Obama announces debt deal--GOP/Tea Party members WIN big!

[Avatar4321]

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

 

[Flaylo]

I'm betting you are right, which is why the promise is meaningless.

That amendment nonsense was the crap the Teabasturds wanted, not that it matters much for anything, the more mainstream Repugs threw that in there to mainly appease the Teabasturds.

Yeah. and they didn't get it. Which of course is another reason this isnt a win for the Tea Party.

Im not sure what you have against a balanced budget, but most people who think about their lives try to live within their means. The government is governed by the same laws that govern individuals.

Man don't facking start with your ad-hominems, I have never been against a balanced budget but history shows that the Repugs haven't be for balancing the budget except in rhetorically in their propaganda speeches, Bill Clinton was the only one who actually did it. The amendment is meaningless and does ensure anything, just like that leaky tax code we have doesn't ensure that everyone will pay their fair share.

 

[Avatar4321]

That amendment nonsense was the crap the Teabasturds wanted, not that it matters much for anything, the more mainstream Repugs threw that in there to mainly appease the Teabasturds.

Yeah. and they didn't get it. Which of course is another reason this isnt a win for the Tea Party.

Im not sure what you have against a balanced budget, but most people who think about their lives try to live within their means. The government is governed by the same laws that govern individuals.

Man don't facking start with your ad-hominems, I have never been against a balanced budget but history shows that the Repugs haven't be for balancing the budget except in rhetorically in their propaganda speeches, Bill Clinton was the only one who actually did it. The amendment is meaningless and does ensure anything, just like that leaky tax code we have doesn't ensure that everyone will pay their fair share.

ad hominems? Do you even know what that means?

If you are for balancing the budget, then support the Amendment. That will force Republicans and Democrats to do it.

And you will never find people paying their fair share under your system because you have no definition of what the "Fair share" is. It's a moving goal post. No matter how much someone pays, they aren't paying it.

 

[Flaylo]

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

Well if history is looked at take a look at Repug history, how many balanced budgets have they had? You guys don't have anything that has been proven to work so what do they have to go off? The amendment is meangless, I haven't read the language in it yet but you can alway count on there being some language in their to give them a loophole.

 

[Flaylo]

Yeah. and they didn't get it. Which of course is another reason this isnt a win for the Tea Party.

Im not sure what you have against a balanced budget, but most people who think about their lives try to live within their means. The government is governed by the same laws that govern individuals.

Man don't facking start with your ad-hominems, I have never been against a balanced budget but history shows that the Repugs haven't be for balancing the budget except in rhetorically in their propaganda speeches, Bill Clinton was the only one who actually did it. The amendment is meaningless and does ensure anything, just like that leaky tax code we have doesn't ensure that everyone will pay their fair share.

ad hominems? Do you even know what that means?

If you are for balancing the budget, then support the Amendment. That will force Republicans and Democrats to do it.

You said I was against having a balanced budget when I never said that, but you seem willing to make that argument, ad-hominem. Bill Clinton balanced the budget without an amendment, its all cosmetic.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

I'm betting you are right, which is why the promise is meaningless.

That amendment nonsense was the crap the Teabasturds wanted, not that it matters much for anything, the more mainstream Repugs threw that in there to mainly appease the Teabasturds.

Yeah. and they didn't get it. Which of course is another reason this isnt a win for the Tea Party.

...

Yep, more debt and an empty promise to do something about it someday.

Obviously, the Tea Party still has a lot of work ahead of them.

 

[Shiiro601229]

First, since it hasn't been done before, and the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid him from doing so, how the hell do you know that it's unconstitutional? Are you a Supreme Court justice? No? Then gtfo. Don't spout nonsense. And you know what? The country is set up well enough that if Obama becomes dictatorial, Congress and the courts will prevent it. Unless you lack faith in the Constitution.....

Because I'm literate and I've read the Constitution. The House is in charge of the Budget. The President isn't given power to unilaterally act contrary to Congress when Congress has already acted in setting the limit. And this viewpoint has been supported by the Supreme Court in Youngstown, which is the controlling case on the extent of Presidentital power.

Secondly, debate never negatively impacts anything. Anyone with a brain realizes that money has to be spent in order for money to be made. <----- Aka Investment. What's hurting the country is that the government is investing, but receiving no return. Corporations and businesses are hoarding like never before, and small businesses in particular are NOT hiring. The government has invested far too much in business, and needs to start sending money directly to the people who really need it by building new and repairing existing infrastructure, while at the same time collecting revenue in the form of taxes from corporations and those who are actually making money during this time.

Money has to be spent to be made? Nonsense. Lot's of people provide labor in creating goods and services to people without paying a cent.

And government doesn't invest in anything. Government money is used by politicians to buy votes. Businesses are not hiring because the government wont get the heck out of the marketplace. They have no clue what the next stupid idea out of Washington will be so they can't make accurate predictions for growing their businesses. Our overspending is inflating the dollar. We have to labor for 4 freakin months to even pay off our taxes. and Washington hasnt found a regulation they can say no to because for some stupid reason they think passing laws changes the behavior of bad people.

Cut spending, cut taxes, and get the heck out of the way and you will see plenty of jobs. You will see businesses taking risks. You will see them hiring. You will see Entrepenuers creating more businesses.

How do you plan to start an economic recovery?

By working instead of sitting around and waiting for everyone else to provide me everything I want.

1. Congress may have set the limit, but a limit is not a spending bill. As such, it is not expressly under the jurisdiction of the Congress. Again, since it hasn't been done before, the courts would have made the decision. You may believe the move to be unconstitutional, but if the courts don't agree with your opinion, your opinion is worth nothing more than shit.
2. If you're simply talking about employees, than yes, they make money without paying. In a sense... They do however pay with their time and energy, which is worth more money than anyone could ever pay them. Their is no business though that can make money without having first made an investment. Barring illegal practices...
3. My family runs a small business, and we haven't hired because we're not making enough money. Business don't really impact us since we're sill paying off our investment, but if interest rates had gone up without a debt ceiling increase (like the vast majority of economists predicted it would), paying off our debt would have become exceedingly difficult.
4. Without the government, this country would have virtually no infrastructure. Private companies rely on the government to build infrastructure so they can transport their goods. These companies in turn pay taxes on some of their profits so that the government can continue to build infrastructure, which provides jobs for those who work at construction companies, and buy products from companies that use the infrastructure. The construction workers pay taxes so the government can afford to pay their company to pay its workers. The government also employs people who spend money, provide services, and pay taxes. It's all a cycle.... If you find a way to go back to the early 20th century where regulations were lax, be my guest, go back and enjoy. I wouldn't recommend eating any of the meat though... Just sayin'
5. Without government unemployment assistance, my family's business would not be a reality. Tell me, is our business bad for the economy?
6. Good, keep working, if you have a job that's all you can do. Other's will continue to look for work, and hopefully find it, but until then, the government will do it's duty, and help provide means of support.

 

[Dr Grump]

It was a win for Obama...

 

[Shiiro601229]

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

You do realize, that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression by SPENDING more money than ever before, right? Particularly by setting up, SS, and unemployment, and by starting dozens of different governmental organizations that provide hundreds of different services, millions of jobs, and made the country better?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe we need a beer summit...as long as the Republicans are willing share

Oh, I know how that works. They'll send the Dems out to get beer, promising to pay half the tab upon their return.

Then they'll drink all the beer.

Then they'll renege.

How do you know? In the habit of being ditched by friends with an unpaid tab?

Why don't we ask Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush why is it that Republicans are so reluctant to accept any more "Just agree to raise taxes, and THEN we'll cut spending. No, really, we promise!" deals from Democrats?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

You do realize, that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression by SPENDING more money than ever before, right? Particularly by setting up, SS, and unemployment, and by starting dozens of different governmental organizations that provide hundreds of different services, millions of jobs, and made the country better?

No. FDR prolonged the Great Depression by spending money. Much like Herbert Hoover did. Had they simply done what Harding/Coolidge did to get us out of the 1920 Depression, which was a sharper depression that ended much faster, it wouldn't have lasted 12 years.

What Harding/Coolidge did was cut spending and cut taxes and then got out of the way. And because they did, they had unprecedented economic growth. One of the few periods where unemployment actually made it down to 2%.

 

[Shiiro601229]

Oh, I know how that works. They'll send the Dems out to get beer, promising to pay half the tab upon their return.

Then they'll drink all the beer.

Then they'll renege.

How do you know? In the habit of being ditched by friends with an unpaid tab?

Why don't we ask Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush why is it that Republicans are so reluctant to accept any more "Just agree to raise taxes, and THEN we'll cut spending. No, really, we promise!" deals from Democrats?

It's great how.... SPENDING IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ALL EVIL!!!!! Holy shit. If I lost an IQ point for every time I read one of these posts from people like you, maybe, just maybe, I'd reach your IQ level.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't see how either side won anything especially the Teabastaurds, they only get to vote on an amendment but not get an amendment. I'd like to see the particulars from both sides. If Obama did cave in and the country gets worse becuase of this deal I hope the same dipshats who say the Teabasturds have one will pin the blame on the Teabasturds also, though thats not likely to happen with the rightwing's propaganda machine in action.

If they cave to this deal, then they should be blamed for whatever happens. And get credit for anything as well.

However, we can pretty much guarentee there will be nothing to take credit for. The deal is raise the debt ceiling for empty promises. Which might be a win for Obama if he hadn't previously said that even discussing a raise in the debt ceiling was a failure of leadership. Ironically, his success demonstrates his failure by his own standards.

However, the country will not get worse by cutting spending and paying off our debts. Quite the opposite. It's time common sense goes back to Washington.

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Maybe we think cutting spending is the solution because the problem is the deficit, aka. the government spending more money than it takes in, and the debt, aka. the government ROUTINELY spending more money than it takes in.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the government should just wildly and thoughtlessly start chopping at budgets without any thought to "where" and "what". Nevertheless, I don't think anyone CAN suggest that our federal government is not wasting big bucks on pointless and inappropriate items.

Why should the government "invest" in small businesses? That would just make them become BIG businesses, and then you'd just hate them and want to destroy them. Better to just leave them as they are.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's great how.... SPENDING IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ALL EVIL!!!!! Holy shit. If I lost an IQ point for every time I read one of these posts from people like you, maybe, just maybe, I'd reach your IQ level.

Losing IQ points doesn't make you smarter.

Wasting the people's money and over burdening the people is a great evil in our society. This corruption needs to end if we are to have a better chance at prosperity again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

You do realize, that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression by SPENDING more money than ever before, right? Particularly by setting up, SS, and unemployment, and by starting dozens of different governmental organizations that provide hundreds of different services, millions of jobs, and made the country better?

No, we DON'T realize it, because it isn't true. FDR, in fact, prolonged the Great Depression with his government spending programs. Nations do not tax and spend themselves into prosperity. Not now, not ever.

 

[Avatar4321]

If they cave to this deal, then they should be blamed for whatever happens. And get credit for anything as well.

However, we can pretty much guarentee there will be nothing to take credit for. The deal is raise the debt ceiling for empty promises. Which might be a win for Obama if he hadn't previously said that even discussing a raise in the debt ceiling was a failure of leadership. Ironically, his success demonstrates his failure by his own standards.

However, the country will not get worse by cutting spending and paying off our debts. Quite the opposite. It's time common sense goes back to Washington.

I don't see why you guys keep thinking that cutting spending is the only solution, is it because you guys have really taken a course in economics or is it because thats what the rightwing propaganda machine has programmed you to believe? Its not about how much money you spend as opposed to how and where you spend that money, I say the government should invest more money in small businesses instead of these uber rich big business and do away with tax cuts for the uber rich, let their "creativity" not the government make them more money.

Maybe we think cutting spending is the solution because the problem is the deficit, aka. the government spending more money than it takes in, and the debt, aka. the government ROUTINELY spending more money than it takes in.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the government should just wildly and thoughtlessly start chopping at budgets without any thought to "where" and "what". Nevertheless, I don't think anyone CAN suggest that our federal government is not wasting big bucks on pointless and inappropriate items.

Why should the government "invest" in small businesses? That would just make them become BIG businesses, and then you'd just hate them and want to destroy them. Better to just leave them as they are.

It's another one of his conveniently undefined words. I started a thread once asking when small businesses became evil big businesses. Not surprisingly no one could give me an answer. Any more than they will answer why corporations are evil when other types of businesses: Partnerships, sole proprietorships, LLCS, etc are perfectly alright. It's why they don't define "fair share".

Because they don't actually want to accomplish any of these goals. They need excuses, issues, enemies, etc., to rant against. Otherwise no one would give their ideas the time of day.

Perhaps I should start a new thread on these undefined words.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How do you know? In the habit of being ditched by friends with an unpaid tab?

Why don't we ask Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush why is it that Republicans are so reluctant to accept any more "Just agree to raise taxes, and THEN we'll cut spending. No, really, we promise!" deals from Democrats?

It's great how.... SPENDING IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ALL EVIL!!!!! Holy shit. If I lost an IQ point for every time I read one of these posts from people like you, maybe, just maybe, I'd reach your IQ level.

It's great how you "responded" with something that bore no relation to the post you were supposedly responding to.

I'm willing to believe you've lost a lot of IQ points, but my money is on either drugs or some sort of head injury.

 

[Shiiro601229]

Because it's the only solution to the overspending.

And if we want to see unprecedented economic growth we would cut spending and taxes.

It's called history. You go with what works. And you eliminate what doesn't.

Government shouldnt be investing our money. we should.

You do realize, that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression by SPENDING more money than ever before, right? Particularly by setting up, SS, and unemployment, and by starting dozens of different governmental organizations that provide hundreds of different services, millions of jobs, and made the country better?

No. FDR prolonged the Great Depression by spending money. Much like Herbert Hoover did. Had they simply done what Harding/Coolidge did to get us out of the 1920 Depression, which was a sharper depression that ended much faster, it wouldn't have lasted 12 years.

What Harding/Coolidge did was cut spending and cut taxes and then got out of the way. And because they did, they had unprecedented economic growth. One of the few periods where unemployment actually made it down to 2%.

I'm not so sure about that. Economists generally state that the root of depressions lie in the actions of previous presidents, and unprecedented economic growth is like a .400 BABIP. It's unsustainable and always regresses. And seeing at the growth in the 20's was so incredible, it's only fitting that it regressed, and that the regression matched the growth in how incredible it was. Harding and Coolidge enabled the growth to occur, but it was unsustainable. FDR initiated an era sustained growth that lasted until the 1960's.

 

[Oldstyle]

"The key for Obama was getting this past the election. I expect him to run hard on the Tea Party and the need for a balanced solution. His bigger problem is will the dems believe him and can he survive a primary challenge."

What exactly do you think Obama will do, if and when he "wins" another term? Do any of the progressives here honestly believe that he has any answers to our problems at this point? I'm sorry but his Administration has been one long series of clueless blunders by someone that was woefully unprepared for the job as President. Winning yet another term will simply provide four more years to erase any and all doubt of that.

 

[Avatar4321]

"The key for Obama was getting this past the election. I expect him to run hard on the Tea Party and the need for a balanced solution. His bigger problem is will the dems believe him and can he survive a primary challenge."

What exactly do you think Obama will do, if and when he "wins" another term? Do any of the progressives here honestly believe that he has any answers to our problems at this point? I'm sorry but his Administration has been one long series of clueless blunders by someone that was woefully unprepared for the job as President. Winning yet another term will simply provide four more years to erase any and all doubt of that.

The problem with your question is in the presumption. You are presuming that they want answers to our problems. Which, of course, is a natural presumption. We don't like to think that people are not good intentioned. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not good intentioned.

They don't care about fixing problems. They care that the President has a D next to his name because for some reason they think they benefit when everyone is screwed.