IDBillzFan Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I will bow to your superior intellect. However, you are ignoring the fact that the president has put spending cuts on the table, siginificant ones, and has been shot down, Can you let us know which spending cuts he put on the table? Can you break down specificially how much he was cutting, how soon the cuts would take place, and what specific areas of the government it would be cut from? Is it something other than the corporate jet tax concept? In other words, what has he specifically outlined to have cut, and in exchange for how much of a rise in the debt limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Well...to say that your "first goal is to make sure" that somebody else doesn't get elected, is, to me, a pretty miserable thing to say, particularly in the context that it has been said. McConnell makes me think that working to strengthening the economy, right now, is not a priority to him. So, yeah, it does sound a little conspiratorial. And, it is a about as cynical, and unpatriotic an attitude than anyone can take to a negotiating table. The president, no matter who he is, whatever affiliation, has many more people to answer to than a single element, of a single political party. John Boehner repeats, over and over again, as if trying to convince himself, that that "American people" do not want tax increases...which, every poll shows, is not really true. People realize we are !@#$ed, and are willing to pay more...but it has to come from everyone. Nobody should be exempt from paying something. The Bush tax cuts, which Obama foolishly extended once, have not helped to create jobs...the notion that those who benefit from the tax cuts are somehow inherently "job creators" is just simply not true. The president has been willing to put everything on the table, to bring the debt down, but Republicans (maybe because they are so worried about the pledges that they love to sign) won't even talk about closing tax loopholes. It is true, this is the Democrats economy, because we have a Democrat in the White House. But, it is crazy to think that this debt didn't spiraling out of control long before Obama took office. If the Republicans don't want to be associated with this economy, great...let them continue to stonewall, and let it get worse...it will be theirs soon enough...and two years from now, the right will be crying about the debt that Michelle Bachmann inherited from Obama... http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Well, a number of the things that initiated the crash were started by liberal feel-good policies that wanted to get people into homes they couldn't afford. Clinton put that pot on the stove and left it simmering until it finally boiled over in fall 2008. That's a little misleading. No one set out, 15 years ago, instituting policies to put people in homes they couldn't afford. Rather, the policies were to make homes more affordable, to promote low-income home ownership...which gradually morphed to making home loans more affordable, to making it discriminatory to deny financing, to "everyone's entitled to a McMansion". Not dissimilar to the process that health "care" is going to go through now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 That's a little misleading. No one set out, 15 years ago, instituting policies to put people in homes they couldn't afford. Rather, the policies were to make homes more affordable, to promote low-income home ownership...which gradually morphed to making home loans more affordable, to making it discriminatory to deny financing, to "everyone's entitled to a McMansion". Not dissimilar to the process that health "care" is going to go through now... Ahh, a voice of reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) That's a little misleading. No one set out, 15 years ago, instituting policies to put people in homes they couldn't afford. Rather, the policies were to make homes more affordable, to promote low-income home ownership...which gradually morphed to making home loans more affordable, to making it discriminatory to deny financing, to "everyone's entitled to a McMansion". Not dissimilar to the process that health "care" is going to go through now... Well, I put a lot to the "left it simmering" part. The culture of D.C. is the stove/flame. I was thinking of when you put milk on low heat, and it'll scald and reduce; put it on high and it'll get all over the !@#$ing place. To not have expected that likely end is like not expecting, as you put it, for ObamaCare to eventually spell disaster for timely and/or cost-effective medical treatment. (It may do this on its own, or likewise poking and prodding from Congresscritters or alphabet-soup agencies). Edited July 18, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Well, I put a lot to the "left it simmering" part. The culture of D.C. is the stove/flame. I was thinking of when you put milk on low heat, and it'll scald and reduce; put it on high and it'll get all over the !@#$ing place. To not have expected that likely end is like not expecting, as you put it, for ObamaCare to eventually spell disaster for timely and/or cost-effective medical treatment. (It may do this on its own, or likewise poking and prodding from Congresscritters or alphabet-soup agencies). It wasn't just "left on simmer," though...a better analogy would be "boiling a frog". They (pretty much everyone, from Wall Street to lenders to home buyers to the federal and state governments, and even local governments in some cases*) kept pushing the envelope, based on a risk analysis of "We didn't !@#$ **** up too badly last time, so we can go a little farther with this racket." And eventually, the frog (ironically, in this case the French ) says "What the bloody fochinell? It's hot in here!" *Yes, District of Columbia, I'm talking about you, you incompetent asshats. Who hires a private real estate law firm specializing in foreclosures to write your homeowner and renter protection laws? Who loses two million dollars in real estate taxes, and then forecloses on the people who paid them for being delinquent? Who the hell lets DEAD PEOPLE sign deeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 http://news.yahoo.com/dem-gov-win-2012-gop-wants-hurt-economy-180813724.html "I think that there is an extreme wing within their party who have as their primary goal not the jobs recovery, but the defeat of President Obama in 2012," O'Malley said in an interview. "They know that their formulations, their policies of less revenues and less regulation badly failed our country and plunged us into this recession. So their only way of evening the playing field is to keep the president from being successful in the jobs recovery." A conspiracy means they are trying to hide what they are doing, no? Seems to me the Repubs are being more transparent that the "most transparent administration ever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts