[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sure. And Obama is a centrist, and we have no deficit problem.

-t

Actually President Obama is in fact a center-left moderate by any objective measure. There are plenty of progressives who are most disillusioned with him. Many of whom are in that boat because they didn't pay attention to what the man actually campaigned on (e.g. escalation of the war in Afghanistan) and projected their own ideals onto him. Others who were rightly criticized as the "professional left" because they don't seem to get the fact that their preferred legislative approach simply can't muster 60 votes in a Dem-controlled Senate that includes Blue Dogs ... let alone one with an obstructionist GOP minority. And since President Obama is not one who allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good he's willing to make various unpalatable comprises in order to get things done and actually govern. Whereas some in his base would rather he die on the hill fighting even if he ended up with nothing.

As for Obamacare ... it is straight out of the Heritage Foundation playbook from the Clinton era. The Heritage Foundation!

As for your "no deficit" comment ... I have no idea what you are talking about.

OAW

[turtle777]

[_] OAW understands sarcasm

-t

[Athens]

So what exactly should be cut. Every says spending should be cut. They say social security and medicare should be cut. So what actually should be cut. $50.00 a month from Social Security Checks? Types of treatments allowed with Medicare? I mean its easy to say cut it but no one is saying what, and by how much.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Ah yes, the old "poor people are all lazy drug addicts because of this one guy I know" argument.

Rich people keep getting richer because they know how to work the system. The worst case scenario is they get caught stealing billions and get a slap on the wrist, while some poor drug addict that steals 20 bucks from 7-11 gets life in prison.

I am sick and tired of your bullshit argument about people being poor and not having a way out of it. This is America, the only ones still in poverty are the ones that deserve to be there. You keep telling them they are self entitled and they will continue to feel that way.

I was born into a family with nothing. We lost the little we had when I was 11 and my dad died shortly thereafter due to the stress of a heart attack. My mom went out and got a job and didn't take a dime of help. I am currently paying her back by taking care of her bills and giving her a way to live out her retirement without stress. Not once have I taken a dime of help. I am broke every single week, but you know what, it's my choice and I am damn proud of it.

Not once do I feel sorry for myself. Not once did I think that my next door neighbor should carry my burden. Not once have a thought for a second, if only those dirty rich people would just pay their fair share. Not once have I said a word when the bullshit family of six in front of me at the grocery store hands over their EBT card for $300 of junk food and Soda. Not once have I said a word when every single call on the police scanner goes to three places in town (the assisted living high-rise and two trailer courts) It is time it ends.

Poverty is bullshit. Lazy ass stupid Americans that can't work their way into a decent living should be cut off from their free ride.

I hope to hell the communist/socialist pigs get their way. I really do. I used to work in a bakery, I'll gladly be the one serving you the bread.

[ironknee]

bohner pulls out

dumb hick

[turtle777]

WTF is wrong with the POTUS? Why can't he show some leadership and get stuff done?
Obama is such a loser, when push comes to shove, he gets nothing done. All he can do is read from the teleprompter.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF is wrong with the POTUS? Why can't he show some leadership and get stuff done?
Obama is such a loser, when push comes to shove, he gets nothing done. All he can do is read from the teleprompter.

-t

Why can't the Republicans compromise over something, especially something that you yourself are not eager to defend (the Bush tax cuts)?

[turtle777]

It's not the Reps job right now to ultimately get stuff done. The buck stops with Obama.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's not the Reps job right now to ultimately get stuff done. The buck stops with Obama.

-t

It takes two to tangle. We don't live under a dictatorship.

[OAW]

Yeah right. The GOP controls the House. So they now have a joint responsibility to govern and not just be obstructionists. Twice now we have seen GOP House leadership walk away from deals that were structured heavily in their favor. All because they REFUSE to do anything that will cause the wealthy to put any skin in the game when it comes to deficit reduction.

President Obama has shown a willingness to compromise. The GOP has not. Period.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's not the Reps job right now to ultimately get stuff done. The buck stops with Obama.

-t

In other words, they know what needs to be done, they just don't want their names on it.

[OAW]

^^^^

Exactly. It's a b*tch ass move any way you slice it.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It takes two to tangle. We don't live under a dictatorship.

That's funny, because Obama never cared about what the majority of the people think, as long as he had an agenda and was able to push it through.

-t

[Athens]

Ah so he takes after Steve Jobs

[turtle777]

Maybe, but w/o the results so far.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's funny, because Obama never cared about what the majority of the people think, as long as he had an agenda and was able to push it through.

-t

Your argument is shifting now. Or was it mostly just sharing your feelings and emotions as they were at the time?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your argument is shifting now. Or was it mostly just sharing your feelings and emotions as they were at the time?

Hell yeah I'm emotional about this.

-t

[ironknee]

what's the difference between Reagan's 12 debt increases and George W Bush's 7 and Obama?

because he's black?

dumb hicks

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Hell yeah I'm emotional about this.

-t

If any you should be getting emotional about the Republicans for their lack of willingness to compromise over an issue that seems like a no-brainer to give up some ground on.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If any you should be getting emotional about the Republicans for their lack of willingness to compromise over an issue that seems like a no-brainer to give up some ground on.

Why ?

The majority of the US populace wants more cuts than tax increases. This is the Republican position.
Obama wants a higher ratio of tax increases to spending than the Republicans feel that Americans are supporting. Not to compromise too much is the right thing.

Btw, the deal on the table was a joke. About $2.85T over 10 years. That barely makes a dent in a $ 1.7T deficit per year. The Republicans are right to say that this is not enough.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why ?

The majority of the US populace wants more cuts than tax increases. This is the Republican position.
Obama wants a higher ratio of tax increases to spending than the Republicans feel that Americans are supporting. Not to compromise too much is the right thing.

Btw, the deal on the table was a joke. About $2.85T over 10 years. That barely makes a dent in a $ 1.7T deficit per year. The Republicans are right to say that this is not enough.

-t

First of all, you can just cherry pick polls and haul out the "the majority of the population wants x" argument only when it boosts your argument while ignoring it other times. The majority of the population has wanted many things that you are not in favor of in a variety of topics, depending on what polls you choose to believe.

Secondly, are you referring to the house bill?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Secondly, are you referring to the house bill?

No, the Boehner-Obama negotiations/deal.

-t

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why ?

The majority of the US populace wants more cuts than tax increases.

-t

really? says who?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

really? says who?

Dozens of polls that you obviously never heard of. Use your Google Fu.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I have no idea if all poor people are lazy or not, but I will say; lots of liberals who claim to speak for all the poor people sure do make some LAZY, TIRED, PLAYED OUT, LAMEASS 'arguments' on their behalf. Usually standard fare class-envy crap that boils down to: "it's all 'The Man's' fault!"

Who exactly are all these rich people that get up every day, run their affairs that make them rich, and then somehow have all this time left over to 'hold down the poor people?' Or is holding down the poor just a side hobby? Is it something one takes up, like tennis?

Let me guess, this is the same bunch that's has endless time and energy to devote to holding back all the (participating) minorities as well.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

the only ones still in poverty are the ones that deserve to be there.

Wow.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

I am broke every single week, but you know what, it's my choice and I am damn proud of it.

Wow.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Not once do I feel sorry for myself. Not once did I think that my next door neighbor should carry my burden. Not once have a thought for a second, if only those dirty rich people would just pay their fair share.

Those dirty rich people take every advantage they can to keep what they have.
They would probably, more than likely think you were crazy not to take advantage of social programs that would ease your burden.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Poverty is bullshit. Lazy ass stupid Americans that can't work their way into a decent living should be cut off from their free ride.

What a pathetic, angry person you are.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

I hope to hell the communist/socialist pigs get their way. I really do. I used to work in a bakery, I'll gladly be the one serving you the bread.

I don't think so.
Wouldn't trust you enough.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why ?

The majority of the US populace wants more cuts than tax increases.

No, the majority of the US populace wants to talk like they do, but if you cut their sacred cows, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you'll lose the next election. The majority also wants the rich to pay their fair share, not hide their wealth through tax dodges and loopholes.

This is the Republican position.

No, this is the position of a few lunatics on the far right fringe, who happen to be very vocal, and who are temporarily getting their wheels greased at the moment. Moderates realize that one can't get something for nothing.

Obama wants a higher ratio of tax increases to spending than the Republicans feel that Americans are supporting. Not to compromise too much is the right thing.

Wrong. The Republicans (at least the ones you're referring to) are way off on the pulse of the American working class, and if they get what they want, they'll pay for it soon enough. Unfortunately, so will many of us.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151...omic_calamity/

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Still didn't answer my question. If the rich are taxed so disproportionately, then how do they manage to continue gaining wealth at an exponential rate?

Again, this is based on the mistaken notion that it is the same wealthy, getting wealthier on the backs of the same poor, getting poorer. Wealth is attained from taking risks others do not want to take. With great risk can come great reward, but what you'll find by truly looking at the numbers is that people move in and out of brackets (the top quintile) in a relatively short time - all the time. Risk. Almost none of the data used to measure this disparity are looking at individuals over time. By looking at individuals over time you see quite a different picture with those in the bottom 20% doubling their incomes in 10 years. It is not "Joe the rich guy getting richer because he's taking dollars from Jess the poor guy".

Also, I'm sick of the conservative argument concerning the poor. The poor are ****ing poor, their lives suck, stop trying to paint them as having it made.

I didn't say they had it made no more than I've said they are "lazy" as these are the intellectual copouts of leftist blowhards frustrated by reality not bearing out their paper ideology. What I'm saying is that you are not defined by your income. When my wife and I started out, we were poor. Not "college" poor looking for the light at the end of the tunnel with career potential or staying overnight in a cardboard box in a show of solidarity with the poor, but family of four at poverty level poor for more than a decade. At no time then or now has my life ever "sucked". Not one time.

This is usually the ranting of someone who hasn't a clue what poverty is.

[turtle777]

Denninger is exactly right:

The problem is that we were told the numbers were somewhere around 2:1 or even higher on tax cuts .vs. tax increases.  History, however, says that the tax increases come immediately and the spending reductions never.

Obama Throws Temper Tantrum on TV in [Market-Ticker]

Obama is still not trying to really sustainably fix the Spending issue.
We all know how it works when you give government more money: they're gonna spend it. They DO NOT save or cut when there is more additional money is coming in. This is the root of the tax increase issue: it makes true cuts a nice idea that ultimately never gets implemented.

-t

[Dork.]

I haven't seen the clips of Obama or Boehner on TV yet, but from what I've read, "temper tantrum" sounds about right. I'm not sure what's more infuriating: Boehner's tendency to storm off in a huff when he doesn't get everything his way while playing with his brother, or Obama's tendency to petulantly whine about it to Mom and Dad afterwards.

So much for my assertion that Speaker Norquist gave the Tea Partiers cover to make a deal: it looks like the only reasonable path forward is Uncle Mitch's suggestion that since all the kids can't agree on what to so, they should at least agree on what not to do.

Why does it seem like the US government is run by children?

[turtle777]

OMG. Details come out. Unf*ckingbelievable.

This is the alleged "cuts"

"On the discretionary spending front, both sides had "identical offers," said one of the officials. There would be $1.2 trillion in cuts over the course of ten years; $1 trillion in savings that would come from the draw-down of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and $250 billion in savings in Medicare over the course of 10 years."

And Now The Truth: "Spending Reductions = LIES" in [Market-Ticker]

Originally Posted by Denninger

NO domestic spending cuts whatsoever.

NO material changes to entitlement spending ($25 billion/year on Medicare is pointless.)

NO other mandatory spending cuts. Anywhere.

Remember, the deal was supposed to be about $2 trillion in total - $1.2 as outlined above, and then $800 billion in "revenue increases" (tax hikes.) The deal "blew up" when Obama wanted another $400 billion in taxes.

We're talking about chicken**** here folks - these "cuts" are not real, they are all "reductions in planned spending increases.

Boehner and McConnell are both a lying sack of crap - there are NO actual spending cuts on the table by either party. The entire Rethuglican party is a bunch of damned sell-outs.

WTF, America ? We're so dead broke.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what's the difference between Reagan's 12 debt increases and George W Bush's 7 and Obama?

because he's black?

dumb hicks

Was Obama white when he opposed the last debt ceiling increase under Bush or something?

Lest we forget that all this Tea Party "nonsense" was the result of Republicans and George W. Bush's spending, proving that neither side is very serious about debt reduction.

[Dork.]

Every time Obama summons congressional leaders to a meeting that turns out to be non-productive, he reinforces the narrative that Congress is the problem. But I don't think he really has all that much leverage here.

Congress should have done about a week ago what they are reportedly doing now: come up with a plan on their own that could pass both houses. For all the talk about not calling his bluff, do you really think that the President would veto a debt ceiling increase that comes to him, not matter what strings are attached? As long as Congress is deadlocked, the President can legitimately point to them and say "You see! They can't agree on anything. They couldn't even send me anything to sign or veto in the first place!" But once they pass a bill, if he vetoes it then he would be holding the hot potato of blame.

The real problem here is that the Tea Party Republicans are more interested in making political points than in governing. They only solution they can come up with is "cap, cut, and balance", which they knew was DOA in the Senate. How many times did Boehner leave negotiations by saying that the proposal "would not pass the House"? I think that's code for "My caucus is split between realistic people and unrealistic people, and the realistic ones can't pass this on their own".

If Boehner really wants to move forward, he will have to actually jettison the Tea Party wing for this discussion and start courting Democrats in the House for a Grand Compromise that could pass the Senate too. Notice how Nancy Pelosi was pretty much non-existent in these negotiations until this week? That's because Boehner knows that he will need her help to get anything productive done. As I see it, his choices are either to let the country go down the poop chute, or piss off the folks who made him Speaker in the first place. Either way, it's not conducive to holding on to his job.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Poverty is bullshit. Lazy ass stupid Americans that can't work their way into a decent living should be cut off from their free ride.

Oh really? I beg to differ. Poverty is very, very real, and in 90% of the world, it's something that you can't work out of.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Oh really? I beg to differ. Poverty is very, very real, and in 90% of the world, it's something that you can't work out of.

Posts like this make me wonder what percentage of PWL posts are good examples of confirmation bias. We see what we want to see.

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Posts like this make me wonder what percentage of PWL posts are good examples of confirmation bias. We see what we want to see.

Which post, imitchellg5's or Lint's.
Not clear who you meant.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by screener 

Which post, imitchellg5's or Lint's.
Not clear who you meant.

Lint's, but I also meant my comment in a general way

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Lint's, but I also meant my comment in a general way

Last comment on this, the grammar was good, your point wasn't.
I didn't take exception or criticize.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by screener 

Last comment on this, the grammar was good, your point wasn't.
I didn't take exception or criticize.

I don't understand what you are saying, but if you are trying to make the point that I should be passive about grammar, or that it doesn't matter, then you should be more passive than you seem to be with ideas you deem intellectually lazy

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand what you are saying, but if you are trying to make the point that I should be passive about grammar, or that it doesn't matter, then you should be more passive than you seem to be with ideas you deem intellectually lazy

I'm saying that if you got the point and dismiss it because of bad grammar or spelling, you're ignoring a contribution to a topic.
Kinda like the turtle, bragging about how many he has on ignore.

As for your last point, what would be the point being passive.
A dumb thought, idea, philosophy should be called on despite the faulty english.

Do you understand, you got what a poster was saying but ignore it because your sensibilities were what, irritated?

What's next, don't like what or how a poster posts and do a turtle, ignore them.

How American that would be huh?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by screener 

I'm saying that if you got the point and dismiss it because of bad grammar or spelling, you're ignoring a contribution to a topic.
Kinda like the turtle, bragging about how many he has on ignore.

As for your last point, what would be the point being passive.
A dumb thought, idea, philosophy should be called on despite the faulty english.

Do you understand, you got what a poster was saying but ignore it because your sensibilities were what, irritated?

What's next, don't like what or how a poster posts and do a turtle, ignore them.

How American that would be huh?

I have no idea how anything I wrote has resulted in your thinking that I think that we should ignore the points people make because of their bad grammar.

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I have no idea how anything I wrote has resulted in your thinking that I think that we should ignore the points people make because of their bad grammar.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...e/#post4095200

It is also incredibly distracting to take people seriously normally when they make these kind of basic mistakes. Would you be inclined to put stock into the ideas somebody who sounds like a YouTube commenter?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by screener 

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...e/#post4095200

Uh huh, and where in there does it say that we should ignore the points people make with bad grammar?

It doesn't, thank you!

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Uh huh, and where in there does it say that we should ignore the points people make with bad grammar?

It doesn't, thank you!

If you had read the second last of my posts,

What's next, don't like what or how a poster posts and do a turtle, ignore them.

you'd see I never said we, you, should.

The turtle does and apparently railroader as well.
Ah well, ignorance is bliss for some, especially when supported by old friends in the community regardless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by screener 

If you had read the second last of my posts,

you'd see I never said we, you, should.

The turtle does and apparently railroader as well.
Ah well, ignorance is bliss for some, especially when supported by old friends in the community regardless.

Maybe we could work out a trade? I've been trying to get Railroader to ignore me for probably years now, but he refuses to. So, how about we see if a mod will transfer your Railroader ignoring you to me in exchange for my Turtle not ignoring me? I don't really want to ignore Turtle, but since I'm such a swell guy and you seem bothered by being ignored... Baby Jesus would be proud of me!

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe we could work out a trade? I've been trying to get Railroader to ignore me for probably years now, but he refuses to. So, how about we see if a mod will transfer your Railroader ignoring you to me in exchange for my Turtle not ignoring me? I don't really want to ignore Turtle, but since I'm such a swell guy and you seem bothered by being ignored... Baby Jesus would be proud of me!

Turtle has you on ignore?
He really is a touchy little thing.

I'm not bothered about the ignore thing, I'm a grownup and can deal with what comes my way.
The see no hear no crowd will eventually have to grow up as well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The real problem here is that the Tea Party Republicans are more interested in making political points than in governing.

No. The real problem here is the debt and an unwillingness of those too worried about the Tea Party to acknowledge that $1billion in cuts the first year of a 10-year proposal while spending $4 billion per day isn't going to cut it. You and Harry Reid need to quit concerning yourself with the Tea Party and take a spoonful of the medicine they're trying to serve. This is a real problem and while I'm glad the Democrats are finally talking about the debt (after not even passing a budget in more than two years) not even Boehner's contentious measures are touching the surface of this problem. The full faith and credit of the US is not nearly as concerned about raising the debt ceiling as it is a serious effort to address the exploding debt. They suggest the need to cut $4 trillion from the budget, yesterday, in accordance with the bipartisan debt commission Obama sponsored, then ignored.

They only solution they can come up with is "cap, cut, and balance", which they knew was DOA in the Senate.

Shame too as it would've been a good start. I'm not sure why the Federal government cannot accomplish what some 40 States have in their constitutions.

How many times did Boehner leave negotiations by saying that the proposal "would not pass the House"? I think that's code for "My caucus is split between realistic people and unrealistic people, and the realistic ones can't pass this on their own".

As if Harry Reid is not acting in accord with his leftist base. Again, don't be so easily distracted from the real problem at issue here.

If Boehner really wants to move forward, he will have to actually jettison the Tea Party wing for this discussion and start courting Democrats in the House for a Grand Compromise that could pass the Senate too. Notice how Nancy Pelosi was pretty much non-existent in these negotiations until this week? That's because Boehner knows that he will need her help to get anything productive done. As I see it, his choices are either to let the country go down the poop chute, or piss off the folks who made him Speaker in the first place. Either way, it's not conducive to holding on to his job.

By doing the above, Boehner would illustrate how impossible it is for this government to deal with its exploding debt and the S&P will have no choice, but to downgrade the US' credit rating. There will be no Grand Compromise without a downgrading of the US credit rating. Democrats need to forget about raising taxes to spend on Obama's pet programs and they need to stop counting surge level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan as savings in their plans. They need to come to the table in an honest effort to do something about the debt, not their political pets and distaste for corporate jets.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Ah yes, the old "poor people are all lazy drug addicts because of this one guy I know" argument.

Rich people keep getting richer because they know how to work the system.

And poor people stay poor because they can't be bothered to find out how to work the system since doing so interferes with their TV/X-Box/PS3/Wii time.

It's an interesting thing, this Farmville game on Facespace. You wouldn't believe how many people know how to work all the angles and loopholes to maximise their virtual profits from pixelated cows and sheep. If only they spent that time working out how to maximise their profits in real life, perhaps a lot less of them would be poor.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. The real problem here is the debt and an unwillingness of those too worried about the Tea Party to acknowledge that $1billion in cuts the first year of a 10-year proposal while spending $4 billion per day isn't going to cut it. You and Harry Reid need to quit concerning yourself with the Tea Party and take a spoonful of the medicine they're trying to serve. This is a real problem and while I'm glad the Democrats are finally talking about the debt (after not even passing a budget in more than two years) not even Boehner's contentious measures are touching the surface of this problem. The full faith and credit of the US is not nearly as concerned about raising the debt ceiling as it is a serious effort to address the exploding debt. They suggest the need to cut $4 trillion from the budget, yesterday, in accordance with the bipartisan debt commission Obama sponsored, then ignored

Are you talking about the same debt commission plan that recommended raising taxes? If so, I'm afraid that won't pass the House, either. (I guess Harry and I just have to quit concerning ourselves with why that is. )

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And poor people stay poor because they can't be bothered to find out how to work the system since doing so interferes with their TV/X-Box/PS3/Wii time.

It's an interesting thing, this Farmville game on Facespace. You wouldn't believe how many people know how to work all the angles and loopholes to maximise their virtual profits from pixelated cows and sheep. If only they spent that time working out how to maximise their profits in real life, perhaps a lot less of them would be poor.

If every one did as the Rich people did, no one would be rich because no money would be spent on anything to make any one rich. The Middle class funds the rich with frivolousness spending. You will always have poor, middle class and rich people. And getting rich in life has as much to do with opportunities and luck as hard work. The ones that make it saw the opportunities and grabbed it, and where lucky that others missed them and passed it up. There isn't enough opportunities for every single person to become rich people.