Page 22 of 48 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 480

Thread: Breaking: Agreement has been reached on raising the debt limit....

  1. #211
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,302

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Yes, I understand that. I also understand that you can't possibly crunch the numbers for the U.S. government the way you're trying to do it. For example, even if there is technically enough money to pay SS, the checks won't go out of you don't pay the government employees who process the checks. And you won't have the money you claim you have if you don't pay the IRS and other employees to actually collect the money.

    At the moment we are only taking in about half the revenue we need to pay all our bills. Thus, obviously, if we don't borrow the rest we are going to default on about half of our obligations. Basic arithmetic.
    If you have half the revenue you need to pay your bills what do you do, increase your credit card limit or cut spending? There is enough money to pay the basic govt. obligations which I posted and leaves over 20 billion to fund the expenses of sending out those checks which is way too high. Anyway why are you so interested in sending more taxdollars to the Federal govt. that has created the current 14.4 trillion dollar debt? We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem as there never will be enough revenue to fund the liberal spending appetite.

  2. #212
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,302

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Of course they break it down by party. FYI, the approval for Republicans in Congress is at 25% in the latest Pew poll. For Democrats it's at 30%. Kinda makes Obama's 41% look not so bad, eh?
    41% is a terrible number for a President running for re-election. Why would anyone vote to re-elect this individual? don't results ever matter to a liberal?

    By the way national polls on Congress are irrelevant since Congressional Reps are elected locally. The only poll that matters with Congress are the local ones.

  3. #213
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Interesting concept, liberals have. Problem is there never will be enough money to fund the liberal appetite for spending as they attempt to make this country into a wonderful European socialist utopia.
    You mean Liberal spending like we had during these years of Republican budgets which generated these deficits?

    2004: 595,821,633,587
    2005: 553,656,965,393
    2006: 574,264,237,492

    2007: 500,679,473,047

  4. #214
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,302

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    You mean Liberal spending like we had during these years of Republican budgets which generated these deficits?

    2004: 595,821,633,587
    2005: 553,656,965,393
    2006: 574,264,237,492

    2007: 500,679,473,047
    think any of those deficits matter today with Obama's trillion dollar deficits? Obama is on the ballot in 2012, not Bush and no matter how you spin it, Obama is making Bush look good.

  5. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post

    Didn't know they broke out Congressional Approval ratings by party. Why such loyalty to Obama?
    Now ya know...

    July:

    Pew Research Center: 25%
    USA Today/Gallup: 28%
    NBC News/WSJournal: 25%
    Quinnipiac: 26%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

  6. #216
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,302

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Now ya know...

    July:

    Pew Research Center: 25%
    USA Today/Gallup: 28%
    NBC News/WSJournal: 25%
    Quinnipiac: 26%

    http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm
    So when did Congressional elections become national? Presidential elections are national and Obama has a 40% approval rating. Doesn't really matter what someone from NY thinks about a Representative in Ohio.

  7. #217
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,013

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Glad to see this done, now lets get onto talking about what is actually important for our financial future.

    Lets talk about significantly reforming and/or cutting entitlements and looking at what we can do to reduce military spending.

    More than half of our spending is tied up in entitlement payouts like Social Security, SCHIP, and Unemployment benefits. Add defense spending and you get almost 75% of our spending. Even if we were to cut every single solitary piece of government spending we have, including reducing defense to $0 dollars, we'd STILL be running a $43 billion debt each year. Cutting just the DOD's budget would still have us with with $750+ billion dollars in deficit.

    With our current spending we'd need to increase revenues by almost 70% just to break EVEN. Cut the DOD and you'd still need to raise revenues by more than 35% to break even.

    Is raising taxes possibly a part of the solution? Yes. But its not a much bigger part of it than cutting foreign aid or useless programs or various subsidies, etc. They're small drops into a bucket full of water. Until we honestly and seriously start acting like adults and look at these entitlement programs and decide what's FEASIBLE rather than what feels good, and realize that there is no perfect solution where no one gets hurt (that includes just letting them keep going), then we're never going to fix this issue.

    We're just kicking the can down the road.

    Significantly reform entitlements, significantly cut military spending, and then maybe we'll get financially solvent. Cut both by 1/3rd and they'd remain a clear majority of our government spending (2/3rds). That would cut the deficit by almost 2/3rds, from $1.4 trillion to $538 Billion. It would also bring us far closer to potentially balancing the budget by looking at smaller affecting things such as increased taxes, removal of waste and redundency, and cuts to non-essential government programs.

  8. #218
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    peter beinert, anyone?

    he was on cpsan saturday morning

    Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington. How did this happen? Simple; this is what American politics looks like when there’s no left-wing movement and no war.

    Let’s start with the first point. Liberals are furious that President Obama agreed to massive spending cuts, and the promise of more, without any increase in revenues. They should be: Given how much the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the deficit (and how little they’ve spurred economic growth), it’s mind-boggling that they’ve apparently escaped this deficit-reduction deal unscathed.

    But there’s a reason for that: since the economy collapsed in 2008, only one grassroots movement has emerged in response, and it’s been a movement of the right. Compare that with what happened during the Depression. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency and launched the hodgepodge of domestic programs that historians call the first New Deal. By 1935, however, he was looking warily over his left shoulder at Huey Long, whose “Share our Wealth” movement demanded that incomes be capped at $1 million and every family be guaranteed an income no less than one-third the national average.

    To be sure, FDR had vehement opponents on his right, but he was at least as concerned about the populist left, which helps explain why he enacted the more ambitious “second new deal,” which included Social Security, the massive public jobs program called the Works Progress Administration and the Wagner Act, which for the first time in American history put Washington on the side of labor unions.

    Historians will long debate why the financial collapse of 2008 produced a right-wing populist movement and not a left-wing one. Perhaps it’s because Obama didn’t take on Wall Street, perhaps it’s because with labor unions so weak there’s just not the organizational muscle to create such a movement, perhaps it’s because trust in government is so low that pro-government populism is almost impossible.

    Whatever the reason, it was the emergence of the Tea Party as the most powerful grassroots pressure group in America that laid the groundwork for Sunday night’s deal. The fact that polling showed Obama getting the better of the debt ceiling debate barely mattered. The 2010 elections brought to Congress a group of Republicans theologically committed to cutting government.

    But it’s not just the absence of a mass left-wing movement that explains last night’s deal. It’s the end of the war on terror. From 9/11 until George W. Bush left office, the “war on terror” defined the Republican Party.

    The Tea Party, by contrast, is a post-war on terror phenomenon. Many of the newly-elected Republicans are indifferent, if not hostile, to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They’re happy to cut the defense budget, especially since cutting the defense budget makes it easier to persuade Democrats to swallow larger cuts in domestic spending. It’s the reverse of the cold war dynamic.

    The good news is that the Tea Party, more than Barack Obama, has now ended the neoconservative dream of an ever-expanding American empire. The bad news is that it has also ended whatever hopes liberals once entertained that roughly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, roughly 75 years after the New Deal and roughly 50 years after the Great Society, we were living in another great age of progressive reform.

    Given the era of fiscal scarcity we’re now entering, those neocon and progressive dreams are now likely dead for many years to come. Meanwhile, the Tea Party’s dream of a government reduced to its pre-welfare state size becomes ever real.
    How the Tea Party Won the Deal - Yahoo! News

    why does obama keep caving, what's he so scared of

  9. #219
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Kinda makes Obama's 41% look not so bad, eh?
    you're comparing a PRESIDENT's popularity with generic congress?

    LOL!

  10. #220
    Guru
    cAPSLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,929
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obama: We have a deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner View Post
    Premises:
    1) The Tea Party stands for cutting government funded health care and against raising taxes
    2) These people are still alive and functional due to government funded health care
    3) These people are members of the tea party
    That is crazy talk. The idea there would be no Tea Party without government funded health care is hyperbole and just goofy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Befuddled_Stoner View Post
    Corollary:
    a) The appellative “Tea Baggers,” taken initially by the Tea Party themselves in ignorance of the term’s derogatory connotations, is an unsubtle reminder that they have previously advocated positions without fully comprehending their larger ramifications.
    Once again a fancy way of calling your opposition stupid.

    But being ignorant at first of an obscure filthy epithet isn't really stupid. And the fact that this is important to you in your argument against the "Tea Party" conservatives reveals pettiness and a is great example of grasping at straws.

Page 22 of 48 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •