National address showdown: The speaker vs the Prez

[soonerhubs]

I thought Boehner had a better speech writer. JMHO.

[KABOOKIE]

Obama when (D)s control the house: Your side lost. Get over it.

Obama when (R)s control the house: We need compromise.

:rolleyes:

[Sooner5030]

either way....we're broke.

spending $1.00 for every $.60 we get in revenue

additionally....GDP growth per calendar year has not exceeded the nominal fiscal year deficit for some time. We have a structural contracting economy.

[soonerhubs]

Obama when (D)s control the house: Your side lost. Get over it.

Obama when (R)s control the house: We need compromise.

:rolleyes:

Good point. He sure sounded like a hypocrite with his "rich people" comments when his bailouts helped so many of them.

[REDREX]

Let's start laying off Federal employees in the morning----Gov't needs to get smaller---FAST---

[soonerhubs]

Let's start laying off Federal employees in the morning----Gov't needs to get smaller---FAST---

Amen! Make cuts! That's what responsible folks do when times are tough.

[jkjsooner]

Obama when (D)s control the house: Your side lost. Get over it.

Obama when (R)s control the house: We need compromise.

:rolleyes:

If you own the house, senate, and the presidency you have every right to say, "get over it."

When you only control one of the three but refuse to compromise then you have a problem.

[jkjsooner]

Let's start laying off Federal employees in the morning----Gov't needs to get smaller---FAST---

And let me guess, blame Obama for the resulting unemployment numbers...

Hell, you blamed him for the recession that began long before he took office so I'm betting you would do the same here.

[soonerhubs]

If you own the house, senate, and the presidency you have every right to say, "get over it."

When you only control one of the three but refuse to compromise then you have a problem.

Question: When the presidency, senate, and house was "owned" by the dems, why wasn't this ceiling passed then? You know, when those *** clowns racked up those bill that Mr. President mentioned this evening?

New show idea with Amy Goodman and the President: Hypocrisy Now!

[OutlandTrophy]

when the Ds controlled all three they couldn't even pass a budget.

[SoonerBorn68]

And let me guess, blame Obama for the resulting unemployment numbers...

Hell, you blamed him for the recession that began long before he took office so I'm betting you would do the same here.

He's the prez. He's spent a bazillion dollars & we're still in the sh*tter. It's his fault.

[soonerhubs]

when the Ds controlled all three they couldn't even pass a budget.

They were able to ramrod Obamacare, though.

[REDREX]

And let me guess, blame Obama for the resulting unemployment numbers...

Hell, you blamed him for the recession that began long before he took office so I'm betting you would do the same here.---We are spending too much money Gov't is too big---Its been a problem for a long time and has gotten worse---I don't blame Barack for the recession but I will blame Freddie and Fannie for much of the recession--- I will also say that he pissed away $800 Billion on a failed stimulus .----It is not the place of the Federal Gov't to create jobs it never works

[Whet]

Let's start laying off Federal employees in the morning----Gov't needs to get smaller---FAST---
It is Obama's big spending programs and his political appointees that are causing the problems, not the lowly employees.

[soonerhubs]

---We are spending too much money Gov't is too big---Its been a problem for a long time and has gotten worse---I don't blame Barack for the recession but I will blame Freddie and Fannie for much of the recession--- I will also say that he pissed away $800 Billion on a failed stimulus .----It is not the place of the Federal Gov't to create jobs it never works
Hear hear!

[tcrb]

And let me guess, blame Obama for the resulting unemployment numbers...

Hell, you blamed him for the recession that began long before he took office so I'm betting you would do the same here.

Obama is only responsible for the blame since he took office in 2008. The economy started taking a **** in 2006. Oh wait, that's when the dems took control of Congress, and yep, Barry was part of that crew too.

[SoCaliSooner]

He started out blaming Bush for the 1 trillion of deficit he inherited. That's fine. Then he said he had to do some "emergency spending" in order to keep firefighters, police officers and teachers from getting laid off. That's over 3 trillion additional deficit that he now says we had to spend and that it's the wealthy who need to pay.

If he were to say that everybody, rich or poor was going to pay tax increases and those on entitlement programs were going to see cuts, THEN I'd respect the guy for the "shared sacrifice". People on welfare and getting freebies would understand the direness of the situation as well as the corporate CEO.

[Blue]

Dog and pony show. In the end the ceiling will be raised and guess what the compromise is! Higher taxes for people that hire and higher taxes for you and me...at the pump, at the grocery store...

let the ****-er burn.

[picasso]

I'll tell you who won tonight. America. That's who won my friends.







































































Merica.

[JohnnyMack]

Politicians are scumbags.

The end.

[soonerhubs]

Politicians are scumbags.

The end.

Yup!

[AlboSooner]

there are only losers in this deal. you and i.

[soonercruiser]

when the Ds controlled all three they couldn't even pass a budget.

THIS!

[sheepdogs]

And let me guess, blame Obama for the resulting unemployment numbers...

Hell, you blamed him for the recession that began long before he took office so I'm betting you would do the same here.

When he was running for office didn't he say he would create jobs?

[SoCaliSooner]

When he was running for office didn't he say he would create jobs?

When he swore that we needed the stimulus to save thousands of jobs AND would also reduce the unemployment rate....then he has to own it when it didn't.

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/U/u/3/Raising-Debt-Ceiling.jpg

[EnragedOUfan]

Funny how everyone is complaining about an 800 billion dollar bailout when we spend about a billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

1 x 365 = 365 Billion
365 Billion x 10 years = 3.65 Trillion......This is a rough estimate, give or take a couple of hundred billion because we didn't enter Iraq until 2003 and we pulled out a ton of troops from Iraq last year....

I have no problem with the stimulus because it's intentions were good. It just didn't work out that well (we have a 9.2% unemployment rate). What pisses me off more than anything was the 800 dollar billion bailout to f$ckin Wall Street and CEO's which Foxs News so purposely avoids mentioning quite often...

Its funny, the Republican geniuses lowered taxes back in 2001 and 2003 when when the wars were just starting. I thought I read something that these were the only wars where taxes were lowered. Then after Hurricane Katrine hit, that's when gas prices forever increased by over 100 percent. So then, let's add twice as much to the price of gasoline in support of our vehicles, helicopters, and planes that are downrange and you can see why the f#ck our country is broke...I thought I read we were already at a 10 trillion deficit when Obama inherited the office from Bush, correct me if I'm wrong...

[Breadburner]

Funny how everyone is complaining about an 800 billion dollar bailout when we spend about a billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

1 x 365 = 365 Billion
365 Billion x 10 years = 3.65 Trillion......This is a rough estimate, give or take a couple of hundred billion because we didn't enter Iraq until 2003 and we pulled out a ton of troops from Iraq last year....

I have no problem with the stimulus because it's intentions were good. It just didn't work out that well (we have a 9.2% unemployment rate). What pisses me off more than anything was the 800 dollar billion bailout to f$ckin Wall Street and CEO's which Foxs News so purposely avoids mentioning quite often...

Its funny, the Republican geniuses lowered taxes back in 2001 and 2003 when when the wars were just starting. I thought I read something that these were the only wars where taxes were lowered. Then after Hurricane Katrine hit, that's when gas prices forever increased by over 100 percent. So then, let's add twice as much to the price of gasoline in support of our vehicles, helicopters, and planes that are downrange and you can see why the f#ck our country is broke...I thought I read we were already at a 10 trillion deficit when Obama inherited the office from Bush, correct me if I'm wrong...

Condensed version.....It's all Bush's fault.....

[EnragedOUfan]

Its also ironic that I've read many people want the 4,000 FAA's furloughed jobs to be gone with because this means less Government. Nevermind the fact that that will be 4,000 more people unemployed....Then they can blame Obama that the unemployment rate jumped another .5 % or so....

[Fraggle145]

I think we should just vote out all incumbents. Too bad there isnt a no confidence option. Or an anyone else option.

Because I know I'm going to hate whoever they put up against Obama for president.

[EnragedOUfan]

Condensed version.....It's all Bush's fault.....

Its not all Bush's fault, its a combination of crap. Bush had a little bad luck (Gas Prices). Gas prices skyrocketed in 2005 after Katrine wiped out the refineries in the Gulf. Before Katrine hit, I remember pumping gas in Biloxi, Mississippi for a $1.70 on my way to Mardi Gras 2005 from Ft. Rucker, Alabama....

[Ike]

Nearly 10 years ago, the VP took some heat for saying "Deficits don't matter". Since then, pretty much everyone in Washington (and on here) has taken up the exact opposite opinion they held at that time.

Either it's 100% political showmanship, or nobody has any idea what the hell they are talking about.


But probably both.

[yankee]

So did they fight? Who won?

[EnragedOUfan]

Also the summer of 2008 is to blame. That was the summer before the next Presidential election. During that summer, I paid up to $4.65 a gallon. Those type of gas prices is what sent us into a recession. I remember reading how those prices were killing the trucking industry. Those prices killed retail, pizza delivery, Independent contractors, anything you name it. The funny thing is, I can't recall any type of huge natural disaster that sparked that gasoline price surge....

[sheepdogs]

What pisses me off more than anything was the 800 dollar billion bailout to f$ckin Wall Street and CEO's which Foxs News so purposely avoids mentioning quite often...

It's probably not talked about much due to people like yourself not understanding what it prevented. You like being employed? Figure it out for yourself.

[Blue]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006


Yeaaah!! I mean, Noooo!

[Blue]

Funny how everyone is complaining about an 800 billion dollar bailout when we spend about a billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

.

800 billion? Pfft!

C8dwhZZAFwQ&feature=player_embedded


3kpWqdPMjmo&feature=player_embedded

[hawaii 5-0]

Looks like Boehner's only friends now are the TeaBaggers and the Fox News shills.

5-0


Trump/ RoseMary 2012

[picasso]

Looks like Boehner's only friends now are the TeaBaggers and the Fox News shills.

5-0


Trump/ RoseMary 2012

Yes, I'm sure he's the only one to blame for the cluster****.

[hawaii 5-0]

Don't get me wrong on this. I was impressed with John Boehner tonight.











He got through his whole speech without crying. The Big Baby.



5-0


Trump/ Huey 2012

[MamaMia]

Don't get me wrong on this. I was impressed with John Boehner tonight.

He got through his whole speech without crying. The Big Baby.

I don't have a problem at all with a man getting chocked up and teary eyed over his love and passion for our country. I would much rather have that kind of a man representing my interests than some bossy, cold hearted, self serving bastage with no outward emotion other than arrogance.

[prrriiide]

Let's start laying off Federal employees in the morning----Gov't needs to get smaller---FAST---

Oooh. Lots of red meat in this here thread...

Yes, I'm sure throwing 1,000,000+ Americans into the unemployment lines (and bankruptcy courts, and foreclosure proceedings) is a sure way to turn that durned ol' economy right around.


Question: When the presidency, senate, and house was "owned" by the dems, why wasn't this ceiling passed then?

Why didn't the GOP increase it during GWB's spending orgy 2001-2008? Oh. Whoops. They did. SEVEN TIMES, almost doubling it from $5.95 trillion when he took office to $11.32 trillion when he left. NOT ONE TIME did the Dems put his nuts in a vice to rescind the tax cuts that were driving a lot of it. NOT ONE TIME did the Dems bend him over the desk to get the troops out of Iraq.

Why has every other President dating back to Reagan waited until the limit was nearly reached before acting on it? Besides, constitutionally it isn't the President's job to raise the debt ceiling. That is the job of the Congress.


when the Ds controlled all three they couldn't even pass a budget.

Yeah, the GOP had nothing to do with it. I mean they just sat back and let the Dems play with themselves instead of passing a budget. Hard to pass a budget when you can't even name a post office without the threat of a GOP filibuster.


It is Obama's big spending programs and his political appointees that are causing the problems, not the lowly employees.

I know. $1.6 trillion in tax cuts for the richest 5%. MediCare Part D, another $300 billion. Iraq and Afghanistan, another $1.3 trillion. Damn those Obama policies. Wait...

Put it this way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). The drivers of the expense increases (expressed as % of GDP) are Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), Defense (1.6%), Income Security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), Social Security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). The drivers of tax reductions are individual income taxes (−3.3%), payroll taxes (−0.5%), corporate income taxes (−0.5%) and other (−0.4%). The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%)...

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Fact_Sheets/Economic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf

The Obama stimulus accounts for only 6% of the increase in the debt. The biggest share (58%) comes from a combination of decreased revenues as a result of the recession, the wars, and the Bush tax cuts - all of which came under 42's watch.


When he swore that we needed the stimulus to save thousands of jobs AND would also reduce the unemployment rate....then he has to own it when it didn't.

O rly???

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/02/cbo-unemployment-would-have-topped-11-without-stimulus/1


Feb 23, 2010

The CBO says there were between 1 million and 2.1 million more jobs during the last three months of 2009 than there would have been without the stimulus law.

http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2010/09/07/business/doc4c861a541b1d9475639418.txt


September 07, 2010

Economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com (http://economy.com/) in West Chester estimate the national unemployment rate would now be approaching 16 percent without the economic policy actions of the Federal Reserve, the Bush and Obama administrations and Congress.

If you want to say that the stimulus was poorly executed, I can't disagree with that. But to say that it didn't save jobs and lower the unemployment rate is patently false. It hasn't lowered the unemployment rate a lot, but it has prevented an vast number of job losses. 9% doesn't look too bad when you see numbers like 16 and 18%, which is where we would be without it.


I thought I read we were already at a 10 trillion deficit when Obama inherited the office from Bush, correct me if I'm wrong...

$10.7 trillion, to be exact.


Either it's 100% political showmanship, or nobody has any idea what the hell they are talking about.


But probably both.

Exactly. NOBODY knows it all. Nobody can - it's impossible. The best Harvard and MIT economists admit up front that they don't understand it. It's simply too complex. But here we are with a bunch of tin-pot wanna-be's with God-complex saying that they know definitively what works and what doesn't. Anyone that says that is either a liar, an egomaniac, or both. They are certainly unfit for public office.


I don't have a problem at all with a man getting chocked up and teary eyed over his love and passion for our country. I would much rather have that kind of a man representing my interests than some bossy, cold hearted, self serving bastage with no outward emotion other than arrogance.

Like Dick Cheney, or Mitch McConnell, or Eric Cantor?

Oh, and another little drop in the bucket...in September of 2008, Fannie and Freddie were placed under conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The $5 trillion in debt owed there (mostly mortgage guarantees) is not included in the US National debt figures.

[OutlandTrophy]

Yeah, the GOP had nothing to do with it. I mean they just sat back and let the Dems play with themselves instead of passing a budget. Hard to pass a budget when you can't even name a post office without the threat of a GOP filibuster.


try again. The Ds had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a while.

[prrriiide]

try again. The Ds had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a while.


Survey sez...
X

Curious little rule they have in the Senate...any single Senator can hold up any legislation for an undefined amount of time by objecting to a unanimous consent motion...

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm


unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

Cloture does not apply to an objection of unanimous consent.

This is how Jim Bunning of Kentucky repeatedly killed the extension of $10 billion in unemployment funds back in November.

Often, unanimous consent is used to limit debate on a subject. By objecting to unanimous consent, the Senator is thereby forcing the debate to continue until such time as the vote is called by roll call or by an un-objected unanimous consent.

At no time did the Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate. Twice, they had 58, which, if combined with the two independent Senators would have given them the ability to break a filibuster. However, one of those independents was Joe Lieberman - not a guaranteed vote for the Dems.

[My Opinion Matters]

I like reading these threads because it gives me innovative ways to blame everyone else for everything I don't like.

[pphilfran]

Excellent info, Pride....

[sappstuf]

It isn't often that you see a president go on national television to prove that he is irrelevent.

There he goes railing on the need for tax increases.. Hey nincompoop, the plan that Harry Reid just put forth doesn't have any tax increases... You know... The plan that in the same speech you said you endorsed? The Senate over the past couple of days has shown they are willing to do a straight, 'spending cuts for debt ceiling hike' deal.

Then here comes the hero!! :rolleyes:

It is clear that Obama doesn't know what is going on and is the impediment in these negotiations.

[hOUrricane]

Funny how everyone is complaining about an 800 billion dollar bailout when we spend about a billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

1 x 365 = 365 Billion
365 Billion x 10 years = 3.65 Trillion......This is a rough estimate, give or take a couple of hundred billion because we didn't enter Iraq until 2003 and we pulled out a ton of troops from Iraq last year....

I have no problem with the stimulus because it's intentions were good. It just didn't work out that well (we have a 9.2% unemployment rate). What pisses me off more than anything was the 800 dollar billion bailout to f$ckin Wall Street and CEO's which Foxs News so purposely avoids mentioning quite often...

Its funny, the Republican geniuses lowered taxes back in 2001 and 2003 when when the wars were just starting. I thought I read something that these were the only wars where taxes were lowered. Then after Hurricane Katrine hit, that's when gas prices forever increased by over 100 percent. So then, let's add twice as much to the price of gasoline in support of our vehicles, helicopters, and planes that are downrange and you can see why the f#ck our country is broke...I thought I read we were already at a 10 trillion deficit when Obama inherited the office from Bush, correct me if I'm wrong...

You sound....enraged.

[sappstuf]

Funny how everyone is complaining about an 800 billion dollar bailout when we spend about a billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan.......

1 x 365 = 365 Billion
365 Billion x 10 years = 3.65 Trillion......This is a rough estimate, give or take a couple of hundred billion because we didn't enter Iraq until 2003 and we pulled out a ton of troops from Iraq last year....

I have no problem with the stimulus because it's intentions were good. It just didn't work out that well (we have a 9.2% unemployment rate). What pisses me off more than anything was the 800 dollar billion bailout to f$ckin Wall Street and CEO's which Foxs News so purposely avoids mentioning quite often...

Its funny, the Republican geniuses lowered taxes back in 2001 and 2003 when when the wars were just starting. I thought I read something that these were the only wars where taxes were lowered. Then after Hurricane Katrine hit, that's when gas prices forever increased by over 100 percent. So then, let's add twice as much to the price of gasoline in support of our vehicles, helicopters, and planes that are downrange and you can see why the f#ck our country is broke...I thought I read we were already at a 10 trillion deficit when Obama inherited the office from Bush, correct me if I'm wrong...

It is a very rough estimate.. Only off by a couple of trillion. You qualify to be an Obama economic advisor!

http://costofwar.com/en/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/14/afghanistan-iraq-usa-costs-idUSN1415708320100114

[soonerhubs]

Wow Prrride! That is totally new information! :rolleyes: Never heard that Bush was a big spender too! Very original! :rolleyes:

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Our guy sucks, but your guy is much worse!

[dwarthog]

Why didn't the GOP increase it during GWB's spending orgy 2001-2008? Oh. Whoops. They did. SEVEN TIMES, almost doubling it from $5.95 trillion when he took office to $11.32 trillion when he left. NOT ONE TIME did the Dems put his nuts in a vice to rescind the tax cuts that were driving a lot of it. NOT ONE TIME did the Dems bend him over the desk to get the troops out of Iraq.

Why has every other President dating back to Reagan waited until the limit was nearly reached before acting on it? Besides, constitutionally it isn't the President's job to raise the debt ceiling. That is the job of the Congress.

I do believe the elections of 2006 had the Dem's winning both houses.

So starting in 2007 3 of the above referenced 7 increases in the debt limit was done by the Dem's. Two done in one year.




Yeah, the GOP had nothing to do with it. I mean they just sat back and let the Dems play with themselves instead of passing a budget. Hard to pass a budget when you can't even name a post office without the threat of a GOP filibuster.

Don't you have to actually submit a budget before it can be filibustered?

[dwarthog]

They were able to ramrod Obamacare, though.

Just barely.

True to their nature, they tried every parliamentary procedure they could dredge up to somehow avoid being on record as having actually voted for it so as to not be held accountable in future elections.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Good point. He sure sounded like a hypocrite with his "rich people" comments when his bailouts helped so many of them.

Do you realize that those bailouts were necessary to keep the US from spinning into an even deeper recession, possibly depression, because of the unregulated activities on Wall Street that Obama had nothing to do with?

[Barry's_Scowl]

He's the prez. He's spent a bazillion dollars & we're still in the sh*tter. It's his fault.

We were in the sh*tter long before he took office. Whose fault do you think that was?

[REDREX]

Freddie and Fannie loaning money to anyone with a pulse---at the direction of the Gov't---- Was the biggest reason for the housing bubble

[sappstuf]

We were in the sh*tter long before he took office. Whose fault do you think that was?

He has had three years to fix it. He hasn't. This is the big leagues... I'm sure he would have taken credit if the stimulus would have worked, so he has to accept the blame when it didn't.

[sappstuf]

It is sad when CNN is pointing out how out of touch the president is with what is going on in Congress...

NryQeOdVkGE&

[dwarthog]

Freddie and Fannie loaning money to anyone with a pulse---at the direction of the Gov't---- Was the biggest reason for the housing bubble

Hear, hear.

An now it is having the effect of draining the wealth from families on a huge scale, particularly those that really don't need the hit.

Progressive government in action! :pop:

[pphilfran]

We were in the sh*tter long before he took office. Whose fault do you think that was?

Clinton and Bush....

[soonerscuba]

Freddie and Fannie loaning money to anyone with a pulse---at the direction of the Gov't---- Was the biggest reason for the housing bubbleHow do you figure? The vast majority of defaults were on loans not subject to CRA, and by their very nature were not an attractive asset to wrap into a security. I love to blame poor people for the plight of the wealthy as much as the next guy, but real estate as a lightly regulated investment for capital gain was the culprit on both physical and trading platforms, or at least empirically that is what I am lead to believe.

[Barry's_Scowl]

He has had three years to fix it. He hasn't. This is the big leagues... I'm sure he would have taken credit if the stimulus would have worked, so he has to accept the blame when it didn't.

Do a little research. Google is a really wonderful tool. You can't fix in three years what was monumentally screwed up across the previous eight years, including two unnecessary wars that we are now mired into with no end in sight.

Bush sank the ship with tax cuts for the wealthy and launching two wars. It doesn't matter how fast you bail out water. You can fix in three years what had been going on for the previous eight.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Clinton and Bush....

Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Again...folks...Google. You aren't going to learn anything of value from TV news or your ill-informed neighbors and coworkers. You've got a wealth of information at your fingertips, and its veracity is infinitely greater than anything you're getting from the talking heads.

[sappstuf]

Do a little research. Google is a really wonderful tool. You can't fix in three years what was monumentally screwed up across the previous eight years, including two unnecessary wars that we are now mired into with no end in sight.

Bush sank the ship with tax cuts for the wealthy and launching two wars. It doesn't matter how fast you bail out water. You can fix in three years what had been going on for the previous eight.

Maybe Obama should have did a little research with Google.. He is the one that made the promises...

I will hold him to his promises.

Remember the "Summer of Recovery"? Good times...

[pphilfran]

Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Again...folks...Google. You aren't going to learn anything of value from TV news or your ill-informed neighbors and coworkers. You've got a wealth of information at your fingertips, and its veracity is infinitely greater than anything you're getting from the talking heads.

Tell me where the revenue came from?

[okie52]

Obama focused on raising taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Our corporations are among the highest taxed businesses in the world.

Our wealthy, theoretically, would increase tax revenues by 700 billion dollars if their tax rate reverted to the Clinton tax rates. Not bad...but if
the Clinton tax rates were reinstated for everyone then that would provide an additional 3.2 trillion (according to the CBO) on top of the tax on the rich.

Now I didn't hear Obama mention that in his speech but I know he supports shared sacrifice...he said it again last night.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Maybe Obama should have did a little research with Google.. He is the one that made the promises...

I will hold him to his promises.

Remember the "Summer of Recovery"? Good times...

Keep holding politicians to their promises. Have a great time with that.

[sappstuf]

Keep holding politicians to their promises. Have a great time with that.

Bush I was.. So will Obama.

[pphilfran]

Obama focused on raising taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Our corporations are among the highest taxed businesses in the world.

Our wealthy, theoretically, would increase tax revenues by 700 billion dollars if their tax rate reverted to the Clinton tax rates. Not bad...but if
the Clinton tax rates were reinstated for everyone then that would provide an additional 3.2 trillion (according to the CBO) on top of the tax on the rich.

Now I didn't hear Obama mention that in his speech but I know he supports shared sacrifice...he said it again last night.

Is that over ten years?

[Barry's_Scowl]

Tell me where the revenue came from?

Taxing the rich, who now pay a lower percentage of taxes than their secretaries, thanks to W. Bush.

Warren Buffet admitted that he pays a 17.7% tax rate, while his secretary pays 30%.

Did you really not know this, or was it an attempt at a rhetorical question that just backfired?

[pphilfran]

Keep holding politicians to their promises. Have a great time with that.

We need to hold their feet to the fire...

Pick out a couple and recall their azz...tell the survivors that if they don't get their chit together then you and you will be next...

[okie52]

Do a little research. Google is a really wonderful tool. You can't fix in three years what was monumentally screwed up across the previous eight years, including two unnecessary wars that we are now mired into with no end in sight.

Bush sank the ship with tax cuts for the wealthy and launching two wars. It doesn't matter how fast you bail out water. You can fix in three years what had been going on for the previous eight.

Oh good lord...do you really believe the talking points you regurgitate?

Is Libya a necessary war? Afghanistan was an unnecessary war?

The dems had 2 years to reinstate the Clinton tax rates...where are they?

The tax cuts for the rich are modest when compared to the tax breaks everyone received. You do realize everyone got tax breaks under W and still are receiving them under Obama?

How many years are you giving Obama to fix it?

[okie52]

Is that over ten years?

Yeah, according to the CBO. But I know you have always doubted that assertion.

[sappstuf]

Taxing the rich, who now pay a lower percentage of taxes than their secretaries, thanks to W. Bush.

Warren Buffet admitted that he pays a 17.7% tax rate, while his secretary pays 30%.

Did you really not know this, or was it an attempt at a rhetorical question that just backfired?

Warren Buffet could put all of his money in a vault and pay 0% just because he can. His secretary cannot.

We want Buffet to invest his money and make a profit on it so we can tax it. Go ahead and tax Buffet at 90%. Revenue would probably drop to $0..

But at least you could say you stuck it to the rich guy didn't you! Meanwhile Buffet wouldn't change his lifestyle at all because he doesn't have to.

Obama admitted raising the capital gains tax was all about "fairness" and not about revenue. His only concern should be revenue and the economy. He is doing a bang up job on both....

[sheepdogs]

Taxing the rich, who now pay a lower percentage of taxes than their secretaries, thanks to W. Bush.

Warren Buffet admitted that he pays a 17.7% tax rate, while his secretary pays 30%.

Did you really not know this, or was it an attempt at a rhetorical question that just backfired?

Paying 30% of next to nothing is far different from paying close to 20% on an overly large booty.

[Sooner5030]

buffet and his secretary pay the exact same tax rate on wages.....in other words his first $10,000 of wages are taxed the same as her first $10,000 of wages.

His overall effective rate is less because alot of his earnings are through capital gains and dividends.....taxed less than wages.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Warren Buffet could put all of his money in a vault and pay 0% just because he can. His secretary cannot.

We want Buffet to invest his money and make a profit on it so we can tax it. Go ahead and tax Buffet at 90%. Revenue would probably drop to $0..

But at least you could say you stuck it to the rich guy didn't you! Meanwhile Buffet wouldn't change his lifestyle at all because he doesn't have to.

Obama admitted raising the capital gains tax was all about "fairness" and not about revenue. His only concern should be revenue and the economy. He is doing a bang up job on both....

Are you one of those who blindly supports the rich because you know - you just KNOW - that one day you'll be rich, too?

[bigfatjerk]

I think both are silly. They are basically arguing how much they want to raise the debt not arguing if one or the other should be cutting the debt and cutting or privatizing parts of the federal government and cutting government spending and changing the role of federal government. Neither party wants to really do this.

[okie52]

Are you one of those who blindly supports the rich because you know - you just KNOW - that one day you'll be rich, too?

When did you know you wouldn't be rich?

[Sooner5030]

we're debating whether or not the debt will be 21.5 trillion vs 24 trillion in 10 years. Both are unacceptable and our ability to raise cash through T-bills and notes will be exhausted by then.......unless the FED becomes the sole buyer.

[pphilfran]

Taxing the rich, who now pay a lower percentage of taxes than their secretaries, thanks to W. Bush.

Warren Buffet admitted that he pays a 17.7% tax rate, while his secretary pays 30%.

Did you really not know this, or was it an attempt at a rhetorical question that just backfired?

Income tax wise both he and his secretary ended up paying very similar amounts....he elects to take advantage of a tax law by taking a very minimal salary and live of ltcg...he could always move his money around and draw a bigger salary if he wishes to pay more in taxes...

She pays a much higher percentage due to the SS tax cut off...

As far as Clinton's revenue increase...was it income taxes that drove his climb to 20% of GDP? Corp taxes? Cap gains?

Any idea?

[bigfatjerk]

we're debating whether or not the debt will be 21.5 trillion vs 24 trillion in 10 years. Both are unacceptable and our ability to raise cash through T-bills and notes will be exhausted by then.......unless the FED becomes the sole buyer.

This is pretty much the argument. Neither party is really talking about fixing the problem.

[bigfatjerk]

As far as Clinton's revenue increase...was it income taxes that drove his climb to 20% of GDP? Corp taxes? Cap gains?


Clinton had a combination of things which also included a big internet boom. Cutting some taxes, raising others. He was also able to triangulate and compromise with republicans in the House. Something Obama hasn't shown he's any good at doing so far.

[pphilfran]

buffet and his secretary pay the exact same tax rate on wages.....in other words his first $10,000 of wages are taxed the same as her first $10,000 of wages.

His overall effective rate is less because alot of his earnings are through capital gains and dividends.....taxed less than wages.

Income tax wise she ended up paying around 17.5%...at most...

Her top bracket was 25% and that is only on the top 25k or so of her salary...

The only way she paid 30% in taxes was to include SS/Medicare and state...probably even local...

[soonerhubs]

Ad hominem

The new guy is cute with his "clever" retorts. :D

[prrriiide]

Folks, this comes down to a really simple fact: the top 10% of net worth holders in the US control 75% of the net worth of the US. They are currently responsible for 60% of the tax revenues. If they control 75% of the wealth, they should be responsible for 75% of the tax revenues. How could that possibly be unfair?




I do believe the elections of 2006 had the Dem's winning both houses.

So starting in 2007 3 of the above referenced 7 increases in the debt limit was done by the Dem's. Two done in one year.



They never had the 3/5 needed for cloture. They had the houses, but not a big enough margin to block filibuster, which in that two years was used more by the GOP than in the previous 10 Congresses combined.

AFA the debt ceiling raises, the Dems raised it because they knew the consequences of default. Something the GOP reps seem not to be able to comprehend.


Clinton had a combination of things which also included a big internet boom. Cutting some taxes, raising others. He was also able to triangulate and compromise with republicans in the House. Something Obama hasn't shown he's any good at doing so far.

I think Obama would be as good at it as Clinton if he had Clinton's Congress. He doesn't. He has a bunch of pouty, recalcitrant adolescents bent on taking back the White House if it means every person in the country is impoverished in the process.

The strategy is clear: kill the economy, blame Obama and win in 2012. It can't be anything else: even Grover Norquist (the guy that got them all to sign the no-tax-increase pledge) came out and said that in his opinion letting the Bush tax cuts expire wasn't a tax increase. HE GAVE THEM A PASS and they didn't take it.

There will never be another opportunity for the GOP to garner the combination of spending cuts and modest tax reform that has been proposed. I have never seen anything approaching it in my lifetime. They will not see it again. And yet they refuse to take it. Intentional economic sabotage is the only plausible answer.

[dwarthog]

Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Again...folks...Google. You aren't going to learn anything of value from TV news or your ill-informed neighbors and coworkers. You've got a wealth of information at your fingertips, and its veracity is infinitely greater than anything you're getting from the talking heads.

Googling... googling....

1998 + 69 budget surplus
1999 + 125 budget surplus

Total federal debt, 9/30/1993 4.4 trillion dollars.

Total federal debt, 9/30/2000 5.6 trillion dollars.

Looks like Clinton added to the problem after all...

[pphilfran]

Clinton had a combination of things which also included a big internet boom. Cutting some taxes, raising others. He was also able to triangulate and compromise with republicans in the House. Something Obama hasn't shown he's any good at doing so far.

All data from the following two sources

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Revenue as a % of GDP

Year/Total Rev/CG Rev
1990/18.0/2.13
1991/17.8/1.86
1992/17.5/2.00
1993/17.5/2.28
1994/18.0/2.16
1995/18.4/2.43
1996/18.8/3.33
1997/19.2/4.38
1998/19.9/5.18
1999/19.8/5.91
2000/20.6/6.47
2001/19.5/3.40
2002/17.6/2.52
2003/16.2/2.90

Sorry bout the bad formatting...

Look at the numbers...those record years were due to cap gains increases from a booming stock market...all other revenue outside of cap gains actually declined to the 14% range...

How can that be with the tax increases that were implemented?

[Position Limit]

i applaud priiiide for his heavy lifting. unfortunately it will get him nowhere with this jejune crowd. points need to be scored, facts be damned!!! barry's scowl is new here but it wont take him long to learn this same crowd are drones of fox news residing in jonestown.

[pphilfran]

i applaud priiiide for his heavy lifting. unfortunately it will get him nowhere with this jejune crowd. points need to be scored, facts be damned!!! barry's scowl is new here but it wont take him long to learn this same crowd are drones of fox news residing in jonestown.

Am I considered in the jejune crowd?

[TitoMorelli]

jejune?


jejune???


Pretentious little twerp, ain't ya?;)

[pphilfran]

jejune?


jejune???


Pretentious little twerp, ain't ya?;)

:D

[Position Limit]

Am I considered in the jejune crowd?

i applaud your efforts to crusade for top earners. all i know is last year i absolutely killed it. i'm talking slayed it. and only ended paying about 18%-20%. way too many loopholes to take advantage of. and too low of a rate. it's happened in the past a few times, but i just would not have expected it last year. i refuse to believe that harm will come from raising rates on top earners. and i tune out when "republicans" argue tax policy. they have gotten wrong for the last 40 years.

[bigfatjerk]

i applaud your efforts to crusade for top earners. all i know is last year i absolutely killed it. i'm talking slayed it. and only ended paying about 18%-20%. way too many loopholes to take advantage of. and too low of a rate. it's happened in the past a few times, but i just would not have expected it last year. i refuse to believe that harm will come from raising rates on top earners. and i tune out when "republicans" argue tax policy. they have gotten wrong for the last 40 years.

Both parties have gotten it wrong for way too long. That's why it's all screwed up right now.

[pphilfran]

i applaud your efforts to crusade for top earners. all i know is last year i absolutely killed it. i'm talking slayed it. and only ended paying about 18%-20%. way too many loopholes to take advantage of. and too low of a rate. it's happened in the past a few times, but i just would not have expected it last year. i refuse to believe that harm will come from raising rates on top earners. and i tune out when "republicans" argue tax policy. they have gotten wrong for the last 40 years.

I am not really against raising the income tax rate back to Clinton levels...I just don't think it will do chic...and I think I have posted enough data to support my stance...

I only get crickets or standard rhetoric about the actual data I provide....I am unlike the media or our DC leadership and I put all of the facts on the table...even those that do not support my stance if they come up.....

[Position Limit]

I am not really against raising the income tax rate back to Clinton levels...I just don't think it will do chic...and I think I have posted enough data to support my stance...

I only get crickets or standard rhetoric about the actual data I provide....I am unlike the media or our DC leadership and I put all of the facts on the table...even those that do not support my stance if they come up.....

cool. i down with that. cheers.

[pphilfran]

It is actually pretty easy...

Income tax levels back to Clinton era on all taxpayers...75 billion a year...

Raise SS limit to 140k....another 75 billion a year

A hundred and fifty billion in extra revenue and I didn't break a sweat...

Extend SS age by 2, possibly 3, years...slow steps...

Cut back on child dependent deduction..

Cut back on mortgage interest deduction...

Cut back on various other loopholes...

150 billion in spending cuts per year...

I just got 300 billion...3 trillion over 10 years...

[sappstuf]

Are you one of those who blindly supports the rich because you know - you just KNOW - that one day you'll be rich, too?

Can't refute the facts... Begin the attack!! :rolleyes:

Point out specifically what I said was wrong. I'm sure you could do some research with Google...

[okie52]

Folks, this comes down to a really simple fact: the top 10% of net worth holders in the US control 75% of the net worth of the US. They are currently responsible for 60% of the tax revenues. If they control 75% of the wealth, they should be responsible for 75% of the tax revenues. How could that possibly be unfair?

Wealth isn't income. Do you have figures showing an income relationship that doesn't correspond proportionately?



I think Obama would be as good at it as Clinton if he had Clinton's Congress. He doesn't. He has a bunch of pouty, recalcitrant adolescents bent on taking back the White House if it means every person in the country is impoverished in the process.

You mean Clinton's Republican congress?

The strategy is clear: kill the economy, blame Obama and win in 2012. It can't be anything else: even Grover Norquist (the guy that got them all to sign the no-tax-increase pledge) came out and said that in his opinion letting the Bush tax cuts expire wasn't a tax increase. HE GAVE THEM A PASS and they didn't take it.

So why did Obama and the dems extend the Bush tax cuts? They only had to let them expire at the end of 2010....the GOP could have done nothing to stop them.

There will never be another opportunity for the GOP to garner the combination of spending cuts and modest tax reform that has been proposed. I have never seen anything approaching it in my lifetime. They will not see it again. And yet they refuse to take it. Intentional economic sabotage is the only plausible answer.

I don't have a problem with all of the Clinton tax rates being reinstated but that is not what Obama and the dems wanted. They just wanted to stick it to the rich. All of this "shared sacrifice" talk is just so much BS.

[sappstuf]

we're debating whether or not the debt will be 21.5 trillion vs 24 trillion in 10 years. Both are unacceptable and our ability to raise cash through T-bills and notes will be exhausted by then.......unless the FED becomes the sole buyer.

Yep.

The spending is unsustainable.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/heritage-budgetgrowth.jpg

[picasso]

I think we should just vote out all incumbents. Too bad there isnt a no confidence option. Or an anyone else option.

Because I know I'm going to hate whoever they put up against Obama for president.

This is what we need. Do your term and get out. No career politicans, regardless of party or ideaology. Do your work, leave and get a real job.

[sappstuf]

This is what we need. Do your term and get out. No career politicans, regardless of party or ideaology. Do your work, leave and get a real job.

tYaki2ZvhSE

[Breadburner]

This is what we need. Do your term and get out. No career politicans, regardless of party or ideaology. Do your work, leave and get a real job.

Thats why they are in Politics because they can't get a real job......

[picasso]

We were in the sh*tter long before he took office. Whose fault do you think that was?

Who the **** cares? He said he could fix it.

And you need to go look at his voting record when he was in congress. When he wasn't out campaigning.

[picasso]

Thats why they are in Politics because they can't get a real job......

That's a knee slapper but there are actually folks who enter the realm who were successful innen ze private sector.

[sappstuf]

The problem with severe term limits is that it would place even more power in the hands of the lobbists because they would be the only ones who know what is going on.

12 years is probably good IMO.

[OrlandoSooner]

The problem with severe term limits is that it would place even more power in the hands of the lobbists because they would be the only ones who know what is going on.

12 years is probably good IMO.

I won't argue for/against 12 years, but i agree 100% with your first comment.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If Buffett's secretary is paying a 30% effective tax rate, she needs to quit going to H&R block to do her taxes.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Just saw this on my facebook regarding spending. Discuss.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/215010_10150250880282872_766742871_7476046_7621623 _n.jpg

[pphilfran]

Total spending

2001-2008 $19,164,717
2009-2016 $30,926,991 (estimate)

Total Revenue

2001-2008 $17,159,102
2009-2016 $22,806,941 (estimate)



http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Table 1.1

[sappstuf]

Just saw this on my facebook regarding spending. Discuss.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/215010_10150250880282872_766742871_7476046_7621623 _n.jpg

According to this Obamacare is going to only cost us $152 billion until 2017?

I don't think we even need to discuss this chart after seeing that....

[KABOOKIE]

So Obama is earning money for being at war?

[OutlandTrophy]

According to this Obamacare is going to only cost us $152 billion until 2017?

I don't think we even need to discuss this chart after seeing that....

yeah and why are the Obama tax cuts not shown? I understand that they technically are not new policies but it's money he's spending that he didn't have to.

[JohnnyMack]

Recap:

Obama - devil
W - good

Democrat - bad
Republican - good

Carry on mindless lemmings.

[OutlandTrophy]

JM, I think you have that backwards. I don't see (maybe because I'm not looking for it?) a lot of Bush defending. I do see a lot of Bush blaming going on.

I'm not sure either party has anyone electable for President that has the ability and willingness to lead us out of this.

[dwarthog]

JM, I think you have that backwards. I don't see (maybe because I'm not looking for it?) a lot of Bush defending. I do see a lot of Bush blaming going on.

I'm not sure either party has anyone electable for President that has the ability and willingness to lead us out of this.

Thank you.

I certainly wouldn't defend Bush and his spending policies. I never liked it from the beginning.

But doubling down on bad policy, spending more than we have, doesn't make it better policy than it was before.

Both parties are complicit in this mess, with the Dems getting a little extra blame IMO because they elected to skate on passing a budget for so long.

[Fish&Game]

Thats why they are in Politics because they can't get a real job......
Apparently there are some already preparing for their next job instead of being in DC doing what we pay them to do....this was a post from my fb yesterday....

I had a Senator on a lift drilling 1 1/2" holes through 12" block walls today.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I loved it when Bush spent money.

He should've spent more.

[sappstuf]

Obama continues to talk about compromise. I know he means it because he has issued about 1500 veto threats....

[Caboose]

Just saw this on my facebook regarding spending. Discuss.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/215010_10150250880282872_766742871_7476046_7621623 _n.jpg

A tax-cut is a "cost"? What kind of Marxist/Statist/Liberal **** is that? That idea only makes sense if you consider your money to belong by the government by default.

[Sooner5030]

Folks, this comes down to a really simple fact: the top 10% of net worth holders in the US control 75% of the net worth of the US. They are currently responsible for 60% of the tax revenues. If they control 75% of the wealth, they should be responsible for 75% of the tax revenues. How could that possibly be unfair?

seriously? do you understand the difference between net worth vs income? Income statement vs balance sheet? And what the federal government taxes? This is why it is impossible to have a decent policy debate.

[GKeeper316]

A tax-cut is a "cost"? What kind of Marxist/Statist/Liberal **** is that? That idea only makes sense if you consider your money to belong by the government by default.

you have a very limited understanding of how money is created, don't you?

[GKeeper316]

john boehner is a flat out ****ing liar...




(http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2011&base_name=the_blank_check_lie)The "Blank Check" Lie (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2011&base_name=the_blank_check_lie)

By Adam Serwer | Posted 07/26/2011 at 03:30 PM (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2011&base_name=the_blank_check_lie#125876)

I'm obviously not an expert on the debate occurring over the debt ceiling, but I know enough to know that raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with cutting spending. During last night's speech, House Speaker John Boehner repeated (http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/click.phdo?i=bbf552406d7f72b7aa61ab779172de85) a whopper that is becoming a standard part of Republican talking points on the issue:
But the far more dishonest statement is Boehner’s line that the debt ceiling amounts to a “blank check.” This is a straight-up lie. Not the everyday, casual fudging that politicians do, but a straight up lie. As the Government Accountability Office explains: “The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.”


This isn’t a perfect metaphor, but not raising the debt ceiling is more like refusing to pay your credit card bill than it is akin to asking for a blank check. Congress appropriates funds; if they don’t want Obama to spend more, it’s within Congress’s power to withhold that money. That’s you know, in the Constitution. I believe the GOP insisted on it being read at the beginning of the 112th Congress, but they don’t seem to have been paying attention.
It's understandable, though, why Boehner is doing this. In order to justify holding the country hostage to possible default over what has up till now been a procedural matter, he has to pretend that it has something to do with runaway spending. Of course, most of the deficit is the result of policies Boehner supported (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=3) while a Republican was in the White House.

[soonerhubs]

john boehner is a flat out ****ing liar...

That was such an unbiased source you cited! :rolleyes:


Both groups are clowns.

[mgsooner]

Why is John Boehner so tan?

[soonerhubs]

Why is John Boehner so tan?

Teeth whitening is too spensive? (RIP Mitch.)

[soonercruiser]

john boehner is a flat out ****ing liar...

Nice LW cut & paste.
Not even honest enough to post the link to the story.
Probably a Daily Cos article!
:rolleyes:


Oh! The WhiteHouse web site! I see!

[soonercruiser]

Teeth whitening is too spensive? (RIP Mitch.)

Wrong!
Can be very cheap.
Just get your dentist (or local denturist) to take impressions and make custom trays.
Then buy the bleaching agent on the web!
Then, get regular cancer screenings! :D

[mgsooner]

Tell us about your anal bleaching experiences, 'cruiser

[soonercruiser]

Teeth whitening is too spensive? (RIP Mitch.)

Actually, the answer is "golf".
It's sickness like alcohol.
And, requires a minimum of 4 hours in direct sunlight.

[GKeeper316]

Nice LW cut & paste.
Not even honest enough to post the link to the story.
Probably a Daily Cos article!
:rolleyes:


Oh! The WhiteHouse web site! I see!

link's at the top of the article.

are you retarded? do you have to wear a helmet when you go out in public?

[homerSimpsonsBrain]

Here's a solution everyone should love. After the default, Obama says "hey folks that voted the tea party folks in. You're opposed to federal spending so if you live in a republican district, we're not sending you a check till this is resolved. No SS, VA, disability, vendor payments, nuthin."

Republicans should love that cuz they dont have to raise any taxes and they get to contribute to cutting spending directly.

Democrats should love it cuz they get to watch Eric Cantors head explode.

[StoopTroup]

It hasn't begun to get ugly folks.

[OU_Sooners75]

Here is what really needs to be done....

1. Term limits on all in congress.
2. A balanced budget amendment.
3. A cap on how much we can spend.
4. Smaller government, allow the states to have their power back.
5. True tax reform.

[Blue]

Repubs hate wall street and big business. Why else would they try and sabotage the markets?

We're going in circles lalalala.

[OU_Sooners75]

Do a little research. Google is a really wonderful tool. You can't fix in three years what was monumentally screwed up across the previous eight years, including two unnecessary wars that we are now mired into with no end in sight.

Bush sank the ship with tax cuts for the wealthy and launching two wars. It doesn't matter how fast you bail out water. You can fix in three years what had been going on for the previous eight.
you're right you can't fix it all in just 3 years. However, you can take the necessary steps in order to apply the solution to the problem. Obama did not do this.

In fact in this entire process your annoited one has yet put a viable solution to the problem on the table. He says he endorses Reid's plan, yet wants tax increases too. Well Reid's plan has no tax increases. What is even worse is if the dumb**** vetoes a bill that both houses pass. That means he will be going against his democrat buddies from the senate.

Face dude, I help elect a fool for POTUS. Yes, I voted for Obama. I am a registered democrat. But I will not vote for Obama a second time.

[OU_Sooners75]

Clinton left office with a budget surplus. Again...folks...Google. You aren't going to learn anything of value from TV news or your ill-informed neighbors and coworkers. You've got a wealth of information at your fingertips, and its veracity is infinitely greater than anything you're getting from the talking heads.

If google is such a great tool, you need to learn how to use it better.

Yes, when Clinton left office he had a budget surplus, but we were still very much in debt. It was the republican led congress that push Clinton to smaller government and less spending. However, there hasn't been a time in my lifetime that the federal government has not had debt.

Also budget surplus means he stayed under the alloted budget granted to him by congress. Not that the US was out of debt.

You sound smart, now start acting like it.

[StoopTroup]

What's hilarious is we have two parties in this Country and seemingly only one has all the answers since 9-11-01 when they abso****ingly had no ****ing answers for over 8 years.

Every time an administration is at fault there is an Opposition Party in either the White House, the Senate or the house that is to blame for all the bad things.

It's such horse**** that even the Horse's *** is offended.

If folks aren't exactly in agreement with some idea or one perspective they are suddenly a bad guy is the way both sides seem to be at odds now and doing what's best has nothing to do with what's happening.

I'm pretty sure that if we fail to raise the debt ceiling....one side will win politically in the short term....but America will be the ones to actually pay to fix it. Now.....the question is.....if you are having money problems in your personal life.....would you rather fix them with a 700 Credit Rating or a 590 Rating?

I know what my answer is.

What's yours?

This is the first time in 10 years that the Republicans have stopped using fear to get folks to back them in dealings with Foreign Policy....and now are using the Democrats as the Terrorists that are going to ruin our Country.

I will never believe that Americans who have taken an Oath of Office such as the Presidency, The U.S. Senate or The House of Representatives would do things to intentionally destroy the American way of life.

There is no way raising revenues and the Debt Ceiling will ruin our Country. On the other hand....not raising the debt ceiling have serious consequences. I have always felt more Patriotic by paying more in Taxes when our Country is in need. I have felt patriotic in supporting our Military and the massive spending that went with it to find OBL/UBL and all the Al Queda needed to put a stop to attacks on American Soil.

After such historical events I found it strange that we didn't use Iraq's Oil for a time to pay ourselves back for the cost of Nation Building in their Country. It gave them no incentive to get us the hell out and them to work to take control of their Country and their money/oil. That was all the Bush Administrations doing and I supported it 100%. Later I recanted as it seemed that not having a way to stop the massive spending seemed just as silly as they seem to think stopping the massive spending is now. maybe they are seeing the error or their ways....but the folks that made huge profits during all of that off of the American People's money are now being asked by the Democrats to be Patriotic and accept an increase in tax revenues for a period of time to help our Country. I don't think it's to much to ask and I don't think this is the time for Tea Party Supporters to make a stand and hold their Party Hostage. Our current President is looking to get our butts out of these Wars and bring our Troops Home and hopefully the Companies they worked for are prepared to put them back to work instead of on the Street like they have so many others during the last decade.

It's time that we all buck up IMO.

This Political Wrangling will only serve to create more tension and more distrust in America's Political System. It's supposed to work without one side having ultimate control over the other and IMO....if the Republicans push us past the debt ceiling date of 8-2-2011 without increases in revenues.....we are screwed and for a very long time and play right into the hands of the Chinese and hurt many allies in the EU.

I will blame them both but I will really blame the Tea Partiers for screwing up the RNC. I can't believe they got themselves trapped by a bunch of folks who had very little power so fast. McCain seems to be completely out to lunch and just 3 years ago....he was at the top of his game.

Unbelievable.

[soonercruiser]

link's at the top of the article.

are you retarded? do you have to wear a helmet when you go out in public?

Sorry GK...it didn't link on the Mac I was using at the time.
But, I am half right...

The American Prospect
prospect.org/ - Cached2 days ago – Monthly magazine covering politics, culture, and policy from a liberal perspective. Includes well maintained archives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Prospect
The American Prospect is a monthly American political magazine dedicated to liberalism.

Some articles by Adam Serwer:
Close Gitmo and Use our Legal System
Adam Serwer: Another Leftist journalist enables Islamic supremacism
An embarrassment to the country - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/.../AFQk22xE_blog.html

BTW - I only wear a helmet when talking with a liberal.
They are usually very angry, and potentially violent people.

[soonercruiser]

What's hilarious is we have two parties in this Country and seemingly only one has all the answers since 9-11-01 when they abso****ingly had no ****ing answers for over 8 years.

I will blame them both but I will really blame the Tea Partiers for screwing up the RNC. I can't believe they got themselves trapped by a bunch of folks who had very little power so fast. McCain seems to be completely out to lunch and just 3 years ago....he was at the top of his game.

Unbelievable.

*crew your opinion! That's all it is is an opinion. "Opinions are like......"
The Tea Party and Americans that want the country to return to its Constitutional roots are what won the 2010 election!

Continuing what we have always done is what the RHINOS like your self want them to do ....capitulate.....continue to destroy the country along with the Demoncrats!
IT is YOUR outlook that has contribute to the country's demise!
:(

[soonercruiser]

If google is such a great tool, you need to learn how to use it better.

Yes, when Clinton left office he had a budget surplus, but we were still very much in debt. It was the republican led congress that push Clinton to smaller government and less spending. However, there hasn't been a time in my lifetime that the federal government has not had debt.

Also budget surplus means he stayed under the alloted budget granted to him by congress. Not that the US was out of debt.

You sound smart, now start acting like it.

The LW would love to forget that Clinton was pulled to the Balanced Budget Table kicking & screaming!
Dick Morris is still around to remind everyone what really happened inside the Clinton administration after the Dems lost Congress.

[dwarthog]

Here's a solution everyone should love. After the default, Obama says "hey folks that voted the tea party folks in. You're opposed to federal spending so if you live in a republican district, we're not sending you a check till this is resolved. No SS, VA, disability, vendor payments, nuthin."

Republicans should love that cuz they dont have to raise any taxes and they get to contribute to cutting spending directly.

Democrats should love it cuz they get to watch Eric Cantors head explode.

Cool solution!

The folks living in the "other" area get a check that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

[TUSooner]

Here is what really needs to be done....

1. Term limits on all in congress.
2. A balanced budget amendment.
3. A cap on how much we can spend.
4. Smaller government, allow the states to have their power back.
5. True tax reform.

...no matter how much it hurts . . . OTHERS.
Right?
Actually, I agree with 4 (mostly) & 5 (absolutely). The first 3 points are better slogans than policies.

No doubt we need fiscal responisbility and debt reduction. But the GOP is screwing it up (and I think it will blow up in their smug arrogant faces) with ultra-rigid ideology stoked by their frenzy to hurt Obama at all costs. In that, they are like whiny 4-year-olds -- or whiny 60's leftist radicals -- screaming. "We want it ALL and we want it NOW !!" They also remind me of Joey on Friends, who said he was short on funds so he was giving up certain things, like "paying for stuff." It's just a shame that valuable conservative principles are in the hands of such spolied, short-sighted children.

[bigfatjerk]

I disagree becasue I think it's more the democrats trying to make the republicans more rigid than they really are. No plan out there right now wants to really cut debt and cut deficit. It just wants to make the debt and deficit a little less than is planned right now. In others both solutions suck. There is no ideological difference between democrats and republicans right now.

[dwarthog]

...no matter how much it hurts . . . OTHERS.
Right?
Actually, I agree with 4 (mostly) & 5 (absolutely). The first 3 points are better slogans than policies.

No doubt we need fiscal responisbility and debt reduction. But the GOP is screwing it up (and I think it will blow up in their smug arrogant faces) with ultra-rigid ideology stoked by their frenzy to hurt Obama at all costs. In that, they are like whiny 4-year-olds -- or whiny 60's leftist radicals -- screaming. "We want it ALL and we want it NOW !!" They also remind me of Joey on Friends, who said he was short on funds so he was giving up certain things, like "paying for stuff." It's just a shame that valuable conservative principles are in the hands of such spolied, short-sighted children.

Others?

Everyone has their hands in the cookie jar in some form.

It is how congress has been buying votes from their constituencies for a very long time. Everyone was happy to collect "their" money and have a good time.

We regards to the "wants" from Obama in the form of a big debt ceiling increase, he is just pandering to his base. The Democratically controlled congress raised it twice in 2007. It can be raised twice again if necessary.

There isn't a single reason a short term increase in the debt ceiling can't be done and then a serious examination of how we move forward as a country to get this problem under control.

Of course that presumes you ignore the predilections of previous congresses to complete ignore the problem for years and not do a damn thing.

Meanwhile, demagoguery is the key to accomplishing nothing.

[hawaii 5-0]

Let's just raise the ceiling now and then kick the can down the road for 6 months.


That'll solve everything.


5-0


Trump/ Moneybags 2012

[TUSooner]

Others?

Everyone has their hands in the cookie jar in some form.

It is how congress has been buying votes from their constituencies for a very long time. Everyone was happy to collect "their" money and have a good time.

We regards to the "wants" from Obama in the form of a big debt ceiling increase, he is just pandering to his base. The Democratically controlled congress raised it twice in 2007. It can be raised twice again if necessary.

There isn't a single reason a short term increase in the debt ceiling can't be done and then a serious examination of how we move forward as a country to get this problem under control.

Of course that presumes you ignore the predilections of previous congresses to complete ignore the problem for years and not do a damn thing.

Meanwhile, demagoguery is the key to accomplishing nothing.

yep

[sappstuf]

Here is a good history of the debt limit increases.. Obama is wanting a $2.5 trillion dollar increase to take him through the election cycle.

http://pl-mgroup-akamai.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2011/07/increases-us-debt-limit-850.jpg

[NormanPride]

What's the point of a "debt limit" if we're just going to increase it anyway? It sounds like it's just something for people to get mad about.

[bigfatjerk]

What's the point of a "debt limit" if we're just going to increase it anyway? It sounds like it's just something for people to get mad about.

And both parties are scared to say, "Why don't we just cut the debt and deficit so we don't have to go through this again 6 months or 2 or 3 years from now?"

[StoopTroup]

And both parties are scared to say, "Why don't we just cut the debt and deficit so we don't have to go through this again 6 months or 2 or 3 years from now?"

The Tea Party is the second factionto come to Washington and stir things up. Obama was the first and the Tea Party got elected to slow things up. They think they got elected so they can get our Country to reduce the size of Government and get back to the Constitutional ideals of our Founding Fathers.

Thing is Thomas Edison didn't invent the smartphone or the Internet.

What I'm saying is....they have no real concept of what that looks like except that there probably isn't any Democrats to get in their way of dismantling Government to the point that we only tax to keep their salaries and benefits paid, maybe a few National Monuments (especially the one they built to commemorate their take over of 2011) and a nice powerful ground force of Minutemen who are loyal to the Tea Party Members in Austin, TX (The New Capitol). I swear I haven't seen as many piranha in the water since Piranha II.

It's pretty sickening. I mean....even Sullivan, Coburn and Inhofe are sitting back watching these folks swing their balls in the face of Americans and actually tell us why we elected them in 2010. When they wake up and realize their political careers are over, I think then you'll see some really great 60's type rallies.

[Blue]

The Tea Party is the second factionto come to Washington and stir things up. Obama was the first and the Tea Party got elected to slow things up. They think they got elected so they can get our Country to reduce the size of Government and get back to the Constitutional ideals of our Founding Fathers.

Thing is Thomas Edison didn't invent the smartphone or the Internet.

What I'm saying is....they have no real concept of what that looks like except that there probably isn't any Democrats to get in their way of dismantling Government to the point that we only tax to keep their salaries and benefits paid, maybe a few National Monuments (especially the one they built to commemorate their take over of 2011) and a nice powerful ground force of Minutemen who are loyal to the Tea Party Members in Austin, TX (The New Capitol). I swear I haven't seen as many piranha in the water since Piranha II.

It's pretty sickening. I mean....even Sullivan, Coburn and Inhofe are sitting back watching these folks swing their balls in the face of Americans and actually tell us why we elected them in 2010. When they wake up and realize their political careers are over, I think then you'll see some really great 60's type rallies.

Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes: