The Democrat's Dilema for 2012

[The Rabbi]

Did I studder?

A 13 trillion dollar debt aint gonna get paid off on it's own.

Stutter.
You could tax everyone 100% and it still won't get paid off. Throwing the economy in the shitter will not pay the deficit either. Growing the economy will make the deficit manageable, as debt as a percentage of GDP is the only meaningful figure. High corporate taxes discourage economic activity, making the deficit higher as a percentage.

Oh, so you are cool with the deficit as long as it is "manageable." So I guess I can assume you have no real interest at actually paying down the debt. What a shock.

You're right. I see no reason to pay off the debt. Please tell me what's wrong with that.
But you avoided the question of whether economies do well in high tax environments or not.

 

[Article 15]

Stutter.
You could tax everyone 100% and it still won't get paid off. Throwing the economy in the shitter will not pay the deficit either. Growing the economy will make the deficit manageable, as debt as a percentage of GDP is the only meaningful figure. High corporate taxes discourage economic activity, making the deficit higher as a percentage.

Oh, so you are cool with the deficit as long as it is "manageable." So I guess I can assume you have no real interest at actually paying down the debt. What a shock.

You're right. I see no reason to pay off the debt. Please tell me what's wrong with that.
But you avoided the question of whether economies do well in high tax environments or not.

What's wrong with that? LMFAO!

Yeah, let's not even bother to pay the minimum on our enormously large credit card and see where that gets us. Seriously, wow.

How about the $200+ billion a year in interest we owe on the debt? That's twice the cost of Obamacare annually something you have been screaming about. Seems like a pretty good reason to me. It's funny you claim to be a fiscal conservative and bitch and moan about out of control spending yet when it comes to actually finding a way to pay what we owe you balk at it. You just admitted you are a total hack. Thanks, I'll take a tax and spend liberal over a borrow and spend "conservative" like yourself any day.

BTW while I don't think we should increase taxes until the economy turns around more we are not in a high tax environment. Our taxes have done nothing but go down for decades. In fact, they were cut not too long before the economy crashed so you can take the idea that we are in a high tax environment or that an increase would create a high tax environment and shove it because I'm certainly not buying it. It's time to pay the piper, little boy.

 

[Coyote]

On the other hand if they are seen as obstructing legislation that the new republican house tries to pass as a result of the mandate the voters just gave them they will surely lose even more seats in 2012.

Problem is - the Republicans don't really have a mandate and they need to walk very carefully. They are still deeply unpopular. The election was more than anything an expression of anger and disgust at whatever party was in control and therefore responsible for the current economic situation. While many seats were won - many were won by narrow margins. If the Republicans make the same mistake as the Democrats did after their wave swept them in, they'll be ousted just as quickly.

Both parties have a real tightrope: the primaries weeded out most of the remaining Republican moderates while this election removed a number of Democratic moderates.

What's left are the extremes in both parties.

 

[strollingbones]

after two years of gridlock caused by the gop....and no real action on the economy.....american voters will return to the democratic party....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Did I studder?

A 13 trillion dollar debt aint gonna get paid off on it's own.

That's why the GOP's "LET'S CUT TAXES!" meme is just idiotic. I don't see cutting taxes as being at all reasonable while you have the debt. At this point you could cut spending all the way to the bone and you'd still have to collect taxes to pay down the debt.

I'm actually in favor of an itemized payroll tax that is directly connected to the debt. When the debt goes up, that entry goes up, as it goes down, that entry goes down. Let's make people aware of their share. Do that, and I bet that folks would be interested in real solutions again.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

On the other hand if they are seen as obstructing legislation that the new republican house tries to pass as a result of the mandate the voters just gave them they will surely lose even more seats in 2012.

The bold part is silly. The only Mandate the GOP received is the one the DNC receieved in 2006 and 2008, namely: "Results. Now. Or we move on to the next guy."

But the choice is still there: Bill Clinton in the 90's (Let's work together) or FDR in 1936 ("The GOP is unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred!").

The GOP's tight rope right now is how to hold the Tea Party voters, who will jump ship in a heart beat if they increase spending, while still keeping the Moderates who will outright abandon them in a heartbeat if they don't.

Welcome to the difficulties of holding together a coalition in America.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, so you are cool with the deficit as long as it is "manageable." So I guess I can assume you have no real interest at actually paying down the debt. What a shock.

You're right. I see no reason to pay off the debt. Please tell me what's wrong with that.
But you avoided the question of whether economies do well in high tax environments or not.

What's wrong with that? LMFAO!

Yeah, let's not even bother to pay the minimum on our enormously large credit card and see where that gets us. Seriously, wow.

How about the $200+ billion a year in interest we owe on the debt? That's twice the cost of Obamacare annually something you have been screaming about. Seems like a pretty good reason to me. It's funny you claim to be a fiscal conservative and bitch and moan about out of control spending yet when it comes to actually finding a way to pay what we owe you balk at it. You just admitted you are a total hack. Thanks, I'll take a tax and spend liberal over a borrow and spend "conservative" like yourself any day.

BTW while I don't think we should increase taxes until the economy turns around more we are not in a high tax environment. Our taxes have done nothing but go down for decades. In fact, they were cut not too long before the economy crashed so you can take the idea that we are in a high tax environment or that an increase would create a high tax environment and shove it because I'm certainly not buying it. It's time to pay the piper, little boy.

Um, if you think the analogy between the US government and a consumer credit card is a good one then you don't know shit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems need to pivot Leftward. No more half measures. No more head feints on fiscal Conservatism.

They need to follow Coons lead, he beat the Tea Party, he's the role model.

Dems if you want to win, embrace your inner Marxist, bearded or not.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Dems need to pivot Leftward. No more half measures. No more head feints on fiscal Conservatism.

They need to follow Coons lead, he beat the Tea Party, he's the role model.

Dems if you want to win, embrace your inner Marxist, bearded or not.

I'm kinda curious if the GOP will learn the lesson: Crazy Righties like O'Donnel can't win. Move center.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dems need to pivot Leftward. No more half measures. No more head feints on fiscal Conservatism.

They need to follow Coons lead, he beat the Tea Party, he's the role model.

Dems if you want to win, embrace your inner Marxist, bearded or not.

I'm kinda curious if the GOP will learn the lesson: Crazy Righties like O'Donnel can't win. Move center.

Yeah. A libertarian nut job like Rand Paul could never win. Oh, wait...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Dems need to pivot Leftward. No more half measures. No more head feints on fiscal Conservatism.

They need to follow Coons lead, he beat the Tea Party, he's the role model.

Dems if you want to win, embrace your inner Marxist, bearded or not.

I'm kinda curious if the GOP will learn the lesson: Crazy Righties like O'Donnel can't win. Move center.

Yeah. A libertarian nut job like Rand Paul could never win. Oh, wait...

How'd Angle and Whitman do again? And how's control of the Senate working out for you?

 

[Coyote]

On the other hand if they are seen as obstructing legislation that the new republican house tries to pass as a result of the mandate the voters just gave them they will surely lose even more seats in 2012.

The bold part is silly. The only Mandate the GOP received is the one the DNC receieved in 2006 and 2008, namely: "Results. Now. Or we move on to the next guy."

But the choice is still there: Bill Clinton in the 90's (Let's work together) or FDR in 1936 ("The GOP is unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred!").

The GOP's tight rope right now is how to hold the Tea Party voters, who will jump ship in a heart beat if they increase spending, while still keeping the Moderates who will outright abandon them in a heartbeat if they don't.

Welcome to the difficulties of holding together a coalition in America.

Boehner has sounded reasonable but...I think, given the statements by Mitch McConnell and his intractible (and arrogant) stance of "we won" - FDR's approach might be the better choice.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

On the other hand if they are seen as obstructing legislation that the new republican house tries to pass as a result of the mandate the voters just gave them they will surely lose even more seats in 2012.

The bold part is silly. The only Mandate the GOP received is the one the DNC receieved in 2006 and 2008, namely: "Results. Now. Or we move on to the next guy."

But the choice is still there: Bill Clinton in the 90's (Let's work together) or FDR in 1936 ("The GOP is unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred!").

The GOP's tight rope right now is how to hold the Tea Party voters, who will jump ship in a heart beat if they increase spending, while still keeping the Moderates who will outright abandon them in a heartbeat if they don't.

Welcome to the difficulties of holding together a coalition in America.

Boehner has sounded reasonable but...I think, given the statements by Mitch McConnell and his intractible (and arrogant) stance of "we won" - FDR's approach might be the better choice.

