• 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!

Harry Reid: "We're going over the cliff"

Boo Radley said:
Many reasons, but largely becasue we have just been through a recession. Not to mention employment is still low. Labor is cheap, thus less to spend. Much of what has happened for decades has hurt the worker, thus giving him less free capital, and heavy personal debt. What conservaitves call for will largely hurt business. Individuals being fiscally responsible means less spending. A good thing but costly in terms of jobs, at least in short term. The to a better world will be painful, if we get their at all. And playing partisan silliness is to be part of the problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...


Says one of the most partisan posters on the sight.

It's NP though. I can see through your passive aggressive attempts at trying to preach a objective non-partisan diatribe that INCLUDES horrible advice for repairing a economy that's been ignored for the last 4 years.

Employment and demand are low due to a general consensus among those who CONTRIBUTE into our private sector driven economy . The consensus that we have a administration who is much more interested in liberal policies like redistribution and spending.

Corporations and individuals are sitting on trillions in Capital and choosing NOT to put it into the economy as investments and /or purchases. Companies are down sizing and increasing their production by doing more with less.

It has nothing to do with their "greed" and everything to do with their survival under a President who in every room he walks into is the least qualified person there. A president who thinks he can spend his way out of a recession when almost everything we buy is made IN CHINA....

Your goofy left wing assertion about workers being hurt and bla bla bla is just more generic nonsense that's actually one of the most partisan bits of silliness I've read on this forum.

If your left wing rhetoric were even marginally true then why is Houston and parts of Texas doing so well ? Why do we have a growing economy here when we as a State we just basically implement Conservative economic principles and incentivize new businesses.

No, Conservative ideology empowers the private sector, and thus grows our private sector based economy which also includes more jobs and less poverty.

The liberal policies create generational dependence, poverty and misery and have locked, almost entire races into housing projects for the sole purpose of building vote farms.

If workers are in debt then guess what ? They need to grow the hell up and act responsibly and NOT spend what they don't have.
 
Fenton said:
Says one of the most partisan posters on the sight.

It's NP though. I can see through your passive aggressive attempts at trying to preach a objective non-partisan diatribe that INCLUDES horrible advice for repairing a economy that's been ignored for the last 4 years.

Employment and demand are low due to a general consensus among those who CONTRIBUTE into our private sector driven economy . The consensus that we have a administration who is much more interested in liberal policies like redistribution and spending.

Corporations and individuals are sitting on trillions in Capital and choosing NOT to put it into the economy as investments and /or purchases. Companies are down sizing and increasing their production by doing more with less.

It has nothing to do with their "greed" and everything to do with their survival under a President who in every room he walks into is the least qualified person there. A president who thinks he can spend his way out of a recession when almost everything we buy is made IN CHINA....

Your goofy left wing assertion about workers being hurt and bla bla bla is just more generic nonsense that's actually one of the most partisan bits of silliness I've read on this forum.

If your left wing rhetoric were even marginally true then why is Houston and parts of Texas doing so well ? Why do we have a growing economy here when we as a State we just basically implement Conservative economic principles and incentivize new businesses.

No, Conservative ideology empowers the private sector, and thus grows our private sector based economy which also includes more jobs and less poverty.

The liberal policies create generational dependence, poverty and misery and have locked, almost entire races into housing projects for the sole purpose of building vote farms.

If workers are in debt then guess what ? They need to grow the hell up and act responsibly and NOT spend what they don't have.
Click to expand...

Too many here see disagreement as partisan. I've rarely if ever degraded "the right." I don't see conservatives as evil, or fascists, or religious nuts. I vote republican from time to time (think Grassley).

But, no, recent history shows polices favor business, corporations, and the wealthy or working folks. This may well empower the wealthy to gain more wealth, the business to have cheaper labor, but I'm not convinced that is empowering.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, nothing the president does is in anyway like a business.
Click to expand...

This is so foolishly wrong, and explains much of why you think Obama has been a success.

No state product or widget, no profit motive, nothing that mirrors a business.
Click to expand...

The product is the United States. Just as a Governor must constantly search out businesses across the world that would like to locate in their state in order to increase employment in that state, so must a President look at treaty's and agreements between countries to improve employment in this country. Another aspect is policy, and understanding how business works, and what policies damage confidence, or hurt the well being of business altogether.

tried to make this clear to you during the election. Even economic policies are very different than running an actual business.
Click to expand...

You're splitting hairs, and coming at me in a pompous manner is not going to get your point across. You need to understand that the things that Obama and his cabal of mobster wanna be's are strangling confidence, and holding business in this country back.

An no Pol Pot was not an educational leader. You need to read that again. Being educated is not being an educational leader. You're misreading again.
Click to expand...

I am misreading? I don't think so....I said "educated" NOT ''educational'' Changing that word from what I said is changing its meaning, so YOU are the one misreading here....This explains much about you.
 
j-mac said:
This is so foolishly wrong, and explains much of why you think Obama has been a success.



The product is the United States. Just as a Governor must constantly search out businesses across the world that would like to locate in their state in order to increase employment in that state, so must a President look at treaty's and agreements between countries to improve employment in this country. Another aspect is policy, and understanding how business works, and what policies damage confidence, or hurt the well being of business altogether.



You're splitting hairs, and coming at me in a pompous manner is not going to get your point across. You need to understand that the things that Obama and his cabal of mobster wanna be's are strangling confidence, and holding business in this country back.



I am misreading? I don't think so....I said "educated" NOT ''educational'' Changing that word from what I said is changing its meaning, so YOU are the one misreading here....This explains much about you.
Click to expand...

You're way too sensitive j. You cannot really tell my attitude from the quick posts we share here. But, the president does not run a business. He has no product to produce. No board of directors concerned with profit margin. No market to set prices for any widgets. This seems like a clear point requiring that you address them and not your feelings of being insulted.

Secondly, attracting business is also not running a business. Again, a very different thing. And yes, if you provide labor cheap enough, allow for a lack of regulation, favor business over the worker enough, you will attract business. However, the president has to as concerned about workers and the poor as he is business. He yet aso consider public safety. He is not running a business.

As for Pol Pot, it was such a silly comment on your part I'm not really inclined to mess with it too much. If you really want to understand, I suggest you start from the beginning a re-read.
 
justabubba said:
yes, it would have been so astute to collect those dollars and then put them in a federal mattress, never to be used until it was time to pay the social security benefits of the employee who contributed those dollars
very business like; just as the reich wingers would insist government should be
because businesses keep their working capital in a lock box and never consider placing the funds where they could accrue earnings
[/s] for those who needed it
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they didn't and those who depended on the government, and voted for more of it, are going to be screwed. What happens then?
 
iliveonramen said:
Cheap political game. The only thing Republicans have proven themselves good at in the past 4 years is scoring cheap political points only appreciated by their gerrymandered "safe" districts.

The writing is on the wall...either help govern or the Republican party is facing some long term problems.
Click to expand...

Where is the game? These are the facts!

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.

Read more: Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
You're way too sensitive j. You cannot really tell my attitude from the quick posts we share here. But, the president does not run a business. He has no product to produce. No board of directors concerned with profit margin. No market to set prices for any widgets. This seems like a clear point requiring that you address them and not your feelings of being insulted.

Secondly, attracting business is also not running a business. Again, a very different thing. And yes, if you provide labor cheap enough, allow for a lack of regulation, favor business over the worker enough, you will attract business. However, the president has to as concerned about workers and the poor as he is business. He yet aso consider public safety. He is not running a business.

As for Pol Pot, it was such a silly comment on your part I'm not really inclined to mess with it too much. If you really want to understand, I suggest you start from the beginning a re-read.
Click to expand...


This is a typical liberal response here, ignoring the points made and appealing to emotion, while avoiding a true discussion. If you feel that this is the way you prevail in furthering your views, then you are sadly mistaken. But, since I must go out and buy some groceries before your Presidents incompetence leads to $7 per gallon milk prices, I really have no time right now for your Allenski style silliness. Get a new bag dude, you need it badly....bye bye now.
 
Boo Radley said:
You assume much. And apparently get much wrong. Not only did Bush not achieve your standard, but no reasonable person would have expected out of McCain or Romney. You sound more partisan than me.
Click to expand...

Bush? I never mentioned George Bush! Please respond to the quote if you are going to respond at all. I'm interested in the current Presidency and the financial and social future of the United States, not George Bush. What's the matter with you?

Isn't it about time you started looking toward the future and the consequences of the actions, or lack of action, taken today?
 
Boo Radley said:
Easily. Romney agree with him on many things. Take health care for example. Romney wanted to everything but the method to pay for it. This is irresponsible. On foreign policy, Romney all but endorsed Obama. Romney lacked any conviction and wanted to be president too badly. Most of side are hyperbolic and inaccurate in your criticism of Obama. While he has hardly been perfect, the cartoonish image your side tries to paint goes too far, leaving real and justified criticism for stupid. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

You really didn't follow the election campaign much, did you?
 
head of joaquin said:
Republicans are so cretinous they have lost and don't know it. Taxes on the rich are going up. There's no way these shills can stop it.

If we go over the cliff, the next day the Senate proposes a tax cut for working families and dares the tea party House to shoot down a tax cut. The GOP is so nihilistic they probably will, and that will mean in the next election, armageddon for the tea party
Click to expand...

And that will be good for the future of the United States? How do you see America's future?
 
Grant said:
Yeah, but they didn't and those who depended on the government, and voted for more of it, are going to be screwed. What happens then?
Click to expand...

answering your question as presented would mean that your assumption is likely
like your other baseless speculation in this forum, it is not
you are simply wrong
the government is not going to go belly up and default on its obligations
if that happens, there will be bigger problems than your check is not in the mail
 
justabubba said:
answering your question as presented would mean that your assumption is likely
like your other baseless speculation in this forum, it is not
you are simply wrong
the government is not going to go belly up and default on its obligations
if that happens, there will be bigger problems than your check is not in the mail
Click to expand...

Of course there will be bigger problems and the stage is already being set for that. Can you not see Americans taking sides already, and being encouraged by the President and other members of his Administration? ("They're Going To Put Y'all Back In Chains ..."), the "War on women"? as just a couple of examples.

Obama increased the federal debt by just shy of $6 trillion and in return grew the economy by $905 billion. So, as Lance Roberts at Street Talk Live pointed out, in order to generate every dollar of economic growth the United States had to borrow about five dollars and 60 cents. There’s no one out there on the planet — whether it’s “the rich” or the Chinese — who can afford to carry on bankrolling that rate of return. According to one CBO analysis, U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as the rest of the world is prepared to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. We already know the answer to that: In order to avoid the public humiliation of a failed bond auction, the U.S. Treasury sells 70 percent of the debt it issues to the Federal Reserve — which is to say the left hand of the U.S. government is borrowing money from the right hand of the U.S. government. It’s government as a Nigerian e-mail scam, with Ben Bernanke playing the role of the dictator’s widow with $4 trillion under her bed that she’s willing to wire to Timmy Geithner as soon as he sends her his bank-account details.

If that’s all a bit too technical, here’s the gist: There’s nothing holding the joint up.

So Washington cannot be saved from itself. For the moment, tend to your state, and county, town and school district, and demonstrate the virtues of responsible self-government at the local level. Americans as a whole have joined the rest of the Western world in voting themselves a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. The longer any course correction is postponed the more convulsive it will be. Alas, on Tuesday, the electorate opted to defer it for another four years. I doubt they’ll get that long.
Click to expand...
The Edge of the Abyss - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
 
Grant said:
Of course there will be bigger problems and the stage is already being set for that. Can you not see Americans taking sides already, and being encouraged by the President and other members of his Administration? ("They're Going To Put Y'all Back In Chains ..."), the "War on women"? as just a couple of examples.

The Edge of the Abyss - Mark Steyn - National Review Online
Click to expand...

what that post tells us is the prudent investor should go long on tin foil
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I swear this is starting to read exactly like the last chapter of "1984".

Reid says fiscal cliff dive likely; blasts Boehner for lacking leadership | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

"Boehner will be to blame “if we go over the cliff, and it looks like that’s where we’re headed,” Reid insisted as the Senate returned to work for a post-Christmas session focused on disaster relief for Sandy victims and renewing key government surveillance powers."


How much does anyone want to bet that a "miraculous last minute deal" will be struck that avoids the cliff yet does absolutely nothing to address the problem? All just another well played episode of "Kick the Can", I'm afraid...
Click to expand...

As we've been here before, it's not hard to imagine. BTW, there is no fiscal cliff. Just the rich getting impatient for the fascist government they want to kick in.
 
j-mac said:
This is a typical liberal response here, ignoring the points made and appealing to emotion, while avoiding a true discussion. If you feel that this is the way you prevail in furthering your views, then you are sadly mistaken. But, since I must go out and buy some groceries before your Presidents incompetence leads to $7 per gallon milk prices, I really have no time right now for your Allenski style silliness. Get a new bag dude, you need it badly....bye bye now.
Click to expand...

Do you even realize that you're the one being emotional and not responding to points. Not only don't you even understand Allenski (only parroting what some idiot conservative talking head told you), but I s doing what you accuse me of.

You have addressed the points I laid out of how it is not a business in any off your posts. You assert that because they try to attract business, that makes it a business. I spelled how that logic doesn't follow. Twice now you're reacted emotionally and on point. His would you like me to handle that?
 
Grant said:
Bush? I never mentioned George Bush! Please respond to the quote if you are going to respond at all. I'm interested in the current Presidency and the financial and social future of the United States, not George Bush. What's the matter with you?

Isn't it about time you started looking toward the future and the consequences of the actions, or lack of action, taken today?
Click to expand...

No president stands alone. There is a context, a comparison aways.
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you even realize that you're the one being emotional and not responding to points. Not only don't you even understand Allenski (only parroting what some idiot conservative talking head told you), but I s doing what you accuse me of.

You have addressed the points I laid out of how it is not a business in any off your posts. You assert that because they try to attract business, that makes it a business. I spelled how that logic doesn't follow. Twice now you're reacted emotionally and on point. His would you like me to handle that?
Click to expand...


Even more projection....double down....It really is funny.
 
Boo Radley said:
No president stands alone.
Click to expand...

Every president stands alone and will be judged alone.
There is a context, a comparison aways.
Click to expand...
There might be sometimes but there is little point in comparisons unless that is the topic of conversation and comparisons are invited. Otherwise it is just another uvenile tactic of avoiding debate.
 
Grant said:
Every president stands alone and will be judged alone.

There might be sometimes but there is little point in comparisons unless that is the topic of conversation and comparisons are invited. Otherwise it is just another uvenile tactic of avoiding debate.
Click to expand...
Not so. We don't start over with each president. There is a continuum.

In context, when exaggerate the actions of one that are different Han then other, it calls out for comparison.
 
Well the Democrats as "Tax and Spenders" appears to be alive and strong as ever. Any leftwinger denying this is a liar. After hearing Sen Lindsey Graham it appears that Obama will get his tax hikes and will not reduce spending a single penny. He's a lying sack of ****, cause he said we needed a combination of both. This is why conservatives never trust the left to keep their word; they are out and out liars. On top of that Obama is raising the pay of everyone up top. This is exactly what the Dems did to Reagan, and later claimed he raised taxes and grew the budget.

Republicans voting for this need to be kicked out for good.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Well the Democrats as "Tax and Spenders" appears to be alive and strong as ever. Any leftwinger denying this is a liar. After hearing Sen Lindsey Graham it appears that Obama will get his tax hikes and will not reduce spending a single penny. He's a lying sack of ****, cause he said we needed a combination of both. This is why conservatives never trust the left to keep their word; they are out and out liars. On top of that Obama is raising the pay of everyone up top.
Click to expand...

Count on SS "reform" to consist mainly of COLA reductions, or the inflation fix. It will be put "on the table" soon to show that a "good faith" effort to reduce "future" federal spending increases (the left's verion of spending cuts).
 
Boo Radley said:
Not so. We don't start over with each president. There is a continuum.

In context, when exaggerate the actions of one that are different Han then other, it calls out for comparison.
Click to expand...

Yep. All of the "bad" stuff is the result of the prior (other?) party's policies and all of the "good" stuff is the result of hope and change. After a decade, or so, the truth will be allowed into history books (maybe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom