CheapyD on U.S.' debt ceiling

[quote name='dmaul1114']Politics drives me nuts.

All this time wasted to pass a crappy bill in the House that they know will never pass the senate.

All so the republicans can try to pass the "refuse to compromise" tag on democrats--despite this bill containing no concessions to democrat interests at all whatsoever. :bomb:[/QUOTE]

I really hope people aren't really ignorant enough to believe it when that "refuse to compromise" line gets thrown around. Really though, this is a damn serious problem facing our country and they're fucking around passing this bill the Senate has already stated they wouldn't agree to. Its fucking sad really when you take into account the problems not raising the limit could cause and the degree to which politicking is still going on.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Both sides are acting like children, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

Please, enlighten us on how Democrats are?
 
An example of the childish, unreasonable GOP from just tonight: Vote on Boehner's plan OK, allowed to go through in Senate, vote on Reid plan...filibustered.

Now your turn Broly...
 
[quote name='lawdood']Please, enlighten us on how Democrats are?[/QUOTE]

Really, the republicans are kind of being the more dickish party in this whole debacle. The whole initial democrat compromise only to have the republicans say "just kidding, we want more" really gives them the top spot as the asshole party. Now they're passing a bill in the house giving themselves everything they want just so they can say "well we tried" when it doesn't pass the senate. They've up and walked out of the White House in the middle of talks, so on and so forth. Republicans, cut the shit and remove the short sighted tea party out of your ass.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Really, the republicans are kind of being the more dickish party in this whole debacle. The whole initial democrat compromise only to have the republicans say "just kidding, we want more" really gives them the top spot as the asshole party. Now they're passing a bill in the house giving themselves everything they want just so they can say "well we tried" when it doesn't pass the senate. They've up and walked out of the White House in the middle of talks, so on and so forth. Republicans, cut the shit and remove the short sighted tea party out of your ass.[/QUOTE]

Also, tonight, McConnell has not only filibustered Reid's plan, but also said he will not negotiate with him.

Again, I'll wait for Broly's examples from the other side.
 
[quote name='lawdood']An example of the childish, unreasonable GOP from just tonight: Vote on Boehner's plan OK, allowed to go through in Senate, vote on Reid plan...filibustered.

Now your turn Broly...[/QUOTE]

Obama's plan: "I have one, but I won't tell you."
What kind of Kindergarten crap is that? That's not a plan.

This much I vow:
Obama will not veto anything that reaches his desk on this matter, whether it's a Republican, Democrat, or Independent plan.

Why? Because if he did it's his fault, and from what I can tell he can't handle the pressure of failure. That's really why they voted the bill down in the Senate, to deflect matters from Obama, so he doesn't take a fall. You can say Republicans shifted votes at the last moment, but that is simply procedural, which has happened for both sides of the aisle on multiple occassions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I don't buy your shit because you have a very focused way of getting your information, and you clearly don't want to listen to what I say. You buy whatever the media tells you.

If we default, it's going to get very political, period. Why? Because the debt that is paid won't be to social security or military pay. How's that important? Because the people who won't get paid are people who will, by and large, vote for Republicans in 2012.

And you'll still vote for Obama because he has you in his pocket. And you know why you won't vote against him? Because he knows you're too stupid to vote for anyone else, even if he does piss you off. The D is all that matters to you.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/29/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.
Click to expand...

According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

There's times I can find merit in both parties' viewpoints but right now the republicans are just flat out wrong. They can play this game of chicken all they want but if they don't get serious about raising the debt limit they can kiss the White House goodbye for many years to come. There's no way this economy can take the hit of a default of the federal government.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']And I don't buy your shit because you have a very focused way of getting your information, and you clearly don't want to listen to what I say. You buy whatever the media tells you.

If we default, it's going to get very political, period. Why? Because the debt that is paid won't be to social security or military pay. How's that important? Because the people who won't get paid are people who will, by and large, vote for Republicans in 2012.

And you'll still vote for Obama because he has you in his pocket. And you know why you won't vote against him? Because he knows you're too stupid to vote for anyone else, even if he does piss you off. The D is all that matters to you.[/QUOTE]
And of the current roster of people intending to run, who would you vote for? It's a damn good thing we've got you and the republicans to save us from doom.:lol: Don't try to pull that libertarian BS either.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Obama's plan: "I have one, but I won't tell you."
What kind of Kindergarten crap is that? That's not a plan.

This much I vow:
Obama will not veto anything that reaches his desk on this matter, whether it's a Republican, Democrat, or Independent plan.

Why? Because if he did it's his fault, and from what I can tell he can't handle the pressure of failure. That's really why they voted the bill down in the Senate, to deflect matters from Obama, so he doesn't take a fall. You can say Republicans shifted votes at the last moment, but that is simply procedural, which has happened for both sides of the aisle on multiple occassions.[/QUOTE]

Um, Obama had a compromise plan going with Boehner that had $4.7 TRILLION in deficit reduction in it and Boehner walked away because it had revenue increases. Seriously, quit with repeating the false talking points that Obama doesn't have a plan, he did and Boehner walked away...besides it's CONGRESS that passes debt ceiling increases, not the President.

How many times were Reagan or the Bushes asked for "plans" in regards for raising the debt ceiling to pay for appropriations Congress already made? Please, let me know.
 
I haven't made much comments, btu I've thought we've been in serious trouble since McConell blew up negotiations after Cantor and Boehnor walked out. But the news from the senate is bad tonight. Understanding how congress works, I don't think the deal will be done. I think the best they can do is a straight short term extension. 4-6 weeks.

The frank matter is, there is no time left. The Reid bill is it. It's the only hope of getting a deal in place in time. And McConnell just announced he's going to fight it for political purposes. it looks like he's trying to out maneuver Reids procedural plan. have the Reid plan sent to the house tomorrow, and then have Republicans vote it down. So come Sunday, the House has voted against the Reid Plan. The Senate has voted against the Boehner Plan. They're bth the same fucking plans except for the balance budget extension (Rep Side) and the two year extension (Dem side)

The fact is, there does not appear to be a political way forward yet. The Republican House will not accept a plan from the democrats ANY Plan. The plan has to originate from the house. But as you've seen, Boehnor doesn't have the votes to pass any plan the Dems will accept. If the plan comes from the pres or senate, the Republican freshmen see that politically as a Democratic victory. They'd frankly rather default than do that. The Dems have bent over backwards to try to accomodate Republicans, but they feel like they're being jerked around and that if there is a default, it's to their political advantage.

Knowing how congress works, my head is saying they'll come up with something by Monday. But every instinct I have is saying that whatever it is, it'll go down like TARP, and then we're boned.
 
[quote name='Clak']And of the current roster of people intending to run, who would you vote for? It's a damn good thing we've got you and the republicans to save us from doom.:lol: Don't try to pull that libertarian BS either.[/QUOTE]

The funny thing is the "media" has people pushing the "both sides are to blame" BS and KB is among the few dumb enough to fall for it.

We all know that KB is going to vote for whoever the pscyho death cult decides to put forward.

If he wanted a solution he could ask the Republicans to release the hostages and just get on board with a clean vote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They've got this thing (the debt ceiling), and it's fukcing golden, and uh uh, they're just not giving it up for fucking nothing.
 
[quote name='Clak']And of the current roster of people intending to run, who would you vote for? It's a damn good thing we've got you and the republicans to save us from doom.:lol: Don't try to pull that libertarian BS either.[/QUOTE]

And again, republicans are getting more blame for this than democrats in every poll I've seen on the topic. They're only hurting themselves.

And if it does end up dragging on and causing missed social security checks, the republicans are going to lose a lot of the senior citizen vote in 2012.

They're already on thin ice their with the Ryan budget and the cuts to medicaid proposed etc. Democrats are really going to be able to hammer them on trying to cut seniors benefits.

I don't see republicans being able to spin this debt ceiling debate to their favor. They're the ones showing no willingness to compromise by refusing any tax increases--when polls show that strong majorities support tax increases on the wealthy (those making over $250k in the articles I saw on the polls).

Of course, democrats are incompetent to, so they'll probably screw up spinning this to their favor somehow....
 
This whole debacle pretty much seals the deal on Obama's legacy; he is the worst president in recent memory and certainly in most of our lifetimes. His presidency will be remembered as the tipping point in America's terminal decline into a second rank state. To be fair, the Republicans have also proven to be equally inept. It is a very sad state of affairs.
 
Yeah, the Republicans showing their true colors as nihilistic, whacky hostage takers certainly reflects poorly on Obama.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yeah, the Republicans showing their true colors as nihilistic, whacky hostage takers certainly reflects poorly on Obama.[/QUOTE]


Exactly. Obama puts entitlement programs on the table in exchange for tax increases and he is the bad guy. 4 trillion dollars in deficit reduction is a substantial amount more than any Republican was willing to go for.

If Obama is one of the worst in recent memory where does Bush rank? A big reason we are in this mess is because he ran the country into the ground and then left the mess for someone else to clean up. Tax cuts, wars on credit, massive entitlement giveaways to prescription drug companies, deregulation, etc. Reaganomics didn't work and Reaganomics on steroids didn't work. Still waiting on that trickle down.

