 |
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.
The Democrats want "compromise," which is similar to "balanced approach" which both mean, "our way or the highway."Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Hello Padre:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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 ;
http://financialpostopinion.files.wo...ing-jul-11.pdfQuote:
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.
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
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 untouchedQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
Yeah he made a mistake going along with Teddy Kennedy pet projects .Quote:
no child left behind, and part D prescriptions for Medicare off the books.
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.
Suddenly, ruling by fear and intimidation, hostage taking and shutting down the government ain't no big thing to the left.Quote:
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.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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?
It's part of his strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
LOL, right. Works for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Here's his reelection strategy, more of the same. Vague talking points, generalizations and deflectionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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".Quote:
"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."
Sorry Mr. President, we're not buying it. We want to know exactly what everyone's "fair share" is.
Which Republican candidate do you suggest I support? Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.Quote:
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?
Otherwise, how did we become a nanny state under Bush?
No one has banned potatoes, or even fries.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Who's going to take care of those babies (i.e. feed, clothe, pay for dr. visits, etc.) once they're born?Quote:
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.
How could you forget this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Yawn...Quote:
Who's going to take care of those babies (i.e. feed, clothe, pay for dr. visits, etc.) once they're born?
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
But not all grandparents are willing or physically/financially able to care for their children's children. Then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm not having this argument. Give the kids a chance, all the what ifs are a silly game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Unfortunately, they aren't "what if"s. Thus the public assistance checks going out to young teen mothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:58 AM. |