Debt Ceiling myth

Halifax2TheMax

Sludge Factory wrote:

We want Congress to actually balance the budget but yet Obama threatens to veto the one bill that would actually require Congress to do this. This would also bring the republicans on board with raising the debt ceiling. I think it is disingenuine to soley blame the republicans for politicking here.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-threatens-v ... 33918.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the "cut, cap and balance" plan proposed by tea party-backed House Republicans if it lands on his desk.

In a statement, the Office of Management and Budget says that setting arbitrary spending levels and a balanced budget amendment are not necessary in order to achieve financial stability.
The so-called "cut, cap and balance" plan is favored by some Republican freshmen in the House. It would allow the government to borrow an additional $2.4 trillion, but only after big and immediate spending cuts and adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

The plan is sure to stall in the Senate, where majority Democrats say it would lead to decimating budget cuts.


I disagree with the OM&B's statement. Apparently, financial stability has been an elusive beast that no Congress in the past decade has been able to subdue (regardless of what side was in control). It appears that there actually needs to be something in there that requires Congress to actually do its job. This whole back and forth just proves even further how out of touch Washington is with financial accountability.

I wonder if Obama agreed to a balanced budget amendment, if the republicans would grant him a line item veto?

I didn't think so. Silly me for even asking.

Sludge Factory

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

We want Congress to actually balance the budget but yet Obama threatens to veto the one bill that would actually require Congress to do this. This would also bring the republicans on board with raising the debt ceiling. I think it is disingenuine to soley blame the republicans for politicking here.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-threatens-v ... 33918.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the "cut, cap and balance" plan proposed by tea party-backed House Republicans if it lands on his desk.

In a statement, the Office of Management and Budget says that setting arbitrary spending levels and a balanced budget amendment are not necessary in order to achieve financial stability.
The so-called "cut, cap and balance" plan is favored by some Republican freshmen in the House. It would allow the government to borrow an additional $2.4 trillion, but only after big and immediate spending cuts and adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

The plan is sure to stall in the Senate, where majority Democrats say it would lead to decimating budget cuts.


I disagree with the OM&B's statement. Apparently, financial stability has been an elusive beast that no Congress in the past decade has been able to subdue (regardless of what side was in control). It appears that there actually needs to be something in there that requires Congress to actually do its job. This whole back and forth just proves even further how out of touch Washington is with financial accountability.

I wonder if Obama agreed to a balanced budget amendment, if the republicans would grant him a line item veto?

I didn't think so. Silly me for even asking.

You imply that the cuts the Republicans are asking for are ridiculous. Maybe some of them are, but you know what is even more ridiculous? Obama, the Democrats, and the entrenched Republicans not even making it a priority to even debate the debt ceiling until it is almost too late. You know what else is ridiculous? The "promise" to scale back the spending over the next 10 years. Congress never keeps its promises so everyone is now expected to believe they will keep this one? Not only that, but current Congresses can not bind future Congress unless it is passed into law. So, you want to reduce the debt? Stop "promising" a load of bullshit and actually do it.

Halifax2TheMax

Sludge Factory wrote:

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

We want Congress to actually balance the budget but yet Obama threatens to veto the one bill that would actually require Congress to do this. This would also bring the republicans on board with raising the debt ceiling. I think it is disingenuine to soley blame the republicans for politicking here.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-threatens-v ... 33918.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the "cut, cap and balance" plan proposed by tea party-backed House Republicans if it lands on his desk.

In a statement, the Office of Management and Budget says that setting arbitrary spending levels and a balanced budget amendment are not necessary in order to achieve financial stability.
The so-called "cut, cap and balance" plan is favored by some Republican freshmen in the House. It would allow the government to borrow an additional $2.4 trillion, but only after big and immediate spending cuts and adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

The plan is sure to stall in the Senate, where majority Democrats say it would lead to decimating budget cuts.


I disagree with the OM&B's statement. Apparently, financial stability has been an elusive beast that no Congress in the past decade has been able to subdue (regardless of what side was in control). It appears that there actually needs to be something in there that requires Congress to actually do its job. This whole back and forth just proves even further how out of touch Washington is with financial accountability.

I wonder if Obama agreed to a balanced budget amendment, if the republicans would grant him a line item veto?

I didn't think so. Silly me for even asking.

You imply that the cuts the Republicans are asking for are ridiculous. Maybe some of them are, but you know what is even more ridiculous? Obama, the Democrats, and the entrenched Republicans not even making it a priority to even debate the debt ceiling until it is almost too late. You know what else is ridiculous? The "promise" to scale back the spending over the next 10 years. Congress never keeps its promises so everyone is now expected to believe they will keep this one? Not only that, but current Congresses can not bind future Congress unless it is passed into law. So, you want to reduce the debt? Stop "promising" a load of bullshit and actually do it.

