PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Debt deal dies


dirk digler
07-22-2011, 06:39 PM
For now. I guess I was wrong but they were so close.

Obama said they had agreed to $1.2 trillion in revenue\tax increases

Boehner and Cantor said they negotiated $800 billion in revenue\tax increases.

I am actually surprised by that as well as Obama putting the individual mandate on the line.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 06:46 PM
Waits for the right wing circle jerk crew to come and attack the president, and praise the rebulicanboots.

mlyonsd
07-22-2011, 07:12 PM
Waits for the right wing circle jerk crew to come and attack the president, and praise the rebulicanboots.Hold on, we're all still fapping off to the latest Tina Fey Sarah Palin sex tape impersonation. When Tina lays out for the horse I'll respond because that's over the top for me.

Bewbies
07-22-2011, 08:29 PM
So Obama is going to allow default to hold out for minuscule tax increases?

HonestChieffan
07-22-2011, 08:34 PM
So Obama is going to allow default to hold out for minuscule tax increases?

Ego.

trndobrd
07-22-2011, 08:38 PM
For now. I guess I was wrong but they were so close.

Obama said they had agreed to $1.2 trillion in revenue\tax increases

Boehner and Cantor said they negotiated $800 billion in revenue\tax increases.

I am actually surprised by that as well as Obama putting the individual mandate on the line.



I'm not really suprised by the Republicans agreeing revenue increases if it were a result of closing specific loopholes, a tax increase would shock me. I haven't seen anything about Obama throwing the individual mandate in the mix. Can you provide a link, I would be interested to know how he was trying to sell that to the D base.

To hear Boehner tell the story, they had a framework, Bernake and Geitner had reviewed it and said the debt ceiling part would work, the Obama demanded more revenue after talking to the Congressional Democrats.

Since none of this is ever captured on paper, there is no telling.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 08:45 PM
So Obama is going to allow default to hold out for minuscule tax increases?

I guess...I mean ( sarcasm font on ) Republicans arent at fault in this along with Obama, they have showed a strong spirit of sacrifice, and bi-partisanship, not catering to their extreme base at all.
Ego.

Typical Republicanboot response....because we all know the republicans haven't played to their egos at all....



The Republicans are all about protecting the rich and this proves it. They ran on a platform of cutting the debt, but all they care about is protecting the tax breaks for the rich.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 09:09 PM
I'm not really suprised by the Republicans agreeing revenue increases if it were a result of closing specific loopholes, a tax increase would shock me. I haven't seen anything about Obama throwing the individual mandate in the mix. Can you provide a link, I would be interested to know how he was trying to sell that to the D base.

To hear Boehner tell the story, they had a framework, Bernake and Geitner had reviewed it and said the debt ceiling part would work, the Obama demanded more revenue after talking to the Congressional Democrats.

Since none of this is ever captured on paper, there is no telling.

I heard this on TV but from what I gathered each side put up something to make sure everyone stuck to the deal if it was passed. IIRC Obama put up the mandate and Boehner put up repeal of Bush tax cuts. I think this was to make sure tax reform would actually be dealt with.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 09:13 PM
I heard this on TV but from what I gathered each side put up something to make sure everyone stuck to the deal if it was passed. IIRC Obama put up the mandate and Boehner put up repeal of Bush tax cuts. I think this was to make sure tax reform would actually be dealt with.

In your opinion, is this a failure by the Democrats? I'm honestly trying to be objective here. It seems to me that the minority party (R) gave a lot of ground, found a reasonable compromise, and it was shat upon.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 09:18 PM
In your opinion, is this a failure by the Democrats? I'm honestly trying to be objective here. It seems to me that the minority party (R) gave a lot of ground, found a reasonable compromise, and it was shat upon.

You cant be serious? President Obama literally bent over backwards, and went against his base to appease the republicans. The republicans want it 100% their way , or no bargain. Thats not being fare or compromising, that's hijacking our finical future so that they can cater to the tea baggers, and try and win the presidency. Republicans ran on cutting the debt, the deal the President offered gave them that option, but they declined because it didn't protect the tax cuts for the rich....proving that republicans don't really care about reducing our debt, only protecting the rich.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 09:25 PM
In your opinion, is this a failure by the Democrats? I'm honestly trying to be objective here. It seems to me that the minority party (R) gave a lot of ground, found a reasonable compromise, and it was shat upon.

Certainly not. Just reading what Obama proposed:

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.

Who doesn't take that deal?

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 09:33 PM
Certainly not. Just reading what Obama proposed:

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.

Who doesn't take that deal?

1. When were these cuts to take place?

2. Cool.

3. I don't see that as a positive, do you?

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 09:43 PM
1. When were these cuts to take place?

2. Cool.

3. I don't see that as a positive, do you?

1. Both sides agreed it would be over 10 years.

3. Not really but I am thinking that the loopholes will be closed later if they reformed the tax code.

I just don't get how you could turn that down especially when the tax revenue piece was to be put off until sometime in the future.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 09:57 PM
1. Both sides agreed it would be over 10 years.

3. Not really but I am thinking that the loopholes will be closed later if they reformed the tax code.

I just don't get how you could turn that down especially when the tax revenue piece was to be put off until sometime in the future.

I don't care about the "over 10 years" part. When does it start. Give me a table. Obama's plans all seem to be...Spend Spend Spend...then cut 500% of the budget 9 years from now.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 09:58 PM
Also, there are a lot of loopholes that need to be closed. I'm a hard-dicked conservative, and I can recognize that much.

Param
07-22-2011, 10:02 PM
debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the past 10 years. Now, all of the sudden, it f'n matters?LMAO Must be election time.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 10:04 PM
I don't care about the "over 10 years" part. When does it start. Give me a table. Obama's plans all seem to be...Spend Spend Spend...then cut 500% of the budget 9 years from now.

I haven't seen the specifics but both Boehner and Obama had agreed on the cuts so I am sure some started immediately and others spread out over 10 years.

IIRC I read somewhere since the year is almost gone the most they could cut for this year is around $200-300 billion. But I could be wrong on that.

Saul Good
07-22-2011, 10:07 PM
debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the past 10 years. Now, all of the sudden, it f'n matters?LMAO Must be election time.

Here's a list of the Democrats who voted to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was President:






















































.

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 10:15 PM
debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the past 10 years. Now, all of the sudden, it f'n matters?LMAO Must be election time.

This

ThatRaceCardGuy
07-22-2011, 10:16 PM
Here's a list of the Democrats who voted to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was President:








































.













































.


And this is the amount of Dems who used the debt ceiling as a political tool for the presidency during that same time, risking the finical future of America.





















































.

dirk digler
07-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Here's a list of the Democrats who voted to raise the debt ceiling when Bush was President:



.

That is not true Saul.

Dems voted at least 3 times to raise the debt ceiling under Bush.

Of course as you can see Republicans voted 7 straight times to the tune of over $11 trillion dollars. But yet all I hear from the right it is all Obama's fault.

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">Bill Containing Debt Ceiling Increase</th> <th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">New Debt Ceiling Level Enacted</th> <th style="background<img src=" http:="" www.chiefsplanet.com="" bb="" images="" smilies="" angry.gif"="" border="0" alt="" title="angry" smilieid="50" class="inlineimg">Number of Republicans in Senate Voting “Yes”</th> </tr><tr> <td>111-H.J.Res.45 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj45/show) – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (the current bill)</td> <td>$14,294,000,000,000 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111samdt3299)</td> <td>0 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00014#position)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>111-H.R.4314 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4314/show) – To permit continued financing of Government operations (2009)</td> <td>$12,394,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4314/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:17)</td> <td>1 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2009/s/397)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>111-H.R.1 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show) – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009)</td> <td>$12,104,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:3689)</td> <td>2 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2009/s/61)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.R.1424 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1424/show) – Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (2008)</td> <td>$11,315,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1424/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:434)</td> <td>33 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2008/s/213)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.R.3221 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3221/show) – Housing and Recovery Act (2008)</td> <td>$10,615,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3221/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:4476)</td> <td>34 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2008/s/96)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>110-H.J.Res.43 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj43/show) – Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt (2007)</td> <td>$9,815,000,000,000 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hj43/text?version=enr&nid=t0:enr:9)</td> <td>26 (http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2007/s/354)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>109-H.J.Res.47 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-47) – Debt limit increase resolution (2006)</td> <td>$8,965,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj109-47&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A14)</td> <td>51 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-54)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>108-S.2986 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2986) – A bill to Amend Title 31 of U.S. Code to increase the public debt limit (2004)</td> <td>$8,184,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s108-2986&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A16)</td> <td>50 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2004-213)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>108-H.J.Res.51 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj108-51) – Debt limit increase resolution (2003)</td> <td>$7,384,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj108-51&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A14)</td> <td>50 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2003-202)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>107-S.2578 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-2578) – Debt limit bill (2002)</td> <td>$6,400,000,000,000 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-2578&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A12)</td> <td>31 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2002-148)</td></tr></tbody></table>

alnorth
07-23-2011, 08:58 AM
The republicans in the house have gone barking mad. Obama offered one of the greatest deals with more cuts to medicare/medicaid than you are ever likely going to see from a Democrat president, a deal that was so incredibly good that his base was screaming bloody murder and starting to talk about primarying him, and the republicans didn't take the deal because of a tiny amount of taxes. They probably should have rushed to sign on like a starving dog diving on a juicy steak.

Instead, we run a very real and rising risk of a default, which will be ruinous, and for which the GOP would receive nearly all the blame.

Seriously, this is incredibly stupid. If the debt ceiling is not raised at this point, it'll turn out like this: They get a great deal on tax/entitlement/debt reform during a year when the opposition controls the senate and white house, and the republican reaction is to say "nah, no thanks, we'd rather get blamed for a disaster and get our asses kicked in 2012 because Rush Limbaugh thought it was a swell idea."

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 09:11 AM
Both sides have had opportunity to accept a deal and both sides have said no. Lets be somewhat fair. Neither R or D is spared some responsibility.

The Senate should be ashamed.

alnorth
07-23-2011, 09:21 AM
Both sides have had opportunity to accept a deal and both sides have said no. Lets be somewhat fair. Neither R or D is spared some responsibility.

The Senate should be ashamed.

That is all well and good, but if this becomes a major campaign issue, Obama and the dems are going to be perceived as being more reasonable and more willing to give in.

If social security checks, military pay, welfare, food stamps, etc aren't paid in August, an apathetic electorate is going to awaken. We'll have a pitchfork and torch-bearing mob looking for a head to put on a spike, and Obama would be able to lead them across D.C. to raze speaker Boehner's office to the ground in 2012.

HonestChieffan
07-23-2011, 09:29 AM
Geitner now is saying we have another 10 days.


Not sure why it has changed but its what Timmy says.

alnorth
07-23-2011, 09:42 AM
Geitner now is saying we have another 10 days.


Not sure why it has changed but its what Timmy says.

interesting. I found this too:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/about_that_august_2_deadline.html

In a note published Friday, the Barclays Interest Rates Research team wrote that "the date on which the Treasury will run out of cash to pay its obligations might not be August 2; it might be around August 10 instead."

Why the change? The note explains that previous projections showed the Treasury running out of money on the morning of Wednesday, August 3. On that day, it was predicted, the Treasury would need to spend $32 billion, including $22 billion in Social Security payments -- and it was only projected to have $30 billion at its disposal.

That projection was made on July 13. But since then, the researchers say, the Treasury has taken in about $14 billion more than expected, and paid out about $1 billion less than expected. Hence, the deadline date might actually be August 10, a week later than previously believed.

Not that it really matters anyway. If we couldn't get a deal done on August 2nd, I doubt we'd have one on the 10th because of 8 extra days to talk.

Chocolate Hog
07-23-2011, 09:46 AM
No loopholes were closed? Well we now know this president/congress isn't serious.

BucEyedPea
07-23-2011, 09:47 AM
No loopholes were closed? Well we now know this president/congress isn't serious.

Closing loopholes is just a tax increase without calling it that.

Chocolate Hog
07-23-2011, 09:53 AM
Geitner now is saying we have another 10 days.


Not sure why it has changed but its what Timmy says.

WE'LL LOSE OUR TRIPLE A RATING! These are all the same people who gave Fannie and Freddie a triple a rating LMAO

mlyonsd
07-23-2011, 09:54 AM
No it's enforcing the laws that have been set forth. If I don't pay my taxes I get in trouble. The same should apply for these companies.I don't think you understand loopholes. They are very legal. BEP is correct, closing loopholes is the same as raising taxes.

Chiefshrink
07-23-2011, 09:55 AM
So Obama is going to allow default to hold out for minuscule tax increases?

Of course he will because he has no other chance to "CHANGE THE NARRATIVE". Read on:

Obama's main goal right now for 2012 is to 1)"CHANGE THE NARRATIVE"(public focus) away from his failed economic policies(last 3ys) to "Alinskyizing" the Repubs playing politics to the point of causing this 'default' which will create a temporary financial and social mess for our country in hopes to get re-elected in 2012. Thus you will see the narrative of the O'Marxist and his Marxist Dem party begin the narrative "if" the default occurs something like this:

"How can you stand behind a party that allowed for this 'default' to occur that has severely damaged you financially only to elect them to continue this financial damage while they take care of their rich friends"?

The narrative must change for Obama or loses 2012 because his poll numbers are that bad and he knows it and a 'default' in his mind has a real possibility to do this for him. But IMO even if a default occurs the American people see right thru this guy and loses regardless.:thumb:

alnorth
07-23-2011, 09:56 AM
Excellent WSJ article today, some new information in there.

Bracing for Fallout if Debt Talks Fail (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904233404576462403257347570.html)

According to that article:

1) Obama did talk to his lawyers about the 14th amendment option. They have concluded that he does not have the power to raise the debt limit without congress, so he will not do it.

2) Some people (including me) thought we might avoid a real default because we'd never stop paying treasuries, but the government might not be able to accomplish that. In fact, a "real" default may happen very quickly, by August 4. The reason is, although we have plenty of money to make interest payments, we also have almost $100B maturing in early August. We've been counting on the owners of those treasuries to re-up with us and/or being able to auction off new treasuries, but what if that doesn't happen? If we don't have a deal by August 2, 2 days before the auction, the market is going to freak. (They will probably freak on monday anyway with the Boehner deal collapsing) Obviously interest rates would probably rise, but what if they do more than rise? What if everyone wants their money out, no one shows up, and the auction flat-out fails? We'd have a liquidity crisis with almost $100B due, and not enough money to pay it.

3) Our government computer systems at the fed and the treasury apparently suck so bad, that we literally may not have the capability to intentionally not pay some bills and pay others. As of the mid-90's we basically had a dumb on/off switch, and if that is still the case we may not be able to write the code needed to choose which bills to pay.

BigChiefFan
07-23-2011, 09:57 AM
Does anybody even realize how preposterous this all is?

The country is BROKE. They squandered our hard-earned tax dollars. Raising the DEBT ceiling means we go further into DEBT or should I say the government goes further into debt.

The crooks have robbed us blind and distracted the majority by talking about the debt ceiling. That isn't the issue, the issue is TRILLIONS IN DEBT.

alnorth
07-23-2011, 09:57 AM
WE'LL LOSE OUR TRIPLE A RATING! These are all the same people who gave Fannie and Freddie a triple a rating LMAO

Laughing at that just makes you look uninformed. Our interest on the debt will increase making our problem worse. It will also have a cascading effect on the rest of us, raising interest rates for credit cards, home/auto loans, etc.

Chocolate Hog
07-23-2011, 09:58 AM
I don't think you understand loopholes. They are very legal. BEP is correct, closing loopholes is the same as raising taxes.

No I understand them just fine.

go bowe
07-23-2011, 09:59 AM
WE'LL LOSE OUR TRIPLE A RATING! These are all the same people who gave Fannie and Freddie a triple a rating LMAO

do you realize what it will mean to the country if we lose our triple a rating?

it won't be funny, i can guarantee you that...

boogblaster
07-23-2011, 10:00 AM
they wont give up their rich buddies not the sake of anything .. shoot em all ....

Bewbies
07-23-2011, 10:03 AM
No it's enforcing the laws that have been set forth. If I don't pay my taxes I get in trouble. The same should apply for these companies.

Do you think companies are the only entities that benefit from 'loopholes'?

Chocolate Hog
07-23-2011, 10:05 AM
Laughing at that just makes you look uninformed. Our interest on the debt will increase making our problem worse. It will also have a cascading effect on the rest of us, raising interest rates for credit cards, home/auto loans, etc.

Fuck you and the horse you road on. I've noticed you like to puff your chest out and act like you know everything but you really don't. You totally ignore the point that Freddie and Fannie had a triple a rating how'd that work? We'll default on our debt because the spending is so out of control the money will no long have as much value. I've yet to seen you address this.

Chocolate Hog
07-23-2011, 10:05 AM
Do you think companies are the only entities that benefit from 'loopholes'?

Nope.

go bowe
07-23-2011, 10:12 AM
Fuck you and the horse you road on. I've noticed you like to puff your chest out and act like you know everything but you really don't. You totally ignore the point that Freddie and Fannie had a triple a rating how'd that work? We'll default on our debt because the spending is so out of control the money will no long have as much value. I've yet to seen you address this.

freddie and fannie are not the united states government...

they won't have to borrow money at much higher interest rates and make the deficit far worse than it is already...

and their financial collapse wouldn't cause a world-wide depression...

no developed nation has ever defaulted, and the prospect of greece defaulting has turned the eu upside down...

but i'm sure default won't be a problem because billay told us so...

Warrior5
07-23-2011, 10:14 AM
Geitner now is saying we have another 10 days.

Not sure why it has changed but its what Timmy says.


Wow... yesterday, the nation was told "we're out of time".


Why does this not shock me?

alnorth
07-23-2011, 10:15 AM
**** you and the horse you road on. I've noticed you like to puff your chest out and act like you know everything but you really don't.

I assume you expect me to get in some stupid screaming match with you. My response to assholes who aren't interested in discussing politics in good faith is to ignore them and never take them off ignore. Internet fights only result in frustration and silly anger. As the great Adam Carolla said, if it doesn't make you money or make you happy, don't do it.

Good-bye forever, I will never see any of your posts again.

Chiefshrink
07-23-2011, 10:16 AM
The republicans in the house have gone barking mad. Obama offered one of the greatest deals with more cuts to medicare/medicaid than you are ever likely going to see from a Democrat president, a deal that was so incredibly good that his base was screaming bloody murder and starting to talk about primarying him, and the republicans didn't take the deal because of a tiny amount of taxes. They probably should have rushed to sign on like a starving dog diving on a juicy steak.

Instead, we run a very real and rising risk of a default, which will be ruinous, and for which the GOP would receive nearly all the blame.

Seriously, this is incredibly stupid. If the debt ceiling is not raised at this point, it'll turn out like this: They get a great deal on tax/entitlement/debt reform during a year when the opposition controls the senate and white house, and the republican reaction is to say "nah, no thanks, we'd rather get blamed for a disaster and get our asses kicked in 2012 because Rush Limbaugh thought it was a swell idea."

Wrong!

It is Obama who has all the control on this especially when a Repub party has offered a plan that allows the debt ceiling to be raised while getting serious cuts (CC&B). The dirty little secret is that we don't even have to raise the debt ceiling because we do have the $$ to meet our debts when we seriously cut spending but O'Marxist will have none of that!! It is about destroying or I mean transforming America:rolleyes:

So now who is the real insane one here????????????????????????

banyon
07-23-2011, 10:17 AM
Wrong!

It is Obama who has all the control on this especially when a Repub party has offered a plan that allows the debt ceiling to be raised while getting serious cuts (CC&B). The dirty little secret is that we don't even have to raise the debt ceiling because we do have the $$ to meet our debts when we seriously cut spending but O'Marxist will have none of that!! It is about destroying or I mean transforming America:rolleyes:

So now who is the real insane one here????????????????????????

Wait, I'm confused now. Is "O'Marxist" referring to Obama or O' Reilly? I can't tell since O'Reilly apparently joined the "statist media".

Chocolate Hog
07-23-2011, 10:21 AM
I assume you expect me to get in some stupid screaming match with you. My response to assholes who aren't interested in discussing politics in good faith is to ignore them and never take them off ignore. Internet fights only result in frustration and silly anger. As the great Adam Carolla said, if it doesn't make you money or make you happy, don't do it.

Good-bye forever, I will never see any of your posts again.

No screaming here just a mere observation. It's convenient of you to ignore my point and questions. So much for having a conversation huh?

go bowe
07-23-2011, 10:27 AM
Fuck you and the horse you road on. I've noticed you like to puff your chest out and act like you know everything but you really don't. You totally ignore the point that Freddie and Fannie had a triple a rating how'd that work? We'll default on our debt because the spending is so out of control the money will no long have as much value. I've yet to seen you address this.

you fuck horses?

i knew you were weird, but bestiality?

you should have stuck to cock smoking, you know, something that you're good at...

go bowe
07-23-2011, 10:29 AM
I assume you expect me to get in some stupid screaming match with you. My response to assholes who aren't interested in discussing politics in good faith is to ignore them and never take them off ignore. Internet fights only result in frustration and silly anger. As the great Adam Carolla said, if it doesn't make you money or make you happy, don't do it.

Good-bye forever, I will never see any of your posts again.

oh man, you're gonna be missing out on some world-class stupidity if you put billay ion ignore...

he never disappoints... LMAO LMAO LMAO

go bowe
07-23-2011, 10:37 AM
No screaming here just a mere observation. It's convenient of you to ignore my point and questions. So much for having a conversation huh?

mere observation?

fuck you and your horse is an "observation", right...

i gotta admit that your understanding of words is creative, sorta...

are you related to pete by any chance?

Chiefshrink
07-23-2011, 02:58 PM
Wow... yesterday, the nation was told "we're out of time".


Why does this not shock me?

Why does this sound sooooooooooooooooo familiar:rolleyes: Didn't buy the emergency tarp and I don't buy this BS either:thumb:

Chiefshrink
07-23-2011, 03:03 PM
Wait, I'm confused now. Is "O'Marxist" referring to Obama or O' Reilly? I can't tell since O'Reilly apparently joined the "statist media".

Well in another thread I said that O'Reilly has joined the 'statist media' on this issue and please don't assume that everything O'Reilly says is so-called 'gospel' to me. Matter of fact I have quit watching his show for the last 2yrs because it is clear he is one of those who wants to be accepted by the elites in DC and the Marxist Media and his softball interview with O'Marxist before the superbowl last yr proved it:thumb:

banyon
07-24-2011, 04:41 PM
Still no deal:

As of 4:37 PM


Debt Ceiling Deadline Looms As Obama, Republicans Clash

BEN FELLER 07/24/11 04:37 PM ET AP


WASHINGTON With bipartisan debt-limit talks deadlocked, House Republicans and Senate Democrats readied rival emergency fallback plans Sunday in hopes of reassuring world financial markets the U.S. government will avoid an unprecedented default.

Republicans said Speaker John Boehner had legislation under consideration to raise the nation's debt limit by $1 trillion and enact slightly more in federal spending cuts, with the promise of additional progress on both sides of the ledger if Congress can agree.

Across the Capitol, Democratic officials said Majority Leader Harry Reid was at work on legislation to raise the government's debt limit by $2.4 trillion enough to assure no recurrence of the current crisis until 2013 and reduce spending by slightly more. They said that plan envisioned no higher taxes.

The White House was largely consigned to a spectator's role on a weekend that began with Boehner's decision to call off talks with President Barack Obama. Asked what the administration's plan was to avoid default, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, "Our plan is to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling on time."

The state of play veered between bipartisanship and brinkmanship on an issue of immense economic consequences.

Without congressional action by Aug. 2, the Treasury will be unable to pay all its bills, risking a default that could have severe consequences for the U.S. economy and the world's, too.

Despite hours of compromise talks in the Capitol, lawmakers' aides had so far been unable to agree on a two-step plan that would satisfy Obama's demand for a large enough increase in the debt limit to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections.

Interviewed on Fox, Boehner said, "I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem. If that is not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own."

He arranged to brief the Republican rank and file on a conference call late in the day.
Advertisement

It was unclear when Reid would disclose details of his own plan.

The officials who described the rival fallback plans spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

Boehner's plan, still under negotiation on Capitol Hill, is intended to get the nation beyond this crisis and snag enough votes from House Republicans who won't raise the debt limit without spending cuts, too.

Deeper and more complex reductions in the nation's deficits would be part of the deal, but under later timelines.

White House chief of staff William Daley said Obama was insisting that any package must expand the debt ceiling beyond the next presidential and congressional elections and into 2013 to provide economic certainty. Daley said anything short of that would be a gimmick and prompt the world to say: "These people just can't get their act together."

White House and congressional leaders talked past each other on the Sunday TV shows as negotiations unfolded in secrecy.

"There will be a two-stage process. It's just not physically possible to do all of this in one step," Boehner said. "I know the president is worried about his next election. But, my God, shouldn't he be worried about the country?"

Republican leaders called their rank and file back to Washington earlier than expected for the new work week and set a mid-afternoon Monday meeting to go over the debt-limit legislation.

With an eye on the financial markets, Geithner insisted anew the United States would not default.

"It's just unthinkable," Geithner said. "We never do that. It's not going to happen."

The debt deal-making has consumed Washington for weeks and has put on display a government that at times risks utter dysfunction.

Even after talks about between Obama and Boehner broke down in spectacular fashion Friday, Geithner said the two men were still negotiating.

He also suggested the ambitious framework the two leaders had discussed, targeting a deficit reduction of $4 trillion, remained under consideration.

"I don't know. It may be pretty hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again," Boehner said of that grand plan. "But my last offer is still out there. I have never taken my last offer off of the table and they never agreed to my last offer."

That last offer included $800 billion in new tax revenues as part of a broad overhaul that would lower tax rates. Obama wanted $400 billion more in tax revenue for deficit reduction to help balance out the spending cuts. Or, if not that, a reduction in some of the proposed cuts being discussed to entitlement programs such as Medicare.

The talks halted primarily over that issue and over how to ensure that both parties kept their reform promises in the months ahead.

Any plan must get through the Democratic-run Senate, where Majority Leader Reid has called a short-term debt limit expansion unacceptable.

Obama's role looms, too.

Asked if Obama would veto a plan that did not extend the government's borrowing authority into 2013, Daley said, "Yes."

One key Republican lawmaker scoffed.

"I think that's a ridiculous position because that's what he's going to get presented with," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Under any scenario, Washington's leaders have run themselves almost out of time.

It will take days to move legislation through Congress. A default could cause catastrophic damage to the standing and the economy of the United States.

Daley said, in fact, the consequences are already taking hold.

"I don't think there's any question there's been enormous damage done to our creditworthiness around the world," Daley said.

Boehner appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Geithner was on Fox, ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union." Daley and Coburn spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press," and Daley also appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation."

___

Associated Press writers David Espo, Alan Fram and Nedra Pickler contributed to this report

HonestChieffan
07-24-2011, 04:48 PM
Even later...CNN:


Looks like Reid is gonna piss of the far leftie bunch if he brings this...No tax increases, bigger reductions in debt but to make Obama happy, the debt ceiling debate wont happen again before the election.

IF this is a winner, it sure looks like this entire cluster fuck was over a date not a deadline


Facing impasse, Reid to offer his own plan
By: CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett

Washington (CNN) - A Senate Democratic aide tells CNN that “despite multiple offers from our side, the speaker has so far been unwilling to agree to any form of a two-step solution that President Obama would sign.”

And while talks continue, the aide said, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is “working on a proposal of at least $2.5 trillion in debt reduction” and may inform his caucus about that plan Sunday night.

Democrats believe the proposal meets GOP requirements that the debt ceiling be increased with dollar for dollar spending cuts. The aide would not describe what spending cuts would be included in the package, but it’s about $1 trillion higher than the spending cuts identified in the talks led by Vice President Joe Biden.

The proposal would not include any increase in revenues and would raise the debt ceiling until 2013.