• 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!

CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176:468]

Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

calamity said:
Demonizing a sitting president is a sickness, seek help. Obama has nothing to do with this thread topic and your comments only show your ignorance and exactly the kind of person you are. It isn't a pretty picture
Click to expand...

Again, not an original thought of your own as usual. Demonizing a sitting President has never been an issue with a liberal so why now. If you don't know the difference between a sitting President and a deceased one then you have a bigger problem than any forum can correct.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
In whose world?
Click to expand...

Look, if you want to have an economic discussion, that's fine. But don't expect to push mercantilist nonsesne and have nobody to call you out. If you don't have an adequate foundation in microeconomics, you will not be able to keep up with these type of discussions. As i have stated before, i am not here to spoon feed people economics.
 
Kushinator said:
Look, if you want to have an economic discussion, that's fine. But don't expect to push mercantilist nonsesne and have nobody to call you out. If you don't have an adequate foundation in microeconomics, you will not be able to keep up with these type of discussions. As i have stated before, i am not here to spoon feed people economics.
Click to expand...

You're the one that brought the term into the discussion, and again, when discussing trade deficits, it's macro, not micro...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're the one that brought the term into the discussion, and again, when discussing trade deficits, it's macro, not micro...
Click to expand...

We were discussing consuming outside ones productive capacity. You just made a rookie mistake by arguing in favor of autarkic policy, without even realizing it!

Ummm. Better luck next time?
 
Kushinator said:
We were discussing consuming outside ones productive capacity. You just made a rookie mistake by arguing in favor of autarkic policy, without even realizing it!

Ummm. Better luck next time?
Click to expand...

No, we were posting, or at least I was, on a national level not an individual one. Individual behavior is much more related to one's ability to produce and/or consume...
 
Kushinator said:
I've been dabbing all day. And you want to make winey excuses.

There is nothing you will provide that has not already been posted here at least a dozen times. Do yourself a favor, and review those threads.
Click to expand...

Not just any "winey" excuse but a very fabulous malbec from Argentina that is tantalizing my palate at the moment thank you very much.

Something for you to think about.....



Since President Obama came into office, the debt limit has been raised seven times.

With those increases, Congress has added $43,000 in debt for every American household in just the last four years.

And now the debt limit deadline is once again upon us. Treasury is out of tricks to keep paying the bills on October 17.

Ask yourself what happened the last time Congress raised the debt ceiling? Did they accomplish any meaningful spending cuts before increasing the debt limit? Let me help you with that one.....the answer is Hell no!


Are you aware that Congress and the President when they last suspended the debt ceiling from February 4, 2013, through May 18, 2013, adding $300 billion to the national debt in less than four months? Their only request was that the Senate produce a budget for the first time in four years, which it did. But No savings were accomplished because the f'ing budget was full of more spending!

For the love of Pete this is unacceptable!
 
AlabamaPaul said:
No, we were posting, or at least I was, on a national level not an individual one. Individual behavior is much more related to one's ability to produce and/or consume...
Click to expand...

Macroeconomics requires a valid microeconomic foundation. Your posts are based on a frivolous understanding of economics in general, which can be identified by your lacking (and i am being kind) understanding microeconomics.

As already stated, without theory one cannot begin to understand economic result.
 
Kushinator said:
I've been dabbing all day. And you want to make winey excuses.

There is nothing you will provide that has not already been posted here at least a dozen times. Do yourself a favor, and review those threads.
Click to expand...

Do they give a prize here for condescension?:peace
 
vesper said:
Not just any "winey" excuse but a very fabulous malbec from Argentina that is tantalizing my palate at the moment thank you very much.

Something for you to think about.....



Since President Obama came into office, the debt limit has been raised seven times.

With those increases, Congress has added $43,000 in debt for every American household in just the last four years.

And now the debt limit deadline is once again upon us. Treasury is out of tricks to keep paying the bills on October 17.

Ask yourself what happened the last time Congress raised the debt ceiling? Did they accomplish any meaningful spending cuts before increasing the debt limit? Let me help you with that one.....the answer is Hell no!


Are you aware that Congress and the President when they last suspended the debt ceiling from February 4, 2013, through May 18, 2013, adding $300 billion to the national debt in less than four months? Their only request was that the Senate produce a budget for the first time in four years, which it did. But No savings were accomplished because the f'ing budget was full of more spending!

For the love of Pete this is unacceptable!
Click to expand...

And Pelosi said they just can't cut any further! :rofl: I may have forgotten, but what have they cut so far?

Good evening, Vesper. :2wave:
 
Kushinator said:
Macroeconomics requires a valid microeconomic foundation. Your posts are based on a frivolous understanding of economics in general, which can be identified by your lacking (and i am being kind) understanding microeconomics.

As already stated, without theory one cannot begin to understand economic result.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between the two schools. I appreciate the civil discussion tonight, but alas, it's bedtime. Theory is adequate for the classroom, but it is not reality as I have found out while living it...
 
vesper said:
Not just any "winey" excuse but a very fabulous malbec from Argentina that is tantalizing my palate at the moment thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Nice!

Something for you to think about.....
Click to expand...

I've been on somewhat of a wine kick as of late. French wine is roughly half the cost in the EU than in the U.S..



Since President Obama came into office, the debt limit has been raised seven times.

With those increases, Congress has added $43,000 in debt for every American household in just the last four years.

And now the debt limit deadline is once again upon us. Treasury is out of tricks to keep paying the bills on October 17.

Ask yourself what happened the last time Congress raised the debt ceiling? Did they accomplish any meaningful spending cuts before increasing the debt limit? Let me help you with that one.....the answer is Hell no!


Are you aware that Congress and the President when they last suspended the debt ceiling from February 4, 2013, through May 18, 2013, adding $300 billion to the national debt in less than four months? Their only request was that the Senate produce a budget for the first time in four years, which it did. But No savings were accomplished because the f'ing budget was full of more spending!

For the love of Pete this is unacceptable!
Click to expand...

At this juncture, government spending (however undesirable) is not the gravest of concerns. Unemployment is still above 7% and asset prices continue to show weakness with respects to fundamental valuation. In a normal growth environment, you would expect the Dow Jones Industrial average to be roughly 20,000 (every 100 basis points under 4% should add another 1000). Historically low interest rates cannot keep new home sales off of levels not seen since the early 1980's when interest rates were at record highs and the population was roughly 80% of what it is now.

We will eventually have to deal with spending. Now is not the time.
 
TurtleDude said:
reality is an exception in left wing economic theory
Click to expand...

As stated for the 3rd time, without economic theory, you will be unable to understand economic result. Economics is based on theory; the strongest of which can be supported via the empirical process.
 
Kushinator said:
As stated for the 3rd time, without economic theory, you will be unable to understand economic result. Economics is based on theory; the strongest of which can be supported via the empirical process.
Click to expand...

I live economics successfully. That's called putting the theory to practice.
 
TurtleDude said:
I live economics successfully. That's called putting the theory to practice.
Click to expand...

Talk is cheap. As is your ability to discuss such topics in a fluid manner.
 
Kushinator said:
Talk is cheap. As is your ability to discuss such topics in a fluid manner.
Click to expand...

its great to sit back and pretend to be an expert on economics but it really only means something if you are able to prove it.

Its like the cold calls I get from guys who tell me they can triple MY money in a month. I ask them why they need MY money if they are so good-they should be rich enough not to have to make cold calls anymore
 
Jack Hays said:
Do they give a prize here for condescension?:peace
Click to expand...

They ran out of prizes a while back, but more are on re-order, and expected to ship soon! :lamo:

Good evening, Jack! :2wave:
 
TurtleDude said:
its great to sit back and pretend to be an expert on economics but it really only means something if you are able to prove it.

Its like the cold calls I get from guys who tell me they can triple MY money in a month. I ask them why they need MY money if they are so good-they should be rich enough not to have to make cold calls anymore
Click to expand...

You are not here even ten minutes.

Next thing we know, TD is posting about his success IRL. Grow the **** up man. If you want to discuss the topic, discuss the topic.

internetHero.jpg
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

Conservative said:
Again, not an original thought of your own as usual. Demonizing a sitting President has never been an issue with a liberal so why now. If you don't know the difference between a sitting President and a deceased one then you have a bigger problem than any forum can correct.
Click to expand...
Weren't you the one disparaging FDR a few days ago? :roll:
 
iguanaman said:
Follow the Constitution? Where does it say that shutting down the govt. when you don't get what you want is a tactic?
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't deal in tactics. Right now, both sides have decided that shutting down the government is the best option. Either side could give in and open the government up. All Constitutional.
 
Anthony60 said:
The Constitution doesn't deal in tactics. Right now, both sides have decided that shutting down the government is the best option. Either side could give in and open the government up. All Constitutional.
Click to expand...

No I would say one side has decided to make unreasonable demands to keep the govt. open. Demands that have nothing to do with the CR.
 
Anthony60 said:
The Constitution doesn't deal in tactics. Right now, both sides have decided that shutting down the government is the best option. Either side could give in and open the government up. All Constitutional.
Click to expand...

The only ones shutting the government are the Democrats. That is indisputable.
 
jmotivator said:
Ridiculous conclusion you have drawn there. The producers "get away with" charging more for good and services because there is surplus money in the system that they can draw from. If a producer charges more than the population can pay then they go out of business.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's a great idea to call the idea that producers charge what the market will bear "ridiculous".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom