gut;843643 wrote:He's really all-in when he flip-flops. Sad part is, the numbers then somewhat pale in comparison vs. what they are today.

Correct me if I'm wrong , Keynesian economists agree with what he is saying. 2006 was considered good economic times and now is clearly not.

gut;843643 wrote:He's really all-in when he flip-flops. Sad part is, the numbers then somewhat pale in comparison vs. what they are today.

Yeah it was funny listening to him say how outrageous 9 trillion was.

If you think Reid's a nut job, check this out: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60080.html

So the Repubs seek a dictatorship, eh, Debbie? You clowns enjoyed near Super Majority status for 2 years and couldn't come up with a budget while you spent us into oblivion.

You still control one house of Congress and the White House and call the Repubs dictators for having the audacity of having a plan?

Am I the only one who thinks this woman needs bitch slapped?

derek bomar;843593 wrote:raising the debt ceiling by 2.7 does not equal spending 2.7 dude...I know it probably will lead to it without cuts in spending, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other

There's no debt ceiling when the legislative branch can vote to increase it. It's not a ceiling. I wish the term would be changed.

revgat;843664 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong , Keynesian economists agree with what he is saying. 2006 was considered good economic times and now is clearly not.

True....Of course, these days Keynesian economists are either wearing paper bags or doubling down. Keep in mind, also, that the budget deficit in 2006 was like $300B, which seems like pocket change in comparison to today.

believer;843671 wrote:If you think Reid's a nut job, check this out: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60080.html

So the Repubs seek a dictatorship, eh, Debbie? You clowns enjoyed near Super Majority status for 2 years and couldn't come up with a budget while you spent us into oblivion.

You still control one house of Congress and the White House and call the Repubs dictators for having the audacity of having a plan?

Am I the only one who thinks this woman needs bitch slapped?

Debbie has go it right. The Republicans have a masterful plan to finally bring a dictatorship to the US. When did they decide to hatch this dastardly plan? When a Democrat is president.

Allen West got this chick about right.

Florida GOP Congressman Allen West this afternoon dispatched a scathing personal email to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, calling her "vile, unprofessional ,and despicable," "a coward," "characterless," and "not a Lady," and demanding that she "shut the heck up.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/Allen_West_tirade_WassermanSchultz_viledespicablenot_a_Lady.html

believer;843671 wrote:If you think Reid's a nut job, check this out: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60080.html

So the Repubs seek a dictatorship, eh, Debbie?

"and not just pile all the pain on seniors, on children, on the middle class and working families"

Considering it's mostly handouts to those people that got us in this mess, maybe they should take the brunt of the pain. That's pretty much everyone but the rich, who already pay like 80% of the taxes. Europe (and, again, not that it's a model we should want to emulate) taxes it's rich more than the US....they also tax the average bloke a lot more than the US.

gut;843676 wrote:True....Of course, these days Keynesian economists are either wearing paper bags or doubling down. Keep in mind, also, that the budget deficit in 2006 was like $300B, which seems like pocket change in comparison to today.

Some of those economists that are doubling down do have a point. They called for a larger stimulus from the beginning. Not saying that they are correct, just that they have a point.

revgat;843695 wrote:Some of those economists that are doubling down do have a point. They called for a larger stimulus from the beginning. Not saying that they are correct, just that they have a point.

Yes, they did. But some of the amounts thrown out were absurd almost to the point of suggesting they knew it was absurd so it gave them an out to claim it wasn't enough if things didn't work. I think the main reason it's failed to have an impact is because the debt and deficit have gotten so out of hand that businesses and individuals are responding as predicted under classic monetary theory.

revgat;843695 wrote:Some of those economists that are doubling down do have a point. They called for a larger stimulus from the beginning. Not saying that they are correct, just that they have a point.

One of the main problems with "stimulus" packages is that they are extremely temporary when compared to the business cycle. Business needs some sort of certainty in order to make outlays for 5 and 10 year plans. When Bush pushed through his tax cuts in 2001-2003, they were made for 10 years in order to provide such certainty to business. One year or two year mega-billion spending packages expire too quickly to allow businesses to acclimate to them. Thank goodness the Krugman socialists didn't get their way or we'd be another trillion in debt. In other words, business cannot rely on short term "solutions" and will hoard cash until they become certain of what will be in 5 to 10 years. I know we have become an "instant-gratification" society, however that does not translate to business plans, product development, and new services.

It might surprise the socialist community that these outlays can run into the billions in some industries (pharma, autos, and energy for example). These equate to R & D innovations, new technologies, better productivity, and...ahem....more jobs. Ya'll have denigrated this into a mantra of "trickle down economics", but that's how industry works. Changing the rules of taxation/subsidies/payoffs with one or two-time packages does NOT pursuade business to invest billions in creation of new products or services. All the stimulus serves to do is mask problems, provide a bit of a "sugar high", and kick the can down the road. Keynesians say in order to start a fire, you need a spark. The problem with this is they are trying to spark a fire in a hurricane and it gets doused before it ever takes hold.

can we play clips of Republicans voting for the debt ceiling during the last administration now saying they won't raise it?

derek bomar;843724 wrote:can we play clips of Republicans voting for the debt ceiling during the last administration now saying they won't raise it?

Your boy Obama wasn't for raising the debt ceiling either. If you are going to play clips of Republicans, I want this clip playing non stop right next to it.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:
[INDENT] The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
[/INDENT] In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote.

So, America deserved better in 2006, but now that he's President us Americans don't deserve anything?

derek bomar;843724 wrote:can we play clips of Republicans voting for the debt ceiling during the last administration now saying they won't raise it?

I did check it out and I could not find any giving such a passionate speech for it as Harry Reid did against it. I would not be surprised though if a Republican did though. The hypocrisy is well known.

Transcript from Rush Limbaugh.
So what we've learned here is that the party out of power is always opposed to raising the debt limit, and they use the same arguments that the previous time that the previous time when another party was out of power used. It's just mind-boggling here. It's all about who's running the show -- and if you're not in charge, if you're not in control barbecue you're not the majority, you're gonna oppose raising the debt ceiling except we're gonna kick the can down the road.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041311/content/01125111.guest.html

Good read.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/25/2330634/politicians-of-both-parties-switch.html


Maybe Republicans are finally seeing the light. I have my doubts. If Obama is not re-elected and these clowns do 180's again, its time to break out the pitch forks.

Heard a new plan today from Connie Mack and Rand Paul. It's very simple. It goes like this:

The 2012 budget will be the same as 2011, only it will be 1% less.
This will be continued for 8 years. If growth projections come in line, then we will have a balanced budget within 6 years. Then we will focus on paring down the national debt and turn the clock around.

This eliminates "Baseline Budgeting", which is set for a 7.5% increase for 2012, 2013, and 2014. That's right, they plan on spending nearly 25% more in 3 years than we spend today, which is about a trillion dollars. Harry wants to cut $2,400,000,000,000 over 10 years, so you can see he's not cutting squat. He's merely reducing the rate of increase of spending.

The Mack-Paul suggestion will only be a suggestion in the end, as the Obama-Reid-Pelosi trainwreck will NOT stand for any actual reductions in anything.

1% less than the current budget, or 1% less than what is projected for that year? Even so, the 2011 budget is around 3.7 Trillion. Cutting only 8 percent(1 percent for 8 years) won't do shit. Someone really needs to go back to elementary math, if they believe that.

2012 (3.663T) 2013(3.626T) 2014(3.59T) 2015(3.554T) 2016(3.518T) 2017(3.483T) 2018(3.45T) 2019(3.416T).

I have an extremely hard time believing cutting only 1% per year for 6 years will come close to balancing a budget. As you can see, in 6 years the budget will still be 3.483T so the government would need almost 1.3T more in tax revenue. It's not going to happen. This is all assuming that the government has absolutely NO increase in spending for these years, which will never happen. Face it, this country is screwed.

tk421;843856 wrote: So, America deserved better in 2006, but now that he's President us Americans don't deserve anything?

To be fair, Obama and the Axis of Spending have done their part to shift that burden to everyone today, so techinically he's not leaving it for our children and grandchildren because at this rate the slate will have to be wiped clean long before then.

BGFalcons82;843878 wrote: The 2012 budget will be the same as 2011, only it will be 1% less.
This will be continued for 8 years. If growth projections come in line, then we will have a balanced budget within 6 years.

That sounds great, but because of the growth in SS/Medicare, you're talking far more than 1% across the board. Also, I'd like to see these "growth" projections. Obama has a plan for a balanced budget, too, that calls for a laughable 24% of GDP, which would grow at an equally laughable 5% a year.

majorspark;843866 wrote:I did check it out and I could not find any giving such a passionate speech for it as Harry Reid did against it. I would not be surprised though if a Republican did though. The hypocrisy is well known.

you didnt look very hard. Marsha Blackburn and Laurence ODonnell interview from tuesday night is an example of someone being called out on their hypocrisy

derek bomar;843724 wrote:can we play clips of Republicans voting for the debt ceiling during the last administration now saying they won't raise it?

Sure as long as we can play the clips if Obama on the Senate floor stating how big a failure Bush was for having a couole $100B in deficits causing the debt ceiling to be raised during his administration.

derek bomar;843724 wrote:can we play clips of Republicans voting for the debt ceiling during the last administration now saying they won't raise it?

You may play play all the clips you want. Why does it matter if they are Republican or Democrat? What's the difference?

The point is it has to stop. The party affiliation is irrelevant.

Without a budget in place to eliminate this debt there is no legislator in office getting my vote in the next election. Who their party is means nothing to me.

believer;843671 wrote:If you think Reid's a nut job, check this out: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60080.html

So the Repubs seek a dictatorship, eh, Debbie? You clowns enjoyed near Super Majority status for 2 years and couldn't come up with a budget while you spent us into oblivion.

You still control one house of Congress and the White House and call the Repubs dictators for having the audacity of having a plan?

Am I the only one who thinks this woman needs bitch slapped?

majorspark;843681 wrote:Debbie has go it right. The Republicans have a masterful plan to finally bring a dictatorship to the US. When did they decide to hatch this dastardly plan? When a Democrat is president.

Allen West got this chick about right.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/Allen_West_tirade_WassermanSchultz_viledespicablenot_a_Lady.html

Florida GOP Congressman Allen West this afternoon dispatched a scathing personal email to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, calling her "vile, unprofessional ,and despicable," "a coward," "characterless," and "not a Lady," and demanding that she "shut the heck up.

Allen West was too nice.

derek bomar;844117 wrote:you didnt look very hard. Marsha Blackburn and Laurence ODonnell interview from tuesday night is an example of someone being called out on their hypocrisy

I know there are many who changed their votes. One of the articles I posted was to point that out. Its one thing to be a rank and file member of the house and change your vote. Its whole other thing to give a passionate speech in the well of the senate talking about saddling our children and grandchildren with mounds of debt then on a dime do a 180 and stifle any legislation that attempts to bring spending under control.

Harry Reid is a detestible scum bag. He is not worried about his children and grandchildren. He has them taken care of in his little fiefdom. Yours and my children and grandchildren are a different story.

they are all detestable scum bags. the difference is in this instance, I think Dems look better

majorspark;843866 wrote:I did check it out and I could not find any giving such a passionate speech for it as Harry Reid did against it. I would not be surprised though if a Republican did though. The hypocrisy is well known.

Transcript from Rush Limbaugh.
So what we've learned here is that the party out of power is always opposed to raising the debt limit, and they use the same arguments that the previous time that the previous time when another party was out of power used. It's just mind-boggling here. It's all about who's running the show -- and if you're not in charge, if you're not in control barbecue you're not the majority, you're gonna oppose raising the debt ceiling except we're gonna kick the can down the road.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041311/content/01125111.guest.html

Good read.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/25/2330634/politicians-of-both-parties-switch.html


Maybe Republicans are finally seeing the light. I have my doubts. If Obama is not re-elected and these clowns do 180's again, its time to break out the pitch forks.

To be fair, the Republicans in the House voted to raise the debt ceiling via the Cut Cap & Balance bill. I don't know of too many who said "No debt ceiling increase no matter what". What I've heard from most is raise the ceiling but put some hard cuts and caps into law so future Congresses will be bound by them.

majorspark;844267 wrote:Harry Reid is a detestible scum bag.

Not to mention vile, despicable, characterless, unprofessional, and a coward. I'm all for civility and all, but the top 10 Dems I'd like to step into a steel cage with are all in the Senate.

jhay78;844490 wrote:To be fair, the Republicans in the House voted to raise the debt ceiling via the Cut Cap & Balance bill. I don't know of too many who said "No debt ceiling increase no matter what". What I've heard from most is raise the ceiling but put some hard cuts and caps into law so future Congresses will be bound by them.



...

Yep. I don't like it. I don't mind a tax increase with stipulations toward similar levels of cuts based on the projected revenue increase but I don't want to to see the debt level rise even more.

I would like to see a balanced budget amendment to dictate to future legislators what they can and cannot do.