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

The Budget Deal - Page 13

post #481 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Right, because all the above is only because of what happened in the past three and a half years.

Actually doesn't matter to most people. Heck, look at the polls and see who it matters to what actually caused all this and whose fault it is really.

Actually to be blunt, who cares. It will be recorded as happening on his watch. There were steps that could be taken to limit much of it. And they were not taken. if they were we would see different results right now.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #482 of 736
If only we had Gore in 2000.

 

“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 #483 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If only we had Gore in 2000.

And his Lock Box?

If only politicians kept their promises. \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #484 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

And his Lock Box?

If only politicians kept their promises. \

I don't understand why conservatives laughed at his lock box. It was a fucking fiscally conservative measure. Well, on second thought, I do understand. Conservatives don't give a fuck about conservatism.

 

“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 #485 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't understand why conservatives laughed at his lock box. It was a fucking fiscally conservative measure. Well, on second thought, I do understand. Conservatives don't give a fuck about conservatism.

It is a joke because the trust fund and lock box contain government bonds. The government owing itself money is an asset worth about as much as you writing yourself a check for a billion dollars and declaring you are set for life.

"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 #486 of 736
Incorrect. Gore didn't want politicians borrowing against Social Security. He wanted to put...say it with me...Social Security into a lockbox.

 

“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 #487 of 736
The "lock box" idea was ridiculous because there are no separate accounts in the treasury. It's all just money coming in and money going out. The idea that there is money saved over there for that thing in the future is stupid.
post #488 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Actually doesn't matter to most people. Heck, look at the polls and see who it matters to what actually caused all this and whose fault it is really.

Actually to be blunt, who cares. It will be recorded as happening on his watch. There were steps that could be taken to limit much of it. And they were not taken. if they were we would see different results right now.

The steps were don't cave into the Republicans and be an aggressive leader not a wimp.To much delay and politicking to raise the debt ceiling! Asap this should have been done.Be aware of the TP they are trouble to Obama and the GOP Party.
post #489 of 736
Thread Starter 
As ever the repubs here will believe what they want to believe rather than what is.

The 97-0 vote came much earlier in the year and was voted out after Obama announced a bigger deal, the 4 trillion deal-

"The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February.

Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.

Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.

No Democratic senator was willing to support it, however, after Obama discussed a more ambitious plan at George Washington University to save $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans criticized his speech for lacking detail."
~ http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/1...t-obama-budget
"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 #490 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Incorrect. Gore didn't want politicians borrowing against Social Security. He wanted to put...say it with me...Social Security into a lockbox.

Say it with me, how can a country hold a reserve of its own currency when it controls the printing press for that currency?

Go back to the first example. You right a check to yourself for a billion dollars. Can you really bounce a check to yourself?

The government could print up 100 trillion dollars tomorrow and use it to pay off every bond in existence. The problem wouldn't be the lack of paper. The problem would be who would accept it and who would want to continue to do business with someone who takes physical items with intrinsic value and keeps handing them back debased paper with ever less purchasing power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The "lock box" idea was ridiculous because there are no separate accounts in the treasury. It's all just money coming in and money going out. The idea that there is money saved over there for that thing in the future is stupid.

Not only that, they own the printing press. BR fails to understand that all the Social Security deficit that has already been happening is just printed away right now. He fails to see how debasing a currency means no bond can ever really be defaulted on, sort of something to think about from his perspective.

"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 #491 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't understand why conservatives laughed at his lock box. It was a fucking fiscally conservative measure. Well, on second thought, I do understand. Conservatives don't give a fuck about conservatism.

Personally, I just laughed at it because Gore sounded like a retarded douche when he said it. It wasn't a bad idea. Of course, he never actually was going to do it, so...


Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Say it with me, how can a country hold a reserve of its own currency when it controls the printing press for that currency?

Go back to the first example. You right a check to yourself for a billion dollars. Can you really bounce a check to yourself?

