Magox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Explains why the election went the way it did. Dont get me started. THe rest of the world is tacking to the right but here in south america the march to the left continues. Having said that, there is a possibility that this guy wont be a Chavez or Evo Morales type of socialista, but more like a Lula lefty. Peru´s economy is thriving, and this peruvian politico is a lifetimer who most likely understands that he better not try to nationalize every damn thing because it may !@#$ up the economy. We´re hoping that he models himself more like Lula da silva rather than the idiot here in Bolivia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Dood, why are you in Peru? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Dood, why are you in Peru? I´m in Bolivia now mudafuka, and about ready to head off to Santa Cruz, the land of amazonian women and really cold beer. Edited June 8, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Ok kiddies, repeat after me: "As much as I dislike Obama, I realize he isnt to blame for the high price of gasoline."´ Now that, that has been said.... Cutting the national debt isnt quite as easy as many retards may believe. You can{t just cut all spending with a hatchet. I know many of you would love see his happen, but the reality is if you do so, then the economy falls even deeper into a hole, and guess what kiddies? The economy slows down even further, possibly into a recession, and then tax revenues sharply fall even further from where they are and the national debt outlook worsens. Its easy for the right to criticize the president and liberals for all our woes, politically speaking, they should, afterall, we saw the liberals do the exact same thing when bush was at the helm, they blamed him for every single thing, so yeah, its politics, thats how things work. But from a practical standpoint, its a delicate issue, cutting spending and at the same time trying to promote economic growth. These two in most cases do not go hand in hand. I guess the point that I am trying to make is that it is a complicated issue and dilemma we face, and it has to be done in a very thoughtful and deliberative process, and not carried out by the ones you love to follow on tv or radio where their simple solution is to cut everything in sight. Yeah, it sounds nice, if you{re a moron, but I mean you do realize these people are NOT economists, they are in fact ENTERTAINERS, and if you believe following the advice of one these yahoos is THE answer to our problems, then it just speaks volumes of who you are. For the record, I am for cutting spending, but mainly should be targetted with our longterm spending issues. Ok this computer here in Peru sucks balls, everything is out of wack on the keyboard. I{m out. You do understand that the price of oil is in dollars, and that as they print more ( so they can cover their spending) it continues to devalue, which is why the price goes up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 You do understand that the price of oil is in dollars, and that as they print more ( so they can cover their spending) it continues to devalue, which is why the price goes up? Oil is priced in dollars? Nooooooo? It is? Ok, now that we have established that, what does that have to do with what I just said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Dont get me started. THe rest of the world is tacking to the right but here in south america the march to the left continues. Having said that, there is a possibility that this guy wont be a Chavez or Evo Morales type of socialista, but more like a Lula lefty. Peru´s economy is thriving, and this peruvian politico is a lifetimer who most likely understands that he better not try to nationalize every damn thing because it may !@#$ up the economy. We´re hoping that he models himself more like Lula da silva rather than the idiot here in Bolivia. That's the best hope, but how much of an epiphany can someone have in two months? But it could be a parallel to India when Sonia Gandhi was elected and the markets ran away, paving the way for Singh. Humala would be wise to listen to yesterday's stock market reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Oil is priced in dollars? Nooooooo? It is? Ok, now that we have established that, what does that have to do with what I just said? "As much as I dislike Obama, I realize he isnt to blame for the high price of gasoline."´ He keeps spending and the fed keeps printing, which means my dollars aren't worth what they were so the price of oil and thus gas go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 He keeps spending and the fed keeps printing, which means my dollars aren't worth what they were so the price of oil and thus gas go up. And therein lies the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 "As much as I dislike Obama, I realize he isnt to blame for the high price of gasoline."´ He keeps spending and the fed keeps printing, which means my dollars aren't worth what they were so the price of oil and thus gas go up. Sorry, but Obama has almost nothing to do with the fed printing money. In regards to spending, hmmm, yeah it does add to the debt, but I would estimate that it is playing a very small role in the dollars decline. I´d rate Fed policy and the trade defecit as the two largest factors for the Dollars decline. There is one area that you could point to that could carry some credence and that would be his oil moratoria he has imposed, but even that probably has had a negligible effect on the value of oil, max i´d say a couple dollars. Obama isn´t to blame for the high price of oil, but he´s certainly not really doing anything about it either, if anything making slightly worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Explains why the election went the way it did. No, it explains that they use a different keyboard because they have all of those funny symbols in Spanish. It drives you nuts trying to figure out how to get the @ and \ signs...Tho once you get the hang of it, it's kind of fun to throw that little squiggly sign over an n....As in manana amigos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Looks like the Pentagon is on the old chopping block here. I guess when push comes to shove, the military has fewer voters supporting it than entitlements. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-compromise-on-debt-cut-military-spending/2011/06/25/AGPrGBmH_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines In listening sessions with their rank and file, House Republican leaders said they have found a surprising willingness to consider defense cuts that would have been unthinkable five years ago, when they last controlled the House. While the sessions have sparked heated debate on many issues, Rep. Peter Roskam (Ill.), the deputy GOP whip, said there are few lawmakers left who view the Pentagon budget as sacrosanct. “When we say everything is on the table, that’s what we mean,” said House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the No. 3 leader who has been hosting the listening sessions in his Capitol offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Looks like the Pentagon is on the old chopping block here. I guess when push comes to shove, the military has fewer voters supporting it than entitlements. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-compromise-on-debt-cut-military-spending/2011/06/25/AGPrGBmH_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines Both need massive cuts and there is no reason to cry over either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Looks like the Pentagon is on the old chopping block here. I guess when push comes to shove, the military has fewer voters supporting it than entitlements. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-compromise-on-debt-cut-military-spending/2011/06/25/AGPrGBmH_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines As well it should be. And it still doesn't mean **** unless they're willing to raise taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 As well it should be. And it still doesn't mean **** unless they're willing to raise taxes. Yup! So this whole thing is just blowing up on Cantor. He stormed out of the meeting the other day because this whole bambit is leaning towards a huge political win for Obama. Conservatives love the military and hate taxes and those will be two results of this and it HAS to pass the Republican controlled House. They have to swallow this. No way around it, some/many Republicans will have to vote for this. They can't let the debt limit expire, that would be insane. It would be so counter productive and harmful that there is no way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yup! So this whole thing is just blowing up on Cantor. He stormed out of the meeting the other day because this whole bambit is leaning towards a huge political win for Obama. Conservatives love the military and hate taxes and those will be two results of this and it HAS to pass the Republican controlled House. They have to swallow this. No way around it, some/many Republicans will have to vote for this. They can't let the debt limit expire, that would be insane. It would be so counter productive and harmful that there is no way. You really are an idiot. "The Republicans" aren't going to "lose", and Obama's not going to "win". The two parties are playing a brinksmanship game, they'll end up passing a debt increase at the eleventh hour, with no meaningful spending cuts and no meaningful tax increases, so both sides can claim "victory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 You really are an idiot. "The Republicans" aren't going to "lose", and Obama's not going to "win". The two parties are playing a brinksmanship game, they'll end up passing a debt increase at the eleventh hour, with no meaningful spending cuts and no meaningful tax increases, so both sides can claim "victory". There you go again. You have a very inate pro-Republican bias. Republicans are the ones instigating this, not Democrats. The Democrats are trying to stop the Republicans from sabotaging a very necessary step for our country. The very fact you mentioned "Brinksmanship" tells us there will be a winner and loser. Right, follow the logic: Brinkmanship=Competition, Competition=Winners and Losers. You could be right about the outcome, nothing much gets done. But that would mean the Right Wing's demands of "cuts, cuts, cuts or we go nuclear!" would have to have been abandoned. Surrender monkeys http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_211182_vChnlJgBk3cBZPJw5u0oR_Pda.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 There you go again. You have a very inate pro-Republican bias. Republicans are the ones instigating this, not Democrats. The Democrats are trying to stop the Republicans from sabotaging a very necessary step for our country. The very fact you mentioned "Brinksmanship" tells us there will be a winner and loser. Right, follow the logic: Brinkmanship=Competition, Competition=Winners and Losers. You could be right about the outcome, nothing much gets done. But that would mean the Right Wing's demands of "cuts, cuts, cuts or we go nuclear!" would have to have been abandoned. Surrender monkeys http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_211182_vChnlJgBk3cBZPJw5u0oR_Pda.jpg You really are an idiot. Try not filtering everything through your little idiot world view for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) DC Tom is right, they will get this done in the 11th hour, there will be no tax increases. The only added revenues that will result out of this will be some sort of corporate wellfare loophole that will be closed. That´s it, no tax increases, I can assure you of that. If anything, the press will come out saying that the GOP got the better of the deal. There will be alot more cuts than tax increases, and in regards to the Pentagon cuts, there is a new dynamic occuring in the conservative party, they are becoming less the neo cons that they were before, there is a libertarian streak within them. This trend will continue.... Edited June 28, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 DC Tom is right, they will get this done in the 11th hour, there will be no tax increases. The only added revenues that will result out of this will be some sort of corporate wellfare loophole that will be closed. That´s it, no tax increases, I can assure you of that. If anything, the press will come out saying that the GOP got the better of the deal. There will be alot more cuts than tax increases, and in regards to the Pentagon cuts, there is a new dynamic occuring in the conservative party, they are becoming less the neo cons that they were before, there is a libertarian streak within them. This trend will continue.... The end result will be: Put off the problem a few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 The end result will be: Put off the problem a few more years. Yes, with this president as with most others this will be the outcome. If Christie was there, I could assure that this wouldnt be the case. We need a true leader to tackle this issue, and we know that the president we have today doesnt have what it takes to make the hard decisions that is necessary to help solve our growing debt problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts