July 15, 2011
Obama tips his hand: "But we're running out of time.... We have enough time to do a big deal."
When Obama said that at today's press conference, I thought: I get it now. They're running out the clock. There's still "enough time to do a big deal." Later, they will do a small deal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
129 comments:
Yup.
And, the media will call the GOP "losers."
I hope you all have the stomach for this! JUST. SIT. TIGHT!
The White House is reading the poll numbers! They're terrified. It's like obama made it to be their quarterback. But one of his arm's fell off. And, he's leaning against his teleprompter for support.
You know what's better? He's not our playing golf. To play golf, now, he goes into the white house basement.
The small deal?
Temporary. And, it will still need to get voted on in Congress.
That's where you will find out who is afraid of voters, after all. And, who is not.
And, SARAH PALIN IS GONNA HAVE A FIELD DAY!
Hey, Obama's driving. Give him a debt increase, only. You can't blame the party in the back of the bus when he drives into a ditch.
The problem we have is a President who is not being truthful.
We can't get a deal done because he's not able to speak truthfully to the American people about this issue.
When the President of the United States holds a press conference and lies through his teeth by claiming that 80% of Americans want tax hikes in the middle of a recession then it's pretty clear that he's just unable to be honest with us.
The only people agitating for tax increases are the people who are going to get that money: union members that work for the government.
Nobody else believes it's a good idea to confiscate more money from already struggling Americans.
So ... the reason we're unable to secure a debt limit is is that Barack Obama is a fundamentally dishonest person.
He has to stop his lying before we can proceed.
And there's this, which will give the Chief Prevaricator something to reject.
Mr Zeus will not deign to deal with mere humans, unless it is to seduce them.
If the GOP is approached by a large swan, the Boehner boys had better keep their Leda legs closed.
The "big deal" is nothing more than reelection stimulus.
Well there are some whoppers in there.
My 3 favorites;
1. We want a big deal, e.g. the deal ust include tax increases)
2. THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t looked at it yet, and I think -- my expectation is that you’ll probably see the House vote on a couple of things just to make political statements. But if you’re trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and is not going to be something that I would support.
now 2.4 trillion is 240 billion a year over 10 years in a budget that today is 3.7 trillion.
So if you could cut next years budget by 6.5% and then allows normal infation adjustments from then on, you save 2.4 trillion.
If in 2012, instead of O'bama's 3.7 trillion budegt, we could hold ourselves to what we spent three years ago in 2009 (3.1 trillion) we'd save 6 trillion over 10 years...
3. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts.
Flat out false.
Did you see the exchange Jake Tapper had with the WH spokesman/stooge? Where the WH essentially admitted that a default/no deal wasn't "better or worse" than a deal that didn't get Obama past Nov 2012?
Talk about tipping one's hand as to priorities.
I GUARANTEE if a "big deal" gets done now, it'll have tax hikes very soon but fake spending cuts in a decade or so , so that the next 5 Congresses can ignore them.
Stated in another thread: GOP seems to grow up.
Let's act like adults
You know why Obama can't get a new American credit card?
Because he's black.
That's why whitey won't give him that credit card.
Did MN (Minnesota) just provide a roadmap? They've got a democrapic governor. (Dayton?) Who closed down the state government. Only to FOLD, and to sign onto the GOP's budget plan.
HANGING TOUGH PAID OFF!
And, we don't have to go to the russians, like Q-Daffy did. After obama's "big investment."
I think he uses the teleprompter as a shield. He must know at some point "incoming" will mean flying eggs.
MN: Michigan?
" ... the emerging Mitch McConnell proposal to transfer control of the debt ceiling to the president"
Mitch McConnell is slitting his throat if he intends to give Barack Obama complete control over our nation's out-of-control debt.
Barack Obama has no fucking control. We did not send Republicans to Washington D.C. to permanently indebt our children so Democrats can write themselves a bunch of fucking hot checks with our futures.
If Mitch McConnell doesn't have it in him to reign in the out-of-control Democrat spending going on in our country then we need to fucking EVICT him from our fucking political party.
KICK MITCH McCONNELL THE FUCK OUT OF OUR POLITICAL PARTY.
He's trying to FUCK US OVER and we'd better find some loyal Republicans to stop him.
What Carol said (hey, she's on a roll).
Love to see their internal numbers, especially after Tuesday. He says 80% of Americans want more taxes, which he has to know is going to be laughed at all over the Internet.
Sure looks like the guy is treading water somewhere north of Murmansk and a U-boat just surfaced.
And Mr. Jello-man demands that "they" give him a firm proposal?
Does not that come under the heading of chutzpah?
Who is they? No really, who do you think is they? And as a corollary, why did you leave it ambiguous? I am reluctant to believe it was accidental.
I'm not a fan of Mitch McConnell and was quite skeptical of his plan. As details emerge, however, it looks like an compelling compromise.
One thing it does do is cut the White House of of the deal. That's key. House Republicans would be smart to also introduce a concrete plan and put it up for a vote. If Obama vetoes it, that problem is squarely oh his shoulders.
Yes I know our President has dramatically increased our debt since coming into office.
Yes I know the budget he proposed this year essentially ignored the debt commission he inpanelled.
But don't you know, what's different now is
Our President has seen the light!
Praise the Lord!
One thing it does do is cut the White House of of the deal.
I think you need to study the McConnell proposal a bit more. I recommend reading Keith Hennessey's description here.
Bottom line: the proposal gives Republicans (and conservative Democrats) cover to vote against debt ceiling increases while allowing the debt ceiling to be raised.
"Only to FOLD, and to sign onto the GOP's budget plan."
Hey Carol, remind me what was the GOP plan in Minnesota?
Was the plan to borrow $1.5 billion so it could be spent by Democrats?
Was that the plan?
Because that's just what Minnesota Republicans did.
Minnesota Republicans raised $1.5 billion in new revenue in the middle of a recession by borrowing that money. They then gave that borrowed money to the Democrats to spend on Democrat salaries.
Was that the big plan?
Not to cut spending, but instead just borrow the money and give it to Democrat unions?
Pardon me if I don't celebrate the "Republican victory."
This isn't a game. We absolutely have to stop spending so much money.
And the net takers in our society need to stop thinking they can have all good things paid for by someone else.
NevadaBob...You are superficial and ignorant, or you are joking.
Go and read Ann Coulter's latest column.
She puts it so clearly that even you cannot pretend that anger at the GOP Senate leader makes any sense.
Obama does think this is all a game. Clueless, incompetent fool.
This is a false crisis.
But for the President's 11th hour refusal for anything but a "big deal", the debt limit could be raised incrementally and rationally with offsetting cuts.
The Republicans have a hand in the false crisis to the extent they tried to use the debt limitation to force the administration and the other Dems into substantial cuts in spending. It got flipped on them.
The irony is that the President has sat on his hands for months and refused to lead until only a couple of weeks ago. He proposed a completely polar opposite budget in January. And until just a few weeks ago wanted a "clean" debt limit increase that would last (read, spare him accountability) until after the election.
Heaping irony upon irony, the administration and the Dems have proposed no specific budget or plan to reduce spending (except for speeches, leaks, and the budgetary equivalent of hand puppets). I do not trust their numbers until it is on paper. That said, even those numbers are usually nothing but artifice and tricks.
Obama's intransigence does not a crisis make. He has created a false deadline of August 2.
"You are superficial and ignorant,"
Why are you name-calling? That is the hallmark of someone who has lost the debate.
Address the issue. The issue is borrowing to finance Democrat spending. It is wrong for Republicans to borrow so that Democrats can get unjust salaries.
Christian Post: "Both sides agreed to raise revenue by delaying payments to schools and to sell tobacco payment bonds – a revenue producing strategy adopted by other states as a way to fill coffers."
So, they're selling bonds ... borrowing money to give it to Democrats to spend on salaries.
Instead of cutting spending, Republicans just hocked the future of Minnesota. They kicked the can down the road and put future Minnesotans on the hook for money Democrats are spending today.
It is immoral and Republicans should reject this plan and force Democrats to STOP FUCKING SPENDING.
If 80% of Americans support raise taxes, pass a bill that raises taxes on 80% of Americans.
I'm guessing the actual truth is more along the lines of "80% of Americans favor making the other 20% pay for everything".
80% of Americans support raising taxes on the other 20%. Color me shocked. Also in a recent poll, all the wolves voted in favor of eating the sheep.
The only "crisis" we're looking at is that the presidential underwear will become soiled when he's faced with choosing between defaulting on the debt and defunding unnecessary programs.
"Compromise"? A "deal"? PFFT.
The Republicans want to keep the debt ceiling as is. The Democrats and Obama want to change the debt ceiling.
The burden of proof is on those who want to change the status quo. Instead, they reframed the situation into a "compromise", where both sides must give/take a little. As if there weren't a status quo at all. (It's not like Republicans are offering to say okay to new taxes if we decrease the debt ceiling. They just want to keep it as is.)
Keep the debt ceiling as is. Then Obama will be forced to prioritize between defaulting on the debt and funding unnecessary programs (e.g. political backers). Either way, for better or worse, he'll be forced to show his true colors.
The way the country is going, we'll be in the position of picking between funding programs and defaulting on the debt again and again and again -- until someone finally says NO. As time passes, the resulting damage will only get worse. Kick the habit now.
What was it that Obama said during one of his pressers? He'd much rather be talking about fun stuff that everyone likes... like new programs... Kick the habit now!
"The Republicans want to keep the debt ceiling as is."
I'm sorry, Joanna, but this is simply NOT THE CASE. You have the facts wrong.
No Republican plan rejects a debt ceiling increase.
All Republican plans currently on the table RAISE the debt ceiling to continue funding mostly Democrat Party salaries.
So, you need to retract this statement.
Every major Republican in Washington DC wants to authorize Obama to borrow more and spend that money.
No Republican has advanced the argument that we SHOULD NOT RAISE the debt ceiling.
There's a Simpsons episode in which the town, seeking buried treasure, digs themselves into a large hole. The way to get out?
-"We'll dig our way out!"
-"Dig up, stupid!"
*sigh*
Mr Obama is a pathetic liar
Deal, bluff? Is it all a card game?
"-"Dig up, stupid!"
This is how deeply we are fucked.
Republicans are debating how we can get to a point where we borrow more money and give it to Barack Obama to spend.
Republicans WANT to borrow more and give it to Obama. It's only a question of HOW we get there that is under debate.
HOW MUCH ... that's all they're debating.
All Republicans WANT to BORROW money and give it to Barack Obama to spend.
That's how fucked we are.
"Deal, bluff? Is it all a card game?"
Imagine you could play poker and have an unlimited supply of money and it's not your money.
That's the game they're playing.
They have our money and they're playing poker with our money and if they lose they lose our money and if they win we lose our money.
That's how fucked up this all is.
They took our money - at gunpoint - and now they're playing poker with it. And now they're borrowing our KIDS' money and putting that into the pot too.
And we let them. They're enriching themselves and we fucking let them.
We don't even TRY to stop them from doing it.
That is how fucked up a nation of pussies we are.
this whole contretemp is terrible--its cutting into Mr Obama's golf game.
Speaking of which, what was Tiger Woods's presser about--I really dont keep up
When 1/13/13 rolls around ... and it finds obama without a job ... he should become a pitch man for a laxative company.
With the tag line: "End the constipation."
Easy work. Good pay. He won't want his income to go to taxes.
I'm sorry, Joanna, but this is simply NOT THE CASE. You have the facts wrong. No Republican plan rejects a debt ceiling increase....
So, you need to retract this statement.
"House Debt Limit Vote: Republicans Vote Against Raising Debt Ceiling"
Nevadabob--chill dude--really
at the end of the day (meaning november next year) I think things will turn out OK--it will be messy getting there, but a I have faith.
dont expect you agree with me, but time will tell.
Joanna,
Do you believe and will you state that no Republican will vote FOR an increase in the debt ceiling?
What Republicans have said is that they will not vote for a ceiling that doesn't include something else (the something else is up for debate).
They ALL want a debt ceiling increase ... but ONLY if they can get something for it.
Nobody has submitted a bill to LEAVE THE DEBT LIMIT WHERE IT IS and to prevent the issuance of new debt.
You need to retract your statement.
nevadabob said...
"Republicans are debating how we can get to a point where we borrow more money and give it to Barack Obama to spend."
How is this so? The debt ceiling is about paying what has already been put on the national credit card. What the government owes to SS, vets, contracts, interest payments, etc.
" ... at the end of the day (meaning november next year) I think things will turn out OK ..."
You're wrong about that. And I'll explain why.
It is NOT OK for Republicans to be borrowing money that our children will have to pay back so that Barack Obama can KEEP FUCKING SPENDING IT.
Republicans are SELLING US OUT and if they succeed in pushing through a debt limit increase then we need to launch a THIRD political party. One that won't vote to give Barack Obama and the Democrats any more borrowed money.
I'm sick and fucking tired of Republicans voting to give Democrats MY FUCKING MONEY.
If Republicans don't STOP THE SPENDING the Barack Obama will get re-elected because there will be a third party.
So, it's not going to go the way you hope it will.
Obama is not even a good negotiator. Clinton could lie and look like an angel. Obama can tell the truth (I think. I've never seen him do it), and look like a liar. The GOP have figured this out, I hope, and know that cannot get anything from this man that can be trusted. Thankfully, Bob Dole is retired so they don't have any traitors manning the gates.
Stand firm and, at the end, pass a small debt limit increase that will run out next summer before the election.
Then dare Obama to veto it.
"How is this so? The debt ceiling is about paying what has already been put on the national credit card. "
No, it is not.
We have plenty of money coming in (approximately $200 billion per month) to both pay our debts and to have money left over for other things. Just not everything Barack Obama wants to spend it on.
The borrowing allows Democrats to keep giving money to themselves in the form of huge fucking salary increases.
USA Today: "The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds."
Tenfold, dude. They're STEALING OUR COUNTRY from us and we must stop them any way we can and with all due speed and deliberation.
It is that simple.
We are either going to allow these motherfucking thieves to steal from us and our children or we are going to stop them.
If Republicans aren't up to the fucking task at hand then it's time to fucking fire Republicans and hire Tea Party patriots.
The burden of proof is on those who want to change the status quo.
This has nothing to do with "burden of proof". The various laws Congress has passed require that we spend more than we collect without borrowing.
Thus, in short order the executive branch will be choosing which law or laws to ignore. Not IF they should ignore one or more laws -- which specific ones to ignore.
So if he wanted to, say, stop sending Social Security checks to Republican congressional districts, he could. Sure, he'd be violating the law, but he can quite reasonably argue that Congress, by authorizing neither taxes nor debt, tied his hands.
"Sure, he'd be violating the law, but he can quite reasonably argue that Congress, by authorizing neither taxes nor debt, tied his hands."
And the Congress would respond to this lawlessness by impeaching his fucking ass.
I'm pretty sure Congress would win that little matchup.
No, Barack Obama won't be stealing any Social Security checks out of people's mailboxes. The cops are on the beat.
There is PLENTY of discretionary spending in Barack Obama's budget. He has two wars under way that weren't even authorized.
The Social Security money is in a trust fund. Seniors don't have to worry about Obama's threat to steal their money and starve them to death (especially if seniors will vote him out in 2012).
Republicans are protecting seniors and the Social Security checks will go out or Barack Obama will be removed from office.
nevadabob said...
"We have plenty of money coming in (approximately $200 billion per month) to both pay our debts and to have money left over for other things. Just not everything Barack Obama wants to spend it on."
OK. What concessions were made when the ceiling was raised numerous times under other presidents that apparently didn't prevent the debt from increasing?
Over 40% of federal government expenditures are with borrowed money. We borrow money year around to pay current expenditures. That borrowing is added to the past borrowing which means the total debt goes up daily until it hits the debt limit. Holding firm on the debt limit would mean an instant 40% cut. Nobody with any sense thinks that's wise.
"What concessions were made when the ceiling was raised numerous times under other presidents that apparently didn't prevent the debt from increasing?"
Lots of concessions were made. How do you think we fucking got $14 trillion in debt?
It's about time to stop that, don't you think?
Why should Republicans borrow money to give it to Democrats in the form of huge salary and pension increases?
It's fucking retarded. Why are Republicans doing this? Republicans should be DEFUNDING the Democrat Party. Whose fuckign side are they on?
Instead, it looks increasingly like they're going to sell out OUR CHILDREN to enable Democrat pay raises.
Fuck this shit.
"Holding firm on the debt limit would mean an instant 40% cut."
And again, I'd remind our commenters here that Republicans are negotiating the terms of a debt limit INCREASE with Barack Obama.
Republicans are not negotiating to PREVENT a debt limit increase.
Republicans WANT TO CONTINUE the borrowing. They are merely negotiating the terms of that borrowing. They're selling out our children and Democrats are using that money to give themselves fat fucking raises.
Republicans are OUT OF CONTROL.
nevadabob said...
"Lots of concessions were made. How do you think we fucking got $14 trillion in debt?"
From an earlier post:
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”. Same day they passed $350 billion in tax cuts.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”.
What did McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor agree to when the debt was raised each time between 2002 and 2007 to keep the debt from from increasing? Whatever they agreed to obviously didn't work since the debt continued to increase each year.
"McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”"
This is why I want these motherfucking pusillanimous traitors out of my political party.
They continually vote to allow Democrats to give themselves FAT FUCKING RAISES.
And I want Democrats defunded.
Why are Republicans voting to borrow money so Democrats can get fat fucking raises?
It's absolutely retarded and we need to evict these motherfuckers from our political party and failing that to start a third political party and evict them that way.
What did McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor agree to when the debt was raised each time between 2002 and 2007 to keep the debt from from increasing?
Note that Senator O'bama voted against raising the ceiling in 2006.
called and raised...
"Note that Senator O'bama voted against raising the ceiling in 2006."
What better way to trick a nation of fucking imbeciles to vote for a Socialist?
The real question is can he fool them again?
Abraham Lincoln allowed that you could fool him once, but not twice.
But I think America is so stupid they will probably elect this fucking scumbag again.
The Drill SGT said...
"Note that Senator O'bama voted against raising the ceiling in 2006."
Yes, and I believe he acknowledged that it was political and not in the best interest of the country.
My point is, why is Congres now after all the timers the debt has been raised - 17 times under Reagan and Bush I, 4 times under Clinton and 7 times under Bush II - coupling future spending with the debt ceiling and risking default which will compound our financial situation even more?
Let the Republicans show some real leadership by decoupling these two issues and sitting down with the Democrats to develop a plan to address future spending.
It's all Kabuki now and I think the Republicans will come out looking the worst for it.
" ... and risking default which will compound our financial situation even more?"
This is a stupid fucking comment.
Our national debt service is less than 10% of what the government takes in every month (about $200 billion.)
The only reason Barack Obama is threatening not to pay the credit card bills is because he's black.
He's deliberately casting aspersions on black people and suggesting that black people won't pay their bills if you don't let them borrow more.
It's racist. And it's deliberate and it's purpose is to spook the bond market. He should be impeached.
Our country has plenty of tax dollars to pay its debt service and Social Security checks ... but we don't have enough to do that PLUS give out huge ass fucking raises to a bunch of Democrat thieves.
That's what this is about. Democrats want Republicans to authorize more borrowing so they can steal from us by giving each other huge ass raises.
nevadabob said...
Do you believe and will you state that no Republican will vote FOR an increase in the debt ceiling?
That is an idiotic question.
Here is what I believe to be true. Some from the left and right are participating in talks with Obama. What the public knows about these talks is gleaned through the lens of various media (and what the participants choose to share). We've been told about some deals that have been brought to the table. From the Republican side, we've also heard, "I will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, no matter what." Regardless of any deal that gets a handshake during secretive meetings, raising the debt ceiling depends upon the House voting to do so. Months ago, the House symbolically voted against raising the debt ceiling.
Will the House Republicans stand firm? I don't know. If Boehner makes a deal, will it pass the House? I don't know. If the House passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling, will I be pissed? You betcha. Do we have any conclusive information that, as you appear to be claiming, supports the notion that the majority of the House will vote to increase the debt ceiling? If we do, I've not seen the link.
nevadabob said... Nobody has submitted a bill to LEAVE THE DEBT LIMIT WHERE IT IS and to prevent the issuance of new debt.
That's the thing -- no one needs to do that. All they have to do is vote against any bill that raises the debt ceiling. A new bill is not needed to keep the debt ceiling where it currently is. I believe that if anyone attempted to pass a bill right now that prevents the issuance of new debt, that bill would get twisted into political fodder that would not advance fiscal responsibility.
In other words, why would anyone stick their neck out and risk two votes on this issue when they can *not* stick out their neck and only vote once -- a vote in which they do not pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling...
It is entirely possible that the House Republicans are watching the current negotiations play out. Watching Obama stir up fear with lies. Waiting til the vote actually happens, where they can defeat any bill that includes raising the debt ceiling (regardless of the negotiated "gains"). Then watch Obama try to back out of the lies he's told.
Will that happen? I don't know. None of us do.
"Will the House Republicans stand firm? I don't know."
Bullshit. Yes, you do know.
And so do I. I know.
House Republicans will vote to allow Democrats to borrow money so that Democrats can get huge ass raises.
That's what is wrong with our country. Both Democrats AND Republicans are selling us out by borrowing money from our children to give to Democrats.
Mark. My. Words.
You are wrong. Republicans are not negotiating to STOP a debt limit increase. And you know they are not doing that.
Republicans are negotiating an INCREASE in the debt limit. They WANT TO BORROW and are using the debt limit increase to secure other things they want because they know Barack Obama ALSO WANTS a debt limit increase.
Nobody in Washington, D.C. is arguing to STOP. THE. SPENDING.
But right now it's the NO DEAL, on both sides.
Heck default for all I care. I'd love to see 50 percent of the federal employees take unpaid leave. They can start with the ATF, EPA, and Education.
And the Congress would respond to this lawlessness by impeaching his fucking ass.
Good luck with that.
First of all he could legitimately claim he wasn't sending the money because the government doesn't have it -- which is true.
Secondly, you would need lots of Democrats to vote for impeachment, and why would they?
sorepaw said...
"What interest do Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi have in cutting future Federal spending on anything (except perhaps the military)?"
Well, if the Republicans take the lead and demonstrate to the American people that they are in fact trying to responsibly solve our fiscal problems, don't you think it would put the Democrats in a poor light if they didn't work with the Republicans?
And yes, there will have to be compromises. That's what this country was founded on.
That's what those folks in D.C. are getting paid the big bucks for - leadership.
Heck default for all I care. I'd love to see 50 percent of the federal employees take unpaid leave.
That's the equivalent of cutting your dick off to deprive your urologist of business.
That's what those folks in D.C. are getting paid the big bucks for - leadership.
Instead we have one side that absolutely will not support real tax increases or real defense cuts, and another side that absolutely will not support real cuts to entitlements.
Of course, the only way to avoid default, avoid raising the debt ceiling, avoid raising taxes, and avoid entitlement/defense cuts is to eliminate all other government spending, from the FBI and Border Patrol on through the Junior Environmental Diversity Women's Planning Training Coordinator's office.
That would work... for about six months. Unless the economy improves next year the growth in entitlement costs from our aging population will mean that in 2012 revenues won't even be enough to cover entitlements + defense.
"Note that Senator O'bama voted against raising the ceiling in 2006."
Yes, and I believe he acknowledged that it was political and not in the best interest of the country.
-------------------------------
Indeed. Robert Gibbs is on record saying Obama only voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator because his "yes" vote was not needed (the vote passed 52-48), allowing him to position himself as more of a moderate.
And, on cue, Sheila Jackson Lee said on the House floor today that the reason the debt ceiling hasnt been lifted yet is because Obama is black. Once again, the actual racists are the ones that actually play the race card. "Only this president has received this kind of attacks and disagreements...", according to Lee. Reading that made me laugh out loud, as the left has seemingly all but forgotten the hateful rhetoric spewed towards George W. Bush for 8 years.
Obama is simply over his head...perhaps the most over-his-head president in the history of this country. He has no clue what to do or say unless the words are written for him. He has no understanding of a free market, capitalistic economy. He shows no leadership, and in the face of tough questions merely passes the buck and blames somebody else.
I would love for level-headed independents to actually defend voting for this clown in 2012, no matter who runs against him. Unless you work for the government or spend your life drawing unemployment/welfare/food stamps, there is absolutely nothing that should make you vote for him again.
Jason,
As I indicated earlier in the post, Congress raised the debt limit 17 times under Reagan and Bush I, 4 times under Clinton and 7 times under Bush II without coupling future spending with the debt ceiling and risking default.
During G.W. Bush's administration, McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor all voted “yea” for these increases without offsets. Why now with Obama?
In my view, because of their yea votes, McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor are part owners of this debt problem.
You state you would love for level-headed independents to actually defend voting for this clown in 2012, no matter who runs against him. Why would I want to vote for a party with leaders who are willing to play games with the national debt and not willing to take responsibility for their party's past actions?
Default will hurt many more than just just those in government jobs or those drawing unemployment, welfare and food stamps.
Why now with Obama?
Is that a serious question?
JAL said...
"Why now with Obama?"
"Is that a serious question?"
Yes, yes it is.
What were the offsets for the numerous times the debt ceiling was raised in the past? Someone please explain why the debt continued under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
The chart produced by Treasury shows a plateau beginning with the end of Bush I's and during Clinton's administrations. It takes off again under Bush II's administration. Why no offsets forced during the Bush II administration and subsequent default?
sorepaw said...
"What does "responsibly solve our fiscal problems" mean in this context?"
Well, for starters, let's knock off the BS with coupling the debt ceiling with future spending. The debt ceiling is what we owe already by law. If the Republicans want to tackle future spending then address that separately with realistic proposals.
You state:
"In all fairness, I should add that, if such senior Republicans as McConnell and Boehner show an inclination to revert to their behavior patterns in the days of DeLay and Dubya, a responsible solution will require their removal from leadership positions as well."
Yes. And who is going to make that happen if it didn't happen in the past?
Again, leaders need to lead.
@36fsfiend--Since you think that every increase in the debt ceiling is the same as every other one, I wonder if you think that every check you write counts the same against your bank balance, too.
A long time ago, when JFK was president. You'd see him starting each day with newspapers! I'm not even going to list his choices, here. But that's how politicians lived back in those days!
And, Nixon? He said "it didn't matter what they say about me, as long as they spell my name correctly."
I don't think obama reads the papers. I don't think he asks for the latest polling data.
But he's not out in public playing golf.
Which leads me to believe someone is tying him down to his chair in the oval office. So he doesn't race out to a golf course, somewhere.
Eisenhower had more guts. (This is a golf reference.)
Chip S. said...
@36fsfiend--Since you think that every increase in the debt ceiling is the same as every other one, I wonder if you think that every check you write counts the same against your bank balance, too.
As far as my trustworthiness on making good on a debt - yes they are all equal.
What we owe on the national debt is required by law. Linking the debt ceiling with future budget requirements in my mind is like someone saying they are going to balance their household budget by not paying the credit card bills for past purchases.
I love commenters who use words like contretemps. Of course, it does have an "s."
sorepaw,
Even if Obama and his lieutenants are fiscally irresponsible, how does that justify the government from not honoring its obligations to seniors, vets, contractors, those who hold our debt, etc. which we are required by law to meet?
As I responded to Chip S., to me, linking the debt ceiling with future budget requirements is like someone saying they are going to balance their household budget by not paying the credit card bills for past purchases. They need to pay the bills or go to their creditors to workout new terms of payment.
"I don't think obama reads the papers. I don't think he asks for the latest polling data."
I'm sure his briefed by his staff.
Linking the debt ceiling with future budget requirements in my mind is like someone saying they are going to balance their household budget by not paying the credit card bills for past purchases.
I'm pretty sure that you'd see the need to slash your level of spending. Otherwise, act like a Democrat--keep on paying off your credit-card debt by borrowing more-- and see where that gets you.
There's a long thread from earlier today on this topic that you might find useful.
wv: dumba. really
I'm sure his briefed by his staff.
That's a comforting thought. With Geitner talking about quitting, following the previously-fled economic advisors Romer, Summers, Orszag, and Goolsbee, one wonders seriously who the hell is left to brief him--dumbass Jon Favreau?
Of course, given how badly things have gone already, maybe Obama's better off winging it.
Chip S. said...
"I'm pretty sure that you'd see the need to slash your level of spending. Otherwise, act like a Democrat--keep on paying off your credit-card debt by borrowing more-- and see where that gets you."
Yes, spending would need to be cut and maybe a second job would be necessary. However, unless I receive relief from the creditors, those bills still need to be paid or I default and then the situation becomes worse.
Yes, spending would need to be cut and maybe a second job would be necessary. However, unless I receive relief from the creditors, those bills still need to be paid or I default and then the situation becomes worse.
Good, we now have a common basis for discussion.
Obama's joke of a budget failed to take any serious steps whatsoever toward the sorts of necessary steps you listed. The only recourse left to the Republicans is to take away his credit card, because of his complete fecklessness.
There's plenty of revenue to service the outstanding debt. There's just not enough to pay for all the other stuff, too.
Sorepaw,
What I think is a specious argument is stating or implying Obama is the one solely responsibly for the $14 trillion debt. It’s not honest. The debt starting climbing back in the 1980s and hasn’t stopped since.
You say the debt-ceiling vote that you say is one of the few levers available to the Republicans. And again, why was this tool never applied to the debt run up under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II?
Look at the Treasure chart on the national debt. Steeps curves under Reagan/Bush I and Bush II. What offsets were used to limit these increases?
Wasn’t Reagan who said deficits didn’t matter? Now all of a sudden they are important enough to force the nation into default?
Chip S. said...
"There's plenty of revenue to service the outstanding debt. There's just not enough to pay for all the other stuff, too."
I thought the debt ceiling was for those obligations/commitments the government is required by law to pay. What "other stuff" can we legally not pay?
Later, they will do a small deal.
That's what all the right folks say.
Sorepaw,
“By the way, do you also believe the official Democratic line that Social Security is doing just fine, thank you?”
I can’t recall the figure right now, but a percent of the debt is what is owed back to the SS fund which the government has borrowed against. So, I assume it must be OK for the present if we can borrow on it and still make SS payments to seniors. But yes, it needs to be addressed for the future.
“If that is the case, how could Obama be threatening to cut off Social Security checks come August 3?”
I’m not familiarly with how the infrastructure (SS Agency, personnel, etc.) that makes the actual payments is impacted by a default.
None of us are "making the deal."
This is just a DC game of CHICKEN.
Who knows what sizzles on the 3rd rail?
What we owe on the national debt is required by law. Linking the debt ceiling with future budget requirements in my mind is like someone saying they are going to balance their household budget by not paying the credit card bills for past purchases.
No, what we owe on the national debt is required by the Constitution.
Our tax rate, spending rate, and debt ceiling are required by law.
The statement "we're required to pay the debt, so we have to raise the debt ceiling" is neither more nor less valid than the statement "we're required to pay the debt, so we have to cut spending on other things".
The position you and the other Democrats have is "well, God himself has ordained that we have to spend as much as possible, and the Constitution has ordained that we have to pay the debt, so obviously the only options are to raise taxes and/or the debt ceiling".
The position the Republicans have is "well, God himself has ordained that taxes can't go up and defense spending can't go down, and the Constitution has ordained that we have to pay the debt, so obviously the only options are to cut discretionary spending and entitlements.
You're both a couple of packs of ninnies.
36fsfiend,
"As I indicated earlier in the post, Congress raised the debt limit 17 times under Reagan and Bush I, 4 times under Clinton and 7 times under Bush II without coupling future spending with the debt ceiling and risking default."
What you are not taking into consideration is the promise of the Dems that they would cut spending if the debt ceiling was raised. Tip O'Neill promised that to Reagan and Bush I, Gingrich actually did that with Clinton, something Clinton did not like but went along with, Pelosi and Reid did not even make an attempt with Bush I. In other words the Dems lied that they would cut spending; instead they raised taxes and continued the spending at an ever-increasing rate (check the debt increase after the start of 2007 to see what Pelosi and Reid accomplished and especially once Zero got in office and they really took off). Also check why the Dems lost all those House seats in the midterm elections. There is a reason why Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House, Praise the Lord.
36fsfiend,
"Well, for starters, let's knock off the BS with coupling the debt ceiling with future spending. The debt ceiling is what we owe already by law. If the Republicans want to tackle future spending then address that separately with realistic proposals."
Actually the two go together very nicely. The idea is that if the debt ceiling is raised and future spending is not controlled, then we would be right back in the cycle of an ever-increasing debt ceiling. We need to cap the debt ceiling by cutting the future spending if we ever want to get in control of the situation.
Revenant,
“No, what we owe on the national debt is required by the Constitution.”
Yes, and doesn’t the Constitution state that the national debt will not be questioned?
“The statement "we're required to pay the debt, so we have to raise the debt ceiling" is neither more nor less valid than the statement "we're required to pay the debt, so we have to cut spending on other things"
I Concur. However, while we are haggling over what to cut or if we should increase revenue I don’t believe it’s the right decision to default on our debt obligation. What does the Constitution say about defaulting?
“The position you and the other Democrats have is "well, God himself has ordained that we have to spend as much as possible, and the Constitution has ordained that we have to pay the debt, so obviously the only options are to raise taxes and/or the debt ceiling".
Don’t assume I’m a Democrat. And my point in this thread is about defaulting and the repercussions on the country. As far as a solution to the spending and revenue question, I’m actually in favor of both.
Dick,
“What you are not taking into consideration is the promise of the Dems that they would cut spending if the debt ceiling was raised. Tip O'Neill promised that to Reagan and Bush I, Gingrich actually did that with Clinton, something Clinton did not like but went along with, Pelosi and Reid did not even make an attempt with Bush I. In other words the Dems lied that they would cut spending; instead they raised taxes and continued the spending at an ever-increasing rate (check the debt increase after the start of 2007 to see what Pelosi and Reid accomplished and especially once Zero got in office and they really took off). Also check why the Dems lost all those House seats in the midterm elections. There is a reason why Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House, Praise the Lord.”
Thanks for the background. Seventeen times the debt ceiling was raised under Reagan and Bush I. So seventeen times the Dems failed to live up to a promise to cut spending and Reagan and Bush I never reacted? Is that correct? How about before the Dems took control of Congress in 2006 with Bush II? What did we offset for the wars, tax cuts and Medicare Part D? Again, after all the times the debt ceiling has been raised now the Republicans want to play chicken with defaulting.
As far as the Dems losing all those House seats in the midterm elections, some of that was due to Dem turnout. Apparently this is a trend with off year elections. I believe Reagan also saw losses after his first two years in office.
“Actually the two go together very nicely. The idea is that if the debt ceiling is raised and future spending is not controlled, then we would be right back in the cycle of an ever-increasing debt ceiling. We need to cap the debt ceiling by cutting the future spending if we ever want to get in control of the situation.”
And when we default, and don’t meet our obligations to SS seniors, vets, creditors, how does that help the nation? We will not be forced to pay higher interest rates on future debt because of the subsequent lower rating on the nation’s credit? Is that being fiscally responsible?
Nevadabob,
Why did you attack me yesterday, when I said pretty much the same thing you said in your last post here?
Could it be that you are a moby who runs arguments in circles? Or could it be that you are a chihuahua who chases his tale in circles?
One thing for sure, you need to start a news letter and find a target audience for it. This one ain't it.
WV: pactupto:
Mercuh had agreed to be a republic and had a pactupto the time that they started voting themselves benefits from the treasury. Then it all fell apart.
All they have to do is vote against any bill that raises the debt ceiling. A new bill is not needed to keep the debt ceiling where it currently is.
You do realize that not raising the debt limit will require the government to cut spending immediately by over 40%. It is easy to say, "simply don't raise the debt limit", but I have yet to see any Republican, or you, say where these cuts are going to come from. Take a look at the federal budget and you come back with cuts amounting to 40% that are going to fly.
If Obama and his lieutenants keep up with the spending and borrowing that they obviously want, the US government will eventually go into default.
Actually if we let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire, like they were supposed to, much of problem would be solved.
You can simply not reduce the deficit without eventually raising taxes. None of the Republican proposals reduce the deficit. So stop lying about that.
I don’t believe it’s the right decision to default on our debt obligation. What does the Constitution say about defaulting?
The only way we will default is if Barack Obama orders it. We receive more than enough tax revenue to honor our debt obligations.
Because the democrat party is NOTHING without a 'crisis'.
The 'Munchausen-by-proxy' party, the party that 'creates' crisis after crisis, and then bleats endlessly how THEY must be the ones to 'fix' things.
Its ALWAYS the fault of republicans, because the evil r's either didn't 'let' them do this, or do that.
Really, this party has steadily devolved over the years to what can be described as a sex-crazed drug-addled covetous murderous adolescent with absolutely no concscience of self, only that of others.
I for one have seen more than enough of this president and his street tactics. Those of you that voted for this loser deserve everything you get, along with the constant scorn of those of those who recognized this man for what he is and voted otherwise. You truly are among the most gullible of this world. May I interest you in a pet rock? You can use it to bludgeon yourself to sleep with, when the drugs won't do the job.
Idiots.
"...in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they're going to burden you with."
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/government-308436-debt-year.html
Actually if we let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire, like they were supposed to, much of problem would be solved.
You can produce no fact or data supporting this idiotic assertion.
You can simply not reduce the deficit without eventually raising taxes
You can produce no fact or data supporting this idiotic assertion.
PS, after the Bush tax cuts were enacted, federal revenues increased 44% the following 3 years.
Well, for starters, let's knock off the BS with coupling the debt ceiling with future spending
I think you should go on pretending they aren't related.
Tea Party to Republicans: Raise Debt Ceiling At Our Peril
CNN: "Do not raise the debt ceiling. It's that simple. It's time for Congress to get its fiscal house in order," Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin told CNN. The group is the nation's largest tea party organization.
CNN: "A lot of these freshmen ran on the promise that they were not going to increase the debt ceiling. Now, they're in D.C. with all of their colleagues on the Hill. And they're buying into the company line, forgetting about the fact that the American people have elected them not to do that."
Brendon Steinhauser: "I think if you don't get significant cuts, you don't get a balanced-budget amendment as part of it, and you're raising taxes -- I just think that it's, politically, ... you'll definitely face serious challenges for your re-election," Steinhauser said.
I don't think it's pressure. I think it's accountability. Especially if you're a Republican. The tea party is going to be looking for a handful of examples to be made."
If yesterday's performance was indicative of Obama "taking it to the American people" so his "bluff" isn't called, I hope he's on TV every day at 11am.
The Obama legacy:
1. We don't estimate speeches
2. The U.S. losing the AAA rating it has had since 1917.
I think Obama has an attitude that leads to viewing anyone who gives him bad news as being disloyal. This is why he thinks that 80% of the people are in favor of higher taxes. One of his aides interpreted a poll in those terms for him. The aide knew he would be pleased to hear that. This is one of his weaknesses and it may lead to his downfall. He could eventually become totally disconnected from reality. I have had bosses like this in the past.
BTW, since spending in the last three years has increased by several multiples, why is reducing it by 40% such a big deal? Why is a roll-back to earlier levels of spending such a bad thing.
Jay said...
Well, for starters, let's knock off the BS with coupling the debt ceiling with future spending
I think you should go on pretending they aren't related.
Well Jay, when and if this blows up, it will be the the Republicans in Congress holding the bag.
60 times the debt ceiling has been raised in the past. 60 times without threatening default.
Did you personally get hurt in the last economic meltdown? I did. Not looking for another round.
You want four mote years of Obama in White House I guess.
Freder,
You do realize that not raising the debt limit will require the government to cut spending immediately by over 40%. It is easy to say, "simply don't raise the debt limit", but I have yet to see any Republican, or you, say where these cuts are going to come from. Take a look at the federal budget and you come back with cuts amounting to 40% that are going to fly.
A 40% cut in Federal spending would be rough on former Federal employees and their families, and on some former beneficiaries of programs.
Few others would consider it a loss. Many would applaud it.
That said, the point of this debt-ceiling showdown is to attach real spending cuts to it that neither Obama nor Congressional Democrats will ever accept under other conditions. Less than 40%, but still substantial.
Freder,
Actually if we let the temporary Bush tax cuts expire, like they were supposed to, much of problem would be solved.
No, much of it won't be (and let's put the retardant effects on economic growth to the side here).
What Obama and the top Democrats have been after is a permanent ramp-up in total government spending—to percentages of GDP characteristic of France, or some other Western European cradle-to-grave state.
Upping taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" won't get them where they want to be. Not even close.
What they are after is massive tax increases on everyone. Honest Left-wing pundits will actually admit this, on rare occasions: jack up everyone's income taxes, or jack up everyone's income taxes and impose a Value Added Tax on top of them, or raise the income tax rates, impose a VAT, and hoist Medicare taxes as well.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi never admit that their schemes require massive tax increases on the middle class. This is one of their biggest and most obvious lies.
You can simply not reduce the deficit without eventually raising taxes. None of the Republican proposals reduce the deficit. So stop lying about that.
How dumb can you get?
Of course, it's possible to reduce a deficit by cutting spending.
You may not want to cut the spending.
Higher taxes may be less painful, from your point of view, than the requisite cuts.
But these are value judgments, as I'm sure you're able to understand.
Consequently, the declaration that it's impossible to reduce deficits by cutting spending is the lie.
And a lie obviously being told for political gain.
60 times the debt ceiling has been raised in the past. 60 times without threatening default.
Uh, the default won't happen even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.
Did you personally get hurt in the last economic meltdown? I did. Not looking for another round.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
See above.
sorepaw,
Thanks for the response.
I’m not arguing that we don’t have to get spending under control but I don’t believe defaulting on the existing debt is the solution. If this country defaults, the problem is going to be exacerbated and who do you think is going to be blamed? Why do you think McConnell is working on a Plan B with Reid?
“Again, have you been paying attention to events in Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and Italy?”
And how will this be different if we default and SS benefits, vet benefits, contracts, interest payments and the multitude of other activities are impacted by the government refusing to meet its obligations?
Jay said...
"Uh, the default won't happen even if the debt ceiling isn't raised."
Don't follow. The Treasure, since May, has already been taking creative measures to meet our obligations.
Did you personally get hurt in the last economic meltdown? I did. Not looking for another round.
"I have no idea what this is supposed to mean."
When the economy and markets tanked the last time it cost me. Not interested in going through a repeat.
36fs,
The United States is not about to default on its sovereign debt.
Even less is it likely to repudiate its sovereign debt.
You need to stop transmitting the Obama-Geithner line on this issue.
I would be OK with halting all borrowing at the current debt ceiling and cutting Federal spending 40%.
But that isn't going to happen.
What will happen is that:
• the debt ceiling gets raised without strings attached (what Obama and the Democratic leadership initially demanded)
• the debt ceiling gets raised and tax rates get raised (what Obama and the Democratic leadership really want)
• the debt ceiling gets raised with a schedule of spending cuts attached (what the Republican leadership has been pushing for)
All of this brinksmanship that the media have been "entertaining" us with is political theater.
Calling it brinksmanship is already an exaggeration; the term came into use when the United States and the Soviet Union could have fought an all-out nuclear war. A real Armageddon, not a fake one.
When the economy and markets tanked the last time it cost me. Not interested in going through a repeat.
And you think that if the Republicans show "leadership", er, knuckle under to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, the economy and markets won't tank?
Hasn't it occurred to you that Obama has gotten so florid in his brinksmanship because he vainly imagined that his policies would produce an economic recovery and even he now realizes that they haven't? (Not that high unemployment matters to him per se, but Obama is smart enough to recognize its likely effect on his re-election prospects.)
How different is ObamaReidPelosian rhetoric—Medicare, Now and Forever—from the rhetoric emitted by Greek politicians over the last decade or two?
Sorepaw,
Thanks for the response
“The United States is not about to default on its sovereign debt.”
“Even less is it likely to repudiate its sovereign debt.”
“You need to stop transmitting the Obama-Geithner line on this issue.”
From an article I read today:
“Some conservative congressional Republicans have questioned whether there would really be a crisis if the Aug. 2 deadline were missed. They note that the government could cut programs instead and still make interest payments at least for a while. But Congress' top two Republicans, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have agreed that failure to raise the limit could provoke an epic economic catastrophe.”
Not Obama’s and Geithner’s words. This is from the Republican leadership.
“What will happen is that:
“• the debt ceiling gets raised without strings attached (what Obama and the Democratic leadership initially demanded)
• the debt ceiling gets raised and tax rates get raised (what Obama and the Democratic leadership really want)
• the debt ceiling gets raised with a schedule of spending cuts attached (what the Republican leadership has been pushing for)
All of this brinksmanship that the media have been "entertaining" us with is political theater.
Calling it brinksmanship is already an exaggeration; the term came into use when the United States and the Soviet Union could have fought an all-out nuclear war. A real Armageddon, not a fake one.”
I don’t know if would call this gaming or brinksmanship "entertaining". I think most people want stability in their life and not needles crises management. That’s part of what I mean by leadership - not creating crises. Anticipating situations before they become crises and coming to the table with valid proposals to solve our problems.
When the economy and markets tanked the last time it cost me. Not interested in going through a repeat.
“And you think that if the Republicans show "leadership", er, knuckle under to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, the economy and markets won't tank?”
Hasn't it occurred to you that Obama has gotten so florid in his brinksmanship because he vainly imagined that his policies would produce an economic recovery and even he now realizes that they haven't? (Not that high unemployment matters to him per se, but Obama is smart enough to recognize its likely effect on his re-election prospects.)
Again, this situation, where Obama is demonstrating his “brinksmanship”, was created by the Republicans with their requirement for concessions before raising the debt ceiling. And because of this, they will be the ones receiving the blame for the situation. They, in essence, have created a situation that makes Obama look as the saner, more serious party.
“How different is ObamaReidPelosian rhetoric—Medicare, Now and Forever—from the rhetoric emitted by Greek politicians over the last decade or two?”
I admit that I’m not familiar with the rhetoric of the Greek politicians over the last two decades. I understand the Greek debt was over 100 percent of their GDP – something we haven’t seen since the end of WW II – which has contributed to their problems.
Again, I’m not arguing that we don’t have to get spending under control. I believe everything needs to be put on the table – entitlements, defense spending and revenue increases. But I don’t believe playing with the actual or possible threat of default is the correct approach. To me this is where real leadership would come into play to try and tackled this problem without playing games with the economy and peoples lives. Is this really what the Republican Party wants?
Don't follow. The Treasure, since May, has already been taking creative measures to meet our obligations.
Great for them.
But again, the ability to borrow has nothing to do with paying debt obligations.
When the economy and markets tanked the last time it cost me. Not interested in going through a repeat.
Borrowing another 2 trillion dollars has nothing to do with the economy tanking.
When the economy and markets tanked the last time it cost me. Not interested in going through a repeat.
Yes, because of course we should make it all about you!
Jay,
"But again, the ability to borrow has nothing to do with paying debt obligations."
"One analysis, by the Bipartisan Policy Center, suggests that once the government runs out of cash and lacks the power to further borrow, it would need to slash spending at once by as much as a whopping 44 percent. The U.S. now borrows more than 40 cents for every dollar it spends."
So what defense contracts, vet benefits, SS payments get cut to offset the 44 percent of the obligations we can't meet? How about soldier pay? Do we cut that cause China is going to what their interest payments for all the money they've loaned us at rates that will increase if we default.
"Borrowing another 2 trillion dollars has nothing to do with the economy tanking."
From Moody:
"Global investors will start asking themselves, how long will they get paid if Social Security recipients don't?" said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "There would be long-lasting economic damage. The economy would be back in recession. Tax revenues would be falling again and the deficit increasing."
Sounds like a good plan, yes?
"Yes, because of course we should make it all about you!"
We all have our personal reasons, yes?
I only am one vote. But if the Republicans and the Tea Party want to continue with the BS, they can count on one less vote in Nov 12. And I think there will be plenty of others who will feel the same.
President Obama appears to be winning the war of words with congressional Republicans over who will be at fault if the stand-off over raising the debt ceiling leads to a government default, according to results of a national poll released Thursday.
The Quinnipiac University survey of registered voters showed 48 percent would blame Republicans if the debt limit is not raised, compared to 34 percent who would blame Obama.
Voters also sided with Democrats by a 67-25 percent margin that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts.
And who do voters blame for the nation's sluggish economy?
"Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama's handling of the economy, but by 2-1 they pin the blame on former President George W. Bush rather than Obama, who is now more than 60 percent through his term of office," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Jay - Have you ever considered taking a business course?
Or, hey...how about actually reading something or researching factual evidence before blathering on as if you know anything at all about the economy or economics.
All you (and most others here) do is whine and bitch every second of every hour of every day.
The entire teabagger pack who gathers here on a daily basis are some of the most depressing and depressed people I've ever encountered.
Is there ANYTHING you and the rest of them like about America?
sorepaw,
Thanks for the spelling corrections.
Who did you vote for in '08?”
I have to admit that I couldn't pull the lever for McCain/Palin and I have never voted Democrat. I'm still hoping for 2012 but not sure with what I'm seeing right now.”
“And what percentage of the American political class, over the past century, has ever met your criteria for leadership?"
Teddy Roosevelt in my opinion was a leader. Born of wealth but took on the monopolies because he realized they were a threat to democracy. Believed in higher education and science. Served his country in time of war and also had sons serve in WW I and WW II. Was a hunter but believed in conservation. Peace Prize winner for efforts with Russia and Japan. He was a leader but he wouldn't survive in today's Republican party.
"I think what you're looking for is someone who will help you pretend that we aren't already in a crisis."
No. Not intersted in pretending. Interested in facts. Someone who will not make a situation worse for political gain such as we are seeing with this debt ceiling issue. I understand that the debt is a problem but the situation can be addressed in a better manner. Leadership also requires the ability to compromise. Not seeing that.
sorepaw,
“Now, looking around the present-day scene, who do you find is interested in facts?”
Really very few seem to be. They one person that I found myself agreeing with on some foreign issues has been Ron Paul. When it comes to the wars, our involvement in the Middle East , the military I find myself agreeing with him. I don’t agree with some of his other positions like getting rid of the FAA, CIA and other agencies. I believe the government can and should work for the people. Like Lincoln said, the government should do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. We saw this during WW I when the United States Railroad Administration was created because all the separate free market railroads couldn’t get their act together to support the war effort effectively. They needed government oversight. Haiti has no real government oversight and look what that earthquake did to that nation while Chile, which sustained a quake 700 times stronger, had less damage and fewer numbers of deaths because of effective government. Same case can be made with Japan.
“Who do you find is interested in pretending?”
Just about everyone. As a Republican, I’m finding myself disappointed on how they are approaching issues. Take that whole Obama birth certificate issue. Which Republican leader came out and definitively laid out the case to put that issue to rest. None that I recall. They let it continue to fester for political purposes. The certificate was a valid document from the State of Hawaii. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, verified it was valid. This was happening while Linda Lingle, a Republican, was in place as Governor of Hawaii so if the Republican leadership had any real questions about the certificate the Governor could have answered their concerns. A lot of people wanted Hilary Clinton to be the first woman president. Folks were digging on Obama during the primary to help Clinton. They ended finding the birth announcements in the Honolulu newspapers from that time. So all these facts were out there and yet none of the Republican leaders honestly addressed the issue. I know politics are involved, but with all the pressing issues facing the nation why couldn’t they be honest and put this one to bed. This is just one example of what I’m seeing from the Republicans.
“And what do you suppose are the prospects for constructive compromise, when some parties to the proposed compromise are interested in facts and others are evidently not?”
I believe truth prevails. If you know you are right and have the facts on your side, I believe the American people will be with you. Isn’t this one of the main reasons there’s a respect for the military, firefighters and police officers? We believe they are in for a just and honorable cause. Our political leaders should be held to the same standards and doing the same.
“Over the past few months, Obama has yet to make one public offer of a significant, concrete reduction in spending. He is hoping that if he can make his opponents look bad and buffalo them into capitulating, he and his lieutenants won't have to rein in any spending.”
I obviously don’t know all the details of the ongoing debt ceiling discussion but from what I’ve being reading Obama is willing to make concessions on entitlements. The Republics are not willing to give anything on revenue. Some Republicans are saying this is a missed opportunity. Again, Congress has the power of the purse. Prior to this debt ceiling issue, have they come forward with a serious proposal to the debt that puts everything on the table – entitlements, defense, tax increases? I don’t believe the Ryan proposal, in that regard, was a serious position.
You're thinking seriously about voting for this guy in 2012?
Not sure. It’s up to the Republicans to convince me not to.
From Moody:
"Global investors will start asking themselves, how long will they get paid if Social Security recipients don't?
Nice straw man.
Who, exactly, is saying social security recipients won't get paid?
You do understand the federal government takes in more than $200 billion a month, right?
Jay - Have you ever considered taking a business course?
Or, hey...how about actually reading something or researching factual evidence before blathering on as if you know anything at all about the economy or economics.
Laugh out loud funny.
You do realize nothing you posted demonstrates anything I said was incorrect, right?
Keep flinging poo, little girl...
Post a Comment