or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Budget Deal - Page 8

post #281 of 736
A gift for my wife.

Quote:
Last year, I spent about $5,000 on gifts for my wife. This is what I can afford based on what I make and other obligations we have.

This year, she asked me for - in addition to the usual gifts - a diamond bracelet worth $15,000 and a new bedroom furniture set worth $12,000.

I told her that was way more than I could afford, so I settled on buying her just the diamond bracelet.

According to Congress, this $15,000 increase in spending is actually a $12,000 “spending cut.”

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #282 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Congress does not have the power to "regulate commerce." Here is the clause:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce...

LOL!

LMFAO, honestly.

You're a barrel of monkeys.

Can I say, "The Constitution doesn't give us the right to bear arms!"?

And then give you my interpretation of the founding fathers' reasons behind the Second Amendment?

The one thing Republicans and Libertarians are consistent about: They never cease in their capacity for hypocrisy.
post #283 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jesus, man. We're not taking about following the Constitution or not. We're talking about the definition of "regulating commerce", and that's all. Stop hyperbolizing.

Congress has the power to collect taxes (specifically enumerated). Congress also has the power to regulate commerce (specifically enumerated). Paying incentives is part of the regulation of commerce (common interpretation). Therefore, Congress using public funds to offer incentives is specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

Now stop with the nonsense, stick to the topic, and realize that while your views on faithfully following the Constitution are wonderful, your views on what the Constitution says and what it doesn't are extremist.

His views are in no form or fashion extremist and the fact you've lobbed the label twice in one day shows the desperation of your own reasoning (or lack thereof.)

There are plenty of people who are constitutional scholars that believe the commerce clause has been interpreted too broadly. It is at the foundation of the Obamacare lawsuits. It is hardly a radical or extreme position.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #284 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

His views are in no form or fashion extremist and the fact you've lobbed the label twice in one day shows the desperation of your own reasoning (or lack thereof.)

There are plenty of people who are constitutional scholars that believe the commerce clause has been interpreted too broadly.

And they would have a valid argument in many cases. Just not this one. To say the commerce clause doesn't give Congress the right to offer Federal health care is not extremist. To say Congress doesn't have the right to offer business incentives is extremist.
Quote:
It is at the foundation of the Obamacare lawsuits. It is hardly a radical or extreme position.

Were we discussing health care?
post #285 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And hey would have a point in many cases. Just not this one.

Were we discussing health care?

The basis of the lawsuits against Obamacare is the claim that the individual mandate violates the limits of the Commerce Clause.

The point is that when you have 26 state attorney generals suing the federal government declaring that Congress has overstepped their authority with regard to the Commerce Clause, holding a view that it ought to be more narrowly defined isn't extremism.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #286 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The basis of the lawsuits against Obamacare is the claim that the individual mandate violates the limits of the Commerce Clause.

The point is that when you have 26 state attorney generals suing the federal government declaring that Congress has overstepped their authority with regard to the Commerce Clause, holding a view that it ought to be more narrowly defined isn't extremism.

Yes, but a view that it should be so narrowly defined that it precludes the right to offer trade incentives is. Call me back when that's what the 26 state atty generals are claiming.
post #287 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

A gift for my wife.

You are fortunate you have the money to buy this expensive gift.Most people today are lucky they can pay their bills or rent the way the economy is.
post #288 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, but a view that it should be so narrowly defined that it precludes the right to offer trade incentives is. Call me back when that's what the 26 state atty generals are claiming.

The point is that something is right or wrong as defined by courts. Court occasionally reverse themselves completely. In the meantime holding a particular view and that view being right or wrong has nothing to do with how many people agree with it.

When acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage was decidedly in the minority and when the American Psychological Association was labeling it a deviant behavior, would you have wanted the arguments to alter these views to be dismissed as extremist?

What is the point of labels like this except to short circuit and shut off thought?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #289 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

When acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage was decidedly in the minority and when the American Psychological Association was labeling it a deviant behavior, would you have wanted the arguments to alter these views to be dismissed as extremist?

No, I would have called it progressive, but I respect the point you've made.
post #290 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

You are fortunate you have the money to buy this expensive gift.Most people today are lucky they can pay their bills or rent the way the economy is.

Click on the link. I didn't write this. It is an analogy.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #291 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

LOL!

LMFAO, honestly.

You're a barrel of monkeys.

