Republicans set to go back on agreement with Dems. Try to guess the subject!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

I'll give you all a moment to think about it.

...

...

...

Done thinking? Okay, now you can click this spoiler to see if you were right. Be honest when you post.

So, Escapists, what do you think about this? And what was your guess?

Republicans have proved, once again, they are all a pack of liars and cheats.

Are they trying to make the US go bankrupt in 2012 as a trick for the presidential elections or something?

Oh its the Tea Party creating mischief again. Nothing is going to happen. The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves without you chipping in with a New York Times editorial.

Blablahb:
Are they trying to make the US go bankrupt in 2012 as a trick for the presidential elections or something?

Mm. I hope not, but another cut in government spending right now certainly would slow the economic recovery and probably hurt Obama's chances to re-election.

Seekster:
Oh its the Tea Party creating mischief again. Nothing is going to happen. The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves without you chipping in with a New York Times editorial.

That's right Seekster. Make apologies for them, defend them, "Nothing's going to happen!", and then turn around and say that you call out both sides equally. We'll believe you this time. Double-pinkie swear. Just like tweeting dick pictures (read: not actually cheating) warrants immediate resignation but you'd still vote for Gingrich, the serial adulterer.

But hey, here's the Politico article that the NYT article linked to if you wanna be a stickler for it.

Amnestic:

Seekster:
Oh its the Tea Party creating mischief again. Nothing is going to happen. The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves without you chipping in with a New York Times editorial.

That's right Seekster. Make apologies for them, defend them, "Nothing's going to happen!", and then turn around and say that you call out both sides equally. We'll believe you this time. Double-pinkie swear. Just like tweeting dick pictures (read: not actually cheating) warrants immediate resignation but you'd still vote for Gingrich, the serial adulterer.

But hey, here's the Politico article that the NYT article linked to if you wanna be a stickler for it.

Um where did I defend them? I think they were stupid to agree to the deal they agreed to and now they just come off as petty because they want to take it back.

Amne the problem wasnt your source so much as the fact that your source was an editorial. An editorial is an opinion and using an editorial as evidence for something is almost never acceptable. Honestly unless this proposal actually gets legs it is nothing worth talking about other than to dismiss it.

By the way if you want to start bringing up stories on Democratic proposals that have no chance of going anywhere I will criticize you for doing that too. Kind of hard to do that when you spend all your time trying to smear only one party.

Amnestic:
If nothing else, I find it morbidly fascinating that Republicans are so eager to cut spending on important things (like child care and teachers. Won't someone think of the children?) while simultaneously trumpeting military action in Iran and/or Syria.

Why should they think of the children? It's not like those kids are fetuses.
Like the great George Carlin said, they want live babies so they can be dead soldiers.
The US is a military industrial complex, and the actions of the political system reflects that.

With that said, if this goes through it's going to further cripple the government. Not only does it already suffer from gridlocks and problems like that, but now we toss in the government breaking its own agreements. So in less than a year we've gone from severe gridlock and possible shutdown to sections of the government breaking its word whenever the hell it feels like it. A great way to inspire consumer and investor confidence, I must say.
The US currently has a relative advantage to Europe due to the debt crisis in southern Europe. Everyone knows that the crisis will hit the US in a couple of years, but the Republicans seem to want to start early by engineering their own crisis. This is some crazy shit.

One question, why hasnt it been made law that a politician caught lying is immediately fired?

Just seems like, if you want to stop lying liars then thats a way to go about it.

Seekster:
Honestly unless this proposal actually gets legs it is nothing worth talking about other than to dismiss it.

Meh. I don't have a lot of faith in the House Republicans negotiating a budget with good faith after all the stuff they pulled in 2011. There were three separate times last year that they basically held the country hostage to try to get what they wanted during budget negotiations, and each time it directly hurt our economy by creating doubt and anxiety; the worst time was when they actually threatened to default on the debt rather then paying for the budget they themselves had just passed a few months earlier, and screwed up our nation's credit rating in the process.

I don't really expect the Republicans in the House of Representatives to be at all rational in debt negotiations this year, either. Do you?

