What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

Don't tell us how to hold the mop.

That's nice but we won.

Okay, you won, you can get into the car's backseat; don't you dare ask us for the keys...

And you refuse to assign any responsibility to Republicans for failing to work on a passable budget. And that's sad.

The reality has always been that both parties need to come together to make the budget. That no longer happens. Blame both parties - but blame the House Republicans more due to their stated "no compromise with Democrats" position.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And you refuse to assign any responsibility to Republicans for failing to work on a passable budget. And that's sad.

The reality has always been that both parties need to come together to make the budget. That no longer happens. Blame both parties - but blame the House Republicans more due to their stated "no compromise with Democrats" position.

Actually, there were several compromises.

Things did get passed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot assess more blame on one over the other, but we saw on Tuesday, from San Jose and San Diego to Madison, that the adults are waking up to the fact that we just cannot keep on spending irresponsibly.

There is only one party that has a segment focused on this course of action and that faction is the Tea Party.

No amount of higher taxation, the line in the sand drawn by the Democrat Party, will cure our spending problem.

They had two years to run roughshod over the Republicans with no compromise what-so-ever and with the results of the 2010 elections, I think, for their own sake, that bending to the will of the people might actually be a smarter course for the Democrats rather than blindly sticking with their ideology if they wish to salvage 2012.

The tagging is on the wall.

 

[mercury14]

Actually, there were several compromises.

Things did get passed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot assess more blame on one over the other, but we saw on Tuesday, from San Jose and San Diego to Madison, that the adults are waking up to the fact that we just cannot keep on spending irresponsibly.

There is only one party that has a segment focused on this course of action and that faction is the Tea Party.

No amount of higher taxation, the line in the sand drawn by the Democrat Party, will cure our spending problem.

They had two years to run roughshod over the Republicans with no compromise what-so-ever and with the results of the 2010 elections, I think, for their own sake, that bending to the will of the people might actually be a smarter course for the Democrats rather than blindly sticking with their ideology if they wish to salvage 2012.

The tagging is on the wall.

"Only" one segment? There are like 79 Republicans in the House that signed the lifetime no-tax pledge. Plus however many Republicans will not raise taxes regardless. And we had every single Republican presidential candidate say they would not raise taxes no matter what - even if it was $10 in cuts for every $1 of tax hikes. And that's pure fucking insanity. It would be called a huge win for the GOP and fiscal conservatism if that ratio of cuts:hikes came about. But the Republican party is extremist in 2012 and does not compromise. Even if they don't control the Senate and White House and have to compromise to further their agenda - doesn't matter... No compromise.

(Unless it means taxing the working poor by adding more people to the tax base, then it's somehow okay to raise people's taxes)

I agree that we cannot tax our way to fiscal sustainability. But we also cannot cut our way there. There's simply not enough to cut, and far less that's politically feasible to cut. The only realistic path is a series of cuts and tax increases. This is what Simpson-Bowls made a powerful case for and it's what almost every economist says is true.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And there you have it, the line in sand.


No symbolic tax increases, no real cuts.

All cuts are going to be starving granny and children, no new taxes is just the rich getting richer.

What the hell do the laws of economics have to do with a political debate?

And on top of it, the Republicans have BILLIONS, TRILLIONS, and GADZILLIONS of dollars to spread lies and propaganda!

MUAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...

Snidely, to the vault, I feel like rolling...

 

[mercury14]

And there you have it, the line in sand.


No symbolic tax increases, no real cuts.

All cuts are going to be starving granny and children, no new taxes is just the rich getting richer.

What the hell do the laws of economics have to do with a political debate?

And on top of it, the Republicans have BILLIONS, TRILLIONS, and GADZILLIONS of dollars to spread lies and propaganda!

MUAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...

Snidely, to the vault, I feel like rolling...

I have no idea if Repubs or Dems have more money to spend. Last I heard Dems have more money for high-flight elections but it's canceled out by right wing PACs. But one of the slimey bits about all this is that this money is virtually impossible to track so none of us can say which side has more cash.

You keep trying to define me as a sore loser instead of addressing my argument. Go back and answer my question.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I have no idea if Repubs or Dems have more money to spend. Last I heard Dems have more money for high-flight elections but it's canceled out by right wing PACs. But one of the slimey bits about all this is that this money is virtually impossible to track so none of us can say which side has more cash.

You keep trying to define me as a sore loser instead of addressing my argument. Go back and answer my question.

