Obamas Address on Debt Ceiling

[MamaMia]

If you fast forward it, he looks like a cross between a Mariachi puppet and a bobble head. :P

Plus...A question: How does a government "spend money on tax cuts?" That doesnt make sense to me.

[prrriiide]

Plus...A question: How does a government "spend money on tax cuts?" That doesnt make sense to me.

Because many tax breaks have the same effect as money spent. Looked at another way, creating loopholes in the tax code can be seen as a means of stimulating business growth. But it's really no different than taking the tax monies in, and then sending them right back out as stimulus. If those loopholes were closed, then those revenues would be realized as income. With the loopholes in place, they serve as expenses.

Subsidizing corporate jet ownership is no different than offering stimulus money to those that can already afford the jet. But since it's done through the tax code, it isn't considered stimulus. But however you look at it, it's still an expense for the government.

[MamaMia]

I see. In other words he claimed our money as his before it left my savings account, like he gave it to me.

[XingTheRubicon]

One day, when Obama's about 70 years old, he'll slowly realize that in July of 2011 he held out, stood his ground, and risked the credit rating of this country to...raise taxes.

Nero would be proud.

[diverdog]

One day, when Obama's about 70 years old, he'll slowly realize that in July of 2011 he held out, stood his ground, and risked the credit rating of this country to...raise taxes.

Nero would be proud.

Taxes need to be raised! We have not paid for these wars and we are going to make our kids fight, die and pay for the priveledge of doing so. It is reprehensible what the Republicans have done. They are the ones who put this debt on our kids back!

[pphilfran]

We need 20% of GDP

[XingTheRubicon]

Taxes need to be raised! We have not paid for these wars and we are going to make our kids fight, die and pay for the priveledge of doing so. It is reprehensible what the Republicans have done. They are the ones who put this debt on our kids back!

not sure if serious,


if you were...


get a calculator.

Raising taxes on 250K+ earners will solve about 6% of the long term problem. The other 94% is comprised of people getting a check from the gov't.

The US government does not need more money. They need to write less checks.

[badger]

I watched the first 10 minutes or so, by which time I realized that I was watching the blame game. I liked how he started, reminding the country that this is something that has been done by past presidents, but then, it slowed fizzled into the Republicans this the Republicans that and I rolled my eyes and switched to WWE Raw. Yes, that's how bad it was getting. I turned to wrestling for my scripted comedy, not Obama :D

[Sooner5030]

I'm not an ideological fan of the Prez but I did expect a less partisan tone than he took last night. Not exactly a great way to get the other side to compromise.

[pphilfran]

XTR...

We can't cut spending dramatically over the short term....not in this economy...

We need to go back to the Clinton tax rate...it is not so harmful to cause any undue stress to the economy...

We need to go to a 140k limit (or thereabouts) on SS...slowly raise the age to 67...

Start closing a few overseas bases and spend the money here and not in some other country....

Push US based NG and crude...back the Chesapeake plan...

I would spend another half trillion on infrastructure...

And like DD said...slow the growth of government to a pace below inflation...

[dwarthog]

Taxes need to be raised! We have not paid for these wars and we are going to make our kids fight, die and pay for the priveledge of doing so. It is reprehensible what the Republicans have done. They are the ones who put this debt on our kids back!

I agree. Taxes need to be paid by everyone.

Bush and the Republican never should have let anyone off the hook for paying taxes, like they did with their tax cuts.

It's time for everyone to ante up.

You want to enjoy the benefits of what this country has to offer, then pay up, no more free rides.

[pphilfran]

I agree. Taxes need to be paid by everyone.

Bush and the Republican never should have let anyone off the hook for paying taxes, like they did with their tax cuts.

It's time for everyone to ante up.

You want to enjoy the benefits of what this country has to offer, then pay up, no more free rides.

If they work they do pay into SS...

[Barry's_Scowl]

I'm not an ideological fan of the Prez but I did expect a less partisan tone than he took last night. Not exactly a great way to get the other side to compromise.

His tone was completely necessary. Americans with even the slightest understanding of this process can see that a vocal, insane minority of House Republicans are holding the American (and global) economy hostage because they a.) don't understand it and b.) care more about pandering the to Tea Partiers than the possibility of sending us into a deep and severe depression.

This is what happens when you vote for idiots based on rhetoric rather than their education, practical knowledge and ability to work with others. I swear, most of these new House Republicans are not even qualified for entry-level jobs at most businesses.

Obama has gone way past compromise in this deal. He was agreed to spending cuts that are unprecedented by the Democratic party. The "stalemate" comes from those House Republicans that refuse to budge even the slightest. Boehner's comment that a "bipartisan bill" has passed the House was an outright lie. Do a little research and see how many Democrats voted for that bill.

tl;dr: A minority of uneducated, unqualified House Republicans that were elected on a Tea Party platform are holding our economy hostage for political gain. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent.

[XingTheRubicon]

I agree. Taxes need to be paid by everyone.

Bush and the Republican never should have let anyone off the hook for paying taxes, like they did with their tax cuts.

It's time for everyone to ante up.

You want to enjoy the benefits of what this country has to offer, then pay up, no more free rides.



that wouldn't be fair

[dwarthog]

If they work they do pay into SS...

I do believe that Barry had the bright idea of giving folks a payroll tax break with regards to their contributions to SS. Which he wants extend through 2012. ( A little sugar for the electorate....)

Not particularly well thought out given the current circumstances.

[pphilfran]

His tone was completely necessary. Americans with even the slightest understanding of this process can see that a vocal, insane minority of House Republicans are holding the American (and global) economy hostage because they a.) don't understand it and b.) care more about pandering the to Tea Partiers than the possibility of sending us into a deep and severe depression.

This is what happens when you vote for idiots based on rhetoric rather than their education, practical knowledge and ability to work with others. I swear, most of these new House Republicans are not even qualified for entry-level jobs at most businesses.

Obama has gone way past compromise in this deal. He was agreed to spending cuts that are unprecedented by the Democratic party. The "stalemate" comes from those House Republicans that refuse to budge even the slightest. Boehner's comment that a "bipartisan bill" has passed the House was an outright lie. Do a little research and see how many Democrats voted for that bill.

tl;dr: A minority of uneducated, unqualified House Republicans that were elected on a Tea Party platform are holding our economy hostage for political gain. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent.

The problem is that the "good old boys" in Congress have not realized that the citizens are pizzed and mean business...they voted in enough Tea Party supporters to gum up the good old boy's works...

Both sides knew far in advance that this was nut cutting time...the last election showed that...yet they drug their feet and, as usual, have waited until the last minute to get a deal done...

Will we have two days to review the information before it is voted on?

Or will it be a last second "Pass it and you can read it!" deal?

Pelosi and her followers are just as much to blame when they refuse to extend the age to receive SS by two freakiing years....

We will end up with a half azz package that will do just enough to keep the rating agencies at bay but will do little to actually reign in yearly deficits, debt growth, and debt servicing...

[bigfatjerk]

I agree. Taxes need to be paid by everyone.


I think there's a big difference between this and taxes needing to be raised. I'm not sure the tax rates need to be raised at all. In fact they may need to be lowered if we make sure we get rid of all subsidies.

[pphilfran]

I do believe that Barry had the bright idea of giving folks a payroll tax break with regards to their contributions to SS. Which he wants extend through 2012. ( A little sugar for the electorate....)

Not particularly well thought out given the current circumstances.

Don't get me started on that...

[NormanPride]

The debt servicing is what scares me most of all...

[sappstuf]

I think there's a big difference between this and taxes needing to be raised. I'm not sure the tax rates need to be raised at all. In fact they may need to be lowered if we make sure we get rid of all subsidies.

Lowered and get rid of a lot of loopholes. Flat tax.

[bigfatjerk]

Lowered and get rid of a lot of loopholes. Flat tax.
I meant subsidies and loopholes which are pretty much the same thing in my book. I'm not sure if taxes would need to be lowered if we do that but I'm sure more people would end up paying taxes if we did this. But politicians are too corrupted by special interest groups to really do what is necessary.

[TitoMorelli]

His tone was completely necessary. Americans with even the slightest understanding of this process can see that a vocal, insane minority of House Republicans are holding the American (and global) economy hostage because they a.) don't understand it and b.) care more about pandering the to Tea Partiers than the possibility of sending us into a deep and severe depression.

This is what happens when you vote for idiots based on rhetoric rather than their education, practical knowledge and ability to work with others.I swear, most of these new House Republicans are not even qualified for entry-level jobs at most businesses.

You just described our president and your fellow Obamafiles to a tee.


Obama has gone way past compromise in this deal. He was agreed to spending cuts that are unprecedented by the Democratic party.

Then again, any spending cut approved by the Dems would be unprecedented.


The "stalemate" comes from those House Republicans that refuse to budge even the slightest. Boehner's comment that a "bipartisan bill" has passed the House was an outright lie. Do a little research and see how many Democrats voted for that bill.

tl;dr: A minority of uneducated, unqualified House Republicans that were elected on a Tea Party platform are holding our economy hostage for political gain. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent.

No more dangerous than a president who is willing to stonewall because his greatest priority in all this mess is to get a "solution" that will last just beyond November 2012.

[sappstuf]

I meant subsidies and loopholes which are pretty much the same thing in my book. I'm not sure if taxes would need to be lowered if we do that but I'm sure more people would end up paying taxes if we did this. But politicians are too corrupted by special interest groups to really do what is necessary.

Taxes need to be raised for the 50% of people who are not paying federal income taxes. Period. There is no way around that. That was what was in the Ryan plan. Still low, but paying something.

You can tax the top 10% at 100% and it won't solve anything.

[pphilfran]

I think there's a big difference between this and taxes needing to be raised. I'm not sure the tax rates need to be raised at all. In fact they may need to be lowered if we make sure we get rid of all subsidies.

That is a whole different can of worms...

You must look at each one and look for an overall benefit...

Ethanol? Might not save a drop of oil...might not help emissions...

Drilling? Will removal of incentives lower drilling activity? Will the industry attempt to raise margins to make up for the shortfall in fed incentives?

Home Mortgage Deduction? Needs to be limited further...but can't dump it all at once...

And a thousand others...

I may be far off base with my assumptions...so what you do is pull info and each and every one...how much is the "true" cost of each...limit funding that is most costly with least benefit...

Eventually we need a much simpler tax code and have a goal of eliminating H&R Block as a consumer shopping experience...

[dwarthog]

Don't get me started on that...

:D

[pphilfran]

No more dangerous than a president who is willing to stonewall because his greatest priority in all this mess is to get a "solution" that will last just beyond November 2012.

Tito, that is the worst part of the whole freaking deal....

[sheepdogs]

Obama has gone way past compromise in this deal. He was agreed to spending cuts that are unprecedented by the Democratic party.

Does he have a choice? And aren't compromises one of the root causes for this ongoing problem? Expenses being greater than the revenues generated is the focus of the problem and changing this policy is not a compromise as it is more atune to application of common sense.

[NormanPride]

If a flat tax is so awesome, why don't a few states try it out?

[Barry's_Scowl]

You just described our president and your fellow Obamafiles to a tee.



Then again, any spending cut approved by the Dems would be unprecedented.



No more dangerous than a president who is willing to stonewall because his greatest priority in all this mess is to get a "solution" that will last just beyond November 2012.

I'm not an Obamafile. I don't care for any politicians. None of them - NONE OF THEM - give a f*ck about you. They don't give a f*ck about you. I don't care for the government at all, because they don't give a f*ck about me.

What I care about is making sure this debt ceiling is passed so that middle class Americans, like virtually everyone on this board, can continue to put food on their tables, purchase homes, and hopefully find jobs for just a little while longer before the whole stupid f*cking economy crashes around us.

All we can do is delay the inevitable, and believe me, we want to delay it as long as possible. When it happens, the fight will no longer be Republican vs. Democrat. It will be Haves vs. Have-Nots, and it will be bloody.

[bigfatjerk]

That is a whole different can of worms...

You must look at each one and look for an overall benefit...

Ethanol? Might not save a drop of oil...might not help emissions...

Drilling? Will removal of incentives lower drilling activity? Will the industry attempt to raise margins to make up for the shortfall in fed incentives?

Home Mortgage Deduction? Needs to be limited further...but can't dump it all at once...

And a thousand others...

I may be far off base with my assumptions...so what you do is pull info and each and every one...how much is the "true" cost of each...limit funding that is most costly with least benefit...

Eventually we need a much simpler tax code and have a goal of eliminating H&R Block as a consumer shopping experience...

I think we pretty much agree then. Maybe not all of them at once of course but there need to be as few subsidies and loopholes as possible because the free market is better at determining who is better at something and at getting to technological innovations better than a government ran bureaucracy

[bigfatjerk]

I'm not an Obamafile. I don't care for any politicians. None of them - NONE OF THEM - give a f*ck about you. They don't give a f*ck about you. I don't care for the government at all, because they don't give a f*ck about me.

What I care about is making sure this debt ceiling is passed so that middle class Americans, like virtually everyone on this board, can continue to put food on their tables, purchase homes, and hopefully find jobs for just a little while longer before the whole stupid f*cking economy crashes around us.

All we can do is delay the inevitable, and believe me, we want to delay it as long as possible. When it happens, the fight will no longer be Republican vs. Democrat. It will be Haves vs. Have-Nots, and it will be bloody.

Or we can go ahead and default now and re-organize everything and fix the problem now. But I don't see politicians doing that right now. They would rather delay something to the last second then punt it continually.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Or we can go ahead and default now and re-organize everything and fix the problem now. But I don't see politicians doing that right now. They would rather delay something to the last second then punt it continually.

Do you have any idea what will happen when we default? Have you done any research on this at all?

Unless you have six months' worth of non-perishable food stored at your house and plenty of ammunition, I don't think you want this government default.

[bigfatjerk]

We've defaulted about 3 times in the last 70 years or so and we ended up just fine. We need to have a lot more happen then just delay this a couple years or 6 months or anything else that's relatively short sited. We are trying to use a band aid to fix a heart attack or something like that.

[pphilfran]

Or we can go ahead and default now and re-organize everything and fix the problem now. But I don't see politicians doing that right now. They would rather delay something to the last second then punt it continually.

The risk is far too great....

[bigfatjerk]

We already are risking a bunch raising the debt. Just 10 years ago the debt was at about 5 trillion it's now closing in on 15 trillion in 10 years. The deficit was at something like 3 billion, maybe it was 2, I haven't researched was the deficit was 10 years ago. It's now at 1.7 trillion? We don't have a lot of time before we will have to do what I suggest either way we go. It'll just be a lot harder to fix things when we don't have a choice in the matter.

[Sooner5030]

for phil:

what are the risks exactly? Who can really simulate what will happen? How is my individual liberty and freedom changed?

[badger]

I wish that Dems had this sense of urgency over the debt ceiling when they were shoving Obamacare down our throats. Job creation? That can wait. Border security. That can wait too. The economy? Wait list. HEALTH CARE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! :mad:

[pphilfran]

for phil:

what are the risks exactly? Who can really simulate what will happen? How is my individual liberty and freedom changed?

Significantly higher interest rates would be possible....people holding current bonds lose their azz...higher inflation and fuel prices due to weak dollar...

Nobody really knows for sure the impact...could be mild...

It is only a 1/6 chance of dying when playing Russian Roulette...far too high a risk...

i feel the same way about a default...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Because many tax breaks have the same effect as money spent. Looked at another way, creating loopholes in the tax code can be seen as a means of stimulating business growth. But it's really no different than taking the tax monies in, and then sending them right back out as stimulus. If those loopholes were closed, then those revenues would be realized as income. With the loopholes in place, they serve as expenses.

Subsidizing corporate jet ownership is no different than offering stimulus money to those that can already afford the jet. But since it's done through the tax code, it isn't considered stimulus. But however you look at it, it's still an expense for the government.hoo boy!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

His tone was completely necessary. Americans with even the slightest understanding of this process can see that a vocal, insane minority of House Republicans are holding the American (and global) economy hostage because they a.) don't understand it and b.) care more about pandering the to Tea Partiers than the possibility of sending us into a deep and severe depression.

This is what happens when you vote for idiots based on rhetoric rather than their education, practical knowledge and ability to work with others. I swear, most of these new House Republicans are not even qualified for entry-level jobs at most businesses.

Obama has gone way past compromise in this deal. He was agreed to spending cuts that are unprecedented by the Democratic party. The "stalemate" comes from those House Republicans that refuse to budge even the slightest. Boehner's comment that a "bipartisan bill" has passed the House was an outright lie. Do a little research and see how many Democrats voted for that bill.

tl;dr: A minority of uneducated, unqualified House Republicans that were elected on a Tea Party platform are holding our economy hostage for political gain. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent.We see your Switzer scowl. Where's your winky-wink?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I wish that Dems had this sense of urgency over the debt ceiling when they were shoving Obamacare down our throats. Job creation? That can wait. Border security. That can wait too. The economy? Wait list. HEALTH CARE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! :mad:ROCKET SCIENCE!!!

[Blue]

I'm not an Obamafile. I don't care for any politicians. None of them - NONE OF THEM - give a f*ck about you. They don't give a f*ck about you. I don't care for the government at all, because they don't give a f*ck about me.

What I care about is making sure this debt ceiling is passed so that middle class Americans, like virtually everyone on this board, can continue to put food on their tables, purchase homes, and hopefully find jobs for just a little while longer before the whole stupid f*cking economy crashes around us.

All we can do is delay the inevitable, and believe me, we want to delay it as long as possible. When it happens, the fight will no longer be Republican vs. Democrat. It will be Haves vs. Have-Nots, and it will be bloody.

I agree with that.

We will go through a depression sooner or later. Question is when.

The economy is FUBAR and we might as well kick the can down the road as long as we can.

[bigfatjerk]

Ron Paul wrote an interesting article on this the other day.


Default Now, or Suffer a More Expensive Crisis Later
by Ron Paul


Debate over the debt ceiling has reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, with each side trying to outdo the other in a game of political chicken. If you believe some of the things that are being written, the world will come to an end if the U.S. defaults on even the tiniest portion of its debt.

In strict terms, the default being discussed will occur if the U.S. fails to meet its debt obligations, through failure to pay either interest or principal due a bondholder. Proponents of raising the debt ceiling claim that a default on Aug. 2 is unprecedented and will result in calamity (never mind that this is simply an arbitrary date, easily changed, marking a congressional recess). My expectations of such a scenario are more sanguine.

The U.S. government defaulted at least three times on its obligations during the 20th century.

-- In 1934, the government banned ownership of gold and eliminated the right to exchange gold certificates for gold coins. It then immediately revalued gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35, thus devaluing the dollar holdings of all Americans by 40 percent.

-- From 1934 to 1968, the federal government continued to issue and redeem silver certificates, notes that circulated as legal tender that could be redeemed for silver coins or silver bars. In 1968, Congress unilaterally reneged on this obligation, too.

-- From 1934 to 1971, foreign governments were permitted by the U.S. government to exchange their dollars for gold through the gold window. In 1971, President Richard Nixon severed this final link between the dollar and gold by closing the gold window, thus in effect defaulting once again on a debt obligation of the U.S. government.
Unlimited Spending

No longer constrained by any sort of commodity backing, the federal government was now free to engage in almost unlimited fiscal profligacy, the only check on its spending being the market’s appetite for Treasury debt. Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending. If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes.

The national debt now stands at just over $14 trillion, while net total liabilities are estimated at over $200 trillion. The government is insolvent, as there is no way that this massive sum of liabilities can ever be paid off. Successive Congresses and administrations have shown absolutely no restraint when it comes to the budget process, and the idea that either of the two parties is serious about getting our fiscal house in order is laughable.
Boom and Bust

The Austrian School’s theory of the business cycle describes how loose central bank monetary policy causes booms and busts: It drives down interest rates below the market rate, lowering the cost of borrowing; encourages malinvestment; and causes economic miscalculation as resources are diverted from the highest value use as reflected in true consumer preferences. Loose monetary policy caused the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble, and now is causing the government debt bubble.

For far too long, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and quantitative easing have kept interest rates artificially low, enabling the government to drastically increase its spending by funding its profligacy through new debt whose service costs were lower than they otherwise would have been.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats sought to end this gravy train, with one party prioritizing war spending and the other prioritizing welfare spending, and with both supporting both types of spending. But now, with the end of the second round of quantitative easing, the federal funds rate at the zero bound, and the debt limit maxed out, Congress finds itself in a real quandary.
Hard Decisions

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later.

If the government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing.
Raising the Ceiling

The alternative to defaulting now is to keep increasing the debt ceiling, keep spending like a drunken sailor, and hope that the default comes after we die. A future default won’t take the form of a missed payment, but rather will come through hyperinflation. The already incestuous relationship between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will grow even closer as the Fed begins to purchase debt directly from the Treasury and monetizes debt on a scale that makes QE2 look like a drop in the bucket. Imagine the societal breakdown of Weimar Germany, but in a country five times as large. That is what we face if we do not come to terms with our debt problem immediately.

Default will be painful, but it is all but inevitable for a country as heavily indebted as the U.S. Just as pumping money into the system to combat a recession only ensures an unsustainable economic boom and a future recession worse than the first, so too does continuously raising the debt ceiling only forestall the day of reckoning and ensure that, when it comes, it will be cataclysmic.

We have a choice: default now and take our medicine, or put it off as long as possible, when the effects will be much worse.

(Ron Paul is a Republican representative from Texas and a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)




Let's stop kicking the can down the road to a point where it may not even be fixable. It may already be at that point for all we know. But lets try and fix this thing on our own terms.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I agree with that.

We will go through a depression sooner or later. Question is when.

The economy is FUBAR and we might as well kick the can down the road as long as we can.http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156660&highlight=REVOLT

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Limbaugh an entertainer?:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-Limbaugh-clueless-saboteur/2011/07/26/id/404894?s=al&promo_code=CB19-1

[Caboose]

Taxes need to be raised! We have not paid for these wars and we are going to make our kids fight, die and pay for the priveledge of doing so. It is reprehensible what the Republicans have done. They are the ones who put this debt on our kids back!

For the most part you are intelligent and coherent. On this topic you are a blathering f*cking idiot.

[badger]

I didn't vote for Obama and probably won't next year (full disclosure: I'm a lifelong registered Republican). The reason I tuned in was because I was expecting something meaningful, something inspiring, something ANYthing to be uttered by a man that united moderates and Democrats and even some traditional Republican voters together in 2008.

Instead, the blame game. I was severely disappointed.

If the debt ceiling is to be raised, and my guess is that's what we're headed for, them Obama needs to stop blaming and perhaps channel some of that charisma that got so many people believing that he could lead the country in the right direction.

He needs to deliver a "King's Speech" moment. He should be solemn in his delivery, not accusatory, and start by telling "my fellow Americans" that their country needs them and that the coming months and potentially years will be tough, but that the sacrifice will allow their children and grandchildren to enjoy the American that they grew up loving and living in. Their neighbors are unemployed, their children cannot afford college and their elderly friends and family members struggle with medical costs, but through shared sacrifice, better days will be ahead for all by making tough choices today.

The material practically writes itself and he would be perfect in delivering it if his heart was into it. The emphasis must be on helping others, not yourself. Don't focus on each person's own limitations and helplessness, but on the people around them and those close to them and their family's, friends' and country's future. Not today, not self.

Or, we can just default on the debt and practically nobody will notice in the short term. I mean, I didn't know that our dollar was devalued so much till I traveled to London and found that I was paying twice for everything (when combined with their crazy high taxes). When we went to Jamaica, the exchange rate was 50 to 1, so I really didn't notice then.

Most will feel quite safe and secure in their little bubbles, methinks.

[Caboose]

Do you have any idea what will happen when we default? Have you done any research on this at all?

Unless you have six months' worth of non-perishable food stored at your house and plenty of ammunition, I don't think you want this government default.

We aren't going to default. Period.

[Caboose]

Because many tax breaks have the same effect as money spent. Looked at another way, creating loopholes in the tax code can be seen as a means of stimulating business growth. But it's really no different than taking the tax monies in, and then sending them right back out as stimulus. If those loopholes were closed, then those revenues would be realized as income. With the loopholes in place, they serve as expenses.

Subsidizing corporate jet ownership is no different than offering stimulus money to those that can already afford the jet. But since it's done through the tax code, it isn't considered stimulus. But however you look at it, it's still an expense for the government.

Wrong.

[diverdog]

Taxes need to be raised for the 50% of people who are not paying federal income taxes. Period. There is no way around that. That was what was in the Ryan plan. Still low, but paying something.

You can tax the top 10% at 100% and it won't solve anything.

Sapp:

A lot of your income is excluded from taxes. Would you include yourself in that statement?

[diverdog]

For the most part you are intelligent and coherent. On this topic you are a blathering f*cking idiot.

Really? What sacrifices have you made for the war? Either you served and fought or you got a tax cut. Tell me who did more?

[GKeeper316]

For the most part you are intelligent and coherent. On this topic you are a blathering f*cking idiot.

do you have any idea how much missles cost? its all good that we're blowing up bad guys, but when it costs us a buncha missles at 3-50 mil each....

[sappstuf]

Sapp:

A lot of your income is excluded from taxes. Would you include yourself in that statement?

I don't think the law should be changed in regards to the housing allowance, because that would severely punish the lower enlisted.

But if you mean the general tax rate, or doing away with the child credit or many of the other ideas being passed around, then yes, I would include that.

[sappstuf]

do you have any idea how much missles cost? its all good that we're blowing up bad guys, but when it costs us a buncha missles at 3-50 mil each....

Since you are not being specific, a sidewinder missile cost $85K...

[GKeeper316]

Since you are not being specific, a sidewinder missile cost $85K...

tomahawks cost a lot more than that. javelins cost about 80k each etc etc. its reasonable to assume that one action with multiple missile strikes can cost us taxpayers millions. what do you think a single shock and awe campaign costs us?

[Sooner5030]

the missile is not a capitalized asset. The costs were incurred during production....not when the missile is used. If you replace it then you will incur the costs.

[GKeeper316]

the missile is not a capitalized asset. The costs were incurred during production....not when the missile is used. If you replace it then you will incur the costs.

ok then, when was our missile arsenal built? and are we replacing them as fast as we use them?

i see this **** on the military channel all the time... developing new weapons and then putting those prototypes the defense dept contracts into production takes a lot of money. the new f-35 has a price tag of 133 mil per unit... then add on top of that the ordinance it shoots, the fuel it burns, the pay of the guy to fly it, the cost of training the guy to fly it... its easy to see why defense is our biggest expenditure right now, and the overwhelming majority of americans are sick of these god damned wars

[soonercruiser]

Taxes need to be raised! We have not paid for these wars and we are going to make our kids fight, die and pay for the priveledge of doing so. It is reprehensible what the Republicans have done. They are the ones who put this debt on our kids back!

Raising taxes during Obama's Great Depression will push unemployment to 15%!

You can't balance the budget, or pay down the deficit effectively with tax increases.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Raising taxes during Obama's Great Depression will push unemployment to 15%!

You can't balance the budget, or pay down the deficit effectively with tax increases.What you said is like talking Atlantis' to the Left. They expect Americans to just sit there and take it in the shorts when taxes are raised...Hello overseas business transfers!

[soonercruiser]

His tone was completely necessary. Americans with even the slightest understanding of this process can see that a vocal, insane minority of House Republicans are holding the American (and global) economy hostage because they a.) don't understand it and b.) care more about pandering the to Tea Partiers than the possibility of sending us into a deep and severe depression.

This is what happens when you vote for idiots based on rhetoric rather than their education, practical knowledge and ability to work with others. I swear, most of these new House Republicans are not even qualified for entry-level jobs at most businesses.

Obama has gone way past compromise in this deal. He was agreed to spending cuts that are unprecedented by the Democratic party. The "stalemate" comes from those House Republicans that refuse to budge even the slightest. Boehner's comment that a "bipartisan bill" has passed the House was an outright lie. Do a little research and see how many Democrats voted for that bill.

tl;dr: A minority of uneducated, unqualified House Republicans that were elected on a Tea Party platform are holding our economy hostage for political gain. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Anybody with half a brain can see that this whole crisis is about Obama's re-election next year! He doesn't want to talk about responsible spending decreases and social program cuts.

Obama is about bringing down the U.S. from world dominance!
To he11 with American exceptionalism!
:(

[Sooner5030]

ok then, when was our missile arsenal built? and are we replacing them as fast as we use them?

i see this **** on the military channel all the time... developing new weapons and then putting those prototypes the defense dept contracts into production takes a lot of money. the new f-35 has a price tag of 133 mil per unit... then add on top of that the ordinance it shoots, the fuel it burns, the pay of the guy to fly it, the cost of training the guy to fly it... its easy to see why defense is our biggest expenditure right now, and the overwhelming majority of americans are sick of these god damned wars

the problem is many of the costs you are including were expenditures in previous years' budgets. If not fired supporting a TIC in OIF/OEF most would be fired during a CALFX or decommissioned at a later date (and even higher cost).

Not to take away from your point but the data you're using to prove it is inaccurate.

[soonercruiser]

I'm not an Obamafile. I don't care for any politicians. None of them - NONE OF THEM - give a f*ck about you. They don't give a f*ck about you. I don't care for the government at all, because they don't give a f*ck about me.

What I care about is making sure this debt ceiling is passed so that middle class Americans, like virtually everyone on this board, can continue to put food on their tables, purchase homes, and hopefully find jobs for just a little while longer before the whole stupid f*cking economy crashes around us.

All we can do is delay the inevitable, and believe me, we want to delay it as long as possible. When it happens, the fight will no longer be Republican vs. Democrat. It will be Haves vs. Have-Nots, and it will be bloody.

YOU are sooooo da** smart that you discount what the rest of the world and the decision makers on our credit say about our debt.
They don't care about and pumping up of the debt limit short range.
They are more worried about our continued accumulation of debt and failure to curb spending.
*If they downgrade our credit rating, you won't be able to afford food or gasoline!
Duh!

[soonercruiser]

I wish that Dems had this sense of urgency over the debt ceiling when they were shoving Obamacare down our throats. Job creation? That can wait. Border security. That can wait too. The economy? Wait list. HEALTH CARE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! :mad:

Sorry Badger..
You won't be able to afford healthcare either under Obamacare, Obamacare - the truth!

[soonercruiser]

do you have any idea how much missles cost? its all good that we're blowing up bad guys, but when it costs us a buncha missles at 3-50 mil each....

Obviously you are reffering to the missles that Obama is firing at Libya, just so we don't have boots on the ground......al for European oil!
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Even Johnny Cashless knows what this is all about!

H5_aP1Vc7VY&feature=player_embedded

[GKeeper316]

the problem is many of the costs you are including were expenditures in previous years' budgets. If not fired supporting a TIC in OIF/OEF most would be fired during a CALFX or decommissioned at a later date (and even higher cost).

Not to take away from your point but the data you're using to prove it is inaccurate.

you're taking annual budget. add all those annual budgets up and you get the debt. defense spending is the largest expenditure the american taxpayers pay for.

and i know they would be fired for training or decommissioned, but that doesn't address the basic need to have so many of them, which is the wars we've been waging for the last 10 years. without the wars to fight, the need to buy more missiles largely goes away. i mean, we're leaving behind all our equipment when we leave these places...

[diverdog]

Raising taxes during Obama's Great Depression will push unemployment to 15%!

You can't balance the budget, or pay down the deficit effectively with tax increases.

Cruiser:

They are not creating jobs and their taxes are the lowest in my life time. When the rich ($1 million in income) or above were taxed at a 50% tax rate they invested a lot more wisely than they do now. That tax rate was in place during WW II through the Carter years (roughly speaking).

[soonercruiser]

Cruiser:

They are not creating jobs and their taxes are the lowest in my life time. When the rich ($1 million in income) or above were taxed at a 50% tax rate they invested a lot more wisely than they do now. That tax rate was in place during WW II through the Carter years (roughly speaking).

Diver,
Why can't you grasp the fact that many large & small companies are sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see what the future bodes in the way of business taxes; and possibly waiting to just give up and go overseas with their jobs?
The Obama administration has been very antibusiness, and anti-energy independence! What does the King expect when he rules with iron lips?
:rolleyes:

[pphilfran]

you're taking annual budget. add all those annual budgets up and you get the debt. defense spending is the largest expenditure the american taxpayers pay for.

and i know they would be fired for training or decommissioned, but that doesn't address the basic need to have so many of them, which is the wars we've been waging for the last 10 years. without the wars to fight, the need to buy more missiles largely goes away. i mean, we're leaving behind all our equipment when we leave these places...

Defense may be #1 this year but it won't be for long...

2010
Defense 693.6 billion
SS 622.2 billion
Medicare 451.6
Total Receipts 2.162 trillion

2011
Defense 768.2 billion
SS 748.5
Medicare 494.3
Total Receipts 2.174 trillion

2013
Defense 675.8
SS 778.6
Medicare 534.4
Total Receipts 3.003 trillion (40%+ growth in two years)


2015
Defense 671.8
SS 861.9
Medicare 589.2
Total Receipts 3.584 Trillion (16%+ growth in two years)

2016
Defense 679.8
SS 909.4
Medicare 638.4
Total Receipts 3.819 trillion (7% growth in one year)

[pphilfran]

Diver,
Why can't you grasp the fact that many large & small companies are sitting on the sidelines, waiting to see what the future bodes in the way of business taxes; and possibly waiting to just give up and go overseas with their jobs?
The Obama administration has been very antibusiness, and anti-energy independence! What does the King expect when he rules with iron lips?
:rolleyes:

If the business is there for the taking they will hire...

If they are borderline on expanding they probably have some concern and will hold off...

[sappstuf]

Durable goods orders down 2.1%.. Inventories hits a new high..

For the second quarter durable goods orders are -2.5%, 1.9%, and -2.1%. This is after the GDP growth in the first quarter was at just 1.9%.

I think we have a negative quarter and the first step to a new recession.

[pphilfran]

Durable goods orders down 2.1%.. Inventories hits a new high..

For the second quarter durable goods orders are -2.5%, 1.9%, and -2.1%. This is after the GDP growth in the first quarter was at just 1.9%.

I think we have a negative quarter and the first step to a new recession.

It ain't looking good...the last three quarters GDP has been basically flat...

I get my monthly GDP data from here... http://www.e-forecasting.com/US_Monthly_GDP.html

I am waiting for next weeks auto sales...data out on the 2nd...trend has been down all year...if the numbers continue to drop you can turn out the lights, the party is over....

[okie52]

If the economy is still tanking by November of next year it really won't matter much who the repubs run.

I hope the economy shows some life in the next year but it isn't just our economy...the world's is suffering too.

[NormanPride]

It ain't looking good...the last three quarters GDP has been basically flat...

I get my monthly GDP data from here... http://www.e-forecasting.com/US_Monthly_GDP.html

I am waiting for next weeks auto sales...data out on the 2nd...trend has been down all year...if the numbers continue to drop you can turn out the lights, the party is over....
Our neighbor just bought a new Miata. Does that help?

[pphilfran]

Our neighbor just bought a new Miata. Does that help?

Every auto sold is a bonus...

[pphilfran]

If the economy is still tanking by November of next year it really won't matter much who the repubs run.

I hope the economy shows some life in the next year but it isn't just our economy...the world's is suffering too.

One thing will decide the election...the economy...

[sappstuf]

One thing will decide the election...the economy...

Then Obama must be scared ****less...

He will have to run an extremely dirty campaign to try to keep the focus off of himself.

[sappstuf]

Here is an article detailing Obama's trouble at the state level.


In every reputable battleground state poll conducted over the past month, Obama’s support is weak. In most of them, he trails Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. For all the talk of a closely fought 2012 election, if Obama can’t turn around his fortunes in states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, next year’s presidential election could end up being a GOP landslide.

Take Ohio, a perennial battleground in which Obama has campaigned more than in any other state (outside of the D.C. metropolitan region). Fifty percent of Ohio voters now disapprove of his job performance, compared with 46 percent who approve, according to a Quinnipiac pollconducted from July 12-18.

Among Buckeye State independents, only 40 percent believe that Obama should be reelected, and 42 percent approve of his job performance. Against Romney, Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent—well below the 50 percent comfort zone for an incumbent.

The news gets worse from there. In Michigan, a reliably Democratic state that Obama carried with 57 percent of the vote, an EPIC-MRA pollconducted July 9-11 finds him trailing Romney, 46 percent to 42 percent. Only 39 percent of respondents grade his job performance as “excellent” or good,” with 60 percent saying it is “fair” or “poor.” The state has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the president’s approval has suffered as a result.


If Michigan is in play — and it almost certainly will be — then Pennsylvania and Wisconsin probably are as well, and Indiana may already be lost. That Rust Belt band played heavily into Obama’s victory in 2008. Hillary Clinton Democrats, primarily white working-class voters, turned out for Obama in 2008, but those are the voters Obama is losing fastest in this cycle.

[okie52]

One thing will decide the election...the economy...

It usually does.

[pphilfran]

It usually does.

Yep....I was just piggy backing on your post...

[badger]

No matter who the old folks vote for, social security is toast and it's not long for this world, even if we pay back the IOUs owed... which I doubt, so I fully expect SS to not be the country's biggest expenditure anytime in the near or distance future.

While I see some default along the way, I don't see a lot decreasin' expenditures, so look for higher sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes and taxes that don't exist yet but will be created to increase revenue. The London trip kind of showed me that we are not even close to be taxed to death yet over here, but what the UK has going on is likely what the USA will have in the near future.

I see the defense budget falling. It might not make many happy, but it's happening worldwide. Britain's once mighty sea warfare (seafare?) fleet is gone. We aren't going to keep plunking down nine figures for fighter planes.

It's been a fun ride during the short years of my life folks, but alas, stuff will be changin' regardless of who is elected Commander in Chief.

[pphilfran]

No matter who the old folks vote for, social security is toast and it's not long for this world, even if we pay back the IOUs owed... which I doubt, so I fully expect SS to not be the country's biggest expenditure anytime in the near or distance future.

While I see some default along the way, I don't see a lot decreasin' expenditures, so look for higher sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes and taxes that don't exist yet but will be created to increase revenue. The London trip kind of showed me that we are not even close to be taxed to death yet over here, but what the UK has going on is likely what the USA will have in the near future.

I see the defense budget falling. It might not make many happy, but it's happening worldwide. Britain's once mighty sea warfare (seafare?) fleet is gone. We aren't going to keep plunking down nine figures for fighter planes.

It's been a fun ride during the short years of my life folks, but alas, stuff will be changin' regardless of who is elected Commander in Chief.

SS is a simple fix...raise the age by two or three years....bump the withholding limit to 130 or 140k...once us baby boomers kick the bucket all will be well for many decades...

[NormanPride]

Yeah, ****ing die already. ;)

[pphilfran]

Yeah, ****ing die already. ;)

:D

[soonercruiser]

Then Obama must be scared ****less...

He will have to run an extremely dirty campaign to try to keep the focus off of himself.

Why do you think that Obama's tone has been so ANGRY in recent speeches?
He is losing control of the message. I expect a total, personal psychological meltdown before the election!

[soonercruiser]

It isn't just about tax rates. It is about fear. Businesses and entrepreneurs are scared by this president. We have Obamacare coming down the pike and we have him demonizing businesses and anyone who is motivated or successful. People are just keeping their money on the sidelines.

Obama has effectively killed the velocity of money. Raising rates isn't going to help job creation. Heck, lowering rates may not have an effect either. Job creators are scared to death of Obama and his policies.

BINGO!
Although I mostly watch Fox News, there were several Democratic business guys on last week sayin' the same thing. Not positive in any way about the boy who would be King

[soonercruiser]

Yeah, ****ing die already. ;)

Figure I've got 10-15 bad years ahead.
All the good years are behind me now!
:O

[jkjsooner]

YOU are sooooo da** smart that you discount what the rest of the world and the decision makers on our credit say about our debt.
They don't care about and pumping up of the debt limit short range.
They are more worried about our continued accumulation of debt and failure to curb spending.
*If they downgrade our credit rating, you won't be able to afford food or gasoline!
Duh!

That's absolutely false. The credit rating agencies have been very transparent about this. They're considering downgrades because the dysfunction in Washington has created a situation where we may voluntarily default on our obligations. They've said this over and over again.

Now, I said 20 years ago that I wouldn't invest in someone who spends more than he takes in so I never understood why treasurys were considered so safe but that doesn't change the fact that you are completely wrong about the thought process the agencies are undergoing at this moment.

They have made statements that we have to get our deficits under control but the immediate downgrade risk is due to the impass in Washington.

Frankly, justified or not, I don't trust the rating agencies one bit as I think there is an element of tit-for-tat here since they've been under so much government scrutiny over the their abysmal performance before the financial crisis. There may be a "you better lay off of us or else" aspect to this.


waiting to see what the future bodes in the way of business taxes; and possibly waiting to just give up and go overseas with their jobs?

So offshoring is now Obama's fault? Did you miss the hundreds of thousands of jobs that left our country the previous decade?

[jkjsooner]

Raising taxes during Obama's Great Depression will push unemployment to 15%!

You can't balance the budget, or pay down the deficit effectively with tax increases.

Is that an absolute statement? If the taxes were 1% would you say the same thing.

Clearly there a sweet spot. If you lower taxes from this sweet spot then you reduce revenue. If you raise taxes then you hinder growth and may reduce revenue as well.

This sweet spot is not static but dependent on a large number of external factors that may change over time.

It astonishes me that you guys always think we're at the point where increased taxes would result in decreased revenue. No matter how many times we lower taxes we're always at the edge of that sweet spot.

I know your point wasn't exactly about revenue but I thought this was a good time to make my point.

As for the unemployment rate, cutting spending by trillions would have a much more immediate negative impact on the unemployment rate but Republicans seem to never address this.

[soonercruiser]

So offshoring is now Obama's fault? Did you miss the hundreds of thousands of jobs that left our country the previous decade?

Yes! The offshoring that has occured in the last two years, and 2 more years to come are Obama's fault!

Oh! You gonna blame Boosh for Obama's horrendous fiscal policy and anti-business actions? Nice try!
Duh!

[REDREX]

This entire discussion is stupid----raising the debt limit will just put the country $2 Trillion plus more in the hole. The US debt rating will be downgraded in the future because we have no plan to pay down the debt we have and no leadership on the issue

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yes! The offshoring that has occured in the last two years, and 2 more years to come are Obama's fault!

Oh! You gonna blame Boosh for Obama's horrendous fiscal policy and anti-business actions? Nice try!
Duh!our Lefties love to ignore the fact that Bush was as*-raped by the newly installed dem congress, both houses, after pronouncing the sitting republican congress as unworthy of the public trust, and then winning in '06, to install the "most ethical congress ever"-Nasty Pelosi, or something to that effect. Economy started taking a big dump in '07 and sped up the downward sprint in '08, before we reached the height of inspiration, and elected a full-blown America-hating Marxist, in order to produce the HOPE and CHANGE we so desired. Ain't it Grand?!?!?!?

[sappstuf]

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ramirez-crash.png

[badger]

So.... deadline's Tuesday, right? At least I'll get to watch X-games before the end of America :(

[XingTheRubicon]

I believe August 2nd (2006) was the exact day the Rhett Bomar, Big Red Sports and Imports story broke.


I blame Bomar for destroying America.

[REDREX]

I believe August 2nd (2006) was the exact day the Rhett Bomar, Big Red Sports and Imports story broke.


I blame Bomar for destroying America.--- Bomar's successor two years down the road did rather well----Lets hope that happens again

[soonercruiser]

That's absolutely false. The credit rating agencies have been very transparent about this. They're considering downgrades because the dysfunction in Washington has created a situation where we may voluntarily default on our obligations. They've said this over and over again.

Now, I said 20 years ago that I wouldn't invest in someone who spends more than he takes in so I never understood why treasurys were considered so safe but that doesn't change the fact that you are completely wrong about the thought process the agencies are undergoing at this moment.

They have made statements that we have to get our deficits under control but the immediate downgrade risk is due to the impass in Washington.

Frankly, justified or not, I don't trust the rating agencies one bit as I think there is an element of tit-for-tat here since they've been under so much government scrutiny over the their abysmal performance before the financial crisis. There may be a "you better lay off of us or else" aspect to this.



So offshoring is now Obama's fault? Did you miss the hundreds of thousands of jobs that left our country the previous decade?

I only know what I have heard the credit agency's reps themselves say on TV - they are more concerned about the continued rising national debt; more than the current debt limit.

**They are wanting to see a change in spending habits from Congress.
I predict....if the debt ceiling gets raised without significant spending cuts....we will still suffer a credit downgradeanyway!

[bigfatjerk]

I only know what I have heard the credit agency's reps themselves say on TV - they are more concerned about the continued rising national debt; more than the current debt limit.

**They are wanting to see a change in spending habits from Congress.
I predict....if the debt ceiling gets raised without significant spending cuts....we will still suffer a credit downgradeanyway!

Exactly upping the spending from 5 trillion to 14 trillion in only 11 years has screwed our credit rating significantly. We are probably at a point of no return on it going down for now. What we can do is change our ways fix it now so we can earn it back in the future.

[jkjsooner]

Republicans know there will be a short term spike in unemployment. After all, you are cutting government jobs. You have to look beyond the short term, which dems have a problem doing.

Cutting government spending, paying the debt and giving job creators hope will improve the unemployment rate. Obama is incapable of doing this.

Don't disagree with you but they can't make this argument while simultaneously stating that a tax hike will kill our fragile economy. That's my point. They're inconsistent with their arguments.

[jkjsooner]

Yes! The offshoring that has occured in the last two years, and 2 more years to come are Obama's fault!

Oh! You gonna blame Boosh for Obama's horrendous fiscal policy and anti-business actions? Nice try!
Duh!

I'm not blaming Bush for anything. I'm just pointing out how absurd it is for you to blame Obama for a trend that has been strong for well over a decade.

You seem to be saying that Obama is to blame for all offshoring. (I saw no "some offshoring" qualifier in your statement. Stating he is responsible for the offshoring that has occured the last two years implies all offshoring.) Surely you don't believe offshoring would have ended had your guy won the election?

[jkjsooner]

our Lefties love to ignore the fact that Bush was as*-raped by the newly installed dem congress, both houses, after pronouncing the sitting republican congress as unworthy of the public trust, and then winning in '06, to install the "most ethical congress ever"-Nasty Pelosi, or something to that effect. Economy started taking a big dump in '07 and sped up the downward sprint in '08, before we reached the height of inspiration, and elected a full-blown America-hating Marxist, in order to produce the HOPE and CHANGE we so desired. Ain't it Grand?!?!?!?

You might be the dumbest m f'er I've ever seen. You really think our economic collapse was caused by the '06 election? Were you too dumb to realize the misallocation of assets going back long before '06. I'd bet you were dumb enough to buy Phoenix real estate in '05.

You are the only person I've ever known who is dumb enough to blame the financial collapse on the '06 election. Hell, last I heard you blamed the CRA which either makes you a babbling idiot or a hypocrit.

So, please tell me, did the CRA and other policies going back 30 years cause the collapse or did the '06 election?

I'm sure cruiser isn't happy when you jump in on his side. He seems smart enough to distance himself from morons.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

People like to blame based on who was in power during the downward trends. Dems like to blame Bush for the collapse from 2006 through his term.......scratch that.....throughout everything up to this point. Yet, they tend to ignore that the dems controlled things in 2006.

If one really wants to pinpoint blame for a collapse, then it would be the 2006 election and the dem control.

Of course, one would be intellectually dishonest to think the problem started with the election, but they would be equally dishonest to blame the housing bubble and subsequent collapse on Bush, as well.Frank and Dodd got the housing collapse going even before the dems took numerical majorities, if I remember correctly. The crap was going down under their impetus, and on top of that, the public became convinced to throw out the REPUBLICANS in the '06 election, thereby cementing the dem power. And again in '08. DAMAGE DONE. Can it be repaired? We shall see, won't we?

[jkjsooner]

People like to blame based on who was in power during the downward trends. Dems like to blame Bush for the collapse from 2006 through his term.......scratch that.....throughout everything up to this point. Yet, they tend to ignore that the dems controlled things in 2006.

If one really wants to pinpoint blame for a collapse, then it would be the 2006 election and the dem control.

Of course, one would be intellectually dishonest to think the problem started with the election, but they would be equally dishonest to blame the housing bubble and subsequent collapse on Bush, as well.

The housing bubble was a massive cluster f long before '06. I spent years talking housing bubble on various blog sites. Most commenters there are conservatives but I guarantee you not a one of them states that the '06 election has anything to do with the economic collapse. Mostly because almost all of them were sounding the alarm going back at least to '03 or '04.

While some may blame the CRA and F&F, there were plenty Wall Street insiders who were warning of the miscalculated risk that the private sector was voluntarily taking. They were talking about the credit default swaps, the excessive money going into mortgage backed securities, etc. This all was long before the collapse or the '06 election and was all related to actions that Wall Street voluntarily undertook (in other words had nothing to do with CRA).

As someone who was reading these warnings daily years before the collapse happened, it's just astounding how the story behind the collapse has been twisted.


Now my editorial comment. Do I blame Bush. To some extent, yes, I do. He had an almost religious view on deregulation and even when things were obviously getting out of control he made no effort to reign in the excesses. Clinton takes blame as well as he bought the conservative deregulation Kool Aid as well.

I also think the govt behavior towards Fannie and Freddie share blame as well as our implicit backing of them did encourage too much risk in their securities.

I'm trying to look at this from all sides and there is a lot of blame to go around. The story the RLIMC tells is willfully misguided and a story that anyone with just a little analytical ability can discredit.

[Caboose]

It doesn't matter who is ultimately at fault. Obama said he would fix it. He ASKED for the job. He ASKED for the responsibility. He has made it worse in conceivable way. He has no clue how businesses work. He has no clue how economies work. He has no clue how to do anything other than campaign, demagogue, and vacation. You made a bad a choice America. Obama supporters need to just suck it up, admit they made a mistake, and correct in 2012.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The housing bubble was a massive cluster f long before '06. I spent years talking housing bubble on various blog sites. Most commenters there are conservatives but I guarantee you not a one of them states that the '06 election has anything to do with the economic collapse. Mostly because almost all of them were sounding the alarm going back at least to '03 or '04.

While some may blame the CRA and F&F, there were plenty Wall Street insiders who were warning of the miscalculated risk that the private sector was voluntarily taking. They were talking about the credit default swaps, the excessive money going into mortgage backed securities, etc. This all was long before the collapse or the '06 election and was all related to actions that Wall Street voluntarily undertook (in other words had nothing to do with CRA).

As someone who was reading these warnings daily years before the collapse happened, it's just astounding how the story behind the collapse has been twisted.


Now my editorial comment. Do I blame Bush. To some extent, yes, I do. He had an almost religious view on deregulation and even when things were obviously getting out of control he made no effort to reign in the excesses. Clinton takes blame as well as he bought the conservative deregulation Kool Aid as well.

I also think the govt behavior towards Fannie and Freddie share blame as well as our implicit backing of them did encourage too much risk in their securities.

I'm trying to look at this from all sides and there is a lot of blame to go around. The story the RLIMC tells is willfully misguided and a story that anyone with just a little analytical ability can discredit.The INVOLUNTARY nature of the insane mortgage loans is the most important thing that you got wrong, and that is SUPREMELY important. You've once again demonstrated why I have you on iggy.

[badger]

I do not blame Obama and the current Senate/House for the debt woes. It is very clear that many Republicans and Democrats alike that these debt problems are something that have grown over time and bill is now coming due.

What will be entirely Obama's and the current Senate/House's fault is if they don't take care of this problem now because the deadline is now. The deadline wasn't when Bush, Clinton, other Bush or Reagan were in office. The time is now. The leadership now is responsible for either raising the debt ceiling, or finding an alternative.

And it's both parties' responsibility this time, because the House is the Republicans' now, while the presidency and Senate are under the Democrats.

If they don't get their sh!t together and meet the deadline, there is no blaming Bush, Clinton, tea partiers, whatever, it will be our current elected leaders fault and only their fault. They have the power to make the decision, so GET DECISIVE!

[diverdog]

The INVOLUNTARY nature of the insane mortgage loans is the most important thing that you got wrong, and that is SUPREMELY important. You've once again demonstrated why I have you on iggy.

How many times do I need to tell you that if all the CRA loans had gone bad we would not have destroyed the economy. My firms CRA mortgages are solid money makers for us.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I do not blame Obama and the current Senate/House for the debt woes. It is very clear that many Republicans and Democrats alike that these debt problems are something that have grown over time and bill is now coming due.

What will be entirely Obama's and the current Senate/House's fault is if they don't take care of this problem now because the deadline is now. The deadline wasn't when Bush, Clinton, other Bush or Reagan were in office. The time is now. The leadership now is responsible for either raising the debt ceiling, or finding an alternative.

And it's both parties' responsibility this time, because the House is the Republicans' now, while the presidency and Senate are under the Democrats.

If they don't get their sh!t together and meet the deadline, there is no blaming Bush, Clinton, tea partiers, whatever, it will be our current elected leaders fault and only their fault. They have the power to make the decision, so GET DECISIVE!They must find a way to stop the excessive, outrageous spending. Anything short of that will bring negative results.

[bigfatjerk]

What's sad is neither party is really debating cutting spending even now. They use those terms sometimes, but lets face it. It's all bullsh!t

They are debating maybe cutting future spending, and after all is said and done they might won't even do that.

If they really wanted to cut spending they would freeze all rates to the same amount they are now, go through everything in the budget and then start cutting from there. Instead they want to keep upping spending year after year after year. Forget triple A rating the government will eventually lose all solvency if it keeps spending like this.

[sappstuf]

What's sad is neither party is really debating cutting spending even now. They use those terms sometimes, but lets face it. It's all bullsh!t

They are debating maybe cutting future spending, and after all is said and done they might won't even do that.

If they really wanted to cut spending they would freeze all rates to the same amount they are now, go through everything in the budget and then start cutting from there. Instead they want to keep upping spending year after year after year. Forget triple A rating the government will eventually lose all solvency if it keeps spending like this.

I don't think that is true for the Tea Partiers... They want Cut, Cap, and Balance.

It would do the trick, but at a heavy price.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What's sad is neither party is really debating cutting spending even now. They use those terms sometimes, but lets face it. It's all bullsh!t

They are debating maybe cutting future spending, and after all is said and done they might won't even do that.

If they really wanted to cut spending they would freeze all rates to the same amount they are now, go through everything in the budget and then start cutting from there. Instead they want to keep upping spending year after year after year. Forget triple A rating the government will eventually lose all solvency if it keeps spending like this.ROCKET SCIENCE!!!and sappstuf is right about the Tea Partiers. They are holding firm, and that's what the entire repub party should do.

[GKeeper316]

The housing bubble was a massive cluster f long before '06. I spent years talking housing bubble on various blog sites. Most commenters there are conservatives but I guarantee you not a one of them states that the '06 election has anything to do with the economic collapse. Mostly because almost all of them were sounding the alarm going back at least to '03 or '04.

While some may blame the CRA and F&F, there were plenty Wall Street insiders who were warning of the miscalculated risk that the private sector was voluntarily taking. They were talking about the credit default swaps, the excessive money going into mortgage backed securities, etc. This all was long before the collapse or the '06 election and was all related to actions that Wall Street voluntarily undertook (in other words had nothing to do with CRA).

As someone who was reading these warnings daily years before the collapse happened, it's just astounding how the story behind the collapse has been twisted.


Now my editorial comment. Do I blame Bush. To some extent, yes, I do. He had an almost religious view on deregulation and even when things were obviously getting out of control he made no effort to reign in the excesses. Clinton takes blame as well as he bought the conservative deregulation Kool Aid as well.

I also think the govt behavior towards Fannie and Freddie share blame as well as our implicit backing of them did encourage too much risk in their securities.

I'm trying to look at this from all sides and there is a lot of blame to go around. The story the RLIMC tells is willfully misguided and a story that anyone with just a little analytical ability can discredit.

all you guys blaming frank-dodd without also blaming gramm-leach-bliley are ignoring the largest part of the equasion... i find it interesting that just over a decade after the trade regulations put in after the depression to keep that **** from happening again were repealed, we're staring another depression in the face.

[bigfatjerk]

I don't think that is true for the Tea Partiers... They want Cut, Cap, and Balance.

It would do the trick, but at a heavy price.

The tea party doesn't really have that much control and is really being demagogued to death now even though they aren't the problem that much.

And cut cap and balance doesn't work if we can't get the tax system right. With the tax system we have right now BBA or CCB will just fall apart because the government won't be able to fund itself right.

[bigfatjerk]

all you guys blaming frank-dodd without also blaming gramm-leach-bliley are ignoring the largest part of the equasion... i find it interesting that just over a decade after the trade regulations put in after the depression to keep that **** from happening again were repealed, we're staring another depression in the face.

The great depression very cause was over regulation by Hoover and FDR. Go look up what these guys were doing in depth. All they did was regulate and spend at a level never seen before in US history. Just like Bush and Obama have done. Bush jacked up financial regulations by 30% in just 6 years. Compare that to Clinton who cut regulations by 3%. You want to know why Clinton had a surplus, look at him getting away from regulating so much as a starter. We are in a depression right now, how long does the economy have to be down before it's finally called a depression? It's been 5+ years.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"the tax system right." huh?

[bigfatjerk]

"the tax system right." huh?

I'm saying go to a fair tax or overall flat tax rate. No loopholes or few subsidies. I would be for no subsidies at all.

[GKeeper316]

The great depression very cause was over regulation by Hoover and FDR. Go look up what these guys were doing in depth. All they did was regulate and spend at a level never seen before in US history. Just like Bush and Obama have done. Bush jacked up financial regulations by 30% in just 6 years. Compare that to Clinton who cut regulations by 3%. You want to know why Clinton had a surplus, look at him getting away from regulating so much as a starter. We are in a depression right now, how long does the economy have to be down before it's finally called a depression? It's been 5+ years.

ya well having the regulations in place is one thing. enforcing them is another.

[OklahomaTuba]

0.4%bama 2012!

[badger]

They must find a way to stop the excessive, outrageous spending. Anything short of that will bring negative results.

Rush challenge: Call out your beloved Republicans if they eff this up.

I want some red state fury outta you if they drop the ball on this, Rushie!

[soonercruiser]

I do not blame Obama and the current Senate/House for the debt woes. It is very clear that many Republicans and Democrats alike that these debt problems are something that have grown over time and bill is now coming due.

What will be entirely Obama's and the current Senate/House's fault is if they don't take care of this problem now because the deadline is now. The deadline wasn't when Bush, Clinton, other Bush or Reagan were in office. The time is now. The leadership now is responsible for either raising the debt ceiling, or finding an alternative.

And it's both parties' responsibility this time, because the House is the Republicans' now, while the presidency and Senate are under the Democrats.

If they don't get their sh!t together and meet the deadline, there is no blaming Bush, Clinton, tea partiers, whatever, it will be our current elected leaders fault and only their fault. They have the power to make the decision, so GET DECISIVE!

Well said, Badger!

[REDREX]

Barack looks weaker everyday--- http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

[jkjsooner]

What will be entirely Obama's and the current Senate/House's fault is if they don't take care of this problem now because the deadline is now. The deadline wasn't when Bush, Clinton, other Bush or Reagan were in office. The time is now.

What do you mean there was no deadline? There's been a deadline about 20 times during the administrations you mentioned. Obama has to bend over and give in to every House demand because they arbitrarily decided that this is the time to hold the line?

We've set a dangerous precedent here. The way compromise is a dirty word nowadays in Washington, no matter who is in charge the other side is going to start holding the President hostage with things like this.

[sheepdogs]

What do you mean there was no deadline? There's been a deadline about 20 times during the administrations you mentioned. Obama has to bend over and give in to every House demand because they arbitrarily decided that this is the time to hold the line?

We've set a dangerous precedent here. The way compromise is a dirty word nowadays in Washington, no matter who is in charge the other side is going to start holding the President hostage with things like this.

Compromise in D.C. is what leads to the continuation of the status quo. If one side of the issue is right and the other isn't then a compromise brings elements of bad policy into the mainstream and the legislation created will reflect such.

[sappstuf]

House: 2
Senate: 0
President: Not present

[soonerhubs]

Do you guys remember all the compromising the democrats did three years ago when they held so many majorities?


Yep, me neither. They really took the middle ground when they shoved Obamacare down our throats, right? Wrong!


It amuses me how folks are now preaching that compromise is the "essence" of our government, yet they couldn't give two ****s about it back in '09.

[soonercruiser]

Compromise in D.C. is what leads to the continuation of the status quo. If one side of the issue is right and the other isn't then a compromise brings elements of bad policy into the mainstream and the legislation created will reflect such.

BINGO!!!!
On target!

[Sooner5030]

compromise = snappy named bill but still spending $1.00 for every $.60 of revenue.

this whole circus is beyond stupid. We're being sold a bill that promises future cuts (in a 10 year budget PLAN) but the next congress can simply adjust appropriations and put forth a new 10 year PLAN. No congress can restrict or permit the appropriation levels of a future congress without a conts amendment.

if we just do nothing to the debt ceiling then a de facto balanced budget will be in place.

nothing gets better with time and neither will our debt. If we can't make the difficult cuts NOW they will never happen.

[REDREX]

I wonder if Greece had a "Debt Ceiling" ?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush challenge: Call out your beloved Republicans if they eff this up.

I want some red state fury outta you if they drop the ball on this, Rushie!If the Obear remains, it's curtains for the America we identify as America.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Compromise in D.C. is what leads to the continuation of the status quo. If one side of the issue is right and the other isn't then a compromise brings elements of bad policy into the mainstream and the legislation created will reflect such.ROCKETSCIENCE!

[soonercruiser]

ROCKETSCIENCE!

Sorry Rush!
But, Obama already cut off rocket science!
:P

[GKeeper316]

If the Obear remains, it's curtains for the America we identify as America.

well, lets face it... america hasn't been what our founding fathers wanted for a very long time. they abhorred democracy. they envisioned a republic in which only the wealthy land owners would have a say. they were slave owners, profiting off the enforced labor of other human beings.

exaclty which version of america are you trying to identify as america and get back to?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sorry Rush!
But, Obama already cut off rocket science!
:PWhat can go wrong in outer space, anyway?

[bigfatjerk]

exaclty which version of america are you trying to identify as america and get back to?

There's really only 3 areas in our lives we pretty much let the government control. 4 if you count drugs as different from health care. But then again health care ends up encompassing everything. All 3 of those are pretty much financial nightmares right now. Heath care, school, and retirement. Everything else in our lives is pretty much the American dream of live how you want to live for the most part.

If you want the main theme of classic liberalism it's this. "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And really in what part of our lives do we really give up those rights? It's in the 3 areas that are the biggest messes right now. People have said over decades and decades how duopolies and monopolies are going to ruin this country. That's bs because someone becomes more innovative and topples those. The only area this doesn't happen is in the 2 political parties. When both are basically the same.

[badger]

Anyone else have federal government (or federally funded) employee friends, family or neighbors? I have one (probably more that I'm unaware of, but one that talked openly about it). There is no giant warchest somewhere to pay for contracted employees through the end of their contracts. Everything stops, especially paychecks, if the government doesn't reach an agreement.

I am not sure how soon it stops, but my guess is immediately. There is gonna be hell to pay and the howling will be deafening if every federally funded program stops operations next week. Universal, not partisan, anger.

[soonercruiser]

What can go wrong in outer space, anyway?

No ceiling in outer space!
:D

[The Profit]

If the Obear remains, it's curtains for the America we identify as America.




It was curtains for your ilk when a black man (well half black man) entered the white house in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am pizzed at the preesident for kowtowing to those right winged wacko teabaggers, but my dismay has nothing to do with the color of his skin. He is too damned conservative for me.

[Caboose]

It was curtains for your ilk when a black man (well half black man) entered the white house in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am pizzed at the preesident for kowtowing to those right winged wacko teabaggers, but my dismay has nothing to do with the color of his skin. He is too damned conservative for me.

Hey look, another race-obsessed "progressive". Who woulda thought?

[The Profit]

Hey look, another race-obsessed "progressive". Who woulda thought?




Eat me!!

[soonercruiser]

It was curtains for your ilk when a black man (well half black man) entered the white house in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am pizzed at the preesident for kowtowing to those right winged wacko teabaggers, but my dismay has nothing to do with the color of his skin. He is too damned conservative for me.

Dang, Profit!
I thought that you had gotten your life's wish and moved to Sweeeeeden!
:D

[REDREX]

It was curtains for your ilk when a black man (well half black man) entered the white house in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am pizzed at the preesident for kowtowing to those right winged wacko teabaggers, but my dismay has nothing to do with the color of his skin. He is too damned conservative for me.---Barack is just too clueless for me

[GKeeper316]

---Barack is just too clueless for me

but michelle bachman and sarah palin are the last bastion of intellectualism in america??

[REDREX]

but michelle bachman and sarah palin are the last bastion of intellectualism in america??---What do they have to do with Barack being CLUELESS ?

[GKeeper316]

---What do they have to do with Barack being CLUELESS ?

just trying to figure out what a better alternative is... it ain't any of the current crop of republican jackasses, so ima vote obama again.

[Caboose]

just trying to figure out what a better alternative is... it ain't any of the current crop of republican jackasses, so ima vote obama again.

No...that is not the reason you are going to vote Obama again.

[GKeeper316]

No...that is not the reason you are going to vote Obama again.

yes, yes it is. i'd vote for ron paul if we got the nomination, but the tin foil hat tea partiers won't let him.

so my only alternative is going to be obama.

[okie52]

yes, yes it is. i'd vote for ron paul if we got the nomination, but the tin foil hat tea partiers won't let him.

so my only alternative is going to be obama.

Because you vote on the issues....

[GKeeper316]

Because you vote on the issues....

i do. and i disagree with all the republican candidates on fiscal policy. raising taxes on people that have little buying power isn't the answer. raising taxes on the people that have exploited tax codes and unethical business practices over the last 15 years to hoard all the money, is.

its like the super rich are playing a game to see who can get the most, without a care in the world about what that does to the rest of us. we all bitch when the fed issues more money because it devalues the existing money supply, meanwhile the 1% of *******s that control 80% of the wealth aren't spending thier money. they aren't creating more jobs with all that money. they aren't growing the economy. thier incessant greed is destroying the rest of us, and they write it off as social darwinism.

its the ultimate failure of capitalism. every economic theorist who has ever lived has said this will be the eventuality of capitalism. it is a failed economic system that is unable to sustain itself.

[REDREX]

i do. and i disagree with all the republican candidates on fiscal policy. raising taxes on people that have little buying power isn't the answer. raising taxes on the people that have exploited tax codes and unethical business practices over the last 15 years to hoard all the money, is.

its like the super rich are playing a game to see who can get the most, without a care in the world about what that does to the rest of us. we all bitch when the fed issues more money because it devalues the existing money supply, meanwhile the 1% of *******s that control 80% of the wealth aren't spending thier money. they aren't creating more jobs with all that money. they aren't growing the economy. thier incessant greed is destroying the rest of us, and they write it off as social darwinism.

its the ultimate failure of capitalism. every economic theorist who has ever lived has said this will be the eventuality of capitalism. it is a failed economic system that is unable to sustain itself.---You might want to check your facts about Wealth distribution----And please tell me all about any economic system that has produced more wealth than capitalism

[GKeeper316]

---You might want to check your facts about Wealth distribution----And please tell me all about any economic system that has produced more wealth than capitalism

wealth is relative.

lets look at the caste system in feudal england... there was tons of "wealth" but it was controlled by the aristocracy, much like the "super rich" in the world today.

[Caboose]

i do. and i disagree with all the republican candidates on fiscal policy. raising taxes on people that have little buying power isn't the answer. raising taxes on the people that have exploited tax codes and unethical business practices over the last 15 years to hoard all the money, is.

its like the super rich are playing a game to see who can get the most, without a care in the world about what that does to the rest of us. we all bitch when the fed issues more money because it devalues the existing money supply, meanwhile the 1% of *******s that control 80% of the wealth aren't spending thier money. they aren't creating more jobs with all that money. they aren't growing the economy. thier incessant greed is destroying the rest of us, and they write it off as social darwinism.

its the ultimate failure of capitalism. every economic theorist who has ever lived has said this will be the eventuality of capitalism. it is a failed economic system that is unable to sustain itself.

So in reality you don't Republican because you despise capitalism... just like your Marxist leader Obama. It only took two posts to cut through your BS. You are going to vote Obama no matter who is running on the GOP side because you are a brainwashed zealot who believes such stupid sh*t as what you just posted.

[GKeeper316]

So in reality you don't Republican because you despise capitalism... just like your Marxist leader Obama. It only took two posts to cut through your BS. You are going to vote Obama no matter who is running on the GOP side because you are a brainwashed zealot who believes such stupid sh*t as what you just posted.

man **** you. you don't know me, and you don't know ****. i woulda voted for mccain over obama if he hadn't picked that idiot skank ex pageant winner to be his vp.

[Caboose]

man **** you. you don't know me, and you don't know ****. i woulda voted for mccain over obama if he hadn't picked that idiot skank ex pageant winner to be his vp.

Right because of which policies exactly do you find yourself in agreement with the GOP on?

[okie52]

i do. and i disagree with all the republican candidates on fiscal policy. raising taxes on people that have little buying power isn't the answer. raising taxes on the people that have exploited tax codes and unethical business practices over the last 15 years to hoard all the money, is.

its like the super rich are playing a game to see who can get the most, without a care in the world about what that does to the rest of us. we all bitch when the fed issues more money because it devalues the existing money supply, meanwhile the 1% of *******s that control 80% of the wealth aren't spending thier money. they aren't creating more jobs with all that money. they aren't growing the economy. thier incessant greed is destroying the rest of us, and they write it off as social darwinism.

its the ultimate failure of capitalism. every economic theorist who has ever lived has said this will be the eventuality of capitalism. it is a failed economic system that is unable to sustain itself.

You'd vote for Paul who is basically a libertarian...the ultimate capitalist. He isn't going to be creating taxes on the rich...it will be laissez-faire. That is quite a leap from Obama or your stated positions.

[GKeeper316]

Right because of which policies exactly do you find yourself in agreement with the GOP on?

several. none of which are any of your ****in business.

[GKeeper316]

You'd vote for Paul who is basically a libertarian...the ultimate capitalist. He isn't going to be creating taxes on the rich...it will be laissez-faire. That is quite a leap from Obama or your stated positions.

you don't know much about ron paul's economic ideas, do you.

dude wants to tear down the fed, which im all for.

[okie52]

you don't know much about ron paul's economic ideas, do you.

dude wants to tear down the fed, which im all for.

What do you think a libertarian would do?

[Caboose]

several. none of which are any of your ****in business.

In other words... none.

[GKeeper316]

What do you think a libertarian would do?

im all about libertarianism and free markets. neither the republicans or the democrats are, however.

but ron paul isnt running as a libertarian. he's running as a republican.

[GKeeper316]

In other words... none.

ok what do you like about the republican party platform?

[okie52]

im all about libertarianism and free markets. neither the republicans or the democrats are, however.

but ron paul isnt running as a libertarian. he's running as a republican.

Yeah, but he is advocating libertarian policies....and that isn't close to what Obama will doing. There isn't any wealth redistribution by the government...pure libertarianism is just about pure capitalism...no safety nets.

[GKeeper316]

Yeah, but he is advocating libertarian policies....and that isn't close to what Obama will doing. There isn't any wealth redistribution by the government...pure libertarianism is just about pure capitalism...no safety nets.

which im in favor of... the problem is that regulation and christian legislated morality has made pure capitalism impossible.

[REDREX]

Chris Matthews is an idiot

[okie52]

Chris Matthews is an idiot

Lol.

[okie52]

which im in favor of... the problem is that regulation and christian legislated morality has made pure capitalism impossible.

Regulation is almost a purely dem position. I would say morality was purely a repub position except that the dems are for the safety nets...

[soonercoop1]

Regulation is almost a purely dem position. I would say morality was purely a repub position except that the dems are for the safety nets...

Dems are only for safety nets so they can spend the money, control the people, and create the fear someone wants to take it away from grandma....

[usmc-sooner]

so when yall figure this **** out please forward it to the president

[GKeeper316]

Dems are only for safety nets so they can spend the money, control the people, and create the fear someone wants to take it away from grandma....

see this is the kind of tinfoil hat **** we don't need... if we're going to just spout bs about the other guys, i'll just make a blanket statement too.

all the pubs care about is money and taking it from the working man. the republicans dont give a **** about smaller government or the rights and freedoms of the people... they just want more money. and by taking all the money, they effectively enslave the working class.

there. blame game 101.

[JLEW1818]

donkey kong sucks

[bigfatjerk]

Until Profit brought it up in this thread I honestly didn't think of Obama has black or half black. It's really news to me, and completely irrelevant. Just like the fact that guitarist Slash is half black. Who really cares?

[GKeeper316]

Until Profit brought it up in this thread I honestly didn't think of Obama has black or half black. It's really news to me, and completely irrelevant. Just like the fact that guitarist Slash is half black. Who really cares?

slash is half black half jew

now everyone cares :P

[okie52]

see this is the kind of tinfoil hat **** we don't need... if we're going to just spout bs about the other guys, i'll just make a blanket statement too.

all the pubs care about is money and taking it from the working man. the republicans dont give a **** about smaller government or the rights and freedoms of the people... they just want more money. and by taking all the money, they effectively enslave the working class.

there. blame game 101.

And yet you think that a libertarian approach will somehow be sympathetic...it is actually much more draconian.

You need to understand your own positions.

[GKeeper316]

And yet you think that a libertarian approach will somehow be sympathetic...it is actually much more draconian.

You need to understand your own positions.

no i think the libertarian approach would open new markets... like drugs and human clones for slaves.

but christian morality won't allow it.

[bigfatjerk]

I don't see a difference between republicans and democrats wanting to take money from the working man. That's basically both parties jobs right now. And both are doing a bad job of it.

[bigfatjerk]

no i think the libertarian approach would open new markets... like drugs and human clones for slaves.

but christian morality won't allow it.

Drugs and prostitution is doing pretty good on the black free market no matter what laws and nobody cares just because it's illegal.

[REDREX]

Barack is on TV talking about becoming more business friendly----The man is a joke

[badger]

Barack is on TV talking about becoming more business friendly----The man is a joke

States are always trying to out-tax credit the others to get businesses to come and stay. No reason the feds couldn't try the same thing internationally, I guess.

The second Oh-blah-blah starts giving tax credits to lib states to take Oklahoma jobs to them though, vote his arse out :mad:

[3rdgensooner]

A pictoral of the debt deal (http://havoconthehill.com/2011/07/28/9/)

[soonercruiser]

:D

[SoonerNate]

It's a good thing they agreed on this and the tea party didn't get their way isn't it?

The market is down 185 points.

Libs are clueless when it comes to economics.

[REDREX]

It's a good thing they agreed on this and the tea party didn't get their way isn't it?

The market is down 185 points.

Libs are clueless when it comes to economics.---Correct---A down grade is in our near future-------I just can't understand how we can spend $3.8 trillion and only take in $2.4 trillion and think we won't get a downgrade

[JohnnyMack]

It's a good thing they agreed on this and the tea party didn't get their way isn't it?

The market is down 185 points.

Libs are clueless when it comes to economics.

The market is down because manufacturing is down. Why is manufacturing down?

[SoonerNate]

Has Obama done anything positive? Everything he touches turns to ****.

[GKeeper316]

Has Obama done anything positive? Everything he touches turns to ****.

kinda like w, then, right?

[OutlandTrophy]

yes but you're going to need a better comeback than "Our guy is just as ****ty as the last guy" if you want people to get behind his policies

[GKeeper316]

yes but you're going to need a better comeback than "Our guy is just as ****ty as the last guy" if you want people to get behind his policies

well, since he can't get **** done with the tea baggers in the house holding up every bit of legislation just on general principles, none of "his" policies have even the slightest hope of seeing the light of day.

[OutlandTrophy]

he has never had a majority in house and senate? never?

I learn things everyday.

[okie52]

well, since he can't get **** done with the tea baggers in the house holding up every bit of legislation just on general principles, none of "his" policies have even the slightest hope of seeing the light of day.

What policies of Obama in the last 3 years would you like to see pass?

[REDREX]

well, since he can't get **** done with the tea baggers in the house holding up every bit of legislation just on general principles, none of "his" policies have even the slightest hope of seeing the light of day.---Thank God----

[Caboose]

What policies of Obama in the last 3 years would you like to see pass?

You know, all of Obama's noted Libertarian policies.

[okie52]

You know, all of Obama's noted Libertarian policies.


:D

That is the leap I'm having a hard time grasping.

[SoonerNate]

kinda like w, then, right?

Yep. Both were/ are terrible.

[soonercruiser]

What policies of Obama in the last 3 years would you like to see pass?

:pop:

Just waitin'.....

[Caboose]

Waiting....

[MamaMia]

66 republicans voted against the debt ceiling bill
95 democrats voted against the debt ceiling bill

[soonercruiser]

66 republicans voted against the debt ceiling bill
95 democrats voted against the debt ceiling bill

Cool!
The kind of details that I haven't had the time to research.
Problem is......the Dems votes against it were for the opposite reason of the Repubicans.

[GKeeper316]

Cool!
The kind of details that I haven't had the time to research.
Problem is......the Dems votes against it were for the opposite reason of the Repubicans.

its good to know we have you, mr. mind reader, to tell us all what's inside every politicians head.

[pphilfran]

This should be good...GK and Cruiser...GET IT ON!