[bengalltigerr]

Mccain wasn't all that bad.

[Brian]

(12-11-2011 09:59 AM)bengalltigerr Wrote:  

Mccain wasn't all that bad.

McCain sucked too, he just wouldnt have dumped the health care entitlement on us. I've always bashed Obama because he has no real world experience leading anything or running any kind of a business. He's never been in charge of anything. He went from state senator to POTUS by giving good speeches. That being said, McCain is basically a Republican version. I have the utmost respect for our military veterans and even more so for a guy like McCain who spent years in a Vietnamese prison camp when he could have snitched or used family connections to get out early. But he came back to the US, ditched his wife and married money, and used her money his war hero status to run for Congress where he really hasnt done anything of any value.

[speakeasy]

I think the fact that Obama wasn't long entrenched in politics is part of the reason why he won. For many the Bush years were like a bad dream and Obama was like the ultimate f-you to the prior administration. He was black, young, liberal, attractive, intelligent, articulate, electrifying speaker, loved by the world after Bush tarnished our image. People thought he was going to be JFK, Roosevelt and Martin Luther King combined. He was basically like the opposite image of Bush, at least at the surface level anyway.

I think people heaped more expectation upon the man than any mortal could fulfill. Unfortunately, his bark has been louder than his bite. I don't know whether his seeming ineffectiveness is due to him or the fact that the polarization in congress is making our country ungovernable. Pile on top of that tea party paranoia and racism and an obstructive Republican party that panders to them. We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

[Samseau]

Quote:

We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

We lost our AAA because we are spending have over 1 trillion in deficit spending each year. The debt ceiling bullshit was breached back in 1995, America's credit rating was never touched then.

[BortimusPrime]

(12-11-2011 03:45 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I think the fact that Obama wasn't long entrenched in politics is part of the reason why he won. For many the Bush years were like a bad dream and Obama was like the ultimate f-you to the prior administration. He was black, young, liberal, attractive, intelligent, articulate, electrifying speaker, loved by the world after Bush tarnished our image. People thought he was going to be JFK, Roosevelt and Martin Luther King combined. He was basically like the opposite image of Bush, at least at the surface level anyway.

I think people heaped more expectation upon the man than any mortal could fulfill. Unfortunately, his bark has been louder than his bite. I don't know whether his seeming ineffectiveness is due to him or the fact that the polarization in congress is making our country ungovernable. Pile on top of that tea party paranoia and racism and an obstructive Republican party that panders to them. We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

Right after Obama's election the democrats had a supermajority, they just blew their chance to put in the some reforms because of all the asshole center/right leaning congressmen in the party not playing ball. So I think Obama's ineffectiveness was initially his fault for not being able to control his own party, but after the Republicans got this teabagging nonsense down they've been trying their hardest to bring this country as close to collapse as possible just to win the next round of elections by claiming "oh look at what happened because of a Democrat president!"

Ultimately most radicals are pissed off with Obama because he portrayed himself as a liberal during the primaries, then veered sharply to the Clinton-style right of center after he beat out Hillary. Bush did the same thing during the 2000 election, somehow managing to cover his gubernatorial penchant for executing prisoners with his "compassionate conservative" bullshit to outdo McCain and Gore. And look what we got.

[All or Nothing]

(12-11-2011 04:28 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Apparently, you skipped over bolded part up above and launched into autopilot mode against "leftist", something I don't even identify myself as.

As I stated above, it was understandable to me that people supported it in the days following 9/11. But STILL defending it even with the 20/20 clarity of hindsight shows me that all your crap about wasteful government spending is bullshit.

It's not bullshit if you live in a legitimate fear of one EMP explosion wiping out the modern American society as we know it. I don't believe that such a thing is possible, but for those that do, this military spending is completely justified as "protection" from "terrorism".

(12-11-2011 04:07 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(12-11-2011 03:45 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I think the fact that Obama wasn't long entrenched in politics is part of the reason why he won. For many the Bush years were like a bad dream and Obama was like the ultimate f-you to the prior administration. He was black, young, liberal, attractive, intelligent, articulate, electrifying speaker, loved by the world after Bush tarnished our image. People thought he was going to be JFK, Roosevelt and Martin Luther King combined. He was basically like the opposite image of Bush, at least at the surface level anyway.

I think people heaped more expectation upon the man than any mortal could fulfill. Unfortunately, his bark has been louder than his bite. I don't know whether his seeming ineffectiveness is due to him or the fact that the polarization in congress is making our country ungovernable. Pile on top of that tea party paranoia and racism and an obstructive Republican party that panders to them. We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

Right after Obama's election the democrats had a supermajority, they just blew their chance to put in the some reforms because of all the asshole center/right leaning congressmen in the party not playing ball. So I think Obama's ineffectiveness was initially his fault for not being able to control his own party, but after the Republicans got this teabagging nonsense down they've been trying their hardest to bring this country as close to collapse as possible just to win the next round of elections by claiming "oh look at what happened because of a Democrat president!"

Ultimately most radicals are pissed off with Obama because he portrayed himself as a liberal during the primaries, then veered sharply to the Clinton-style right of center after he beat out Hillary. Bush did the same thing during the 2000 election, somehow managing to cover his gubernatorial penchant for executing prisoners with his "compassionate conservative" bullshit to outdo McCain and Gore. And look what we got.

The overall gist I get from Obama is that he is a panderer. The man seems incapable of taking real risks when making decisions. He lacks a fire, a passion to move the country in a discernible direction. He promised change, but what kind of change? He never explicitly stated what he wanted to change about the government, about society, about where he wanted to see our culture change. He just handed out promises like candy at Halloween. He was doomed from the beginning to be a president that would be little more than forgettable, beyond the simple fact that he was the first president that was a "minority".

Let's look at the main moniker he pushed his ideals through during his 2008 campaign:


What does this say about him as a person or what he wants to do for society?

As a side, he did an effective job of shoving that healthcare bill down our throats. Fingers crossed that that works out.

[speakeasy]

(12-11-2011 03:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

We lost our AAA because we are spending have over 1 trillion in deficit spending each year. The debt ceiling bullshit was breached back in 1995, America's credit rating was never touched then.

No. It was made clear by the rating agency that that's now why we lost it. There are two reasons why a downgrade would happen:

1) Ability to pay
2) Willingness to pay

Nobody last summer when this debacle went down doubted America's ability to pay it's debt. But where we got hit was on the latter. What the world saw was that the Republicans were willing to threaten default in order to force political concessions. To the outside world this makes us look like a basketcase country. It had nothing to do with the amount of debt we have. It would be like if I lent a buddy some money, but his bitchy, paranoid wife is angry about how much he spends on beer and going out with his boys and decides to freeze their joint bank account meaning I don't get paid even though they have the ability to pay it. I'd be smart to consider not lending to them again until they figure out how to be more functional.

[Pusscrook]

Even if Obama loses the election, What do you people think will change? Everyone lives in the now, and has the same motive . Whomever controls the purse strings of a nation, manifest power, in different ways, and at various times. There will be no difference in the way business is done. That's why it's to your benefit to figure out how the system works, and raid it. Exploit it all, lest you become a victim of it.

[Brian]

(12-11-2011 07:46 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(12-11-2011 03:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

We lost our AAA because we are spending have over 1 trillion in deficit spending each year. The debt ceiling bullshit was breached back in 1995, America's credit rating was never touched then.

No. It was made clear by the rating agency that that's now why we lost it. There are two reasons why a downgrade would happen:

1) Ability to pay
2) Willingness to pay

Nobody last summer when this debacle went down doubted America's ability to pay it's debt. But where we got hit was on the latter. What the world saw was that the Republicans were willing to threaten default in order to force political concessions. To the outside world this makes us look like a basketcase country. It had nothing to do with the amount of debt we have. It would be like if I lent a buddy some money, but his bitchy, paranoid wife is angry about how much he spends on beer and going out with his boys and decides to freeze their joint bank account meaning I don't get paid even though they have the ability to pay it. I'd be smart to consider not lending to them again until they figure out how to be more functional.

they cut our debt because they saw that a country running a $1.5 - 2T deficit every year couldnt figure out how to cut $2T over 10 years.