There are no Left-Wing PACS?

Or is the problem a lack of enthusiasm for the candidate, his platform, and current results putting a damper on their ability to raise money?

Which question?

Sometimes they get lost on the charges.

 

[mercury14]

There are no Left-Wing PACS?

Or is the problem a lack of enthusiasm for the candidate, his platform, and current results putting a damper on their ability to raise money?

Which question?

Sometimes they get lost on the charges.

Of course there are left-wing PACs. Nowhere am I saying that one side is more guilty than the other of soaking up cash, Mr Defensive.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Once again, folks, note the absence of specifics!

Actually, there were several compromises.

Care to share exactly what "compromises" were made?

Or are you pulling "facts" out of your ass again?

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

And isnt it nice that instead of putting the country 1st we had elected officials who wasted time and money and embarrassed us on a global scale just to out the president as " a man who got a blowjob and then lied about it".

that's an interesting perspective.
would you say clinton was putting the country 1st when he was spending so much time sneaking around, lying, and fucking a subordinate?

and why are so many people so concerned with whether or not we're embarrassed, or embarrassing? how does that even begin to translate to our effectiveness as an economic or peace-keeping power? can we quantify how much international trade was lost because businesses in other countries were giggling behind our backs about the fact that the president screwed around?

i think this speaks to an overall difference between liberal and conservative mindsets: liberal-minded people seem to put more emphasis on appearance and less on substance. of course this is only a theory that just popped into my head so i may be way off, here.

Actually, a dishonest and immoral President brought it on himself.

You all have a good point this topic with Clinton. The biggest problem, by and large, is that US Politics and the American people focused on Clinton's perceived immorals and not the problems of the US. We allowed singular issues to distract us from far more greater needs and important issues. Like say, I was always pissed about Clinton being a service dodger, but it did not stop me from supporting him during his presidency.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

I look at it this way Johnny. This is our country, the government was founded by us, for us, and of us. We, the American people, have a right to a leader who reflects our standards because he speaks and acts in our name. He carries our message, he represents our interests. We the people give him the power of life and death, we provide him and his family with everything while he is employed in our service. We have the absolute right to determine and judge his conduct while he occupies our White House.

In addition, the President is the Commander in Chief of the finest military the world has ever seen, made so by the very best of our sons and daughters, governed by the highest standards of military discipline and traditions. He commands an officer corps with standards so high that even the appearance of wrong doing is enough to convene a Courts Martial that can end a career. It's called conduct unbecoming.

Do you really believe the Commander in Chief of such an officer corps can effectively lead by presenting a lesser example of personal behavior to his subordinates, to his countrymen? I think the majority of Americans expect more from their President, I know I do.

Three paragraphs about america, and you wasted two of them talking about the military.

There are plenty of people serving this country, and the vast majority of them don't get anywhere near the recognition that the people who serve in the military do.

 

[TexasWife25]

Three paragraphs about america, and you wasted two of them talking about the military.

There are plenty of people serving this country, and the vast majority of them don't get anywhere near the recognition that the people who serve in the military do.

I would never say honoring the military is a waste. Although I agree there are lots of jobs people do every day that is just as life threatening and important as the military.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm black. Please remind me how this country was founded by my ancestors for my ancestors and lets politely leave out that much like today they were working for the rich people who ran the country for themselves and please someone remind me how say President Washington was rich not because he was already rich and had workers but because he was busting his ass in the fields day after day getting rich off the sweat of his brow. I'm just having a hard time remembering.

While you're at it can someone remind me what communists were in charge of setting up the country when they put the US Postal Service and the first public library in place? I have a bad case of amnesia so it couldn't have been anybody Americans respect because redistributing wealth, in this case by access to knowledge is strictly unAmerican. I think these guys might have pictures on something. . .something green. The hell do I know though.

 

[richard_daily]

I would never say honoring the military is a waste. Although I agree there are lots of jobs people do every day that is just as life threatening and important as the military.

I have no problem honoring people for their service to this country, but the military already gets its credit. Let's see some for firefighters, teachers, DOT workers, librarians, police, postal carriers, garbage men, and so forth... You know, the people that veteman says don't have a right to collective bargaining.

 

[koalabear]

I have no problem honoring people for their service to this country, but the military already gets its credit. Let's see some for firefighters, teachers, DOT workers, librarians, police, postal carriers, garbage men, and so forth... You know, the people that veteman says don't have a right to collective bargaining.

Yes, thank all librarians for protecting the country. The list is as stupid as you, lil fag chihuahua.

 

[Beco]

I have no problem honoring people for their service to this country, but the military already gets its credit. Let's see some for firefighters, teachers, DOT workers, librarians, police, postal carriers, garbage men, and so forth... You know, the people that veteman says don't have a right to collective bargaining.

You left out dog catchers, street cleaners, landscapers, the guys that get the gum off of sidewalks, janitors, and town criers...

 

[Beco]

President, not doing well, needs to get off the money raising circuit and get home to run the country....we got us a horse race. Looks like Romney might get this done afterall, wow!

 

[bra_man69]

Looks like Obama must be in the same fantasy world that dick_liesdaily lives.

"Private sector doing fine" Obama said in news conference.

S&P said well keep U.S outlook negative

 

[Beco]

stock market up, Obama's numbers down.....you do the math

 

[bra_man69]

stock market up, Obama's numbers down.....you do the math

Hoping Spain gets a bailout

 

[unregistered]

 

[NeverEndingMe]

we need more taxes and massive obama spending - as its working so well

(its working for the Chinese and those in the obama regime who are getting fat)

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I have no problem honoring people for their service to this country, but the military already gets its credit. Let's see some for firefighters, teachers, DOT workers, librarians, police, postal carriers, garbage men, and so forth... You know, the people that veteman says don't have a right to collective bargaining.

did you cum out of the closet yet?
we will support you be gay, or bi

 

[pierrelarue161]

I wouldn't say that Clinton represented my "standards" any less because he got a blowjob. Good God, what country do you think this is? This is a country where porn is a growth industry. That in itself says what the People think of Ken Starr and his investigation. They also showed it by punishing the GOP at the polls that year. The Republicans got sidetracked that year from what the People really cared about and paid the price. The voters made it clear that the Monica Lewinsky deal wasn't the People's business.

The Democrats, on the other hand, screwed up with a number of their picks for President and Vice President. Al Gore was a damn fool who ran away from the Clinton record when he should have challenged the GOP to do better. There is no comparison to McCain and Bush, because Bush was a pariah by the end of his term. Clinton was a hero to the Democratic Party, whatever their misgivings. He had, after all, ended twelve years of Republican administrations and accomplished key progressive reforms earlier in his first term, after which he forced the GOP to come to the negotiating table and dealt from a stronger position than the 1994 debacle seemed to allow at first.

Later on, we had John Kerry. Who the fuck thought that this guy was a solid candidate? We would have done better with any number of other candidates, though one who didn't run (Hillary) would have been much better. Only the unexpected implosion of the Dean and Clark campaigns (who would have expected this, given Dean's former front-runner status and Clark's credentials as a general) really made it even possible for Kerry to advance.

Kerry was his own worst enemy, between "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" to the controversial Senate record on defense (thus motivating Zell Miller's switch) to the rich socialite wife to the whole Swift Boat business to his pro-war stance. In short, he sent a mixed message on national security in a time of war, when what the country needed a definite anti-war patriot. We would have been better off with Kucinich, for God's sake!

I say "we" because I'm now registered as a Democrat, after facing my own crisis/awakening/epiphany about my political philosophy. Before that, I was an angry independent who always voted for the Democrats, anyway.

Now we're stuck with Obama, who isn't Clinton's shoelace. Who wants to bet that this is the best argument ever against the 22nd Amendment? Without it, Clinton would have had a third term and Bush would have been a footnote in history, thus maintaining peace and prosperity. Al Gore could have waited another four years and probably had a better chance in 2004 (unless the public was just too tired of twelve years of success.....stranger things have happened).

In short, we've fucked ourselves again. Romney is a bad joke for a GOP nominee, so they're in no place to judge, of course, but we can't take full advantage of his waffling, spineless record the way we could with a better standard-bearer than Obama.

I urge you, indeed I plead with you one last time, Mr. President, step aside. Let the best man....actually, woman...take the reins. Decline the nomination, release your delegates, and back Hillary Clinton for President. If I had been a registered Democrat back then, that's who I would have supported back and I was right. She is a responsible adult, unlike the little boys now at the helm of both parties.

The only Republicans who could have tempted me to vote for them were Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, and Fred Karger. I'll vote for this President as the lesser evil, but I won't like it. A mealy-mouthed pragmatist vs. a sell-out. Not much of a choice, but I will take the sellout (Obama).

 

[Beco]

Don't do this ^