The House has called Obama's bluff
LOLOLOLOLOLOL Who has called whose bluff??

LOLOLOLOLOLOL Who has called whose bluff????

That's the spin, but debate is over.

LOL, he doesn't have to do or say anything as the way it works is it goes to the senate, and they have to vote, amend, and debate it, then it goes back to the house for ratification. No doubt the senate will add revenues to whatever they vote on, so the house is where the action is.

Until then, the president has to wait for the final product to reach his desk. Then its his call to sign, veto, or use it as toilet paper. That's how the process works.

Really? That's how the process works? Gee thanks, I had no idea. :rolleyes:


He ain't bluffing either. He already said unless it's a balanced approach, REVENUES, and CUTS, it gets vetoed.

I thought all the action was in the House, that he didn't have to say or do anything? You mean he's actually supposed to lead? And he has, by ignoring his own commission and demanding $3 billion from corporate jet owners and geading a party that refuses to even propose a budget.

He was against raising the debt ceiling before he was for it .

‪Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMyQJjL9QcQ)


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

Americans deserve better. Well it wasn't Bush. In fact as long as the corporations own your government you won't get anyone there that does the will of the people.

You can talk about failure of leadership but the failure doesn't necessarily fall on BO, the failure happened long ago and has been perpetuated until the burden becomes unbearable. Leadership says you cut into the dead wood but it also says you must be realistic about the revenue base. It is currently inadequate for a number of reasons, and one of those reasons is greed. Corporate greed typified by the actions of banks and traders. It is also inadequate because of unemployment, the bill for benefits is large and ongoing. So why don't you take the Greek pill and make modest reductions in various benefits at the same time making modest changes to the tax regime. Those who benefit pay the bill. Take back all the shoring up given to various corporates and if they fail let them

Hello again,

27 pages and no resolution... The righty's STILL think it's just hunky dory to let the rich off and make the poor pay.

What I don't understand, is why THEY don't understand WHY that PISSES liberals off.

excon

He was against raising the debt ceiling before he was for it .

‪Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMyQJjL9QcQ)


Too many claims and counter claims from the incompetent left and right of politics. It makes us non-Americans scratch our heads.

Too many claims and counter claims from the incompetent left and right of politics. It makes us non-Americans scratch our heads.
Reading the Current Events board here won't give you a real depiction of american politics just the fringe/fanatical element. Most americans I've met are much more moderate. People have bigger personalities on the internet due to the anonymity.

Reading the Current Events board here won't give you a real depiction of american politics just the fringe/fanatical element. Most americans I've met are much more moderate. People have bigger personalities on the internet due to the anonymity.


Hi Karma,

You're closer to the action than I am so I am happy to go along with that.
Thank goodness for that! I was starting to get worried.

Tut

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.
Funny how that's the first time in a hundred years we have heard that. I think its more an effort to denigrate and bring down a Democratic president by the right wing than a lack of anything. And they make no bones about it as a priority, over any need this country has.

The right wing sees everything as an opportunity to get what they want, smaller government, weaker government, and a bunch of poor people without jobs or resources. They think it makes their piece of the pie bigger, and better.


It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.
Then the US government has never been able to pay its bills, because raising the debt ceiling has always been around decades anyway. Why is it bad now? Because the right wing said so. And it's a perfect opportunity to hold the whole country hostage AGAIN, and extort more tribute to there corporate masters, (nice rhetoric, hehehe!), to keep resources and wealth in the deserving hands of rich fat cats, and doled out as they see fit.

To do this and keep the masses under thumb, they have to divert the peoples money from the peoples interest, and into their own pockets.


It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. …
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security,and anything that helps the poor and disenfranchised, and unfortunate, like Education, and Health Care have an opportunity to rising above their own poverty, or station in life.


Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
Moving jobs overseas weakens America, not making things here in America weakens America, but then that was part of the plan any way, to turn us into another third world country with cheap labor, weak government, and corporate dictators raking in the money.


Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the
Burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
Just as right wing policy seeks to keep generations of poor, even poorer, and without education, and opportunity for anything but the most menial, low wage jobs in the world. The working class is the new servant class. That's what they mean by a service economy. With big gaps between class, and privilege.


America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Yes it deserves better and will work to get it, as we defeat the right wing, and restore America to the land of opportunity, and the world leader in innovation, both in scientific, and social advancement.

The revolution will be televised, but you have to have cable to get it.

For sale, Fox Cable News, must have responsible owners. Inquire at Congress for details


Job wanted-Right wing Presidential candidates, and pundits, will comment and spew craziness for the right price, and perks, easy terms and wages negotiable.

Ummm... you do realize that was Obama saying those exact words in 2006 ?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/obama-2006-vs-obama-january-2011-vs-obama-april-2011-on-the-debt-ceiling.html

ummm ...you do realize that was Obama saying those exact words in 2006 ?Hello again, tom:

You DO realize that it was a POLITICAL vote he cast while looking over his shoulder to make sure the bill PASSED.

In fact, that's EXACTLY what wingers are doing because they KNOW the debt ceiling MUST be raised.. Once the votes are tallied, Michelle Bachmann is going to vote against it for the SAME reason Obama did.

You DID know that. You just wanted to shove a stick in his eye.

excon

Then why did he make a floor speech justifying his position ? It sure looks like he meant it to me.

then why did he make a floor speech justifying his position ? It sure looks like he meant it to me.Hello again, tom:

Why is Bachmann making speeches about it EVERY day?? The difference is Obama KNEW the debt limit had to be raised... Michelle Bachmann believes her own schtick... I think you do too.

excon

He was making a statement, not obstructing. Not demanding, not misleading. As were all who cast NO votes back in the day.

Enough talk, lets vote and go from there.

I think there will be a vote and a short term extension. The Republic leaders have no spine.
In another couple days Geithner will pull a page from the Hank Paulson playbook and get on his knees begging Congress to raise the ceiling. To the guardians of the Levithian way of thinking ,you can never spend enough.

Boy I think its hilarious, the very ones who holler about spending never say what they mean, and resist any effort to cut the spending that they like the most, and I find it hard to believe that a hedge fund guy making billions, only pays 15 percent taxes.

How is that fair specifically? Don't talk about what the left or right is doing, talk to me about what YOU mean!

To the guardians of the Levithian way of thinking ,you can never spend enough.Hello again, tom:

That's the spin, of course.. Obama was offering to CUT 3 times as much as he proposed raising taxes on the superrich... That doesn't look like he wants to spend. It looks like he wants to cut... I know that because I can add.

Besides, it WAS the very conservative George Bush that spent us into oblivion. So, when you lament the debt on your children's head, REMEMBER who did it to them.

excon

Boy I think its hilarious, the very ones who holler about spending never say what they mean, and resist any effort to cut the spending that they like the most,
In case you missed or intentionally ignored my previous comments... I said across the board cuts ;nothing spared .


.. Obama was offering to CUT 3 times as much as he proposed raising taxes on the superrich... That doesn't look like he wants to spend. It looks like he wants to cut... I know that because I can add.
Besides, it WAS the very conservative George Bush that spent us into oblivion. So, when you lament the debt on your children's head, REMEMBER who did it to them.

I never gave Bush a pass on spending and growing the entitlement state. The President wants cuts you say ?

Let's start by getting rid of the Bush expansions to Medicare and Dept of Education... I imagine that the lefty's would sing a different tune about cutting programs that was beloved by the swimmer Ted Kennedy ;who worked in a "bipartisan" way to get those 2 programs initiated .

BTW... he says super rich while still targeting earners at $250,000 . All his talk of taxing the super rich is demagogic BS . You could take all the money from the 'super rich' and not come close to balancing the books .

You could take all the money from the 'super rich' and not come close to balancing the books .
You have to admit that every little bit adds up and gets you closer to where you want to be. Lets be clear Tom, I don't disagree with everything you say, just the ones on Fox, who make a living by talking crazy.

Where will they go when Rupert loses his license? How will Sarah put gas in her bus? Where will Shaun throw his football? You mean you don't care about these low information nut jobs??

You have to admit that every little bit adds up and gets you closer to where you want to be. Lets be clear Tom, I don't disagree with everything you say, just the ones on Fox, who make a living by talking crazy.

Where will they go when Rupert loses his license? How will Sarah put gas in her bus? Where will Shaun throw his football? You mean you don't care about these low information nut jobs????

I watch Shep Smith and Bret Baire... occasionally Mike Wallace. I think those 3 represent a superior brand of new broadcasts than any other network . Other than that I don't rely on the network for commentary .I have much better sources including the one that led me to the Hannity Williams exchange.

I don't care about the future of FOX . If they go there will be another network to replace them .

I could have course waste my time pointing fingers to your sources like the GE funded MSNBC... I thought you didn't like corporations that don't pay taxes . But I'd rather put my views on the table and debate and defend them .

I don't like corporations that don't pay taxes, GE included. Shep, and Chris Wallace are journalist, and all information I cite be it fact, opinion, or just feelings I do check out, with an open mind.

By my math, taxes should be contingent on the times, and flexible enough to fit the needs of the people, not fixed and subject to the whims of either party, as with spending, to reflect thoughtful deliberations, and max efficiency.

I get a bit agitated when you interfere with women's health to stop a few abortions, for example, OR changing Medicare to a voucher plan and lower taxes for rich guys. Doesn't seem fair to holler there ain't no money for WIC, but there is for a rich guy to fly his jet.

And what does shortening the early voting days have to do with a fair election, or making rules about young people voting where they live, not where they are at. Why is that allowed? Or my biggest peeve, Social activism and conflict of interest by judges, especially the ones at the top!

Lots of things that need fixing far as I can see.

You have to admit that every little bit adds up and gets you closer to where you want to be. Lets be clear Tom, I don't disagree with everything you say, just the ones on Fox, who make a living by talking crazy.

Where will they go when Rupert loses his license? How will Sarah put gas in her bus? Where will Shaun throw his football? You mean you don't care about these low information nut jobs????

Hi Tal,

Don't worry Rupert will reinvent himself as he had always done. When it comes to the media pandering to the lowest common denominator is what Rupert does best. He finds a niche and exploits it for everything it's worth. You only have to look at the quality of journalism evident in any of the media companies he owns.

Tut

I'll comment on the Judiciary on a new discussion .

Fox News isn't going anywhere but to continue trampling the competition.

Fox News isn't going anywhere but to continue trampling the competition.


Hi Speech,

Popularity won't necessarily save them. The News of World was very popular until people realized what they were buying into. It is always tempting to be attracted to the lowest common denominator.

Tut

I take issue with this characterization that broadcasts reflecting political philosophies we agree with is "catering to the lowest common denominator " .

It is always tempting to be attracted to the lowest common denominator

We were discussing Fox, not MSNBC.

I take issue with this characterization that broadcasts reflecting political philosophies we agree with is "catering to the lowest common denominator " .

Your issue is noted, let's move on.

This is why The One is so annoyed about no solutions yet... being president is interfering with his getting reelected. Poor thing (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=14093896).


The debt showdown isn't just the dominant issue in Washington this summer — it's virtually the only one getting any attention in the nation's capital.

From the White House to Congress, the negotiations over raising the U.S. debt limit have overshadowed or halted work on everything from job creation to the military conflict in Libya to education reform. And the debt debate has hamstrung President Barack Obama's ability to hit the road to campaign and raise money for his re-election bid.

Speaking of pandering to the masses:


G1qAnx-_LmY

Speaking of pandering to the masses:


G1qAnx-_LmY

Hi NK,

A guess all visual media pander in that way.

Why I am so critical of Murdoch is the way he exploits our basic instincts.

With the News of the world it was a Peep Show into people's private lives. This is especially despicable when it comes to people who were victims of crime.

Fox exploits uncertainty, fear and anxiety. Sometimes it even creates anger towards certain sections of the community. It does this under the guise of news.

Back to topic.
We could double the debt ceiling for all the good it will do. The truth is that the market has already made the call. We had trouble selling our debt notes because the foreign investors don't want to eat a cr@p sandwich . That is why we had QE2. No one would buy our paper ,so the Fed set up a program for the Fed to purchase the debt with dollars that flew off Geithner's printing press.
We are already maxed out . If we try to sell more debt we will get QE3 .
But to make it more complicated.. the Fed does not buy direct from the Treasury . No indeed... they buy them through 3rd parties. And who are those 3rd parties?. the banks the Administration loves to demonize . Yup ;the Obots are making the Goldman Sachs of the world rich . They get the bonds at discount from the Treasury ,and flip them by selling them at a tidy increase in rate TO the Fed.

I guarantee that if the debt ceiling is increased then QE 3 will begin in earnest. In anticipation ;the price of gold shot up again today. Look for oil and all commodities to follow suit in these days of no inflation.

I agree Tom, with no jobs being created, revenues have to come from someplace, and either its grow business, or grow government, and guess what wins in that case, after all we bailed them out first. Now we wouldn't have to keep a weak economy going that way if political leaders put people back to work. We wouldn't be having this conversation because the money the government has so far spent, is from adding the off the books expenditures to what was spent on the recession, keeping our head above water, and giving the states as much support as possible, yeah we have a large deficit.

No other nation in the world has the tools we have to fight a global recession, and make no mistake, its global, and extremely important, as there can be no recovery until we get back to work, and put others back to work also. Yes I will say it, businesses will have to take a risk to create demand, GLOBALLY. The working man is what creates the kind of demand to circulate the money, and until he can get in the game, there will be no economic growth.

Now we can talk about the Markets, but unless there is demand, doesn't matter if the standard is the dollar, or gold, because unless its circulated more widely, there will be the rich, and there will be the poor, and a lot of the poor, and lets be real, who wins that election? We will see.

All that needs to be done is quit the posturing, and raise the limit, so scared rich people can stop screwing helpless poor people. It really is that simple you know. Too bad repubs have to katow to the tea party, or else we could have been much further down the road to recovery, heck if the goal was not to obstruct, but to govern, we probably would have had a much more robust economy.

The problem isn't spending, its obstructing the spending, and distracting us from the WORK that needs to be done, to get out of this hole we find ourselves in. Caused by the robbery that was done in '08. Should have sent them to jail because they didn't run very far.

Speaking of pandering to the masses:

What can I say, conservatives love beautiful women, don't you? Anyway, that babe in the opening still image is Kiran Chetry and she has worked for for CNN for almost 4 1/2 years so your video is a little outdated.

What can I say, conservatives love beautiful women, don't you? I rest my case.

What can I say, conservatives love beautiful women, Hello again, Steve:

All I know, is I saw Lauri Duh's a$$, and I LOVED it. I LOVE Rachel Maddow too, but I don't want to see her a$$.

So, you still think there will be a deal?

excon

Speaker Bonehead will argue persuasively to his Reps that the Republicans only control 1/2 of Congress and they cannot impose their will . That will be the pretext for them to cave and give us milquetoast and call it victory .

Hello again, Steve:

All I know, is I saw Lauri Duh's a$$, and I LOVED it. I LOVE Rachel Maddow too, but I don't want to see her a$$.

Laurie Dhue? She looks good from any angle.


So, you still think there will be a deal?


I don't know, the president seems intent on increasing deficit spending AND raising taxes while ignoring every other plan including that of his own debt commission. By the way, while he's claiming that 80 percent of Americans want to pay more in taxes, they're actually wanting spending cuts - by a wide margin (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148562/Americans-Including-Republicans-Debt-Compromise.aspx).


Americans continue to express a strong desire that any agreement that is reached include plans for major cuts in future spending. Americans now by a 20-point margin -- 55% vs. 35% -- say they worry more that the government would raise the debt ceiling without plans for major spending cuts, than that the government would not raise the ceiling and an economic crisis would ensue.

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/feds-pay-for-study-of-gay-men%E2%80%99s-penis-sizes/)?

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/feds-pay-for-study-of-gay-men%E2%80%99s-penis-sizes/)?Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.

By the way, while he's claiming that 80 percent of Americans want to pay more in taxes, they're actually wanting spending cuts by a wide margin.

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis sizeHello again, Steve:

Well, of course, when the question is framed like that, the answer is a foregone conclusion.. But the premise is wrong - I'll bet purposely so. The ACTUAL proposal is for taxes to be raised on ONLY the top 5% of wage earners. Nobody else's taxes will be raised. When asked CORRECTLY, they overwhelming support it, ALONG with spending cuts.

I'll go along with suspending our study of gay men, as long as you agree to end the war in Afghanistan TODAY and bring the troops home. See?? That's how negotiations go. You give a little, then I give a little.. Frankly, my Afghanistan demand is getting traction among you guys.

excon

Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.

It's called wasteful spending which is extremely relevant to a discussion on the federal debt.

I'll go along with suspending our study of gay men, as long as you agree to end the war in Afghanistan TODAY and bring the troops home. See??? That's how negotiations go. You give a little, then I give a little.. Frankly, my Afghanistan demand is getting traction among you guys.

I'm asking a little, you're asking a lot. Frankly, I don't know what to feel about Afghanistan. Our president said it was a "war of necessity" but he approaches it halfheartedly, so what's the point if we aren't in it to win it?

... so what's the point if we aren't in it to win it?How is "win" measured?

so what's the point if we aren't in it to win it?Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what winning is..

If it's to make sure that Al Quada DOESN'T re-enter to use it as base to launch attacks on us, you'd have to presume that Al Quada is just OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, sitting on the sidelines, WAITING till they get back in, so they can attack us, because they CAN'T attack us from, say, Somolia.

I don't believe that.

excon

How is "win" measured?

Defeat the enemy for starters.

I don't know what winning is..

You do know what trying is don't you? You can't go campaign on a war of necessity and finishing the job, then approach it with apathy and uncertainty and expect anything close to a "win."

Defeat the enemy for starters.I agree, But who is the enemy to the United States there?

You can't go campaign on a war of necessity and finishing the job, then approach it with apathy and uncertainty and expect anything close to a "win."Hello again, Steve:

If you expect me to support Obama/Bush on steroids, war policy, you're barking up the wrong tree. IF that war COULD have been won, the opportunity was squandered when George Bush got sidetracked. You CAN'T go back into a war after you've ignored it for YEARS and expect to WIN. Wars don't happen like that.

But, in terms of money, make me a counter offer to the BILLIONS I just cut. That's right, I've got the Iraq war in my back pocket too.

excon

I have no problem in cutting defense spending period, so long as it doesn't jeopardize national security. I don't believe $2 trillion is wise to spend on Obamacare, a billion plus a year to the UN is too much and I darn sure bet we can reduce the federal payroll, which seems to be the only place where jobs are being created. Oh, and buying all those Chevy Volts? Put 'em in a base Ford Fiesta.

I don't believe $2 trillion is wise to spend on Obamacare, a billion plus a year to the UN is to much and I darn sure bet we can reduce the federal payroll,Hello again, Steve:

Whether you believe it or not, Obamacare is LAW and it WON'T be repealed. If you want to TALK, talk to me about something that we can ACTUALLY cut. You guys are good at symbolism, ala your cut, cap and balance. That's NOTHING more than a symbol, in that it has nothing to do with CUTTING.

Federal payroll?? Cool! Let's start with the DEA followed by the NSA, not forgetting the TSA, and let's throw in the prison guards as a bonus... If you want to trade the welfare to the UN, and the Education & Energy Department's, I'll go for it.

Yes, I STILL have the Iraq war in my back pocket, but I may not have to throw it in because I'll betcha we're getting close to being in balance.

excon

I'm all for scrapping the Education and Energy departments so see, compromise is possible. We can cut back on the EPA, the IRS and yank most government credit cards and make them go back to getting competitive bids on darn near everything they buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?
...
Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.
That's just speech being a 'science denier' again.

This thread has descended into the rehlms of fantasy

Stick around to see the convoluted pretzel twist that Congress eventually uses to solve this "crisis" . It will be the typical deception that the Republics in Congress usually falls for... tax increases now... spending "cuts" (if the rate of spending is targeted for 8% increase and it only goes up 6% it will be called a 2 percent cut) on some future undetermined date .

stick around to see the convoluted pretzel twist that Congress eventually uses to solve this "crisis" . It will be the typical deception that the Republics in Congress ususally falls for .......tax increases now ....spending "cuts" (if the rate of spending is targetted for 8% increase and it only goes up 6% it will be called a 2 percent cut) on some future undetermined date .

You mean they haven't decided to just not adjust budgets for inflation, or agree on a no new hires in the public service policy, not very inventive these yanks. There are many ways to provide a cut without pain but then we have been doing it for years so we are ahead of the game

I guess you don't have low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives, where you live.

I guess you don't have low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives, where you live.

Of course we do, but we have taken some of their options out of the equation, we also have environmental loonies that I doubt you have to contend with. We have a convention in our Parliament where neither side restricts supply, because it means it would quickly be taken to a double dissolution and everyone is out on their ear and have to face the electorate. That can mean a massive shift in the balance of power. I think because of this we have generally some more reasonable people willing to settle for some gains.

What I see is you have developed some sort of double standard where it is okay to say we can have statutes on the books, we have budgets, we have programs but we can stop supply without repealing any of that

We have those who are not interested in the common good, just there own good, but no worries, just because its exciting doesn't mean America will NOT handle its business, and do the right thing for itself.

I wouldn't bet against her.

I wouldn't bet against her.

At this stage I would refrain from betting the odds are too short

low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives
Don't worry... the way this debate is shaping I see this country being run by 2 statist parties ;one of leftist progressives v a party of left of center Repubics who's only claim to legitimacy is their contention that they can be better managers of the nanny-state. The Gag of 8 is planning to rubber stamp the President's hand selected deficit commission's recommendations .

Hobson's choice then?

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/18/feds-pay-for-study-of-gay-men%E2%80%99s-penis-sizes/)?Oh, by the way that study was funded under Bush:
Gay Men Penis Size Study Funded By Taxpayer Dollars (http://www.inquisitr.com/127402/gay-men-penis-size-study-funded-by-taxpayer-dollars/)

The National Development and Research Institute received money from the NIH to conduct the study which began in 2006.

:D

Does it matter who began the study ? It's a complete waste of money . No doubt it was a pork rider for some piece of legislation that was too important not to pass.


Hobson's choice then?
Yes a Hobson's choice and a Hobbes Choice.

does it matter who began the study ? It's a complete waste of money . Hello again, tom:

You'll excuse me if I DON'T support YOUR idea of what's good science...

excon

You are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

you are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

Is this better?

Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen A Day Of Service (http://www.businessinsider.com/two-navy-ships-henry-eckford-benjamin-isherwood-scrapyard-2011-7)

you are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .Hello again, tom:

I'm not a scientists. I don't know what they hope to find by studying gay dongs...

But, I DO know that somebody who DENIES the existence of evolution ISN'T the guy to get ANY scientific information from.

excon

Yeah that's more brilliance. Since the 1990s the navy stopped building nuke powered surface ships except Carriers. That means there will be more demand for refueling capability . What is significant is that new standards call for 2 hulls for tankers ,and these ships were built single hulled before the standards were revised.
I say sell them to another country .A quick repaint of an emblem and they'd be good to go.

But, I DO know that somebody who DENIES the existence of evolution ISN'T the guy to get ANY scientific information from.


Well then you wouldn't be talking about me... as you well know.

Is this better?

Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen A Day Of Service (http://www.businessinsider.com/two-navy-ships-henry-eckford-benjamin-isherwood-scrapyard-2011-7)

Don't you think it's a bit irrelevant? We apparently quit spending on that a couple of decades ago. I'll stick to cutting current wasteful spending.

I'll stick to cutting current wasteful spending.
Apparently not: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Debt limit (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2852457-post314.html)

The goal of the study was to understand the "real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society".Hello again, righty's:

The above from a story in FOX (http://nation.foxnews.com/gay-issues/2011/07/18/feds-pay-study-gay-men-s-private-parts).

In fact, the study is GOOD science. I don't expect you to agree. The lesson here, is that religion should NOT be a factor when determining whether a field of study ought to be engaged in. If it were, I suppose we'd all still believe the earth was flat.

You're not going to tell me, are you, that your anti-gay bias doesn't stem from your religious beliefs?

Excon

Even if I conceded that it was good science ;why should I as a taxpayer fund it ? Does the Levithian now have to fund every science project someone imagines ?

Does the Levithian now have to fund every science project someone imagines ?Hello again, tom:

Not at all.. Just the good ones.

What? You don't want the government involved in science? Really? You don't like Nasa? You don't like GPS? You don't think science has national security implications? DUDE!

Now, I don't know if studying gay men helps our country or not. But, I would NOT reject it out of hand simply based on the scary word "gay".

excon

What? You don't want the government involved in science? Really? You don't like Nasa? You don't like GPS? You don't think science has national security implications? DUDE!


I have no idea how you could divine from my comments that I oppose ALL science reseach from my comments .
Now, I don't know if studying gay men helps our country or not. But, I would NOT reject it out of hand simply based on the scary word "gay".
Another false premise that I'll not respond to...

Apparently not: Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Debt limit (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/2852457-post314.html)

When this funding began is irrelevant, the funding is slated to be continued at least until 2013 which makes it current wasteful spending.

P.S. The original article I linked to already revealed it began in 2006 in paragraph 2 so your post was old news anyway.

another false premise that I'll not respond to ...Hello again, tom:

Ok, I'm willing to let you explain why you initially wrote that the study was a waste of money. I suggest it was the mention of "gay", or it could have been "penis". I don't know. What's the difference? Looks to me like whatever turned you off about it stems from your religious beliefs. No?

excon

You answered the question yourself . I don't think it's a national concern . If they were measuring straight men's weeners I'd think the same way... thus the false premise that my concern is religious based or biggoted.

When this funding began is irrelevant, the funding is slated to be continued at least until 2013 which makes it current wasteful spending.
Ah so you think military wasteful spending no longer happens then. Interesting concept.

Ah so you think military wasteful spending no longer happens then. Interesting concept.

Concluding that my noting a long abandoned program as being irrelevant to current spending equates to me thinking "military wasteful spending no longer happens", is absurd.

... a long abandoned program ...
I'm pretty sure they are still making ships (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hF1XD6DXqccJ:www.defensenews.com/story.php%3Fi%3D6189440+is+the+us+navy+still+makin g+ships%3F&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com).

Wonder how many people with torches we could employ to scrap all that junk, or how much we could get for ALL our junk at a garage sale? Or move congress to a sports stadium, sell beer, have a half time show, and watch the fools fight? The options are endless.

Wonder how many people with torches we could employ to scrap all that junk, or how much we could get for ALL our junk at a garage sale?? Or move congress to a sports stadium, sell beer, have a half time show, and watch the fools fight? The options are endless.
Or open a casino in the Chicago suburbs.

With full house, lots of rolling at the Rivers Casino - Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/6601397-417/with-full-house-lots-of-rolling-at-the-rivers-casino.html)

Well casinos are a proven revenue earner for their area. They sometimes bring in some side effects though.

Well casinos are a proven revenue earner for their area. They sometimes bring in some side effects though.

Indeed and some governments have not been slow to exploit gambling as a revenue source. In my own case my state has reaped large scale revenues from both taxing gambling and providing a vehicle for it through state run lotteries and a totalisator as well as licensed clubs. The side effect casinos bring is tourism but allowing the masses to gamble enmasse often brings poverty

I'm pretty sure they are still making ships (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hF1XD6DXqccJ:www.defensenews.com/story.php%3Fi%3D6189440+is+the+us+navy+still+makin g+ships%3F&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com).

Of course they are, I never said they weren't.

You presented 2 specific ships as an example of wasteful spending, and it was - was being the operative word here. We apparently stopped spending on THOSE TWO SPECIFIC SHIPS in 1993 when we terminated the contract. We can't cut spending on a project that has long been abandoned, but then I've already said that AND I've already agreed we can cut defense spending.

The Majority Leader of the Senate, a body with a Democratic majority that hasn't put out a budget resolution in 800 days, is upset. His complaint is that the House - which has sent the Ryan plan and Cut, Cap and Balance to the Senate - is taking the weekend off (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/172723-reid-slams-house-for-taking-weekend-off-).

What exactly is he expecting they do this weekend seeing as how they've passed their proposal? Get to work Harry, you've had 800 days and what have you done?

Update (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/172485-reid-says-hes-waiting-on-boehner-to-tell-him-the-path-forward-for-debt-deal): Now I know why Dirty Harry wants them to work this weekend, as of yesterday he didn't even realize the House had passed their plan. He actually said yesterday he was waiting on the House to show them the "path forward."


“I'm at a point where I'm saying we need to hear from the House of Representatives,” Reid said from the Senate floor. “We have a plan to go forward over here. But until we hear from the House of Representatives, really our, all of our work here would be for naught.

"I await the word from the Speaker," Reid said.

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio responded and told him the House's position is "crystal clear."


"In case Sen. Reid didn't notice, a bipartisan 'Gang of 234' just sent him the way forward. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'

I guess he forgot. Waiting on you, Harry.

The Dems have offered no budgets . The President's budget was voted down unanimously .
The House Republicans passed a budget and passed CCB (although I have concerns about a Balanced Budget Amendment ) .
The record is clear... the Dems have tried to skate this issue and will try to blame the Repubics for any consequences.

To bad the HOUSE budget is worse, a lot worse than NO budget at all. And yes, people are starting to see that repubs, and Grover, are about big business, and need a small government to do as they please, the way they please.

Its obvious where the attack on the middle class, unions, old people, poor, and minorities is coming from. So called job creators trying to starve the beast.

I just received an interesting email --

Corporate Tax Holiday in Debt Ceiling Deal: Where's the Uproar? | Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt Taibbi on Politics and the Economy (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/holiday-in-scambodia-20110720)

It's hilarious . The European countries were spending like drunken Democrats since the end of WWII... They developed the Levitian travesty that the left here is trying to duplicate.
Now ,even though their military outlays are puny ,they still find themselves on the verge of collapse. Italy as an example is in debt to the tune of 120 percent of GDP . And what are they going to do about it ? They are going on austerity . They have no choice. For the most part ,the austerity is layoffs and reductions in entitlements .
Your one trick pony of taxing the few and no entitlement cuts will not get it done. The US debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2015 . A line has to be drawn on spending somewhere. Let's start small. Bring spending levels back to 2008 before TARP and the bucket list giveaway .

There will be cuts, but not with a butcher knife, but with a scalpel, and a very balanced approach that everyone contributes too. And forget comparing country states in Europe to the USA, because you forget we built them in the first place.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, there has to be some actual work done to make demand, money, and profits, otherwise you have a crap shoot, like Wall Street, who started this whole thing in the first place.

The American people are sold on what Dingy Harry calls the worst legislation in the history of America, by a 2-1 margin according to a CNN poll. You wouldn't know it by CNN's take with a headline like "CNN Poll: Strong partisan divide on debt ceiling (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/cnn-poll-strong-partisan-divide-on-debt-ceiling/?hpt=po_bn1)."

Thirteen paragraphs into the article we learn that the partisanship isn't quite so partisan:


Republicans like the "cut, cap, and balance" approach to the debt ceiling, as do Democrats and independents. Most Americans support a balanced budget amendment, and most, but not as many, think an amendment is necessary to get federal spending under control. A balanced budget amendment passed the House earlier this week, but a vote in the Senate is expected to fail.

The opinion on Cut, Cap and Balance?


In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?

July 18-20 2011
Favor 66%
Oppose 33%
No opinion 1%

Reid may think balancing the budget while cutting spending is the worst possible scenario, but the American people are SOLD on it.

The opinion on Cut, Cap and Balance?Hello again, Steve:

You mean, Crash, Slash and Burn?

Of course, when you LIE about a particular piece of legislation, the people can be persuaded... But, when you look DEEPER into the bill, you find that it's EXTRAORDINARILY bad. Here's just ONE part.. Right now, from a Constitutional perspective, congress can raise money if it needs to, by a majority vote. This law changes it to a 2/3rd's vote.

On the surface, that might sound nice. But if you dwell upon it, it's a recipe for disaster, because a 2/3rd's vote will NEVER happen... That means the country will be hamstrung. Think how difficult your life would be if you couldn't borrow. Think how difficult it will be if the country can't either... That'll mean no more war, of course... Some might like that, but it would put the country into danger. In fact, it would DESTROY us.

excon

The devil is in the details, and while it could stand to be scrutinized and debated, the immediate concern is the debt ceiling. Everyone agrees on raising it, not debating it, too late for that.

Even republican conservative governors are starting to realize, that the consequences of NOT raising it quickly, are a disaster for their own states credit, like in Virginia, and several other states.

Time for talk and politics is over, lets vote, and go from there. But leave it to repubs to keep changing the rules, in an effort to get what they want, and not give a darn thing in return, not even a JOB!!

Of course, when you LIE about a particular piece of legislation, the people can be persuaded...

I haven't lied about it, I was just reporting. I personally think requiring a 2/3 vote to raise my taxes is a good thing.

I haven't lied about it, I was just reporting. I personally think requiring a 2/3 vote to raise my taxes is a good thing.

Obama wants you to keep your current tax rate, you are in the middle class aren't you? Its your repubs who keep saying he wants to raise taxes on everybody, and that's a lie, just 1% who sucked all the money from the economy. They also say that a tax raise will hurt job creation, another lie, because their wealth doesn't depend on making a job for you. They have other options (move to cheaper countries) so they are no longer job creators are they?

I haven't said anything about raising taxes on everyone so who's telling the lie? What difference does it make whose taxes are being raised, I find a 2/3 vote to do so is still a good thing.

I just don't get why anyone wants to punish people for success. That's just stupid to me, and the ideologue in the White House doesn't care if raising taxes is counterproductive, he thinks raising taxes on those making over $200,000 is "fair" because its' better to him to “spread the wealth around.”

Nonsense, there is nothing fair about taking from one to give to another.

I haven't said anything about raising taxes on everyone
Republicans are saying that. Boehner said it.

I just don't get why anyone wants to punish people for success.
Why punish me and take away or reduce part of my income (S.S.) -- i.e. "there is nothing fair about taking from one to give to another" who has much, much more than I do?

Shared sacrifice has nothing to do with being punished at all. That's a misconception. Its all about EVERYONE getting some skin in the game to dig us out the ditch, one caused by a recession, that was caused by the rich so called job creators. Heck that's fair, you bail them out they bail you out.

Or at least stop calling them JOB CREATORS. You do your part they do theirs. That's NOT fair to YOU?

Everyone getting some skin in the game? OK, get all those welfare deadbeats off their a$$es and put them to work doing something. Pulling weeds along the highway works for me.

"Shared sacrifice" is just an Orwellian term meaning "soak the rich" and personally, I'm sick of Democrats using that term along with "balanced approach," meaning "raise the ceiling, soak the rich, spend trillions more" and then rinse and repeat. NO! We are not buying it.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Everyone getting some skin in the game? OK, get all those welfare deadbeats off their a$$es and put them to work doing something. Pulling weeds along the highway works for me.
First you have to separate the deadbeats from the ones that want a JOB, but can't get one, and the disabled who can't work, and then find some governor who will pay them to pull weeds along the highway.

FACT-To even qualify for welfare, you have to earn at less than 33% above the poverty level, or be disabled, or be willing to take a job, IF they have one available.

FACT-More than half the welfare recipients are children, and the rest are disabled adults, or the working poor.

FACT-Seen the unemployed figures lately?


"Shared sacrifice" is just an Orwellian term meaning "soak the rich" and personally, I'm sick of Democrats using that term along with "balanced approach," meaning "raise the ceiling, soak the rich, spend trillions more" and then rinse and repeat. NO! We are not buying it.
FACT-Wages have been stagnant for the middle class for more than a decade, while prices, corporate profits, have risen three fold. AND NO TAXES PAID.

FACTS-NO JOBS!!

FACT-Whether a debt reduction or tax cut or whatever is necessary or not, I agree it is, that has nothing at all to do with raising the debt ceiling.

MY OPINION-I am sick of repubs creating a crisis to extort what they want. And they spend as many trillions on what they want as Democrats, and that's a fact.

First you have to separate the deadbeats from the ones that want a JOB, but can't get one, and the disabled who can't work...

FACT-I've already made those distinctions numerous times.


MY OPINION-I am sick of repubs creating a crisis to extort what they want. And they spend as many trillions on what they want as Democrats, and that's a fact.

Rahm Emmanuel: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

Alrighty, the Senate has voted down the House plan as expected, 51-46. On to the Democratic plan. Wait, there isn't one.

Why are Senators taking the weekend off if it was irresponsible for the House to do so according to Dirty Harry, especially since the Democrat-controlled Senate has proposed NOTHING? I thought this was a crisis for crying out loud.

It is a crisis, that requires a vote to pay for past bills, not new spending, deficit reduction, or any other plans from anybody.

The BIG DEAL can come later. Now about those JOBS!!

It is a crisis, that requires a vote to pay for past bills, not new spending, deficit reduction, or any other plans from anybody.

The BIG DEAL can come later. Now about those JOBS!!!!!

Dude, the Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution as required by law for two years. TWO years. The Democratic-controlled House last year failed to pass a budget as required by the constitution. The president has ignored his own commission's conclusions for months.

Obama vowed unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. He spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs that he JOKED about not being "shovel ready." We're a year past "recovery summer" and things look about the same. No wait, mass layoffs are on the upswing. (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/return-mass-layoffs-grim-sign-u-workers-190228219.html) That's "change" for you.

Some crisis managers these Democrats.

He spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs
There ARE shovel-ready jobs in this state, but the state never released all the money they were given. The banks are still hoarding the money they were given.

Reminds me of the guy who was desperately poor and needed money to get his dog spayed. He used the money I gave him to get a tattoo.

O55aRrvXtio

You're comparing tattoo money to a $787 billion spending spree?

spending spree?
Interesting misinterpretation of what I said.

I'm saying just because they need it and you give it doesn't mean they will use what you give them the way they are supposed to.

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
He spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs
That stimulus you refer to as a spending spree was TAX CUTS, infrastructure, and relief for those that were affected,

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx)

Stimulus Spending, Breakdown by States - The Wall Street Journal Online (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0903.html)

Texas is still spending theirs, so ask Rick where the money is at. You are probably working now because of that stimulus package to Texas.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Texas Stimulus Impact (http://window.state.tx.us/recovery/)

Texas remains vague on ARRA spending data - The Texas Observer (http://www.texasobserver.org/oped/texas-remains-vague-on-arra-spending-information)

Susan Combs - Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (http://www.window.state.tx.us/)

I thought this was a crisis for crying out loud.Hello again, Steve:

It IS a crisis that is completely MAN made by the Republican party, for crying out loud.

excon

And the repubs have walked away again. That's real crisis management!

Hello again,

I'm back to my original premise. BOTH sides are willing to risk financial meltdown because they think the OTHER party will be blamed, and they can GAIN power.

They really DON'T care about you and me. Can anyone offer evidence to the contrary?

excon

PS> Let me ask you this. If you've sworn an Oath of Office, and you've signed a pledge, which one do you adhere to?

Hello again,

I'm back to my original premise. BOTH sides are willing to risk financial meltdown because they think the OTHER party will be blamed, and they can GAIN power.

They really DON'T care about you and me. Can anyone offer evidence to the contrary?



No Ex you are definitely right it is all about grandstanding and partisan politics

I'm back to my original premise. BOTH sides are willing to risk financial meltdown because they think the OTHER party will be blamed, and they can GAIN power.

They really DON'T care about you and me. Can anyone offer evidence to the contrary?

Republicans have passed the legislation. Democrats have offered nothing, intentionally (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576460060398881124.html?m od=googlenews_wsj).


PS> Let me ask you this. If you've sworn an Oath of Office, and you've signed a pledge, which one do you adhere to?

What part of required by law to pass a budget resolution (Senate) and required by the constitution (House) to pass a budget don't you get? Democrats have done neither.

And the repubs have walked away again. Thats real crisis management!

What plan have the Dems offered?

That stimulus you refer to as a spending spree was TAX CUTS, infrastructure, and relief for those that were affected,

Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money (http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx)

Stimulus Spending, Breakdown by States - The Wall Street Journal Online (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0903.html)

Texas is still spending theirs, so ask Rick where the money is at. You are probably working now because of that stimulus package to Texas.

O55aRrvXtio

Clever strategery the Dems have. They offer nothing and watch while the Repubics negotiate with the conservative and TP members of their causus .

All we know for sure is that all the negotiations have been conducted in secret ,and when they break down there is finger pointing nonsense.

What happened to transparent governance ? Why is every legislation negotiated outside of the open committee process ? Why does every legislation need 2000+ pages of pablum designed to produce 100,000 pages of regulation ? How did this country become the Levithian ?

Put the negotiations on Cspan, I'm all for it.

Republicans have passed the legislation. Democrats have offered nothingHello again, Steve:

Their legislation was designed to provide cover for their base - NOT to solve the problem... Offering a piece of CRAP, even if it's WRITTEN crap, is the same as offering NOTHING. I repeat - BOTH sides are running us off the cliff.

excon

Their legislation was designed to provide cover for their base - NOT to solve the problem... Offering a piece of CRAP, even if it's WRITTEN crap, is the same as offering NOTHING.

I think Reid shelved the bill because if it came to a vote in the Senate it may well pass after revisions .Then it would go to conference. The negotiable point is the Balanced Budget Amendment , which I don't think will ever happen.

This is what the President doesn't want to happen. That would force him to take action beyond lip service and bully pulpit posturing... either sign or veto .
Cut ,Cap ,and Balance and the sort of proposal by the Gag of 6 is the only thing on the table as of today. Cut,Cap,and Balance is the only legislation that has moved .

The way all the polls see it (and me), the majority of the people want a plan that shares the pain with every one. Show me one that says differently. That makes any plan that's not fair and balanced, BS! That what the American people want, so why can't we get it??

TEA anyone? It's a fact they are a minority, and since when do the minority dictate to the majority??

Raise the debt ceiling and fight all you want to about the rest. Then vote in 2012, and we move on.

The rating agency Egan-Jones became the 1st of many to downgrade the US rating from it's highest rating.

Their reason is not the impass over the debt ceiling . Instead they did this because the US has a debt load exceeding 100% of GDP . By comparison our friends in Canada sport a modest by comaprison 35% debt ratio.
Egan Jones cuts US rating, cites high debt load | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/rating-bonds-eganjones-idUSN1E76H0ZH20110718)

Hello again,

There's a group of people who think that the Democrats are LYING about the disaster that awaits us. In fact, they see many of their goals being MET, IF the debt ceiling ISN'T raised.

I'm afraid that when the economy comes crashing down around us, they'll call it a success..

excon

Canada has some strict regulations concerning the financial markets, and were less affected by the sub prime fiasco that nearly destroyed us. They didn't have to bail out banks, and then have those banks abandon them.

Miracle economy: How Canada avoided the Great Recession | Alaska Dispatch (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/miracle-economy-how-canada-avoided-great-recession)


We have not, therefore, suffered a sub-prime crisis, nor have we had to spend a fortune bailing out banks – all have remained solvent. We suffered no crash in real estate; currently, we have a housing boom. Former US Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, speaking in Toronto in 2009, about the financial crisis, said, “It’s interesting that what I’m arguing for looks more like the Canadian system than the American system.”

Makes you wonder who benefits from a default of American debt?? The BANKS do.

Why is every legislation negotiated outside of the open committee process ? Why does every legislation need 2000+ pages of pablum designed to produce 100,000 pages of regulation ? How did this country become the Levithian ?

Don't ask rhetorical questions Tom you might get answers you don't like:D

They didn't have to bail out banks, and then have those banks abandon them.
Yeah and they didn't have the Community Reinvestment Act ,politicians like Andrew Cuomo strong arming banks and lending institutions to lower their lending standards ;a politician's piggy bank called Fannie Mae ,'friends of Angelo ' Senators(who later went on to write the new FinRegs ) getting sweet heart mortgages and other favorable loans from the leading bankers in the country .

BTW... I was 100% opposed to TARP . I was right and the Special Inspector General of TARP agrees with what I said at the time... that bailouts just encourage more risky behavior by banks by encouraging moral hazard .
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/CitiOIG.pdf

Unless and until institutions like Citigroup can be left to suffer the full consequences of their own folly, the prospect of more bailouts will potentially fuel more bad behavior with potentially disastrous results,

You find moral hazard in bailing out banks . You find moral hazard when the Fed won't let the stock market decline .You find moral hazard when the EU won't let Greece fail. You find moral hazard when your solution to overspending is increasing the debt to over 100% of GDP .

Hello again,

Update:::: I think the president is LOSING...

excon

Yup... and if the Balanced Budget Amendment is holding a deal up the Repubics should drop it for now . I think it's a bridge too far anyway.
They can shelve it for some future battle and the Dems can shelve tax reform for now... then what is left is budget cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

Then they should scrap the idea of a debt ceiling... it is a terrible idea.

....then what is left is budget cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.Hello again, tom:

Bizarrely so, you've HIT the Republican talking points on the noggin. The right wing gives the president HIS debt limit increase, and in exchange they get THEIR budget cuts...

Only, the debt ceiling increase ISN'T Obama's.. It's the country's. But, YOUR spin is winning. I don't know why.

excon

Then the President and his butt buddies at AARP owe America's Seniors an apology for repeatedly lying to them that their SS checks were at risk.

yup .....and if the Balanced Budget Amendment is holding a deal up the Repubics should drop it for now . I think it's a bridge too far anyway.
They can shelve it for some future battle and the Dems can shelve tax reform for now ....then what is left is budget cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

So republicans win then?

so republicans win then?Hello again, clete:

It AIN'T over. It's about the 8th round, and Obama just suffered a severe body blow. He's outpointing the Tea Party so far, but that won't matter if he's knocked out.

excon

This isn't a win thing. The whole group of them have been acting like they are in an elementary school playground.

But if there is a win thing here it is.. This crowd in the WH have been ideologically rigid in their belief in Keynesian economics. This debate has forced them to face the facts that the country is financially in over it's head.

This debate has forced them to face the facts that the country is financially in over it's head.Hello again, tom and clete:

The debate is FRAMED in such a way as to portray Obama as a spender. That argument is WINNING, although I don't know why. Clearly, he's arguing about how much to CUT - NOT how much to spend... So, he's joined the ranks of the right wing...

If he TRULY was a Keynesian, he WOULD be arguing about SPENDING now to bring us out of the recession.. He ISN'T.

excon

This debate forced him to change his meme . If there is a win in that it is indeed the country's .
All the Obama supporters should look at that on the bright side. Clintoon faced similar situations after the mid-term elections that brought in the Gingrich crowd .He triangulated . That won him the 1996 election.

their SS checks were at risk.
That's MY money.

And it never was at risk EVER (except for the fact that your money does not physically exist in the trust fund... but that Ponzi Scheme we've explored before) .

There was ZERO chance he would withhold SS checks and he knows it.

He could pay out the entire amt. in the SS trust fund and it would have no affect on the debt ceiling .

Why ? Because the so called bonds the gvt buys when they invest the trust fund are not real bonds... they are IOUs . (yeah that's right ,they plunder the fund for the general revenue ;cut IOUs and call them "treasuries " .)

When they cut a check they retire some IOU .
To finance the benefit, they issue a real bond and sell it to investors in the credit market. But since the IOU the government wrote to itself counts just as much as the real bond sold to investors, as far as the debt ceiling is concerned, total government debt is unchanged according to the accountants.

The only thing going past the deadline threatens is the possibility of a Government shut down. It doesn't affect SS checks and it doesn't affect debt service.
We have has government shutdowns before and the world didn't end and our economy did not come crashing down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576458294273264416.html?m od=opinion_newsreel

How Much Obama Has Really Spent | Story | POWERWALL (http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/how-much-obama-has-really-spent-1680889.story)

Repubs all repeat the same chant, spending is the problem, to promote their agenda of a smaller government, and a reason to cut programs that people depend on. Anything to do with helping people is Communist, Socialist, Marxist, blah, blah blah.

How does reduced revenues, thanks to joblessness, from recession caused by overspending by the rich (greed, and flat out robbery) equate to rewarding bad behavior with more tax cuts for those that robbed us? It doesn't.

How does cutting programs for victims (the middle class and the poor), equate to not making the rich pay for their greed, and mismanagement? It doesn't!!

Okay Tom, this is your chance, How would you create the jobs so people wouldn't have to rely on the nanny state??

What would you do if they came for your job, like they did mine???

Hello again:

Still NO deal... Now, the house Republicans are saying, "Don't worry. Be happy. Sure, our pristine credit rating is gonna get downgraded, but it's NOT default."

Don't interest rates go up when we're downgraded?? I think so. If downgraded means it's going to COST me money, it doesn't make me happy. You?

So, WHO you going to blame for it? Republicans are banking it's Obama. But, humans KNOW who it is.

excon

PS> (edited) Watching FOX.. They're NOW saying, we're being downgraded, NOT because we can't reach a deal, but, because we have so much massive debt...

But, we HAD the massive debt a couple weeks ago didn't we??

Yup. Humans know who's doing it to us.

I think there will be a downgrade anyway because of the size of the debt ;NOT that Congress won't raise it.
I think interest rates are artificially too low due the Fed easing. How would a 1% rate hurt you ? You can't borrow money anyway because the lenders think their best investment is to sit on liquidity .Perhaps if they could lend the money at a decent rate of return they'd rethink that strategery .

By the way . The Treasury has "found "enough money to extend the deadline... how convenient!!

How would a 1% rate hurt you ? Hello again, tom:

You guys are playing with fire... You THINK it'll just be a teeny weeny rate hike, and how can that hurt anyway? But, once you let it get away from you, you have no control over the downward spiral that can take off...

Shame, shame, shame on you...

excon

By the way... Reid's new budget plan has no new revenues... how is that possible ? I thought the Dems were insistent that tax increases were needed.

Reid's new budget plan has no new revenues .....how is that possible ? I thought the Dems were insistent that tax increases were needed.Hello again, tom:

They are... But, in the name of SAVING THE COUNTRY, the Democrats ARE willing to compromise, whereas the right wing is not. Ain't no more difficult than that.

excon

Hello again, tom:

You guys are playing with fire... You THINK it'll just be a teeny weeny rate hike, and how can that hurt anyway?? But, once you let it get away from you, you have no control over the downward spiral that can take off...

Shame, shame, shame on you....

excon

Wouldn't you like a decent return on your CDs again ?

The fallacy was that holding rates down would NOT cause inflation. The Feds low rates created a phony stock market bubble AND a phony commodities bubble . I thought you were against all the "fat cats " making money in the stock market .

They aren't fat cats, they are job creators! Didn't you get the memo from Karl Rove??

I think it is time to point out the sub normal intelligence of the US politicians, this is a rediculicous situation which has implications not only for the US but for the world. I also want to point out the subnormal and arrogant attitude of US financial reporters who say what does it matter if the world wants to invest its money elsewhere, they have nowhere to go. Goodbye america its been nice to know you

I also want to point out the subnormal and arrogant attitude of US financial reporters who say what does it matter if the world wants to invest its money elsewhere, they have nowhere to go.Hello again, clete:

You MUST realize that the subnormal financial reporters your refer to, are RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUES, who want to give COVER to their tea party brethren. Certainly, any INTELLIGENT and NORMAL financial reporter knows what will happen if the world abandons the dollar as its currency.

excon

Hello again, clete:

You MUST realize that the subnormal financial reporters your refer to, are RIGHT WING IDEOLOGUES, who want to give COVER to their tea party brethren. Certainly, any INTELLIGENT and NORMAL financial reporter knows what will happen if the world abandons the dollar as its currency.

excon

What is it you think will happen, EX, the dollar has proven to be remarkedly unstable recently? If your press is right wing as you suggest, why is this? I think what we are seeing is the B/S barometer reaching new heights. You have come to believe your own B/S, too big to fail? No one is too big to fail, we are not going to save you, China is not going to save you, the EU is not going to save you. I'll make you an offer; ten cents for the lot, in fact ten cents US it costs me less. China has already moved to position the Renimbi as a reserve currency. Do they know something we don't?

You do know that the reports I speak of originate in the US broadcast to the world. What sort of dills do you think it makes you look?

Relax Clete, if you check we haven't asked for any help, and if what goes on in the rest of the world scares people, well that's up to them what they do with there fear. Here we have our battles and deal with whatever, and its no different now.

So what if we fail? Doesn't mean we will just quit! Doesn't mean we will just stop trying. We have been challenged before, and will be challenged again, so if you want to burn the dollar and buy gold or whatever else looks good, no matter what happens, America always handles its own business.

Scary I know, but our history is one of overcoming all odds, and obstacles, and we will overcome this too.

Bet against us, and let me know how that works for you! And relax, I wouldn't let your fear get you carried away, and you do something drastic.

What you never seen chaos happen when getting your house in order?

Don't worry... Speaker Bonehead is going the ram rod a 1 billion a year debt reduction for 10 years while approving an immediate increase in spending to exceed a billion.. This is the same garbage he gave us with the 'Continuing Resolution' .
To make it sicker ;the Reid Senate will vote it down and vote for their version of it and send it back to the House. Then no doubt Speaker Bonehead will say "this is the best we can do" and will whip the TP into line. He is haunted by memories of his youth when the compliant press wrote headlines like :The Gingrich that stole Christmas.
The TP should keep this year in mind and take more care about who they help become Speaker.Repubics need not apply.

He is haunted by memories of his youth when the compliant press wrote headlines like :The Gingrich that stole Christmas.

Funny you should say that.

GOP aims to gut Christmas, White House alleges (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/28/gop-aims-to-gut-christmas-white-house-alleges/#ixzz1TQWPdCYD)

Tom I don't get thus a $ 4 billion reduction was on the table and they passed it up now you say they will settle for a token $ 1 billion. You don't seem to have a two party system operating over there so without experience in operating in a multi party environment you seem to have nowhere to go. A saying developed over here a year or so ago "we have lost our way" you can lend it to the Republicans if you like

That's trillions, Clete, not billions.

No according to the latest version of the Speaker Bonehead plan ; these fools are going for a piddling 8.5 Billion a year in cuts... but only 1 Billion in 2012 .
That means in a decade we will cu spending enough to pay back the Obama bucket list 'Recovery Act' .
In return they will increase the debt ceiling by a trillion... In other words the cuts are meaninless.
If the TP goes along with this they are nuts. That is not cutting the size of government... it's not even really slowing it down.

The Tea party is now holding the repubs hostage, and setting themselves up to be the fall guy for a government default. Rookie mistakes as the far right thinks that they can bully there way to starving the government, to promote there own agenda of the good old days, of small weak government, and every state can have slavery if they wanted it for the good of the poor fools they enslaved.

I mean who else would try and take advantage of a weak recovery from the recession, to make more people poor and helpless, because of the guy in the white house happens to be a democrat and his spending on things that help ordinary folks survive the devastation laid on them by the very folks that stole the money in the first place.

I don't see anyone from the right doing a darn thing to get the money back, or returning the dignity or self respect to those that actually work for a living. Indeed all we have seen since 2010 have been the kind of protectionism that led to the most massive redistribution of wealth this nation has ever seen, and the sad part is, the right will suffer along with the ones they have failed to protect, and vilify as the real problem.

Is all of this worth a default, or another recession?? Heck, if they were serious about lowering the deficit, and the debt, they would have let the Bush Tax cuts go. But NO, they held unemployment hostage to keep those tax cuts for their masters.

What an honor, no Army or outside force could bring America to its knees, but the Tea party will, or they will try.

Yeh Tal stupidity will do it every time

If they were serious, they would have raised the debt ceiling with a 4 trillion dollar infrastructure jobs bill that partnered with the private sector for 10 years.

Hey, did I just solve the debt, the economy, and unemployment, with a few strokes of the keyboard?? FOR FREE!? :eek:

If they were serious, they would have raised the debt ceiling with a 4 trillion dollar infrastructure jobs bill that partnered with the private sector for 10 years.

Hey, did I just solve the debt, the economy, and unemployment, with a few strokes of the keyboard??? FOR FREE!!!!????? :eek:

Well done Tal but the repubs see that sort of thing as pork they want to withdraw 4 trillion from such projects, that would be an 8 trillion saving on your budget

Actually I must confess that the Democratic house already had the idea,

Democrats promise jobs bill (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C1LRS80&show_article=1)


Job-creating ideas include additional help for small business, more road and bridge spending, and extending business tax breaks slated to expire at the end of the year, according to spokespersons for Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

A per-job tax credit for businesses making new hires is also under consideration, as is help for financially struggling state and local governments.

Senator Reid tees up 2010 jobs bill - TheHill.com (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/67299-reid-tees-up-2010-jobs-bill)

But of course repubs hollered too much money, and we see the result. Hmm, that's also what happened in the 1929 depression. Repubs fought Roosevelt tooth, and nail on everything, until the war came along.

Cross posted from another thread:

Don't you worry folks, the leader of the chamber that hasn't put forth any budget resolution as required by law for over 800 days is going to swoop in to save the day (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60212.html).


Calling his plan “the last train out of the station,” Reid said there are only hours to act before Tuesday’s Treasury deadline, so he plans to file a procedural motion Friday to move towards a final vote in the next few days.

“That is why, by the end of the day today, I must take action on the Senate’s compromise legislation,” he said.

The man who hasn't done his job in over two years is going to save us. I wonder if he's going to push the best known plan out there (http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/28/where-is-the-plan-carney-says-obamas-is-the-best-known-debt-plan/) , the non-existent Obama plan.

the non-existent Obama plan.
It's not Obama's responsibility to come up with a plan. It's the responsibility of the House, and then the Senate deals with it. If they approve it, it goes to Obama for signing or vetoing.

It's not Obama's responsibility to come up with a plan. It's the responsibility of the House, and then the Senate deals with it. If they approve it, it goes to Obama for signing or vetoing.

It is the president's job to lead, but when it comes to leadership Obama is apparently supposed to get a pass?

He's talked about his plan, his press secretary is touting his plan, his adviser is discussing his plan (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7374615n), the media is finally asking about his plan, what's his plan? If you talk up your plan you'd be wise to actually have one, otherwise you're just full of...

It is the president's job to lead
But that's not his responsibility, to dictate what plan the House comes up with. The members of the House are fully cognizant of what needs to be done, so they hope their well-crafted plan passes the Senate.

Why should Obama have a plan? That's not his job to create one. It's the job of the Congress that represents the American citizens.

Hello again,

Obama: Country, we need to take out the trash.

Tea Party: Yeah, but we want some stuff before we let you..

Obama: But, the trash is beginning to stink... Let me get rid of it.

Tea Party: Nope. We're not going to let you do it, unless you agree to our terms.

Obama: Ok, I'll give you cuts, but gimme a little tax.

Tea Party: Nope. We're going to destroy the world as we know it, unless you bow to our demands...

Obama: But, the trash is really beginning to stink.

Obama: Ok, here's you cuts.. Now, can we take out the trash?

Tea Party: Nope. We want MORE, or we're going to bring IN some trash..

Obama: Won't you compromise?

Tea Party: Sure, we'll compromise.. We'll LETyou take the trash out, if you GIVE us what we want...

Obama: But, taking out the trash is as good for YOU as it is for ME, isn't it?

Tea Party: Nope. It's YOUR trash, and we can't smell it anyway. Besides, we hear it'll disappear if we ignore it.

Obama: So, you're doing ME a favor by LETTING me take out OUR trash...

Tea Party: That's the way it is. Besides, after we thought about it, it's not OUR trash either. It's YOURS! We disown it.

excon

But that's not his responsibility, to influence what plan the House comes up with. The members of the House are fully cognizant of what needs to be done, so they hope their well-crafted plan passes the Senate.

Why should Obama have a plan? That's not his job to create one. It's the job of the Congress that represents the American citizens.

Are you an apologist for this man or do you just have to argue with me?

This is apparently the first president in US history not expected to actually lead or produce the alleged plans he has for the country. How ridiculous, Carney even called it the Obama-Boehner plan.


“There is no plan that has been offered, certainly in the last several months, about which more detail is known or has been specified than the Obama-Boehner plan.

If the administration is going to attach his name to something they'd better darn well produce the plan. So where's the plan?

So where's the plan?
Ask the TP-iers in the House.

Ask the TP-iers in the House.

Totally irrelevant to the point. The House already passed a plan called Cut, Cap and Balance.

Where is the Obama plan? I means besides a Twitter spamfest (http://twitter.com/#!/BarackObama).

Where is the Obama plan?
Obama isn't in the House. He's waiting to sign something. His desk is the final stop, not the first step.

House -> Senate -> President

Yeah put all your problems on the Prez, so you can blame him yet again for what's not being done.

So far every plan for the house has been thoroughly rejected. With or without a vote. They have just passed yet another Tea Party bill in the house, so the process drags on through the weekend. The ball is in the Senates court. Then it goes back to the HOUSE again. You know the rules about how we make laws.

And everyone knows what the plan is from the White House, and we all know who doesn't like it. We all know what the problem is, and the initials are TP. Don't believe me? Wait for the republican primaries. Wait until the house gets its fresh bill back, hehehe.

Yeah put all your problems on the Prez, so you can blame him yet again for whats not being done.

So far every plan for the house has been thoroughly rejected. With or without a vote. They have just passed yet another Tea Party bill in the house, so the process drags on thru the weekend. The ball is in the Senates court. Then it goes back to the HOUSE again. You know the rules about how we make laws.

And everyone knows what the plan is from the White House, and we all know who doesn't like it. We all know what the problem is, and the initials are TP. Don't believe me? Wait for the republican primaries. Wait until the house gets its fresh bill back, hehehe.

There is no question that the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot - and the kneecap, and all points north.

Totally irrelevant to the point. The House already passed a plan called Cut, Cap and Balance. Hello again, Steve:

Nooo, not really. They made a POLITICAL statement... The bill they passed had NO chance of becoming law, so it's NOT governing, if that's what you're suggesting... It's actually demagoguery.

Both Tom and I agree to term limits... Yet, they wouldn't BE the solution to, say, an argument over whether we should build an aircraft carrier. Requiring that we pass a balanced budget amendment as a CONDITION to raising the debt ceiling is just as ridiculous.

excon

True... Reid said Bonehead plan #3 was DOA .So why pass it ? Because it's all part of the plan that Speaker Bonehead ,Reid ,McConnell ,and the President have concocted .
Bonehead can't do the pass the Dem plan without the political cover .

So now it got passed ,the pingpong game begins.. The Reid plan gets passed in the Senate .It goes back to the House... and so on... Bonehead eventually tells his caucus "sorry ...it's the best we can do since we only own a half of a third of the government .....but the good news is that we get to go through the Kabuki dance again in the near future. "
Then the President takes credit for leading the country out of the brink.

S&P downgrades the US rating because it does not have a sufficiently serious plan to reduce the debt level . Turns out the markets were more afraid of a debt ceiling increase than a temporary shutdown of the government .

S&P downgrades the US rating because it does not have a sufficiently serious plan to reduce the debt level . Turns out the markets were more afraid of a debt ceiling increase than a temporary shutdown of the government .

And you know Tom this is true because the market cannot continue to absorb the debt being issued and finance a commerce led recovery at the same time. Part of the problem is the runaway government debt is soaking up liquidity in the economy. Why wouldn't you buy bonds that offer you some return at a time when other investments offer you a poorer return. No return in property, little return in stocks which go up and down in price like a yooyoo, and no employment growth. If you want the economy to bounce interest rates must rise so investors get their return. The Fed has the equation all wrong negative real interest rates help no one and fuel this debt position. S&P calculate a ratio called times interest earned and when you stack that ratio of the interest bill up against revenue it doesn't equal AAA

Yup the rating services downgrade will be the 1st market correction that will actually work towards correcting the poor policies pursued since the 2nd Great Depression began(which is headed ever closer to double dip).

Unfortunately, the first ones to feel the results of a downgrade in ratings, and the rise in interests are the states. Then the cities. Ever try to grow the economy with nobody working? Never been done in history. All of this to keep taxes for the rich. That's not how Reagan dealt with his recession, that's not how Clinton dealt with his, they both raised taxes during a recession and grew out of them, but no way do low information rookie politicians understand this.

Heck, you can't balance a budget without raising taxes! Somebody please wake those conservatives up that think Wall street will bail you out for free! They don't have OUR interests in mind, just theirs. Which is what all this is about any way.We agree Tom, a double dip recession looms very large.

Hello again,

Downgrade = self inflicted wound. There ain't too much you can say about that...

I knew a guy once who LOVED carrying his .32 in his front pocket... He shot his right nut off. There ain't too much you can say about that.

excon

Hello again,

Downgrade = self inflicted wound. There ain't too much you can say about that...

I knew a guy once who LOVED carrying his .32 in his front pocket... He shot his right nut off. There ain't too much you can say about that.

excon

Must have been a Tea Partier. That's all I can say about that.

That's not how Reagan dealt with his recession, that's not how Clinton dealt with his, they both raised taxes during a recession

Reagan ended the Carter recession with tax cuts . The tax hikes that happened during his term was a result of the phoney deals the Dems have made in the past ,and are trying to do again. Immediate tax hikes in exchange for spending cuts in the future. The problem is that the spending cuts never happen. The government ever spends more ;ever grows more ;ever increases the debt the children of the nation owe.

Downgrade = self inflicted wound. There ain't too much you can say about that...

Yup... the weapon used in the self inflicting wound is QE2 ,stimulus spending ,ever increasing debt... currently at 100% of GDP . Going on a budget and cutting your spending when you are overextended is the correct solution for individuals ,families ,and goverments.

What happens next is the Reid plan goes to the Senate... it can't survive fillibuster ;so a Reid /McConnell plan gets passed(the plan Reid ,McConnell ,Bonehead ,and Obama have agreed upon behind closed doors ).
After a game of ping pong between the 2 houses ;Bonehead and Eric Cancer... ooops I mean Cantor... whip enough to eek out a 1 or 2 vote majority. This time a could Dems cross over so they can claim it's a bipartisan vote. (about the same number of Repubics who change their vote to negative... these will be the Repubics who are facing a tough reelection run) .
The President signs it somewhere around Aug. 7-9 (the new artificial deadline) ,and declares victory against those rascally tea partiers.

I probably will not be near a wifi location throughout this process because I'll be in a cabin in an undisclosed location ;disconnected from the cyber world... If I get a chance I'll sign in and comment on my bold prediction .

If I get a chance I'll sign in and comment on my bold prediction .
How exciting for us!!

No need for ankle biters to respond.

I'll leave the pompous stuff to you, oh bold one.

Yup ...the weapon used in the self inflicting wound is QE2 ,stimulus spending ,ever increasing debt..Hello again, tom:

So, you don't see a connection between the downgrade and the Tea Party intransigence? Really? You DO need some time off.

excon

Can't understand, the tea party group has passed two great bills offering to raise the debt limit, it is not them who keep saying no.

Had the Senate accepted one of the two plans given, there would be a increase in the debt limit.
Can't see how the House is not doing their job, Perhaps one should point the finger at those who keep saying no to plans.

Can't understand, the tea party group has passed two great bills offering to raise the debt limit, it is not them who keep saying no.

The Democrats want "compromise," which is similar to "balanced approach" which both mean, "our way or the highway."

Can't understand, the tea party group has passed two great bills offering to raise the debt limit, it is not them who keep saying no.

Can't see how the House is not doing their job, Perhaps one should point the finger at those who keep saying no to plans.Hello Padre:

Well, it depends on what you think their job IS. If their job is to GOVERN, then these bills (as good as they are, or not) won't do the trick.. That's because they have NO chance of passing in the Senate, and the people who drew them up KNEW that. Therefore, the bills are nothing more than nod toward the Tea Party so they won't get primaried..

So if you think their job is to make POLITICAL statements and run for re-election, then they're doing their job.

excon

Great is in the eyes of the beholder. Some will like what the Tea Party is cooking, some won't. Just like some will like what the Senate cooks up, and the Tea Party won't.

The deal made by our leaders behind closed doors does a huge increase in debt increases immediately ,and if Congress approves the President's request even more.

In exchange there are modest cuts stretched out over a decade ,giving future governments plenty of time to renege .

All this will do nothing to change the fact that a downgrade in US bond ratings is coming any day now.Stephen Dales of Capital Economics says ;

the reported size of the deficit reduction package is very unlikely to prevent America from losing its AAA credit rating. The only question is therefore whether S&P and the other rating agencies pull the trigger this week or wait a little longer. Either way, though, we stand by our long-held view that 10-year Treasury yields will fall to 2.5% by the end of the year and stay there for some time.
http://financialpostopinion.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/us-economics-update-debt-ceiling-jul-11.pdf

Oh ;and that claim by Speaker Bonehead that tax increases have been averted... yeah right.
That new "bipartisan" super committee will propose all types of tax increase ideas.

Hello again, tom:

Of course, it COULD be said that we're going to be downgraded because CUTTING spending won out over stimulus spending...

And, I'm going to say that.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Of course, it COULD be said that we're gonna be downgraded because CUTTING spending won out over stimulus spending...

And, I'm gonna say that.

excon

No Ex you are going to be downgraded because you didn't cut enough. The rating agencies aren't interested in aspirations and stimulus spending, like I said before it is about how big the debt is and what it costs to service it. In this case B/S doesn't baffle brains. Had they taken the 4 Trillion when it was on the table then you might still be AAA but with almost nothing cut you are BBB material, the slide has begun. As one banana republic to another, plant your bananas now you are going to need them and some pineapples too. You can thank George Bush for this he started the rot, Basically what has happened here is BO has covered what has happened on his watch and left Bush's legacy untouched

The Democrats want "compromise," which is similar to "balanced approach" which both mean, "our way or the highway."Hello again, Steve:

I guess "OUR way" meant we're going to bend over for you..

excon

Paul Krugman ain't happy so it can't be all bad.

This round of arguments come to an end, and we still need some jobs right.

Somebody explain how Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget, and created 21 million jobs? And Bush came along and gave us wars, recession, and lower taxes, and no jobs.

And we argue on which way we should be going?? Follow the Clinton plan, are we crazy??

Tal ;that's easy .Clintoon raised taxes early ;and took a shot at universal health care (Hillarycare it was called then)... He almost got his political head handed to him in 2004 for his over reach . He triangulated and did budget cuts and welfare reform ,and got a temporary boost in the economy with the dot.com boom.
By the time he left overregulation had reared it's ugly head in the form of Sarbanes-Oxley and there was a recession in 2000 . Bush tax cuts ended that and except for the negative affects 9-11 had on the economy ;the Bush recovery would've lasted for 8 full years until the bubble the government created in housing burst in 2008 .

Tal ;that's easy .Clintoon raised taxes early ;and took a shot at universal health care (Hillarycare it was called then)... He almost got his political head handed to him in 2004 for his over reach . He triangulated and did budget cuts and welfare reform ,and got a temporary boost in the economy with the dot.com boom.
By the time he left overregulation had reared it's ugly head in the form of Sarbanes-Oxley and there was a recession in 2000 . Bush tax cuts ended that and except for the negative affects 9-11 had on the economy ;the Bush recovery would've lasted for 8 full years until the bubble the government created in housing burst in 2008 .

Lets not forget Bush's' keeping two wars, and no child left behind, and part D prescriptions for Medicare off the books.

Heck, if I didn't have to put all my checks in the check book, I would be rich too! At least on paper, but I doubt that would go far at the end of the month. It didn't work to well for George at the end of his term either.

no child left behind, and part D prescriptions for Medicare off the books.


Yeah he made a mistake going along with Teddy Kennedy pet projects .

After all the left's posturing about the Tea Party taking hostages, after all the fear-mongering about default, abut soldiers and SS recipients not getting paid, Jonathan Capehart at WaPo wants to hold the country hostage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/time-for-obama-to-be-feared-by-the-tea-party/2011/03/04/gIQAlubJsI_blog.html).


Time for Obama to be feared by the Tea Party
By Jonathan Capehart

Progressives and other peeved supporters of President Obama who aren’t happy with the all-cuts-no-revenue deal to raise the debt ceiling need to see it as the beginning of a very long (and necessary) process to get the nation’s fiscal house in order. But it also means that the president will have to be more aggressive in his use of presidential power. In short, I want him to use everything the bully pulpit has to offer to get what he wants, including shutting down the government if he must.

Suddenly, ruling by fear and intimidation, hostage taking and shutting down the government ain't no big thing to the left.

Suddenly, ruling by fear and intimidation, hostage taking and shutting down the government ain't no big thing to the left.Hello again, Steve:

Why not? It worked for you.

excon

Republicans didn't shut down the government, they just called his bluff. He warned them not to send him a bill with no tax increases or he would veto it. He signed it now didn't he?

Republicans didn't shut down the government, they just called his bluff. He warned them not to send him a bill with no tax increases or he would veto it. He signed it now didn't he?
It's part of his strategy.

Republicans didn't shut down the government, they just called his bluff. Hello again, Steve:

True. Obama even said he was bluffing.. I believe he CHALLENGED the Republicans not to "call his bluff".. That ain't the way to play poker and it ain't the way to negotiate..

excon

It's part of his strategy.

LOL, right. Works for me.

It's part of his strategy.

Here's his reelection strategy (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/175433-obama-tells-supporters-to-avoid-getting-bogged-down-on-issue-specifics), more of the same. Vague talking points, generalizations and deflections


"I think the key is not to get too bogged down in detail," the president said last night.

"If somebody asks about taxes, nobody is really interested in hearing what precise marginal tax rate change would you like to see in the tax code," Obama said. "What they want to know is that our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in, and that it’s not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary."

Of course he doesn't want anyone to get bogged down in detail because just like his debt 'crisis' he has no details other than "send me your money and send me back to Washington so I can finish screwing America up, er... fixing Bush's mess".

Sorry Mr. President, we're not buying it. We want to know exactly what everyone's "fair share" is.

Of course he doesn't want anyone to get bogged down in detail because just like his debt 'crisis' he has no details other than "send me your money and send me back to Washington so I can finish screwing America up, er... fixing Bush's mess".
Which Republican candidate do you suggest I support? Why?

I'm not endorsing anyone yet, but I will probably end up supporting Perry and why? Best chance for a Republican to beat Obama and hopefully end this slide to the nanny state.

Texas has been a nanny state since GWB, and that's all we need is another Texas Republican governor in the White House. Didn't we learn our lesson of only a few years ago?

A seat belt law doesn't quite make us a nanny state.

What about Susan Combs who instituted a state policy limiting sweet treats and fatty foods in elementary schools?

What about the new bill that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram and hear a detailed description of the fetus and be presented images and heartbeats and then have to wait 24 hours before having an abortion unless they live more than 100 miles from an abortion facility?

What about Susan Combs who instituted a state policy limiting sweet treats and fatty foods in elementary schools?

Yeah well, we still allow cupcakes for birthday parties. I don't consider rules on serving healthy foods in public schools a nanny state. True, I think it ridiculous to ban potatoes but that's a vegetable for crying out loud. But it IS a public school and it is subject to rules.


What about the new bill that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram and hear a detailed description of the fetus and be presented images and heartbeats and then have to wait 24 hours before having an abortion unless they live more than 100 miles from an abortion facility?

100 percent for it. You can call it a nanny state, I call it a reasonable effort to protect the most vulnerable among us. Protecting babies is a GOOD thing.

Otherwise, how did we become a nanny state under Bush?

Yeah well, we still allow cupcakes for birthday parties. I don't consider rules on serving healthy foods in public schools a nanny state. True, I think it ridiculous to ban potatoes but that's a vegetable for crying out loud. But it IS a public school and it is subject to rules.
No one has banned potatoes, or even fries.

100 percent for it. You can call it a nanny state, I call it a reasonable effort to protect the most vulnerable among us. Protecting babies is a GOOD thing.
Who's going to take care of those babies (i.e. feed, clothe, pay for dr. visits, etc.) once they're born?

No one has banned potatoes, or even fries.

How could you forget this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/another-nanny-state-ban-519183.html)?


Who's going to take care of those babies (i.e. feed, clothe, pay for dr. visits, etc.) once they're born?

Yawn...

You ask that every time, and it assumes that no one wants to take care of and love and provide for all those kids. Give them a chance.

You ask that every time, and it assumes that no one wants to take care of and love and provide for all those kids. Give them a chance.
Their young teen mothers? (read the Teen and Pregnancy boards on this site)

Their young teen mothers? (read the Teen and Pregnancy boards on this site)

And their parents and grandparents. I'm a dad whose daughter aborted our grandchild before we knew we had one, but you're to be forgiven if you've forgotten.

Perhaps if she had to see a sonogram first she might have had second thoughts and called us. She is today still devastated by her "choice" and her parents would have given anything to raise that child if she wasn't willing or able. All of us wish we could hold that child in our arms today and just shower him or her with love. I don't need to read the boards, I've lived it.

I don't need to read the boards, I've lived it.
But not all grandparents are willing or physically/financially able to care for their children's children. Then what?

But not all grandparents are willing or physically/financially able to care for their children's children. Then what?

I'm not having this argument. Give the kids a chance, all the what ifs are a silly game.

I'm not having this argument. Give the kids a chance, all the what ifs are a silly game.
Unfortunately, they aren't "what if"s. Thus the public assistance checks going out to young teen mothers.

Unfortunately, they aren't "what if"s. Thus the public assistance checks going out to young teen mothers.

The only "what if: that's relevant in my view is "what if the child never gets a chance at life"? A child's life is immeasurably valuable, but I thought I made that clear from my experience.

A seat belt law doesn't quite make us a nanny state.Hello again, Steve:

The fact that you LIKE this massive intervention of the nanny state into our private lives, doesn't make it any less NANNYLIKE.

It's like the term loophole... One mans loophole is another mans legitimate deduction... We've had a discussion over your mortgage deduction LOOPHOLE, haven't we?

excon

The only "what if: that's relevant in my view is "what if the child never gets a chance at life"? A child's life is immeasurably valuable, but I thought I made that clear from my experience.

I'm sorry you had to go through that painful experience. I can understand your empathy for those in the same situation. But you shouldn't force others to make the choices you were denied. I am as against abortions as you are, but I have also seen the devastation first hand, a child raised without love, hope, and caring has to endure, when the rest of the village cannot, or will not step in. True I have seen miracles happen also, but you can't ignore the bad, nor deny a person from having their own choice to make. And there own consequences to pay.

Subjecting anyone to measures to force a choice from them could be done in much better ways, with FACTS, and instruction, but not obstruction. To stop access of all female health issues because you disagree about abortion is plain unfair, and choice is legal.

Stopping breast cancer screening, to stop abortions, is just plain wrong. I can get with free contraceptives though, since abstinence only works for those that practice it. Maybe you should read some of the stories in teens, and pregnancy. UNBELIEVABLE.

Hello again, Steve:

The fact that you LIKE this massive intervention of the nanny state into our private lives, doesn't make it any less NANNYLIKE.

I see it quite differently of course. You can't seem to make up your mind if you like regulation or not yourself, but I think you do. I think you like all kinds of regulations. This isn't exactly a "massive intervention," no one is preventing anyone from having an abortion. It's furnishing women with INFORMATION, the kind that the abortion industry doesn't want them to have. Women can't make an informed "choice" if they don't have all the information, can they?

I'm sorry you had to go thru that painful experience. I can understand your empathy for those in the same situation. But you shouldn't force others to make the choices you were denied.

I have no need to go any further with your response because you veered into nonsense so early. I'm not forcing anyone to make the choices I was denied. I just said give the child a chance, I'm asking, not forcing.

It's furnishing women with INFORMATION, the kind that the abortion industry doesn't want them to have. Women can't make an informed "choice" if they don't have all the information, can they?Hello again, Steve:

Whoa there, podner... Putting up a BROCHURE rack would be "furnishing" the women with information... FORCING them to sit for a PRO LIFE lecture, is anything BUT "furnishing" information... It presumes an adult women is incapable of making up her OWN mind. It's INSULTING, it's INTRUSIVE, and it's ILLEGAL.

But, I now I understand HOW you want YOUR nanny state to work.. Put people in a room and FORCE 'em to listen to you... DUDE!

excon

I have no need to go any further with your response because you veered into nonsense so early. I'm not forcing anyone to make the choices I was denied. I just said give the child a chance, I'm asking, not forcing.

Closing planned parent hood is asking?? Taking away the funding is asking? Obstructing their choice is asking?? Shaming them is asking??

Looks like forcing to me!!

Closing planned parent hood is asking??? Taking away the funding is asking?? Obstructing their choice is asking??? Shaming them is asking???

I did none of those things. But, Planned Parenthood is the most vile organization in America in my opinion and I damn sure don't want one cent of my money going to help them. Giving the patient information isn't obstruction or shame, it's how we make an informed choice.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
I did none of those things.
But you support those that do, you said so.


But, Planned Parenthood is the most vile organization in America in my opinion and I damn sure don't want one cent of my money going to help them.
So you are against contraceptives, breast cancer screenings, pelvic cancer exams, and regular check ups. That makes you against healthy females, most who can't afford insurance, and have to turn to title 10 resources. Wonder what your alternative would be?


Giving the patient information isn't obstruction or shame, it's how we make an informed choice.
Unwanted advice, and taking away choices is force, especially if you don't know what goes on before an abortion is even considered.

Your opinion is all about strong feelings but have no facts to back them up, at least you have presented... NONE! That's why its no surprise that you support willy nilly cuts, because you don't care who they affect, or how they affect them.

But you support those that do, you said so.

I've never said a thing about closing PP and as far as I know there is no organized effort to do so, so enough of the asinine assumptions.


So you are against contraceptives, breast cancer screenings, pelvic cancer exams, and regular check ups. That makes you against healthy females, most who can't afford insurance, and have to turn to title 10 resources. Wonder what your alternative would be?

Again with the asinine assumptions. What is it with you guys on the left that feel it necessary to distort, misrepresent and speak on my behalf. Enough, you speak for yourself and I'll d the same.


Unwanted advice, and taking away choices is force, especially if you don't know what goes on before an abortion is even considered.

It's information, not advice. Surely you know the difference.


Your opinion is all about strong feelings but have no facts to back them up, at least you have presented... NONE! That's why its no surprise that you support willy nilly cuts, because you don't care who they affect, or how they affect them.

And your response is pure fantasy. Stop making sh*t up abut me, tal. I can't put it any plainer than that.

Wonder what your alternative would be?

What would you tell a female to do who can't afford insurance, or regular doctor visits?

Wonder what your alternative would be?

What would you tell a female to do who can't afford insurance, or regular doctor visits?

In Amarillo we have a community clinic (http://www.amarillohospitaldistrict.org/wyatt.html#policy) where those in need can get regular health care, dental, vision, prescriptions, you name it. We have 2 hospitals that will provide care for anyone that walks in the door. I have ALWAYS believed in a safety net for the needy, I've made that clear here many times in spite of the repeated efforts by others to say otherwise. Health care for the needy is one thing, abortion on demand is an entirely different ball of wax.

In Amarillo we have a community clinic (http://www.amarillohospitaldistrict.org/wyatt.html#policy) where those in need can get regular health care, dental, vision, prescriptions, you name it. We have 2 hospitals that will provide care for anyone that walks in the door. I have ALWAYS believed in a safety net for the needy, I've made that clear here many times in spite of the repeated efforts by others to say otherwise. Health care for the needy is one thing, abortion on demand is an entirely different ball of wax.
Who pays for all that?

Who pays for all that?


The costs of the benefits of this plan are paid by Northwest Texas Healthcare System (NWTHS), from revenues generated from other patients and from annual receipt of funds from the Amarillo Hospital District. The benefits are determined in accordance to the guidelines established by the Board of Managers of the Amarillo Hospital District. NWTHS has developed the Wyatt Health Plan through which these services are provided.



Allowance: The dollar amount of income which may be retained before any funds are considered available for medical expenses.

b) In order for medical expenses to be paid, the value of personal property and equity in property or real estate must total $5000 or less. Furnishings in a household, household articles, clothing and tools are excluded from the calculation of equity.
c) The Member is unable to borrow sufficient funds to pay medical and/or hospital bills in whole or in part.
d) Persons whose income and/or equity exceed the base will be requested to partially pay for each visit for any inpatient or outpatient service. Table of Partial Payment will be between 100% and 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

Even though Texas is the leading state for the uninsured, they do have all sorts of insurance plans, and options. Most of the poor opt for medicaid, which is offered by the state, and funded by state and federal funds. Just like planned parenthood.

http://www.health.state.nm.us/phd/fp/title_x.htm


Who receives services through Title X?
83% of Title X clients had incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level in 1997
The vast majority of Title X clients are uninsured and do not qualify for Medicaid
Title X clinics provide services free of charge to clients whose incomes do not exceed 100 percent of the federal poverty level and services are offered on a sliding fee scale for clients with incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level.

What would you tell a female to do who can't afford insurance, or regular doctor visits?

I'd say use abstainance .That doesn't cost her or me anything.. It's the best of both worlds . And if she does anyway then why do I have to support infanticide for her mistakes ?

The costs of the benefits of this plan are paid by Northwest Texas Healthcare System (NWTHS), from revenues generated from other patients

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. "

Who pays for all that?


What's your point?

I'd say use abstainance .That doesn't cost her or me anything..It's the best of both worlds . And if she does anyway then why do I have to support infanticide for her mistakes ?
Reminds me of Hestor Prynne.

What about the males in her life?

Who pays for all of that?

What's your point?
Oh, I thought you knew. Sorry.

I've never said a thing about closing PP and as far as I know there is no organized effort to do so, so enough of the asinine assumptions.


Rev. Tom Davis: Blessing (Not Cursing) Planned Parenthood (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-tom-davis/cursing-planned-parenthood_b_913776.html)

House votes to defund Planned Parenthood - David Nather and Kate Nocera - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html)

Reminds me of Hestor Prynne.

What about the males in her life?
__________________
I enjoy literary reference. What about the men ? By all means necessary they should be compelled to act like a man and assume responsibility for their actions. My advice to them is the same . No play no pay.
I'm certainly not branding a scarlet letter . This is practical advice . Much like eliminating moral risk by subsidizing the risk creates wrecklesness in business ;the same is true for individuals.

I enjoy literary reference. What about the men ? By all means necessary they should be compelled to act like a man and assume responsibility for their actions. My advice to them is the same . No play no pay.
I'm certainly not branding a scarlet letter . This is practical advice . Much like eliminating moral risk by subsidizing the risk creates wrecklesness in business ;the same is true for individuals.
Good. Abstinence for the males too.

Hello again:

Once upon a time, there was this nice little economy wandering about.. Oh, it wasn't healthy, and needed some work, but it was doing OK.

Then a rowdy crowd of Tea Partiers mugged it. They threw it to the ground and stomped on it. But, our economy got up, shook its head, and started wandering around some more...

This time, however, the assault left the economy bleeding and hurt. So, the ref's (S & P) gave it a standing 8 count (lowered its credit rating), and the muggers (Tea Party) blamed the victim...

I think I'll up my dose of pot so I can be on THEIR plane.

excon

Oh, I thought you knew. Sorry.

I would ordinarily have a comment but the moderators here now apparently speak for me.

I would ordinarily have a comment but the moderators here now apparently speak for me.
Paranoia doesn't become you.

Paranoia doesn't become you.

Paranoia? No. Just making a point.