Especially if the GOP starts looking to rollback or defund Wall Street and banking reforms that have happened in the last 2 years. It's going to be very hard for the GOP to actually win 2012 if they're seen as pro-Wall Street or pro-Big Banks as most folks consider Wall Street and the Banks to be the guys that got us into this mess.

Its a moot point though. I personally do not think that Obama is strong enough to stand up to the GOP ala FDR. I've lost faith he can control his own Joint Chiefs and appointees, much less stand up to an openly hostile GOP.

 

[blastoff]

Uuuhhhhh...you do realize the GOP can't even DREAM about impeaching Obama unless they had BOTH chambers, right, Sallow?

Lemme guess....you're the product of a fine public school education?

Go Google up impeachment and them come back and post one of these

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm kinda curious if the GOP will learn the lesson: Crazy Righties like O'Donnel can't win. Move center.

Yeah. A libertarian nut job like Rand Paul could never win. Oh, wait...

How'd Angle and Whitman do again? And how's control of the Senate working out for you?

Yes change the subject.
Control of the Senate was always a longshot. Whitman lost because Californians are intent on self destruction. Angle did pretty well for someone declared dead on arrival by the establishment. If it hadn't been for Harry's casino buddies threatening their workers Angle would likely be senator.
Tell me how Rand Paul lost again.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Yeah. A libertarian nut job like Rand Paul could never win. Oh, wait...

How'd Angle and Whitman do again? And how's control of the Senate working out for you?

Yes change the subject.
Control of the Senate was always a longshot. Whitman lost because Californians are intent on self destruction. Angle did pretty well for someone declared dead on arrival by the establishment. If it hadn't been for Harry's casino buddies threatening their workers Angle would likely be senator.
Tell me how Rand Paul lost again.

Tell me how you took the Senate by going to the Right again? BTW, how is Miller working out for you in Alaska?

 

[The Rabbi]

How'd Angle and Whitman do again? And how's control of the Senate working out for you?

Yes change the subject.
Control of the Senate was always a longshot. Whitman lost because Californians are intent on self destruction. Angle did pretty well for someone declared dead on arrival by the establishment. If it hadn't been for Harry's casino buddies threatening their workers Angle would likely be senator.
Tell me how Rand Paul lost again.

Tell me how you took the Senate by going to the Right again? BTW, how is Miller working out for you in Alaska?

You clearly have an inability to read. I already said the Senate was always a longshot.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Tell me how you took the Senate by going to the Right again? BTW, how is Miller working out for you in Alaska?

You clearly have an inability to read. I already said the Senate was always a longshot.

It shouldn't have been. The GOP would have the Senate now, right now, if it weren't for blowing key races by running far right leaning idiots.

 

[Coyote]

The bold part is silly. The only Mandate the GOP received is the one the DNC receieved in 2006 and 2008, namely: "Results. Now. Or we move on to the next guy."

But the choice is still there: Bill Clinton in the 90's (Let's work together) or FDR in 1936 ("The GOP is unanimous in their hatred of me, and I welcome their hatred!").

The GOP's tight rope right now is how to hold the Tea Party voters, who will jump ship in a heart beat if they increase spending, while still keeping the Moderates who will outright abandon them in a heartbeat if they don't.

Welcome to the difficulties of holding together a coalition in America.

Boehner has sounded reasonable but...I think, given the statements by Mitch McConnell and his intractible (and arrogant) stance of "we won" - FDR's approach might be the better choice.

Especially if the GOP starts looking to rollback or defund Wall Street and banking reforms that have happened in the last 2 years. It's going to be very hard for the GOP to actually win 2012 if they're seen as pro-Wall Street or pro-Big Banks as most folks consider Wall Street and the Banks to be the guys that got us into this mess.

Its a moot point though. I personally do not think that Obama is strong enough to stand up to the GOP ala FDR. I've lost faith he can control his own Joint Chiefs and appointees, much less stand up to an openly hostile GOP.

That's what worries me.

 

[Coyote]

How'd Angle and Whitman do again? And how's control of the Senate working out for you?

Yes change the subject.
Control of the Senate was always a longshot. Whitman lost because Californians are intent on self destruction. Angle did pretty well for someone declared dead on arrival by the establishment. If it hadn't been for Harry's casino buddies threatening their workers Angle would likely be senator.
Tell me how Rand Paul lost again.

Tell me how you took the Senate by going to the Right again? BTW, how is Miller working out for you in Alaska?

That was quite a surprise wasn't it? A write-in campaign no less