believer;825643 wrote:Only to an extent. Default appears to be inevitable. The only flaw is that when the default happens, there won't be any blank checks to write in the end...the Chinese won't allow it.

Tell that to Obama....he probably thinks it will be just like declaring personal bankruptcy. Plus, if we have to create new currency because we lopped off a 0 then Obama can immortalize his portrait.

gut;825648 wrote:Tell that to Obama....he probably thinks it will be just like declaring personal bankruptcy. Plus, if we have to create new currency because we lopped off a 0 then Obama can immortalize his portrait.

Like this one?

Footwedge;825515 wrote:What does that have to do with it? I am out of line in stating on a political board that there are direct parallels in what Obama is doing in comparison to his GOP predecessors? It's no secret that the OC poli board is infested with grossly misinformed hacks from the right.

No matter how many facts are posted.....the hypocracy of the right regarding fiscal restraints will never, ever be acknowledged. That's what partisan blinders will do to you.

You are not out of line making comparisons to past policy no matter how far back. Posters on the right start bitching about Obama's spending and its Reagan spent blah, blah, blah. May be they are seeing the light. You yourself claim to have seen the light as well. Welcome them aboard. Believer acknowledged Reagan's spending largess.

Most of the posters on the OC you label right wing political hacks have been very critical of the Republicans for their spending. I was a card carrying member of the Republican party. I donated my hard earned money to them. Its been well over 5yrs since I have given them a dime.

gut;825337 wrote:What Reagan did largely worked. Remember we had the gas crisis/recession around '82(?), double-digit inflation and then Black Friday in '87. There's nothing wrong with a LITTLE deficit spending and it does temporarily prop up the economy...BUT you have to eventually pay it back.

I also don't think FDR's approach was terrible...We continue to enjoy benefits from many of those infrastructure projects. My main beef with the stimulus is that it funded crap boondoggle projects, practically flushing money down the drain.

That's not what FDR's treasury secretary said.

Footwedge;825501 wrote:The stimulus project is just another temporary stopgap to keep the masses employed while millions of jobs have been permanently sent overseas.

Surely you mean "public union masses" right?

gut;825622 wrote:Probably time for term limits in the House and Senate. Re-election is having too much negative influence over good policy and some reps have too much power and influence. Since the other 48 states can't get rid of Pelosi or Reid we should do it wit term limits.

Not a fan of term limits. If elected officials are this reckless knowing they will have to give an account to their constituencies in 2, 4, or 6 years, imagine how they would roll if they knew they were lame ducks and had no worries about possible political defeat.

Besides, if Nancy Pelosi's (and others) constituents are dumb enough to keep re-electing the likes of her, they're dumb enough to find another hack just as bad or worse to replace her.

believer;825643 wrote:Only to an extent. Default appears to be inevitable. The only flaw is that when the default happens, there won't be any blank checks to write in the end...the Chinese won't allow it.

I disagree that default is inevitable.

majorspark;825926 wrote:You are not out of line making comparisons to past policy no matter how far back. Posters on the right start bitching about Obama's spending and its Reagan spent blah, blah, blah. May be they are seeing the light. You yourself claim to have seen the light as well. Welcome them aboard. Believer acknowledged Reagan's spending largess.

Most of the posters on the OC you label right wing political hacks have been very critical of the Republicans for their spending. I was a card carrying member of the Republican party. I donated my hard earned money to them. Its been well over 5yrs since I have given them a dime.

I'm not calling you stupid because you aren't, but being a card-carrying member of either party (which you aren't any more) is one of the things that immediately makes me think one is either stupid or an asshole. Simply because both parties are pretty damned shitty except for the small subset of members that they cater almost directly to.

fish82;825636 wrote:1. Using percentage of increase in spending to bolster your argument is both disingenuous and pretty irrelevant, unless we only intend to pay back a "percentage" of the dollars we borrow.

B. In terms of spending the most dollars, and adding the the most dollars to the ever growing stack of debt...there is a clear cut winner, and you know damn well who it is.

I used the term percentage in my original post. No disengeneosity there at all. But your response is oh so typical. Twist the context as to what is said in order to bolster a very flimsy position.

Were you around whenever the spending craze began? Well...I was.

As for total dollars....well that title belongs to W.....in a landslide.

jhay78;825938 wrote:
Surely you mean "public union masses" right?

Not at all.

majorspark;825926 wrote:You are not out of line making comparisons to past policy no matter how far back. Posters on the right start bitching about Obama's spending and its Reagan spent blah, blah, blah. May be they are seeing the light. You yourself claim to have seen the light as well. Welcome them aboard. Believer acknowledged Reagan's spending largess.

I repeat my claim....this board is loaded with right winged hacks that still think their party is the one with fiscal resrtraint/responsibilty. Look at Fish, WB, MB, QCB...the list is endless. Even our friends up north saw 11 straight years of surpluses thrown down the shdder (liberal party) whenever the "conservatives" came into power.

Most of the posters on the OC you label right wing political hacks have been very critical of the Republicans for their spending. .

Wrong. Most of the political hacks that I've sited are in complete denial. Just read back over the past 2 pages. Case closed.

BGFalcons82;825626 wrote:You are right, gut. If the R's cave to tax increases...again...they will become irrelavent and become a 3rd party. This is indeed a line in the sand and written in stone. They cave...they're gone and we'll continue our search for candidates with balls.

The United States has one of the lowest tax rates globally both for personal income and for corporate taxes. We have the highest national debt. Good luck in your search of a party that doesn't care about stealing from future generations.

Independent Bill Maher educates the lemmings here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M91wDBM6Krc

I know it's just a state bill but I think this is a microcosm of the frustration some of us more liberal posters feel when you guys want to lecture about fiscal responsibility.

IL Bill 1490
https://www.subcultureusa.com/news/il-house-passes-bill-1490

"Provides that all professional and amateur contests, or combination of both, are prohibited unless authorized by the Department, unless one of the exemption applies. Provides that compensation for professional contests shall be determined by the Department and it shall be the promoters that pay the
compensation. Requires a person to register as an amateur with the Department before competing in an amateur contest and provides requirements for an applicant to register as an amateur in a full-contact martial arts contest."

It puts ridiculous restrictions on BJJ and submission grappling tournaments as well as a host of other things. Plus it adds a massive workload to a government department (gasp, expansion of government) all for something that was perfect as is.

It was sponsered by a Republican and while I'm sure there were Democrats that voted for it this sort of thing makes it harder to listen to Republicans about limited government and intelligent spending.

Yes, I realize it's a state bill and I know that some of you on here think that anything done at the state level is perfectly acceptable.

Footwedge;826002 wrote:As for total dollars....well that title belongs to W.....in a landslide.

True. Took "W" 8 years to get there. Let's hope your Nobel Peace Prize joke of a prez loses by a landslide in 2012 or he'll easily make "W's" spending seem like chump change.

majorspark;825926 wrote:Most of the posters on the OC you label right wing political hacks have been very critical of the Republicans for their spending. I was a card carrying member of the Republican party. I donated my hard earned money to them. Its been well over 5yrs since I have given them a dime.

this

I haven't given the "R's" any money since they spent like Dems the last time they held both houses of Congress. Every time they call me to ask for money I tell them, "When you guys stop acting like Democrat-lite, I'll start contributing once again."

majorspark;825926 wrote:Most of the posters on the OC you label right wing political hacks have been very critical of the Republicans for their spending. I was a card carrying member of the Republican party. I donated my hard earned money to them. Its been well over 5yrs since I have given them a dime.

this

I haven't given the "R's" any money since they spent like Dems the last time they held both houses of Congress. Every time they call me to ask for money I tell them, "When you guys stop acting like Democrat-lite, I'll start contributing once again."

Footwedge;826007 wrote:The United States has one of the lowest tax rates globally both for personal income and for corporate taxes. We have the highest national debt. Good luck in your search of a party that doesn't care about stealing from future generations.

Independent Bill Maher educates the lemmings here....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M91wDBM6Krc

Is he really an Independent? He is about as left leaning as it gets:

Bill Maher weighed in on the Casey Anthony verdict Friday night with a decidedly different take than most of the pundits this past week: He compared it to Republican thinking on economic issues.[INDENT]"If you can look at a crime where everything points to one answer and not see it, you’re a dumbass. And if you can look at the deficit and not see that the problem is that the rich stopped paying taxes, you’re a Republican.
And before you accuse me of equating the Casey Anthony verdict with Republican thinking, save your breath: I am…if you’re a working-class American who still votes Republican, then you don’t get to b*tch about that verdict."
[/INDENT]Attacking Republican opposition to a higher corporate jet tax, Maher said:[INDENT]"Voting for them is as stupid as voting not guilty for the mom who lost her baby for a month and went looking at a wet T-shirt contest."
[/INDENT]

Bill Maher is the poster child for vapidly leftist thinking.

I honestly do not see the big problem with any deal that cuts billions over the span of 10 years from the budget and allows loopholes to be closed on taxes. That is a sensible deal to avoid default.
Once that deal is done, then you can move aggressively on tax reform and cutting the budget even more.
But, come on, walking away just because the R's do not want to close tax loopholes because it will be viewed as a tax increase is stupid in my view. This is the politics I hate.

And default is not a good idea, not at all, as it will impact everyone as all rates will go up.

coyotes22;826034 wrote:Is he really an Independent? He is about as left leaning as it gets:

Yes...he is an independent. He has more left wing views than right....He doesn't like Obama...for what it's worth.

Footwedge;826189 wrote:Yes...he is an independent. He has more left wing views than right....He doesn't like Obama...for what it's worth.

Independent liberal yes, independent moderate hell no.
Maher is as liberal as it comes. He doesn't like Obama because he views him as not liberal enough.

ptown_trojans_1;826200 wrote:Independent liberal yes, independent moderate hell no.
Maher is as liberal as it comes. He doesn't like Obama because he views him as not liberal enough.

Correct!!!! It's ok though, the libs on here are very convinced Reagan was a Progressive and Obama is the poster child for conservatism.

I Wear Pants;826008 wrote:It was sponsored by a Republican and while I'm sure there were Democrats that voted for it this sort of thing makes it harder to listen to Republicans about limited government and intelligent spending.

There are a lot of big government republicans. Sometimes when a solid conservative challenges one in a republican primary, the conservative gets labeled as a wing nut dullard who will be unelectable in the general election. So conservative are told to hold their noses and vote for the electable statesman. If the do not the left wing loon democrat will surely win the general election and heap horrible draconian new confiscatory laws.

I Wear Pants;826008 wrote:Yes, I realize it's a state bill and I know that some of you on here think that anything done at the state level is perfectly acceptable.

States can do more than the feds, but not anything. States have their own constitutions that govern what they can and can't do. So not every law is acceptable. Some state laws are stupid. I am mostly concerned with the size of the governments that rule over my affairs.

What would you propose happen to these big government overlords in Illinois? Should someone run out and cry for even bigger government involvement and get an injunction from a federal judge forbidding enactment of the law pending federal judicial review? Or maybe you want the federal supreme court to find something in our living breathing constitution that nullifies the law?

This law seems to me to be a waste of the taxpayers resources and the creation of another useless bureaucracy. But I don't pay taxes to the state of Illinois. If they feel this is a good allocation of their resources, go ahead.

jhay78;825938 wrote: Besides, if Nancy Pelosi's (and others) constituents are dumb enough to keep re-electing the likes of her, they're dumb enough to find another hack just as bad or worse to replace her.

true, but that rep wouldn't have the clout or influence that a Pelosi does. Those types get on the key committees and use that position to strong-arm junior reps. As a junior rep if you want to accomplish anything you have to play ball and usually toe the party line. Term limits would wipe out much of such cronyism.

ptown_trojans_1;826200 wrote:Independent liberal yes, independent moderate hell no.
Maher is as liberal as it comes. He doesn't like Obama because he views him as not liberal enough.

Haven't seen his show in years, but that's kind of funny because I thought he was all excited and giddy when Obama got elected. Such disillusionment is priceless.

ptown_trojans_1;826177 wrote:But, come on, walking away just because the R's do not want to close tax loopholes because it will be viewed as a tax increase is stupid in my view. This is the politics I hate.

This word "loophole". Its implied that these are fancy accounting tricks employed by big business to get around paying their taxes. These are legally designed federal tax breaks that encourage business to do the things it wants them to do. Its not illegally hiding taxable information on your tax returns (see Tim Geitner and Charlie Rangel).

Closing a "loophole" is raising taxes. Mortgage interest deduction is a "loophole". If it were closed, I have a tax increase. Acting like it is eliminating some nefarious accounting trick and not a federally designed tax break, that is what I hate about politics.

majorspark;826250 wrote:This word "loophole". Its implied that these are fancy accounting tricks employed by big business to get around paying their taxes. These are legally designed federal tax breaks that encourage business to do the things it wants them to do. Its not illegally hiding taxable information on your tax returns (see Tim Geitner and Charlie Rangel).

Closing a "loophole" is raising taxes. Mortgage interest deduction is a "loophole". If it were closed, I have a tax increase. Acting like it is eliminating some nefarious accounting trick and not a federally designed tax break, that is what I hate about politics.

Fine, call it changing the tax code to limit the amount of deductions big businesses can claim. Call it want you want. Is it really that big of increase then? Is it really worth default over?
Really?
I find it so annoying that the R's can't give on this one issue that in the long run means nothing. Yet, they are willing to sacrifice the country's credit rating for it.

It's simple really. Close the tax credits, cut the budget by trillions, move the debt ceiling up past the election in 2012 so it is not an issue next year. Then, focus on tax reform and further budget cuts for next year.


I'm sorry, I'm just getting ticked off at both parties for not doing what is needed now to score BS political points.

ptown_trojans_1;826277 wrote:Fine, call it changing the tax code to limit the amount of deductions big businesses can claim. Call it want you want. Is it really that big of increase then? Is it really worth default over?

I call it what it is. A tax increase. No it is not worth defaulting over. We will save that for later and it will not be over some diddly little tax increases. I despise the complexity of the tax code. All these tax breaks to encourage one to do what the feds want you to should be eliminated in favor of a simple rate.

ptown_trojans_1;826277 wrote:I find it so annoying that the R's can't give on this one issue that in the long run means nothing. Yet, they are willing to sacrifice the country's credit rating for it.

You need not worry about the republicans. There will not be a default. When the democrats squeeze them where their balls are supposed to be and they picture the media skewering them for causing default over keeping "loopholes" so some corporate fat cat can zip around in his private jet , they will do what they always do.

ptown_trojans_1;826277 wrote:It's simple really. Close the tax credits, cut the budget by trillions, move the debt ceiling up past the election in 2012 so it is not an issue next year. Then, focus on tax reform and further budget cuts for next year.

I agree. But I do not count on any real tax reform and meaningful budget cuts next year. We can't get them done now and we will not in a year either.

majorspark;826341 wrote:I call it what it is. A tax increase. No it is not worth defaulting over. We will save that for later and it will not be over some diddly little tax increases. I despise the complexity of the tax code. All these tax breaks to encourage one to do what the feds want you to should be eliminated in favor of a simple rate.



You need not worry about the republicans. There will not be a default. When the democrats squeeze them where their balls are supposed to be and they picture the media skewering them for causing default over keeping "loopholes" so some corporate fat cat can zip around in his private jet , they will do what they always do.



I agree. But I do not count on any real tax reform and meaningful budget cuts next year. We can't get them done now and we will not in a year either.

It isn't a damned tax increase. It's closing loopholes (or if you want to call it breaks written in the tax code specifically for big business).

We do agree that we need to simplify the tax code.

So you'd rather the Republicans let us default then? Them taking this deal is compromise, not bending over.