Raise The Debt Limit Already!

[OCinBuffalo]

I am all for compromise. But, this is hilarious. Just a week or so ago here, people were ripping on Obama for being a partisan shill... but, Obama doesn't compromise, he rolls over, in the end, to Republicans at every turn. And yet, the people who hate him, say that he is divisive. It's like he got elected, and then just forgot the reasons that the people who voted him in, did so in the first place. He spends his energies trying to win over a crowd of people who are never going to like him, no matter what he does...so, we come up with a debt plan that really doesn't accomplish anything, or make anyone happy. Republicans got pretty much everything they wanted, but it isn't enough...

I think you have severely misinterpreted, and overestimated the mental capacity, of who elected Obama and why. Since "the liberal base" only made up 22% of the country in 2008, now less than 16%, liberals did not elect Obama. Independents elected Obama. In many cases, people who were voting for the first time. They were given the impression that a vote for Obama meant:

 

1. All war to end for all time.

2. Being nice to terrorists, countries that sponsor them, Islamic jihad-leaning groups, and all the rest would make the bad man stop.

3. Unicorn job creation based on rainbow Keysian assclownery and of course, "green, shovel-ready jobs".

4. Free money for no particular reason

5. Everything in the country would be changed for the better. No specifics as to what would change, when, and why....just "change".

 

Don't lie to yourself, you know they were given these impressions by the campaign. Due to either their stupidity, naivete, insanity, or laziness, or a combination of these, these independents believed that the word "change" = the word "plan". That the words "yes we can" = "I will lead". That the words "we are the ones we've been waiting for" = "we know what the F we are doing, and we will be accountable".

 

Now, those independents, to the tune of 68% of them(= Obama loses), have:

1. Grown up a little, and realized that there are now 3 wars, and none of them were ever going to end because Barry says the word "change" 3 times and clicks his heels together

2. Grown less ignorant

3. Gotten on some medication and stability is now common

4. Gotten their first job after college, or, still haven't, and they graduated in 2009.

5. Realized that words mean things, and therefore, realized "Obama never said a f'ing thing about how he would do anything. He never said he had a plan, he never said he would lead, he never said he would hold himself and others accountable, and I was an idiot for pretending that anything other than those exact words, in detail, suffices for a President".

 

and they are pissed because any independent who voted for Obama looks like an idiot now, and unlike most Democrats, they have no interest in taking one for the team. They look like idiots, so short of a miracle, it doesn't matter who you vote for Buftex, it's going to be a landslide. The only vote that matters is perhaps Senate, if yours are up. But with 20 Senate Democrats defending seats this time around, with this record and this economy, with only 6-7? Republicans? Yeah, that's going to be a massacre as well. The Republicans will probably pick up at least 13 Senate seats, which will put them well into 60+ land.

 

Obama's ludicrous adherence to ludicrous ideology, forgoing all practicality, compounded by his refusal to do the things good leaders do without thinking, hosed your party. When are you guys ever going to understand: the far left are not your friends, and their stupidity means BOHICA for rational Democrats?

[Buftex]

I think you have severely misinterpreted, and overestimated the mental capacity, of who elected Obama and why. Since "the liberal base" only made up 22% of the country in 2008, now less than 16%, liberals did not elect Obama. Independents elected Obama. In many cases, people who were voting for the first time. They were given the impression that a vote for Obama meant:

 

1. All war to end for all time.

2. Being nice to terrorists, countries that sponsor them, Islamic jihad-leaning groups, and all the rest would make the bad man stop.

3. Unicorn job creation based on rainbow Keysian assclownery and of course, "green, shovel-ready jobs".

4. Free money for no particular reason

5. Everything in the country would be changed for the better. No specifics as to what would change, when, and why....just "change".

 

Don't lie to yourself, you know they were given these impressions by the campaign. Due to either their stupidity, naivete, insanity, or laziness, or a combination of these, these independents believed that the word "change" = the word "plan". That the words "yes we can" = "I will lead". That the words "we are the ones we've been waiting for" = "we know what the F we are doing, and we will be accountable".

 

Now, those independents, to the tune of 68% of them(= Obama loses), have:

1. Grown up a little, and realized that there are now 3 wars, and none of them were ever going to end because Barry says the word "change" 3 times and clicks his heels together

2. Grown less ignorant

3. Gotten on some medication and stability is now common

4. Gotten their first job after college, or, still haven't, and they graduated in 2009.

5. Realized that words mean things, and therefore, realized "Obama never said a f'ing thing about how he would do anything. He never said he had a plan, he never said he would lead, he never said he would hold himself and others accountable, and I was an idiot for pretending that anything other than those exact words, in detail, suffices for a President".

 

and they are pissed because any independent who voted for Obama looks like an idiot now, and unlike most Democrats, they have no interest in taking one for the team. They look like idiots, so short of a miracle, it doesn't matter who you vote for Buftex, it's going to be a landslide. The only vote that matters is perhaps Senate, if yours are up. But with 20 Senate Democrats defending seats this time around, with this record and this economy, with only 6-7? Republicans? Yeah, that's going to be a massacre as well. The Republicans will probably pick up at least 13 Senate seats, which will put them well into 60+ land.

 

Obama's ludicrous adherence to ludicrous ideology, forgoing all practicality, compounded by his refusal to do the things good leaders do without thinking, hosed your party. When are you guys ever going to understand: the far left are not your friends, and their stupidity means BOHICA for rational Democrats?

 

I actually read your whole post, OC...that is a "change"!

And, I know we had our differences, but I applaud your efforts here. What is scary though, as you say, particualarly about the state of the Democratic party, is true...but I will take it one step further (and I am pretty sure you won't agree), that this "selling out to the far left" by Democrats has fugged the party, is exactly what is happening in the Republican party. I don't know how old you are (I am 46), but though a registered Democrat my whole adult life, I have always taken the time to try to understand where the other side is coming from. I don't think I can recall a more wretched cast of candidates, in any election, for either major party, than what the Republicans are offering as an alternative to Obama. I can't take a single Republican seriously. I am not jumping to the conclusion that one of them can't win the election, just, personally, I could never support any of them. I didn't vote for George W Bush, but, I was respectfully optimistic about him, early on. I have found myself, at times over the years, buying into John McCain (what happened to him?), Bob Dole, and a few others....but I really can't fathom any of the current Republican candidates...we are fugged!

[OCinBuffalo]

I actually read your whole post, OC...that is a "change"!

And, I know we had our differences, but I applaud your efforts here. What is scary though, as you say, particualarly about the state of the Democratic party, is true...but I will take it one step further (and I am pretty sure you won't agree), that this "selling out to the far left" by Democrats has fugged the party, is exactly what is happening in the Republican party. I don't know how old you are (I am 46), but though a registered Democrat my whole adult life, I have always taken the time to try to understand where the other side is coming from. I don't think I can recall a more wretched cast of candidates, in any election, for either major party, than what the Republicans are offering as an alternative to Obama. I can't take a single Republican seriously. I am not jumping to the conclusion that one of them can't win the election, just, personally, I could never support any of them. I didn't vote for George W Bush, but, I was respectfully optimistic about him, early on. I have found myself, at times over the years, buying into John McCain (what happened to him?), Bob Dole, and a few others....but I really can't fathom any of the current Republican candidates...we are fugged!

 

I don't know why you would think i would disagree with any of this. It is a cogent analysis. Rare, and pleasing, coming from you.

 

The fact is I really don't know much about any of the candidates. The only ones I take seriously at this point are Romney, Bachman, and perhaps a few of the non-declared. My standard for "take seriously" is defined on purely political terms at the moment, since I can't really speak to whether any of them can run the country. I refuse, and I have 0 tolerance, for anyone repeating the mistakes that got Obama elected: no due diligence/"not Bush". So, we'll see...

[Buftex]

I don't know why you would think i would disagree with any of this. It is a cogent analysis. Rare, and pleasing, coming from you.

 

The fact is I really don't know much about any of the candidates. The only ones I take seriously at this point are Romney, Bachman, and perhaps a few of the non-declared. My standard for "take seriously" is defined on purely political terms at the moment, since I can't really speak to whether any of them can run the country. I refuse, and I have 0 tolerance, for anyone repeating the mistakes that got Obama elected: no due diligence/"not Bush". So, we'll see...

 

Noble, but you do realize, it is very likely you won't be voting in the next presidential election?

[OCinBuffalo]

Noble, but you do realize, it is very likely you won't be voting in the next presidential election?

I have never voted in any Presidential election:

 

1. Too young to vote for Reagan

2. Too smart to vote for Clinton(I knew he was a scumbag and I was right) Too annoyed to vote for Bush 1. Would have voted for Tsongas. Perot was a tool.

3. Dole, please. I was actually going to vote for Clinton, but the project I was on was a ballbuster, and I was 1k miles away....and I really didn't have a residence anyway. I doubt I would have able to register, and it's not like I was going to ask my project manager for time to go vote. We barely had time to eat.

4. Then it was turd sandwich vs. giant douche, and the same problems as #3, but worse. I was in Dallas, but living in Philly, and I took over a project that was 6 months behind.

5. Then it was turd sandwich vs. "I turned my back on my unit, my honor, and my country....to get elected Senator", and I wasn't back in Philly long enough to register.

6. Then it was McCain the guy who would sell out his mother to get attention vs. "I clearly have no f'ing clue what I am doing" guy-->which I took all kinds of schit for on this board, but again, I was right. At this point I could do whatever whenever...but I refused to vote for either of them.

 

So, please tell me: who exactly should I have voted for again? And, even if I could have, how the hell was I supposed to, other than the last time around?

 

This time I wanted Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. Hell I would have worked for either, never mind voted. We'll see about the rest...but, Barry is soooo bad...but then, WTF effect will I have in NYS? Far too may tools who don't want to admit they were wrong in this state. Perhaps I should move to Florida or VA, someplace where my vote will matter. On the Dem side, next time around, I want Ed Rendell.

[/dev/null]

I actually read your whole post, OC...that is a "change"!

Then maybe there is Hope for you

[Peace]

OCinBuffalo...never voted in a presidential election. So grown up.

 

Now you get to stop complaining. You lost your right to do so.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

As a percentage of GDP, social entitlement programs have expanded much faster than defense spending since 1965. Now social entitlements account for twice the spending as ALL of national defense. To make it simple over the past 40 years.... defense spending has gone down... social programs have gone up.... keep slashing from national defense to fund unsustainable social entitlements. to all you "fair share" crowd that likes to compare historical trends and percentages of taxes what do you have to say about that? what does that say about entitlements?

 

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending

[Peace]

As a percentage of GDP, social entitlement programs have expanded much faster than defense spending since 1965. Now social entitlements account for twice the spending as ALL of national defense. To make it simple over the past 40 years.... defense spending has gone down... social programs have gone up.... keep slashing from national defense to fund unsustainable social entitlements. to all you "fair share" crowd that likes to compare historical trends and percentages of taxes what do you have to say about that? what does that say about entitlements?

 

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending

 

Says entitlement spending should go down. And military too.

 

The point a lot of people here make (mostly ex-military and contractors like me) is that the military wastes so much that you can make a fair amount of cuts and keep a top military. I am sure you can find the same waste on the entitlement side but most here aren't insiders in that system.

[DC Tom]

.... defense spending has gone down...

 

Defense spending in '65 was something like $60B. What wacky definition of "down" are you using?

[Magox]

I am a firm believe that there should be cuts in defense spending, but after reviewing the bill that was passed, the cuts to defense will be highly disproportionate relative to the rest of the cuts, that is IF the triggers have to be used, which we all know that they will.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Magox

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Defense spending in '65 was something like $60B. What wacky definition of "down" are you using?

I thought I made it clear I was using a comparison of "spending as a % of GDP" which by that criteria defense spending has decreased

[Booster4324]

Seems S&P is going to downgrade our credit tonight.

 

Link

[/dev/null]

Seems S&P is going to downgrade our credit tonight.

 

Link

 

 

If the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling, we might lose our AAA rating!

If the Stimulous ®* isn't passed, unemployment might go over 8%!

 

* Stimulous is a registered trademark of Dave_In_Norfolk

[DC Tom]

Seems S&P is going to downgrade our credit tonight.

 

Link

 

114 news stories on that, all stemming from one source: an unnamed government person talking to an ABC reporter who blogged it.

 

And to paraphrase the reason given: "It's the Republicans fault!"

 

I'm invested right now with the specific expectation of a downgrade in the very near future, and I think the ratings agencies are being too kind in not downgrading within the past two weeks, and I'm still not buying this story. Not until S&P actually downgrades, at least. But I sure hope they do...daddy needs a brand new Lexus...

 

If the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling, we might lose our AAA rating!

 

There's a difference between the rating dropping from AAA to AA+, and the rating dropping from AAA to C.

 

The difference being, basically "Well, that sucks," and "Holy !@#$ing ****, we're all gonna die!" Bottom line, though, is that Congress !@#$ed up either way.

[Booster4324]

If the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling, we might lose our AAA rating!

If the Stimulous ®* isn't passed, unemployment might go over 8%!

 

* Stimulous is a registered trademark of Dave_In_Norfolk

 

I blame this on not cutting spending enough/raise some sort of taxes actually. Some of the financial gurus might chime in. As to Tom's point, yeah, we shall see...

[DC Tom]

I blame this on not cutting spending enough/raise some sort of taxes actually. Some of the financial gurus might chime in. As to Tom's point, yeah, we shall see...

 

Everyone I've talked to has basically agreed that, whatever else, when your debt is backed by the "full faith and credit" of a government that takes a country's finances to the very brink of default, it's probably not deserving of a AAA rating.

[Booster4324]

Everyone I've talked to has basically agreed that, whatever else, when your debt is backed by the "full faith and credit" of a government that takes a country's finances to the very brink of default, it's probably not deserving of a AAA rating.

 

Fair enough, I do recall reading some stuff along those lines, but from what I read the minimum amount over 10 years was say 4 trillion. Maybe a combination of the two with the waiting till the last hour being a bigger contributor?

[Adam]

Both sides are pathetic. Our entire government is unfit to lead and has been for a very long time. I would take president Clinton and president Reagan. Over president Bush or president Obama.

[DC Tom]

Fair enough, I do recall reading some stuff along those lines, but from what I read the minimum amount over 10 years was say 4 trillion. Maybe a combination of the two with the waiting till the last hour being a bigger contributor?

 

It's certainly a combination of the two.

 

CNN's reporting that S&P is confirming the story...but is delaying their downgrade because the feds identified "mistakes" in their economic model, which was apparently off by "trillions" of dollars.

 

Given this administration's demonstrated abilities in the realm of economics and basic mathematics, I can't discount the chance that the "mistake" the government expressed was along the lines of "We regulate you, not the other way around. Downgrade our debt, and we'll !@#$ you in the ass, bitches."

 

Both sides are pathetic. Our entire government is unfit to lead and has been for a very long time. I would take president Clinton and president Reagan. Over president Bush or president Obama.

 

Can I have Clinton's domestic policy and Bush's second-term foreign policy, please?