The Budget Deal - Page 13

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

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

Originally Posted by BR

If only we had Gore in 2000.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

And his Lock Box?

If only politicians kept their promises. \

Originally Posted by BR

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.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

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.

Originally Posted by BR

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

Originally Posted by FloorJack

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.

Originally Posted by BR

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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...

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by john galt

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.

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

• 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.

Call it what you want.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

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."

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."

Originally Posted by jimmac

Please supply fact based support for you claim.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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.

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

"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."

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

My new sig... perfect.

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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

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."

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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

"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.'"

Originally Posted by BR

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.

Originally Posted by john galt

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

Facts do not matter to some folks

Originally Posted by SDW2001

\ 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.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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.

Originally Posted by Northgate

But only one group is responsible.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

"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."

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.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I would have just said Obama's a moron and been done with it.