Magox

You know how you know when you see a lemming? When they start parroting talking points such as "hostage". And I don't just hammer you left leaning loonies for this but also the far right neanderthal righties. These Tea party guys came in on a mandate, and that specific mandate had nothing to do with the military, social issues or some of the other typical GOP sticking points. They promised their constituents that they would not only battle the lefties but the GOP as well when it came to the U.S debt and taxes. That is what they ran on and they are delivering on their promise. They didn't come in to continue the status quo, and for that you have to give them credit. I don't expect you loons to understand that, your views are so myopically narrow that you can't even begin to fathom their mandate. Listen, we can all have a difference of opinions on what the "solution" to our problem's are, and that's fair game, there is an honest difference between ideologies, but to demagogue and cheapen the conversation with such inflammatory comments doesn't advance the discussion whatsoever. Unfortunately that's politics, so I understand although I don't agree with why politicians and the tv/radio personality pundits forward this agenda, but it's the idiots that fall for it that give some of us a chuckle. Having said all that, it is quite obvious that they are still a bunch of political neophytes, which is something that I touched on months ago, and without a doubt it would behoove them to understand the political realities that surrounds them. If they would of not agreed to Boehner's "deal" they would of shared the economies woes along with Obama, giving the Dem's an out on their terrible handling's of the economy. Today's market movement has little to do with the "agreement" but much more so on the atrocious ISM Manufacturing data that almost showed a contraction, which would be the worst report we've seen in over two years. Combine this with all the weak data that has been coming out and the terrible GDP numbers (which I totally got wrong on months ago), investors and economists are starting to rethink this notion of this just being a "soft patch" in the economy. It's not just happening here either, but throughout Europe as well. Something that needs to be monitored closely.

You have to excuse Birdog, he is a partisan sheeple. Baaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Say what you want about the Boner, but he showed a whole hell of alot of genuine emotion in his floor speech, much more so then you'll ever see from cool hand Obama.

I dont believe that is entirely the motive, if I'm not mistaken he had an Al Qaeda guide in how to make home bombs.

Some of you

I'll go with that.

And if I don't wanna

This new breed of idiocy is taking it to a whole new level and its rather unfortunate that the extremes from both sides get the most attention. Whatever, I guess this is also the "new normal" of politics.

I dont know who is talking about over regulating the fast food industry, I certainly wasn't, this was a voluntary and responsible decision made by the Kings of Fat Food, and I'm pretty certain that other will follow. The whole point of this thread (other than to annoy the hardheads) was to give props to McDondalds for introducing an element of healthiness to their kids meals.

From what I remember, at one point in the season he was one of the Jets most dangerous weapons they had on offense.

Doesn't matter what you hardheads believe it's a step in the right direction, no matter how you look at it, unless of course you are a mouth-breathing neanderthal.

That was a very astute point that you referenced Sage, and I am completely in agreement with the suggestion that I believe you are making. That was my own internal thinking, the point that many people fail to realize is that this isn't THE solution to this particular problem or for that matter doesn't even come close to solving it but it is a movement in the right direction that with enough inertia that could lead to more responsible not just eating habits but food provider services. No one says that people go to McDonalds for healthy eating, and its a ridiculous point to even bring up . I don't expect any of you to change your minds, and frankly I don't care, but what I do know is that these sort of decisions made from companies as large as McDonald's can have an impact on other companies as well. Next thing you see is all of a sudden now Burger King wants to get in on the "healthier" option, then it carries over to Wendy's then to the next competitor and so on. Not only does it have this possible rollover effect on other fast food providers, but there is an actual tangible effect of providing less fat calories grams to their consumers (children). If for example they are cutting out 100 fat grams of food (just giving an example) per happy meal, and you multiply that by the amount of Happy Meals sold in the U.S per year, that comes out to a whole hell of a lot of Fat grams cut out in childrens diets in a year. It's ok if you dont believe it will make a bit of difference, even though I'm quite sure it will in the long run. But what I have a hard time understanding is how can you be against such an idea or effort. It's difficult for me to fathom. Again, great reference Sage, I gotta applaud you for that, I didn't know how to put that reference into context, as a matter of fact I never even had heard of such an effect, but that is pretty damn close to what I was thinking inside my head. There is no Silver bullet solution, it will take many ideas and solutions to having a healthier society here in the U.S And considering that a large source of our FATASSITUS disease we have here in the U.S comes from the fast food industry, then it is only logical from my perspective that one of the thousands of solutions that will be needed to attack this epidemic successfully will be to chip away at directly at the fast food industry itself. That is absolutely not true, I eat there once in a while and I'm certain that I eat much healthier food than the majority of people here in the U.S

And many times not playing is the losing move.

Oh you underestimate the will of the Fed. We won't see the U.S default on its debt obligations at any point in either of our lives.

Kids Meal, Kids Meal

I knew exactly what I could be facing here. hehe

You're just a miserable miserable person.

Big thumbs up for McDonalds stepping up to the plate in regards to at least being a little more conscience when it comes to healthier eating. Eat your heart out Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity!!

First off, there will be no default, and whoever says that there will be is either a complete partisan or an idiot. One of the two. Having said that, whoever thinks that eliminating 40% of what the government spends wont have serious adverse affects on the economy is either a complete partisan or an idiot. One of the two. In other words, roughly half of you in this thread fall in this category.

You must not frequent here much Poojer, you have to excuse Dave, he's an idiot and he can't be reasoned with.

I happen to believe that the principles of a balanced budget amendment makes a whole hell of alot of sense. It is a mechanism that would be used to have the country live within its means. To my understanding, it isnt something that would be implented fully right away, I belive it would be a process to where the government would have a balanced budget within 10 years, meaning that there wouldnt have to be in draconian cuts that would harm the economy. It is beyond me why anyone would be opposed to a government that spends roughly about the same amount of the revenues they would generate. It is beyond me How can any rational non partisan person be against such a idea?

Your guarantee's mean nothing, because you know nothing.

Well considering that you believe Obama is more of a right winger than Bush II, forgive me for not giving a **** what you consider or not.

Well, I disagree completely regarding the government not promoting anything. Why? (you like that?) Because the government, you and I all have a stake in the game. Rising medical costs affect all of us, as these costs go up, guess what OC? the government falls further in debt, you and I both have to pay higher taxes. Do you know why? There are these government programs you might know about called Medicare and Medicaid, and the more people that enter into these programs and that live unhealthy, do you believe that the likelyhood of your taxes go up or down as a result of that? It doesnt just stop there, more unhealthy people that go to the ER's whether theyhave health insurance or not means higher premiums, or if theydont have insurance costs get consumed by hospitals which means our premiums go higher. So yes, since the government, you and I all have an interest in people living healthier, there is nothing wrong with the government trying to promote healthy foods and attempt to deter people from consuming unhealthy products. I didnt say ban, I said attempt to deter, sort ofl like the ones we see with cigarrettes.

It depends, if the tax cuts are too much, then yes at some point revenues wont be enough to cover the differences in the debt. Think about it, if you had the tax rate at 0%, how would that affect the national debt? Sure, business would prosper but the country would be bankrupt. If you had taxes at 100% what would that do to the debt? Same result, businesses would be decimated therefore the debt would also explode. So there has to be that proper medium. Unfortunately, I think its pretty obvious that the Bush tax cuts for EVERYONE, not just those greedy rich, falls on the wrong side of the laffer curve, I believe its pretty conclusive that the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the national debt. Withdrawing it right now probably wouldnt be the best move, but as Greenspan says regarding the Bush Tax cuts and whether not we should withdraw them for everyone, there is no good choice right now.