Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you'll see there are real similarities to the current financial crisis and resulting Great Recession.
For the health care reform bill to be defined as "socialistic," it would have had to be a universal single-pay (by the government) plan.
give me a break. BO is a communist who had 2 communist parents. Any increased control the government has is creeping socialism. BO care is rampaging socialism. Communists don't understand competition so don't expect the insurance companies to compete any more than they do now. You are crazy to pretend BO's socialist/fascist take over is capitalistic.
You know what? Fuck you, idiot. My dog has more brains.
The Federal Reserve didn't cause the meltdown either.
You don't seem to understand a simple poll.
I said PRIMARY problem. I didn't say all or none...that saying if you vote spending - then you think there is no revenue problem.
Geez...I thought people understood basic English and simple concepts.
You didn't, but that's definitely the tone of the debate, noting that the Republicans would rather default on the national debt than raise one red cent in additional revenue.
So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.
I don't know, you tell me. The idea was obviously not considered by the President. Think Stimulus Plan and Health Care Reform as two examples.
And besides, "no new" doesn't prevent widespread spending increases on "old programs".
Although increasing revenue would help the situation, it won't help in this case because Congress is not fiscally responsible and will continue to do as they have been doing and that is to spend more than every dime they receive.
I for one am not opposed to increasing tax rates. But, if you are going to increase tax rates by 5% and follow that up with an increase in spending of 7%, you have only made the problem worse. Go ahead and raise taxes. But, damn it, Congress has to figure out that when they do that it does not mean they can just increase spending as well. There in lies the problem.
Immie
That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.
So, you don't think the Stimulus Package or Health Care Reform are new spending plans?
Obviously he was not as interested in PayGo as he was forcing his socialistic ideas on health care into our laps. Or was it that he was more interested in giving the health insurance companies a huge and I do mean huge gift. What he asked for with reform was socialism. What he gave the insurance companies was a gift.
Immie
You didn't, but that's definitely the tone of the debate, noting that the Republicans would rather default on the national debt than raise one red cent in additional revenue.
So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.
Except that what you're saying is not true. While Republicans have not been willing to agree to increased revenues, President Obama has made several proposals (linking Social Security COLA to chained CPI and raising the eligibility age for Medicare) that would reduce entitlement spending.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.
"I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”
Earlier in her speech, Jackson Lee said Obama has been targeted unlike any other president.
"I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreement and inability to work, only this one," said Jackson Lee from the House floor.
"Read between the lines," she continued. "What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?"
Jackson Lee: Congress complicating debt ceiling because Obama is black - The Hill's Floor Action
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
Gibbs: Senator Obama Only Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 Because He Knew It Would Pass Anyway | Scotty Starnes's Blog
So I see you enjoy your Kool Aid blue. Your just like them.
It can also be said with equal "accuracy" that the Democrats would rather default on the national debt than spend one red cent less on runaway entitlements.
Except that what you're saying is not true. While Republicans have not been willing to agree to increased revenues, President Obama has made several proposals (linking Social Security COLA to chained CPI and raising the eligibility age for Medicare) that would reduce entitlement spending.
links? The only thing I've seen that he has submitted in the way of proposals was a budget in February so embarrasing that it got almost no Democrat votes in the House and zero Democrat votes in the Senate.
Over the past few days, Obama has shown that he’s willing to sacrifice Democratic sacred cows. He hasn’t released a detailed official plan; he’s too cagey for that. But sketchy reports of possible cuts have leaked. Among them: a switch to using chained CPI for Social Security (which would adjust the calculation of the Consumer Price Index in a way that cuts benefits); an increase in the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67; cuts in student loans and reimbursements for hospitals; and the elimination of the cherished last-in, first- out accounting methods, which enable businesses to reduce their taxable income.
Why Obama Has Already Won the Debt-Limit Fight: Jonathan Alter - Bloomberg
Spending. Under Obama Federal outlays have increased from an average of 19% of GDP to 25%. He is spending us into Bankruptcy. Balanced budgets (with deficit reducing surpluses) can be easily achieved if we cap federal spending at 18% of the prior years GDP.
Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt
When that happens at home, people stop spending...
That's completely and utterly incorrect. President Obama tried to introduce Paygo into one of the spending bills. It was rejected by Republicans. And it was Republicans that got rid of it in the first place.
So, you don't think the Stimulus Package or Health Care Reform are new spending plans?
Obviously he was not as interested in PayGo as he was forcing his socialistic ideas on health care into our laps. Or was it that he was more interested in giving the health insurance companies a huge and I do mean huge gift. What he asked for with reform was socialism. What he gave the insurance companies was a gift.
Immie
You know, you guys really need to pick a line of attack and stick with it. The same proposal can't nationalize the insurance industry AND be a massive handout to them at the same time.
Earmarks.
The "Problem" is a recession fueled by a contracting economy which had been bloated with consumer debt and overvaluation of financial instruments.
But out of the two choices, it's a revenue problem. Government revenue (as percent of GDP) is at its lowest point since about 1970. Sorry to all of you who have been taught that Obama is some kind of tax-and-spend machine by unscrupulous sources. It's really just not the case.
Our primary problem is we spend more money than we take in. We need to address both sides of the equation to have any hope of erasing a $14 trillion debt
When that happens at home, people stop spending...
Or find additional sources of revenue...
Or... Both...
I'm getting really sick of Bernanke. Being too lazy to do anything else is different from not being able to do anything else.
I think he meant pulling money out of stone.
There is absolutely nothing to stop the Fed from engaging in another round of quantitative easing. There is also no logical reason the Fed should be paying interest on excess bank reserves.