Amnestic:

That's right Seekster. Make apologies for them, defend them, "Nothing's going to happen!", and then turn around and say that you call out both sides equally. We'll believe you this time. Double-pinkie swear. Just like tweeting dick pictures (read: not actually cheating) warrants immediate resignation but you'd still vote for Gingrich, the serial adulterer.

But hey, here's the Politico article that the NYT article linked to if you wanna be a stickler for it.

Yeah, I'll have to agree with him that it feels a bit dishonest when you cite an "article" and don't mention the original article is topped with the word "Opinion." I only throw this in here because as I read it I was questioning if they were really that biased,(specifically things like "vital programs like head start." Whether or not Head Start is worthwhile is debatable, but vital is not the correct adjective there) so I clicked the link to check the real version and found it was an opinion piece, meant to be biased. To someone who, unlike Seekster and I, doesn't disagree with any of the opinion in this article, they'll probably not realize this isn't a real news piece. I'd recommend having the real article in the original post.

Now, this opinion piece does 2 REALLY terrible things.

First, it mistakes the spending cap and the spending level. They first decided on the spending cap, what the absolute ceiling of spending would be, and now the Republicans are trying to get beneath that quota in the actual budget. Just because you have $20 that you can spend at a store doesn't mean you have to spend that whole $20, and as the hypothetically "spend less" party, one would expect the Republicans to try and hit less than the absolute maximum number in writing the budget. That's not dishonest, that's predictable. Calling them liars for this is completely political and is intentially confusing the agreement that was "We will cut spending to add no more than $1.047 trillion to the debt" with saying "we will spend enough to add $1.047 trillion to the debt" and that is not the agreement they made.

Second, (and speaking of confusing the concepts) this article stupidly and purposefully juxtaposes the modest $19 billion hoped for by the congressional party leadership with the over $100 billion hoped for by the outer fringe, and glosses over the difference. It's clear the larger number is only mentioned because it helps exagerate the situation. If this were being honest, it would either stick to just what the leadership, who carry the power to enact their goals, are saying. If we are going to include the fringe proposals, how about Rand Paul's budget, supported by all the republican senators and doing way more extreme things to the budget (like balancing it) than anything the house is discussing. No, instead the author figures that the house fringe congressmen's opinion is worth quantifying but it's ok to just claim that the senate all agrees to the set number.

I don't believe that agreeing to a ceiling and then trying not to hit it is dishonest, but I don't see how the author of this article gets off calling someone else untrustworthy.

I'm still confused as to how that many anarchists got elected as Republicans.

I would prefer them not to hit the debt ceiling. I believe they should be required by law to have a balanced budget, and allot credit usage to specific events such as natural disasters, and attacks on Ameican soil. Other than that they should be required to have a balanced budget. Funds over that amount should only be used for real emergencies such as mass starvation, epidemics, and other horrific events that would require credit usage.

tstorm823:

Second, (and speaking of confusing the concepts) this article stupidly and purposefully juxtaposes the modest $19 billion hoped for by the congressional party leadership with the over $100 billion hoped for by the outer fringe, and glosses over the difference. It's clear the larger number is only mentioned because it helps exagerate the situation. If this were being honest, it would either stick to just what the leadership, who carry the power to enact their goals, are saying. If we are going to include the fringe proposals, how about Rand Paul's budget, supported by all the republican senators and doing way more extreme things to the budget (like balancing it) than anything the house is discussing. No, instead the author figures that the house fringe congressmen's opinion is worth quantifying but it's ok to just claim that the senate all agrees to the set number.

$100 billion in it self isn't an "super extreme" amount of money, but what the government spends in little more than FIVE days.

With the current 6.3 trillion dollar budget divided by 365= $17 billion spent a day. Divide 10 by 1.7 and you get (roughly) 5.6 days. When the federal government is spending 25% of GDP (and 45% if you include the states), and most of it is borrowed, THIS ISN'T A GOOD THING.

Lil devils x:
I would prefer them not to hit the debt ceiling. I believe they should be required by law to have a balanced budget, and allot credit usage to specific events such as natural disasters, and attacks on Ameican soil. Other than that they should be required to have a balanced budget. Funds over that amount should only be used for real emergencies such as mass starvation, epidemics, and other horrific events that would require credit usage.

Three words.

Demand. Based. Economy.

Am I the only one who remembers that Keynes's work has not only not been discredited, but more often than not vindicated in most normal economic situations? A "balanced budget" law is still a fucking terrible idea, as it denies the government the opportunity to create growth.

Seekster:
Oh its the Tea Party creating mischief again. Nothing is going to happen. The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves without you chipping in with a New York Times editorial.

Ladies and gentlemen: Seekster! Clearly a bipartisan independent, this man is the embodiment of what Fox News means when they say "Fair and Balanced".

@tstorm: while I agree to an extent with what you're saying (not marking opinion pieces adequately as such is part of why Fox News is so disgustingly horrifying), I have to wonder... How often does congress not hit a cap like that, or just blow straight by it? Under the current conditions, conflating the upper limit and what we actually spend is not that unreasonable, because, you know, up until now, the latter has been equal to, if not higher than, the former.

Either way, I'm still disgusted by the republican adherence to a plan drawn up by a fucking 7th-grader.

Yosarian2:

Seekster:
Honestly unless this proposal actually gets legs it is nothing worth talking about other than to dismiss it.

Meh. I don't have a lot of faith in the House Republicans negotiating a budget with good faith after all the stuff they pulled in 2011. There were three separate times last year that they basically held the country hostage to try to get what they wanted during budget negotiations, and each time it directly hurt our economy by creating doubt and anxiety; the worst time was when they actually threatened to default on the debt rather then paying for the budget they themselves had just passed a few months earlier, and screwed up our nation's credit rating in the process.

I don't really expect the Republicans in the House of Representatives to be at all rational in debt negotiations this year, either. Do you?

And that is the problem in Washington, neither the Republicans or Democrats are actually willing to negotiate in good faith with each other for various inane reasons. I say vote all the bums out and get people in there who will actually put country before party.

Stagnant:

Lil devils x:
I would prefer them not to hit the debt ceiling. I believe they should be required by law to have a balanced budget, and allot credit usage to specific events such as natural disasters, and attacks on Ameican soil. Other than that they should be required to have a balanced budget. Funds over that amount should only be used for real emergencies such as mass starvation, epidemics, and other horrific events that would require credit usage.

Three words.

Demand. Based. Economy.

Am I the only one who remembers that Keynes's work has not only not been discredited, but more often than not vindicated in most normal economic situations? A "balanced budget" law is still a fucking terrible idea, as it denies the government the opportunity to create growth.

Seekster:
Oh its the Tea Party creating mischief again. Nothing is going to happen. The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves without you chipping in with a New York Times editorial.

Ladies and gentlemen: Seekster! Clearly a bipartisan independent, this man is the embodiment of what Fox News means when they say "Fair and Balanced".

@tstorm: while I agree to an extent with what you're saying (not marking opinion pieces adequately as such is part of why Fox News is so disgustingly horrifying), I have to wonder... How often does congress not hit a cap like that, or just blow straight by it? Under the current conditions, conflating the upper limit and what we actually spend is not that unreasonable, because, you know, up until now, the latter has been equal to, if not higher than, the former.

Either way, I'm still disgusted by the republican adherence to a plan drawn up by a fucking 7th-grader.

I was under the impression it was the privates sectors job to create growth, not the public sectors. The Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, defend the nation from attack, and settle disputes between states and nations. Since when were they designated to promote certain businesses at the expense of others? I do not see that as the proper role of government. I do not see that as defined as their role.

Seekster:
Stag you wouldnt know bipartisanship if it hit you upside the head and farted in your face so I really can't find a way to be offended by your post.

...No, you!

Lil devils x:
I was under the impression it was the privates sectors job to creat growth, not the public sectors. The Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, defend the nation from attack, and settle disputes between states and nations. Since when were they designated to promote certain businesses at the expense of others? I do not see that as the proper role of government.

...Do I really have to explain demand-oriented economics to you? Please tell me I don't, because that would be kinda sad.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Stag you wouldnt know bipartisanship if it hit you upside the head and farted in your face so I really can't find a way to be offended by your post.

...No, you!

Lil devils x:
I was under the impression it was the privates sectors job to creat growth, not the public sectors. The Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, defend the nation from attack, and settle disputes between states and nations. Since when were they designated to promote certain businesses at the expense of others? I do not see that as the proper role of government.

...Do I really have to explain demand-oriented economics to you? Please tell me I don't, because that would be kinda sad.

Of course not. I understand that very well. What you do not seem to understand is that was not designated as the role of the federal government in the United States. Their powers were few and defined, and that was not listed.

Businesses are born and fail every day. Some make good choices, some make bad. If they made too much of something people do not want to buy, in what way are the taxpayers obligated to pay for their mistakes?

Lil devils x:

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Stag you wouldnt know bipartisanship if it hit you upside the head and farted in your face so I really can't find a way to be offended by your post.

...No, you!

Lil devils x:
I was under the impression it was the privates sectors job to creat growth, not the public sectors. The Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, defend the nation from attack, and settle disputes between states and nations. Since when were they designated to promote certain businesses at the expense of others? I do not see that as the proper role of government.

...Do I really have to explain demand-oriented economics to you? Please tell me I don't, because that would be kinda sad.

Of course not. I understand that very well. What you do not seem to understand is that was not designated as the role of the federal government in the United States. Their powers were few and defined, and that was not listed.

And as we all know, if it was not explicitly listed 200-plus years ago, then it's evil and bad and is the equivalent of desecrating Ben Franklin's corpse, even if it's necessary at times.

It would certainly be nice if they cut spending across the board but why the Dems pushing for that? Aren't they supposed to be the anti-war party? We are spending too much money and we need to stop. Cuts some programs, trim the fat off the bureaucracy, simplify the tax code, and make some legislative changes to ensure that this does happen again.

OP- I know you did not what people to say this but everybody has fucked this up. This should be a non-issue and congress should be doing its job but instead almost no one seems to want to.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Oh its the Tea Party creating mischief again. Nothing is going to happen. The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves without you chipping in with a New York Times editorial.

Ladies and gentlemen: Seekster! Clearly a bipartisan independent, this man is the embodiment of what Fox News means when they say "Fair and Balanced".

...Gotta say, the kneejerk reaction you and Amnestic showed surprised me. While yes, Seekster did question the nature of the source used, he also pretty much spelled out that the Republican party was in a horrible state ("The Republican party is perfectly capable of creating problems for themselves...") and you jump on him as if his post blindly defended them? Seriously, take a deep breath and reread the post slowly. I don't think it says what you think it says.

Tyler Perry:

Lil devils x:

Stagnant:

...No, you!

...Do I really have to explain demand-oriented economics to you? Please tell me I don't, because that would be kinda sad.

Of course not. I understand that very well. What you do not seem to understand is that was not designated as the role of the federal government in the United States. Their powers were few and defined, and that was not listed.

And as we all know, if it was not explicitly listed 200-plus years ago, then it's evil and bad and is the equivalent of desecrating Ben Franklin's corpse, even if it's necessary at times.

Of course not silly. The thing is, it should also be in the best interest of " the people" not just those wishing to make a buck at some one elses expense.

The way our government subsidizes businesses is not based on the best interests of the people, nor is it "financial need based" no, it promotes one company at the expense of another and tax payers. That should never be acceptable. The only difference between the parties in that regards are which friends of theirs get tax payer money, and which they get to target to hurt their business. It was never intended to work that way.

They throw out subsides as weapons of high level corporate warfare. The only reason we have these massive giant companies enslaving the lower classes, is our government refuses to hold them accountable to the same laws everyone else is held to, and they subsidize them to ensure they retain power over the people. Otherwise, they would have been crushed long ago and many new businesses taking their place by now.

Seekster:
And that is the problem in Washington, neither the Republicans or Democrats are actually willing to negotiate in good faith with each other for various inane reasons. I say vote all the bums out and get people in there who will actually put country before party.

Skipped right over the part where the Republicans are the only ones renegging here, huh? Just change your name from Seekster to "false equivalency" already.

They throw out subsides as weapons of high level corporate warfare. The only reason we have these massive giant companies enslaving the lower classes, is our government refuses to hold them accountable to the same laws everyone else is held to, and they subsidize them to ensure they retain power over the people.

Subsidizing one corporation instead of another is the only way a government can control the behavior of business - and business has shown us, repeatedly and reliably, that it absolutely needs to be controlled.

More importantly, if controlling business is the will of the majority, then that IS what the government should do. Our democracy is evolutionary; the vast majority of regulation and oversight came about organically in direct response to a specific problem. Tearing it all down because it hinders someone's specific notion of "growth" or "fairness" is just asinine.

There is certainly corruption, and THAT is what we should be attacking. If your response to bad regulation or undue favoritism is to simply disassemble the mechanisms for control, you're just playing into the hands of the very same people responsible for the corruption. They're looking for bad rules OR no rules because they win either way.

Lil devils x:
I would prefer them not to hit the debt ceiling. I believe they should be required by law to have a balanced budget, and allot credit usage to specific events such as natural disasters, and attacks on Ameican soil. Other than that they should be required to have a balanced budget. Funds over that amount should only be used for real emergencies such as mass starvation, epidemics, and other horrific events that would require credit usage.

I'd prefer them to sit down, do their jobs, and get it fixed before the country starts to fall apart by its financial seams with a lowered credit rating and with our favorite lenders cutting us off. Personally :3

Lilani:

Lil devils x:
I would prefer them not to hit the debt ceiling. I believe they should be required by law to have a balanced budget, and allot credit usage to specific events such as natural disasters, and attacks on Ameican soil. Other than that they should be required to have a balanced budget. Funds over that amount should only be used for real emergencies such as mass starvation, epidemics, and other horrific events that would require credit usage.

I'd prefer them to sit down, do their jobs, and get it fixed before the country starts to fall apart by its financial seams with a lowered credit rating and with our favorite lenders cutting us off. Personally :3

I would love them to do that too. The more credit we use the more likely we will be cut off.

" doing their jobs" is the problem here. Most the people up there are not there to do the role that they were elected to do, no they are there to "get theirs" and get out. As long as it remains that way, nothing will get better.

FieryTrainwreck:

Seekster:
And that is the problem in Washington, neither the Republicans or Democrats are actually willing to negotiate in good faith with each other for various inane reasons. I say vote all the bums out and get people in there who will actually put country before party.

Skipped right over the part where the Republicans are the only ones renegging here, huh? Just change your name from Seekster to "false equivalency" already.

They throw out subsides as weapons of high level corporate warfare. The only reason we have these massive giant companies enslaving the lower classes, is our government refuses to hold them accountable to the same laws everyone else is held to, and they subsidize them to ensure they retain power over the people.

Subsidizing one corporation instead of another is the only way a government can control the behavior of business - and business has shown us, repeatedly and reliably, that it absolutely needs to be controlled.

More importantly, if controlling business is the will of the majority, then that IS what the government should do. Our democracy is evolutionary; the vast majority of regulation and oversight came about organically in direct response to a specific problem. Tearing it all down because it hinders someone's specific notion of "growth" or "fairness" is just asinine.

There is certainly corruption, and THAT is what we should be attacking. If your response to bad regulation or undue favoritism is to simply disassemble the mechanisms for control, you're just playing into the hands of the very same people responsible for the corruption. They're looking for bad rules OR no rules because they win either way.

Corruption is exactly what I am attacking. The only way to resolve that is restrict funding from the DNC and the GOP, not give them more power to keep "their businesses" ruling over the people.

I disagree that subsides are the only way to control behavior. We have laws, hold those individuals accountable. When their action infringe upon another, they should be held accountable in a court of law. As long as the government allows them to be sheltered and protected above the individual this problem will never cease.

If your decsion causes the deaths or injuries to others, or their lands and property, you should be held to the same laws as everyone else. Just because someone made that decsion at work does not mean they are no longer accountable. Instead of holding companies financially responsible, they should hold them criminally responsible as well. Do that and you will no longer have the companies doing bad things.

If someone came over to your house and dumped toxic materials in your living room, they would be arrested and sued. Just because it is a company that did it, does not mean they should be exept from arrest, and only have to " pay you a settlement" to get off. I also disagree with how they calculate damages as well.

FieryTrainwreck:

Seekster:
And that is the problem in Washington, neither the Republicans or Democrats are actually willing to negotiate in good faith with each other for various inane reasons. I say vote all the bums out and get people in there who will actually put country before party.

Skipped right over the part where the Republicans are the only ones renegging here, huh? Just change your name from Seekster to "false equivalency" already.

They throw out subsides as weapons of high level corporate warfare. The only reason we have these massive giant companies enslaving the lower classes, is our government refuses to hold them accountable to the same laws everyone else is held to, and they subsidize them to ensure they retain power over the people.

Subsidizing one corporation instead of another is the only way a government can control the behavior of business - and business has shown us, repeatedly and reliably, that it absolutely needs to be controlled.

More importantly, if controlling business is the will of the majority, then that IS what the government should do. Our democracy is evolutionary; the vast majority of regulation and oversight came about organically in direct response to a specific problem. Tearing it all down because it hinders someone's specific notion of "growth" or "fairness" is just asinine.

There is certainly corruption, and THAT is what we should be attacking. If your response to bad regulation or undue favoritism is to simply disassemble the mechanisms for control, you're just playing into the hands of the very same people responsible for the corruption. They're looking for bad rules OR no rules because they win either way.

In this case yeah, the Republicans were the ones who lost the most. About the only thing they have to show for all the howling in the Debt Ceiling debate is some modest spending cuts to various social programs, near crippling cuts to the military (which I hope to God are either never made or canceled with an increase, though the spending cuts to the military that were not part of the automatic cuts should be kept) and they managed to keep the Democrats from raising taxes for now.

Actually thats not true, the government can actually enforce regulations, preferably regulations that make rational sense and arent just part of a political game.

I am okay with future spending cuts. Lets start with politicians fucking salaries and expense accounts. Lets trim the fat there.
Cunts.

Buuuut they signed an agreement. So fuck them.

Seekster:

FieryTrainwreck:

Seekster:
And that is the problem in Washington, neither the Republicans or Democrats are actually willing to negotiate in good faith with each other for various inane reasons. I say vote all the bums out and get people in there who will actually put country before party.

Skipped right over the part where the Republicans are the only ones renegging here, huh? Just change your name from Seekster to "false equivalency" already.

They throw out subsides as weapons of high level corporate warfare. The only reason we have these massive giant companies enslaving the lower classes, is our government refuses to hold them accountable to the same laws everyone else is held to, and they subsidize them to ensure they retain power over the people.

Subsidizing one corporation instead of another is the only way a government can control the behavior of business - and business has shown us, repeatedly and reliably, that it absolutely needs to be controlled.

More importantly, if controlling business is the will of the majority, then that IS what the government should do. Our democracy is evolutionary; the vast majority of regulation and oversight came about organically in direct response to a specific problem. Tearing it all down because it hinders someone's specific notion of "growth" or "fairness" is just asinine.

There is certainly corruption, and THAT is what we should be attacking. If your response to bad regulation or undue favoritism is to simply disassemble the mechanisms for control, you're just playing into the hands of the very same people responsible for the corruption. They're looking for bad rules OR no rules because they win either way.

In this case yeah, the Republicans were the ones who lost the most. About the only thing they have to show for all the howling in the Debt Ceiling debate is some modest spending cuts to various social programs, near crippling cuts to the military (which I hope to God are either never made or canceled with an increase, though the spending cuts to the military that were not part of the automatic cuts should be kept) and they managed to keep the Democrats from raising taxes for now.

Actually thats not true, the government can actually enforce regulations, preferably regulations that make rational sense and arent just part of a political game.

"Crippling" cuts to the military? You could cut half the military budget and it wouldn't be crippled...

Lil devils x:
I would prefer them not to hit the debt ceiling. I believe they should be required by law to have a balanced budget, and allot credit usage to specific events such as natural disasters, and attacks on Ameican soil. Other than that they should be required to have a balanced budget. Funds over that amount should only be used for real emergencies such as mass starvation, epidemics, and other horrific events that would require credit usage.

Most economists would say that the best thing to do is for the government to run a big deficit when the economy is bad, to support the economy and get it going again, and to have a balanced budget or better when the economy is good. If no one in the private sector is spending money, then the government needs to spend more money in order to get things going, and at the same time the government will be getting less in taxes. Trying to run a balanced budget during a severe economic crises is foolish; the only way to do that is to raise taxes and cut government services at the very moment when they're needed the most. That was one of the biggest mistakes Hoover made during the great depression, and it make the great depression much worse then it had to be.

We SHOULD be running a deficit now; that's just good economic policy. The real problem is that over the past 30 years we've consistently run a deficit in good times AND in bad times.

The smart thing to do would be to run a deficit now, but then actually balance the budget when the economy starts to get better. Which will probably require more money in taxes, and probably cuts to the military, as well as getting a better handle on health care costs. But that's a problem for later; that's not something we should worry about until after the economy recovers.

Called it! We had a pool in work about when this would happen and I think I'm up about 500. The only real hint regarding the financial industries take on this is that we are seriously looking at divesting ourselves of some of our riskier US holdings if the Republican party keeps fucking around like this in bad faith. The US is currently growing well and is expected to continue growing at a rate far faster than EU this year, barring anything major like Greece finally falling or Iran heating up. The fact that the republicans want to put a stop to this should be called out by everybody.

The economic ignorance coming from devils is no surprise as is Seekster's blatant partisanship, especially with that "prevent the dems from raising taxes line" which is fucking hilarious considering the Republicans were fighting to abolish the Obama Payroll Tax Cut only a few months ago (a 4% rise on the employee pay side if they got that wish)

[quote="Seekster" post="528.353694.14041599"]In this case yeah, the Republicans were the ones who lost the most. About the only thing they have to show for all the howling in the Debt Ceiling debate is some modest spending cuts to various social programs, near crippling cuts to the military (which I hope to God are either never made or canceled with an increase, though the spending cuts to the military that were not part of the automatic cuts should be kept) and they managed to keep the Democrats from raising taxes for now./quote]

Wait, wait, "near-crippling" cuts to the military? How did you figure that? Considering that the military was wasting billions of dollars on projects they didn't need (Gay Bomb) or that went nowhere (F-22 Raptor, being horrendously expensive and would only ever be useful if the next war happened in contested airspace since it can't hit anything that's not flying), and that they still have more money than they need to complete all their current goals and then some (plus wasn't one of the key terms of the deal is that anything relating to the "War on Terror" was exempt from the spending limits?).

The military should get even more cuts in my opinion to get them to stop wasting money on things they don't need and focusing on things they do (with the exception that if they can prove there is a need for something that's outside their budget Congress can allocate additional funds).

crimson5pheonix:

Seekster:

FieryTrainwreck:

Skipped right over the part where the Republicans are the only ones renegging here, huh? Just change your name from Seekster to "false equivalency" already.

Subsidizing one corporation instead of another is the only way a government can control the behavior of business - and business has shown us, repeatedly and reliably, that it absolutely needs to be controlled.

More importantly, if controlling business is the will of the majority, then that IS what the government should do. Our democracy is evolutionary; the vast majority of regulation and oversight came about organically in direct response to a specific problem. Tearing it all down because it hinders someone's specific notion of "growth" or "fairness" is just asinine.

There is certainly corruption, and THAT is what we should be attacking. If your response to bad regulation or undue favoritism is to simply disassemble the mechanisms for control, you're just playing into the hands of the very same people responsible for the corruption. They're looking for bad rules OR no rules because they win either way.

In this case yeah, the Republicans were the ones who lost the most. About the only thing they have to show for all the howling in the Debt Ceiling debate is some modest spending cuts to various social programs, near crippling cuts to the military (which I hope to God are either never made or canceled with an increase, though the spending cuts to the military that were not part of the automatic cuts should be kept) and they managed to keep the Democrats from raising taxes for now.

Actually thats not true, the government can actually enforce regulations, preferably regulations that make rational sense and arent just part of a political game.

"Crippling" cuts to the military? You could cut half the military budget and it wouldn't be crippled...

Obama's own Secretary of Defense essentially said that if all those cuts are allowed to go through then the US Military will be severely weakened. There is an argument to be made for cutting military spending but you need to cut wisely. What does the military ABSOLUTELY need to do the job it is asked to do. Same general principle applies with social programs.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked