Interesting misinterpretation of what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
|
Interesting misinterpretation of what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
That stimulus you refer to as a spending spree was TAX CUTS, infrastructure, and relief for those that were affected,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
He spent hundreds of billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs
Recovery.gov - Tracking the Money
Stimulus Spending, Breakdown by States - The Wall Street Journal Online
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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?
No Ex you are definitely right it is all about grandstanding and partisan politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Republicans have passed the legislation. Democrats have offered nothing, intentionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
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 plan have the Dems offered?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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.Quote:
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.
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
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
Makes you wonder who benefits from a default of American debt?? The BANKS do.Quote:
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.”
Don't ask rhetorical questions Tom you might get answers you don't like:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
.Quote:
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/resourc...ts/CitiOIG.pdf
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 .Quote:
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,
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
So republicans win then?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
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.
Hello again, tom and clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
That's MY money.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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/SB1000...inion_newsreel
How Much Obama Has Really Spent | Story | POWERWALL
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!!
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Wouldn't you like a decent return on your CDs again ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 AM. |