Can I say, "The Constitution doesn't give us the right to bear arms!"?

And then give you my interpretation of the founding fathers' reasons behind the Second Amendment?

The one thing Republicans and Libertarians are consistent about: They never cease in their capacity for hypocrisy.

You can absolutely do that. The language of the Second Amendment is somewhat different. It starts with a justification, but the right it's intended to protect is exceedingly clear.

Quote:
"All well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

My interpretation of that has been well-supported by the courts. That is, while militia are no long necessary, the enumerated right i s clear. That being said, I find it ironic that 1) the right to bear arms HAS been infringed to a high degree and 2) militias are no longer required. In fact, one thing we cannot do is form a militia.

In any case, this is quite different from the Commerce Clause. It specifically describes commerce between the states. The intent of the provision was to ensure fair trade between the states, foreign governments and Indian [sic] tribes. It sure as hell doesn't grant the government the right to require that people purchase a particular product, nor give the government the power "regulate commerce" in general.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #292 of 736
Open Letter from Rand Paul: Why I Oppose the Debt Ceiling Compromise

Quote:
Aug 1, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Sen. Rand Paul issued an open letter on the subject of the debt ceiling compromise facing the Senate. Below is that letter.

To paraphrase Senator Jim DeMint: When you're speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don't set the cruise control. You stop the car. The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn't stop us from going over the fiscal cliff. At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph.

This plan never balances. The President called for a "balanced approach." But the American people are calling for a balanced budget.

This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt.

The deal that is pending before us now:
  • Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to "cut" $2.1 trillion, but the "cut" is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate - results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.
  • Never, ever balances.
  • The Super Committee's mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let's be clear: $2.1 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still more than $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue, therefore the filibuster could be rendered most. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a "trigger" ensures that the committee will simply report its $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan and never move to a BBA vote.
  • It cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.1 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that's an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.
Buried in the details of this bill is the automatic debt limit increase proposed a few weeks ago. The second installment of the debt ceiling increase is initiated by the President automatically and can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. Despite claims to the contrary, none of the triggers in this bill include withholding the second limit increase.

Credit rating agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan will result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt being downgraded and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill to fail.

This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator

I know! Let's fix our debt problem...by adding more debt! That'll fix it!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #293 of 736
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.” --Thomas Jefferson

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #294 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing. --Thomas Jefferson

But you forget, we're extremists and terrorists according to our own elected representatives. Our presence is "disconcerting." Oh, and we're ignorant, rich, racists too. Can't forget the racist thing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #295 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing. --Thomas Jefferson

So now you're cool with Thomas Jefferson when he's not calling Christianity a load of shit.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #296 of 736
It's like a compulsive disorder of some kind. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #297 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's like a compulsive disorder of some kind. \

You mean religious indoctrination?
post #298 of 736
Like I said, it's like a compulsive disorder of some kind.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #299 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My interpretation of that has been well-supported by the courts. That is, while militia are no long necessary, the enumerated right i s clear. That being said, I find it ironic that 1) the right to bear arms HAS been infringed to a high degree and 2) militias are no longer required. In fact, one thing we cannot do is form a militia.

So if it's well supported by the courts, and it's about guns, then the fact that it's well supported by the courts is a valid justification. But if it's well supported by the courts, and it's about the commerce clause, then... being well supported by the courts is not an important point?
Quote:
In any case, this is quite different from the Commerce Clause. It specifically describes commerce between the states.

Among does not mean the same thing as between. And with nations, and with the various Indian tribes. I know what the Commerce Clause says.
Quote:
The intent of the provision was to ensure fair trade between the states, foreign governments and Indian [sic] tribes. It sure as hell doesn't grant the government the right to require that people purchase a particular product, nor give the government the power "regulate commerce" in general.

And the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the populace against the possibility of an oppressive Government or in case the Government fails to fulfill its duties to protect. But even so, that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment, as it's currently worded, doesn't allow people to own arms for hunting or for personal safety (though those are not explicitly granted rights, nor are they inclusive in the Amendment's intent). I have always supported the idea that to further control, as is necessary, the terrible situation that private gun ownership causes, we need to amend the Constitution. Likewise, it must be recognized, that to further restrict the power of Congress or the Federal Government, the Constitution would need to be amended.
post #300 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So now you're cool with Thomas Jefferson when he's not calling Christianity a load of shit.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. --Thomas Jefferson

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #301 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” --Thomas Jefferson

Except when they actually pick your pocket or break your leg--which they are essentially doing now. Say all you want. Stop acting.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #302 of 736
Question for Trumptman, Jazzy and MJ... in the respect that Justices are appointed by the President with approval by Congress, as we all know, do you still respect the USSC as a mechanism? What changes would you make to fix any problems?
post #303 of 736

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #304 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Question for Trumptman, Jazzy and MJ... in the respect that Justices are appointed by the President with approval by Congress, as we all know, do you still respect the USSC as a mechanism? What changes would you make to fix any problems?