The government could print up 100 trillion dollars tomorrow and use it to pay off every bond in existence. The problem wouldn't be the lack of paper. The problem would be who would accept it and who would want to continue to do business with someone who takes physical items with intrinsic value and keeps handing them back debased paper with ever less purchasing power.

Not only that, they own the printing press. BR fails to understand that all the Social Security deficit that has already been happening is just printed away right now. He fails to see how debasing a currency means no bond can ever really be defaulted on, sort of something to think about from his perspective.

Exactly.
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 #492 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Personally, I just laughed at it because Gore sounded like a retarded douche when he said it. It wasn't a bad idea. Of course, he never actually was going to do it, so...

It is a bad idea. Social Security is not a retirement account. It is an income redistribution system, paid for out of current dollars that services the elderly. There is no mythical account where the dollars you or anyone else has paid in are waiting to be withdrawn at a certain age.

The sad fact that no one in the media called out Obama on this when he noted Social Security checks might not go out just shows how incredibly biased they are and how they have no real desire to seek or report on news events.

How can Social Security possibly not pay out when it has a three trillion dollar surplus on the books? The surplus is bonds and the government owes the bonds to itself. The media never pursued the story because people might wake up and realize they have no retirement accounts, that Social Security is merely a pay as you go welfare scheme.

The media went along reporting the fact that our government really can even default on debts when it controls the currency the debt is held in. It is impossible for the government to default. The whole borrowing versus printing thing is all a big game to maintain the pretense of purchasing power and currency strength relative to other currencies. In Europe the PIIGS would simply have debased their currency and continued on their merry little way (with substantial economic damage of course) rather than likely destroying the Euro in the future.


The reality is that having the economic belief that a a capitalistic society cannot support a broad socialist welfare state.
There isn't a place on earth where it is being tried right now where the numbers do not crash at some point down the line. Even in supposedly socialist utopias right now, the model crashes because of demography. It basically worked for a while because the boomers were young, healthy, earned and kept a lot (and blew it as well) and stock all the expense side for things on their kids.

"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 #493 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You didn't get my point. Under the current system, medical decisions aren't in the hands of doctors, patients and their families. They are in the hands of bankers.

I'd like to characterize your description is an oversimplification Tonton but it's not even that. At present, in the US, the only medical decisions that aren't made by doctors, patients, and their families address what medical professionals get paid for government-run health programs. In the case of private sector insurance, it's often (but not necessarily) the insurance companies who decide. However, unlike Medicare / Medicaid, people can shop for the insurance plan that best suits their needs, or they may manage their own finances and insure themselves. Similarly, doctors can elect not to accept certain insurance plans, or none at all.

Hence, competition works, within the constraints of government-imposed limitations. It would be desirable to remove those barriers to competition. Of course government-run programs have no competition, leading to the "waste fraud and abuse" we've heard so much about. Absent competition, there is no compelling reason to quell such abuses.

The difference between this "current system" and what has been signed into law as Obamacare is that a separate board will decide what medical procedures will even be contemplated. This is the predictable result of having to allocate limited public resources, Obamacare's answer to the anticipated crushing burdens of already-existing programs. When private insurers with their limited competition are crowded out of the market - as is already occurring - the medical system will be burdened further still, which explains the reason health care costs are now anticipated to increase more than they would have without this legislation:

Will the Cost Curve Bend, Even without Reform?
Health care law won’t rein in costs, study says: Critics of Affordable Care Act cite government’s own forecast

It's not as if I don't advocate insurance reform; I most certainly do. What's required is more competition, more cost discovery, and more individual freedom of choice. Obamacare eliminates all those solutions. It's a vile act that achieves no good, only harm, and stands as a pristine example of an evil only governments can conjure.

So I do get your point tonton, it's just incorrect.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #494 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The sad fact that no one in the media called out Obama on this when he noted Social Security checks might not go out just shows how incredibly biased they are and how they have no real desire to seek or report on news events.

Perhaps that should have been the Senate Majority Leader:

Quote:
REID: I have said clearly and as many times as I can, leave Social Security alone. Social Security does not add a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has and for the next 30 years it wont do that.

...(Social Security) is not in a crisis at this stage. Leave Social Security alone. We have a lot of other places we can look that are in crisis. Social Security is not. I repeat, for the next approximately 30 years people will draw 100% of their benefits.

(...link from the liberal's very own Source of Record )

More:

Quote:
REID: One of the thing that always troubles me, when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to social security. Social Security is a program that works and it's going to be, it's fully funded for the next 40 years. Stop picking on social security. there are a lot of places...

GREGORY: "Senator, you're really saying the arithmetic on social security works?"

REID: "I'm saying that the arithmetic on Social Security works. I have no doubt it does.

GERGORY: "It's not in crisis?

REID: "No, this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government. Social security is fine, are there things we can do to improve social security? Of course, I'm not going to go to backdoor methods to whack social security. I'm not going to do that, we have a lot of things we can do with this debt. But one places I'm not going to be part of picking on is Social Security.

So, Social Security is fully funded for the next thirty years. Or forty. Or umm.... something. Then, Obama threatens to withhold SS checks unless he gets a "clean increase" in the debt limit.

OK!
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #495 of 736
the overspending has been going on for a LONG time.

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/
post #496 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Of course. "Caring" is all that matters.



I did. You chose to ignore it.

The IPAB will never be called a "death panel". Nor is Great Britain's NICE. Nevertheless, they are government agencies that will effectively decide whose life is worth it and whose is not. Even Obamacare is properly called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act despite the fact it does nothing to protect patients, while medical costs will continue to increase, and patient options for private insurance disappear.



Read. Perhaps you'll "care" when you experience it yourself.

Call it what you want. I prefer descriptive names for legislation that accurately communicates its intent: "Death panel" fits.


Quote:
Nevertheless, they are government agencies that will effectively decide whose life is worth it and whose is not.

This is your personal opinion and not facts. Also I highlighted a sentence that addresses this :
Quote:
• IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare.


All you've supplied is personal opinion and no solid fact that supports them.

Quote:
Call it what you want.

It's clear that's what you are doing.

Please supply fact based support for you claim.
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 #497 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I am aware of the polls. Of course, there are other polls that show Obama took a beating in this budget battle as well. Either way, polls aren't indicative of who is correct. They don't dictate what an individual's opinion is.
Speaking of that opinion, you call the GOP the party of no. Interestingly enough, the Republicans kept passing plans and the Dems and Obama kept saying "no." So who was saying "no" to whom?

One more point: Weren't you part of the group calling for strong Democratic opposition a few years ago? So now the Republicans control one house of Congress and the ones opposing. Yet somehow they are being obstructionist? jimmac, they don't believe tax increases are the answer. The people that put them there don't believe tax increases are the answer. Democrats disagree. They want higher taxes. Reasonable people will disagree about the right answer. But that doesn't seem acceptable to you. We can't have honest differences of opinion...there must be some partisan bullshit reason for opinions that are different than yours (e.g. conservative opinions). Hmmm?

Quote:
Of course, there are other polls that show Obama took a beating in this budget battle as well

Do you have a link to these polls?

Quote:
So now the Republicans control one house of Congress and the ones opposing.

Hey you've been one of the people on this forum who claimed congress was so powerful when the democrats took it over in 2006.

Quote:
there must be some partisan bullshit reason for opinions that are different than yours

Yes there is but not where you think it's coming from.
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 #498 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Indeed. I think we should just start citing Limbaugh, Mark Levin, et al. Hell, I when I link a story from Fox News I usually include a disclaimer. Perhaps that should stop. Might as well play on the same field.



Your "sources" are bullshit. That's what I've got.



You think? You think? jimmac, where was their plan? The President's first budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate. After that, he had NO PLAN in writing. The Republicans had at least THREE that they not only put in writing, but actually passed in the house.

1) Ryan Budget Plan
2) Cut, Cap and Balance
3) Boehner Plan, then the modified plan.

So here we have the White House, who not only failed to offer a specific plan, but continued to "just say no" to the plans the Republicans passed. Moreover, Obama negotiated in bad faith. According to Speaker Boehner, agreement was reached on certain items in the closed door talks. But those talks fell apart because Obama went back on those same agreements the next day. This comes from Boehner HIMSELF, so good luck refuting it.

It was Boehner himself who killed an attempt to reach an agreement last min.

Here's a Boehner plan :

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110727031855.aspx

Quote:
At the top of Wednesday's NBC Today, as co-host Ann Curry declared that "Americans are just fed up with the stalemate" over the debt ceiling, fellow co-host Matt Lauer announced: "The latest setback came last night when House Speaker Boehner was told by the Congressional Budget Office that his proposal would cut spending far less than advertised."

And

Quote:
O'Donnell continued to pile on criticism of the plan: "More trouble came from an agency that rates the country's credit. Appearing on CNBC Tuesday night, Standard & Poor's was critical of the Boehner plan's two stages for raising the debt limit."

As you can see once again things just aren't exactly as you paint them.

S & P gave the downgrade because of the level of brinksmanship in the negotiations not because of a specific paln and they even said so.
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 #499 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Please supply fact based support for you claim.

I have. There are none so blind who will not see.

We're still waiting for yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey you've been one of the people on this forum who claimed congress was so powerful when the democrats took it over in 2006.

A monopoly on Congress and the executive is powerful indeed. Look what's happened since. Their actions as they run amok with the Constitution and the will of their constituents are almost certain to result in a Republican monopoly next year. Happy now?

Quote:
It was Boehner himself who killed an attempt to reach an agreement last min.

Boehner walked out when the President reneged on tax increases - several hundred billion more - leaving Boehner no choice but to over his head and negotiate directly with the Senate:

Quote:
"The White House moved the goal posts," he said, with Obama demanding $400 billion in revenues beyond what the two had already agreed to. "It's the president who walked away from his agreement and demanded more money at the last minute."

This occurred a week ago, and you're already attempting to revise history. Typical.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...-debt-20110722
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #500 of 736
My new sig... perfect.

"Love how the GOP, after creating a totally unnecessary economic crisis, are now acting like someone else farted." - Andy Borowitz
post #501 of 736
[QUOTE=john galt;1916539]
Quote:
I have. There are none so blind who will not see.

We're still waiting for yours.



A monopoly on Congress and the executive is powerful indeed. Look what's happened since. Their actions as they run amok with the Constitution and the will of their constituents are almost certain to result in a Republican monopoly next year. Happy now?



Boehner walked out when the President reneged on tax increases - several hundred billion more - leaving Boehner no choice but to over his head and negotiate directly with the Senate:



This occurred a week ago, and you're already attempting to revise history. Typical.


Really?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-r...ry?id=13917319

Quote:
[BTop Republicans Walk Out of VP Biden's Debt Talks
][/B]

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7374217n

Quote:
Boehner walks away from debt talks

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us....html?_r=1&amp

Quote:
Debt Ceiling Talks Collapse as Boehner Walks Out


And as I've said S & P downgraded not because of any specific plan but because of the nature of the talks.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...s-credit_n.htm

Quote:
S&P's statement was blunt in its assessment.

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process," the ratings firm said.


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...-debt-20110722

Just say No , no, no, no, no, da, no, no.

Please supply facts to support your claim ( " Death panels " ) not personal opinion.
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 #502 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My new sig... perfect.

"Love how the GOP, after creating a totally unnecessary economic crisis, are now acting like someone else farted." - Andy Borowitz

Perfect!
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 #503 of 736
john_galt, if you haven't realized already, it's not worth it. I wish I could say it was.

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 #504 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It was Boehner himself who killed an attempt to reach an agreement last min.

Here's a Boehner plan :

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110727031855.aspx


\ jimmac, it would be nice if you had any idea what you were linking to. The Media Research Center (your link) is a conservative organization that looks into liberal media bias. The story exists because MRC is using it as an example of liberal bias. Rather than confirming Today's report, they are criticizing it.

Quote:

And

O'Donnell continued to pile on criticism of the plan: "More trouble came from an agency that rates the country's credit. Appearing on CNBC Tuesday night, Standard & Poor's was critical of the Boehner plan's two stages for raising the debt limit."

O'Donnell...as in Lawrence O'Donnell? He's a liberal, too. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're arguing. No one is claiming the Boehner plan was great. No one is claiming it would have prevented a downgrade...at least I'm not. What I (and a few others here it seems) are saying is that the Republicans were the ones pushing for more cuts. How can they be held responsible for not cutting enough?

Quote:



As you can see once again things just aren't exactly as you paint them.

I'm not painting at all. I was offering cold, hard facts. Specifically, I offered that there was no written plan by the WH, other than the FY2011 budget which was voted down 97-0 in the Senate. You claimed there were multiple plans, which is demonstrably false.

Quote:

S & P gave the downgrade because of the level of brinksmanship in the negotiations not because of a specific paln and they even said so.

That was one reason. We'll get into the others in a moment. The thing is that you're blaming Republicans and Republicans alone for that "brinkmanship." You're claiming that it was their suborn refusal to raise taxes on "millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations" that was the problem. In reality, this is bullshit. There were trillions in new taxes which we cannot afford in a recession. And many of the cuts proposed by Reid (the only actual Dem plan) were things like "cuts" due to already planned troop reductions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, they were mostly bullshit.

It seems to me that you cannot stand the thought of principled opposition. The GOP did not want tax increases or what Obama called "a balanced approach." They felt that tax increases would harm the already anemic economy. They also believed rightly that the proposed closing of "loopholes" would amount to very little money. This was their position, and they have a right to fight for it. You simply cannot accept that this has occurred. If only they had folded and given the Democrats what they always want (promised cuts that never occur and big tax increases), you'd be pleased. But they didn't do that, and it makes you nuts.

And tell me, jimmac..where was President Obama in all of this? Where was his leadership? Shouldn't he have taken the reigns and presented a plan? The reason he's taken such beating in the polls over this (and he has) is that he was perceived as weak, ineffectual, aloof, frustrated and condescending. As President it was his responsibility to at least present a plan. He should have taken the lead. He failed.
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 #505 of 736
Back to S&P: I agree that brinkmanship was one stated reason. But I actually think there is something different going on here. In my opinion, S&P's downgrade was done for political reasons alone. In fact, their "brinkmanship" comments demonstrate this. The US still has complete and full ability to pay its obligations, and will for the foreseeable future. Interest payments on the national debt are only about 12% of the budget (it's close to that...I don't have the exact number at the moment) . Yes, debt is 100% of GDP, but other AAA rated nations have the same problem. France retains it's AAA rating, for example...and it's 2010 debt to GDP was 83%. The UK has a host of financial problems, and retains it's AAA rating. And Moody's and Fitch haven't budged on us...

So what's going on? I think that S&P did this to send a political message to the Democrats and RINO's: This problem is now serious, and has to be dealt with. Spending must be cut more. Come out of Deficit Spending Fantasy Land™ and fix the trajectory. This is not surprising as S&P is basically part of Wall Street. Wall Street and businesses in general despise what's happening with fiscal policy at the moment, and they despise the Obama Administration. Now, they are even starting to talk about publicly...even those who voted for Obama. In the end, the downgrade is probably going to be a good thing. AA+ from one agency is not really going to affect anyone's mortgage, credit cards, etc. It's not going to impede the country's ability to borrow. But it does send a message that Congress and the White House need to change the fiscal direction.
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 #506 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is a bad idea. Social Security is not a retirement account. It is an income redistribution system, paid for out of current dollars that services the elderly. There is no mythical account where the dollars you or anyone else has paid in are waiting to be withdrawn at a certain age.

I understand. What Gore was arguing was that we should not be spending the surplus.

Quote:

The sad fact that no one in the media called out Obama on this when he noted Social Security checks might not go out just shows how incredibly biased they are and how they have no real desire to seek or report on news events.

Agreed.

Quote:

How can Social Security possibly not pay out when it has a three trillion dollar surplus on the books? The surplus is bonds and the government owes the bonds to itself. The media never pursued the story because people might wake up and realize they have no retirement accounts, that Social Security is merely a pay as you go welfare scheme.

It doesn't have a surplus now, does it? Either way, it did. I don't know what the surplus was comprised of exactly. I don't see a reason why the money couldn't have been put into a separate account (even if only on paper) and not touched. I

Quote:

The media went along reporting the fact that our government really can even default on debts when it controls the currency the debt is held in. It is impossible for the government to default. The whole borrowing versus printing thing is all a big game to maintain the pretense of purchasing power and currency strength relative to other currencies. In Europe the PIIGS would simply have debased their currency and continued on their merry little way (with substantial economic damage of course) rather than likely destroying the Euro in the future.

That is one reason many people believe that the government's goal is to inflate our way out of debt. In reality, we could default...but it would be by choice, not from the lack of ability to pay. As you note, the government can just print more money. This has the nasty effect of devaluing currency, of course.

Quote:



The reality is that having the economic belief that a a capitalistic society cannot support a broad socialist welfare state.
There isn't a place on earth where it is being tried right now where the numbers do not crash at some point down the line. Even in supposedly socialist utopias right now, the model crashes because of demography. It basically worked for a while because the boomers were young, healthy, earned and kept a lot (and blew it as well) and stock all the expense side for things on their kids.

Agreed. The fortunate part is that a lot of people have realized this in the general public, hence the Tea Party movement. A balanced budget is needed, along with entitlement reform. Many people have come to rely on social security and medicare as their primary methods of funding retirement. This must be changed. The math simply does not work at this point, and will only get worse in the future. I don't see a way of continuing the program as something to fund retirement for everyone that pays into it. If it's to continue, it needs to be means-tested and must have a higher eligibility age. And this all has to be done in a way that doesn't take benefits away from those receiving them and those about to receive them. The hardest part, I think, will be changing the paradigm of this expected benefit.
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 #507 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

john_galt, if you haven't realized already, it's not worth it. I wish I could say it was.

Facts do not matter to some folks.

Since jimmac has been unable to unearth the "good plans offered by the president and the democrats" all we have to go on is what the other side has to say about them.

Specifically:

Quote:
"He becomes visibly agitated. ... He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds," says the House majority leader of the president. ...

(Democrats) "believe in a welfare state before they believe in capitalism. They promote economic programs of redistribution to close the gap of the disparity between the classes. That's what they're about: redistributive politics. ... The assumption ... is that there is some kind of perpetual engine of economic prosperity in America that is going to just continue. And therefore they are able to take from those who create and give to those who don't. We just have a fundamentally different view.

"Never was there ever an underlying economic argument" from Democrats. "It was all about social justice. Honestly, one of them said to me, 'Some people just make too much money.'"

The Democrat economic plan, in one short phrase: "Some people just make too much money."

There you have it.

Obama and the Narcissism of Big Differences
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #508 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't understand why conservatives laughed at his lock box. It was a fucking fiscally conservative measure. Well, on second thought, I do understand. Conservatives don't give a fuck about conservatism.

Nothing wrong with the idea. Good one actually. Problem is, he would never have done it. Nobody in washington would. \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #509 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Facts do not matter to some folks.

Since jimmac has been unable to unearth the "good plans offered by the president and the democrats" all we have to go on is what the other side has to say about them.

Specifically:



The Democrat economic plan, in one short phrase: "Some people just make too much money."

There you have it.

Obama and the Narcissism of Big Differences

Quote:
Facts do not matter to some folks

You've got that one right!
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 #510 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

\ jimmac, it would be nice if you had any idea what you were linking to. The Media Research Center (your link) is a conservative organization that looks into liberal media bias. The story exists because MRC is using it as an example of liberal bias. Rather than confirming Today's report, they are criticizing it.