You do realize that Governor Rick Perry is running a: A budget shortfall as high as $27 billion is projected as lawmakers work through the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office. There is unity on the amount of its budget shortfall, however. Republicans who argue spending does not need to be maintained or grow from 2010-11 levels argue the shortfall could be around ...

Read More...

He's supposed to be our answer? How's that prayin' workin' out for you?

Peace.

Sludge Factory

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

You do realize that Governor Rick Perry is running a: A budget shortfall as high as $27 billion is projected as lawmakers work through the 2011 legislative session, according to estimates from economists and the comptroller's office. There is unity on the amount of its budget shortfall, however. Republicans who argue spending does not need to be maintained or grow from 2010-11 levels argue the shortfall could be around ...

Read More...

He's supposed to be our answer? How's that prayin' workin' out for you?

Peace.

More implications on your part? Let me know how that is working out for you, because what you are implying there about me is completely off the mark. Governor Rick Perry is a joke in my opinion. Perhaps you are the one who should read more...or at least re-read what it is I actually said instead of attempting to project your image of how I think onto me.

Halifax2TheMax

Sludge Factory wrote:

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

We want Congress to actually balance the budget but yet Obama threatens to veto the one bill that would actually require Congress to do this. This would also bring the republicans on board with raising the debt ceiling. I think it is disingenuine to soley blame the republicans for politicking here.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-threatens-v ... 33918.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the "cut, cap and balance" plan proposed by tea party-backed House Republicans if it lands on his desk.

In a statement, the Office of Management and Budget says that setting arbitrary spending levels and a balanced budget amendment are not necessary in order to achieve financial stability.
The so-called "cut, cap and balance" plan is favored by some Republican freshmen in the House. It would allow the government to borrow an additional $2.4 trillion, but only after big and immediate spending cuts and adoption by Congress of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget.

The plan is sure to stall in the Senate, where majority Democrats say it would lead to decimating budget cuts.


I disagree with the OM&B's statement. Apparently, financial stability has been an elusive beast that no Congress in the past decade has been able to subdue (regardless of what side was in control). It appears that there actually needs to be something in there that requires Congress to actually do its job. This whole back and forth just proves even further how out of touch Washington is with financial accountability.

I wonder if Obama agreed to a balanced budget amendment, if the republicans would grant him a line item veto?

I didn't think so. Silly me for even asking.

You imply that the cuts the Republicans are asking for are ridiculous. Maybe some of them are, but you know what is even more ridiculous? Obama, the Democrats, and the entrenched Republicans not even making it a priority to even debate the debt ceiling until it is almost too late. You know what else is ridiculous? The "promise" to scale back the spending over the next 10 years. Congress never keeps its promises so everyone is now expected to believe they will keep this one? Not only that, but current Congresses can not bind future Congress unless it is passed into law. So, you want to reduce the debt? Stop "promising" a load of bullshit and actually do it.

I believe you stated that I implied something when I clearly did not. I merely asked if Obama agreed to a balanced budget amendment whether the republicans would agree to give him the line item veto. Rather than respond to my question you stated that I implied the cuts the republicans are asking for are ridiculous. What is ridiculous is that the republicans control the house where spending and budget bills originate. Not once have they brought up nor acted with a sense of urgency regrading the debt ceiling or a balanced budget. They also controlled congress and the presidency from 2003 to 2006 and didn't do nary a thing regarding debt ceilings or balanced budgets. Instead we got two unfunded wars and a medicaid drug benefit. Furthermore they want continued tax cuts for the top 1% when the rest of us have seen us lose ground in wages over the past ten years and they have seen gains in income, on average, of 60%. It is an issue of fairness. Rick Perry is their darling and he, like Bush, is part of the problem. No new revenue, no taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans and default on our debt rather than compromise and get 83% spending cuts and 17% tax increases. Of which I have a problem with to begin with but it beats defaulting on our debt and the uncertainty that would entail (401Ks, mortgage interest rates, access to credit, etc). Sorry, I almost lost my job in 2008 and don't want to go through that again and its time the top 1% pay up. They can afford it. If the republicans can sign a pledge to not raise taxes, I think the tea partiers should legally agree to forgo their social security and medicare benefits upon retirement.

If I offended you with my Rick Perry comment, I apologize as I intended that quote for another post on a similar topic. But my sentiment is the same, he's selling snake oil and I'm not buying. And Texas ain't all its cracked up to be. Wish he'd follow up on his threat and secede from the union. I would applaud when Mexico invaded and took it back.

Peace.

Sludge Factory

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

I believe you stated that I implied something when I clearly did not.

It was not clear. To me, your tongue in cheek comment "...silly me for even asking" does in fact imply to the reader that the republicans obviously won't grant Obama a line item veto because if they did the bill and amendment would pass, but Obama could then veto out many of the cuts the Republicans are pushing for. Regardless of whether or not that is what you meant, that is how I interpreted so I don't necessarily think it was as clear as you are attempting to pass it off as.

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

I merely asked if Obama agreed to a balanced budget amendment whether the republicans would agree to give him the line item veto. Rather than respond to my question you stated that I implied the cuts the republicans are asking for are ridiculous.

You didn't "merely ask", you sensationalized. How can someone respond to your question when you set up the question and then answer it yourself? If you are actually looking for someone to answer your question, you wouldn't have already answered it. In answering your own question, it gives off the appearance that it was disingenuous to begin with; that in your mind the topic is a done deal and there is no use debating it. Thus, the reason why I didn't even address your question. It seemed there would be no point, especially since I'm positive I'm not the person who can speak on behalf of republicans, nor would I want to be that person or allowed to be that person.

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

What is ridiculous is that the republicans control the house where spending and budget bills originate. Not once have they brought up nor acted with a sense of urgency regrading the debt ceiling or a balanced budget.

What is equally ridiculous is Senator Kent Conrad from my home state is head of the budget committee in the Senate and, to my knowledge, over the past few years hasn't once made it a priority in the committee meetings to seriously address the mounting debt. I think he really does want to balance things out as from what I understand, he had a hand in getting things somewhat balanced in the late '90s, but for some reason hasn't really done much this time around.

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

They also controlled congress and the presidency from 2003 to 2006 and didn't do nary a thing regarding debt ceilings or balanced budgets. Instead we got two unfunded wars and a medicaid drug benefit. Furthermore they want continued tax cuts for the top 1% when the rest of us have seen us lose ground in wages over the past ten years and they have seen gains in income, on average, of 60%. It is an issue of fairness. Rick Perry is their darling and he, like Bush, is part of the problem. No new revenue, no taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans and default on our debt rather than compromise and get 83% spending cuts and 17% tax increases. Of which I have a problem with to begin with but it beats defaulting on our debt and the uncertainty that would entail (401Ks, mortgage interest rates, access to credit, etc). Sorry, I almost lost my job in 2008 and don't want to go through that again and its time the top 1% pay up. They can afford it. If the republicans can sign a pledge to not raise taxes, I think the tea partiers should legally agree to forgo their social security and medicare benefits upon retirement.

I agree with some of what you are saying here. The majority of the republicans are just as big of hypocrites when it comes to the debt ceiling as the majority of the democrats. This thing should've been taken care of years ago in my opinion. The more we pass it on, the worse it is going to get until we have no other choice but to address it. Once we've reached that point, things will not be easy for any of us.

I have a problem with tax increases during a recession. Many economists say that when you tax the people in the recession it furthers the recession. It definitely doesn't spur growth and new jobs, that's for sure. You almost lost your job in 2008 which sucks and I think is a very unfortunate thing. I stand to lose my job if the majority of the cuts go through but I still think they need to go through. I'm okay with that, too because I don't think my current job should really exist since it is with a Federal agency that is mostly redundant. I don't care how rich someone is, I do not think it is anyone's place to tell them what to do with their money; however, if they are using loopholes to circumvent the system, then go after them. I would definitely be supportive of closing all the loopholes and subsidies that so many of the upper echelon seem to take advantage of.

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

If I offended you with my Rick Perry comment, I apologize as I intended that quote for another post on a similar topic. But my sentiment is the same, he's selling snake oil and I'm not buying. And Texas ain't all its cracked up to be. Wish he'd follow up on his threat and secede from the union. I would applaud when Mexico invaded and took it back.

Peace.

The only offense I took was that it seemed like you were trying to say I would support someone such as him. The bile was rising in my throat at the thought. The majority of the politicians out there are selling snake oil in my opinion. All these closed door meetings between the republicans and democrats will only result in more snake oil being sold to the American public in my opinion.

Halifax2TheMax

"It was not clear. To me, your tongue in cheek comment "...silly me for even asking" does in fact imply to the reader that the republicans obviously won't grant Obama a line item veto because if they did the bill and amendment would pass, but Obama could then veto out many of the cuts the Republicans are pushing for. Regardless of whether or not that is what you meant, that is how I interpreted so I don't necessarily think it was as clear as you are attempting to pass it off as."

It was a rhetorical question. Guess you can't ask those. But you still could have answered it, despite my own answer. From your own opinion, thought process, whatever. And of course they wouldn't grant him a line item veto. Since the day he was elected the republicans have done everything they can to make him fail. I wasn't passing anything off. Just asking a rhetorical question. And why would Obama vetoing cuts the republicans are pushing for be a bad thing? Politics is the art of compromise, not my way or the highway.

"You didn't "merely ask", you sensationalized. How can someone respond to your question when you set up the question and then answer it yourself? If you are actually looking for someone to answer your question, you wouldn't have already answered it. In answering your own question, it gives off the appearance that it was disingenuous to begin with; that in your mind the topic is a done deal and there is no use debating it. Thus, the reason why I didn't even address your question. It seemed there would be no point, especially since I'm positive I'm not the person who can speak on behalf of republicans, nor would I want to be that person or allowed to be that person."

How is asking a rhetorical question sensationalizing? If you have an opinion, share it. I don't claim to speak for democrats, the democrat party or anyone other than myself. I speak for me as in I I trust. What is disingenuous about stating my opinion in answering to my own question. Is it really that easy to stifle debate? If my question rankled you and the answer to my own question prevented you from speaking your mind, that's your issue, not mine. There is always a "use" in debating "it."

"What is equally ridiculous is Senator Kent Conrad from my home state is head of the budget committee in the Senate and, to my knowledge, over the past few years hasn't once made it a priority in the committee meetings to seriously address the mounting debt. I think he really does want to balance things out as from what I understand, he had a hand in getting things somewhat balanced in the late '90s, but for some reason hasn't really done much this time around."

I wouldn't equate the actions of your senator with what has been going on in this congress, particularly the house, since Obama got elected. Harry Reid is the majority leader and he sets the priorities on what comes to the floor. But those other guys in the house, they are really out there. Again, in just plain opposition to Obama so he fails. Don't forget what the democrats accomplished under Clinton from 1993 to 2000, balanced budget and a surplus, 22 million jobs created and a "prosperous" middle class. I know, I personally boomed during the Clinton years.

"I agree with some of what you are saying here. The majority of the republicans are just as big of hypocrites when it comes to the debt ceiling as the majority of the democrats. This thing should've been taken care of years ago in my opinion. The more we pass it on, the worse it is going to get until we have no other choice but to address it. Once we've reached that point, things will not be easy for any of us."

The hero of the republican party, the man himself, Ronald Reagan, raised the debt ceiling 18 times. Bush was handed a surplus and a balanced budget. Cheney, Darth Vader himself, stated that, "deficits don't matter." The republicans have been more irresponsible with spending and revenue generating than anyone else. And yes, it needs to be addressed. But who is being "the adult" in the room in trying to address it? And how did Reagan and Bush enjoy so much success, if you want to call it that? By bipartisanship, cooperation and compromise. And no, things won't be easy for us, the top 1%, not a problem.

"I have a problem with tax increases during a recession. Many economists say that when you tax the people in the recession it furthers the recession. It definitely doesn't spur growth and new jobs, that's for sure. You almost lost your job in 2008 which sucks and I think is a very unfortunate thing. I stand to lose my job if the majority of the cuts go through but I still think they need to go through. I'm okay with that, too because I don't think my current job should really exist since it is with a Federal agency that is mostly redundant. I don't care how rich someone is, I do not think it is anyone's place to tell them what to do with their money; however, if they are using loopholes to circumvent the system, then go after them. I would definitely be supportive of closing all the loopholes and subsidies that so many of the upper echelon seem to take advantage of."

Clinton raised taxes, targeted tax increases with targeted spending cuts. It lead to 22 million new jobs. Reagan and both Bushes both cut taxes, extensively, for corporations and the wealthy, in trickle down economic theory. It didn't work. David Stockman, the inventor of trickle down and Reagan's advisor, has since recanted his theory. But it all sounds good. More snake oil. I agree with you on the loopholes but why should I pay 25% of my income, from wages, while someone making a million, from investments, is paying 15%?

"The only offense I took was that it seemed like you were trying to say I would support someone such as him. The bile was rising in my throat at the thought. The majority of the politicians out there are selling snake oil in my opinion. All these closed door meetings between the republicans and democrats will only result in more snake oil being sold to the American public in my opinion."

I should hope not. But there is a difference between those who deal in facts and are trustworthy and genuine. They may be few and far between but they exist. In both parties. You just have to find them. I trust Obama because he is most like me in that he came from the middle class, worked hard and got himself elected president. No dirt, no skeletons, unless you count Reverend Wright but if you do, how do you explain all of the current republican presidential candidates? And this is what is driving the opposition so batty, he's honest and not beholden. Plus he got Osama (they can't stand that). Read the Gang of Six bullet points on their plan. Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... ml?hpid=z1 More than I bargain for but an effort to resolve a crisis. All politicians aren't selling snake oil and you don't have to buy. Educate yourself, form your own opinions utilizing multiple sources. It works.

I hope you don't get laid off despite your misgivings on the work you do or redundancy. Its tough out there.

Peace.

Sludge Factory

I think the main point where you and I differ is you trust Obama. I see him as no different than the other charlatans who have been President since Kennedy (with the exception of Carter).

Also, Clinton raised taxes on an economy that was experiencing a booming bubble. I think there is a correlation to new jobs being created but I do not think you can tie that together with causation. There was far more at play in the .com bubble that created all those jobs than taxes being raised. This also begs the question, were the jobs that were created at this time actually real growth, or were they simply false growth? It's hard to tell in this day and age what real growth is with all the distortions in the market since we dont' really even have a market that is allowed to correct itself and grow itself anymore, but it is clear that all the .com jobs that were created (which are most likely included in your 22 million figure) where jobs that were artificially created and not actual real growth.

Halifax2TheMax

Sludge Factory wrote:

I think the main point where you and I differ is you trust Obama. I see him as no different than the other charlatans who have been President since Kennedy (with the exception of Carter).

Also, Clinton raised taxes on an economy that was experiencing a booming bubble. I think there is a correlation to new jobs being created but I do not think you can tie that together with causation. There was far more at play in the .com bubble that created all those jobs than taxes being raised. This also begs the question, were the jobs that were created at this time actually real growth, or were they simply false growth? It's hard to tell in this day and age what real growth is with all the distortions in the market since we dont' really even have a market that is allowed to correct itself and grow itself anymore, but it is clear that all the .com jobs that were created (which are most likely included in your 22 million figure) where jobs that were artificially created and not actual real growth.

What has Obama done or not done since taking office that leads you not to trust him?

I'm not an economist but I believe that the majority of jobs created were real and certainly raising taxes and re-investing the revenue created "real" growth. Remember 100,000 police officers hired around the country, highway projects, infrastructure improvements (Big Dig anyone?) and the like created jobs, which created consumer demand which created jobs. It wasn't all the tech bubble. Furthermore, based on my own experience, even with the tech bubble burst, the stock market didn't drop to its pre-Clinton numbers. I may be off somewhat but when Clinton took office, I was finally able to enter the stock market through retirement savings (401K and pension) and some extra cash in mutual funds. I got in the stock market around 3600 and watched it go up to 10,000 plus. It dropped back down to roughly 8,000 and it seems now, 10 years later, stuck around 12,000 and change. Something that in my own way of judging economic policy, I did better during the Clinton years and the last 10 to 12 have been "lost" on me, i.e. I'm not seeing near the same rate of return or growth of my limited assets. I'm not rich, far from it but I'm probably better off than most. But it's getting harder and harder with with each passing year to maintain. And consider that Bush was handed a balanced budget & surplus, we weren't fighting two unfunded wars and the the vast majority of Americans have seen their wages remain stagnant while the top 1% have seen theirs rise dramatically. The top 400 wealthiest possess more wealth than 150 MILLION of the bottom Americans combined. For me personally, 8 years of democratic economic policy has treated me better than 20 years of Reagan/Bush. Like I said, I'm not an economist but I certainly did better personally during the Clinton years than I've done under Bush. And maybe if I had been able to get into the mortgage derivative scam like the hedge fund guys and Goldman Sachs, I would have done better but only the 1% get to play like that.

Peace.

Sludge Factory

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I think the main point where you and I differ is you trust Obama. I see him as no different than the other charlatans who have been President since Kennedy (with the exception of Carter).

Also, Clinton raised taxes on an economy that was experiencing a booming bubble. I think there is a correlation to new jobs being created but I do not think you can tie that together with causation. There was far more at play in the .com bubble that created all those jobs than taxes being raised. This also begs the question, were the jobs that were created at this time actually real growth, or were they simply false growth? It's hard to tell in this day and age what real growth is with all the distortions in the market since we dont' really even have a market that is allowed to correct itself and grow itself anymore, but it is clear that all the .com jobs that were created (which are most likely included in your 22 million figure) where jobs that were artificially created and not actual real growth.

What has Obama done or not done since taking office that leads you not to trust him?

I'm not an economist but I believe that the majority of jobs created were real and certainly raising taxes and re-investing the revenue created "real" growth. Remember 100,000 police officers hired around the country, highway projects, infrastructure improvements (Big Dig anyone?) and the like created jobs, which created consumer demand which created jobs. It wasn't all the tech bubble. Furthermore, based on my own experience, even with the tech bubble burst, the stock market didn't drop to its pre-Clinton numbers. I may be off somewhat but when Clinton took office, I was finally able to enter the stock market through retirement savings (401K and pension) and some extra cash in mutual funds. I got in the stock market around 3600 and watched it go up to 10,000 plus. It dropped back down to roughly 8,000 and it seems now, 10 years later, stuck around 12,000 and change. Something that in my own way of judging economic policy, I did better during the Clinton years and the last 10 to 12 have been "lost" on me, i.e. I'm not seeing near the same rate of return or growth of my limited assets. I'm not rich, far from it but I'm probably better off than most. But it's getting harder and harder with with each passing year to maintain. And consider that Bush was handed a balanced budget & surplus, we weren't fighting two unfunded wars and the the vast majority of Americans have seen their wages remain stagnant while the top 1% have seen theirs rise dramatically. The top 400 wealthiest possess more wealth than 150 MILLION of the bottom Americans combined. For me personally, 8 years of democratic economic policy has treated me better than 20 years of Reagan/Bush. Like I said, I'm not an economist but I certainly did better personally during the Clinton years than I've done under Bush. And maybe if I had been able to get into the mortgage derivative scam like the hedge fund guys and Goldman Sachs, I would have done better but only the 1% get to play like that.

Peace.

•He switched his position on closing down Guantanemo for one.
•He switched his position on trying those held there in court to trying them at military tribunals including people who have been held indefinitely with no real charges being made against them.
•He basically spoke out of both sides of his mouth regarding going after NAFTA/not going after NAFTA during his campaign for President.
•Instead of scaling back on our interventionist policy he has increased it by dedicating US resources to the undeclared war in Libya. Regardless of how the White House tries to spin it, our involvement is an act of war.
•He didn't follow the constitution and the law of the land in obtaining approval from Congress before or after the time period allowed by the War Powers Act and he continues to say he has done nothing wrong there when Senator Obama has statements out there that directly contradict what President Obama is now currently saying.
•He supports the belief that the President should be able to have anyone detained at his order, who is on American soil, including the citizens, indefinitely without a trial or charges being made against them simply if someone deems them a terrorist. This is very much like how the New Salem witch trials began, but on a federal level and sounds like something Bush would stump for; not a democrat who is supposed to be concerned about our civil liberties
•He continues and expands on many of Bush's terrible policies and decisions.
•When a senator, he was very much against raising the debt ceiling, even voted against it. Now he is very much for raising the debt ceiling and very much interested in that snake McConnel's plan to give the President unchecked power to raise it.

Those are just a few items I can think of off the top of my head that causes me to not trust Obama. His past record isn't one that shows consistency when applied to his current record. He is very adept at sleight-of-hand, though. I'll give him that.

I do still disagree with how you ascertain that the majority of the jobs that were created were real because of the tax rates. Those 100,000 police officers you speak of may not have actually been necessary if the market were to figure things out. For example, we have this endless "War on Drugs" which is funded by tax payer dollars. These dollars could be used for something else, something much more important and productive than this "war" that really doesn't accomplish much of anything other than overfilling our prisons and creating the extraneous effect of death.

Once the Clinton era bubble burst, many people did not do so good at that time and still aren't doing so good due to the new bubble because of the false growth. If it was real growth it would be sustainable or adaptable to the changes of the market. If it is not, then it is something that really shouldn't have existed to begin with. So, the last 10 to 12 years have been "lost" on you, not because we don't have enough taxes, but because government has become this big overbloated beast that continuously debases our currency because no one is willing to cut the spending down the way it needs to be. No one is willing to allow the markets to actually correct when a bubble bursts. Each time the market tries to actually correct itself some fucking "genius" tries to intervene and create a new bubble elsewhere to "inject" the market with more "growth" and to "create more jobs". The governent cannot create more jobs. It's inherent nature simply does not allow that. What it does do is just redirect job growth from one sector of society to another that some bureaucrat deems more important.

So, of course it is getting harder and harder with each passing year to maintain. The value of the dollar has been debased since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. So much so, that in the 1900's families were required to have two income earners as opposed to the one that they used to be able to have to maintain the same standard of living. We are now so far beyond that point that even two income earners in a household no longer allows for the same standard of living that previous generations have experienced. In a sense, we have more taxes now than we did under Clinton, it is just given a different name: inflation. Inflation is really the true tax and it is out of control. It really does mean something that from 1913 to about 2009 the value of the dollar has dropped 96%. The Bush years just acted as a catalyst that sped the devaluing and lowering of our standard of living even further all because of the vast expansion of the scope of the federal government and our military during that time. Instead of fixing this, not only is Obama continuing it, but he also is trying to raise the official taxes even though the hidden tax inflation has already been realized.

I guess my main point with all of this is, yes, Bush ruined many things for our country and economy, but Obama is doing no better. The main reason things have gone to shit is because our government has grown exponentially beyond a sustainable level since then and we started to nation build around the world; not the lack of Clinton era tax rates.

Instead of taxing the wealthiest Americans, perhaps we should reanalyze our corparatist agenda and do away with all the crony protectionism that occurs. Perhaps we should stop subsidizing all these corporations, firms, and outfits and instead let things fail when poor decisions are made. You are right, there is a huge gap in wealth now more than ever. So, let's actually fix the root of the problem instead of band-aiding it with more taxes.

Halifax2TheMax

After a very quick read of your response I must say there is some in there that I agree with and I'll need more time to digest it.

Peace.

gimmesometruth27

john boehner just now essentially said "we will not increase the debt limit if there are any tax increases, so we will take money away from the elderly while maintaining the bush tax cuts for my base, the millionaires and billionaires, who coincidently have done nothing to create jobs with said tax cuts..."

disgusting motherfucker.

if we are "out of money" like he just said we are, he has to raise revenue. there is no other way around it. if he really believes what he just said, then this situation is not as dire as he is claiming it to be...

Byrnzie

In other words, the Republicans want the poor to receive the full brunt of these cuts, whilst the wealthy get off scott free. And they're even willing to let the country go bankrupt in order to acheive this objective?
And to think that all of this could be solved simply by cutting back on military spending...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888

Republican House Speaker John Boehner quits debt talks

'...As well as cutting $650bn from Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements, the president said he was offering to slash $1tr in discretionary spending, while seeking $1.2tr in revenues, which could have been achieved by raising income tax rates...


Mr Boehner said they had been close to a deal until Mr Obama had demanded $400bn in tax increases on top of about $800bn in revenues that would have been reaped through a comprehensive rewrite of the tax code...


Republicans have been unwilling to consider raising new taxes to counter the growing budget deficits.

The Democrats have been opposed to cutting popular healthcare and welfare programmes for pensioners and the poor.'

unsung

"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of children and grandchildren." ---Senator Barack Obama 2006, just before he cast his NO vote against a debt ceiling increase.

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of children and grandchildren." ---Senator Barack Obama 2006, just before he cast his NO vote against a debt ceiling increase.

big deal, it still passed then.
it is a necessity to pass it now.

if you conservatives are willing to stick to idealogy over all and deny this from passing and send us back into a depression you all deserve what happens.

unsung

When will it be enough? I am not for raising it, end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.

gimmesometruth27

Harry Reid caves again!

i can not put into words how angry i am right now!!

he caved again with a final offer to cut more spending than the gop wanted and NO REVENUES....

Reid Pitches Final Deficit Deal Without Revenues

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 08221.html

WASHINGTON -- After another round of failed negotiations with Republicans over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday night laid out Democratic leaders' latest — and likely final — proposal for a deficit reduction deal: $2.7 trillion in cuts, a debt ceiling hike through the end of 2012 and no revenues.

The proposal "meets Republicans' two major criteria," Reid said in a statement. It includes enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it doesn't includes any of the new revenues Democrats have been pushing for.

"We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines," Reid said.

The Nevada Democrat said talks broke down again on Sunday night as Republican leaders insisted on passing a short-term debt ceiling increase. During a Saturday briefing with House Republicans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his plan to push for a more than $3 trillion deficit reduction package that would raise the debt ceiling in increments, by $900 billion at first and then by about $1.6 trillion next year. The White House and Democratic leaders have ruled out any type of short-term extension out of concerns that it would create uncertainty in financial markets and expose the already fragile economy to greater risks.

Reid called the GOP plan "a non-starter in the Senate and with the President." He and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) huddled with President Barack Obama on Sunday night, just before Reid unveiled the latest Democratic plan.

Pelosi embraced Reid's proposal in a statement after their meeting.

"I applaud Senator Reid for putting forward an approach to reduce the deficit that protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," she said.

With pressure mounting on Congress and the White House to ensure the government doesn't default on its debt, the latest Democratic offering shows just how much party leaders have compromised during the negotiations as Republicans have held their ground. For weeks, Democrats demanded that any substantial package include revenues to offset spending cuts, namely by closing corporate tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry. But their demands have now been whittled away to a proposal coming from their own party with major cuts and no revenue at all.

Republicans, meanwhile, have largely gotten what they wanted in their push for significant spending cuts without new revenue.

Negotiators are running out of time to reach a deal by August 2, the day the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and send the United States into default. And even if lawmakers are able to pull off an eleventh-hour deal that averts that scenario, credit rating agencies have already warned lawmakers that the United States may still have its credit rating downgraded as a result of the protracted debate over the debt limit. If that were to occur, Americans would face higher interest rates on their credit cards, student loans and mortgages.

Byrnzie

unsung wrote:

end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.

The previous U.S government started two of these wars, and in the process ransacked 2 sovereign nations, unleashing sectarian violence and massive instability.
And now that you have economic troubles at home your answer is abandon these countries to their fate?

Not cool. You need to fix the mess you created before simply jumping ship.

Starting a war isn't the same as gatecrashing a party and then slipping out through the back door as soon as someone spills red wine all over the carpet.

fife

unsung wrote:

When will it be enough? I am not for raising it, end participation in three wars and it is no longer a problem.

ending the 3 wars will not solve the problems right now. the reason you have to raise the debt ceiling is not for just future spending its for paying the bills for services you already got. basically what you are saying is that you have decided to not pay your visa cuase you don't like how much money your paying. both democrats and reb> are idiots. i really hope they smarten up cause i would hate to see what will happen if they don't.

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Harry Reid caves again!

i can not put into words how angry i am right now!!

he caved again with a final offer to cut more spending than the gop wanted and NO REVENUES....

Reid Pitches Final Deficit Deal Without Revenues

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 08221.html

WASHINGTON -- After another round of failed negotiations with Republicans over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Sunday night laid out Democratic leaders' latest — and likely final — proposal for a deficit reduction deal: $2.7 trillion in cuts, a debt ceiling hike through the end of 2012 and no revenues.

The proposal "meets Republicans' two major criteria," Reid said in a statement. It includes enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it doesn't includes any of the new revenues Democrats have been pushing for.

"We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his 'my way or the highway' approach, and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise along these lines," Reid said.

The Nevada Democrat said talks broke down again on Sunday night as Republican leaders insisted on passing a short-term debt ceiling increase. During a Saturday briefing with House Republicans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced his plan to push for a more than $3 trillion deficit reduction package that would raise the debt ceiling in increments, by $900 billion at first and then by about $1.6 trillion next year. The White House and Democratic leaders have ruled out any type of short-term extension out of concerns that it would create uncertainty in financial markets and expose the already fragile economy to greater risks.

Reid called the GOP plan "a non-starter in the Senate and with the President." He and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) huddled with President Barack Obama on Sunday night, just before Reid unveiled the latest Democratic plan.

Pelosi embraced Reid's proposal in a statement after their meeting.

"I applaud Senator Reid for putting forward an approach to reduce the deficit that protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries," she said.

With pressure mounting on Congress and the White House to ensure the government doesn't default on its debt, the latest Democratic offering shows just how much party leaders have compromised during the negotiations as Republicans have held their ground. For weeks, Democrats demanded that any substantial package include revenues to offset spending cuts, namely by closing corporate tax loopholes and ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry. But their demands have now been whittled away to a proposal coming from their own party with major cuts and no revenue at all.

Republicans, meanwhile, have largely gotten what they wanted in their push for significant spending cuts without new revenue.

Negotiators are running out of time to reach a deal by August 2, the day the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills and send the United States into default. And even if lawmakers are able to pull off an eleventh-hour deal that averts that scenario, credit rating agencies have already warned lawmakers that the United States may still have its credit rating downgraded as a result of the protracted debate over the debt limit. If that were to occur, Americans would face higher interest rates on their credit cards, student loans and mortgages.

I'm as angry as you are! It is outrageous that the republicans don't think revenue needs to be part of the solution, particularly when you see something like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... y/?hpid=z4

Somebody please explain to me why someone in the top one tenth of a percent should pay 15% in income taxes while I, who earns less than $100K, pays in the 25% bracket. Requiring the top one tenth of a percent to pay 25% would increase revenue by approximately $85.1 Billion. Never mind the others in the top 1% to 10% of the income scale.

Unbelievable, both democrats and republicans should be ashamed of themselves, particularly Beohner. Disgusting!