I don't think the problem is with the court. I think the problem is with the Senate and their advise and consent role for judges. As you note presidents used to appoint pretty much whoever they wanted. That changed when the Democrats (what a surprise that they thought themselves above their own rules) decided to vote down Bork.

If you can believe it, Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0. If the Senate confirmation hearings hadn't turned into such a slog, I think they could find justices who are more transparent and not have find them as 50 year olds.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #305 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except when they actually pick your pocket or break your leg--which they are essentially doing now. Say all you want. Stop acting.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #306 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Question for Trumptman, Jazzy and MJ... in the respect that Justices are appointed by the President with approval by Congress, as we all know, do you still respect the USSC as a mechanism? What changes would you make to fix any problems?

I tend to agree with Rothbard on this one.

Please click this link, search for the term "Chapter 12" and read.

I believe the idea of a "Supreme Court" as it is presently used is anti-liberty, and concentrates an enormous amount of power in the hands of a few people dressed in robes...which is very similar to the government from which our forefathers declared independence.

Rothbard suggests some interesting changes based on historical precedent, including the institution of private courts.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #307 of 736
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I tend to agree with Rothbard on this one.

Please click this link, search for the term "Chapter 12" and read.

I believe the idea of a "Supreme Court" as it is presently used is anti-liberty, and concentrates an enormous amount of power in the hands of a few people dressed in robes...which is very similar to the government from which our forefathers declared independence.

Rothbard suggests some interesting changes based on historical precedent, including the institution of private courts.


OMG, "private courts"! Let me guess...the more you pay the lesser the sentence!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #308 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OMG, "private courts"! Let me guess...the more you pay the lesser the sentence!

Yeah, that's it. That's exactly what Rothbard wrote, word for word.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #309 of 736
As I step back and examine the events of the past few weeks and the resulting budget deal I'm becoming more convinced that Obama played the Republicans like fiddle here.

In the end he got what he wanted...increased latitude for more spending without giving up really anything except future promises of spending "cuts" (not even real cuts at that.)

Here's the lay of the land...

It was fairly clear that the economy is already probably going back into a recession, largely due to the un-Godly spending debt by the Obama administration and Democrats.

But here's the real shrewdness...

Having already convinced a largely ignorant American public that the previous spending and debt was not only necessary to save the economy, that it, in fact, did save the economy...

...and now convincing, along with his enablers in the media, a largely ignorant American public that the Republicans were holding the country and the economy hostage and that their "draconian 'cuts'" would basically crash the economy.

...and now convincing, along with his enablers in the media, a largely ignorant American public that he "compromised" to save the economy, but had to give into "slashing" spending...

He has put himself in position to play either sides of the fence if he needs to:

a) if the economy recovers...he takes credit for compromising with those nasty, evil terrorist Republicans to avoid a default and a certain depression. Had he not done that, we'd all be in soup lines.

or

b) if the economy falters...he blames the Republicans for the damage done by a combination of holding the country and economy hostage and the "massive" cuts in spending that have taken the wind out of the economy.

Brilliant.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #310 of 736
Good points, MJ1970.

I also found the following article to be quite interesting and relevant to the topic:

Debt Impasse: Fake and Real

It clearly shows how Republicans are just as much to blame for the mess we're in as Democrats.

For example, under Reagan:
  • Taxes increased by 65%
  • The national debt grew by 1.9 trillion
  • The debt limit was increased 18 times

I don't know how anyone can proudly claim to be a "fiscal conservative" AND a "Reagan Republican" at the same time.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #311 of 736

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #312 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So if it's well supported by the courts, and it's about guns, then the fact that it's well supported by the courts is a valid justification. But if it's well supported by the courts, and it's about the commerce clause, then... being well supported by the courts is not an important point?

Are you arguing that the courts are infallible? Or that you always agree with them? I wasn't attempting to make either of those points.

Quote:

Among does not mean the same thing as between. And with nations, and with the various Indian tribes. I know what the Commerce Clause says.

"Among the states" does not mean "between the states?" If that's your position, you clearly don't understand the intent or background on the clause itself. The clause was included to "make normal" interstate commerce. That is, to prevent tariffs, quotas, and other impediments between the states.

Here is an opinion piece on the matter: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...iginal-intent/

Quote:
But even more fundamentally, the Commerce Clause itself was never meant by the Founders to be a blank check for “command and control” economic regulation. Indeed, the economic purpose of Article one Section 8 was almost precisely the opposite of the conventional explanation accepted by the majority in this case.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.

And here is another: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...tecommerce.htm

Notice that even under the most pro-federal interpretation, the assumption that we are talking about interstate commerce is made:

Quote:
The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce.

I don't have time right now to make an extensive legal argument. Obviously there is a lot of disagreement and debate about this issue, but my position is that Congress should not have broad authority over commerce."

Quote:


And the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect the populace against the possibility of an oppressive Government or in case the Government fails to fulfill its duties to protect.

Yes. They were more rich then they knew...


Quote:
But even so, that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment, as it's currently worded, doesn't allow people to own arms for hunting or for personal safety (though those are not explicitly granted rights, nor are they inclusive in the Amendment's intent).

Agreed.

Quote:
I have always supported the idea that to further control, as is necessary, the terrible situation that private gun ownership causes, we need to amend the Constitution. Likewise, it must be recognized, that to further restrict the power of Congress or the Federal Government, the Constitution would need to be amended.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree that's a good idea, but if we continue to restrict gun ownership, I agree the Constitution would have to be amended. As a previously stated, the right to bear arms has already been infringed in many ways.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #313 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

As I step back and examine the events of the past few weeks and the resulting budget deal I'm becoming more convinced that Obama played the Republicans like fiddle here.

In the end he got what he wanted...increased latitude for more spending without giving up really anything except future promises of spending "cuts" (not even real cuts at that.)

Here's the lay of the land...

It was fairly clear that the economy is already probably going back into a recession, largely due to the un-Godly spending debt by the Obama administration and Democrats.

But here's the real shrewdness...

Having already convinced a largely ignorant American public that the previous spending and debt was not only necessary to save the economy, that it, in fact, did save the economy...

...and now convincing, along with his enablers in the media, a largely ignorant American public that the Republicans were holding the country and the economy hostage and that their "draconian 'cuts'" would basically crash the economy.

...and now convincing, along with his enablers in the media, a largely ignorant American public that he "compromised" to save the economy, but had to give into "slashing" spending...

He has put himself in position to play either sides of the fence if he needs to:

a) if the economy recovers...he takes credit for compromising with those nasty, evil terrorist Republicans to avoid a default and a certain depression. Had he not done that, we'd all be in soup lines.

or

b) if the economy falters...he blames the Republicans for the damage done by a combination of holding the country and economy hostage and the "massive" cuts in spending that have taken the wind out of the economy.

Brilliant.

I've got to get one of those decoder rings of yours so I can read or see the " real " news!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #314 of 736
Was that another drive-by jimmac post?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #315 of 736
I thunk jimmac actually has a crush on me or something. Whatever the case he's got something of a fixation on me combined with an unwillingness to contribute to the discussion and engage in the actual points being proffered. Oh well. I hope someday he'll contribute.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #316 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I thunk jimmac actually has a crush on me or something. Whatever the case he's got something of a fixation on me combined with an unwillingness to contribute to the discussion and engage in the actual points being proffered. Oh well. I hope someday he'll contribute.

Sorry to disappoint but I'm just saying your analysis of the situation was bullshit. Maybe someday you'll have something real to contribute.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #317 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Was that another drive-by jimmac post?

Was that another Jazzy drive-by quip?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #318 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry to disappoint but I'm just saying your analysis of the situation was bullshit.

I'd love to read a reasoned rebuttal of my analysis. Can you offer such?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #319 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'd love to read a reasoned rebuttal of my analysis. Can you offer such?

You honestly think nothing bad would have happened had we defaulted?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #320 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You honestly think nothing bad would have happened had we defaulted?

I question the premise that is the basis of your question.

Can you provide a reasoned rebuttal of my analysis?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal