• 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!

Was A Big Deal Ever Possible?

Was it Ever?


  • Total voters
    28
I am actually using definitions, not politics. By the way, you might not want to jump to conclusions about my politics either on the issue of the negotiations going on.

You've already done that to yourself: Lean: Very Liberal
 
I've covered this before. We can pay whatever is necessary to avoid default. These are the things like your car or house payment. I'm not going to be upset if we have to bring the soldiers home.

I won't either for that matter, but CP above says we can't afford medicare. I would consider that part of our bills, that would fit the definition. I believe any reasonable and responsibile settlement would include both spending cuts and tax increases. And a government that was doing its job would work to compromise, as that is the way a democracy works. We cannot function without consensus. So anyone signing pledges, seeking to have their own way and the compromise be danmned, has misunderstood and perverted the process IMHO.

One more thing, as for the issue of whether the stimulus was a success or failure, I would argue more somewhere inbetween. It did not accomplish all hoped for, but things may well have been worse without it. Like many, I believe the stimulus did not go far enough, but the nature of these efforts is short term, and not long term. At best, they stop the bleeding. At worse, they slow it. Seeking an all or nothing verdict is not neccessarily the most accurate way to approach it.
 
I won't either for that matter, but CP above says we can't afford medicare. I would consider that part of our bills, that would fit the definition.

If that is not paid, that would be something that would bring the worse out in me. Just the same as S.S. Politicians have told us for years that both of these were fully funded. Everyone knows it was a huge lie but it's one the politicians have to live with. I'd be right there when people go to Washington and demand the ouster of all the politicians that claim this.

That is a different arguement than the one for reform. Those who say that we must reform these programs are saying "the money is not there".

I believe any reasonable and responsibile settlement would include both spending cuts and tax increases. And a government that was doing its job would work to compromise, as that is the way a democracy works. We cannot function without consensus. So anyone signing pledges, seeking to have their own way and the compromise be danmned, has misunderstood and perverted the process IMHO.

I've mentioned taxes I would support but as I've also said, I've not seen those taxes suggested anywhere.

One more thing, as for the issue of whether the stimulus was a success or failure, I would argue more somewhere inbetween. It did not accomplish all hoped for, but things may well have been worse without it. Like many, I believe the stimulus did not go far enough, but the nature of these efforts is short term, and not long term. At best, they stop the bleeding. At worse, they slow it. Seeking an all or nothing verdict is not neccessarily the most accurate way to approach it.

I understand the arguement and I would never argue that you shouldn't make it. My arguement is it's only as valid as the arguement that it did more harm than good.
 
I understand the arguement and I would never argue that you shouldn't make it. My arguement is it's only as valid as the arguement that it did more harm than good.

Not sure that is true. But I do agree there is room for debate there. I suspect it would have been much, much worse without the stimulus and the bailouts. Huge amounts of money spent, but that may very well have kept us from seeing something much worse.
 
We've done this before with me providing links to past articles that notes the Tea Party got started over the outrage at the give aways to Wall Street but yet, none of it seems to matter to you. You'll continue to make your baseless accusations because the Tea Party realizes that everyone is going to have to pitch in, including you and you don't seem to care for that.

Your right, I dont disagree with you...but the fiasco over obamacare and Pelsosi was a part of it...I went to 4 local teaparty rallies and foremost was obamacare
 
Not sure that is true. But I do agree there is room for debate there. I suspect it would have been much, much worse without the stimulus and the bailouts. Huge amounts of money spent, but that may very well have kept us from seeing something much worse.

And I believe that while we might have had a slight bit more pain, we would have been past it by now and not be this much more into debt. So in the end it seems you agree by noting "not sure", "suspect", "may" that your belief isn't absolute and other beliefs could be what would have happened.

I can make an arguement for my position for everyone you can provide.
 
Your right, I dont disagree with you...but the fiasco over obamacare and Pelsosi was a part of it...I went to 4 local teaparty rallies and foremost was obamacare

Yes, they were against that also but if you will allow me to jump conclusions here, you are saying that was defending corporations? If so I disagree. They want reforms also but see a different path to them.
 
Yes, they were against that also but if you will allow me to jump conclusions here, you are saying that was defending corporations? If so I disagree. They want reforms also but see a different path to them.

That is not what im saying...at that point when the rallys first started it was supported at least in my area in fla by working class babyboomers. They did not expect the teaparty to morph into lets cut everything for the working class, attack public workers and Blame Social Security Medicare and Public workers for all our debt and the current economic climate.
These debt ceiling debates if anyone wants to be honest are in limbo strictly because the teaparty is forcing Boehner not to accept anything but what THEY want.
That is not negotiating in good faith...that is merely gestapo demanding.
 
And I believe that while we might have had a slight bit more pain, we would have been past it by now and not be this much more into debt. So in the end it seems you agree by noting "not sure", "suspect", "may" that your belief isn't absolute and other beliefs could be what would have happened.

I can make an arguement for my position for everyone you can provide.

I think it would have been a lot more more, the jobs that would have been lost, would have been gone for any foreseeable futrue, and we'd hardly be over it.

And yes, I try not to use absolutes. One certainty is we can't be 100% sure about what wasn't done. But, it is reasonable to look at the possible effects of letting the auto industy fall, letting the fall go it's full course. It is unlikely that it would be better to have done so. It may have been right to so, another issue, but hardly less painful for either the short or long term. Schools would have lsot teachers with little to no time to prepare, this would have hurt education in a very serious way. Unemployment nation wide would have been considerably higher. This is almost certain.

So, while I am sure you can throw up some things, as I said there is room for debate, I simply don't believe you're correct. And I think the evidence is largely on my side. But I don't expect everyone to agree (there's that avoiding absolutes again ;) ).
 
I think it would have been a lot more more, the jobs that would have been lost, would have been gone for any foreseeable futrue, and we'd hardly be over it.

O.K. I disagree. Not really anywhere to go beyond that.

And yes, I try not to use absolutes. One certainty is we can't be 100% sure about what wasn't done. But, it is reasonable to look at the possible effects of letting the auto industy fall, letting the fall go it's full course.

There was absolutely no reason the auto industries had to fail barring government intervention. Or at the very least to the amount it did. We could have simply put them into a structured bankruptcy that would have hurt, but it would have been done without giving away Chrysler and telling creditors to get lost. How do you get people to invest in a company when you know that the government might come along and simply say your investment is no longer valid, we are going to give it to someone else?

It is unlikely that it would be better to have done so. It may have been right to so, another issue, but hardly less painful for either the short or long term. Schools would have lsot teachers with little to no time to prepare, this would have hurt education in a very serious way. Unemployment nation wide would have been considerably higher. This is almost certain.

It's not.

So, while I am sure you can throw up some things, as I said there is room for debate, I simply don't believe you're correct. And I think the evidence is largely on my side. But I don't expect everyone to agree (there's that avoiding absolutes again ;) ).

You completely ignore the psychological side. Obama's proposed budget was loaded with more and more spending. It's why it was defeated 0-97. People are very reluctant to go back to "normal" because they know all this stuff that is still piling up (current loss with Chrysler, the continue sinkhole that is Fannie Mae) has to be paid for.

I believe that rather than bailing out Wall Street we would have allowed them to take their lumps and then arrest those who ran astray of the law (and there are many, many of them) that people would have had more faith in the economy and government. Right now many do not have any faith in the government, the economy or the markets.
 
That is not what im saying...at that point when the rallys first started it was supported at least in my area in fla by working class babyboomers. They did not expect the teaparty to morph into lets cut everything for the working class, attack public workers and Blame Social Security Medicare and Public workers for all our debt and the current economic climate.

LOL, all I can do is pass this off as rhetoric. They believe the cuts have to come from everywhere. You say this despite me pointing out to you that they are every bit against corporate welfare as any of those other things.

These debt ceiling debates if anyone wants to be honest are in limbo strictly because the teaparty is forcing Boehner not to accept anything but what THEY want.
That is not negotiating in good faith...that is merely gestapo demanding.

Yes, just like the Nazi's. There is nowhere left to go when one decides they must go there. It just shows you aren't into a serious discussion.
 
You've already done that to yourself: Lean: Very Liberal

So where do I stand on the issue then? Come on, since you know where I stand, let's hear it.
 
And I believe that while we might have had a slight bit more pain, we would have been past it by now and not be this much more into debt. So in the end it seems you agree by noting "not sure", "suspect", "may" that your belief isn't absolute and other beliefs could be what would have happened.

I can make an arguement for my position for everyone you can provide.

So the about 5 % the stimulus added to the debt is what is breaking our back now?
 
So where do I stand on the issue then? Come on, since you know where I stand, let's hear it.

You think it was successful because it was in a small way successful. Isn't that what we discussed all morning?
 
So the about 5 % the stimulus added to the debt is what is breaking our back now?

No, it's everything that has been piled on including the wasted stimulus money.
 
You think it was successful because it was in a small way successful. Isn't that what we discussed all morning?

Actually at that point we were discussing my stance on the budget debate.
 
I won't either for that matter, but CP above says we can't afford medicare. I would consider that part of our bills, that would fit the definition. I believe any reasonable and responsibile settlement would include both spending cuts and tax increases. And a government that was doing its job would work to compromise, as that is the way a democracy works. We cannot function without consensus. So anyone signing pledges, seeking to have their own way and the compromise be danmned, has misunderstood and perverted the process IMHO.

One more thing, as for the issue of whether the stimulus was a success or failure, I would argue more somewhere inbetween. It did not accomplish all hoped for, but things may well have been worse without it. Like many, I believe the stimulus did not go far enough, but the nature of these efforts is short term, and not long term. At best, they stop the bleeding. At worse, they slow it. Seeking an all or nothing verdict is not neccessarily the most accurate way to approach it.

I despise Norquist.
 
I despise Norquist.

Why? The GOP are just using that as a cover -

"In a piece titled “Read My Lips: No New Taxes,” Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, restates his position first articulated Thursday on The Washington Post editorial page that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would not break the pledge, which he says has been signed by 236 House members and 41 senators.

"If they are ended, the government will take in nearly $4 trillion more over the next decade than if they remain."

Read more: Grover Norquist: Pledge no obstacle to deficit deal - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com
 
Last edited:
O.K. I disagree. Not really anywhere to go beyond that.



There was absolutely no reason the auto industries had to fail barring government intervention. Or at the very least to the amount it did. We could have simply put them into a structured bankruptcy that would have hurt, but it would have been done without giving away Chrysler and telling creditors to get lost. How do you get people to invest in a company when you know that the government might come along and simply say your investment is no longer valid, we are going to give it to someone else?



It's not.



You completely ignore the psychological side. Obama's proposed budget was loaded with more and more spending. It's why it was defeated 0-97. People are very reluctant to go back to "normal" because they know all this stuff that is still piling up (current loss with Chrysler, the continue sinkhole that is Fannie Mae) has to be paid for.

I believe that rather than bailing out Wall Street we would have allowed them to take their lumps and then arrest those who ran astray of the law (and there are many, many of them) that people would have had more faith in the economy and government. Right now many do not have any faith in the government, the economy or the markets.

We've been bailing out the auto industry for as long as I can remember. What I liked about Obama's approach, was that for the first time we asked for something in return, pay back and better management. In the past, both democrats and republicans just gave them the money. No one was going to let them just go bankrupt, no matter the conditions. We have history on this.

Now as for Wall Street, something I agree should not have been done, that's an entirely different animal, but something both parties were party to. And we should never have gotten into the banking condition we gaot into. I recommend the seeing the documentary "Inside Job" if you get the chance. I don't expect you to buy everything in it, but I do think there are some things to consider there. Freddie and Fannie wer eless a problem in and of themselves than the banking system that allowed morgates to be sold off, and for investors to bet on failure. People try to simplify too much IMHO and sometimes miss the actual problems, the large rproblems.

Now, for the reaosn I think it would have been worse. I know in education jobs were saved and time given to adjust. This was important. I am sure that jobs not laost due to saving the auto industry were important, and would not have come back quickly with bankruptcy. An dif this is true, not only would the pain been greater, but the public outcry would have been worse. Adn while you gave a simple "it's not" as a reply, it is almost certain. We can see this by the jobs that were not lost for awhile, and by seeing how difficult it is to rebuild in a poor economy. There's no magic for people unemployed, especially with more unempoloyed and less money availble to put them to work. Business doesn't trickle down, but instead hunkers down when things are tough.
 
We've been bailing out the auto industry for as long as I can remember. What I liked about Obama's approach, was that for the first time we asked for something in return, pay back and better management. In the past, both democrats and republicans just gave them the money. No one was going to let them just go bankrupt, no matter the conditions. We have history on this.

Better management? We gave Chrysler away and have no say in management and just lost 1.3 trillion dollars on it. Chrysler had to pay the money back the last time they were bailed out. Don't try and revise history.

Now as for Wall Street, something I agree should not have been done, that's an entirely different animal, but something both parties were party to. And we should never have gotten into the banking condition we gaot into. I recommend the seeing the documentary "Inside Job" if you get the chance. I don't expect you to buy everything in it, but I do think there are some things to consider there. Freddie and Fannie wer eless a problem in and of themselves than the banking system that allowed morgates to be sold off, and for investors to bet on failure. People try to simplify too much IMHO and sometimes miss the actual problems, the large rproblems.

They were sold off to F&F. F&F did nothing to ensure that these loans were good because they didn't care. Part of the agreement was also that any bad loans were to be bought back by the originating source. That being Goldman Sachs. How many of these loans have GS been forced to buy back? They are making record profits while we are pouring more and more money into the bad loans. Why is that?

Now, for the reaosn I think it would have been worse. I know in education jobs were saved and time given to adjust. This was important. I am sure that jobs not laost due to saving the auto industry were important, and would not have come back quickly with bankruptcy. An dif this is true, not only would the pain been greater, but the public outcry would have been worse. Adn while you gave a simple "it's not" as a reply, it is almost certain. We can see this by the jobs that were not lost for awhile, and by seeing how difficult it is to rebuild in a poor economy. There's no magic for people unemployed, especially with more unempoloyed and less money availble to put them to work. Business doesn't trickle down, but instead hunkers down when things are tough.

Bankruptcy does NOT mean you go out of business and everyone loses their job. Where does this idea come from? (I know where it comes from)
 
In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.

He seems possible ...

priceline-bigdeal.jpg
 
Define tax the **** out of. This is important as no one has suggested any serious tax increases. This is just partisan hyperbole, right?

Define "no one".
I have suggested that the tax rates be restored to those of the Clinton Era.
What we do need to do is work on the trade balance deficit,
We cannot continue to have our money on a one-way joyride to Arabia and China..
We do seem to need help from Japan and Germany...and Russia...
 
No, it's everything that has been piled on including the wasted stimulus money.
This is a separate argument, the conservatives and libertarians seems to "think" that the stimulus was "wasted".
Many think otherwise...
I will be different and keep an open mind.
 
In November 2010, the nation had a massive right-leaning correction to two, very large left-leaning previous elections.

however, the White House and the Senate turn over every 4 and 6 years respectively. The House turns over every two.

Ergo, the President and Senate are reflective of strong Democrat elections, whereas the House is reflective of a strong Republican election.

I posit, therefore, that a Grand Bargain was never a real possibility. To say that the two sides are too far apart isn't really a full explanation; but rather that in the context of a large deal, there never was any serious overlap. The math makes it nigh impossible to talk about large deficit reduction without reforming the entitlements, but Democrats are unwilling to reform the entitlements without tax hikes - and the minimum that they will accept is higher than the maximum that Republicans will accept. Both sides put forth their "best offer" and know that they are compromising as much as they possibly can - while both best offers remain too far apart, and each accuses the other of not compromising.

In short, this is something that will have to be decided by the 2012 election - because at current our government, split between the sections that were a reaction to George Bush and the section that was a reaction to Barack Obama, is simply incapable of finding ground both can stand on.
Interesting.
Then the answer is default and the so-called dire consequences.
 
Or not.

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn't raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

Read more: Obama to Banks: We're Not Defaulting - FoxBusiness.com


I have no doubt that the source will be dismissed but count on it. There will be no default.
 
Back
Top Bottom