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

[Shiiro601229]

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.

Nope, nope. Guess I was just venting my frustrations with Avatar4321 on you. My IQ gains points from reading responses from people who actually think rationally though, and it balances out eventually. I kind of abuse myself reading some of this crap though.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

The great depression was an era of sustained growth? The root of depressions lies in monetary policy. How long they last can be changed by politicians. The depression of 1921 ended so swiftly people have forgotton it, thus its nick name "the forgotten depression." The cure? Government but out. Inflationary monetary policy misdirected the expansion of the 1920s so that it was unsustainable. Fear the boom brought on by central banks.

 

[Shiiro601229]

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.

The great depression was an era of sustained growth? The root of depressions lies in monetary policy. How long they last can be changed by politicians. The depression of 1921 ended so swiftly people have forgotton it, thus its nick name "the forgotten depression." The cure? Government but out. Inflationary monetary policy misdirected the expansion of the 1920s so that it was unsustainable. Fear the boom brought on by central banks.

Oh gawd. I'm talking about after the Depression. FDR was given the Depression to work with, and turned it into an era of sustained growth. Happy? I elaborated. I didn't realize some idiot would come along needing me too...

 

[Flaylo]

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 isn't just about spending, what is so hard that your one track Repug mind still can't get it? We need to bring in more money and simply change our foreign policy, the only ones who don't have a facking revenue problem is the uber rich, our course they want to frame things as only a spending problem, the less the government spends the more money can be spent on them with tax cuts and tax breaks. Its about whats best for business for them.

 

[ShackledNation]

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.

The great depression was an era of sustained growth? The root of depressions lies in monetary policy. How long they last can be changed by politicians. The depression of 1921 ended so swiftly people have forgotton it, thus its nick name "the forgotten depression." The cure? Government but out. Inflationary monetary policy misdirected the expansion of the 1920s so that it was unsustainable. Fear the boom brought on by central banks.

Oh gawd. I'm talking about after the Depression. FDR was given the Depression to work with, and turned it into an era of sustained growth. Happy? I elaborated. I didn't realize some idiot would come along needing me too...

It should have been clear to you I was implying that FDR did not cause growth but prolonged a recession. If FDR caused growth, the lag time would have to be a decade. Considering many of his policies went into effect immediately, that makes little sense. During WWII, the entire economy went into military production mode. It was a total war economy. Whatever economy FDR had set up didn't even exist during the war. Factories shifted to tank production. Men went off to war. How FDRs policies resulted in a good economy years after the war is something you need to explain, specifically what policies. Was it his destruction of crops so farmers could enjoy higher food prices during a time when people were starving to death? Could it be his threats to business owners? Hoovers tariff (which preceded FDR, so it too must have caused growth if your reasoning is consistent). These policies went into effect immediately and results were seen in months time, not 30 years later in 1960.

I am not going to sink to your level of name calling. You completely ignored most of my post, neglecting to respond to monetary policy and the depression of 1921. In that case, government let the recession work itself out, and it ended within a year. The opposite happened during the Great Depression, and it spanned nearly 2 decades. Let me know when you will do something other than name call. As of yet you have empty claims backed by calling me an idiot. Bravo.

 

[ShackledNation]

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 isn't just about spending, what is so hard that your one track Repug mind still can't get it? We need to bring in more money and simply change our foreign policy, the only ones who don't have a facking revenue problem is the uber rich, our course they want to frame things as only a spending problem, the less the government spends the more money can be spent on them with tax cuts and tax breaks. Its about whats best for business for them.

Yes, we need to change our foreign policy. But we do not need more government revenue. If you taxed the rich at 100% we wouldn't have enough to cover unfunded liabilities. Our government taxes us higher than the British Empire ever did. I don't know why you want to make this between the rich and the poor. Higher taxes hurt everyone. This isn't about tax cuts for the rich, it is tax cuts for everyone. Higher taxes simply drain savings and wealth from an economy. It doesn't matter if the poor lose the money or the rich lose it. All government can do is redistribute the money around and give it to political allies to gain votes. Government can only steal and redistribute wealth, not create it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Debt Ceiling Deal May Be In Serious Trouble In The House | Capital Gains and Games

Wow. They get 23 beers out of the case and decide to scream until they get the 24th - or the case disappears.

Unreal.

Not a prob.

With everything Republicans DID get....they DIDN'T get to kill the 2012 expiration o' the BUSH TAX-CUTS!!!!

Let 'em celebrate.

We're good. Sometimes ya' got settle for 3 Aces.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The reason this thing should not have gone this far is that the Chinese are watching, Putin is watching, the Iranians are watching, Dear Leader Kim is watching this farce. The guy responsible for our national security was made to fold like a cheap umbrella despite having all the cards.

This is very bad news

Gee....how profound.....like a Snooki Palin speech.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

what a bunch of ******* pussies.
How can Obama be a tyrant when he ******* caves to these morons everytime?

despite the medias best efforts to spin it, he has his own internal polling, he wants to be re-elected and hes never had a real conviction hes willing to go to the wall for in his whole life, hes a 'mediator' not a leader.

....And, (now) owns the rights to the Bush Tax-Cuts.


​

 

[Flaylo]

what a bunch of ******* pussies.
How can Obama be a tyrant when he ******* caves to these morons everytime?

despite the medias best efforts to spin it, he has his own internal polling, he wants to be re-elected and hes never had a real conviction hes willing to go to the wall for in his whole life, hes a 'mediator' not a leader.

....And, (now) owns the rights to the Bush Tax-Cuts.


​

Which means all the Democrats have to do is just not agree to extend them, no wonder the Democrats took tax increases off the table, smart move. The Repugs have nothing to get mad about because Obama has already compromised now its their turn.

 

[editec]

According to a Power Point presentation presented by Boehner to the caucus, if the committee's recommendations are not approved by the end of the year, a "trigger" in the proposal would automatically enact across-the-board cuts -- with roughly half of the cuts coming from defense and half from Medicare.

The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it subject to a presidential veto.

While the trigger is supposed to hurt as incentive to get Congress to act, other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits.


Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com​

I get the impression, based on the above, that they didn't really solve this issue.

They merely kicked the can down the road.

Truly it seems a cowardly compromise that merely puts this question back on the table.

IF congress doesn't find cuts, THEN $1.2 Trillion is automatically cut from Medicade and DoD, UNLESS Congress votes against these cuts, UNLESS the POTUS then VETOS their vote against the cuts?

This is a WIN for America?!






​

 

[WillowTree]

According to a Power Point presentation presented by Boehner to the caucus, if the committee's recommendations are not approved by the end of the year, a "trigger" in the proposal would automatically enact across-the-board cuts -- with roughly half of the cuts coming from defense and half from Medicare.

The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it subject to a presidential veto.

While the trigger is supposed to hurt as incentive to get Congress to act, other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits.


Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com​

I get the impression, based on the above, that they didn't really solve this issue.

They merely kicked the can down the road.

Truly it seems a cowardly compromise that merely puts this question back on the table.

IF congress doesn't find cuts, THEN $1.2 Trillion is automatically cut from Medicade and DoD, UNLESS Congress votes against these cuts, UNLESS the POTUS then VETOS their vote against the cuts?

This is a WIN for America?!






​

No it is not a win for America. The dimocrats have taken future generations and held them hostage. We still have a huge debt crisis.

 

[Flaylo]

No it is not a win for America. The dimocrats have taken future generations and held them hostage. We still have a huge debt crisis.

Shut the fack up WillowTeabastard, the last thing this country needs is more partisan hack talk and finger pointing.

 

[skookerasbil]

No it is not a win for America. The dimocrats have taken future generations and held them hostage. We still have a huge debt crisis.

Shut the fack up WillowTeabastard, the last thing this country needs is more partisan hack talk and finger pointing.

Yo Flayo...........it bites to be getting your clock cleaned huh?? Yup.......I know the feeling. Back in late 2008, things sucked dog balls. But I kinda figured leaving the JV in charge for a couple of years would put guys like me right back on top of the mountian!! And Im laughing.........every k00k on this board see's, not only the escalator going down, but its now speeding up by the day!!! ANd thank God for the tea party who were the game changers in 2010.

Buckle up your chinstrap s0n..........its gonna be a long, long time before your side gets the healm again. A minimum of 6 years but the way, and likely alot longer thanks to an epic rise in GOP governorships that are redistricting the shit out of the states as we speak!! Go google it..........they say misery loves company!!!

Meanwhile, I get to sit back in my comfy chair in front of my PC for the next 16 months and watch the daily angst that illustrates multiple mental meltdowns here on this board. Watching the left get their clocks cleaned over the past 24 months has been one of the most quietly satisfying events in my life!!


Because as the driver of the #48 Chevy likes to say, "Winning is the best feeling in the world!!!"


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNKfFKVzPBU]‪Sunoco "Victory Wave w/Jimmie Johnson" Big Science Music‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Neotrotsky]

According to a Power Point presentation presented by Boehner to the caucus, if the committee's recommendations are not approved by the end of the year, a "trigger" in the proposal would automatically enact across-the-board cuts -- with roughly half of the cuts coming from defense and half from Medicare.

The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it subject to a presidential veto.

While the trigger is supposed to hurt as incentive to get Congress to act, other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits.


Read more: Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com​

I get the impression, based on the above, that they didn't really solve this issue.

They merely kicked the can down the road.

Truly it seems a cowardly compromise that merely puts this question back on the table.

IF congress doesn't find cuts, THEN $1.2 Trillion is automatically cut from Medicade and DoD, UNLESS Congress votes against these cuts, UNLESS the POTUS then VETOS their vote against the cuts?

This is a WIN for America?!






​

No it is not a win for America. The dimocrats have taken future generations and held them hostage. We still have a huge debt crisis.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]‪Child's Pay 2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

No it is not a win for America. The dimocrats have taken future generations and held them hostage. We still have a huge debt crisis.

Shut the fack up WillowTeabastard, the last thing this country needs is more partisan hack talk and finger pointing.

No, I will not shut the **** up you miserable commie bastard.

 

[WillowTree]

The debt ceiling is going to go from 14.5 trillion to over 17 trillion yes,, the retardeddimocrats have taken the future generations hostage..

 

[freedombecki]

The debt ceiling is going to go from 14.5 trillion to over 17 trillion yes,, the <cursory word omitted> have taken the future generations hostage..

That's so sad, WillowTree. They don't think they'll ever have to pay all that money back, because they don't know how much it is they're putting on their grandkids. If they could wrap their minds around a million dollars as being a debt that would be hard to repay, they might realize a trillion is a million millions, because a billion is a thousand million in dollars.

Even so, I am repping you for pointing out the misery they're heaping on the country with this "win" of theirs, and I'm sorry they used Hillary's saved FBI files to do it with, because rational people would not do that to other human beings so they could be Queens for a Day.

 

[freedombecki]

Oops, the forum counting nanny says I have to spread some rep around first, Ms. WillowTree. *sigh*

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Absolutely untrue. Roll out the facts, CeCelie1200, or shut up, witch.