It is amazing how much better our country would have been if Al Gore was president instead of Bush.
 
Hasnt Obama with his party made about 30 different efforts come up with a plan, meanwhile the Republicans have basically folded their arms and sat in a corner? How does that make Obama the worst president in recent history? Another ridiculously statement just for the sake of feeling good that you are ripping on the other guy. It was the same thing said about Bush from Dems when he was in term.

This is why I cant get into politics without flying into a rage almost instantly. I am so sick of the war between the two parties at the expense of the American people. This presidency has proved without a shadow of a doubt that most politician Republicans or Democrat could give a fuck less about the American people all they care about is being right in their own mind.

The worst part about it is that the American people are so stupid that they have foolishly allowed themselves to join in on this ridiculously war. Instead of the American people being watchdogs of our government we have become pawns and ammo for these people to fight. They are dangling a financial crisis in front of us just waiting to to dance a jig when what they predicted comes true while we all are stuck with the real consequences.


"A nation of people who would water their grass while their neighbors house was on fire."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Exactly. Obama puts entitlement programs on the table in exchange for tax increases and he is the bad guy. 4 trillion dollars in deficit reduction is a substantial amount more than any Republican was willing to go for.

If Obama is one of the worst in recent memory where does Bush rank? A big reason we are in this mess is because he ran the country into the ground and then left the mess for someone else to clean up. Tax cuts, wars on credit, massive entitlement giveaways to prescription drug companies, deregulation, etc. Reaganomics didn't work and Reaganomics on steroids didn't work. Still waiting on that trickle down.

It is amazing how much better our country would have been if Al Gore was president instead of Bush.[/QUOTE]

So what did the Democrats do the 1.5 years they had 60 seats in the Senate? Did they lower the budget? It increased. Did they lower the debt ceiling? Raised. Did their Stimulus work? No. It's not so much how much is cut, but where those cuts are supposedly being made. That's the crux of the issue and why this circus is happening.

I'd still rank Bush above Carter because A - He got a second term unlike Carter, B - he was a War Time President, and C - Until the AIG/Fanny Mae crap happened the economy was doing okay, with unemployment around 4-6% for most of his term. Do I think Obama's worse than Bush? At this point, yes, but it's close. If Obama wanted to save the economy he could've done so already, but because he screwed things up as well, he lost his supposed mandate. And if you really want me to be revisionist, I'd go back to where the real problems started, it's simple: The Kennedy Assassination. With him, we got Johnson and Vietnam, which led to Nixon and everything else. So I'd like you to stop trying to imagine fantasy and come back to reality.

Have the Republicans done anything better? No. Boehner loves to cry and his next budget isn't serious when it comes to spending cuts. A billion dollars in cut is his supposed budget plan for the upcoming year. That's a joke.

Here's what this country needs: A Constitutional Convention with the goal to put term limits on Representatives and Senators, as well as a balanced budget amendment.

EDIT:
I only hope the Republicans aren't dumb enough to try impeachment if Obama goes for the 14th Amendment because it'd be absolutely pointless because there's no way they'd get the votes in the Senate for something like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']So what did the Democrats do the 1.5 years they had 60 seats in the Senate? Did they lower the budget? It increased. Did they lower the debt ceiling? Raised. Did their Stimulus work? No. It's not so much how much is cut, but where those cuts are supposedly being made. That's the crux of the issue and why this circus is happening.[/QUOTE]

I think you should probably take a basic economics class if that is your reasoning. When the economy is going into a tailspin the government is supposed to inject funds to pick up the slack and counteract the lack of consumer spending. The man inherited an economic meltdown on a level not seen since the great depression and to think that he is going to reduce spending, increase employment, and fix a government because he had control of both branches of congress is ridiculous. Also the stimulus didn't fail, but it did direct funds in such a way that most people probably didn't even know that they received any relief. Instead of focusing on tax cuts like a Republican he should have pulled an FDR and put more people to work. That said, the stimulus put enough people to work that our GDP went from shrinking to growing after it passage.

Plus it isn't like he could just cut and run from the wars that are dragging down the budget. Two failed states in the region that control a valuable commodity we all need would cripple our economy further and ruin our reputation around the world. The wars in Afganistan and Iraq continue to be an albatross around the neck of America, and only until they are removed can the deficit really be tackled.


Your assertion that he should have gotten things done by having 60 members in the Senate shows that you weren't paying attention. Kennedy died a month after Franken was finally sworn in. He had 60 seats in the Senate for less than six total, and a whole hell of a lot of that time is when Congress is in recess.


And if your reasoning is that Bush was a better president than Carter is really really dumb. Like it hurts my brain how dumb it is. Sorry, but that is one of the worst arguments I have ever read.
 
This just in, Republicans have agreed to raise the debt ceiling! In return the only thing that Democrats had to give up was allowing Obama to be called Boy. McConnel said the deal should go through later today if "that boy knows whats good for him".
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I think you should probably take a basic economics class if that is your reasoning. When the economy is going into a tailspin the government is supposed to inject funds to pick up the slack and counteract the lack of consumer spending. The man inherited an economic meltdown on a level not seen since the great depression and to think that he is going to reduce spending, increase employment, and fix a government because he had control of both branches of congress is ridiculous. Also the stimulus didn't fail, but it did direct funds in such a way that most people probably didn't even know that they received any relief. Instead of focusing on tax cuts like a Republican he should have pulled an FDR and put more people to work. That said, the stimulus put enough people to work that our GDP went from shrinking to growing after it passage.

Plus it isn't like he could just cut and run from the wars that are dragging down the budget. Two failed states in the region that control a valuable commodity we all need would cripple our economy further and ruin our reputation around the world. The wars in Afganistan and Iraq continue to be an albatross around the neck of America, and only until they are removed can the deficit really be tackled.


Your assertion that he should have gotten things done by having 60 members in the Senate shows that you weren't paying attention. Kennedy died a month after Franken was finally sworn in. He had 60 seats in the Senate for less than six total, and a whole hell of a lot of that time is when Congress is in recess.


And if your reasoning is that Bush was a better president than Carter is really really dumb. Like it hurts my brain how dumb it is. Sorry, but that is one of the worst arguments I have ever read.[/QUOTE]

Pshhhh Broly isnt an "elitest" so he would never lower himself so far as to "take an economics class". Thats for elitist arugula eaters!
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']And if your reasoning is that Bush was a better president than Carter is really really dumb. Like it hurts my brain how dumb it is. Sorry, but that is one of the worst arguments I have ever read.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, those first two 'reasons' are some of the worst 'reasons' to rank one president over another.
 
Okay, I'll expand on what I said because you apparently don't get it. Carter wasn't elected to a second term because his economic policies sucked in a non-wartime period. It's the Economy Stupid, and if the economy is bad, you're job is in trouble. I suggest you look up the term "misery index" which is synonymous with his Presidency. His term began with "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" in a debate, and ended with such when Reagan used the same line against him 4 years later. Poetic Justice as they say. Bush's economic policy was to implement tax cuts to stimulate the economy. He got one before 9/11, and one after 9/11. Up until the last year or two, the unemployment rate was hovering around 4-6%, which were at the time, historic lows. Also, he pushed, and Republicans are still pushing this as well, for these tax cuts (for everyone) to be permanent. Why? Because tax cuts aren't permanent. If they expire, that's a tax increase on everyone, plain and simple. If they are made permanent you can still raise taxes to back where they were, but it would be a lot harder to immediately push through another tax hike, which I what I think the Democrats are going to try and do after the Bush tax cuts expire, and that is something I'm opposed to.

Not to mention when Carter gets up and says you asked your children what the biggest threat to the country was (During a Presidential debate no less) you come across as someone who second guesses their decisions, AKA not a leader. Bush, as bad as he was, didn't come across as someone who second guessed his decisions. Now, I think Bush left us in a bad spot at the end. I'm not disputing that, which you think I am, because you don't want to listen to what I have to say.

However, Carter and Obama, to me, fundamentally, aren't leaders. Never were, never will be. Saying you're President doesn't mean you're automatically a leader. If he were a leader, he'd be out in front of this debate from the start instead of caving to Republicans which he's apparently doing.

EDIT:
And yes, I have taken economics before, but you must realize that it doesn't matter how much money was spent. It matters where the money goes. Like here, it matters WHERE the money is cut, not how much is cut. That is the battle line. But no one, on either side wants to take money from their White Elephants.
 
Did you take anything after intro to micro-economics? Did you pass any?

You cannot even accurately described why the economy went downhill.


Also, this is the 4th time or so you used variation of "because you don't want to listen to what I have to say.". We listen to what you say (regrettably) what you say happens to be completely at odds with reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']If he were a leader, he'd be out in front of this debate from the start instead of caving to Republicans which he's apparently doing.
[/QUOTE]

You're assuming that Obama doesn't want deficit reduction. He clearly does:
But the leaders, meanwhile, were acting like leaders. Only a President, elected to serve all the people, can do certain things — including reach out and lift up a friend or rival into the heady temple of Executive power. "I'm the President of the United States," Obama told Boehner. "You're the Speaker of the House. We're the two most responsible leaders right now." And so they began to talk about the truly epic possibility of using the threat, the genuine danger of default, to freeze out their respective extremists and make the kind of historic deal that no one really thought possible anymore — bigger than when Reagan and Tip O'Neill overhauled the tax code in 1986 or when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich passed welfare reform a decade later. It would include deeper cuts in spending, the elimination of all kinds of tax loopholes and lower income tax rates for all. "Come on, you and I," Boehner admitted telling Obama. "Let's lock arms, and we'll jump out of the boat together."
Click to expand...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2082971-1,00.html
 
[quote name='KingBroly']

However, Carter and Obama, to me, fundamentally, aren't leaders. Never were, never will be. Saying you're President doesn't mean you're automatically a leader. If he were a leader, he'd be out in front of this debate from the start instead of caving to Republicans which he's apparently doing.
[/QUOTE]

That's terrible reasoning. They were bad leaders because they were willing to negotiate? Leaders that aren't willing to negotiate are called dictators.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Okay, I'll expand on what I said because you apparently don't get it. Carter wasn't elected to a second term because his economic policies sucked in a non-wartime period. It's the Economy Stupid, and if the economy is bad, you're job is in trouble. I suggest you look up the term "misery index" which is synonymous with his Presidency. His term began with "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" in a debate, and ended with such when Reagan used the same line against him 4 years later. Poetic Justice as they say. Bush's economic policy was to implement tax cuts to stimulate the economy. He got one before 9/11, and one after 9/11. Up until the last year or two, the unemployment rate was hovering around 4-6%, which were at the time, historic lows. Also, he pushed, and Republicans are still pushing this as well, for these tax cuts (for everyone) to be permanent. Why? Because tax cuts aren't permanent. If they expire, that's a tax increase on everyone, plain and simple. If they are made permanent you can still raise taxes to back where they were, but it would be a lot harder to immediately push through another tax hike, which I what I think the Democrats are going to try and do after the Bush tax cuts expire, and that is something I'm opposed to.

Not to mention when Carter gets up and says you asked your children what the biggest threat to the country was (During a Presidential debate no less) you come across as someone who second guesses their decisions, AKA not a leader. Bush, as bad as he was, didn't come across as someone who second guessed his decisions. Now, I think Bush left us in a bad spot at the end. I'm not disputing that, which you think I am, because you don't want to listen to what I have to say.

However, Carter and Obama, to me, fundamentally, aren't leaders. Never were, never will be. Saying you're President doesn't mean you're automatically a leader. If he were a leader, he'd be out in front of this debate from the start instead of caving to Republicans which he's apparently doing.

EDIT:
And yes, I have taken economics before, but you must realize that it doesn't matter how much money was spent. It matters where the money goes. Like here, it matters WHERE the money is cut, not how much is cut. That is the battle line. But no one, on either side wants to take money from their White Elephants.[/QUOTE]

Carter inherited a shit economy that he couldn't fix. It isn't poetic justice, it was an accumulation of mitigating factors that couldn't tame stagflation. Decline in industrialization, the overthrow of the shah and its impact, and Russian in Afghanistan all negatively impacted his run as President. He could have done a better job, but he inherited shit and it kept piling up. He also didn't have anything to do with Bretton Woods which is a significant reason why the dollar dealt with such a high inflationary rate.

You whole argument about Bush is wrong, wrong, and more wrong. He didn't cut taxes to stimulate the economy, he cut taxes "because the government is taking in too much money," and instead of using that surplus to pay down the governments debts he decided to give a massive tax break to the wealthy. This tax break was also sold as being something that would expire. It can't be a tax increase if it was directly sold as having an end date. People were given a reduction in their taxes because the government projected surpluses for an extended period of time. Clearly this changed and the tax break should have changed along with it. The unemployment argument is bullshit as well. Prosperity went down during his administration. If you were making 75K and then get a full time job flipping burgers you are fully employed, but the decrease in your wages dropped dramatically.

As for your edit, I think you need to pay more attention to current events before you pass judgment (or pay more attention to the posts that you are directing your attention to). I clearly stated that he was willing to cut entitlement programs, which are the white elephants that you speak of. You know how big of a hit he is willing to take with his own base to try and ensure fiscal stability for the country. Dude has stuck his neck out big time and still no one has his back.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Pshhhh Broly isnt an "elitest" so he would never lower himself so far as to "take an economics class". Thats for elitist arugula eaters![/QUOTE]
Can you blame him? Arugula tastes like shit!:lol:
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Carter inherited a shit economy that he couldn't fix. It isn't poetic justice, it was an accumulation of mitigating factors that couldn't tame stagflation. Decline in industrialization, the overthrow of the shah and its impact, and Russian in Afghanistan all negatively impacted his run as President. He could have done a better job, but he inherited shit and it kept piling up. He also didn't have anything to do with Bretton Woods which is a significant reason why the dollar dealt with such a high inflationary rate.

You whole argument about Bush is wrong, wrong, and more wrong. He didn't cut taxes to stimulate the economy, he cut taxes "because the government is taking in too much money," and instead of using that surplus to pay down the governments debts he decided to give a massive tax break to the wealthy. This tax break was also sold as being something that would expire. It can't be a tax increase if it was directly sold as having an end date. People were given a reduction in their taxes because the government projected surpluses for an extended period of time. Clearly this changed and the tax break should have changed along with it. The unemployment argument is bullshit as well. Prosperity went down during his administration. If you were making 75K and then get a full time job flipping burgers you are fully employed, but the decrease in your wages dropped dramatically.

As for your edit, I think you need to pay more attention to current events before you pass judgment (or pay more attention to the posts that you are directing your attention to). I clearly stated that he was willing to cut entitlement programs, which are the white elephants that you speak of. You know how big of a hit he is willing to take with his own base to try and ensure fiscal stability for the country. Dude has stuck his neck out big time and still no one has his back.[/QUOTE]

The second tax cut was to stimulate the economy after 9/11. As for the first round yeah, I shouldn't have grouped them together even though they were close together, but saying that surplus money could have been put away into Social Security for safe-keeping is also mistaken since it's added to the General Fund like everything else (Supreme Court, 1937, Helvering v. Davis) and therefore can't be allocated separately.

As for my edit, I recognized it was an argument that I was getting in over my head about so I removed and I'm currently doing more research on. I think about what I post, not just with politics, and I like to edit things after I post them (a lot, in fact). Is that fair enough?

And I never said the conditions Carter got were blissful, so please stop trying to stick words in my mouth. I'm saying how he handled them: Poorly. The economy sucked under him, just like the economy under Obama sucks now, and he didn't win re-election because he failed to turn the economic tides. That is why I say the line "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" is poetic justice because he used it against Ford and won. Reagan used it and Carter lost.

As for Obama's base, that base is going to vote for him anyway, even if a sensible Republican was up against him. Why on Earth should he care about their vote? No one's going to Primary him. The Democrats are stuck with him and everyone knows it.


Now, as for the current debate:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...ike-tenative-deal-to-raise-debt-ceiling-.html
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Carter inherited a shit economy that he couldn't fix. It isn't poetic justice, it was an accumulation of mitigating factors that couldn't tame stagflation. Decline in industrialization, the overthrow of the shah and its impact, and Russian in Afghanistan all negatively impacted his run as President. He could have done a better job, but he inherited shit and it kept piling up. He also didn't have anything to do with Bretton Woods which is a significant reason why the dollar dealt with such a high inflationary rate.

You whole argument about Bush is wrong, wrong, and more wrong. He didn't cut taxes to stimulate the economy, he cut taxes "because the government is taking in too much money," and instead of using that surplus to pay down the governments debts he decided to give a massive tax break to the wealthy. This tax break was also sold as being something that would expire. It can't be a tax increase if it was directly sold as having an end date. People were given a reduction in their taxes because the government projected surpluses for an extended period of time. Clearly this changed and the tax break should have changed along with it. The unemployment argument is bullshit as well. Prosperity went down during his administration. If you were making 75K and then get a full time job flipping burgers you are fully employed, but the decrease in your wages dropped dramatically.

As for your edit, I think you need to pay more attention to current events before you pass judgment (or pay more attention to the posts that you are directing your attention to). I clearly stated that he was willing to cut entitlement programs, which are the white elephants that you speak of. You know how big of a hit he is willing to take with his own base to try and ensure fiscal stability for the country. Dude has stuck his neck out big time and still no one has his back.[/QUOTE]

Carter also was also probably the last President who didnt make the economy look better artificially. He asked Americans to save, sacrafice and just do the right thing in general. Yes it may have made the economy temporarily weaker, but over the longer term we would have been much better off. Reagan meanwhile came in, ripped apart the blooming green energy movement setting it back...o what we are at about 30 years now and then told Americans to spend spend spend.

I have always thought Carter was a horribly underrated president. He was crippled by circumstances as you said and his Presidency largely looks bad because he was the last person that actually made short term sacrifices for long term success. If Reagan had not came in and dismantled what carter started with his "leadership" then we would not be in the mess we are in today. That seems to be the story of the last 40 years. A Democrat invests in the future and gets our economy on the right track through shared sacrifice and then a Republican comes in, cuts taxes on the rich, deregulates the fuck out of everything and then leaves the Democrat to deal with the pain his idiotic policies caused. Difference is that the Republican brain washing rhetoric machine has gotten so disgustingly efficient over the last 30 years that even the "socialists" are basically just Republicans from 20 years ago.
 
Odd, we had the Bush or Obama as worse president discussion at a wine party last night...

Bush II was a terrible president. There's simply no argument against that. If you look at every major (and even the minor) decision(s) that he made, you can see that it directly benefited a select few that didn't really need more benefit added to their lives. This goes beyond policy and gets into staff appointments as well. About the only decent decision he made was Rice as SoS, though any decent idea she would have been capable of had its hands tied by the foolishness surrounding it.
But, at least you knew what you were going to get. Pretty much an average guy who hadn't done anything special in life and would be an absolute nobody had he not been born into that family.

So yeah, Bush was terrible, but Obama is worse if only because he sold us on hope and change while delivering none of either. We're still engaged in two wars that he promised to end. Whether or not he could even end those wars is irrelevant because he promised to do so. The economy has been stable, which is positive given what he took over, but there have been no policy initiatives to really get things going. Oh boy a stimulus started under the previous administration. Not enough. Really, the only decent bill so far has been Dodd-Frank, and even that is getting butchered by the current House. Not directly Obama's fault but if the first couple of years hadn't been so appalingly similar to Bush, the nut jobs wouldn't have taken over the House so we'd actually be seeing some progress by now. Maybe. Instead, nothing is different and the guise of "Moderate Democrat but willing and able to compromise" basically takes on the look of Bush Light and that stuff tastes awful (yes I know it's Busch)...
 
[quote name='nasum']Odd, we had the Bush or Obama as worse president discussion at a wine party last night...

Bush II was a terrible president. There's simply no argument against that. If you look at every major (and even the minor) decision(s) that he made, you can see that it directly benefited a select few that didn't really need more benefit added to their lives. This goes beyond policy and gets into staff appointments as well. About the only decent decision he made was Rice as SoS, though any decent idea she would have been capable of had its hands tied by the foolishness surrounding it.
But, at least you knew what you were going to get. Pretty much an average guy who hadn't done anything special in life and would be an absolute nobody had he not been born into that family.

So yeah, Bush was terrible, but Obama is worse if only because he sold us on hope and change while delivering none of either. We're still engaged in two wars that he promised to end. Whether or not he could even end those wars is irrelevant because he promised to do so. The economy has been stable, which is positive given what he took over, but there have been no policy initiatives to really get things going. Oh boy a stimulus started under the previous administration. Not enough. Really, the only decent bill so far has been Dodd-Frank, and even that is getting butchered by the current House. Not directly Obama's fault but if the first couple of years hadn't been so appalingly similar to Bush, the nut jobs wouldn't have taken over the House so we'd actually be seeing some progress by now. Maybe. Instead, nothing is different and the guise of "Moderate Democrat but willing and able to compromise" basically takes on the look of Bush Light and that stuff tastes awful (yes I know it's Busch)...[/QUOTE]

Well and not to mention that Obama came in to office with unprecedented power. First off Bush had basically made the Presidential office in to a power house by claiming he had control of freaking everything. Second Obama rode a wave of approval and hope the likes of which we havnt seen since FDR! He had sooooo freaking much political capital at his disposal after he was first elected. He also had a super majority congress.

Obama entered office with less then ideal conditions when it comes to the wars, the economy and a lot of other issues....but one thing he can not say is that he did not have the ability when he entered office to change anything and everything he wanted. Instead of passing real health care change with a public option he tried to negotiate with Republicans and look a centrist, same with Guantanamo, the stimulus and every other last issue that has come up. He spent all of his political capital trying to "fix Washington" via negotiating and understanding. He overestimated conservatives by thinking that people like Broly or McConnel could see reason. As scientists have shown the conservative mind is ruled by fear and fear is the antitheses to reason. If Obama would have recognized that people who are ruled by fear can and will come up with any excuse to believe what they believe and that fear makes them horribly ruthless people then he could have actually made a fucking difference. Instead he had to be the great mediator and now Republicans will hang him by saying this is his economy even though we are still following Bush policies.
 
Bush is worse because he did clear damage to the country. Got us entangled in two super expensive wars of choice. Further hurt the budget with his tax cuts and the tax refund checks he sent out a couple of times. His focus on free markets let wall street and banking run to unchecked and helped lead to the crash etc. He hurt education with the no child left behind bs. And on and on.

Obama has been a disappointment, but only because he's turned into a moderate conservative rather than the mid-left liberal he campaigned as.

And even with that he's done some positives like health care reform (even if it's less than us liberals wanted), reform on credit card regulations, bailouts that may have stopped the recession from becoming a recession and saved GM and Chrysler from going under, repealed don't ask don't tell, brought back stem cell research funding etc.

My major gripes with him are still being in Iraq and the slow pace of the Afghan withdrawal, extending the Bush tax cuts, Guantanamo still being open (though a lot of that is out of his hands since no states will take the detainees), and all the concessions he's making in these debt ceiling negotiations.

So he's a mixed bag for me. Where as I can't think of a single thing Bush did that I view as a positive off the top of my head.
 
And truthfully, more money should have been spent in an attempt to stimulate the economy, but then we know who would have been bitching about the spending too.
 
[quote name='Clak']And truthfully, more money should have been spent in an attempt to stimulate the economy, but then we know who would have been bitching about the spending too.[/QUOTE]

Krugman covered this this mourning. Norquist, George Will and him were all guests on ABC's roundtable and the conservatives were trying to use the typical line that the stimulus failed proving liberal policy wrong, to which Krugman pointed out the truth, that liberal policy was never tried, that the stimulus was watered down and liberals said from the start it would not do its job.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Well and not to mention that Obama came in to office with unprecedented power. First off Bush had basically made the Presidential office in to a power house by claiming he had control of freaking everything. Second Obama rode a wave of approval and hope the likes of which we havnt seen since FDR! He had sooooo freaking much political capital at his disposal after he was first elected. He also had a super majority congress.

Obama entered office with less then ideal conditions when it comes to the wars, the economy and a lot of other issues....but one thing he can not say is that he did not have the ability when he entered office to change anything and everything he wanted. Instead of passing real health care change with a public option he tried to negotiate with Republicans and look a centrist, same with Guantanamo, the stimulus and every other last issue that has come up. He spent all of his political capital trying to "fix Washington" via negotiating and understanding. He overestimated conservatives by thinking that people like Broly or McConnel could see reason. As scientists have shown the conservative mind is ruled by fear and fear is the antitheses to reason. If Obama would have recognized that people who are ruled by fear can and will come up with any excuse to believe what they believe and that fear makes them horribly ruthless people then he could have actually made a fucking difference. Instead he had to be the great mediator and now Republicans will hang him by saying this is his economy even though we are still following Bush policies.[/QUOTE]


I want Government to spend within their means and not force me to buy their crap if I have a choice in the matter. That's all. They can do all that stuff, but they need to manage how they spend their money, and they don't.

And fuck you if you think I'm league with the Tea Party. Those fuckers are nuts.

EDIT:
And this deal...kinda...sounds...like a compromise on the surface. Not sure yet. It seems like it was done at the bane of Senate Democrats, a conclusion I came to last night after posting. So the Republicans probably got what they wanted, but my guess it the Bush Tax Cuts are rolled back because I see no deal coming by Thanksgiving, and he'll surely veto that.

EDIT 2:
Not liking the sound of a Super Congress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It gets kicked down the road again. That's why both sides will call it a win, despite what their bases may say.

And why is that article only singling out the Tea Party? It seems to me that both sides are highly skeptical/pissed off at it.
 
I'm surprised this is still going.
Didn't think CAG was this set in the democratic party. Y'all realize they are both essentially the same, right? Different flavors, same agenda.
 
[quote name='nasum']We're still engaged in two wars that he promised to end.[/QUOTE]

Don't think that's true. Candidate Obama repeatedly said Iraq was a choice and Afghanistan was a necessity. I don't remember him ever saying he would end the war in Afghanistan, I'm pretty sure he promised to vamp it up.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It gets kicked down the road again. That's why both sides will call it a win, despite what their bases may say.

And why is that article only singling out the Tea Party? It seems to me that both sides are highly skeptical/pissed off at it.[/QUOTE]

Because any reasonable person can see liberals gave up 100x more. Again conservatives get 90% of what they want and call it a bad deal because they did not get 100%. Meanwhile Liberals get nothing they want and actually lose a ton, they have a reason to be pissed. Its pretty damn obvious why most people are looking at the Tea Party and saying fuck you.
 
How the hell can the speaker, with a straight face, say that the special comission technically can't raise taxes. By his logic, anything that raises taxes less than 3.6 trillion dollars is technically a tax cut since the Bush Tax cuts are expected to expire in 2013. Thus, raising taxes by 2.6 trillion would be in actuality a 1 trillion tax cut. That will never fly with the Republican base. I'm a Republican that most people would term moderate, and if I was in congress would stand up and yell, "This is bullshit!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top