O'Donnell...as in Lawrence O'Donnell? He's a liberal, too. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're arguing. No one is claiming the Boehner plan was great. No one is claiming it would have prevented a downgrade...at least I'm not. What I (and a few others here it seems) are saying is that the Republicans were the ones pushing for more cuts. How can they be held responsible for not cutting enough?



I'm not painting at all. I was offering cold, hard facts. Specifically, I offered that there was no written plan by the WH, other than the FY2011 budget which was voted down 97-0 in the Senate. You claimed there were multiple plans, which is demonstrably false.



That was one reason. We'll get into the others in a moment. The thing is that you're blaming Republicans and Republicans alone for that "brinkmanship." You're claiming that it was their suborn refusal to raise taxes on "millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations" that was the problem. In reality, this is bullshit. There were trillions in new taxes which we cannot afford in a recession. And many of the cuts proposed by Reid (the only actual Dem plan) were things like "cuts" due to already planned troop reductions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, they were mostly bullshit.

It seems to me that you cannot stand the thought of principled opposition. The GOP did not want tax increases or what Obama called "a balanced approach." They felt that tax increases would harm the already anemic economy. They also believed rightly that the proposed closing of "loopholes" would amount to very little money. This was their position, and they have a right to fight for it. You simply cannot accept that this has occurred. If only they had folded and given the Democrats what they always want (promised cuts that never occur and big tax increases), you'd be pleased. But they didn't do that, and it makes you nuts.

And tell me, jimmac..where was President Obama in all of this? Where was his leadership? Shouldn't he have taken the reigns and presented a plan? The reason he's taken such beating in the polls over this (and he has) is that he was perceived as weak, ineffectual, aloof, frustrated and condescending. As President it was his responsibility to at least present a plan. He should have taken the lead. He failed.

Well you and those who agree look at your version how ever you want. Meanwhile the rest of us will be voting the other way. It's not like it's the first time.
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 #511 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well you and those who agree look at your version how ever you want. Meanwhile the rest of us will be voting the other way. It's not like it's the first time.


Care to actually address the post? Care to actually engage in discussion? Nope, though not.


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 #512 of 736
This just in: everyone blames everyone else for budget deal fallout. Film at 11.

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 #513 of 736
But only one group is responsible.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #514 of 736
Nobody is taking responsibility.

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 #515 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

But only one group is responsible.

Let me guess: The Tea Party Downgrade? Are we really back to arguing that the people who wanted to cut more and borrow less are responsible for a credit downgrade?


Good to see you again, by the way.
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 #516 of 736
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 #517 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me guess: The Tea Party Downgrade? Are we really back to arguing that the people who wanted to cut more and borrow less are responsible for a credit downgrade?

Good to see you again, by the way.

Hahaha! I see it's still fun as ever 'round these parts!!!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #518 of 736
The Baby Boomer Blindspot on full display.

This is perhaps the most clear example one could ever present.

Quote:
"Markets will rise and fall, but this is the United States of America," Obama said. "No matter what some agency may say, we've always been and always will be a triple-A country."

No we won't always be no matter what. Actions have consequences.

"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 #519 of 736
From tomorrow's Journal. Bret Stephens lets loose on the Blamer-In-Chief. Read it before the WSJ editors come to their senses:

The presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does

Quote:
How many times have we heard it said that Mr. Obama is the smartest president ever?

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery "makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs." Today's White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

Much is made of the president's rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama's big speeches that didn't amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a "Triple-A country." Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Then there is Mr. Obama as political tactician. He makes predictions that prove false. He makes promises he cannot honor. He raises expectations he cannot meet. He reneges on commitments made in private. He surrenders positions staked in public. He is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved. He is overbearing when he ought to be absent.

Or, as MJ wrote,

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I would have just said Obama's a moron and been done with it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #520 of 736
That's racist. WSJ is racist. Bret Stephens is a racist. Did I mention racism? Dog whistle! Palin!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal