PDA

View Full Version : Obama: "Don't Call My Bluff"



sappstuf
7/14/2011, 08:42 AM
Does this make any sense? Isn't he admitting that he is bluffing and that he will fold if pushed? Shouldn't he say, "I'm not bluffing." or something like that?

I could care less. Or is that couldn't.. I bet Obama would say could.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/171403-obama-warns-cantor-dont-call-my-bluff-in-debt-talks

jk the sooner fan
7/14/2011, 08:52 AM
no offense to the mexicans but this is becoming a mexican standoff

frankly Obama is in a no win situation - if he gives in - he's caved and lost his base and looks beaten

if the right caves in - they can say they sacrificed their position to save Mericuh....and were not able to get the President to change his position

not that the congress wouldnt suffer because of it but i think its a lose lose situation for Obama

JohnnyMack
7/14/2011, 09:03 AM
It's interesting to see the fracture that's starting to emerge in the Republican party. This "Hell No Caucus" seems to be led mostly by newly minted members of congress while old veterans like Boehner and Mitch McConnell are showing a bit more willingness to bend.

I agree with (grumpy, stodgy, old) jk that this really is a no-win situation; but I'd go so far as to say that neither side will "win" here.

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 09:07 AM
Obama is in a no win situation because he is going against what the vast majority of the American public want.

I don't want anyone accusing me of cherry picking polls, so here is a bunch of them.

-Gallup: Americans paying attention oppose debt-ceiling increase almost 2-1 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx)
-CBS poll shows 69% opposed to a debt-ceiling increase (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070207-503544.html)
-Poll: Majority support a balanced budget amendment (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/)
-Poll shows more people concerned about national debt than national default (http://people-press.org/2011/05/24/more-concern-about-raising-debt-limit-than-government-default/)
-Poll shows Americans getting more pessimistic on economy, want spending cuts (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/161307-hill-poll-voters-find-recession-blues-hard-to-shake)
-Americans oppose raising debt ceiling by more than 2-1 in Gallup survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147524/Americans-Oppose-Raising-Debt-Ceiling.aspx)
-CBS poll shows Americans oppose debt-ceiling hike 2-1 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.html)
-Hill poll shows 62% opposed to raising the debt ceiling (http://thehill.com/polls/142369-voters-oppose-raising-the-143t-debt-ceiling)

jk the sooner fan
7/14/2011, 09:07 AM
oh trust me - if Obama caves to the right (who has the last election in their pocket) - that will be a BIG win for them - and extremely empowering

just my opinion of course

lexsooner
7/14/2011, 09:08 AM
As always, this is all about the parties themselves and their power and ability to get re-elected, and the interests of those they represent are an after-thought.

JohnnyMack
7/14/2011, 09:10 AM
oh trust me - if Obama caves to the right (who has the last election in their pocket) - that will be a BIG win for them - and extremely empowering

just my opinion of course

But if they get what they want and the economy continues to be stagnant, Obama will finger bang them into oblivion in the upcoming election. It's one of the main reasons R's should be careful how much ownership of this economy they take on.

Midtowner
7/14/2011, 09:19 AM
I see this differently. Obama's bottom line, at least what he's telling the public, is that he wants tax hikes for the wealthy and the closing of tax loopholes for already extremely profitable businesses. The Republicans are apparently willing to tank the economy over their principled stance in support of billionaires, while wanting to stick the entire cost of deficit reduction to the poor and middle class. That stance isn't principled, it's thoroughly corrupt.

soonerscuba
7/14/2011, 09:22 AM
I see this differently. Obama's bottom line, at least what he's telling the public, is that he wants tax hikes for the wealthy and the closing of tax loopholes for already extremely profitable businesses. The Republicans are apparently willing to tank the economy over their principled stance in support of billionaires, while wanting to stick the entire cost of deficit reduction to the poor and middle class. That stance isn't principled, it's thoroughly corrupt.IBT"Job creators".

Seriously, Republicans are walking away from $3T in cuts to kowtow to the loons? Strange days.

Midtowner
7/14/2011, 09:24 AM
IBT"Job creators".

Seriously, Republicans are walking away from $3T in cuts to kowtow to the loons? Strange days.

Those jobs exist with or without tax loopholes. Oil and gas, for example, will remain ridiculously profitable--just not as profitable. Right now, for whatever reason, we're saying that one industry's profit should be increased at taxpayer expense compared to industries without powerful lobbyists.

That ain't the free market. I thought that was what Republicans wanted? A free market? Not big government picking winners?

OUMallen
7/14/2011, 09:29 AM
no offense to the mexicans but this is becoming a mexican standoff

frankly Obama is in a no win situation - if he gives in - he's caved and lost his base and looks beaten

if the right caves in - they can say they sacrificed their position to save Mericuh....and were not able to get the President to change his position

not that the congress wouldnt suffer because of it but i think its a lose lose situation for Obama

It's this thinking that is dirving us into the ground.

Right now there IS no win-win, lose-lose, GOP or Dems. There's a government and it needs to get fixed. Period. The time for posturing and only making politically expedient decisions is over.

CrimsonCream
7/14/2011, 09:32 AM
no offense to the mexicans but this is becoming a mexican standoff

:)

What a divisive President this guy is. He's got the Country totally f*cked up and won't stop the spending.

I'm thinking the majority of the people are now all Obamaed out.

jk the sooner fan
7/14/2011, 09:35 AM
if we're cutting 3Trillion - why is there a need to raise the debt ceiling - this is what the impasse is about - at least as i understand it

i believe THATS what most American's are responding to in the polls...Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling

maybe my understanding of the issue is too simplistic

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 09:39 AM
if we're cutting 3Trillion - why is there a need to raise the debt ceiling - this is what the impasse is about - at least as i understand it

i believe THATS what most American's are responding to in the polls...Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling

maybe my understanding of the issue is too simplistic

Because that 3 trillion is over something like 10 years and it is extremely backloaded.. Well after Obama is out of office(even if he is lucky enough to get reelected).

Obama wants the tax increases now, and for exchange, spending cuts well down the road. This is the same trick that the Dems pulled on Bush 1. Taxes went up, he got voted out of office and the spending cuts never happened.

On just the numbers, the two parties really are not that far apart. The difference is the Repubs are demanding immediate spending cuts.. Obama and the Dems don't want that.

JohnnyMack
7/14/2011, 09:44 AM
if we're cutting 3Trillion - why is there a need to raise the debt ceiling - this is what the impasse is about - at least as i understand it

i believe THATS what most American's are responding to in the polls...Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling

maybe my understanding of the issue is too simplistic

Because we've already accrued the debt? I mean right or wrong the debt exists. It's like running up a credit card bill and then throwing the card away and saying, "I don't feel like paying this".

I mean going forward, sure, I think we'd all agree that spending cuts (including, *gasp* military spending) should take place, but to say we're not going to pay for what we've racked up seems silly.

okie52
7/14/2011, 09:55 AM
Because that 3 trillion is over something like 10 years and it is extremely backloaded.. Well after Obama is out of office(even if he is lucky enough to get reelected).

Obama wants the tax increases now, and for exchange, spending cuts well down the road. This is the same trick that the Dems pulled on Bush 1. Taxes went up, he got voted out of office and the spending cuts never happened.

On just the numbers, the two parties really are not that far apart. The difference is the Repubs are demanding immediate spending cuts.. Obama and the Dems don't want that.

Details, details... you are missing the spirit of Obama's compromise.

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 09:59 AM
Details, details... you are missing the spirit of Obama's compromise.

That spirit was clear when "the adult in the room", started making threats and stomping out of the room...

soonerscuba
7/14/2011, 10:01 AM
if we're cutting 3Trillion - why is there a need to raise the debt ceiling - this is what the impasse is about - at least as i understand it

i believe THATS what most American's are responding to in the polls...Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling

maybe my understanding of the issue is too simplisticIt's $3T over time, with $1T in tax increases, also over time. The money is spent, we have an obligation to our debt and the ceiling must be raised for us to meet that obligation. Also, there is no agreement laid out yet, so the onus would be to detail out the cuts, anybody claiming to know the timing or area of cuts beyond what has been stated publicly is probably trying to fit their own narrative.

There was a time when it was Republican fantasy that Dems would put Medicare and Medicaid on the table, it's a fantastic deal for a party that controls only a majority of the House. I personally don't think it's a good idea, but I have a 401k so I would prefer the House Republicans not cause that to be shot to hell. As we approach the deadline, Republicans might be in position to choose between making corporate investors happy and the Tea Party happy, which could be interesting to see.

TheHumanAlphabet
7/14/2011, 10:02 AM
Does this make any sense? Isn't he admitting that he is bluffing and that he will fold if pushed? Shouldn't he say, "I'm not bluffing." or something like that?

I could care less. Or is that couldn't.. I bet Obama would say could.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/171403-obama-warns-cantor-dont-call-my-bluff-in-debt-talks

O'bummer is a tool and a old chicago thug who is going to try and Chicago style this budget crap through. Boehner I hope has the guts to call him out and out manuever the tool.

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 10:02 AM
Obama is in a no win situation because he is going against what the vast majority of the American public want.

I don't want anyone accusing me of cherry picking polls, so here is a bunch of them.
[/URL]


First, I'll point out that neither side is against raising the debt ceiling. The argument is about the conditions required to raise the debt ceiling.

And that brings me to my next point....

Some of those polls don't say anything about the conditions - just that Americans are against raising the debt ceiling. That means that the majority of Americans want us to default on our debt as there is no practical way to meet our obligations short-term without a debt ceiling increase.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the opinions of those who want us to default. Hell, if we're going to make a simple choice to default and destroy our currrency/credit-worthiness/etc then we might as well run the debt up some more before doing so. Either way we're f'ed.

Luckily, Congress is smarter than the average American and they know that simply defaulting is a horrible choice.

soonerscuba
7/14/2011, 10:03 AM
O'bummer is a tool and a old chicago thug who is going to try and Chicago style this budget crap through. Boehner I hope has the guts to call him out and out manuever the tool.What does that even mean?

BU BEAR
7/14/2011, 10:06 AM
What does that even mean?

Obama = Thug, not a leader

hawaii 5-0
7/14/2011, 10:07 AM
I think there's a small crack forming in Canter's spine. The Big Business Bigshots have sent a signal to McConnell and Boehner to cut a deal and Canter's not getting the message.

I's just a matter of how much egg will get on Canter's face.


5-0


Trump/ Snoop 2012

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 10:09 AM
:)

What a divisive President this guy is. He's got the Country totally f*cked up and won't stop the spending.

I'm thinking the majority of the people are now all Obamaed out.

What news have you been watching? Seems like he's willing to make major cuts. Seems to me the Republicans are willing to f' the economy so to protect some stupid "no tax increase" pledge.

We've done almost nothing but cut taxes for 30 years. At some point, with our current fiscal crisis, the "no more taxes" group will have to admit that we have to make a move in the other direction.

The Profit
7/14/2011, 10:12 AM
Obama is holding the winning hand on this thing. He might even get the $4 trillion over 10 years that he is looking for in debt reduction.

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 10:21 AM
What news have you been watching? Seems like he's willing to make major cuts. Seems to me the Republicans are willing to f' the economy so to protect some stupid "no tax increase" pledge.

We've done almost nothing but cut taxes for 30 years. At some point, with our current fiscal crisis, the "no more taxes" group will have to admit that we have to make a move in the other direction.


Don't confuse taxes with revenue. We have a short term revenue problem because of the economy, but the long term problem we have is spending..

http://blog.cabinetmeeting.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/inflation-adjusted-spending-2010.png

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 10:22 AM
Because that 3 trillion is over something like 10 years and it is extremely backloaded.. Well after Obama is out of office(even if he is lucky enough to get reelected).



I can't comment on your statement about the cuts being backloaded and the tax increases being immediate. I'm not aware of those details.

However, I can repeat what Republicans have been saying in public. They want major spending cuts and will not accept any tax increases. There seems to be no compromise - at least according according to their public statements.

If their arguments are more nuanced then come out and say so. If you keep saying "absolutely no tax increases" then you've given up any right to argue about these so called details.

Breadburner
7/14/2011, 10:26 AM
I bet The Lame One has never even balanced his own check-book....

OutlandTrophy
7/14/2011, 10:27 AM
He might even get the $4 trillion over 10 years that he is looking for in debt reduction.


That's roughly 3 years worth of deficit eliminated over a ten year period. All the while making the total deficit evel larger.

Does that make sense to anyone?

We're going to get a POS piece of legislation that does nothing to fix our problem. We're going to kick the freaking can down the road yet again.

OutlandTrophy
7/14/2011, 10:28 AM
I can't comment on your statement about the cuts being backloaded and the tax increases being immediate. I'm not aware of those details.

However, I can repeat what Republicans have been saying in public. They want major spending cuts and will not accept any tax increases. There seems to be no compromise - at least according according to their public statements.

If their arguments are more nuanced then come out and say so. If you keep saying "absolutely no tax increases" then you've given up any right to argue about these so called details.

Is this any different in the Democrats not budging about wanting to raise taxes?

Neither group is really interested in fixing the problem.

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 10:29 AM
Don't confuse taxes with revenue. We have a short term revenue problem because of the economy, but the long term problem we have is spending..


Funny you mention that, Tuba/RLIMC/etc always mention how Obama ran a huge deficit but fail to mention how much of this was caused by the decrease in revenue due to the major recession. This point generally gets lost and is only brought up when convenient.

Why don't you bring this chart up when RLIMC goes off about how Obama created a huge deficit? The chart clearly tells a different picture - that the recession that began in the late 2000's caused the deficit.

JohnnyMack
7/14/2011, 10:29 AM
That's roughly 3 years worth of deficit eliminated over a ten year period. All the while making the total deficit evel larger.

Does that make sense to anyone?

We're going to get a POS piece of legislation that does nothing to fix our problem. We're going to kick the freaking can down the road yet again.

The trick to being good at kick the can is speed. That and not being afraid to throw an elbow or two on the race back to the can.

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 10:34 AM
Is this any different in the Democrats not budging about wanting to raise taxes?

Neither group is really interested in fixing the problem.

Hmmm. One side is agreeing to make major spending cuts in addition to tax increases. The other is only accepting spending cuts.

You don't see a difference there?

Let me give you an analogy. You and I are trying to figure out what to do with the abandoned railway. I want to make it a bike path. You want to turn it into a road for motorized vehicles. I agree to split the difference and allow both. You hold firm on your motorized vehicle stance. Do you appear to be compromising here?

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 10:46 AM
Funny you mention that, Tuba/RLIMC/etc always mention how Obama ran a huge deficit but fail to mention how much of this was caused by the decrease in revenue due to the major recession. This point generally gets lost and is only brought up when convenient.

Why don't you bring this chart up when RLIMC goes off about how Obama created a huge deficit? The chart clearly tells a different picture - that the recession that began in the late 2000's caused the deficit.

But the recession is/should be short term..

These are the cold hard facts and numbers. Since 2007 spending has went up 1 trillion dollars annually. From 2.6 trillion to 3.6 trillion. All of that is deficit spending. And even if the economy returned to what it was, that trillion annually would remain deficit spending.

My opinion: I haven't seen anywhere that the Dems are willing to give up 4 trillion in spending... The number I have seen is 1.5 trillion. But for the sake of this argument, I will say 4 trillion.. That is over 10 years. Which still leave 6 trillion of additional deficit spending over that same 10 years that we cannot pay in the first place. I am willing to bet the number comes in under 2 trillion unless it is very backloaded. And that is nothing.. Nothing. None of that addresses skyrocketing Medicare costs or SS.

In short.. If you look at the problem from a simple math point of view and not a political point of view, the answer is pretty simple.. We are doomed.

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 10:51 AM
Hmmm. One side is agreeing to make major spending cuts in addition to tax increases. The other is only accepting spending cuts.

You don't see a difference there?

Let me give you an analogy. You and I are trying to figure out what to do with the abandoned railway. I want to make it a bike path. You want to turn it into a road for motorized vehicles. I agree to split the difference and allow both. You hold firm on your motorized vehicle stance. Do you appear to be compromising here?

Nice analogy. Just add in the part where neither of you have the money to do either and you are getting close.

OutlandTrophy
7/14/2011, 10:52 AM
heh

CrimsonCream
7/14/2011, 11:17 AM
[QUOTE=jkjsooner;3291310]Seems like he's willing to make major cuts./QUOTE]

Where exactly are these major cuts that he's talking about? Specifically? No generalities. He talks in generalities and everything is after the election.

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 11:22 AM
Where exactly are these major cuts that he's talking about? Specifically? No generalities. He talks in generalities and everything is after the election.

Crimson,

pay attention! It was in Obama's budget that he submitted! You know the one that increased spending? The one that was voted down in the Senate 97-0.

;)

The Profit
7/14/2011, 11:23 AM
His cuts are primarily based upon what is paid to hospitals by medicare and medicade. His cuts in social security spending deal primarily with administration. No actual benefits would be touched.

This is why you see commercials from health care groups (e.g. hospital corporations) protesting the proposed cuts. Everyone has an interest, which is why nothing ever gets done.

CrimsonCream
7/14/2011, 11:52 AM
Everyone has an interest, which is why nothing ever gets done.

Agreed.

And Obama sure isn't going to rock that proverbial boat. He's far more interested in having his @ss pampered and kissed for another four years.

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:02 PM
I see this differently. Obama's bottom line, at least what he's telling the public, is that he wants tax hikes for the wealthy and the closing of tax loopholes for already extremely profitable businesses. The Republicans are apparently willing to tank the economy over their principled stance in support of billionaires, while wanting to stick the entire cost of deficit reduction to the poor and middle class. That stance isn't principled, it's thoroughly corrupt.

It is not just the repubs...the dems share equally...

What have the dems put on the table for cuts? Do we really know? Obama has said he will give in to some benefit cuts in SS and Medicare...how much? Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen any real specifics...

Mrs. Pelosi doesn't seem to like the talk about SS/Med benefit cuts...why not backhand her like we are using the repubs as a punching bag...

To appose raising the age to receive benefits by two years is asinine...

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:05 PM
I can't comment on your statement about the cuts being backloaded and the tax increases being immediate. I'm not aware of those details.

However, I can repeat what Republicans have been saying in public. They want major spending cuts and will not accept any tax increases. There seems to be no compromise - at least according according to their public statements.

If their arguments are more nuanced then come out and say so. If you keep saying "absolutely no tax increases" then you've given up any right to argue about these so called details.

And Nancy and her ilk are saying no cuts to SS/Med...

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:07 PM
Funny you mention that, Tuba/RLIMC/etc always mention how Obama ran a huge deficit but fail to mention how much of this was caused by the decrease in revenue due to the major recession. This point generally gets lost and is only brought up when convenient.

Why don't you bring this chart up when RLIMC goes off about how Obama created a huge deficit? The chart clearly tells a different picture - that the recession that began in the late 2000's caused the deficit.

And the recession in the late 2000's is because of policy that was put in place and expanding in the 90's...

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 12:19 PM
And Nancy and her ilk are saying no cuts to SS/Med...

My response was relating to Obama not Pelosi.

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:21 PM
But the recession is/should be short term..

These are the cold hard facts and numbers. Since 2007 spending has went up 1 trillion dollars annually. From 2.6 trillion to 3.6 trillion. All of that is deficit spending. And even if the economy returned to what it was, that trillion annually would remain deficit spending.

My opinion: I haven't seen anywhere that the Dems are willing to give up 4 trillion in spending... The number I have seen is 1.5 trillion. But for the sake of this argument, I will say 4 trillion.. That is over 10 years. Which still leave 6 trillion of additional deficit spending over that same 10 years that we cannot pay in the first place. I am willing to bet the number comes in under 2 trillion unless it is very backloaded. And that is nothing.. Nothing. None of that addresses skyrocketing Medicare costs or SS.

In short.. If you look at the problem from a simple math point of view and not a political point of view, the answer is pretty simple.. We are doomed.

All of the revenue brought in this year will not pay for the Human Resources part of the budget...

In 2011 if we cut Human Resources by 10% and then eliminate all other spending we would still be in the red by 80 billion.....


In Obama's current budget spending grows by 19% between now and 2016...

In Obama's current budget revenue grows by 80% between now and 2016...

He is expecting 19.3% of GDP in 2016..a number that has only been hit 6 times since 1940...twice during WWII and four times during the stock boom of the late 90's...

To be honest 19.3% is probably too low...we need to milk out 20-21% for a a period of time (5-10 years) to get us out of this mess....

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:23 PM
My response was relating to Obama not Pelosi.

Just saying it is not only the repubs that have dug in their heels...

i would have those suckers working till 11 pm each and every night...7 days a week...till they get the job done or they die...

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 12:24 PM
And the recession in the late 2000's is because of policy that was put in place and expanding in the 90's...

And what were those policies? Deregulation - a Republican hallmark. Last I checked Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are all Republicans and Clinton was downright conservative in his deregulation ideas.

And of course none of that can be blamed on Obama.

BU BEAR
7/14/2011, 12:24 PM
Does this make any sense? Isn't he admitting that he is bluffing and that he will fold if pushed? Shouldn't he say, "I'm not bluffing." or something like that?



POTUS is not responsible for what comes out of his mouth when the TOTUS is not plugged in.

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:29 PM
They have been dicking around with this mess since at least Jan...

January...over 6 months ago...and now they have their backs to the wall...they spent time campaigning...playing golf...going on trips...enjoying the 4th of July...

And now we face disaster in two weeks...

We should pick one repub and one demo and get enough sigs for a recall election..and keep throwing their sorry azzes out until they get the message..

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:31 PM
And what were those policies? Deregulation - a Republican hallmark. Last I checked Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are all Republicans and Clinton was downright conservative in his deregulation ideas.

And of course none of that can be blamed on Obama.

I will let this right wing medial source explain it to you...

PBS Frontline

Take an hour and enlighten yourself...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

GKeeper316
7/14/2011, 12:33 PM
Obama is in a no win situation because he is going against what the vast majority of the American public want.

I don't want anyone accusing me of cherry picking polls, so here is a bunch of them.

-Gallup: Americans paying attention oppose debt-ceiling increase almost 2-1 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148454/Debt-Ceiling-Increase-Remains-Unpopular-Americans.aspx)
-CBS poll shows 69% opposed to a debt-ceiling increase (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20070207-503544.html)
-Poll: Majority support a balanced budget amendment (http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/)
-Poll shows more people concerned about national debt than national default (http://people-press.org/2011/05/24/more-concern-about-raising-debt-limit-than-government-default/)
-Poll shows Americans getting more pessimistic on economy, want spending cuts (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/161307-hill-poll-voters-find-recession-blues-hard-to-shake)
-Americans oppose raising debt ceiling by more than 2-1 in Gallup survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147524/Americans-Oppose-Raising-Debt-Ceiling.aspx)
-CBS poll shows Americans oppose debt-ceiling hike 2-1 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.html)
-Hill poll shows 62% opposed to raising the debt ceiling (http://thehill.com/polls/142369-voters-oppose-raising-the-143t-debt-ceiling)

the vast majority of americans are ****in idiots... the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average american voter.

TheHumanAlphabet
7/14/2011, 12:34 PM
I think there's a small crack forming in Canter's spine. The Big Business Bigshots have sent a signal to McConnell and Boehner to cut a deal and Canter's not getting the message.

I's just a matter of how much egg will get on Canter's face.



I doubt that. Go Cantor...

TheHumanAlphabet
7/14/2011, 12:36 PM
What news have you been watching? Seems like he's willing to make major cuts. Seems to me the Republicans are willing to f' the economy so to protect some stupid "no tax increase" pledge.

We've done almost nothing but cut taxes for 30 years. At some point, with our current fiscal crisis, the "no more taxes" group will have to admit that we have to make a move in the other direction.

O'bummer is not for "major" cuts. He is about hiding it in future budgets where we ALL KNOW it won't happen. He is trying to smoke and mirror it away while Boehner and Cator are about real solutions and real budget cuts!

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:37 PM
I don't believe I ever said it was Obama's fault...

I believe I have stated that the late 200's recession was caused by policy that was set 20 years ago...

I believe I have stated that tax increases based on the Clinton rate will not be enough...

I believe I have stated that the spending cuts under consideration will not be nearly enough...

I believe I have stated that both sides have dug in their heels are are unwilling to move...

I believe I have stated that I would keep the lazy sob's at work from 7 am till 11 pm until the get the job done or die...

Probably said some other chit too...but I don't memeber...

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:38 PM
the vast majority of americans are ****in idiots... the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average american voter.

I won't go so far as to say it is the vast majority...but there are a bunch of em...

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 12:54 PM
I will let this right wing medial source explain it to you...

PBS Frontline

Take an hour and enlighten yourself...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

I've seen it more than once. I'm not sure how that refutes anything I've said.

It is true that many in the Clinton administration are severely criticized in that documentary. I'll be the first to offer criticism.

In many ways I'm much more conservative than Clinton but in the area of deregulation (and when I speak of deregulation I also speak of the unwillingness to enforce existing regulations) I think Clinton was completely wrong.

Clinton hardly started the game. Reagan played a major role and Greenspan shares as much blame as anyone.

jkjsooner
7/14/2011, 12:57 PM
I don't believe I ever said it was Obama's fault...

I believe I have stated that the late 200's recession was caused by policy that was set 20 years ago...

I believe I have stated that tax increases based on the Clinton rate will not be enough...

I believe I have stated that the spending cuts under consideration will not be nearly enough...

I believe I have stated that both sides have dug in their heels are are unwilling to move...

I believe I have stated that I would keep the lazy sob's at work from 7 am till 11 pm until the get the job done or die...

Probably said some other chit too...but I don't memeber...

I very likely misunderstood the point you were trying to make when you referred back to the '90s.

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:58 PM
I've seen it more than once. I'm not sure how that refutes anything I've said.

It is true that many in the Clinton administration are severely criticized in that documentary. I'll be the first to offer criticism.

In many ways I'm much more conservative than Clinton but in the area of deregulation (and when I speak of deregulation I also speak of the unwillingness to enforce existing regulations) I think Clinton was completely wrong.

Clinton hardly started the game. Reagan played a major role and Greenspan shares as much blame as anyone.

I agree...

The only difference between me and you is that I think the majority of Congress is made up of leaches and you think that less than 50% of the dems are leaches....

:D

CrimsonCream
7/14/2011, 12:59 PM
Really now, what is so wrong with reducing spending by every dollar the Debt Ceiling is raised?

I mean specific cuts in the same timeframe that the increase in debt takes place. No generalities and kicking the can down the road.

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 12:59 PM
I very likely misunderstood the point you were trying to make when you referred back to the '90s.

Maybe so...no big deal...I like to stir the pot....

Veritas
7/14/2011, 12:59 PM
the vast majority of americans are ****in idiots... the best argument against democracy is our last three presidents.
FTFY

XingTheRubicon
7/14/2011, 01:22 PM
the vast majority of americans are ****in idiots... the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average american voter.


Obama gets elected:

"The people have spoken!"


three years later


Everyone, including dems, realize Obama is an inexperienced gooch:

"The vast majority of Americans are ****in idiots!"

OutlandTrophy
7/14/2011, 01:59 PM
the vast majority of americans are ****in idiots... the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average american voter.

you talking about the kind of people that say things like this?


you realize that its a federal crime to discriminate against hiring someone because of political beliefs, right?

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 02:02 PM
All of the revenue brought in this year will not pay for the Human Resources part of the budget...

In 2011 if we cut Human Resources by 10% and then eliminate all other spending we would still be in the red by 80 billion.....


In Obama's current budget spending grows by 19% between now and 2016...

In Obama's current budget revenue grows by 80% between now and 2016...

He is expecting 19.3% of GDP in 2016..a number that has only been hit 6 times since 1940...twice during WWII and four times during the stock boom of the late 90's...

To be honest 19.3% is probably too low...we need to milk out 20-21% for a a period of time (5-10 years) to get us out of this mess....


Do you mean paying all federal employees? Because I wasn't.

Does he really think it is going to grow 80%??

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 02:57 PM
Or slightly different..



Obama gets elected:

"The people have entered a post racial era!"


three years later


Everyone, including dems, realize Obama is an inexperienced gooch:

"The vast majority of Americans are ****in racists!"

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 02:59 PM
A great graph that is what I was posting about earlier.. Remember.. That $4trillion is the max we are talking about.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/gr-pm-debt-savings-462.gif

CrimsonCream
7/14/2011, 03:08 PM
You see where the Dems are now disparging Cantor especially that old fool Harry Reid?

Reid would have gotten his dumb @ss beat if the Republicans would have put up a decent candidate.

Of course, the Loons are now going after Michelle Bachman like they did Palin because they think the woman vote belongs solely to them. Give 25% of the women vote to the Republicans and Obama gets his @ss beat.

I do believe most of the Country is tired of Obama and sleazeness. Such a polarizing President.

The Profit
7/14/2011, 03:29 PM
You see where the Dems are now disparging Cantor especially that old fool Harry Reid?

Reid would have gotten his dumb @ss beat if the Republicans would have put up a decent candidate.

Of course, the Loons are now going after Michelle Bachman like they did Palin because they think the woman vote belongs solely to them. Give 25% of the women vote to the Republicans and Obama gets his @ss beat.

I do believe most of the Country is tired of Obama and sleazeness. Such a polarizing President.





Not nearly as polarizing as the "Idiot from Texas" was. A buddy of mine from college is running Bachmann's campaign. He told me the gays are leading the effort against her. Personally, I think the RNC is using the gays (Log Cabin Republicans) to end her campaign. They know that a wacko like her doesn't stand a chance. The GOP should run either Collins or Snowe of Maine. Either one of them would get the independent vote, and could win. Bachmann nor Palin would stand a chance against Obama.

delhalew
7/14/2011, 03:40 PM
It's this thinking that is dirving us into the ground.

Right now there IS no win-win, lose-lose, GOP or Dems. There's a government and it needs to get fixed. Period. The time for posturing and only making politically expedient decisions is over.

Thank you.

winout
7/14/2011, 05:42 PM
Key years in this debacle (if memory is not failing me):
1913, creation of FED. 1931, creation of SS. 1971, taking us off the gold standard. All parties and (living) generations are culpable. Individual voters may not be. This debt-based monetary system, run by the (too-big-bail) banks is coming to an end.

TitoMorelli
7/14/2011, 05:53 PM
True love is the greatest thing in the world...but that is not what he said. He distinctly said "to blave" and as we all know "to blave" means "to bluff." So you're probably playing cards, and he cheated..


yAcJkZUK9Dg&start=10

Sooner5030
7/14/2011, 06:08 PM
Cuts? You mean that based on projections they will add only $10 trillion to the debt instead of $14 trillion over the next ten years? Yet regardless of their plan all the discretionary spending will be appropriated annually after this ‘agreement’.

Good thing our “free press” has failed to explain to the mob that no current congress can permit or restrict a later congress on appropriations (beyond the fact that you appropriate one year prior to the expenditure). Taxes and entitlement criteria are the only things that can be changed and carry over into other fiscal years.

We are gone….the only hope is that the house of cards will stay together long enough for the rest of us to prepare and for states to think about preventing disorder.

Inflate or default our way outta this mess.

Default and you will create a de facto balanced budget as no one will loan us money……that and we no longer have to service $14 trillion.

Inflate and be forced to face disorder amongst the mob.

pphilfran
7/14/2011, 06:28 PM
Do you mean paying all federal employees? Because I wasn't.

Does he really think it is going to grow 80%??

no, no, no....

Human Resources is one piece of the budget...it comprises SS, Medicare, Medicaid, veteran benefits, and many others...this piece of the budget eats up every cent of revenue in 2011 (plus some)...by 2016 HR costs drop (lower unemployment) and we actually have some money left over for other areas...

2012 we have 280 billion left over
2013 500 billion
2014 670 billion
2015 770 billion
2016 825 billion

At the same time servicing the debt grows and uses nearly every penny of the money left in the piggy bank...

2012 241 billion
2013 321 billion
2014 417 billion
2015 494 billion
2016 562 billion


So we have around 250 billion a year left to pay for everything else...defense, physical resources, international affairs, science, justice, and ag....

The real sickening part?

To get to those numbers we must pull in 19.3% of GDP by 2016...Clinton got that type number with the help of a long term interest rate decline, a business computer revolution, and a dot com bubble....

We need 20% and Clinton's tax rate ain't gonna cut it...

AlboSooner
7/14/2011, 07:22 PM
I'm glad that we read balanced threads about Obama. Unlike many partisan posters who know only to criticize Obama, this Op posts the good and the bad. This OP sees both sides of the coin and rationally while being fair and balanced gives us his opinion on Obama.

Sadly nobody changes their mind, even when presented with such balanced analysis.

Whet
7/14/2011, 07:45 PM
"Isolate and demonize your opponent" Saul Alinsky


Cantor Stands Firm on Debt Negotiations, Democrats Whine
From Fox Snooze:

Eric Cantor’s simmering insistence on avoiding tax hikes has boiled to a political tempest in Washington’s debt negotiations, infuriating Democrats who are now labeling the majority leader as “childish” and forcing Republicans to insist there’s no rift between House Speaker John Boehner and his top deputy.

Senator Harry Reid wants Cantor removed from debt ceiling negotiations.

“Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work,” added a House Democratic source who called Cantor “juvenile.”

Did the Democrats ever stop to think that if America’s dollar value tanks, it will be the regular working folk who suffer most? (Y’know, those people the Democrats pretend to represent?) Even if wealthy people lose 50% of their net worth due to inflation-related causes, they’ll still be wealthier than most people in the world. What about you?

According to Open Secrets, 6 Democrats are among the 10 wealthiest members of Congress.

Democrats benefited far more from McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform than Republicans, experiencing increasing business contributions.

Democrats received over 50% of all business campaign contributions in 2008 and 2010. (I did the spreadsheet, the Open Secrets link shows all sectors.)

McCain-Feingold gave Democrats a decided advantage with 527 contributions, too.

Democrats are doing nothing but protecting their own, and blaming Eric Cantor for it.

Whet
7/14/2011, 07:46 PM
Dems fundrasing:

Senate Dems fundraise off of Obama's 'don't call my bluff' warning
By Daniel Strauss - 07/14/11 05:12 PM ET
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is fundraising off of the debt ceiling negotiations.

In a fundraising email sent out Thursday, DSCC executive director Guy Cecil highlighted a warning President Obama reportedly made to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) during Wednesday's negotiations to increase the debt ceiling.

"Don't call my bluff," Cecil writes in the fundraising email. "These were the strong words President Obama had for Eric Cantor, leader of the Congressional “Hell No” Caucus."

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, Republicans will blame Democrats for the economic fallout, Cecil adds in the email.

"If a debt ceiling deal is not reached, they will spend millions blaming Democrats. And we will need to fight back against every single lie," Cecil writes.

On Wednesday evening, the negotiations became tense when Obama left the meeting after arguing with Cantor about what should be included in a final deal. Republicans said that Obama warned Cantor "don't call my bluff." Obama left the meeting shortly after that.

Over the past few days Democrats have been working to portray Republicans in internal disarray over who's leading the debt ceiling negotiations: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) or Cantor. Democrats also charged that Cantor was the real holdup in a $4 trillion 'grand bargain' debt ceiling increase deal.

On Thursday, the top two Republicans stressed that there was no daylight between them on the negotiations.

“The Speaker and I have consistently been on the same page,” Cantor said.

Whet
7/14/2011, 07:51 PM
Dems creates noise! Why?


Democrats to Introduce Gun Control Legislation Tomorrow

Democrat Representatives Maloney, Cummings and McCarthy, all members of the Minority on the House Oversight Committee chaired by Republican Congressman Issa, plan to hold a press conference tomorrow to announce new gun control anti-gun trafficking legislation in light of Operation Fast and Furious. The "Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act," is designed to "keep high powered firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, including Mexican drug cartels."

U.S. Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) will join other members and a leading law enforcement organization for an event Friday, July 15th, 11:00 a.m. at the House Triangle to introduce the “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act,” which establishes a dedicated firearms trafficking statute to empower law enforcement to keep high-powered firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals, including Mexican drug cartels.

So let me get this straight, democrats want to punish law abiding Americans and impede on Second Amendment rights with new legislation "to prevent gun trafficking to Mexico," however, aren't willing to focus on the ATF and DOJ's role in deliberately putting high powered firearms into the hands of criminals including Mexican drug cartels? It doesn't matter how many gun control laws we have on the books if the federal government is willing to break them to push a political agenda, however, this is not surprising.

FLASHBACK:

“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated.” –Special Agent John Dodson ATF Phoenix Field Division.

Damning new evidence from Capitol Hill shows that ATF Directors and Justice Department Officials knew about and encouraged the purposeful trafficking of thousands of weapons across the southern border, despite strong objections from ATF agents. Thousands of innocent lives were taken as the result, including those of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jamie Zapata.

The announcement of new legislation comes just a day after Townhall obtained emails showing Operation Fast and Furious was designed to promote gun control and four days after the DOJ Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who is under investigation for his involvement in the scandal, released new reporting requirements for multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/07/14/democrats_to_introduce_gun_control_legislation_tom orrow

http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab40/katiepavlich/Screenshot2011-07-14at43131PM.png

Whet
7/14/2011, 08:09 PM
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn82/awanderlust/Obamawhinner.jpg

SicEmBaylor
7/14/2011, 08:12 PM
You see where the Dems are now disparging Cantor especially that old fool Harry Reid?

Reid would have gotten his dumb @ss beat if the Republicans would have put up a decent candidate.

Of course, the Loons are now going after Michelle Bachman like they did Palin because they think the woman vote belongs solely to them. Give 25% of the women vote to the Republicans and Obama gets his @ss beat.

I do believe most of the Country is tired of Obama and sleazeness. Such a polarizing President.

If the people are tired of sleaze, the GOP doesn't have a chance.

sappstuf
7/14/2011, 08:22 PM
We might not be able to turn down this offer..


China Agrees To Erase Portion Of U.S. Debt If Americans Dress Up In Costumes And Perform Silly Dance For Them

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/20/20913/China_Agrees_R_jpg_600x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85_1.jpg

sheepdogs
7/14/2011, 10:16 PM
I see this differently. Obama's bottom line, at least what he's telling the public, is that he wants tax hikes for the wealthy and the closing of tax loopholes for already extremely profitable businesses. The Republicans are apparently willing to tank the economy over their principled stance in support of billionaires, while wanting to stick the entire cost of deficit reduction to the poor and middle class. That stance isn't principled, it's thoroughly corrupt.

When 94% of all federal taxes are collected by those with incomes of 70k or grearter then how is that causing "the entire cost of deficit reduction to the poor and middle class."

If you were a baseball manager and one of your responsibilties was to choose who was to be the 1st baseman what would you base your decision on? If the choice was between a player who hit over .300 and additionally have 40 homer 50 doubles and over a 100 runs batted in and was also an excellent fielder to boot or starting a player who struggled to hit .200 and have 12 home runs 16 doubles 47 runs batted in, and to top it off was a poor fielder, well, who would you start and why?

If you chose the player w/the better numbers then aren't you rewarding the player for being successful at what they do and punishing the other player by having him sit on the bench as basically a bystander? Shouldn't the same go for those who pay the brunt of the taxes such as those who are successful at what they do?


Next time you find yourself at a restaurant and the check comes and the bill is in excess of a thousand dollars and all you ate was a burger and fries along with a soft drink would you not gripe about the charge? And what if the waiter/waitress told you that you were paying the bill for others and then proceeded to point to table after table to illustrate to you why your check was so high. Would you find this a joyful experience. Would you not feel like you were getting the shaft? Would you continue to frequent this establishment?

hawaii 5-0
7/15/2011, 12:26 AM
I doubt that. Go Cantor...



At today's talks Eric Cantor didn't utter a word. He just quietly sat there.

The Cur has been muzzled. :P



5-0



Trump/ Spud 2012

Turd_Ferguson
7/15/2011, 12:38 AM
At today's talks Eric Cantor didn't utter a word. He just quietly sat there.

The Cur has been muzzled. :P



5-0



Trump/ Spud 2012Do you actually take time to change this in every single post of yours?

hawaii 5-0
7/15/2011, 02:06 AM
Do you actually take time to change this in every single post of yours?




I've changed nothing. It 's interesting to see the Majority "Leader" in "action".


BTW, interesting things going on in Wisconsin. "Bout time for another update on Gov. Walker's progressive fall from his throne.



Thanks for hanging on every post I make, Troll.


5-0


Trump/ Spinner 2012

MamaMia
7/15/2011, 02:07 AM
What will Obama do if they call his bluff, and what is his bluff?

hawaii 5-0
7/15/2011, 02:11 AM
What will Obama do if they call his bluff, and what is his bluff?



Like Michelle Bachmann said. Nothing will happen for at least another 18 months. All is well.


I don't know what his bluff is. Ask him.



5-0


Trump/ Larry 2012

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 03:17 AM
What will Obama do if they call his bluff, and what is his bluff?

I think he'd show em naked pics of his old lady - that'd be worse than any physical or political beating could possibly be. That beyotch is nasty. :O

SicEmBaylor
7/15/2011, 03:33 AM
I think he'd show em naked pics of his old lady - that'd be worse than any physical or political beating could possibly be. That beyotch is nasty. :O

Pfft...I've already seen that issue of National Geographic.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 04:14 AM
Pfft...I've already seen that issue of National Geographic.

Yup, he may or may not have come from Kenya, but she sure as hell did! :P

Midtowner
7/15/2011, 07:18 AM
When 94% of all federal taxes are collected by those with incomes of 70k or grearter then how is that causing "the entire cost of deficit reduction to the poor and middle class."

Because the people at the bottom are literally having to choose between buying food and paying rent. They have no excess money and can ill-afford to have money taken from them.

As far as the folks at the top go, they do have excess money and can afford to pay more, or at least they have a better chance to be able to pay more.

Look at how low our wealthy peoples' taxes are versus the rest of the world. Look at our corporate subsidies--ridiculous. Get rid of tax subsidies, lower corporate taxes and raise the marginal rate on the top bracket a few percentage points. We also need cuts to entitlement programs and the military. Our government's spending is unsustainable, and no source of revenue should be such a sacred cow.

winout
7/15/2011, 07:39 AM
Our government's spending is unsustainable, and no source of revenue should be such a sacred cow.

I agree that our spending is unsustainable just don't agree that we should raise taxes but cut spending. Obama said during a recession is bad time to raise taxes. I also agree the we need to cut off all welfare corporate or otherwise. We just cannot keep going at this rate. America is no longer a meritocracy but once you get to the top (too big to fail banks?) you are a protected class. Little guy gets walked on.

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 07:43 AM
Because the people at the bottom are literally having to choose between buying food and paying rent. They have no excess money and can ill-afford to have money taken from them.

As far as the folks at the top go, they do have excess money and can afford to pay more, or at least they have a better chance to be able to pay more.

Look at how low our wealthy peoples' taxes are versus the rest of the world. Look at our corporate subsidies--ridiculous. Get rid of tax subsidies, lower corporate taxes and raise the marginal rate on the top bracket a few percentage points. We also need cuts to entitlement programs and the military. Our government's spending is unsustainable, and no source of revenue should be such a sacred cow.

Look at how wealthy our poor are versus the rest of the world. It isn't even close.

You must hate Obama's energy policy. It is taking money that the poor don't have to give to the "EVIL" corporations...

Midtowner
7/15/2011, 07:44 AM
The gov't has become about protecting the elite, not about helping to maintain a quality standard of living for the middle class and providing a system where the deserving have a shot at rising to the top.

Right now, we have people making billions who do nothing more than create mathematical formulas and run servers making millions of microtrades per day. That doesn't create wealth or efficiently distribute capital.

Our banking system is broken, but Congress seems more interested in protecting the status quo than giving us a system which has a prayer of being sustainable, creating jobs, etc.

Midtowner
7/15/2011, 07:48 AM
Look at how wealthy our poor are versus the rest of the world. It isn't even close.

Depends on where you look. Germany? Sweden? Denmark? No, I'd say their poor are a lot better off. They get quality free health care, have vastly more efficient systems, don't have to serve in the military to be able to even have a chance to go to college (because college is free if you are smart enough to get in). Those countries should be our points of comparison, not Malawi.


You must hate Obama's energy policy. It is taking money that the poor don't have to give to the "EVIL" corporations...

Sure, subsidies of any kind for corporations need to be done away with and the marginal rate for corporations needs to be brought in line with the rest of the world.

CrimsonCream
7/15/2011, 07:55 AM
Not nearly as polarizing as the "Idiot from Texas" was. A buddy of mine from college is running Bachmann's campaign. He told me the gays are leading the effort against her. Personally, I think the RNC is using the gays (Log Cabin Republicans) to end her campaign. They know that a wacko like her doesn't stand a chance. The GOP should run either Collins or Snowe of Maine. Either one of them would get the independent vote, and could win. Bachmann nor Palin would stand a chance against Obama.

Rhetoric like the above is what makes people like you and Obama so dangerous. Everybody on the Right is either an Idiot or Whacko.

Yeah, Obama's brown banana eaters know the Messiah can do no wrong. Lets go through the Checklist again.

./ Spent $4.5 trillion in three years.
./ 9.2% Unemployment.
./ No Federal Budget.
./ Will not protect Arizona's borders.
./ Probable Standard and Poor's downgrade.
./ Keeps raising the Debt Ceiling. Will not quit spending.
./ Tax cheats in the Cabinet.
./ Member of a racist Church.
./ Pathological liar.
./ Advocates bribes, kickbacks, payoffs, etc.
./ Will not prosecute Voter Intimidation.
./ Most divisive President since Lincoln and his Cause was noble.
./ Etc.

No rational and fair-minded person would continue to support this guy.

pphilfran
7/15/2011, 08:02 AM
It is not like we are the only country having a hard time getting out of this mess...

I am not a big Obama fan but most of what we are fighting started decades ago and it will take time to clean up the various problems with the economy...

The amount of money spent was appropriate for the size of the problem...

I don't think he really lies...just doesn't tell the entire story...a true politician...

CrimsonCream
7/15/2011, 08:04 AM
I think he'd show em naked pics of his old lady - that'd be worse than any physical or political beating could possibly be. That beyotch is nasty.

And yet, the corrupt Media gets all wet and misty-eyed over her.

Much like her sleazy husband, she says one thing and does another. Like the fight against Childhood-Obesity and "Lets Move" campaign to promote exercise and ensure children have access to healthy food.

Yet, she slams down a 1,556 calorie lunch at Shake Shack the other day.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 08:12 AM
Where's the nasty yainch at on vacation this week? Surely she's not sittin home while Brack plays Dirty Harry in the debt ceiling meetings.

okie52
7/15/2011, 09:06 AM
Depends on where you look. Germany? Sweden? Denmark? No, I'd say their poor are a lot better off. They get quality free health care, have vastly more efficient systems, don't have to serve in the military to be able to even have a chance to go to college (because college is free if you are smart enough to get in). Those countries should be our points of comparison, not Malawi.



Sure, subsidies of any kind for corporations need to be done away with and the marginal rate for corporations needs to be brought in line with the rest of the world.

Well they all have loser pays so it is little wonder they are doing better.

okie52
7/15/2011, 09:11 AM
Sure, subsidies of any kind for corporations need to be done away with and the marginal rate for corporations needs to be brought in line with the rest of the world.

So you are for doing away with the mortgage interest writeoff?

StoopTroup
7/15/2011, 09:11 AM
And yet, the corrupt Media gets all wet and misty-eyed over her.

Much like her sleazy husband, she says one thing and does another. Like the fight against Childhood-Obesity and "Lets Move" campaign to promote exercise and ensure children have access to healthy food.

Yet, she slams down a 1,556 calorie lunch at Shake Shack the other day.

Dr Oz says it's OK to have one Pig out Day.

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 09:12 AM
Well they all have loser pays so it is little wonder they are doing better.

They don't have minimum wage laws either..

okie52
7/15/2011, 09:13 AM
They don't have minimum wage laws either..

They're barbarians!!!!

TheLadiesMike
7/15/2011, 09:28 AM
Because the people at the bottom are literally having to choose between buying food and paying rent. They have no excess money and can ill-afford to have OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY NO LONGER HANDED TO THEM.

Fixed.

Midtowner
7/15/2011, 09:29 AM
Well they all have loser pays so it is little wonder they are doing better.

I haven't met too many Europeans who are confident in their ability to get a fair shake in their court systems. If you're in favor of giving middle class folks the option between paying for their own losses caused by someone else versus risking complete and utter financial ruin, this sounds like a plan. It'd definitely reduce litigation, but it'd definitely ensure that a lot of people with good claims would just choose not to roll the dice.


So you are for doing away with the mortgage interest writeoff?

I'd like to see a study into its importance in attracting people to home ownership. If it's found that it actually produces economic growth in terms of house construction, loan origination, etc., then leave it. If not, do away with it.

The same should be done for subsidies to favored industries, i.e., oil and gas, ethanol, military, etc.

Midtowner
7/15/2011, 09:31 AM
Fixed.

And the only reason they have to rely on having other peoples' money handed to them is because our minimum wage is not enough to sustain a family, or really, even an individual. And further, lots of folks are having to depend on government welfare because the good unskilled labor was outsourced to foreign countries, a move which the taxpayers subsidized.

jkjsooner
7/15/2011, 09:38 AM
So you are for doing away with the mortgage interest writeoff?

The mortgage interest writeoff should never have existed. These types of benefits in the long run simply get rolled into the price of the house so the buyer is really no better off than they would have been without the deduction.

In some cases, such as a credit for buying a house, the buyer can be harmed. One traditional control on housing prices was the downpayment (be it 20% or 5%) required to buy the house. If you give a credit to cover much of the downpayment you remove much of this built in control. A $10k downpayment credit could easily prop the price of a house up $100k.

The mortgage deduction really only helped two groups:


Those who owned houses before the deduction existed or before the appreciation was fully reflected in the house price. These people saw artificial gains in housing prices.
Those who benefit from the housing industry.


In addition, a mortgage deduction is fairly regressive. It helps someone who has already exceeded the standard deduction with state taxes (or other deductions) much more than the person who does not meet the standard deduction with other deductible means.


Now, all that said, I'm buying a house at the moment. That deduction is in some respects rolled into the price of the house. If they remove it now I'm going to be pissed.

okie52
7/15/2011, 09:38 AM
I haven't met too many Europeans who are confident in their ability to get a fair shake in their court systems. If you're in favor of giving middle class folks the option between paying for their own losses caused by someone else versus risking complete and utter financial ruin, this sounds like a plan. It'd definitely reduce litigation, but it'd definitely ensure that a lot of people with good claims would just choose not to roll the dice.



I'd like to see a study into its importance in attracting people to home ownership. If it's found that it actually produces economic growth in terms of house construction, loan origination, etc., then leave it. If not, do away with it.

The same should be done for subsidies to favored industries, i.e., oil and gas, ethanol, military, etc.

Military?

I'm sure that every industry can show an economic benefit from a "subsidy"...in fact ethanol wouldn't be here without it.

okie52
7/15/2011, 09:44 AM
The mortgage interest writeoff should never have existed. These types of benefits in the long run simply get rolled into the price of the house so the buyer is really no better off than they would have been without the deduction.

In some cases, such as a credit for buying a house, the buyer can be harmed. One traditional control on housing prices was the downpayment (be it 20% or 5%) required to buy the house. If you give a credit to cover much of the downpayment you remove much of this built in control. A $10k downpayment credit could easily prop the price of a house up $100k.

The mortgage deduction really only helped two groups:


Those who owned houses before the deduction existed or before the appreciation was fully reflected in the house price. These people saw artificial gains in housing prices.
Those who benefit from the housing industry.


In addition, a mortgage deduction is fairly regressive. It helps someone who has already exceeded the standard deduction with state taxes (or other deductions) much more than the person who does not meet the standard deduction with other deductible means.


Now, all that said, I'm buying a house at the moment. That deduction is in some respects rolled into the price of the house. If they remove it now I'm going to be pissed.

I'm not an economist but I have heard many state that the housing industry drives the economy. Now I certainly would view a home purchase differently if I couldn't write off $36-48,000 a year in house payments. I would assume that to be true for most home buyers (at whatever level). It is certainly a primary consideration vs renting.

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 10:19 AM
They're barbarians!!!!

As was said before, those countries should be our points of comparison, not Malawi.

Malawi has a minimum wage..

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 10:22 AM
Make sure you play the Obama drinking game... Anytime he says the following, take a drink!

Let me be clear
Some say
Millionaires and Billionaires
Oil Companies
Corporate Jet Owners
Families suffering
Seniors, Military, Disabled
Me, I, My, Mine
Republicans
Radical
If not now, when?
Fierce urgency of now
Must do this now
Kick the can
Green Energy
Roads and Bridges
Crumbling infrastructure

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 10:24 AM
Make sure you play the Obama drinking game... Anytime he says the following, take a drink!

Let me be clear
Some say
Millionaires and Billionaires
Oil Companies
Corporate Jet Owners
Families suffering
Seniors, Military, Disabled
Me, I, My, Mine
Republicans
Radical
If not now, when?
Fierce urgency of now
Must do this now
Kick the can
Green Energy
Roads and Bridges
Crumbling infrastructure

Like I'm gonna listen to that jackass. :P

StoopTroup
7/15/2011, 10:29 AM
I can't remember a President that had as many sit downs with the press. It would probably make a good drinking game if there weren't so many folks trying to put an end to his Administration and the Middle Class.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 10:30 AM
I can't remember a President that had as many sit downs with the press. It would probably make a good drinking game if there weren't so many folks trying to put an end to his Administration and the Middle Class.

So...do these two things go hand in hand?

StoopTroup
7/15/2011, 10:31 AM
Brock is nearly 50 and will be eligible to get his AARP Card and the discounts. Talk about having a little extra for beer.

StoopTroup
7/15/2011, 10:33 AM
So...do these two things go hand in hand?

It depends if Texas decides to force us all on the Gold Standard.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 10:34 AM
It depends if Texas decides to force us all on the Gold Standard.

Hmmm...I live in Texas and I'm fairly proud of the state (not UT at all), but I didn't know we carried that big a stick nationally..:confused:

StoopTroup
7/15/2011, 10:37 AM
Tuck Fexas!

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 10:38 AM
You gotta explain how Texas is gonna put us all on the gold standard and ultimately kill the middle class because of it...

3rdgensooner
7/15/2011, 10:39 AM
I think he'd show em naked pics of his old lady - that'd be worse than any physical or political beating could possibly be. That beyotch is nasty.


Pfft...I've already seen that issue of National Geographic.


Yup, he may or may not have come from Kenya, but she sure as hell did! Wow

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 10:41 AM
Wow

I know right! You see it too?

TitoMorelli
7/15/2011, 10:54 AM
At today's talks Eric Cantor didn't utter a word. He just quietly sat there.

The Cur has been muzzled. :P



5-0



Trump/ Spud 2012

If he's been muzzled, it sure wasn't by the conniver-in-chief. Perhaps Boehner told him to just sit back and watch as our president hoists himself with his own petard.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 10:57 AM
Sounds like just being passive aggressive to me, I don't think Brack puts fear into anyone.

The Profit
7/15/2011, 10:58 AM
I think he'd show em naked pics of his old lady - that'd be worse than any physical or political beating could possibly be. That beyotch is nasty. :O



Really??? As nasty as Barbara Bush was? I don't think so.

JohnnyMack
7/15/2011, 11:06 AM
I'm confused as to whether Obama is a limp-wristed pantywaist who has no control or if he's a conniving, evil genius hell bent on the destruction of western civilization. Y'all need to get youselves straight.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 11:08 AM
I'm confused as to whether Obama is a limp-wristed pantywaist who has no control or if he's a conniving, evil genius hell bent on the destruction of western civilization. Y'all need to get youselves straight.

Yes.

Curly Bill
7/15/2011, 11:10 AM
Philosophically he's a conniving, evil not guite genius hell bent on the destruction of western civilization. Physically however he's a limp-wristed pantywaist.

Turd_Ferguson
7/15/2011, 11:11 AM
Yes.Can't. Been bent for too long...

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 11:41 AM
I'm glad Obama's press conference wasn't a waste of time. He gave us specifics, so that we, the American public can know what is going on during this negotiation.

Here is what President Obama said:


I’m not going to get into specifics.

CrimsonCream
7/15/2011, 11:44 AM
^^^^

Unbelievable!

See, you just cannot pin the greasy son of a b!tch down.

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 11:44 AM
Meanwhile, the House has scheduled a vote to increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion and reduce spending by the same amount over 10 years.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'm sure the Dems will demagogue till the cows come home.

sheepdogs
7/15/2011, 11:56 AM
Because the people at the bottom are literally having to choose between buying food and paying rent. They have no excess money and can ill-afford to have money taken from them.

As far as the folks at the top go, they do have excess money and can afford to pay more, or at least they have a better chance to be able to pay more.

Look at how low our wealthy peoples' taxes are versus the rest of the world. Look at our corporate subsidies--ridiculous. Get rid of tax subsidies, lower corporate taxes and raise the marginal rate on the top bracket a few percentage points. We also need cuts to entitlement programs and the military. Our government's spending is unsustainable, and no source of revenue should be such a sacred cow.

First off, the lowest wage earners only pay for Medicare and Social Security and that is it, and the Social Security system is biased towards the lowest wage earners such that they will receive much more than they kick in individually. On the other hand, the highest wage earners will never recoup the money they pay in to the systen due to a cap on benefits.

Do you have excess money of any consequence so as to help those that are in need? And if you can't provide those in need of money could you not substitute that money with "time" and put forth effort to help those that are in need?

Lastly, if you provide those that are not successful at what they do with subsidies all it will do is foster laziness, a lack of respect for education and so on. If you provided alcohol to an alcoholic would they not drink it?

winout
7/15/2011, 12:12 PM
Did you catch the Bernake testimony on Weds? He basically admitted SS was a pyramid scheme when we said "it works well when shaped like a pyramid but not so great when shaped like a rectangle."

soonerscuba
7/15/2011, 12:14 PM
For as much as I didn't care for W, I can honestly say I never once gave a damn what his wife ate for lunch. I have a hard time finding the mindset in which one begins to care, let alone think it's an issue.

mightysooner
7/15/2011, 01:43 PM
I just want to add that this sock puppet President is currently losing to a big white question mark in the polls by 8 points. Lemme guess......"Raaaacist!"

3rdgensooner
7/15/2011, 01:55 PM
The Debt Ceiling Showdown – Where the Public Stands (http://people-press.org/2011/07/14/the-debt-ceiling-showdown-%E2%80%93-where-the-public-stands/)

The nation is headed toward a possible government default on Aug. 2 if no agreement is reached to raise the debt ceiling. The public is still coming to grips with this complex issue, but recent Pew Research Center surveys show that opinions are beginning to take shape:

The Bottom Line. The public has grown more concerned recently that failing to raise the debt limit would force the government into default and hurt the economy. However, fewer than half of Americans (42%) say their greater concern is over not raising the debt limit; about as many (47%) say their greater concern is that raising the debt limit would lead to more government spending, according to this week’s survey (http://people-press.org/2011/07/11/public-now-divided-on-debt-limit-debate/) by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post. The deep partisan divisions evident in Washington’s negotiations over the debt ceiling are reflected in the survey’s results – most Republicans (66%) are more concerned by the consequences of increasing the debt limit; most Democrats (54%) are more worried by the fallout from not raising it.

No Panic – Yet. The debt crisis has been the dominant issue in Washington for weeks, but public interest in this story has been relatively modest. In this week’s News Interest Index survey (http://people-press.org/2011/07/13/casey-anthony-verdict-top-story-for-public-and-social-networkers/), just 25% said they are tracking the debt talks very closely, a figure that has changed little in recent weeks. Interest is likely to grow as the Aug. 2 deadline approaches, however. During the budget showdown in the spring, public attentiveness ramped up dramatically when a last-minute compromise narrowly averted a government shutdown.

A Complicated Issue. The Pew Research Center/Washington Post survey found that just 18% feel they understand this issue very well, while another 37% say they understand it fairly well. That is relatively low, particularly considering that in the fall of 2008, far more (75%) said they understood the problems in financial and housing markets very or fairly well, which involved terms like troubled assets, underwater mortgages and “too big to fail.”

Balancing Priorities. Few disagree that the budget deficit is an urgent problem –in late May (http://people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/), 74% said it is a major problem the country must address now. But when asked which economic issue worried them most, more cited the job situation than the budget deficit (by 38% to 28%). Pew Research’s annual policy priorities survey in January (http://people-press.org/2011/01/20/economy-dominates-publics-agenda-dims-hopes-for-the-future/) showed that the percentage saying that reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority jumped from 53% in 2009 to 64% this year. But the deficit ranked far lower than the economy (87%) and jobs (84%) on the public’s 2011 agenda.

Don’t Cut Benefits. For the public, reducing the deficit is a much lower priority than preserving the benefits provided by Social Security and Medicare: In mid-June (http://people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/), 60% said it was more important to keep these benefits as they are, while just 32% said it was more important to reduce the deficit. Less affluent Republicans view preserving entitlements as more important, while Republicans with higher incomes prioritize deficit reduction. Democrats across income categories say it is more important to keep benefits as they are.

Taxes in the Mix. Americans like lower taxes; when President Obama and congressional Republicans agreed on an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts in December, 60% of the public approved of the deal. But most also acknowledge that the best way to reduce the deficit is through a combination of cuts in major programs and tax increases (http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/section-7-the-budget-deficit-taxes-spending-and-entitlements/#taxes). And a large majority (66%) approves of raising taxes on incomes of $250,000 or more to reduce the debt.

No Compromise on ‘Compromise.’ It may seem like diplomats arguing over the shape of the conference table, but Republicans and Democrats cannot even agree about whether compromise is a good thing. During the budget impasse in April (http://people-press.org/2011/04/04/public-would-blame-both-sides-if-government-shuts-down/), large majorities of liberal Democrats and conservative and moderate Democrats favored compromise, even if it resulted in a budget they disagreed with. But Republicans were divided: Most Tea Party Republicans wanted lawmakers to stand on principle, even if it resulted in a government shutdown; other Republicans favored compromise.

The
7/15/2011, 02:27 PM
Getting to Crazy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)



There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy. A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.
And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.
President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/house-republicans-no-tax-stance-far-outside-political-mainstream), the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!
Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.
As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.
Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P.
Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

And even the administration of former President George W. Bush refrained from making extravagant claims about tax-cut magic, at least in part for fear that making such claims would raise questions about the administration’s seriousness.

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/its-unanimous-gop-says-pay-for-unemployment-benefits-not-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.php) — a claim completely at odds with the evidence — and also declared that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.” And it’s true: even Mr. Romney, widely regarded as the most sensible of the contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination, has endorsed the view (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/12/14/173688/romney-deficits/) that tax cuts can actually reduce the deficit.

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.
But there has been no such price. Mr. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed a supposed deficit-reduction plan (http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-10-10bud-rev7-7-10.pdf) that included huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, then received an award (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/paul_ryan_and_american_fiscal_policy) for fiscal responsibility.

So there has been no pressure on the G.O.P. to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality — and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.

JohnnyMack
7/15/2011, 02:31 PM
Getting to Crazy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

Reagan raised taxes something like 7 out of 8 years he was in office.

The
7/15/2011, 02:39 PM
Reagan raised taxes something like 7 out of 8 years he was in office.

That's kinda the point... politics function is to provide the means for people with disparate and often incompatible interests to peacefully coexist. When ideologues begin to view their own perception of reality with such a religious zeal that compromising for the betterment of all is impossible, the Republic form of government also becomes impossible.

dwarthog
7/15/2011, 02:53 PM
Getting to Crazy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

Krugman.. MEH.

Just another NYT employed shill for the DNC.

The
7/15/2011, 02:56 PM
Krugman.. MEH.

Just another NYT employed shill for the DNC.

That didn't take long.

Shill or not, the point is still valid.

JohnnyMack
7/15/2011, 02:57 PM
Krugman.. MEH.

Just another NYT employed shill for the DNC.

Every journalist out there is a shill for one side or another. You don't think any of them are actually absent of an opinion now do you?

3rdgensooner
7/15/2011, 02:57 PM
That didn't take long.

Shill or not, the point is still valid.
Shill lover

The
7/15/2011, 03:00 PM
Shill lover
http://i.imgur.com/W3aq6.png

tommieharris91
7/15/2011, 03:07 PM
Getting to Crazy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

If I feel dirty for knowing who wrote that before I clicked on the link, then I wanna be disease-ridden.

sappstuf
7/15/2011, 03:30 PM
Getting to Crazy (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

It is hilarious that after 8 years of calling Bush illegitimate from the very first day, it is the Repubs that don't accept a president of the other party.

The
7/15/2011, 03:33 PM
It is hilarious that after 8 years of calling Bush illegitimate from the very first day, it is the Repubs that don't accept a president of the other party.

There's a tremendous difference between losing an election and just not liking a guy.

JohnnyMack
7/15/2011, 03:33 PM
It is hilarious that after 8 years of calling Bush illegitimate from the very first day, it is the Repubs that don't accept a president of the other party.

It's the other side's fault. Always.

dwarthog
7/15/2011, 03:51 PM
That didn't take long.

Shill or not, the point is still valid.

No, his points are not valid.

Obama nor the Dem leaders have offered up any specificity with regards to these, "cuts" they are willing to make.

As a matter of fact Pelosi marched up to the White House and said no way in hell will her side agree to any cuts in SS or Medicare.

The last budget offered up by Obama couldn't catch a cold in in the Senate, let alone a single vote.

The Senate, controlled by the Dems, hasn't produced a damn thing either, for some 800 days and counting.




As for the dumbass Krugman ,



Feb 7th, 2009


Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high


July 10th, 2011


Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had.

dwarthog
7/15/2011, 03:57 PM
Every journalist out there is a shill for one side or another. You don't think any of them are actually absent of an opinion now do you?

I believe it has been fairly well established that the bulk of journalists lean democrat, by a fair margin. That's their right.

However, I would expect some enlightenment with the news with regards to the issue, not a a repeat of either sides political talking points.

soonercoop1
7/15/2011, 06:13 PM
What news have you been watching? Seems like he's willing to make major cuts. Seems to me the Republicans are willing to f' the economy so to protect some stupid "no tax increase" pledge.

We've done almost nothing but cut taxes for 30 years. At some point, with our current fiscal crisis, the "no more taxes" group will have to admit that we have to make a move in the other direction.

Where exactly did Obama say he would make major cuts? All I hear from him are lies and rhetoric...

soonercoop1
7/15/2011, 06:20 PM
You see where the Dems are now disparging Cantor especially that old fool Harry Reid?

Reid would have gotten his dumb @ss beat if the Republicans would have put up a decent candidate.

Of course, the Loons are now going after Michelle Bachman like they did Palin because they think the woman vote belongs solely to them. Give 25% of the women vote to the Republicans and Obama gets his @ss beat.

I do believe most of the Country is tired of Obama and sleazeness. Such a polarizing President.

Not so sure about that as any district that continues to elect people like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Rangel, Frank, Waters, etc certainly can't be trusted and are completely lost to America as a whole...

sheepdogs
7/15/2011, 06:37 PM
Not so sure about that as any district that continues to elect people like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Rangel, Frank, Waters, etc certainly can't be trusted and are completely lost to America as a whole...

It doesn't reflect well on those who vote in these districts much like the past battle between the Carolinas when they were in competition to have the longest standing congressman. Yeah, a 90 year old Jessie Helms and his 90 year old counterpart were what the country really needed.

TheHumanAlphabet
7/16/2011, 08:50 PM
Did you catch the Bernake testimony on Weds? He basically admitted SS was a pyramid scheme when we said "it works well when shaped like a pyramid but not so great when shaped like a rectangle."

I called it a pyramid scheme a while back and was excoriated by the idiot and numbnut leftists that post on this board. At least now I have a leftist leaning economist agreeing with me...

OutlandTrophy
7/16/2011, 10:57 PM
Do you actually realize what a humongous tool you are? Seriously?

that's not very nice.

Curly Bill
7/17/2011, 02:02 AM
Not very nice for a mod anyway. Good job Froze. :rolleyes:

soonerscuba
7/17/2011, 10:44 AM
I called it a pyramid scheme a while back and was excoriated by the idiot and numbnut leftists that post on this board. At least now I have a leftist leaning economist agreeing with me...You're still wrong, but you aren't going to admit it. IDGAS what people on this board call most things, a substantial number on this board don't realize they are the mirror image of Berkeley freaks and I'm trying to just interact with the people that at least try to make sense. How people don't understand that the very act of transparency makes it not a pyramid scheme is beyond me. I don't go around crying about how mortgages are money laundering.

tommieharris91
7/17/2011, 10:53 AM
Not very nice for a mod anyway. Good job Froze. :rolleyes:

Well, Whet did enter soonercruiser territory with that pic.

Turd_Ferguson
7/17/2011, 02:06 PM
Well, at least this time you didn't just go through the SO deleting threads you didn't agree with...so ya got that goin for ya...

sappstuf
7/17/2011, 05:22 PM
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/beeler-barrypotter.jpg

Curly Bill
7/17/2011, 09:10 PM
Froze is a real classy guy. With the peeps supposedly running this place these days no wonder the board has turned into all kinds of wonderful.

StoopTroup
7/18/2011, 01:36 AM
You gotta explain how Texas is gonna put us all on the gold standard and ultimately kill the middle class because of it...

No I don't.

It's just amazing that Texas Politicians seem to think they are our only hope.

Ron Paul and Rick Perry need to realize that GWB stole their thunder/opportunity. A Texas Candidate is highly likely to lose a run for POTUS. They should continue to concentrate on the problems they have as a Border State and use their clout to help New Mexico, Arizona and Californian find a way to fix our Immigration policy and deal with the huge numbers of folks they allowed to cross their Borders over the last 20-30 years.

hawaii 5-0
7/18/2011, 01:56 AM
Hurricane Katrina was a giant boost for the Tejas economy, not Rick Perry's executive skills. A monkey coulda boosted their economy.

I tell ya, if anyone is acting like a Messiah around here, it's Rick Perry.


5-0


Trump/ Skippy 2012

StoopTroup
7/18/2011, 02:08 AM
Rick Perry: Bush III


The problem is that Perry is a faux conservative who is very much cut from the same globalist cloth as George W. Bush. He isn't a Republican so much as he is an opportunistic member of the bi-factional ruling party; he was the Texas campaign chairman for Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988. No wonder the "conservative" media love him; it appears that about three-quarters of them are recent converts from the Democratic Party themselves. One reason the Republican Party and the conservative media never make any rightward progress is that both are heavily influenced by former Democrats and liberals who claim to have seen the light, but are always focused on pragmatic compromises rather than principled stands.

Gov. Perry has been a decent governor. Like another ex-Democratic governor, Ronald Reagan, he is good on taxes and bad on borrowing. However, his track record on parental rights and corporate corruption is an awful one, as can be seen by his 2007 executive order requiring $360 Gardasil vaccinations for all Texas girls over the age of 11. Nor did he lift a finger to stop his own State Department of Family and Protective Services when it ran wild in 2008 and kidnapped 468 children on the basis of a single false accusation made by a crazy woman in Colorado. I am not aware of Perry troubling to discipline any of his criminally wayward employees after the fact, either.

This does not mean Rick Perry cannot defeat Obama. Any Republican who wins the nomination has an excellent chance to win the presidential election in 2012. The problem is that a Perry victory would be a pyrrhic one that could be even more damaging to the nation, and to the Republican Party, than George W. Bush's two victories were. Despite his past success, Perry's gubernatorial record indicates that he is totally unequipped to deal with the challenge of an economy that has been artificially, and temporarily, propped up by a $4.1 trillion (82.9 percent) increase in federal debt over the last 11 quarters.

The current battle over the debt ceiling clearly shows that this annual 30 percent rate of debt increase cannot possibly continue. Even if the ceiling is lifted and debt is increased, it cannot and will not continue at the same rate. Barring an unlikely reversal in the three-year decline of private credit in the household and financial sectors, this means that the statistical masking of the ongoing economic depression will not only quickly vanish, but in doing so will reveal the situation to be worse than any of the politicians of either party presently imagine. The worrisome thing isn't that we economic contrarians might be correct, it is that we might be overly optimistic.

Economics always trumps mere politics, and the present economic exigencies are too extreme to risk yet another Republican borrow-and-spender. Gov. Perry is a formidable politician, and it is understandable that he looks attractive to those who are desperate to avoid the continuation of the Barry Soetoro charade. America doesn't need another superficial leader who will tell Americans what they want to hear. They need a doctor who is stalwart enough to prescribe for them the bitter medicine they desperately need to take.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=323053

Also ^ this site also has some wonderful Gold Ads to look over.

SicEmBaylor
7/18/2011, 04:37 AM
Most of you likely have never dealt directly with Rick Perry, his campaign staff, or his gubenatorial staff. I have many many times. If I have any credibility or trust with any of you oit there then please trust what I say now:

Rick Perry is not to be trusted.

His staff is not to be trusted.

Rick Perry does what is in the interest of Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is VERY good at manipulating legislative procedure in order to get what he wants when he doesn't want anyone to know what he's doing.

At best, he is a faux-conservative; at worst, he's a manipulative con-artist with few ethics and even fewer definite principles.

Trust Rick Perry at your own risk.

King Crimson
7/18/2011, 05:46 AM
so what is the good conservative alternative to "the globalist cloth"?

i thought we were all for free markets around here?

isolationism, Pat Buchanan?

Perry is a dickhead, don't get me wrong....

sappstuf
7/18/2011, 05:49 AM
Most of you likely have never dealt directly with Rick Perry, his campaign staff, or his gubenatorial staff. I have many many times. If I have any credibility or trust with any of you oit there then please trust what I say now:

Rick Perry is not to be trusted.

His staff is not to be trusted.

Rick Perry does what is in the interest of Rick Perry.

Rick Perry is VERY good at manipulating legislative procedure in order to get what he wants when he doesn't want anyone to know what he's doing.

At best, he is a faux-conservative; at worst, he's a manipulative con-artist with few ethics and even fewer definite principles.

Trust Rick Perry at your own risk.

How is this different than any politician?

Turd_Ferguson
7/18/2011, 06:55 AM
How is this different than any politician?Beat me to it. Replace Rick Perry with Politician in Sicem's post and there you have it...

TitoMorelli
7/18/2011, 07:43 AM
Hurricane Katrina was a giant boost for the Tejas economy, not Rick Perry's executive skills. A monkey coulda boosted their economy.

I tell ya, if anyone is acting like a Messiah around here, it's Rick Perry.


5-0


Trump/ Skippy 2012


Well, since Texas has accounted for around 40% of all new jobs in this country over the past two years, I'd say that the Katrina effect has been pretty long lasting, wouldn't you?

Curly Bill
7/18/2011, 08:18 AM
No I don't.

It's just amazing that Texas Politicians seem to think they are our only hope.

Ron Paul and Rick Perry need to realize that GWB stole their thunder/opportunity. A Texas Candidate is highly likely to lose a run for POTUS. They should continue to concentrate on the problems they have as a Border State and use their clout to help New Mexico, Arizona and Californian find a way to fix our Immigration policy and deal with the huge numbers of folks they allowed to cross their Borders over the last 20-30 years.


Oh come on man, I was looking forward to you explaining your premise that Texas was going to put us all on the gold standard. Where you come up with some of your material these days is frankly something many of us on here are baffled at, and not funny haha baffled, but WTF is wrong with that guy baffled.

jkjsooner
7/18/2011, 08:43 AM
Well, since Texas has accounted for around 40% of all new jobs in this country over the past two years, I'd say that the Katrina effect has been pretty long lasting, wouldn't you?

Texas didn't have the housing bubble that much of the rest of the country had. It also has a lower cost of living. These two factors have nothing to do with who is Governor and have everything to do with Texas's success in this recession.

sappstuf
7/18/2011, 09:40 AM
Texas didn't have the housing bubble that much of the rest of the country had. It also has a lower cost of living. These two factors have nothing to do with who is Governor and have everything to do with Texas's success in this recession.

Maybe the reason Texas didn't have a housing bubble is because it is growing so fast due to the state's economic policies which do have something to do with the governor.

King Crimson
7/18/2011, 11:06 AM
Maybe the reason Texas didn't have a housing bubble is because it is growing so fast due to the state's economic policies which do have something to do with the governor.

maybe, or all the free labor from mexicans....

sappstuf
7/18/2011, 11:24 AM
maybe, or all the free labor from mexicans....

Nah.. If it was just that California wouldn't be in the position they are in. And the Mexicans certainly don't help with the housing market.. 20 of them will cram into a 2 bedroom apartment..

TitoMorelli
7/18/2011, 12:04 PM
Texas didn't have the housing bubble that much of the rest of the country had. It also has a lower cost of living. These two factors have nothing to do with who is Governor and have everything to do with Texas's success in this recession.

So I assume that you agree that Katrina had nothing to do their more recent boom, which is the point of my post.

sappstuf
7/18/2011, 12:19 PM
Obama threatens to veto the "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill the House will vote on sometime this week.

Call his bluff.

StoopTroup
7/18/2011, 12:33 PM
No Tie Monday. You can tell when folks are working hard when they start stripping down...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_g3l2BbcMvMc/TJzk0ms6nvI/AAAAAAAAAck/I7ATU0f58uM/s1600/100924+pledge-to-america.jpg

pphilfran
7/18/2011, 12:34 PM
Obama threatens to veto the "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill the House will vote on sometime this week.

Call his bluff.

It will never reach his desk for his veto...

REDREX
7/18/2011, 01:26 PM
This entire conversation is stupid---Even if they reach a deal the rating agencies still want to see the debt going down or they will cut the rating---We have to pay down debt now not increase it and have some phony cuts years down the road

CrimsonCream
7/18/2011, 01:31 PM
It will never reach his desk for his veto...

True enough.

Obama doesn't want to cut, cap and balance.

I do think Obama's bullsh!t has worn thin with the American people. The fury is coming, Obama.

pphilfran
7/18/2011, 01:33 PM
This entire conversation is stupid---Even if they reach a deal the rating agencies still want to see the debt going down or they will cut the rating---We have to pay down debt now not increase it and have some phony cuts years down the road

I wonder what the rating agencies will consider as an acceptable level....

REDREX
7/18/2011, 02:14 PM
I wonder what the rating agencies will consider as an acceptable level....---Well lets see--Right now we are borrowing 40% of what we are spending-----How long would your bank or any creditor keep loaning you money if your business was doing that ? It is just stupid to think we can kick the can down the road

sappstuf
7/18/2011, 03:36 PM
It will never reach his desk for his veto...

I know, but a man can wish! :)

The only thing with actual numbers that Obama has proposed was his 2012 budget that increased the debt by about $2.8 trillion with his own rosy numbers.

That mess was voted down 97-0. He has yet to come up with anything else but words.

soonercruiser
7/18/2011, 10:23 PM
Even Democratic billionaires like Steve Wynn don't believe Obama knows what he is doing!

Billionaire Steve Wynn Accuses Obama of ‘Lying’ About the EconomySteve Wynn, the billionaire casino mogul, says that even though his business is doing better this year compared with last year, the White House is not telling the whole truth when it says the economy is improving.

“Baloney is being slung at the American people,” Wynn complained.

“It’s a very misleading thing that is happening,” Wynn told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto Wednesday morning, explaining that the people who frequent his fancy resorts are able to adjust to the current economic climates easier than the middle class employees who work for him. “Everything is more expensive. So the living standard of the working people — of the middle class of America — is being materially deteriorating because of the fiscal policies of our government,” Wynn said.

When asked by Cavuto if Wynn is reacting to the cool-down of the “the devil-may-care” ways of corporate culture or factors that pre-date the current administration, Wynn turned his attention to President Obama, specifically, and how he is presented by the media.

“You guys on television use the term ‘disingenuous’ when the president talks about — says something that isn’t true,” Wynn said on the cable show.

“That’s a fancy word for lying,” Wynn said, which got a chuckle out of Cavuto.

Wynn then went on to talk about how rising prices and the devaluation of the dollar compared with foreign currencies hurt the middle class and tie into his belief that the government is hiding that information from the blue-collar citizens. “Nobody from the government ever talks about what they’re taking away from the working people of this country,” Wynn continued. “I think the most important thing that has to be done is the truth has to come out. The populist rhetoric is very carefully designed to hide the truth. And I find it annoying and disappointing that it’s happened that way.”
http://www.discerningcitizen.org/economy/billionaire-steve-wynn-accuses-obama-of-lying-about-the-economy/

Wynn CEO Goes On Epic Anti-Obama Rant On Company Conference Call
Joe Weisenthal | Jul. 18, 2011, 6:51 PM | 199,561 | 293 .
I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7

diverdog
7/18/2011, 10:40 PM
Even Democratic billionaires like Steve Wynn don't believe Obama knows what he is doing!

Billionaire Steve Wynn Accuses Obama of ‘Lying’ About the EconomySteve Wynn, the billionaire casino mogul, says that even though his business is doing better this year compared with last year, the White House is not telling the whole truth when it says the economy is improving.

“Baloney is being slung at the American people,” Wynn complained.

“It’s a very misleading thing that is happening,” Wynn told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto Wednesday morning, explaining that the people who frequent his fancy resorts are able to adjust to the current economic climates easier than the middle class employees who work for him. “Everything is more expensive. So the living standard of the working people — of the middle class of America — is being materially deteriorating because of the fiscal policies of our government,” Wynn said.

When asked by Cavuto if Wynn is reacting to the cool-down of the “the devil-may-care” ways of corporate culture or factors that pre-date the current administration, Wynn turned his attention to President Obama, specifically, and how he is presented by the media.

“You guys on television use the term ‘disingenuous’ when the president talks about — says something that isn’t true,” Wynn said on the cable show.

“That’s a fancy word for lying,” Wynn said, which got a chuckle out of Cavuto.

Wynn then went on to talk about how rising prices and the devaluation of the dollar compared with foreign currencies hurt the middle class and tie into his belief that the government is hiding that information from the blue-collar citizens. “Nobody from the government ever talks about what they’re taking away from the working people of this country,” Wynn continued. “I think the most important thing that has to be done is the truth has to come out. The populist rhetoric is very carefully designed to hide the truth. And I find it annoying and disappointing that it’s happened that way.”
http://www.discerningcitizen.org/economy/billionaire-steve-wynn-accuses-obama-of-lying-about-the-economy/

Wynn CEO Goes On Epic Anti-Obama Rant On Company Conference Call
Joe Weisenthal | Jul. 18, 2011, 6:51 PM | 199,561 | 293 .
I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.

You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7

Wynn is full of sh*T! And for a casino owner to think he has any moral high ground is laughable.

sappstuf
7/19/2011, 06:05 AM
DD is full of sh*T! And for a banker to think he has any moral high ground is laughable.

FIFY DD!

;)

diverdog
7/19/2011, 06:18 AM
FIFY DD!

;)

lol

sapp there is a difference between investment banking and real banking. Here is an article on my company. Read it and then get back to me. BTW I live near a casino and I have seen what they do to people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opinion/31nocera.html?_r=1&ref=mandtbankcorporation

sheepdogs
7/19/2011, 08:34 AM
lol

sapp there is a difference between investment banking and real banking. Here is an article on my company. Read it and then get back to me. BTW I live near a casino and I have seen what they do to people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opinion/31nocera.html?_r=1&ref=mandtbankcorporation

Wynn's resort(s) are for those who have money to burn as opposed to catering to the peons of the world.

TheHumanAlphabet
7/19/2011, 09:02 AM
Wynn is full of sh*T! And for a casino owner to think he has any moral high ground is laughable.

What an assinine statement. He more than anyone would have a sense of business. What he said is spot on.

Though I agree with you on gambling. I don't think it should be allowed and I don't think it is the panacea that many legislators think it is. Too many people who can't afford it get caught up in it.

TheHumanAlphabet
7/19/2011, 09:06 AM
True enough.

Obama doesn't want to cut, cap and balance.

I do think Obama's bullsh!t has worn thin with the American people. The fury is coming, Obama.

On CNN poll, passing the Cut, Cap and Balance is beating the don't pass vote! Hilarious, even the libs and progressives are losing it...

JohnnyMack
7/19/2011, 09:21 AM
Just get government completely out of the way and let businesses have at it. They'll behave.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/chasingmadoff/

TheHumanAlphabet
7/19/2011, 10:04 AM
Just get government completely out of the way and let businesses have at it. They'll behave.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/chasingmadoff/

I don't think anyone is necessarily suggesting that. However, gov't is more intrusive than they may need to be. Many are too quick to pass laws to legislate than use what laws are on the books and charge within that realm. Not saying there may not be loopholes that need addressing.

sappstuf
7/19/2011, 10:09 AM
Just get government completely out of the way and let businesses have at it. They'll behave.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/chasingmadoff/

The Madoff story is one of government incompetence.

JohnnyMack
7/19/2011, 11:24 AM
The Madoff story is one of government incompetence.

Was it incompetence or was it a system that didn't have the teeth and/or the willingness to prosecute because it has been bought by organized crime.....errrr.....Wall Street?

pphilfran
7/19/2011, 11:27 AM
Was it incompetence or was it a system that didn't have the teeth and/or the willingness to prosecute because it has been bought by organized crime.....errrr.....Wall Street?

Greedy azz people trying to get a very high rate of return with "no risk"...

Whenever someone offers you something that is too good to be true....well, you know the story...

There were complaints and concerns about his organization that were ignored...why? Hard to say...

diverdog
7/19/2011, 12:08 PM
On CNN poll, passing the Cut, Cap and Balance is beating the don't pass vote! Hilarious, even the libs and progressives are losing it...

The plan will not work. The baby boomers will dominate future spending. There will be no money to pay for things like defense.

pphilfran
7/19/2011, 12:13 PM
A yearly balanced budget will not work....

When the economy is in the chitter the fed needs to spend more....not less...

The problem is that in good times our DC leadership spends every penny and dream up new ways to spend the extra bucks that is coming in to the treasury...

Some of the money from the good times should be put into a fund to support future bad times...

TheHumanAlphabet
7/19/2011, 12:19 PM
The plan will not work. The baby boomers will dominate future spending. There will be no money to pay for things like defense.

I don't disagree with the exception of the defense budget. No defense, No USA. But at least it is a plan that is being offered. Where is O'bummer's plan or the Senate Dems plan?

JohnnyMack
7/19/2011, 12:26 PM
A yearly balanced budget will not work....

When the economy is in the chitter the fed needs to spend more....not less...

The problem is that in good times our DC leadership spends every penny and dream up new ways to spend the extra bucks that is coming in to the treasury...

Some of the money from the good times should be put into a fund to support future bad times...

Yeah the whole notion of a balanced budget amendment doesn't make sense to me. Unless you aren't going to include defense spending in it. What are you supposed to do in a time of war? If Iran starts a war are we supposed to say, "Hang on guys, we won't have enough cash to roll out any more munitions for another 6 weeks. Everybody just chill and we'll resume killing each other then"?

Turd_Ferguson
7/19/2011, 12:29 PM
I don't disagree with the exception of the defense budget. No defense, No USA. But at least it is a plan that is being offered. Where is O'bummer's plan or the Senate Dems plan?
Racist!!:mad:

sappstuf
7/19/2011, 12:35 PM
A yearly balanced budget will not work....

When the economy is in the chitter the fed needs to spend more....not less...

The problem is that in good times our DC leadership spends every penny and dream up new ways to spend the extra bucks that is coming in to the treasury...

Some of the money from the good times should be put into a fund to support future bad times...

Phil,

for how long? We are inching towards another recession as it is and spending is at an all time high. We will be in a recession by 2012. In 2013 Bush's tax cuts are set to expire again and all of the new Obamacare taxes will start. It will plow the economy under. We will have $2 trillion deficits at this rate.

Germany cut spending at about the same time we passed the stimulus. They are doing about the same as us without adding to their debt. Why?

pphilfran
7/19/2011, 12:40 PM
Phil,

for how long? We are inching towards another recession as it is and spending is at an all time high. We will be in a recession by 2012. In 2013 Bush's tax cuts are set to expire again and all of the new Obamacare taxes will start. It will plow the economy under. We will have $2 trillion deficits at this rate.

Germany cut spending at about the same time we passed the stimulus. They are doing about the same as us without adding to their debt. Why?

In 2009 Germany spent nearly 100 billion on tax cuts and spending increases...

The German economy (GDP) is about 1/4th the size of the US...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,600977,00.html

pphilfran
7/19/2011, 12:41 PM
The problem with our stimulus was that we spent far too little on job creation and far too much on entitlements...

diverdog
7/19/2011, 12:46 PM
On CNN poll, passing the Cut, Cap and Balance is beating the don't pass vote! Hilarious, even the libs and progressives are losing it...


In 2009 Germany spent nearly 100 billion on tax cuts and spending increases...

The German economy (GDP) is about 1/4th the size of the US...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,600977,00.html

I would be willing to go to the German tax system.

pphilfran
7/19/2011, 12:49 PM
I would be willing to go to the German tax system.

Hell, I would take just about any system that would simplify our tax code...

sappstuf
7/19/2011, 12:52 PM
In 2009 Germany spent nearly 100 billion on tax cuts and spending increases...

The German economy (GDP) is about 1/4th the size of the US...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,600977,00.html

The second half of that article is all about the German stimulus being too small... Seems to have worked just fine. It was a combination of infrastructure improvements and tax breaks.

pphilfran
7/19/2011, 01:01 PM
The second half of that article is all about the German stimulus being too small... Seems to have worked just fine. It was a combination of infrastructure improvements and tax breaks.

Yep...like I said...too little actual job creation in the US and too much in entitlements...

JohnnyMack
7/19/2011, 01:15 PM
The problem with our stimulus was that we spent far too little on job creation and far too much on entitlements...

If I was running against Obama this is exactly the point I'd hammer home. Obama has been terrible at connecting with the middle and working class and has certainly taken care of Wall Street. The problem is, most of those running for the R nomination don't have the balls to attack Wall Street. Hell, no one does if Obama fellates them the way he does.

sappstuf
7/19/2011, 01:16 PM
I don't disagree with the exception of the defense budget. No defense, No USA. But at least it is a plan that is being offered. Where is O'bummer's plan or the Senate Dems plan?

You can get bags of it!

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/shovel.jpg

TheHumanAlphabet
7/19/2011, 03:07 PM
If I was running against Obama this is exactly the point I'd hammer home. Obama has been terrible at connecting with the middle and working class and has certainly taken care of Wall Street. The problem is, most of those running for the R nomination don't have the balls to attack Wall Street. Hell, no one does if Obama fellates them the way he does.

While in some way, I wouldn't want to "attack" Wall Street, there are excesses that many would consider pulling back on.

What surprises me, is that NO ONE has had a plan to tackle jobs in a meaningful way. You want jobs, then lets tackle the infrastructure problem we have in this country. Deal up something like the WPA or plan on funding state projects for roads and other infrastructure. Yes, it will take Fed bucks, but then who would be against a significant effort to fix up roads, bridges and water systems? Unlike the piecemeal effort we have had to date.

This would employ people, from designers and engineers to hourly wage people holding signs. This is spending people likely can get around.

JohnnyMack
7/19/2011, 03:21 PM
While in some way, I wouldn't want to "attack" Wall Street, there are excesses that many would consider pulling back on.

What surprises me, is that NO ONE has had a plan to tackle jobs in a meaningful way. You want jobs, then lets tackle the infrastructure problem we have in this country. Deal up something like the WPA or plan on funding state projects for roads and other infrastructure. Yes, it will take Fed bucks, but then who would be against a significant effort to fix up roads, bridges and water systems? Unlike the piecemeal effort we have had to date.

This would employ people, from designers and engineers to hourly wage people holding signs. This is spending people likely can get around.

Hey I don't disagree with your assessment that a WPA initiative would be a good thing. It's not ideal, but it would be a lot more beneficial to the psyche of Americans to feel like their POTUS gave a tiny bit of a **** about them. All I see is him funneling money towards Wall Street and big corporations all the while failing to enact any real reforms to prevent it from all happening again in 10 or 12 years. The disconnect between Washington and the people has to be at an all time high. When you see how a Democrat POTUS, who was elected on a platform of bringing change to Washington, maintains the status quo you should quickly see that nothing substantial will change any time soon. I honestly don't give a **** who runs against Obama and I don't care who wins the general election. I'm writing in Darth Vader.

tommieharris91
7/19/2011, 03:27 PM
While in some way, I wouldn't want to "attack" Wall Street, there are excesses that many would consider pulling back on.

What surprises me, is that NO ONE has had a plan to tackle jobs in a meaningful way. You want jobs, then lets tackle the infrastructure problem we have in this country. Deal up something like the WPA or plan on funding state projects for roads and other infrastructure. Yes, it will take Fed bucks, but then who would be against a significant effort to fix up roads, bridges and water systems? Unlike the piecemeal effort we have had to date.

This would employ people, from designers and engineers to hourly wage people holding signs. This is spending people likely can get around.

Wait... An R advocating a solution by the gubmint? This thread is completely ****ed up.

TitoMorelli
7/21/2011, 12:37 PM
Even Democratic billionaires like Steve Wynn don't believe Obama knows what he is doing!



Wynn's Rant: One Among Many

Posted 07/19/2011 06:50 PM ET




In a Monday conference call, the casino magnate credited with revitalizing Las Vegas blasted President Obama, declaring him "the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime."

The blast was remarkable for two reasons: Wynn has been a staunch supporter of the Obama administration from the beginning and still considers himself a Democrat. But even more remarkable, it's been out of character for CEOs such as Wynn to express their views in such blunt terms on political matters.

"A lot of people don't want to say that," he said. "They'll say, 'Oh God, don't be attacking Obama.' Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America," said Wynn. "The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe 'we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or (are) holding too much money.' We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists."

Business is being hammered, he said. "And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States."

Wynn's words resonate because America's weak economic growth and high unemployment can be laid in large part to the inexperience of this president and his just-as-callow advisers.

In such a climate, it's no surprise that executive outbursts are erupting like lava from scorched earth. Wynn's remarks echo those on a lengthening list of CEOs including:

• 3M's George Buckley, who blasted Obama last February as anti-business. "We know what his instincts are," Buckley said. "We've got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada or Mexico — which tends to be more pro-business — and America," he told the Financial Times.

• Boeing's Jim McNerney, who in the Wall Street Journal last May called Obama's handpicked National Labor Relations Board's suit against his company a "fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago."

• Intel's Paul Otellini, who told CNET last August that the U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business that there is likely to be "an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we're seeing today in Europe — this is the bitter truth."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=578866&p=1

sappstuf
8/2/2011, 01:55 PM
Was his bluff called?

XingTheRubicon
8/2/2011, 03:08 PM
From what I understand, it's usually better to refrain from mentioning that you're bluffing while the hand is being played.


Especially when you happen to be across the table from bat-schit crazy tea partiers.

dwarthog
8/2/2011, 03:36 PM
Yep...like I said...too little actual job creation in the US and too much in entitlements...

Obama isn't about job creation. He is all about wealth redistribution and has been from day one.

He hammers the "fair" issue that his sycophants eat up in every campaign speech, I mean speech to the American people he gives.

I just hope that this paradigm of fewer people carrying more of the burden isn't allowed to take root. It is the end if it does. Mob rule wins.

tommieharris91
8/2/2011, 03:42 PM
Obama isn't about job creation. He is all about wealth redistribution and has been from day one.

He hammers the "fair" issue that his sycophants eat up in every campaign speech, I mean speech to the American people he gives.

I just hope that this paradigm of fewer people carrying more of the burden isn't allowed to take root. It is the end if it does. Mob rule wins.

Redistributionists usually don't keep cutting taxes like he has though...

Besides, his version of fair means caving to Republicans at pretty much every possible opportunity.

Some change he's been from W. Obama = conservative.

SoonerNate
8/2/2011, 03:44 PM
Dow down 266 points or 2.9%

Damn that George Bush

Curly Bill
8/2/2011, 04:05 PM
Dow down 266 points or 2.9%

Damn that George Bush

Most powerful POTUS ever! Three years after leaving office and he's still got the power to affect most everything. :P

dwarthog
8/2/2011, 04:06 PM
Redistributionists usually don't keep cutting taxes like he has though...

Besides, his version of fair means caving to Republicans at pretty much every possible opportunity.

Some change he's been from W. Obama = conservative.


The tax code is the best way they have to dole out the loot so to speak in the form of good old cash money that can be spent in anyway.

The primary reason IMO, we won't see any significant changes to the tax code in this country any time soon.