• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Moderator's Warning:
You are still not talking about the deal on the debt limit. There are threads already on the topics you are discussing however, so how about leaving this thread for those actually interested in the topic.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Hmmmm



Not since the Great Depression has the world witnessed such an amount of wealth lost on a relative scale.

You fail; and fail miserably. Blindly following an ideology has that effect.

Lived and worked during both, your analysis ignores the 81-82 crisis and ignores the human cost to individuals. you are wrong and the numbers during the 80's show it. Most of that 2007-2008 loss has been recovered without thanks to Obama. Since you weren't around during the 80's doubt that you have credibility on the issue by posting opinion pieces.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Does conservative have the stones to answer my question?

Another failed attempt to dodge my question: what is the cost increase that Obamacare poses to businesses?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001-2002 and had control of the committees including oversight committees. Now what was the Democrat Position on home ownership?
The problem wasn't know then. possibly because 2002 was when the toxic lending was really taking off

In fact, in 2002, Bush was still calling for more home ownership for those who could least afford it. If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't until 2003 when some savvy politicians, mostly on the right, began to see the writing on the wall.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Lived and worked during both, your analysis ignores the 81-82 crisis and ignores the human cost to individuals. you are wrong and the numbers during the 80's show it. Most of that 2007-2008 loss has been recovered without thanks to Obama. Since you weren't around during the 80's doubt that you have credibility on the issue by posting opinion pieces.

Listen, anyone with half a brain realizes that the 81-82 crisis pales in comparison to what occurred between 2007-2009. Again, given the quality of your posts, your opinion is entirely useless. There is no need to continue this discussion as you lack the ability to articulate within the context of any conversation regarding economics, finance, and the political economy.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

As has been posted and ignored, the bill to extend the debt ceiling does nothing to actually cut costs but does attempt to slow the growth of the govt. It fails miserably because it addresses cuts to the current baseline budget which is a record instead of going back to the 2008 budget and start cutting there. Currently the Govt is a 3.7 trillion dollars and revenue is 2.4 trillion approximately leaving a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit that will be added to the debt. A 3 trillion dollar cut over 10 years is 300 billion a year taking the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 1 Trillion. That is a joke. Throw them all out on their asses.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

As has been posted and ignored, the bill to extend the debt ceiling does nothing to actually cut costs but does attempt to slow the growth of the govt. It fails miserably because it addresses cuts to the current baseline budget which is a record instead of going back to the 2008 budget and start cutting there. Currently the Govt is a 3.7 trillion dollars and revenue is 2.4 trillion approximately leaving a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit that will be added to the debt. A 3 trillion dollar cut over 10 years is 300 billion a year taking the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 1 Trillion. That is a joke. Throw them all out on their asses.

They were never going to allow a default, and they will never risk their jobs by invoking a recession via cuts in spending during this stage of the recovery.

So much for the tea party.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No it hasn't, you haven't a clue but continue to divert from not only the thread topic but also the Obama record.
Yes, it was. Not my fault you either didn't see it or didn't understand it.

ACORN wasn't a GOP supporter. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd believed Home ownership was a civil right. Democratic position on home ownership mirrored ACORN and the Frank/Dodd position. Hard to deal with someone like you who ignores the issues but is a partisan supporter of failed liberalism
The partisan is you. Evidence of that is you not blaming the party in charge, but blaming two members of the minority party. Your own actions prove that. And it is Conservatism which failed. The ideology of small government refused to increase government oversight which might have staved off the Bush Recession.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

They were never going to allow a default, and they will never risk their jobs by invoking a recession via cuts in spending during this stage of the recovery.

So much for the tea party.

right, those evil Tea Party people

Our Founding Fathers were considered zealots. They put together our Constitution which has been the framework of America's survival, success and rise to become the premier nation in the world today. The Tea Party consists of the same type of zealots who believe that the Constitution and the principles fought for by our Founding Fathers must be saved from those who seek to destroy it such as the likes of the Nicholas Kristof's of the Socialist left.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No it hasn't, you haven't a clue but continue to divert from not only the thread topic but also the Obama record. ACORN wasn't a GOP supporter. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd believed Home ownership was a civil right. Democratic position on home ownership mirrored ACORN and the Frank/Dodd position. Hard to deal with someone like you who ignores the issues but is a partisan supporter of failed liberalism

Here's a blast from the past that should blow up you skirt!

"Oxley hits back at ideologues
By Greg Farrell in New York
Published: September 9 2008 19:25 | Last updated: September 9 2008 19:25

In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies.

The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it.

Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.

He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.

Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.

“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.

When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury secretary in 2006 he sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of reaching a compromise, but to no avail."
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

right, those evil Tea Party people

Our Founding Fathers were considered zealots. They put together our Constitution which has been the framework of America's survival, success and rise to become the premier nation in the world today. The Tea Party consists of the same type of zealots who believe that the Constitution and the principles fought for by our Founding Fathers must be saved from those who seek to destroy it such as the likes of the Nicholas Kristof's of the Socialist left.

Our founding fathers where also very good at compromise, something the tea party isn't. See what happens when you pick and choose aspects of the founding fathers to invoke?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

right, those evil Tea Party people

Our Founding Fathers were considered zealots. They put together our Constitution which has been the framework of America's survival, success and rise to become the premier nation in the world today. The Tea Party consists of the same type of zealots who believe that the Constitution and the principles fought for by our Founding Fathers must be saved from those who seek to destroy it such as the likes of the Nicholas Kristof's of the Socialist left.

The majority of the tea party consists of misinformed segments of the far right. They failed at their goal of reducing government spending in any meaningful sort of way. Balanced budget? Not during this decade.

As the movement fades into the sunset, the GOP will not recuperate their losses for some time.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The Tea Party consists of the same type of zealots who believe that the Constitution and the principles fought for by our Founding Fathers must be saved from those who seek to destroy it

It really doesn't. The founding fathers were moving the world forward. They were cutting edge. They created a system of government FAR more progressive than anything the world had ever seen. They were ahead of their time. Modern day tea party peopel are decades or even century behind the times. It's the opposite type of person.

As for preserving the constitution, what the heck are you talking about? The constitution allows Congress to borrow, to tax and to spend... Sometimes I feel like when a tea party person says "the constitution" they don't mean the actual document, they mean some personal image they have in their heads about how they think the country should be. But if I'm wrong, by all means, lay out the article, section and clause of the constitution you believe is being violated...
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The majority of the tea party consists of misinformed segments of the far right. They failed at their goal of reducing government spending in any meaningful sort of way. Balanced budget? Not during this decade.

As the movement fades into the sunset, the GOP will not recuperate their losses for some time.

So I assume you are part of the 40% that still supports Obama? I always wondered what it was like to be so arrogant that one knows everything about everyone else and is so perfect in every way. Being around you is an inspiration.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

It really doesn't. The founding fathers were moving the world forward. They were cutting edge. They created a system of government FAR more progressive than anything the world had ever seen. They were ahead of their time. Modern day tea party peopel are decades or even century behind the times. It's the opposite type of person.

As for preserving the constitution, what the heck are you talking about? The constitution allows Congress to borrow, to tax and to spend... Sometimes I feel like when a tea party person says "the constitution" they don't mean the actual document, they mean some personal image they have in their heads about how they think the country should be. But if I'm wrong, by all means, lay out the article, section and clause of the constitution you believe is being violated...

The 2010 election was about cutting spending and reigning in control of the large central govt. The tea party is winning
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

So I assume you are part of the 40% that still supports Obama? I always wondered what it was like to be so arrogant that one knows everything about everyone else and is so perfect in every way. Being around you is an inspiration.

I support Obama's actions more so than those of the GOP. This does not mean i am a democrat, nor does your response have anything to do with my comment.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The 2010 election was about cutting spending and reigning in control of the large central govt. The tea party is winning

The tea party has lost. The American people will not forget who attempted to hold the country hostage.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

House just passed the deal. Senate votes tomorrow.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The 2010 election was about cutting spending and reigning in control of the large central govt. The tea party is winning

The 2010 election was about the economy sucking. Folks aren't going to be so happy with the people they voted in if things suck worse in 2012.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The 2010 election was about cutting spending and reigning in control of the large central govt. The tea party is winning

So no defense for you statement about the constitution? That was just rhetoric?

As for whether the tea party is "winning" or not, depends how you look at it I guess. You can get a lot more bang for your buck in one of these fights if you really come across as stupid or crazy enough to intentionally destroy the world. They're certainly getting an awful lot of bang for their buck right now because of that tactic. But, in the long run, that sort of scortched earth tactic does not fare well. That's why the more experienced politicians don't do it. Obviously nobody- the Republicans or the Democrats- is going to compromise with them, give them powerful posts or include them in any decisions or anything after this. Some portion of the people who voted for them last time will be turned off by it. In the long run, rationality beats the "don't you know I'm loco" approach.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

CNN reporting the Representative Giffords was present to vote.

here's to her continuing recovery. it makes me happy to see her back at work after all she's been through.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

That's the best thing I've heard from this whole debt limit fiasco.
 
Giffords voting makes my day. Best news to come out of this.
 
The vote was 269-161 in favor, which means it was not even close.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001-2002 and had control of the committees including oversight committees. Now what was the Democrat Position on home ownership?


If I'm not wrong, it was pretty much the same as the Republican position at the time. President Bush talked a lot about an "ownership society."

Simply saying that your attempts to put all of the blame on Democrats is dead wrong. There was wide, bi-partisan agreement on that issue for many years.
 
Back
Top Bottom