal in view on the debt ceiling. Obama has proposed a deal further to the right than the Republicans in Congress advocated for a few months ago, further to the right than the average Republican voter wants according to polls. The main thing holding it back is that the GOP doesn't want to give Obama a political win. So they want to cut him out of the negotiating room at the last minute. It wont work because he is the President and can still call the shots, though.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 11:04 AM
Anyone care to comment on the OP? Lack of leadership on obama's part through this national crisis?

what's this?

have you forgotten where you are?

commenting on op's is not what we do around here...

i am curious, though...

what would you have obama do to show "leadership" in the debt ceiling crisis?

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 11:09 AM
what's this?

have you forgotten where you are?

commenting on op's is not what we do around here...

i am curious, though...

what would you have obama do to show "leadership" in the debt ceiling crisis?

I would state he has done quite a bit in an attempt to keep negotiations on the table, and I am no fan of the man.

He could lose the petulant attitude when in discussions with Boehner, regardless of Boehner's demeanor. It doesn't help his position at all.

He could also come out publicly and state he and his Democrats were wrong and ill advised to create this situation. He could further state while they created the monster they want to fix it to accommodate most Americans, not just their voting base.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 11:59 AM
I would state he has done quite a bit in an attempt to keep negotiations on the table, and I am no fan of the man.

He could lose the petulant attitude when in discussions with Boehner, regardless of Boehner's demeanor. It doesn't help his position at all.

He could also come out publicly and state he and his Democrats were wrong and ill advised to create this situation. He could further state while they created the monster they want to fix it to accommodate most Americans, not just their voting base.
as far as attitude, we've seen more than enough from both sides...

and a few people might not agree that he is wrong and even more importantly that he created the problem...

it was the house republicans who tied a debt deal to the debt ceiling in the first place...

and as far as accomodating most americans, do you think that agreeing to cut ss medicare or medicaid and other cuts to social programs is accomodating people who depend on them?

i don't think cuts in social programs are aimed at the dems voting base, if anything, they are aimed in spite of the base...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 12:43 PM
as far as attitude, we've seen more than enough from both sides...

and a few people might not agree that he is wrong and even more importantly that he created the problem...

it was the house republicans who tied a debt deal to the debt ceiling in the first place...

and as far as accomodating most americans, do you think that agreeing to cut ss medicare or medicaid and other cuts to social programs is accomodating people who depend on them?

i don't think cuts in social programs are aimed at the dems voting base, if anything, they are aimed in spite of the base...
You asked what could the President do as a leader, I told you and you equivocated his actions with others, which is oxymoronic of your question - as a "leader" he should be representative of leader like actions, not following the course of others.

When I say ALL Americans, I mean "all", not just those over 65. Continuing in this vein assures that those under the age of thirty will not enjoy the benefits of Social Security and Medicare at all.

Do you truly believe we cannot adjust either, tax only 50% of the nation, and still fund the programs in perpetiuty?

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 01:26 PM
well, what's good for the country doesn't necessarily mean what's good for one party or the other...

i'm not supporting obama's idea of compromise, i'm supporting what i view as reasonable compromises that can keep the debt ceiling out of politics altogether...

i'm for much bigger cuts, but not on an across the board cut, some programs are more important than others (think border patrol and immigration agents)...

and i'd support bigger revenue increases, but no amount of either could convince me that we should use the debt ceiling to force a shotgun marriage (think gun to your head sort of thing)...

Tax increases aren't the solution. You can't tax your way out of this problem and the false choice of "letting" certain groups keep their money or reducing entitlement programs comes from a very odd place that presumes the government exists as an arbiter of who gets to keep what they make.

And fighting over who's going to save $3 trillion vs $4 trillion us like arguing over the deficiencies of maxing out 9 new credit cards vs 10 new credit cards. Even with the stupidly named "grand bargain" the deficit continues to escalate at a dramatic rate.

You can't use GDP benchmarks when the debt load is so enormous that it requires a level of growth that is nearly impossible to depend upon. Estimating ever-lasting expansion isn't a new idea for those designing budgets and it's unsustainabilitu isn't a new realization either.

We have to remake the tax code and what the social entitlements are aiming to accomplish. Hearing commercials promoting how you can get food stamps even if you have a car, house, and job is just an example of how Obama's nanny state has completely run amok (and why is the goverent - the California state goverent in this case - buying ad time to promote such lunacy?). Then Obama steps up and says he won't let people take away the "vital programs" that we were doing just fine without before his arrival. He raises the deficit by an amount that is equal to all his predessors combined and then demands to get credit for, essentially, reducing the level of the increases he put in place by a fraction.

It's in a political mist now. We're in a world where every Dem voted for a $500 billion cut in Medicare and every Republican voted not to - yet the Dems are out claiming the GOP is trying to cut the program. Instead of explaining this and reiterating that without doing some combination of changes to these programs they will collapse the GOP instead runs away and punts their responsibilities in exchange for political expediency (see the McConnell plan).

Frankly, this nation is at a place where the things that have to happen never will because the voting population doesn't want to lose their goodies, whether we can afford them or not. Eventually it will all come apart and the candy store will be empty and only then will you see real change occur. Until that day it's all a total and complete joke.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 01:52 PM
You asked what could the President do as a leader, I told you and you equivocated his actions with others, which is oxymoronic of your question - as a "leader" he should be representative of leader like actions, not following the course of others.

When I say ALL Americans, I mean "all", not just those over 65. Continuing in this vein assures that those under the age of thirty will not enjoy the benefits of Social Security and Medicare at all.

Do you truly believe we cannot adjust either, tax only 50% of the nation, and still fund the programs in perpetiuty?

i'm sorry if i gave you the impression that i think we cannot adjust both cutting and revenue increases, i think both are absolutely necessary and urgent...

social security needs fundamental changes to survive in any form, like increasing retirement and medicare eligibility ages, giving young people the ability to opt out if they so choose, eliminating the earnings cap on the payroll tax and means testing; all these measures should be considered and acted upon...

if i gave you a different impression, again, i am sorry...

and no, i don't think we can fund any programs in perpetuity without addressing the pros and cons at the time and identifying funds to pay for it, while minimizing costs at the same time...

i'm not sure why i'm explaining so much, and i don't know if you're extrapolating my position on some issues to mean that i have some similar position on all aspects of the issue or if my communication skills have reached a new all time low...

maybe a bit of both...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 02:01 PM
Tax increases aren't the solution. You can't tax your way out of this problem and the false choice of "letting" certain groups keep their money or reducing entitlement programs comes from a very odd place that presumes the government exists as an arbiter of who gets to keep what they make.

And fighting over who's going to save $3 trillion vs $4 trillion us like arguing over the deficiencies of maxing out 9 new credit cards vs 10 new credit cards. Even with the stupidly named "grand bargain" the deficit continues to escalate at a dramatic rate.

You can't use GDP benchmarks when the debt load is so enormous that it requires a level of growth that is nearly impossible to depend upon. Estimating ever-lasting expansion isn't a new idea for those designing budgets and it's unsustainabilitu isn't a new realization either.

We have to remake the tax code and what the social entitlements are aiming to accomplish. Hearing commercials promoting how you can get food stamps even if you have a car, house, and job is just an example of how Obama's nanny state has completely run amok (and why is the goverent - the California state goverent in this case - buying ad time to promote such lunacy?). Then Obama steps up and says he won't let people take away the "vital programs" that we were doing just fine without before his arrival. He raises the deficit by an amount that is equal to all his predessors combined and then demands to get credit for, essentially, reducing the level of the increases he put in place by a fraction.

It's in a political mist now. We're in a world where every Dem voted for a $500 billion cut in Medicare and every Republican voted not to - yet the Dems are out claiming the GOP is trying to cut the program. Instead of explaining this and reiterating that without doing some combination of changes to these programs they will collapse the GOP instead runs away and punts their responsibilities in exchange for political expediency (see the McConnell plan).

Frankly, this nation is at a place where the things that have to happen never will because the voting population doesn't want to lose their goodies, whether we can afford them or not. Eventually it will all come apart and the candy store will be empty and only then will you see real change occur. Until that day it's all a total and complete joke.

tax increases alone are obviously not the solution, but that doesn't somehow mean that they are not an essesntial part of the solution...

deficits come down faster with a combination of cuts and revenue, that isn't changed by the political panderings of either party...

and, imo, you won't see any really significant cuts and increases resulting from a last minute gun to the head deal that is looking only at the next election and not the best interests of our country... *waves flag*

lastly, i don't think "the end" has to approach before we get to the point where we finally deal with the problem...

i see the mood of the country as wanting a deal and supporting the overall notion of some kinds of cuts to the third rail programs, as well as to the pentagon and all the other fed depts...

i don't really know what the polls are saying, i'm going by what i see in the news, including fan-favorite al jazeera, and what i hear in conversations around the country (on the intratubes)...

mlyonsd
07-24-2011, 02:28 PM
Frankly, this nation is at a place where the things that have to happen never will because the voting population doesn't want to lose their goodies, whether we can afford them or not. Eventually it will all come apart and the candy store will be empty and only then will you see real change occur. Until that day it's all a total and complete joke.Pretty much nailed it right there.

The pain of this mess should be shared by everyone. If more tax revenue is part of the solution all Americans should pay part of the price.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 02:34 PM
Pretty much nailed it right there.

The pain of this mess should be shared by everyone. If more tax revenue is part of the solution all Americans should pay part of the price.

find 'em work and almost all americans would much rather be paying taxes than depending on the government...

under the circumstances, i think the bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for all voters, not just the rich, as well as establishing some sort of bottom tax bracket (which would be minimal for those on assistance, but still there)...

patteeu
07-24-2011, 02:38 PM
what more can they do?

how about negotiating in good faith?

how bout compromise for the good of the country?

how bout fighting the budget war using any number of house votes on appropriations instead of the potentially devastating debt limit vote?

how bout not risking defeat at the polls because independents might see the house as obstructionist (and far too partisan) and vote for the other guys who made an offer of 4 trillion in cuts?

how bout returning our politics to some semblance of rational bipartisanship instead of defeat obama at (literally) any cost?

the house can do a lot more than they have that would actually benefit the country and win some independent voters at the same time...

i may be a little liberal on social issues, but i voted for president bush twice and i can assure you that as an independent voter i am thoroughly turned off by the house's postion in this debt ceiling debacle and will take that into consideration when i'm in the voting booth...

and i don't think i'm alone in this...

I think this is a pretty ridiculous position to take. Did you have Frankie write it for you?

* Good faith? The Republicans aren't the ones who have failed to make any concrete proposals.

* Compromise? The Republicans weren't in favor of the trillions of dollars of new spending that Obama and the democrats committed the country to in the first place so the fact that they are offering to increase the debt limit to handle all of that democrat spending at all is a huge compromise. All they ask in return is a small step in the direction of future fiscal sanity. They seem to be reasonably flexible about the size and type of spending cuts that they'd accept.

* The Budget War will have to continue into the appropriations cycle if there is any hope of getting the fiscal house in order. Even the so-called "grand compromise" that Obama claims to want (without actually making a proposal, of course) would leave us woefully worse off than we were before Obama was elected in terms of the federal budget. Much more will be required.

* Rational bipartisanship? Independents who vote against Republicans because they are finally standing up to the out-of-control spending of the rest of DC don't deserve fiscal sanity. JFC, it wasn't Frankie who wrote your post, it was Kotter.

:Poke:

patteeu
07-24-2011, 02:42 PM
so democrats are politicians too, what a shocker...

they also didn't have the majority in the house so their votes on the debt ceiling had no real impact...

both the republicans and the democrats are fools to play with something so potentially disastrous as not increasing the debt ceiling...

there's plenty of blame to go around, but this time it looks like we could actually default...

time to stop playing games and get back to the business of responsible governance...

Wouldn't it be pretty simple for democrats and the President to avoid default now that the House has acted? If they want a debt ceiling increase, it's there for the taking. What are their specific objections? Are they going to send the country into default because House Republicans nixed money for something critical to our nation's survival like foreign abortions or something?

patteeu
07-24-2011, 02:44 PM
maybe, but i don't think so this time...

it's pretty clear to everyone other than republicans that the dems are offering what amount to amazing concessions on cutting and the house repubs are rejecting it because of not wanting to appear to be increasing taxes by closing loopholes...

does compromise for the dems mean agreeing to everything the repubs want in the way of cuts and asking nothing in return?

i don't think john q. public will see it as a good thing if we default and right now a good case can be made for the public to blame the intransigent republicans...

i'm actually pretty conservative when it comes to spending, although i strongly support maintenance of the safety net (with appropriate cost cutting measures), and that's the way i look at it, together with most of the republicans i know (ok, ya got me, i only know one republican)...

What exactly are democrats offering to cut? Have they been specific about anything at all?

mlyonsd
07-24-2011, 02:51 PM
find 'em work and almost all americans would much rather be paying taxes than depending on the government...

under the circumstances, i think the bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for all voters, not just the rich, as well as establishing some sort of bottom tax bracket (which would be minimal for those on assistance, but still there)...Well we're getting somewhere.

The problem with any tax increase is how it is used. What may look like a good idea now (debt reduction) will most certainly be turned around and used for another bridge to nowhere tomorrow. And the cycle will continue.

And, if your concern is jobs now is not the time to raise taxes. This is Obama's biggest failure IMO in regards to the economy. Cutting spending while reassuring businesses taxes won't be raised right now might be just the thing to get them off the sidelines.

His actions during this debate can have three meanings. Either he really is an elitist socialist prick trying to drive a deeper wedge into the classes or he's a dim bulb that doesn't really understand economics.

Third, he's just trying to keep his job. If this is his first priority he should be ashamed of himself.

Come to think about it, all three are probably in play here.

headsnap
07-24-2011, 02:51 PM
What exactly are democrats offering to cut?

and when?




I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a cheeseburger today?

go bowe
07-24-2011, 02:52 PM
I think this is a pretty ridiculous position to take. Did you have Frankie write it for you?

* Good faith? The Republicans aren't the ones who have failed to make any concrete proposals. where did the idea of 4 trillion in cuts come from? a formal plan, probably not, but what's the point if there are no realistic negotiations?

* Compromise? The Republicans weren't in favor of the trillions of dollars of new spending that Obama and the democrats committed the country to in the first place so the fact that they are offering to increase the debt limit to handle all of that democrat spending at all is a huge compromise. All they ask in return is a small step in the direction of future fiscal sanity. They seem to be reasonably flexible about the size and type of spending cuts that they'd accept. i have serious questions about the spending issue, but i don't really know how much of that increase was due to massively increased assistance costs resulting from this long-lasting near depression and unemployment and the stimulus...

i guess i don't see raising the debt ceiling is a compromise at all...

even the republican leadership says we must do it...

what we need is serious debate and thoughtfulness over a period of time to reach results that will actually be effective, not a some deadline in the immediate future...

* The Budget War will have to continue into the appropriations cycle if there is any hope of getting the fiscal house in order. Even the so-called "grand compromise" that Obama claims to want (without actually making a proposal, of course) would leave us woefully worse off than we were before Obama was elected in terms of the federal budget. Much more will be required. much more indeed, couldn't agree with you more and i totally agree that these issues should be addressed in the appropriations process (and not linked to the debt ceiling)...

* Rational bipartisanship? Independents who vote against Republicans because they are finally standing up to the out-of-control spending of the rest of DC don't deserve fiscal sanity. JFC, it wasn't Frankie who wrote your post, it was Kotter. maybe they don't deserve fiscal sanity, but those suckers still vote...

and it's possible to have a position similar to frankie's without being accused of having him ghost write my material... :p :p :p

kotter? not so much...

:Poke:

patteeu
07-24-2011, 02:54 PM
Well we're getting somewhere.

The problem with any tax increase is how it is used. What may look like a good idea now (debt reduction) will most certainly be turned around and used for another bridge to nowhere tomorrow. And the cycle will continue.

And, if your concern is jobs now is not the time to raise taxes. This is Obama's biggest failure IMO in regards to the economy. Cutting spending while reassuring businesses taxes won't be raised right now might be just the thing to get them off the sidelines.

His actions during this debate can have three meanings. Either he really is an elitist socialist prick trying to drive a deeper wedge into the classes or he's a dim bulb that doesn't really understand economics.

Third, he's just trying to keep his job. If this is his first priority he should be ashamed of himself.

Come to think about it, all three are probably in play here.

I wish we had bought a bridge to nowhere instead of the bridge to Obamaville. ;)

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 02:55 PM
i'm sorry if i gave you the impression that i think we cannot adjust both cutting and revenue increases, i think both are absolutely necessary and urgent...

social security needs fundamental changes to survive in any form, like increasing retirement and medicare eligibility ages, giving young people the ability to opt out if they so choose, eliminating the earnings cap on the payroll tax and means testing; all these measures should be considered and acted upon...

if i gave you a different impression, again, i am sorry...

and no, i don't think we can fund any programs in perpetuity without addressing the pros and cons at the time and identifying funds to pay for it, while minimizing costs at the same time...

i'm not sure why i'm explaining so much, and i don't know if you're extrapolating my position on some issues to mean that i have some similar position on all aspects of the issue or if my communication skills have reached a new all time low...

maybe a bit of both...

LOL - I would state the former and a little of my reading skills as well.

patteeu
07-24-2011, 02:58 PM
where did the idea of 4 trillion in cuts come from? a formal plan, probably not, but what's the point if there are no realistic negotiations?

If the cuts he's offering are just hand waving without any specificity then they're not worth anything and it can't possibly count as a chit that puts the onus of good faith negotiation back on the Republicans (who have actually made concrete spending cut proposals).

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 03:00 PM
Ya gotta love Harry Reid. Now he says he wont support any proposal that does not extend the debt ceiling past the next presidential election.


For Christs sake Harry, why not just come late to the party after you led the killing of the one proposal the House has passed and make some stupid freaking statement that proves its all about the politics.

I hope everyone in Nevada that voted for that old fuck loses everything they have and dies in a fire.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 03:18 PM
If the cuts he's offering are just hand waving without any specificity then they're not worth anything and it can't possibly count as a chit that puts the onus of good faith negotiation back on the Republicans (who have actually made concrete spending cut proposals).

The cuts offered by the POTUS and the Left Side of the Aisle are offered "down the line" in the ten year plan. The tax increases are immediate. Does anyone truly believe those cuts will ever be made? Does anyone believe that not only this session in congress will be the same active participants 6 years from now but of the same mind as well?

The Democrats are playing a shell game and blaming the Republicans for playing chicken. They promise cuts that will never happen to lure the Reps into signing immediate tax increases on 50% of the population while the remaining 50% sit and reap the efforts and sustain none of the risk involved.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:26 PM
Wouldn't it be pretty simple for democrats and the President to avoid default now that the House has acted? If they want a debt ceiling increase, it's there for the taking. What are their specific objections? Are they going to send the country into default because House Republicans nixed money for something critical to our nation's survival like foreign abortions or something?
the alternative the republicans have passed is a little extreme when it comes to cut cap and balance...

no democrat serious about keeping his seat would dare sign on to "cap" or a balanced budget amendment, so it's a political non-starter...

if they want to cut spending, go about it in an informed and thoughtful way, as part of a larger debate on the issues and make the cuts much deeper than these negotiations are contemplating...

and i don't think nixing abortion money is a make or break issue in the negotiations...

and no, i don't think that either the dems or the repubs will escape the voters' wrath if a default occurs, they are both responsible for taking unrealistic positions and both will have failed the country...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:29 PM
What exactly are democrats offering to cut? Have they been specific about anything at all?

hell, i don't know...

all i know is the figures bandied about in the media...

4 trillion here and 2 trillion there, none of it amounts to a hill of beans over the ten year period....

haven't they floated some ideas about cutting ss and medicare?

i'd love to be a fly in the negotiating room...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:34 PM
Well we're getting somewhere.

The problem with any tax increase is how it is used. What may look like a good idea now (debt reduction) will most certainly be turned around and used for another bridge to nowhere tomorrow. And the cycle will continue.

And, if your concern is jobs now is not the time to raise taxes. This is Obama's biggest failure IMO in regards to the economy. Cutting spending while reassuring businesses taxes won't be raised right now might be just the thing to get them off the sidelines.

His actions during this debate can have three meanings. Either he really is an elitist socialist prick trying to drive a deeper wedge into the classes or he's a dim bulb that doesn't really understand economics.

Third, he's just trying to keep his job. If this is his first priority he should be ashamed of himself.

Come to think about it, all three are probably in play here.

how taxes are used will be up to congress, as always...

but together with significant cuts, taxes will reduce the deficit, so long as congress doesn't pass any sizable increase in costs without identifying the additional funds to pay for it...

btw, everybody knows obama is a marxist muslim plant sent here to destroy our country...

don't you read chiefsplanet?

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:35 PM
and when?




I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a cheeseburger today?

good point...

the sooner the better for significant fiscal reform of ss and medicare and cuts in defense like the fighter that's too expensive to use in our current wars...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 03:37 PM
how taxes are used will be up to congress, as always...

but together with significant cuts, taxes will reduce the deficit, so long as congress doesn't pass any sizable increase in costs without identifying the additional funds to pay for it...

btw, everybody knows obama is a marxist muslim plant sent here to destroy our country...

don't you read chiefsplanet?
I haven't been on the Planet in awhile, but when I left I assumed Barack Obama was a mover, fixer, and loved by every human being on the planet as he had a plan to fix every single issue.

I was mildly surprised he didn't achieve it according to the rave reviews I read here a scant few years ago.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:39 PM
If the cuts he's offering are just hand waving without any specificity then they're not worth anything and it can't possibly count as a chit that puts the onus of good faith negotiation back on the Republicans (who have actually made concrete spending cut proposals).

specificity with regard to cuts is of little use if there is no chance for agreement on core issues...

i would of course be happier with a specific list and amounts to be cut from each program, but that's not gonna happen in a few days...

to me, the onus is on both parties to find a way out of this impasse...

there is no chit...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:41 PM
Ya gotta love Harry Reid. Now he says he wont support any proposal that does not extend the debt ceiling past the next presidential election.


For Christs sake Harry, why not just come late to the party after you led the killing of the one proposal the House has passed and make some stupid freaking statement that proves its all about the politics.

I hope everyone in Nevada that voted for that old fuck loses everything they have and dies in a fire.

unh, it IS all about the politics...

and fwiw reid and pelosi need to retire, asap...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 03:44 PM
unh, it IS all about the politics...

and fwiw reid and pelosi need to retire, asap...

Of course it is. The imaginary ceiling never bothered the Republicans before, and the Dems just want to raise and raise it beyond human imagination.

The ceiling has NO PURPOSE on this planet other than to use as a tool against one party or the other. The original intent is obviously dead since we can move it at will.

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 03:45 PM
Ya gotta love Harry Reid. Now he says he wont support any proposal that does not extend the debt ceiling past the next presidential election.


For Christs sake Harry, why not just come late to the party after you led the killing of the one proposal the House has passed and make some stupid freaking statement that proves its all about the politics.

I hope everyone in Nevada that voted for that old fuck loses everything they have and dies in a fire.

That is absolutely the right approach. It has taken them 8 months just to get to this point do you really want them arguing about this for the next 5 months? It is retarded to do that. Extend out and let whoever POTUS extend if need be.

Plus from what I have read the credit ratings will be downgraded if it is a short term deal.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:48 PM
The cuts offered by the POTUS and the Left Side of the Aisle are offered "down the line" in the ten year plan. The tax increases are immediate. Does anyone truly believe those cuts will ever be made? Does anyone believe that not only this session in congress will be the same active participants 6 years from now but of the same mind as well?

The Democrats are playing a shell game and blaming the Republicans for playing chicken. They promise cuts that will never happen to lure the Reps into signing immediate tax increases on 50% of the population while the remaining 50% sit and reap the efforts and sustain none of the risk involved.

this is all true, but doesn't address the politics of how do we get there...

well, except for the part about people with incomes low enough to get assistance of some kind reaping things...

have you ever been poor and relied on government handouts? it's not like the relative handful that everyone sees in the news, drug dealers or welfare queens...

it ain't no fun at all...

and a huge chunk of that 50% don't pay taxes because they've lost their jobs their homes and everything else and have been on assistance for years because of the economy...

sorry, just one of my hot button issues... :) :) :)

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 03:50 PM
The right approach is to put a hard lid on spending, a spending cut that starts now, not 10 years from now. And only then allow a 2012 date on the debt ceiling.


The huge difference between this debate and previous debt ceiling debates id the Huge increase in the debt that has grown and a bunch of new congress members with the balls to stand up and say stop the damn spending.

Obama wants a 2012 date so he doesn't have to be faced with a debate like this in an election year but he refuses to move off of the new tax demands he is making.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:53 PM
I haven't been on the Planet in awhile, but when I left I assumed Barack Obama was a mover, fixer, and loved by every human being on the planet as he had a plan to fix every single issue.

I was mildly surprised he didn't achieve it according to the rave reviews I read here a scant few years ago.

ok, now you're just being mean... :p

obama, despite his endearing naivete, is only one part of the puzzle...

the ultra-liberal "leadership" of the democrats in congress hasn't helped him all that much, if at all...

what we need is some good old-fashioned compromise to get things moving in the right direction again...

"right direction" being huge cuts in spending and significant increases in revenue...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 03:53 PM
this is all true, but doesn't address the politics of how do we get there...

well, except for the part about people with incomes low enough to get assistance of some kind reaping things...

have you ever been poor and relied on government handouts? it's not like the relative handful that everyone sees in the news, drug dealers or welfare queens...

it ain't no fun at all...

and a huge chunk of that 50% don't pay taxes because they've lost their jobs their homes and everything else and have been on assistance for years because of the economy...

sorry, just one of my hot button issues... :) :) :)

Mine too, in converse viewpoint.

Yes, I have received assistance. Yes, it was degrading and humiliating.

But when HALF the nation doesn't have any skin in the game, then we have a problem. That means half of the potential voters in this country can decide to continue the issue of the supposed class warfare that exists. And their leaders can continue to create that allusion and illusion at will.

When half the country doesn't pay taxes and receives assistance then it becomes the norm, not the humiliating and degrading experience I once had.

patteeu
07-24-2011, 03:54 PM
the alternative the republicans have passed is a little extreme when it comes to cut cap and balance...

no democrat serious about keeping his seat would dare sign on to "cap" or a balanced budget amendment, so it's a political non-starter...

Why is that?

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 03:55 PM
The right approach is to put a hard lid on spending, a spending cut that starts now, not 10 years from now. And only then allow a 2012 date on the debt ceiling.


The huge difference between this debate and previous debt ceiling debates id the Huge increase in the debt that has grown and a bunch of new congress members with the balls to stand up and say stop the damn spending.

Obama wants a 2012 date so he doesn't have to be faced with a debate like this in an election year but he refuses to move off of the new tax demands he is making.

Yup

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:55 PM
Of course it is. The imaginary ceiling never bothered the Republicans before, and the Dems just want to raise and raise it beyond human imagination.

The ceiling has NO PURPOSE on this planet other than to use as a tool against one party or the other. The original intent is obviously dead since we can move it at will.
to the extent that limiting government borrowing was the intent of the congressionally-mandated debt ceiling, that intent is definitely dead...

moving it at will seems to have become quite difficult...

mlyonsd
07-24-2011, 03:58 PM
That is absolutely the right approach. It has taken them 8 months just to get to this point do you really want them arguing about this for the next 5 months? It is retarded to do that. Extend out and let whoever POTUS extend if need be.

Plus from what I have read the credit ratings will be downgraded if it is a short term deal.It isn't retarded. Yes I do want them arguing for the next 5 months. The country needs to have this debate just like we had the civil war. The only ones that don't are those worried about being re-elected.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 03:59 PM
The right approach is to put a hard lid on spending, a spending cut that starts now, not 10 years from now. And only then allow a 2012 date on the debt ceiling.


The huge difference between this debate and previous debt ceiling debates id the Huge increase in the debt that has grown and a bunch of new congress members with the balls to stand up and say stop the damn spending.

Obama wants a 2012 date so he doesn't have to be faced with a debate like this in an election year but he refuses to move off of the new tax demands he is making.

ok, i haven't been following this very closely but is he demanding new taxes at this point?

closing loopholes and tax breaks for nearly everyone is not new taxes in my estimation...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 04:02 PM
to the extent that limiting government borrowing was the intent of the congressionally-mandated debt ceiling, that intent is definitely dead...

moving it at will seems to have become quite difficult...

Obviously not, IMO.

Do you truly believe it will not be raised? I don't, not for a single second. And I understand you believe dire circumstances will occur if it doesn't, but honestly, I don't care. The circumstances will happen today or 10 years down the line - I would rather they did so now. As the impact would be less and we would hopefully revise our situation after. If it happens 10 years later, I honestly see a great chance at our nation following the same path of the USSR and becoming a group of ineffectual regional countries with no power and no real future.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:04 PM
The loophole thing would fly if they define what loophole. Loopholes has become a throw out and 99% of the people have zero idea what a loophole is or how it would impact anything. We are a country of tax illiterates.

The breakdown as I understand it has been on Obama's demand for more "revenues"...code word for tax increases, or if you are a democrat, that means doing away with the Bush Tax cuts that Obama supported extending a few months ago....Its hard to know where Obama is since he changes so often. Regardless, he has been hung up on tax increases/revenues that fly in the face of helping end this recession and adding jobs...its his far lefty approach to make far lefty folks happy. Jets and such.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:04 PM
Why is that?

why is what?

that all politicians look to get reelected and that's the way it's always been?

or that expecting agreement to a balanced budget amendment to the constitution be reached in a very short time with no real debate or hearings or anything in the way of a deliberative process is not realistic?

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:05 PM
It isn't retarded. Yes I do want them arguing for the next 5 months. The country needs to have this debate just like we had the civil war. The only ones that don't are those worried about being re-elected.

and those "ones" are all politicians, dem and repub alike...

they do worry about getting re-elected, all the time...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:08 PM
Obviously not, IMO.

Do you truly believe it will not be raised? I don't, not for a single second. And I understand you believe dire circumstances will occur if it doesn't, but honestly, I don't care. The circumstances will happen today or 10 years down the line - I would rather they did so now. As the impact would be less and we would hopefully revise our situation after. If it happens 10 years later, I honestly see a great chance at our nation following the same path of the USSR and becoming a group of ineffectual regional countries with no power and no real future.

yes, i believe that there is a definite and potentially disastrous that the country will default and it worries the hell out of me...

we need to revise our situation now, regardless of the difficulty and i think more and more americans are coming to that realization...

we won't last 10 years without reforms now, we must act now...

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 04:11 PM
deficits come down faster with a combination of cuts and revenue, that isn't changed by the political panderings of either party...

Sorry for not being more articulate -- you're missing my point. You need to spur economic growth to keep this Ponzi scheme going. Raising taxes, even by Obama's admission, is a drag on growth. The problem with most scoring is it doesn't value economic growth by way of tax policy, which is something inconsistent with past reality.

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 04:13 PM
ok, i haven't been following this very closely but is he demanding new taxes at this point?

closing loopholes and tax breaks for nearly everyone is not new taxes in my estimation...

Closing loopholes is, in Obama-speak, raising taxes on the wealthy. The guy actually comes from a POV that all revenue is government revenue and what isn't taxed is a tax break.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:15 PM
The loophole thing would fly if they define what loophole. Loopholes has become a throw out and 99% of the people have zero idea what a loophole is or how it would impact anything. We are a country of tax illiterates.

The breakdown as I understand it has been on Obama's demand for more "revenues"...code word for tax increases, or if you are a democrat, that means doing away with the Bush Tax cuts that Obama supported extending a few months ago....Its hard to know where Obama is since he changes so often. Regardless, he has been hung up on tax increases/revenues that fly in the face of helping end this recession and adding jobs...its his far lefty approach to make far lefty folks happy. Jets and such.
i don't know what specific loopholes are under discussion (but the jet owners' thing was a little embarrassing), my preference would be ones that generate more revenue like limiting mortgage interest deductions and tax breaks for the oil industry (they seem to be doing quite well and it's easy to start with them, politically speaking)...

to the extent that they can in a matter of days, i agree they should identify exactly what loopholes are to be cut and what deductions are to be limited...

fwiw, one reason obama changes so often is that the republicans are very good at forcing him to their will on things like the bush tax cuts...

and the big o has a lot to learn about how to negotiate effectively...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 04:21 PM
i don't know what specific loopholes are under discussion (but the jet owners' thing was a little embarrassing), my preference would be ones that generate more revenue like limiting mortgage interest deductions and tax breaks for the oil industry (they seem to be doing quite well and it's easy to start with them, politically speaking)...

to the extent that they can in a matter of days, i agree they should identify exactly what loopholes are to be cut and what deductions are to be limited...

fwiw, one reason obama changes so often is that the republicans are very good at forcing him to their will on things like the bush tax cuts...

and the big o has a lot to learn about how to negotiate effectively...
Nicely done, unfortunately, no one will focus on the most telling statement in your sentences above, the last line.

Unfortunately, Chicago style politics does not fly on the national scale anymore. The days of JFK bullying are long long gone.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:22 PM
Sorry for not being more articulate -- you're missing my point. You need to spur economic growth to keep this Ponzi scheme going. Raising taxes, even by Obama's admission, is a drag on growth. The problem with most scoring is it doesn't value economic growth by way of tax policy, which is something inconsistent with past reality.

although it's far too simplistic, experience would suggest that the bush tax cuts have not helped generate a large number of new jobs...

raising taxes is not the only solution to increasing revenues, and from what little i've picked up on the subject obama is wanting to close loopholes and limit deductions, none of which are really tax increases like letting the bush tax cuts expire, that's raising taxes...

i'm afraid i know next to nothing about scoring or how tax policy would affect it...

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 04:22 PM
Wouldn't it be pretty simple for democrats and the President to avoid default now that the House has acted? If they want a debt ceiling increase, it's there for the taking. What are their specific objections? Are they going to send the country into default because House Republicans nixed money for something critical to our nation's survival like foreign abortions or something?

They nixed it because they want to raise taxes so they can pay for their ridiculous government programs.

And because rich people don't really need all that extra money.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:26 PM
i don't know what specific loopholes are under discussion (but the jet owners' thing was a little embarrassing), my preference would be ones that generate more revenue like limiting mortgage interest deductions and tax breaks for the oil industry (they seem to be doing quite well and it's easy to start with them, politically speaking)...

to the extent that they can in a matter of days, i agree they should identify exactly what loopholes are to be cut and what deductions are to be limited...

fwiw, one reason obama changes so often is that the republicans are very good at forcing him to their will on things like the bush tax cuts...

and the big o has a lot to learn about how to negotiate effectively...


Im surprised he cannot negotiate better. Maybe thats a function of only a college experience where he had to refine that. He comes off as very amateur. His only approach seems to be drawing a line in the sand and making demands based on his position. What he seems to not understand is the art of the deal. And he makes his position public so when he has to give, he looks weak. Or he looks foolish.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:26 PM
Closing loopholes is, in Obama-speak, raising taxes on the wealthy. The guy actually comes from a POV that all revenue is government revenue and what isn't taxed is a tax break.

i think that might be just a bit of an exaggeration...

even harry reid and scary-faced pelosi wouldn't take that extreme a position...

well, maybe they would, but i'd hope obama doesn't really see it that way...

no, i'll go out on a limb and say the somewhat naive mr. o does not in fact believe that all revenue belongs to the government...

the labor unions and la rosa get some too...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:28 PM
Nicely done, unfortunately, no one will focus on the most telling statement in your sentences above, the last line.

Unfortunately, Chicago style politics does not fly on the national scale anymore. The days of JFK bullying are long long gone.

hell, i'm not sure anyone but frankie actually focuses on what i say, but thanks...

i agree with you about chicago politics...

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:28 PM
i think that might be just a bit of an exaggeration...

even harry reid and scary-faced pelosi wouldn't take that extreme a position...

well, maybe they would, but i'd hope obama doesn't really see it that way...

no, i'll go out on a limb and say the somewhat naive mr. o does not in fact believe that all revenue belongs to the government...

the labor unions and la rosa get some too...

Frightening....
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pelosi-obama-reid-12-550x410.jpg

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:31 PM
They nixed it because they want to raise taxes so they can pay for their ridiculous government programs.

And because rich people don't really need all that extra money.

now you've hit the nail on it's free-spending head, rich people do not need all that extra money... :p :p :p

people on unemployment do need it though...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:32 PM
Im surprised he cannot negotiate better. Maybe thats a function of only a college experience where he had to refine that. He comes off as very amateur. His only approach seems to be drawing a line in the sand and making demands based on his position. What he seems to not understand is the art of the deal. And he makes his position public so when he has to give, he looks weak. Or he looks foolish.

i think he is an amateur, in many ways...

and he does look weak and foolish even to liberals...

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 04:34 PM
Ya gotta love Harry Reid. Now he says he wont support any proposal that does not extend the debt ceiling past the next presidential election.


For Christs sake Harry, why not just come late to the party after you led the killing of the one proposal the House has passed and make some stupid freaking statement that proves its all about the politics.

I hope everyone in Nevada that voted for that old **** loses everything they have and dies in a fire.

I hope the GOP does their two-tier plan and send it to him. Let him kill it. I would send them that "plan" and let them take it or propose their own deal.

It's looking more and more like the Dems want default and have already agreed amongst themselves that they'll block anything that is proposed that doesn't give Obama his political cover. They think they'll win either way. The fact that they pretty much killed the economy with their programs and ate now mapping out any pathway that blames anyone but themselves for the failures of Obama's policies is obscene.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-24-2011, 04:35 PM
Does it bother you that the Dems have failed to plan a budget for more than 2 years. That their short term planning and arrogance failed to take into account that they would not be in control for forever and the budget and debt ceiling would eventually have to be reviewed and controlled?

I keep hearing liberals say "Two years isn't enough time for President Obama to clean up this mess" and then have the nerve to tell me after 2 years of screwing up our budget and spending EVEN MORE than GWB that this is the Republicans fault after less than a year of trying to fix the Democrat greed. Are you one of those people? If so, you should be ashamed.

..Do I need to remind you that W came into the White house with a balanced budget...NO DEBT, thanks to a Dem in office. What did W and his buddies do? They loosened regulations on wall street, that allowed for the sub prime mortgage mess that nearly collapsed the worlds economy...not to mention put us in a war over oil...So yes, I say you right wing folks will never take responsibility for the greed that the GOP is known for . You will never admit the truth, that the GOP`s sole goal in these debt talks , are to protect the tax cuts for the rich ...not balance the budget.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 04:35 PM
now you've hit the nail on it's free-spending head, rich people do not need all that extra money... :p :p :p

people on unemployment do need it though...

After 2 years it is no longer "unemployment" it is living with your mom in her basement.

Unfortunately those who do pay taxes are the "mom" and have no say on how long the "unemployed" live there.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-24-2011, 04:37 PM
Frightening....
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pelosi-obama-reid-12-550x410.jpg


Admit it...you don't like him because of his.....well, we both know why you fringe guys hate Obama , and it has nothing to do with his politics

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 04:38 PM
That is absolutely the right approach. It has taken them 8 months just to get to this point do you really want them arguing about this for the next 5 months? It is retarded to do that. Extend out and let whoever POTUS extend if need be.

Plus from what I have read the credit ratings will be downgraded if it is a short term deal.

Yes, and if we don't agree to (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE OBAMA PROGRAM) it immediately the world will end.

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 04:40 PM
now you've hit the nail on it's free-spending head, rich people do not need all that extra money... :p :p :p

people on unemployment do need it though...

And how many jobs are created by the unemployed?

You tax something you will get less of it, whether it is jobs, productivity, or bananas.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:43 PM
Admit it...you don't like him because of his.....well, we both know why you fringe guys hate Obama , and it has nothing to do with his politics


That sums it up....see that picture?

Pelosi is female. I despise females. Reid is Old and from Nevada. I hate all Nevada things. And Obama is a lawyer. With the exception of my son, all other lawyers are suspect.

So you nailed it. I actually embrace his politics. Deeply committed to almost every stand he takes. If he were a plumber or a farmer or a teacher. Man I would be like Mr Obot #1

patteeu
07-24-2011, 04:44 PM
why is what?

that all politicians look to get reelected and that's the way it's always been?

or that expecting agreement to a balanced budget amendment to the constitution be reached in a very short time with no real debate or hearings or anything in the way of a deliberative process is not realistic?

Why is it that democrats can't possibly agree to the House bill or a balanced budget amendment?

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-24-2011, 04:44 PM
That sums it up....see that picture?

Pelosi is female. I despise females. Reid is Old and from Nevada. I hate all Nevada things. And Obama is a lawyer. With the exception of my son, all other lawyers are suspect.

So you nailed it. I actually embrace his politics. Deeply committed to almost every stand he takes. If he were a plumber or a farmer or a teacher. Man I would be like Mr Obot #1


You lie very well sir...very well...:thumb:

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 04:44 PM
..Do I need to remind you that W came into the White house with a balanced budget...NO DEBT, thanks to a Dem in office. What did W and his buddies do? They loosened regulations on wall street, that allowed for the sub prime mortgage mess that nearly collapsed the worlds economy...not to mention put us in a war over oil...So yes, I say you right wing folks will never take responsibility for the greed that the GOP is known for . You will never admit the truth, that the GOP`s sole goal in these debt talks , are to protect the tax cuts for the rich ...not balance the budget.

I don't even know you and you assume I will never admit truth? I asked your opinion because I was interested.

My friend, for someone picking on others about their company line, you are towing your own.

But if you are gonna pull off gloves, lemme help.

GWB was not in control his last 2 years in office. He was not in control the 2 years after either. The DEMOCRAT House was. I love the Liberal mindset that
[sic] This country can't be fixed in two years because the Republicans ruined it that badly.

Yet out of the same hypocritical mouth you have the nerve to say
[sic] Why won't the Republicans fix this debt ceiling issue?
The DEMOCRATS created this issue. Who failed to pass a budget for TWO SOLID YEARS when you were supposedly fixing the debt and spend issue made by the Republicans? YES, the REPUBLICANS caused the initial issue due to rampant spending (unlike you I am not wearing partisan blinders). Your "Fix" was to spend spend spend more, create more government programs, extend welfare benefits and hook more people on the government dole and create stupid needless unproductive government jobs that produce no revenue whatsoever. Your President lied, your Congress stole, and they both laughed while you supported their stupid decisions.

You are correct, the Republicans started this roll and did so for 6 stupid years. However, you are blind and crazy if you believe the Democrats have not only exacerbated the issue for the last 4 years, but are stupid enough to believe that we will fall for the "it's not our fault" excuse.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:48 PM
Admit it...you don't like him because of his.....well, we both know why you fringe guys hate Obama , and it has nothing to do with his politics

we have our share of fringe nutjobs, to be sure, but hcf is not one of them...

and if you're insinuating that obama is hated because he's black i think you're way off base...

they hate obama because he is a democrat...

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-24-2011, 04:51 PM
I don't even know you and you assume I will never admit truth? I asked your opinion because I was interested.

My friend, for someone picking on others about their company line, you are towing your own.

But if you are gonna pull off gloves, lemme help.

GWB was not in control his last 2 years in office. He was not in control the 2 years after either. The DEMOCRAT House was. I love the Liberal mindset that
[sic] This country can't be fixed in two years because the Republicans ruined it that badly.

Yet out of the same hypocritical mouth you have the nerve to say
[sic] Why won't the Republicans fix this debt ceiling issue?
The DEMOCRATS created this issue. Who failed to pass a budget for TWO SOLID YEARS when you were supposedly fixing the debt and spend issue made by the Republicans? YES, the REPUBLICANS caused the initial issue due to rampant spending (unlike you I am not wearing partisan blinders). Your "Fix" was to spend spend spend more, create more government programs, extend welfare benefits and hook more people on the government dole and create stupid needless unproductive government jobs that produce no revenue whatsoever. Your President lied, your Congress stole, and they both laughed while you supported their stupid decisions.

You are correct, the Republicans started this roll and did so for 6 stupid years. However, you are blind and crazy if you believe the Democrats have not only exacerbated the issue for the last 4 years, but are stupid enough to believe that we will fall for the "it's not our fault" excuse.

MY point is that it seams like alot of the GOP folks in DC lounge seam to forget that Bush started this mess. They place SOLE blame on the dems. I see NO ONE from the RIGHT , attacking the GOP politicians for how reckless , they have been during the debt talks. Let me ask you , are you happy with the way the current GOP party acts? Do you like the fact that they seam to cater to the rich or the fringe tea baggers...ignoring the more moderate republicans who are the silent majority in the GOP ? I'm a conservative dem, NOT a liberal...so sorry, I just don't agree with the majority of views of the GOP , but that doesn't mean I don't want my party to work along with the republicans , to COMPROMISE to get things done , something alot of GOP folks seam to not want to happen. The best government is one made up of a mix of rep, and dem policies..the best of both parties, the republican base , seams to not believe that ..

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:52 PM
That sums it up....see that picture?

Pelosi is female. I despise females. Reid is Old and from Nevada. I hate all Nevada things. And Obama is a lawyer. With the exception of my son, all other lawyers are suspect.

So you nailed it. I actually embrace his politics. Deeply committed to almost every stand he takes. If he were a plumber or a farmer or a teacher. Man I would be like Mr Obot #1

ok, now you've totally lost your mind... :p :p :p

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:52 PM
we have our share of fringe nutjobs, to be sure, but hcf is not one of them...

and if you're insinuating that obama is hated because he's black i think you're way off base...

they hate obama because he is a democrat...


I dont hate. I really dislike that word. It implies way way way to much passion and destructive behavior.


I deeply dislike Obama because I believe in the deepest part of my being that he is first a professional liar. Second, he has demonstrated a set of policies and positions that run almost 180 degrees from what I believe is right and good for the country. and last, I believe he would sacrifice anything and anyone to feed his incredible ego.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:53 PM
ok, now you've totally lost your mind... :p :p :p

Im as crazy as pet coon in this heat.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-24-2011, 04:58 PM
I dont hate. I really dislike that word. It implies way way way to much passion and destructive behavior.


I deeply dislike Obama because I believe in the deepest part of my being that he is first a professional liar. Second, he has demonstrated a set of policies and positions that run almost 180 degrees from what I believe is right and good for the country. and last, I believe he would sacrifice anything and anyone to feed his incredible ego.

So I take it you posted the same rhetoric when W was in office ? He pretty much matches all of those characteristics that you dislike

go bowe
07-24-2011, 04:58 PM
Why is it that democrats can't possibly agree to the House bill or a balanced budget amendment?

because there's a strong likelihood that they won't get re-elected if they do...

as far as the balanced budget amendment, there's some real question as to whether it's a good idea or not...

for example, in the event of an emergency, will events wait for us to go through the lengthy process of amending the constitution before we can devote the temporary resources required?

i can't speak for the democrat "leadership" but i think across the board cuts or caps don't take into account appropriate priorities (with my favorite example being border patrol)...

and don't cut as deeply as needed in other categories...

go bowe
07-24-2011, 05:00 PM
I don't even know you and you assume I will never admit truth? I asked your opinion because I was interested.



kcwolfman, meet our newest liberal nut...

Radar Chief
07-24-2011, 05:01 PM
..Do I need to remind you that W came into the White house with a balanced budget...NO DEBT, thanks to a Dem in office.

The National Debt went up every year Clinton was president. How is that possible with a "balanced budget"? Answer: it isn't.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 05:02 PM
MY point is that it seams like alot of the GOP folks in DC lounge seam to forget that Bush started this mess. They place SOLE blame on the dems. I see NO ONE from the RIGHT , attacking the GOP politicians for how reckless , they have been during the debt talks. Let me ask you , are you happy with the way the current GOP party acts? Do you like the fact that they seam to cater to the rich or the fringe tea baggers...ignoring the more moderate republicans who are the silent majority in the GOP ? I'm a conservative dem, NOT a liberal...so sorry, I just don't agree with the majority of views of the GOP , but that doesn't mean I don't want my party to work along with the republicans , to COMPROMISE to get things done , something alot of GOP folks seam to not want to happen. The best government is one made up of a mix of rep, and dem policies..the best of both parties, the republican base , seams to not believe that ..

Again, you complain about someone else being a "company man" but you are using silly mindless phrases like "tea baggers". There are a great many millions in this nation that like the idea of the Tea Party.

To be honest, I don't want the debt ceiling raised. Why would anyone want further debt placed on our grandchildrens' backs? I want massive cuts. I want restructuring of Social Security so far that we are able to individual privatize it if we choose to do so. I want massive restructuring of Medicare so that providers don't have to charge private insurance 6.00 an aspirin to make up for the 30.00 reimbursement from Medicare for a 4500.00 surgery.

As far as taxing the rich - sure..... as long as we tax EVERYONE. The class warfare stuff is just silly and I will argue with anyone who disagrees without any problem. I am all for destroying the ENTIRE tax code and implementing a flat tax for ANYONE earning over 35,000 a year. I want to eliminate ALL "Tax loopholes" for wealthy and poor - including the poorly named Earned Income Credit that steals from me to give money to the family that decided to have 5 kids when they couldn't afford one.

I want people to stop crying about profit being evil. Do you know who makes the most money on a gallon of gas? Not the oil company, rather it is the government. Don't you find that ridiculous?

I want people to tough up and be responsible on an individual basis and a company basis. I don't think it is too much to ask.

It has to stop - from both sides.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 05:04 PM
So I take it you posted the same rhetoric when W was in office ? He pretty much matches all of those characteristics that you dislike

I still think Laura is hot.

I think GWB is as honest as they come. Not the brightest light, but terribly terribly honest. And I think he was and is a good man. Was he a great President? Not likely. But to your point, GWB would never be described in the manner I described Obama.

I thought you lurked and knew what people said here. Honesty is something you may want to try on and stop your foolish little game.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 05:15 PM
because there's a strong likelihood that they won't get re-elected if they do...

as far as the balanced budget amendment, there's some real question as to whether it's a good idea or not...

for example, in the event of an emergency, will events wait for us to go through the lengthy process of amending the constitution before we can devote the temporary resources required?

i can't speak for the democrat "leadership" but i think across the board cuts or caps don't take into account appropriate priorities (with my favorite example being border patrol)...

and don't cut as deeply as needed in other categories...



This is rather interesting....Boehners comments to the Republican Caucus today:

EXCLUSIVE: What Boehner said to the caucus
By Jennifer Rubin

From a source familiar with the call, this is what House Speaker John Boehner told House Republicans on Sunday:

I went on “Fox News Sunday” this morning because it was the most effective way to tell everyone where things stand. It boils down to this: The president wants his $2.4 trillion debt limit increase all at once, without any guarantees that we’re going to cut more than $2.4 trillion in spending. The administration says they have to have it all upfront so we don’t have to deal with this again until after the next election. You heard the president say that himself on TV the other night.

We’ve seen this coming all year long. But here’s the challenge: To stop him, we need a vehicle that can pass in both houses.

You know, last week we passed the Cut, Cap & Balance Act and showed America our solution, our vision, as we did months ago with our budget. So we’ve done our job. And I think the nation knows it. But as you all know, the Senate tabled the Cut, Cap & Balance Act. And I think the nation knows that, too. So the question becomes — if it’s not the Cut, Cap & Balance Act itself — what CAN we pass that will protect our country from what the president is trying to orchestrate?

The White House has never gotten serious about tackling the serious issues our nation faces — not without tax hikes — and I don’t think they ever will.

The path forward, I believe, is that we pull together as a team behind a new measure that has a shot at getting to the president’s desk. It’s won’t be Cut, Cap & Balance as we passed it, but it should be a package that reflects the principles of Cut, Cap & Balance. We’re committed to working with you — and with our Republican colleagues in the Senate — to get it done. No one is willing to default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

And I think the leaders in both parties and both houses of Congress already agree that we need significant reductions. But if we stick together, I think we can win this for the American people . . . because I do think there is a path. But it’s gonna require us to stand together as a team. It’s gonna require some of you to make some sacrifices. If we stand together as a team, our leverage is maximized, and they have to deal with us. If we’re divided, our leverage gets minimized.

Before I close, let me thank all of you for your patience, and for your confidence, and for your commitment to our country. We’re doing the right thing, and you all know that the right thing isn’t always the easiest thing to do.



That suggests to me that the House Republicans will pass a bill, send it to the Senate and let the Democrats decide if they want to send the country into default.

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 05:16 PM
..Do I need to remind you that W came into the White house with a balanced budget...NO DEBT, thanks to a Dem in office. What did W and his buddies do? They loosened regulations on wall street, that allowed for the sub prime mortgage mess that nearly collapsed the worlds economy...not to mention put us in a war over oil...So yes, I say you right wing folks will never take responsibility for the greed that the GOP is known for . You will never admit the truth, that the GOP`s sole goal in these debt talks , are to protect the tax cuts for the rich ...not balance the budget.

Clinton grew the debt and, contrary to what you wrote, there was approximately $7 trillion in debt when Bush 2 took office.

But you are correct that Clinton reduced the size of the deficit. How did he do it? He cut defense spending, reduced capital gains taxes, and put in place a variety of welfare reforms that were largely championed by the GOP congress (but that Clinton should get FULL CREDIT for signing). While Bush did cut taxes, he also expanded education spending, expanded entitlements (via Medicare part D), and obviously spent hundreds of billions fighting two wars (whose needs were debatable among many, but supported in a bi-partisan manner). If you took away the costs of the wars and goodies he ran a balanced budget several years as well.

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 06:33 PM
It isn't retarded. Yes I do want them arguing for the next 5 months. The country needs to have this debate just like we had the civil war. The only ones that don't are those worried about being re-elected.

It is retarded. They can do a deal now where they won't have to deal with this for the next 5-10 years plus cut the deficit significantly.

But just in case you aren't paying attention.

Ratings agencies, particularly Standard & Poor’s, have made clear that a short-term deal that does not include enforceable spending cuts could still lead to a downgrade in the nation’s AAA credit rating, an event that, at least in the short term, would probably lead to sharply lower equity prices.

patteeu
07-24-2011, 06:37 PM
because there's a strong likelihood that they won't get re-elected if they do...

as far as the balanced budget amendment, there's some real question as to whether it's a good idea or not...

for example, in the event of an emergency, will events wait for us to go through the lengthy process of amending the constitution before we can devote the temporary resources required?

i can't speak for the democrat "leadership" but i think across the board cuts or caps don't take into account appropriate priorities (with my favorite example being border patrol)...

and don't cut as deeply as needed in other categories...

Why would democrat voters vote against democrats just because they agreed to take a vote on a balanced budget amendment? I've never heard that opposition to such an amendment is a litmus test issue for democrats. Abortion or cutting entitlements maybe, but not that.

patteeu
07-24-2011, 06:47 PM
It is retarded. They can do a deal now where they won't have to deal with this for the next 5-10 years plus cut the deficit significantly.

But just in case you aren't paying attention.




There's no reason to push this past the next election unless you think your ideas for dealing with it would cause the voters to vote you out of office. Short term deal with real spending cuts would be fine even if a bigger deal with major spending cuts would be better. Obama wants a long term deal with fake cuts and real tax increases. F that.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 06:51 PM
There's no reason to push this past the next election unless you think your ideas for dealing with it would cause the voters to vote you out of office. Short term deal with real spending cuts would be fine even if a bigger deal with major spending cuts would be better. Obama wants a long term deal with fake cuts and real tax increases. F that.

Precisely, that way come this time next year he can say "You know, I tried a deal that used both relevant cuts and revenue increases that was just shot down". He knows any cut made in promise for 3, 4, or 6 years hence (let alone 10 years) will never see the light of day.

It is a bald faced lie.

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 06:56 PM
There's no reason to push this past the next election unless you think your ideas for dealing with it would cause the voters to vote you out of office. Short term deal with real spending cuts would be fine even if a bigger deal with major spending cuts would be better. Obama wants a long term deal with fake cuts and real tax increases. F that.

There is no reason to do a short 5 month extension and take the risk of the market reacting negatively and our credit downgraded instead of dealing with it now and not having to mess with this for years to come.

boogblaster
07-24-2011, 06:58 PM
True, spending cuts need to be done .. but, clear across the board .. not just my SS and Medicare .. plus the RICH need to give up some of their BIG piece of the pie as well ....

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 06:58 PM
Precisely, that way come this time next year he can say "You know, I tried a deal that used both relevant cuts and revenue increases that was just shot down". He knows any cut made in promise for 3, 4, or 6 years hence (let alone 10 years) will never see the light of day.

It is a bald faced lie.

Then you haven't read what they were close to agreeing to. Some of the cuts were immediate and the remaining spread out over 10 years.

The revenue side was not part of the deal it was going to be "promised" to be taken care of in the future in the form of a tax reform bill.

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 07:03 PM
Here was what they were close to agreeing to:


1. $3.5-$4 trillion dollars cut in spending
2. Cuts in SS, Medicare and Medicaid
3. No tax loopholes were closed

All in exchange for a promise to pass tax reform in the near future to raise revenue.

Q: Who doesn't take that deal?
A: Only an idiot

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 07:03 PM
Then you haven't read what they were close to agreeing to. Some of the cuts were immediate and the remaining spread out over 10 years.

The revenue side was not part of the deal it was going to be "promised" to be taken care of in the future in the form of a tax reform bill.

Do you truly believe those cuts scheduled will be made?

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 07:06 PM
Do you truly believe those cuts scheduled will be made?

Why wouldn't they be? It is in the bill and would be law

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 07:28 PM
Why wouldn't they be? It is in the bill and would be law

Cuts in the future would be subject to the Congress in session at that time. If they decided to eliminate the cuts they could (kinda like the Bush tax cuts - different kind of cut, but same concept).

I am amazed that you think the cuts would go untouched. Personally, I don't believe it for a split second.

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 07:36 PM
Cuts in the future would be subject to the Congress in session at that time. If they decided to eliminate the cuts they could (kinda like the Bush tax cuts - different kind of cut, but same concept).

I am amazed that you think the cuts would go untouched. Personally, I don't believe it for a split second.

I agree that is a valid point. Then again I suppose you could use that same point for this entire deal.

So why don't they just extend the debt ceiling the same way that they have always done then?

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 07:37 PM
It is retarded. They can do a deal now where they won't have to deal with this for the next 5-10 years plus cut the deficit significantly.

But just in case you aren't paying attention.




We should never have to be in this situation again if we quit spending money on every damn goofy idea that comes along.

headsnap
07-24-2011, 07:53 PM
So why don't they just extend the debt ceiling the same way that they have always done then?

It's gotten to the point where 'kicking the can down the road' is no-longer an option...

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 07:55 PM
I agree that is a valid point. Then again I suppose you could use that same point for this entire deal.

So why don't they just extend the debt ceiling the same way that they have always done then?

Thats Obama's wet dream

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 08:02 PM
I agree that is a valid point. Then again I suppose you could use that same point for this entire deal.

So why don't they just extend the debt ceiling the same way that they have always done then?

Then why even have the debt ceiling? Are either party using the ceiling as it was intended when initially created?

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 08:09 PM
Change the name to "Debt The Skies the limit!"

Ceiling seems to not communicate

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 08:26 PM
It's gotten to the point where 'kicking the can down the road' is no-longer an option...

It has been that way in regards to many things like infrastructure and health care.

Thats Obama's wet dream

Bush had multiple orgasms

Then why even have the debt ceiling? Are either party using the ceiling as it was intended when initially created?

Good question and to answer your question probably not

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 08:27 PM
Change the name to "Debt The Skies the limit!"

Ceiling seems to not communicate

Yup, I am calling my credit card company tomorrow "Hello, I am a Democrat. Please change my spending limit, no need to run a credit check - I voted to increase it".

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 08:34 PM
Then why even have the debt ceiling? Are either party using the ceiling as it was intended when initially created?


One appears to be trying to. They are the bad guys though. And dont forget Bush.

headsnap
07-24-2011, 08:40 PM
It has been that way in regards to many things like infrastructure and health care.

um...no, not even close.

Amnorix
07-24-2011, 08:45 PM
they passed a bill. What more can they do? The senate killed it.


What more can they do? How about realize that they aren't in control of the Senate and WH so maybe they should try to act with some degree of bipartisanship instead of my-way-or-the-highway.

Or would you say "what more can they do" if the Senate somehow passed a bill saying raise the debt ceiling along with a rollback of the Bush tax cuts and no spending cuts?

Amnorix
07-24-2011, 08:46 PM
By constructive, do you mean something like the Senate budget?

I actually prefer that Congressmen not waste time on DOA bills. How about working on something that has SOME chance of success instead of spending alot of time and effort on something that is nothing more than political posturing.

Amnorix
07-24-2011, 08:47 PM
Anyone care to comment on the OP? Lack of leadership on obama's part through this national crisis?


Why is Boehner's inability to control his caucus a failure of Obama's leadership skills?

Amnorix
07-24-2011, 08:50 PM
He could also come out publicly and state he and his Democrats were wrong and ill advised to create this situation. He could further state while they created the monster they want to fix it to accommodate most Americans, not just their voting base.


Hey, welcome back.

Don't think the Democrats created this situation, unless you mean bumping up against the debt ceiling simply by virtue of spending alot of money, which IMHO is a failing on the part of both parties for the last decade.

I don't see either party as right or wrong, per se. I do think the Republicans have been inflexible in their negotiating positions and have generally failed to acknowledge the need for bipartisan agreement to resolve this situation.

orange
07-24-2011, 08:55 PM
Then why even have the debt ceiling? Are either party using the ceiling as it was intended when initially created?

It was passed long ago so Congress wouldn't have to vote any more every time the U.S. had to borrow for any reason. It was accompanied by empowering the Administration to borrow as they saw fit up to the ceiling. It was placed to prevent the Admin. from borrowing for unauthorized spending - not to cause possible default on authorized spending.

As for whether it's even Constitutional in the manner that's being threatened (i.e. causing default), that's an open question.

Amnorix
07-24-2011, 08:56 PM
Ya gotta love Harry Reid. Now he says he wont support any proposal that does not extend the debt ceiling past the next presidential election.


For Christs sake Harry, why not just come late to the party after you led the killing of the one proposal the House has passed and make some stupid freaking statement that proves its all about the politics.


I find this touting of the House's plan to be absurdly self-serving. It was a collosal waste of time. A proposal everyone knew was DOA and utterly unacceptable to the Democrats WHO CONTROL THE SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE.

You might as well criticize Reagan for not doing everything Tip O'Neill's House wanted to do. :spock:

I hope everyone in Nevada that voted for that old fuck loses everything they have and dies in a fire.

Stay classy. :shake:

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 09:07 PM
It was passed long ago so Congress wouldn't have to vote any more every time the U.S. had to borrow for any reason. It was accompanied by empowering the Administration to borrow as they saw fit up to the ceiling. It was placed to prevent the Admin. from borrowing for unauthorized spending - not to cause possible default on authorized spending.

As for whether it's even Constitutional in the manner that's being threatened (i.e. causing default), that's an open question.

So we authorized more than we should spend? And how is that logical? Maybe if we had a budget in place the last 2 years?

BTW - Thanks, good to see you too.

orange
07-24-2011, 09:12 PM
So we authorized more than we should spend? And how is that logical?

Because bills often leave the pricetag open-ended. "The administration is required to do such and such, and is authorized to make appropriations as necessary." Also, tax collections and prices for securities sold, etc., aren't actually known ahead of time, only estimated.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 09:12 PM
This is rather interesting....Boehners comments to the Republican Caucus today:

EXCLUSIVE: What Boehner said to the caucus
By Jennifer Rubin

From a source familiar with the call, this is what House Speaker John Boehner told House Republicans on Sunday:

I went on “Fox News Sunday” this morning because it was the most effective way to tell everyone where things stand. It boils down to this: The president wants his $2.4 trillion debt limit increase all at once, without any guarantees that we’re going to cut more than $2.4 trillion in spending. The administration says they have to have it all upfront so we don’t have to deal with this again until after the next election. You heard the president say that himself on TV the other night.

We’ve seen this coming all year long. But here’s the challenge: To stop him, we need a vehicle that can pass in both houses.

You know, last week we passed the Cut, Cap & Balance Act and showed America our solution, our vision, as we did months ago with our budget. So we’ve done our job. And I think the nation knows it. But as you all know, the Senate tabled the Cut, Cap & Balance Act. And I think the nation knows that, too. So the question becomes — if it’s not the Cut, Cap & Balance Act itself — what CAN we pass that will protect our country from what the president is trying to orchestrate?

The White House has never gotten serious about tackling the serious issues our nation faces — not without tax hikes — and I don’t think they ever will.

The path forward, I believe, is that we pull together as a team behind a new measure that has a shot at getting to the president’s desk. It’s won’t be Cut, Cap & Balance as we passed it, but it should be a package that reflects the principles of Cut, Cap & Balance. We’re committed to working with you — and with our Republican colleagues in the Senate — to get it done. No one is willing to default on the full faith and credit of the United States.

And I think the leaders in both parties and both houses of Congress already agree that we need significant reductions. But if we stick together, I think we can win this for the American people . . . because I do think there is a path. But it’s gonna require us to stand together as a team. It’s gonna require some of you to make some sacrifices. If we stand together as a team, our leverage is maximized, and they have to deal with us. If we’re divided, our leverage gets minimized.

Before I close, let me thank all of you for your patience, and for your confidence, and for your commitment to our country. We’re doing the right thing, and you all know that the right thing isn’t always the easiest thing to do.



That suggests to me that the House Republicans will pass a bill, send it to the Senate and let the Democrats decide if they want to send the country into default.

i dunno, boehner seems to think ...we need a vehicle that can pass in both houses.

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 09:21 PM
Because bills often leave the pricetag open-ended. "The administration is required to do such and such, and is authorized to make appropriations as necessary." Also, tax collections and prices for securities sold, etc., aren't actually known ahead of time, only estimated.

So we budget poorly and don't cap items we probably should have capped.....

And we should have created a real budget over the last two years if we saw this problem coming, right?

And if we didn't see it coming, we certainly have had the wrong people in office for the last 3 years.

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 09:25 PM
um...no, not even close.

Um...yes

Just to maintain our infrastructure it would cost us over $2 trillion dollars, that is how shitty it has become and how far we have let it go.

In fact The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our infrastructure a D.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/tu/asce-report-card-470-0109.jpg

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 09:30 PM
Why is Boehner's inability to control his caucus a failure of Obama's leadership skills?


Ok then.


Obama gets his way or everybody else is wrong.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 09:30 PM
Why would democrat voters vote against democrats just because they agreed to take a vote on a balanced budget amendment? I've never heard that opposition to such an amendment is a litmus test issue for democrats. Abortion or cutting entitlements maybe, but not that.

ooops, i misunderstood, for some reason i thought that the issue was actually passing an amendment - it's been a long day of drinking and fun in the sun...

you're right, they're only asking for a vote which the dems would be stupid to refuse, even though everybody understands that it is little more than political theater designed to make poor barry and the dems look even more forlorn than they already are...

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 09:34 PM
Or would you say "what more can they do" if the Senate somehow passed a bill saying raise the debt ceiling along with a rollback of the Bush tax cuts and no spending cuts?

That is a good idea they should try that. Boy there would be alot of whining and vagina crying from the right over that.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 09:37 PM
I agree they should do that. Please God, let that happen

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 09:46 PM
I agree they should do that. Please God, let that happen

I am calling Barack on my O-bot phone to let him know he has the go ahead to do this.

orange
07-24-2011, 09:51 PM
Or would you say "what more can they do" if the Senate somehow passed a bill saying raise the debt ceiling along with a rollback of the Bush tax cuts and no spending cuts?

That is a good idea they should try that. Boy there would be alot of whining and vagina crying from the right over that.

I agree they should do that. Please God, let that happen

There is a problem. The Senate can't do that.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


The ball is in Boehner's court. There's no way around that.

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 09:54 PM
I am calling Barack on my O-bot phone to let him know he has the go ahead to do this.

He is at a fund raiser. Leave a message.

go bowe
07-24-2011, 10:02 PM
nah, i read on communist news network that the big o had cancelled plans to attend those fundraisers so he could concentrate on the debt ceiling problem...

KCWolfman
07-24-2011, 10:02 PM
nah, i read on communist news network that the big o had cancelled plans to attend those fundraisers so he could concentrate on the debt ceiling problem...

More golf then?

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 10:03 PM
Looks like Harry is gonna try a fast one.....


When it comes to Reid's reported debt-reduction proposal, seeing is believing
By: Philip Klein | Senior Editorial Writer Follow Him @Philipaklein | 07/24/11 6:06 PM
Numerous outlets are now reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has put together a package to raise the debt limit that contains $2.5 trillion in spending cuts without any offsetting tax increases. Roll Call's Meredith Shiner tweets further that the proposal won't touch entitlements. How might Reid achieve such a magic trick?

While details have yet to emerge, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., telegraphed the likely approach during a Friday session with liberal bloggers. Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler quoted Pelosi as saying, "We could use the offshore -- the Overseas Contingency [the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] -- could take us to two-and-a-half trillion dollars."

In other words, if you count the savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- which are expected to end over the next 10 years anyway -- add some additional discretionary spending cuts and assume lower interest payments, it could reach the number that Reid is proposing.

However, such a proposal wouldn't represent $2.5 trillion in real cuts, nor would it even start to address the trajectory of our long term debt, which the rating agencies said puts us at a risk for a downgrade, even if the debt ceiling is raised.

We'll soon see whether my suspicions about the Reid proposal prove correct.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/when-it-comes-reids-reported-debt-reduction-proposal-seeing-belie?utm_source=feedburner+BeltwayConfidential&utm_medium=feed+Beltway+Confidential&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BeltwayConfidential+%28Beltway+Confidential%29feed&utm_content=feed&utm_term=feed#ixzz1T5PxNGCo

dirk digler
07-24-2011, 10:03 PM
He is at a fund raiser. Leave a message.

It is a satellite phone I can reach him anywhere.

Have you tried calling Boehner? Oh wait I forgot the bar he lives at doesn't have phone service. But it does have a really good tanning bed

RINGLEADER
07-24-2011, 11:11 PM
Looks like Harry is gonna try a fast one...

The Reid plan is just the next chapter in playing politics with the issue. It's rather sad that the politicians can't seem to grasp the idea that the end is near...

But I'm sure they'll be debating their political position until the end. They're like a bunch of Titanic passengers fighting over which color of life jacket is more attractive as the boat - in this case the nation - sinks.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 06:57 AM
There is no reason to do a short 5 month extension and take the risk of the market reacting negatively and our credit downgraded instead of dealing with it now and not having to mess with this for years to come.

The President is unwilling to deal with it now.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 06:59 AM
Here was what they were close to agreeing to:


1. $3.5-$4 trillion dollars cut in spending
2. Cuts in SS, Medicare and Medicaid
3. No tax loopholes were closed

All in exchange for a promise to pass tax reform in the near future to raise revenue.

Q: Who doesn't take that deal?
A: Only an idiot

Only an idiot would take that deal without knowing more about it than you do.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:03 AM
What more can they do? How about realize that they aren't in control of the Senate and WH so maybe they should try to act with some degree of bipartisanship instead of my-way-or-the-highway.

Or would you say "what more can they do" if the Senate somehow passed a bill saying raise the debt ceiling along with a rollback of the Bush tax cuts and no spending cuts?

For a guy who says he doesn't like fiscal irresponsibility you sure are pretty willing to let bygones be bygones with the culprits.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:06 AM
I find this touting of the House's plan to be absurdly self-serving. It was a collosal waste of time. A proposal everyone knew was DOA and utterly unacceptable to the Democrats WHO CONTROL THE SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE.

Why was it utterly unacceptable? What are the egregious provisions in that bill that democrats can't possibly accept?

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 07:08 AM
Only an idiot would take that deal without knowing more about it than you do.

I have a car I'll sell you. As soon as you send me your $12,500 check and it clears I'll let you drive it.

The house needs to pass a short term debt limit increase and send it to the Senate. Since Obama is so afraid of the boogey man it might ease his mind.

blaise
07-25-2011, 07:08 AM
Kind of ironic that THATguy keeps saying other people are just shilling for their party.

Amnorix
07-25-2011, 07:21 AM
Why was it utterly unacceptable? What are the egregious provisions in that bill that democrats can't possibly accept?

Why are you making me go through a silly typing exercise? You know as well as I do that the House bill was nothing more than a right-wing wish list for how to go about doing this. While I'd expect you to argue that it is also the correct approach, it was never going to fly, and for good or for bad the Democrats hold the Senate and WH.

Amnorix
07-25-2011, 07:23 AM
For a guy who says he doesn't like fiscal irresponsibility you sure are pretty willing to let bygones be bygones with the culprits.

The culprits stretch back 50 years FFS.

This isn't a solely Obama-created problem, and we certainly didn't dig this hole in two years.

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 07:24 AM
Why are you making me go through a silly typing exercise? You know as well as I do that the House bill was nothing more than a right-wing wish list for how to go about doing this. While I'd expect you to argue that it is also the correct approach, it was never going to fly, and for good or for bad the Democrats hold the Senate and WH.Kind of like Obama claiming we'll cut spending in the future?

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:29 AM
Why are you making me go through a silly typing exercise? You know as well as I do that the House bill was nothing more than a right-wing wish list for how to go about doing this. While I'd expect you to argue that it is also the correct approach, it was never going to fly, and for good or for bad the Democrats hold the Senate and WH.

You mean because there was real fiscal discipline involved?

I'm skeptical about how real all the cuts included in the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance bill really are, but there's no doubt in my mind that the GOP is more serious about making cuts than the democrats.

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 07:34 AM
This is the phony it up time.

Cuts will be claimed that are non existent. The debt in added to by annual deficits. Reducing the debt requires we have a positive year end revenue number....Math is hard. To be deficit neutral would be a start. To do that the cuts must impact immediately.

The sheeple will be sold a bill of goods.

Amnorix
07-25-2011, 07:34 AM
You mean because there was real fiscal discipline involved?

I'm skeptical about how real all the cuts included in the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance bill really are, but there's no doubt in my mind that the GOP is more serious about making cuts than the democrats.

Where was such seriousness in 2000-2006?

Let's face it, both parties have dropped the ball EACH AND EVERY TIME THEY'VE HAD IT.

Amnorix
07-25-2011, 07:36 AM
This is the phony it up time.

Cuts will be claimed that are non existent. The debt in added to by annual deficits. Reducing the debt requires we have a positive year end revenue number....Math is hard. To be deficit neutral would be a start. To do that the cuts must impact immediately.

The sheeple will be sold a bill of goods.


To be deficit neutral in, say, 2012, will wreck an already fragile economy. Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. The point here, IMHO, is to create the path for getting to budget surpluses.

Amnorix
07-25-2011, 07:37 AM
Kind of like Obama claiming we'll cut spending in the future?

My understanding is that some cuts would take place sooner rather than later, such as the COLA for Social Security. While I understand it's a 10 year plan, I didn't understand it to mean nothing happens until year 10.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:38 AM
The culprits stretch back 50 years FFS.

This isn't a solely Obama-created problem, and we certainly didn't dig this hole in two years.

The culprits are primarily democrats. Recent democrats (led by Pelosi and Reid and including, but conspicuously not led by, Obama) have greatly exacerbated the already gathering problem. Do you understand how much spending spiked over the past 2 years? But historical democrats should certainly share a decent portion of the blame too, from FDR and Johnson who created and greatly expanded the welfare state to the democrat minority during the Bush years who objected to Bush's lavish spending because he didn't spend enough!

You want to blame the Bush tax cuts, but the democrats could have repealed them at any point during the first few months of their deathgrip on our government and chose not to. So even there, democrats are complicit.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:41 AM
Where was such seriousness in 2000-2006?

Let's face it, both parties have dropped the ball EACH AND EVERY TIME THEY'VE HAD IT.

What difference does it make where it was in 2000-2006? The problem exists now and one side is more serious than the other. Your talk about the importance of fiscal responsibility is having a head on collision with your allegiance to the champions of your liberal inclinations. The Republicans in the House appear to have called your bluff.

J Diddy
07-25-2011, 07:44 AM
The culprits are primarily democrats. Recent democrats (led by Pelosi and Reid and including, but conspicuously not led by, Obama) have greatly exacerbated the already gathering problem. Do you understand how much spending spiked over the past 2 years? But historical democrats should certainly share a decent portion of the blame too, from FDR and Johnson who created and greatly expanded the welfare state to the democrat minority during the Bush years who objected to Bush's lavish spending because he didn't spend enough!

You want to blame the Bush tax cuts, but the democrats could have repealed them at any point during the first few months of their deathgrip on our government and chose not to. So even there, democrats are complicit.

Really, because I thought spending decreased under Clinton and then spiked when Bush took office and has grown since. Furthermore, I find great hilarity in your belief it is the dems fault not republicans because they didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 07:52 AM
Really, because I thought spending decreased under Clinton and then spiked when Bush took office and has grown since.

Well you thought wrong then.

Furthermore, I find great hilarity in your belief it is the dems fault not republicans because they didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts.

I don't blame the dems for not repealing the Bush tax cuts because I think they should be made permanent (at least at the top end). I'm talking to someone who thinks they should have been repealed, but who then blames the Republicans from early in the Bush administration for passing them (with bipartisan support, btw) instead of the democrats who failed to repeal them much more recently despite having FULL CONTROL over the levers of government.

J Diddy
07-25-2011, 07:56 AM
Well you thought wrong then.



I don't blame the dems for not repealing the Bush tax cuts because I think they should be made permanent (at least at the top end). I'm talking to someone who thinks they should have been repealed, but who then blames the Republicans from early in the Bush administration for passing them (with bipartisan support, btw) instead of the democrats who failed to repeal them much more recently despite having FULL CONTROL over the levers of government.

http://conceptualmath.org/philo/fedpercapita.htm
Here we see spending remaining about constant under Carter, increasing at about $140 per citizen each year under Reagan, dropping about $50 per citizen each year under Clinton, and rising rapidly at about $300 per citizen each year under G.W. Bush. Below we will break down the spending to see what the major factors in the change were

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 07:57 AM
Hey ML.....how are things going in Joplin at this point?

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 08:00 AM
My understanding is that some cuts would take place sooner rather than later, such as the COLA for Social Security. While I understand it's a 10 year plan, I didn't understand it to mean nothing happens until year 10.And I'm saying what politicans say in 2011 won't necessarily happen in 2016 or whenever. That goes for both sides.

But anyway, I haven't seen the dems cuts laid out yet. Has anyone?

I wish these discussions were happening in a public forum where we could each judge the seriousness of the participants.

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 08:03 AM
And I'm saying what politicans say in 2011 won't necessarily happen in 2016 or whenever. That goes for both sides.

But anyway, I haven't seen the dems cuts laid out yet. Has anyone?

I wish these discussions were happening in a public forum where we could each judge the seriousness of the participants.

Last i read was Pelosi was spinning Harrys idea on the basis all the "cuts" would be based on ending three wars over the next 10 years and nothing else would need to be cut.

J Diddy
07-25-2011, 08:04 AM
Hey ML.....how are things going in Joplin at this point?

Getting better every day. Started letting people rebuild their houses finally, not really sure how it's going to though.

J Diddy
07-25-2011, 08:05 AM
And I'm saying what politicans say in 2011 won't necessarily happen in 2016 or whenever. That goes for both sides.

But anyway, I haven't seen the dems cuts laid out yet. Has anyone?

I wish these discussions were happening in a public forum where we could each judge the seriousness of the participants.

Quite honestly I'm a firm believer that they are all crooks. I just go with the side that I think is going to screw us less.

HonestChieffan
07-25-2011, 08:07 AM
Getting better every day. Started letting people rebuild their houses finally, not really sure how it's going to though.

Our Church has a crew coming down whenever we get the word. Gonna be a long pull.

J Diddy
07-25-2011, 08:12 AM
Our Church has a crew coming down whenever we get the word. Gonna be a long pull.

The good news is that things are starting to get back to feeling normal.

patteeu
07-25-2011, 08:26 AM
http://conceptualmath.org/philo/fedpercapita.htm
Here we see spending remaining about constant under Carter, increasing at about $140 per citizen each year under Reagan, dropping about $50 per citizen each year under Clinton, and rising rapidly at about $300 per citizen each year under G.W. Bush. Below we will break down the spending to see what the major factors in the change were

Sorry, Mother, spending increased under Clinton every single year. Total outlays (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html) went from $1.409 trillion in 1993 to $1.789 trillion in 2000.

It also increased dramatically under Carter, btw. It went from $409 billion to $591 billion.

Your exclusive focus on Presidents is misplaced anyway. To the extent that spending was restrained at all under Clinton, the Republican Congress can be thanked. And Reagan had to concede to democrats on domestic spending issues in order to lower marginal tax rates and revitalize our military. Both of those periods were mixed governments and in both cases, on balance, the Republicans acted as the fiscally responsible partner. It's only during the first 6 years of Bush 43 that you can accuse Republicans of leading the country in a fiscally irresponsible direction and because of the wars that were visited upon us, that role is typically overblown too.

mlyonsd
07-25-2011, 08:27 AM
Quite honestly I'm a firm believer that they are all crooks. I just go with the side that I think is going to screw us less.I agree career politicians are crooks. Which side do you think will screw you less and why?

patteeu
07-25-2011, 08:28 AM
Last i read was Pelosi was spinning Harrys idea on the basis all the "cuts" would be based on ending three wars over the next 10 years and nothing else would need to be cut.

So the democrats now want to take credit for Bush spending cuts and offer none of their own and nothing new. Sounds about right for the unserious party. Of course, I'm sure this no-pain approach will appeal to many unserious voters so they have that going for them.