GOOD NEWS? Drudge links report of GOP REVOLT!

[JakeStarkey]

Alexander Hamilton's assumption, funding, and debt fund was huge for the day. It was also the right thing to do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

While I still believe LIEability is reality challenged the one trick pony comment is a clear description of he an the ideology he holds dear. It is truly ironic that he claims to be "big on the Founders and Framers", a politically eclectic group of men who held one raison d E'tat in common yet battled on every detail in creating the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability does not understand the Founders is what the answer to your comment.

He likes the anti-federalists, and I guess he pretends the big government nationalists like Washington et al were not big government nationalists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.

More like a great con game...

Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...

Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....

Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...

i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...

Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.

 

[Full-Auto]

Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.

More like a great con game...

Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...

Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....

Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...

i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...

Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.

The higher base line is accurate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

More like a great con game...

Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...

Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....

Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...

i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...

Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.

The higher base line is accurate.

No, it is not.

 

[Full-Auto]

Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.

The higher base line is accurate.

No, it is not.

Given you track record of being wrong, I remain unconcerned. The healthcare bill more then proves you are not very bright.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Given that you don't know what you are talking about at any given time, Auto, a far righty extremist's comments such as yours are given the weight it deserves, then is flushed down the toilet.

 

[Full-Auto]

Given that you don't know what you are talking about at any given time, Auto, a far righty extremist's comments such as yours are given the weight it deserves, then is flushed down the toilet.

LOL YOUR ECONOMIC IGNORANCE IS SHOWING

 

[jgarden]

With a Republican majority in the House, one would expect that the Boehner's Bill would pass

BUT

if the Tea Party doesn't support it, he'll be discredited and there will be no credible leader in the House who can speak on behalf of the Republicans.

 

[Synthaholic]

Demanding that a Balanced Budget amendment has "assurances it will be sent to the states" is voting for default. I wish the Tea Partiers would just be honest.

No. It's not.

I wish you'd be honest.

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.

You're wasting your breath. Liability is one of those teabaggers who believe "there is no crisis - it's all a Liberal trick".

 

[Ame®icano]

Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming

There is no default coming (even if there's no agreement). There will be no "crash" coming unless, for traitorous partisan political reasons, the liberal Democrats cause one.

We don't have a debt crisis!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BinOkeueoRU]‪Rep.Nadler: "We Don't Have A Debt Crisis‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the debt is defaulted, a great recession occurs, more individual and family harm happens, then the far right will be blamed by the American people, the Tea Party will be destroyed and the GOP grievously hurt in the next elections.

If you fools on the far right want an Obama New Deal beginning in 2013 that those to the left in 1933 would drool at, do the stupid thing.

Do it and reap your sorrow.

 

[Liability]

If the debt is defaulted, a great recession occurs, more individual and family harm happens, then the far right will be blamed by the American people, the Tea Party will be destroyed and the GOP grievously hurt in the next elections.

If you fools on the far right want an Obama New Deal beginning in 2013 that those to the left in 1933 would drool at, do the stupid thing.

Do it and reap your sorrow.

Fear not, Jake. The Republican Party of "yours," the one that is actually a weak-willed, limp-wristed craven image of the liberal Democrat Parody WILL (in almost all likelihood) CAVE.

But, if they managed to find their nadz and refuse to cave in, clearly the liberal Democraps wouldn't lift a finger to give in. Why not? Because THEY are content to permit the very thing YOU are wailing about. But you don't point any fingers at THEM.

Oddly.

And besides, if the nation DID refuse to raise the fuckin'Debt Ceiling, there is no necessary "default" that results. That's just a damn lie.

There need be no crash.

Indeed, in a rational world, America would gain status as finally starting the long and difficult trek to getting its miserable economic house straightened out. But no.

Evidently, under the stewardship of liberal Democratics, we choose, instead, to be New Europe. God help us.

 

[Liability]

No. It's not.

I wish you'd be honest.

of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:

1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.

2. We default.

Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.

You're wasting your breath. Liability is one of those teabaggers who believe "there is no crisis - it's all a Liberal trick".

Libs are the teabaggers. Your use of rhetoric is as dishonest as your analysis is faulty.

There could be a crisis if the liberal Democratics -- led by that asshole in chief, the ever dishonest President Obama -- manufacturer one. But it's no trick.

It's cynical cheap politics written on a large scale and dumped on the backs of those who don't deserve such crap from the American government. This President is a fucking scumbag.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability wears blinders and cannot see the forest for the trees.

The Dems will win the crisis if the default occurs.

 

[Liability]

Liability wears blinders and cannot see the forest for the trees.

The converse is true. I am not the one with the blinders. My eyes have been fully opened.

The Dems will win the crisis if the default occurs.

If the debt ceiling is not raised, the conservatives and Republicans win and the Dims will have to have another heaping bite of their usual shit sandwich. They tend not to much care for what is in the best long term interests of the American Republic and economy. But that's on them

Jake, don't fret. Your blindfold never let's in ANY light, kid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the default occurs, the Dems win, and we will have Obamacare forever.

 

[Liability]

In cas you missed my earlier post LIEability, I suggested you're insane. Doing it right now, solving decades long overspending in one year isn't possible without creating a crisis. What the Congress needs to do is stop the bullshit and create jobs. Yes, notwithstanding RW dogma, government can create jobs.

Nobody cares what YOU "suggested," Fly Catcher since you are merely a dishonest, propagandized moron.

Also, dipshit, nobody said anything about fixing the entire problem in one year. Good God but you are a fucking imbecile.

And, no. Despite yojur willingness to repeat your utterly baseless mantra like a magical incantation, here in REALITY (which confuses the shit out of tools like you) the Government does not create jobs -- except "government jobs" which is really another form of spending, you senseless jerk-off.

um you said it exactly two posts above this one:

It is not "false" to say that the reining in of this utterly out of control spending MUST be done RIGHT now. It is a simple, declarative and completely accurate statement.

Take a step back. When the ass-clowns in Government who DEMAND an increase in the debt limit make that "demand," what they are SAYING is crystal clear. They want to be free to continue doing the very thing that got us to the precipice. They want to be unshackled in order to spend, spend, spend, spend and then do some serious additional spending. We don't have the money, so they want the credit line INCREASED. But it's beyond irresponsible when we KNOW for a fact that we have created an urgent, dire problem by doing exactly that kind of thing. It will not be ameliorated by doing more of the same; it will only be made that much worse. And when that becomes an even bigger and more imminent crisis, the answer will be some 'stop gap" INCREASE (yet again) in the debt ceiling. It's insanity.

Yes. It MUST be done right now.
__________________

You dont even know what you are arguing. You are literally trying to have it both ways. Your opinion in your own thread has become essentially irrelevant.

Wrong and dishonest of you. No surprise. You are practically retarded and you are a liar. That's not a good thing, shit head.

Yes indeed, you ARE an -- uhm -- idiot.

We do need to get on with the business of addressing the deficit, you cretin. We must do that immediately.

That is not the same thing as suggesting that a problem this massive caused over such a long period of time can be fixed in one year.

Again, I NEVER suggested any such thing. But we CAN and we damn well MUST take the necessary first MEANINGFUL steps without any further delays.

Your inability to understand the meaning of simple, straightforward declarative sentences is consistently pitiable.

What tools such as YOU propose, instead, is to continue yet again on the EXACT SAME PATH that got us into this mess. Instead of beginning the efforts in a meaningful way, NOW, to begin to fix the problem, YOU imbeciles want to RAISE THE FUCKING DEBT CEILING, YET AGAIN.

When you get your first clue, send up a flare. Then perhaps you can tell us how going more massively into debt (the assured result of increasing the debt limit with this President is that the debt will increase right up to the limit) serves any purpose in getting us OUT of our addiction to spending and to debt.

I'd pretend that "we'll wait," but we all know there's no point in that. The one thing we can say with absolute assurance is that none of you imbeciles have any intention of curtailing our use of "credit" or curtailing our "spending."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Irrelevant, Liability.