[speakeasy]

(12-11-2011 08:43 PM)Brian Wrote:  

they cut our debt because they saw that a country running a $1.5 - 2T deficit every year couldnt figure out how to cut $2T over 10 years.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/05/a...d-to-know/

Quote:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

[Brian]

thats funny, i'd say reread the part of that paragraph you didnt bold specifically "In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability."

[blurb]

I hate politics.

When I was younger, I used to be into politics and all that. I loved my American Government class. But then I realized that nobody really knows what they're talking about.

I really want to learn about politics, government, and history, but it seems almost every single book or resource on the subject is angled toward some subtle agenda to influence my perception or opinion. I can't read a newspaper article or book without having the author blatantly trying to influence my opinion instead of just simply educating me.

I gave up on taking history seriously because so many goddamn history books are biased and opinionated.

I don't even know why people are arguing over politics. Complaining. Whining. Name-calling.

People look to politicians to solve their problems instead of the people taking control and solving their own problems. Control. When people feel they have no control, they feel helpless and powerless. They resort to whining.

People complain because of no control. People have allowed other to take control of their lives.

People are poor because of poor choices.

[Samseau]

(12-11-2011 07:46 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(12-11-2011 03:53 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

We lost our goddamned AAA rating thanks to Republican shenanigans.

We lost our AAA because we are spending have over 1 trillion in deficit spending each year. The debt ceiling bullshit was breached back in 1995, America's credit rating was never touched then.

No. It was made clear by the rating agency that that's now why we lost it. There are two reasons why a downgrade would happen:

1) Ability to pay
2) Willingness to pay

Nobody last summer when this debacle went down doubted America's ability to pay it's debt. But where we got hit was on the latter. What the world saw was that the Republicans were willing to threaten default in order to force political concessions. To the outside world this makes us look like a basketcase country. It had nothing to do with the amount of debt we have. It would be like if I lent a buddy some money, but his bitchy, paranoid wife is angry about how much he spends on beer and going out with his boys and decides to freeze their joint bank account meaning I don't get paid even though they have the ability to pay it. I'd be smart to consider not lending to them again until they figure out how to be more functional.

And you believe their explanations? These financial institutions never tell the truth about anything they do, they just look to the most convent story to sell to the public in order to get more money.

The credit of the USA was downgraded as a threat to the USA: "Pay us our money or else we'll downgrade you!!!"

And all that happened was for gold to go up and a few stocks to crash. Big deal. Moody's is the real joke:

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:MCO

They tried to downgrade the USA, and as a result their stock crashed. Their saber-rattling was all bullshit. Moody didn't bounce back until it started to downgrade Europe and win back favor of the US Gov.

Blaming the republicans is also questionable, since it was the democrats who insisted on no spending cuts. The republicans wanted to increase the debt limit only if spending cuts were made.

Given that our spending habits are killing us, I'm glad the republicans had the balls to stand up the spendthrift barons in Congress.

[speakeasy]

(12-12-2011 12:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Blaming the republicans is also questionable, since it was the democrats who insisted on no spending cuts. The republicans wanted to increase the debt limit only if spending cuts were made.

That's simply not true. At all. Democrats advocated three main things: A raise in the debt limit, spending cuts, and tax increases on the wealthy. The proposed to cut a dollar of spending for every dollar in tax, 1:1. The Republicans refused ANY tax hike for the wealthy under any condition.

Quote:

Given that our spending habits are killing us, I'm glad the republicans had the balls to stand up the spendthrift barons in Congress.

I don't see it that way. You have to look at what happened between the years that Clinton left us with a projected surplus and where we are now. Bush slashed taxes on the wealthy. That sent our deficit back up. He then launched two wars all paid for with debt. Then we have the recession which further lowers tax revenues. Then we have TARP and stimulus(which Obama is mainly responsible for), then we have medicare and social security going up all at the same time as boomers retire. This is a perfect storm for massive deficits. The wealthy however are doing quite good, they've never been better. Corporate profits are up. Click through these charts, and then explain to me why the Republicans are fighting so hard against raising any tax on the wealthy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall...ly-1980s-1

[Brian]

How much more do you want the wealthy to pay? What is their "fair share?" Unfortunately the wealthy cant carry the load for all of society

[Deluge]

In Australia the top personal income tax bracket is around $100k, so every dollar they earn over $100k you pay 49 cents in tax. Compare that to 35% for $350k and above (from memory, correct me on the exact figure if I'm wrong) in Federal income tax that high income earners pay in the US. However it will increase to close to 40% from 2013.

I think having the very wealthy pay half their incomes in tax is fair.

[Brian]

does Australia have state, city, and Social security taxes? Factor those in and you are over 50% in a lot of places.

[Samseau]

(12-12-2011 02:30 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(12-12-2011 12:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Blaming the republicans is also questionable, since it was the democrats who insisted on no spending cuts. The republicans wanted to increase the debt limit only if spending cuts were made.

That's simply not true. At all. Democrats advocated three main things: A raise in the debt limit, spending cuts, and tax increases on the wealthy. The proposed to cut a dollar of spending for every dollar in tax, 1:1. The Republicans refused ANY tax hike for the wealthy under any condition.

That the democrats wouldn't cut spending without raising taxes shows they weren't serious about making spending cuts. They were just as political, if not more, than the republicans.

Raising taxes and cutting spending are one in the same. If you can't cut spending without raising taxes, you don't deserve to raise taxes.

Furthermore, the republicans are playing hard with the democrats because they republicans know the democrats will take tax increases and never cut spending if they could get away with it. The democrats only know how to spend. I've never seen a democrat cut spending in my lifetime, except for the military.

Quote:

Quote:

Given that our spending habits are killing us, I'm glad the republicans had the balls to stand up the spendthrift barons in Congress.

I don't see it that way. You have to look at what happened between the years that Clinton left us with a projected surplus and where we are now. Bush slashed taxes on the wealthy. That sent our deficit back up. He then launched two wars all paid for with debt. Then we have the recession which further lowers tax revenues. Then we have TARP and stimulus(which Obama is mainly responsible for), then we have medicare and social security going up all at the same time as boomers retire. This is a perfect storm for massive deficits. The wealthy however are doing quite good, they've never been better. Corporate profits are up. Click through these charts, and then explain to me why the Republicans are fighting so hard against raising any tax on the wealthy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall...ly-1980s-1

Raising taxes is a non-issue. If we raised taxes, all that would happen is for the democrats would to push for more spending.

The democrats just spend man, that's all they know. They buy votes, so cutting spending will never be done. They act like spoiled children who always want more candy and toys.


Until the democrats show they are serious about cutting spending, they don't deserve a tax-hike.

[speakeasy]

(12-12-2011 03:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

That the democrats wouldn't cut spending without raising taxes shows they weren't serious about making spending cuts. They were just as political, if not more, than the republicans.

The Democrats are correct here. I'm not speaking as a Democrat here, I'm speaking as a pragmatist. BOTH cuts in spending AND targeted tax increases are necessary to get out of this hole. Cutting spending alone won't do it.

Quote:

Raising taxes and cutting spending are one in the same. If you can't cut spending without raising taxes, you don't deserve to raise taxes.

If a household was deep in debt, they can cut spending or try to earn more money. If they are in debt, earning more money does not mean spending it, it means paying down their credit cards, while also not racking up more credit card debt by cutting spending. Are you clear now?

Quote:

Furthermore, the republicans are playing hard with the democrats because they republicans know the democrats will take tax increases and never cut spending if they could get away with it. The democrats only know how to spend. I've never seen a democrat cut spending in my lifetime, except for the military.

Can we get over this nonsense that Republicans are somehow the fiscally responsible party of spending cuts? Reagan and Bush put us up to our eyeballs in debt. I thought that was common knowledge at this point.

Quote:

Given that our spending habits are killing us, I'm glad the republicans had the balls to stand up the spendthrift barons in Congress....Raising taxes is a non-issue. If we raised taxes, all that would happen is for the democrats would to push for more spending.

This is all getting trite and I'm tired of repeating myself just to be answered with more "talking points" style retort. Look dude, the numbers are out there. It's not hard to make sense of them. It's pretty damn clear why we are in this situation, and it's not primarily due to discretionary spending on education or the department of commerce(the typical boogeymen departments of the right).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinio...4sun4.html

Quote:

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

Quote:

The democrats just spend man, that's all they know. They buy votes, so cutting spending will never be done. They act like spoiled children who always want more candy and toys.

By global standards, the footprint of our government is not that large as a percentage of GDP or per capita. If you take out our singular role of policing the world, it would be a hell of a lot smaller even still. When you really look at Republican economic strategy, it becomes clear as day that much of these deficits were simply manufactured. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

[Samseau]

Quote:

If a household was deep in debt, they can cut spending or try to earn more money. If they are in debt, earning more money does not mean spending it, it means paying down their credit cards, while also not racking up more credit card debt by cutting spending. Are you clear now?

If a household is deep in debt, the first thing they should do is cut their expenses. Whether or not they can make more money is irrelevant.

Since the democrats are unwilling to cut spending without raising taxes, it shows they aren't serious about cutting spending.

Quote:

This is all getting trite and I'm tired of repeating myself just to be answered with more "talking points" style retort. Look dude, the numbers are out there. It's not hard to make sense of them. It's pretty damn clear why we are in this situation, and it's not primarily due to discretionary spending on education or the department of commerce(the typical boogeymen departments of the right).

This is trite, because you refuse to acknowledge that democrats would just spend more if given additional revenue.

Like I said, democrats have never cut spending once, except on the military. Only republicans have tried cut spending in areas that actually increase exponentially (aka medicare/SS), and still they have a shitty track record of doing so.

The democrats buy votes. What's so hard to understand about this?

[speakeasy]

(12-12-2011 06:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If a household is deep in debt, the first thing they should do is cut their expenses. Whether or not they can make more money is irrelevant.

There is more money. What part of "let the fucking Bush tax cuts for the rich expire" do you not understand? How much data does one have to inundate you with showing how much wealth has been accumulated at the top of the economy for it to sink in? And that this has been going on virtually unimpeded for 3 decades? And that the rich are richer than ever while paying a lower percentage of their wealth in taxes than the poor are? That the wealth of the 400 richest families is more than 50% of the entire damn population? That's the problem I have with libertarians and Republicans. None of this stuff means ANYTHING to them. It's like they don't even care. One person could horde 99% of the wealth and you guys would say, "Congratulations to him!" I'm digressing a bit, but one good that has come of the OWS movement is that it put economically inequality on the table for public scrutiny in a way it hasn't been in decades. Unfortunately, I think it's going to have to get a lot worse for people to start fighting back in large numbers. When people start to see inequality as a major reason why we are in this seemingly endless recession, you might start to see some true changes from the ground up.

Quote:

Since the democrats are unwilling to cut spending without raising taxes, it shows they aren't serious about cutting spending.

Pleeze...It's ONLY the Democrats I see making concessions of any sort. Obama's proposed deficit reduction plan will be 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 from tax increases on the rich. When is the last time the Republicans made a concession on anything?

Quote:

This is trite, because you refuse to acknowledge that democrats would just spend more if given additional revenue.

Like I said, democrats have never cut spending once, except on the military.

You're wrong again. So Clinton didn't cut spending with his re-haul of welfare? Read this and then tell me Democrats don't make cuts. If anyone should be pissed off, it's the progressives who sick of making concessions to the Republicans. This is why liberals are so disappointed in Obama. The Republicans still manage to get away with any damn thing they want while the Democrats lube up and grab their ankles.

Quote:

Only republicans have tried cut spending in areas that actually increase exponentially (aka medicare/SS), and still they have a shitty track record of doing so.

As I said before, none of this shit was ever really a problem. This crisis is ENTIRELY manufactured by Republicans. "Starve the beast" has been Republican economic policy since Reagan. There was no problem funding medicare and SS when Clinton left office. There was a projected SURPLUS. What Bush did was starve the beast by slashing taxes so much that these programs would be underfunded then we'd run into a fiscal crisis where it was imperative to cut them even more. Why do you think Republicans are stonewalling any tax increase on people like Warren Buffett? You think anyone really believes this supply-side [voodoo]economics bullshit? Does anyone who is not batshit insane really think cutting more taxes on the rich is going to create jobs and create demand in the economy?

Quote:

The democrats buy votes. What's so hard to understand about this?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I think in reality, it's the other way around. The corporations buy our politicians.

[Brian]

How can you say there is more money? Where? Reversing the Bush tax cuts isnt going to do anywhere near enough to dent the massive deficits we're running now.