Is the Republican Party dying?
Yes
47.1% (65)
47.1% (65)
No
52.9% (73)
52.9% (73)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is the Republican Party "Dying"? Will it "Die" Sometime In The Near Future?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

It cited the partisanship yes but if you actually read the full report instead of the news stories about the report you will see that the larger issue was that there did not seem to be any solution to the problem being considered.

Nobody did anything worthwhile to address the problem at hand so blaming one side or the other is...quite frankly...idiotic. As you can see though there are still people trying to use the issue for political gain rather than learning from it. Its a lesson in how NOT to handle a crisis.

Naheal:
His term was from 1923-1929. By doing nothing over an eight year period while he was easily one of the most powerful men in the country, it could easily be considered his fault, and rightly so. Considering how long it takes anything to happen within a democratic society, the first year of a presidency is likely an effect from the previous term.

What exactly do you think Coolidge should have done? Now tell me what he could have done given the information he had and the power he had available.

Stagnant:
Imagine if you will that the opposition parties are the democrats and the Nazi party of America (still a real thing). The Nazi party is being extremely ornery and refusing to build any form of coalition government, but one member supposes that if the democrats push the "Jews are not citizens" amendment to the constitution, they would basically cave on every other issue. Is that "willing to compromise"? Or is that "Hey, we'll do stuff you want to do if you suck our dicks"?

That is compromise. You give us the chance at what we want and we will give you what you want. That is a compromise. You may want to deny it or put your own spin on it but it is true.

I think it's the latter, personally. Why? Well, because a balanced budget amendment is, in this current environment, completely unreasonable, ridiculously unrealistic, and destructive beyond belief. And no, I'm not going to debate that with you, because if you disagree, you are wrong.

No, you are wrong and you are not going to debate with me over it because you position is untenable. Once again if you do not have the ability to defend your position then don't say anything.

Oh, and for the record? The german economy going into World War 2 was absolutely amazing. Hitler used deficit spending and totalitarian labor policies to ramp up an economic recovery basically unlike any other the world has seen.

Completely wrong. That is a myth that Germans themselves made up themselves in the period before the Wirtschaftswunder. They thought about it that way because at the time their economy sucked and many were starving so they were looking back to the time where everybody (or almost everybody) had a ration card with enough food. In other words they were at rock bottom and looking up at a ledge 10 feet above them while the US was on a ledge a couple miles above them.

The German economy was not in good shape at all and their continued policies were one of the big reasons that Germany did as badly as it did in the war.

Stagnant:
And you know what? We've been over this. This isn't news. This is a story that is done. Time for interpretation is over, you are wrong. The only way that the debt ceiling debate can be interpreted as anything other than the republican party inserting partisan bullshit into a crucial element of keeping the government running is historical revisionism.

And, I might add, this is part of why we see you as a republican partisan. This isn't a difficult issue.

So it is all the GOPs fault and no blame for the problems comes from the DNC whatsoever. And you call Seekster a partisan.

farson135:

Stagnant:
Imagine if you will that the opposition parties are the democrats and the Nazi party of America (still a real thing). The Nazi party is being extremely ornery and refusing to build any form of coalition government, but one member supposes that if the democrats push the "Jews are not citizens" amendment to the constitution, they would basically cave on every other issue. Is that "willing to compromise"? Or is that "Hey, we'll do stuff you want to do if you suck our dicks"?

That is compromise. You give us the chance at what we want and we will give you what you want. That is a compromise. You may want to deny it or put your own spin on it but it is true.

I'm going to let this comment stand as reasoning.

No, you are wrong and you are not going to debate with me over it because you position is untenable. Once again if you do not have the ability to defend your position then don't say anything.

For this. I'm not unwilling to debate with you because my position is untenable. Others have made it very, very clear that the position is both tenable and sensible (unlike yours). The reason I am unwilling to debate with you is the same reason I am hesitant to step into the intellectual ring with xpowderx: you're a partisan hack. You wouldn't know good politics if it slapped you in the face wearing nothing but the 10th amendment of the constitution.

Completely wrong. That is a myth that Germans themselves made up themselves in the period before the Wirtschaftswunder. They thought about it that way because at the time their economy sucked and many were starving so they were looking back to the time where everybody (or almost everybody) had a ration card with enough food. In other words they were at rock bottom and looking up at a ledge 10 feet above them while the US was on a ledge a couple miles above them.

The German economy was not in good shape at all and their continued policies were one of the big reasons that Germany did as badly as it did in the war.

And you know what? I'm taking my history teacher's word for it over yours. You know why? Because you are a partisan, anti-government libertarian nutbag who lives in texas, and he is a history teacher in the country whose history is going into question, a country which incidentally has much higher standards of education than Texas. And excuse me if this is a low blow, but texas is no stranger to historical revisionism.

So it is all the GOPs fault and no blame for the problems comes from the DNC whatsoever. And you call Seekster a partisan.

It is ENTIRELY the GOP's fault that we were downgraded in 2010. There is no part of the blame that can be laid on the DNC for this issue. Why? Because (and I'm going to write this in big letters with small words so that maybe you guys get it through your heads):

WE DID NOT PLAY CHICKEN WITH OUR CREDIT RATING.

WE DID NOT USE OUR CREDIT RATING AS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

WE DID NOT IGNORE WARNINGS FROM ALL SIDES, INCLUDING WITHIN, TELLING US THAT THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

Now kindly stop trying to ignore the fact that your party is at fault by screaming "PARTISAN! PARTISAN!" at anyone who places the blame where it belongs. Thanks. ^_^

Stagnant:
snip

Yeah, I am pretty much with Stagnant on this. You don't know what you are talking about and are simply be a republican partisan who doesn't see facts and how things actually work. And all you have done is say that we don't know how to defend our positions. We know how to debate and we know what we are talking apart. Face it: You are wrong in the correct sense of the word. Coolidge should have done some control on credit and the bull market. The balanced budget amendment is a god awful idea for the federal government. Maybe for states but not the fed. And although Stagnant is partisan, at least he learns the actual facts rather than accept a whole bunch of Fox News propaganda.

I swear to god, "PARTISAN" is the new "BIGOT". Want to stop a conversation? Scream "PARTISAN" and then wait for people to clear out/weaken their positions so as not to offend/come off as stupid.

Well you know what? I'm not falling for that crap. Call me a partisan all you want, it does not change the fact that the vast majority, if not ALL, of the blame for the debt ceiling debacle rests surely on the shoulders of the republican party. Just like shouting "BIGOT" does not change the fact that the catholic church really shouldn't be relocating pedophiles, or the fact that homosexuals have significantly higher rates of STD infection than heterosexuals. It may not be an attractive thing, to look at facts that are outright damning of your side, but it's something that we all have to deal with.

See, you guys, the difference between a "partisan" like me and a real partisan like Seekster or farson or BOOM is simple: we're able to see the errors in our party. We're able to recognize the problems coming from our side of the bench. Obamacare was a toothless piece of legislature that did not come anywhere near to achieving that which it was supposed to achieve, and if the supreme court rules against it, I will not bitch and moan, but will rather accept their judgement on the case, as they are, for all intents and purposes, the law. The fact that we still don't seem to have an exit strategy for Afghanistan is really bothersome. But when republicans scream that the democrats had some responsibility for the debt ceiling, yet cannot back that up with anything beyond "they didn't have an idea for dropping the deficit" (which is fucking wrong)...

We're not going to let others convince us to ignore their faults. Especially not when these faults are so evident, so gigantic, and so destructive.

Speaking of Boom, he hasn't been around in a while and this is the first I have seen of farson. Although Seekster is pretty partisan, he can at least have his mind somewhat changed. This guy isn't going to change at all.

recruit00:
Speaking of Boom, he hasn't been around in a while and this is the first I have seen of farson. Although Seekster is pretty partisan, he can at least have his mind somewhat changed. This guy isn't going to change at all.

I have my biases but I recognize them and seek to compensate for them. Partisan I aint.

And Stag I stand by my earlier statement several months ago regarding partisanship and you recognizing it.

Seekster:
I have my biases but I recognize them and seek to compensate for them. Partisan I aint.

And Stag I stand by my earlier statement several months ago regarding partisanship and you recognizing it.

And I stand by my claim that you're essentially proof positive of Dunning-Krüger. So go ahead, hit me with it: what part of the rating downgrade are the democrats at fault for?

What I fear is that societies tend to get more right wing and less caring as recessions hit.

What I don't understand is the tendency for people to aim all their hate downwards when things get tough. Althought I believe it's in part due to the media, Fox loves to blame either mexicans or folk on welfare, over here the Mail,Sun,Star etc do the same, replace mexicans with generic 'immigrants'.

When I see people with three stumpy teeth who've never seen a vitamin on US TV demanding Obama stops trying to force healthcare on them, it just blows my mind. I'm sure they'd volunteer to have a leg sawn off, if only a random mexican got both legs taken off.

Over here, the blame is being entirely focused on those on benefits and on immigration, when we've lost far more to the crimes of the rich than any chav with a pitbull and a big telly.

Its the old case of a banker, a minimum wage worker and a mexican in a room with a box of cookies, the banker leans over, shakes a broken one out and pockets the rest of the pack for his mates, then turns to the worker and says:

"Watch out buddy, that mexican's after YOUR cookie!"

Stagnant:
For this. I'm not unwilling to debate with you because my position is untenable. Others have made it very, very clear that the position is both tenable and sensible (unlike yours). The reason I am unwilling to debate with you is the same reason I am hesitant to step into the intellectual ring with xpowderx: you're a partisan hack. You wouldn't know good politics if it slapped you in the face wearing nothing but the 10th amendment of the constitution.

I am partisan? For whom? How exactly can I be a partisan when my own party is so unbelievably diverse that I find some of their beliefs abhorrent?

Anyway you cannot defend your position so you stoop to this. Other people would find the position tenable. Then again a good rhetorician can make any position tenable. You are in no way suitable to the task, as you have proven.

And you know what? I'm taking my history teacher's word for it over yours. You know why? Because you are a partisan, anti-government libertarian nutbag who lives in texas, and he is a history teacher in the country whose history is going into question, a country which incidentally has much higher standards of education than Texas. And excuse me if this is a low blow, but texas is no stranger to historical revisionism.

And you know what you have conclusively proven that you are a waste of time. If you want to stick to the ad hominem approach feel free but you will only degrade yourself.

BTW I am a graduate student in the History department at UT Austin (a school which I y'all send a hell a lot of people to) and my principle area of study in central and eastern Europe. Back up what you say or shut up.

It is ENTIRELY the GOP's fault that we were downgraded in 2010. There is no part of the blame that can be laid on the DNC for this issue.

Prove it

WE DID NOT PLAY CHICKEN WITH OUR CREDIT RATING.

Can you prove the GOP did?

WE DID NOT USE OUR CREDIT RATING AS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

And the DNC didn't?

WE DID NOT IGNORE WARNINGS FROM ALL SIDES, INCLUDING WITHIN, TELLING US THAT THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

Yes both the GOP and the DNC did.

Now kindly stop trying to ignore the fact that your party is at fault by screaming "PARTISAN! PARTISAN!" at anyone who places the blame where it belongs. Thanks. ^_^

Stagnant:
I swear to god, "PARTISAN" is the new "BIGOT". Want to stop a conversation? Scream "PARTISAN" and then wait for people to clear out/weaken their positions so as not to offend/come off as stupid.

You realize that YOU were the one who said it first right? A little oversensitive to criticism are we?

Well you know what? I'm not falling for that crap. Call me a partisan all you want, it does not change the fact that the vast majority, if not ALL, of the blame for the debt ceiling debacle rests surely on the shoulders of the republican party. Just like shouting "BIGOT" does not change the fact that the catholic church really shouldn't be relocating pedophiles, or the fact that homosexuals have significantly higher rates of STD infection than heterosexuals. It may not be an attractive thing, to look at facts that are outright damning of your side, but it's something that we all have to deal with.

Then how about you prove your position instead of whining about the unfairness of everything.

See, you guys, the difference between a "partisan" like me and a real partisan like Seekster or farson or BOOM is simple: we're able to see the errors in our party. We're able to recognize the problems coming from our side of the bench. Obamacare was a toothless piece of legislature that did not come anywhere near to achieving that which it was supposed to achieve, and if the supreme court rules against it, I will not bitch and moan, but will rather accept their judgement on the case, as they are, for all intents and purposes, the law. The fact that we still don't seem to have an exit strategy for Afghanistan is really bothersome. But when republicans scream that the democrats had some responsibility for the debt ceiling, yet cannot back that up with anything beyond "they didn't have an idea for dropping the deficit" (which is fucking wrong)...

Really? What faults of the Libertarian Party have I refused to acknowledge? Or is it just because I refuse to admit to the world the greatness of the almighty Stagnant's world view? Most likely the latter. If you have nothing to say then don't talk to me. You are boring.

We're not going to let others convince us to ignore their faults. Especially not when these faults are so evident, so gigantic, and so destructive.

Before you talk about another's faults perhaps you should recognize your own.

recruit00:
Yeah, I am pretty much with Stagnant on this.

Big surprise (even more so considering that you ignored what he said).

You don't know what you are talking about

Coming from the guy who just got smacked around (I wonder what that makes you).

and are simply be a republican partisan

Given the fact that I am not a Republican (in fact Stagnant already said that) you have further proven your own ignorance.

who doesn't see facts and how things actually work. And all you have done is say that we don't know how to defend our positions. We know how to debate and we know what we are talking apart. Face it: You are wrong in the correct sense of the word.

Prove it.

Coolidge should have done some control on credit and the bull market.

Could he? Think about the way the government works even today (nevertheless back then) and get back to me.

The balanced budget amendment is a god awful idea for the federal government. Maybe for states but not the fed.

So it works but you think the feds are too stupid to make it work. Interesting position.

And although Stagnant is partisan, at least he learns the actual facts rather than accept a whole bunch of Fox News propaganda.

Given the fact that you have no idea who I am and are simply whining because you got slapped around by me I will let that go. Auf Wiedersehen.

farson135:

WE DID NOT PLAY CHICKEN WITH OUR CREDIT RATING.

Can you prove the GOP did?

And this is why you don't debate with Farson. ^_^

Stagnant:

farson135:

WE DID NOT PLAY CHICKEN WITH OUR CREDIT RATING.

Can you prove the GOP did?

And this is why you don't debate with Farson. ^_^

And these kind of statements show why you do not debate with Stagnant. If you have nothing of value to say then stop cluttering my inbox.

farson135:

recruit00:
Yeah, I am pretty much with Stagnant on this.

Big surprise (even more so considering that you ignored what he said).

You don't know what you are talking about

Coming from the guy who just got smacked around (I wonder what that makes you).

and are simply be a republican partisan

Given the fact that I am not a Republican (in fact Stagnant already said that) you have further proven your own ignorance.

who doesn't see facts and how things actually work. And all you have done is say that we don't know how to defend our positions. We know how to debate and we know what we are talking apart. Face it: You are wrong in the correct sense of the word.

Prove it.

Coolidge should have done some control on credit and the bull market.

Could he? Think about the way the government works even today (nevertheless back then) and get back to me.

The balanced budget amendment is a god awful idea for the federal government. Maybe for states but not the fed.

So it works but you think the feds are too stupid to make it work. Interesting position.

And although Stagnant is partisan, at least he learns the actual facts rather than accept a whole bunch of Fox News propaganda.

Given the fact that you have no idea who I am and are simply whining because you got slapped around by me I will let that go. Auf Wiedersehen.

I'm the one getting smacked around? There are two people debating against you and you have yet to provide a source for your information that is actually reputable. Why not instead of saying I know nothing, actually do real debate. And Coolidge was in the 1920's. How does that have anything to do with the 21st century whatsoever? As for the balanced budget, you, of course, read my words wrong again. The fed is so large and needs to deficit spend in times of emergency. States have more leniency due to smaller budgets and less issues. And again, you did not "slap me around". You provided zero sources and made zero good debates.

recruit00:
I'm the one getting smacked around?

Yup.

There are two people debating against you and you have yet to provide a source for your information that is actually reputable. Why not instead of saying I know nothing, actually do real debate.

Like that book by Tooze that I cited earlier? The fact is that you have nothing to back up what you say. I showed that your knowledge about history is woefully inadequate and you could not counter it.

And Coolidge was in the 1920's. How does that have anything to do with the 21st century whatsoever?

Someone else brought it up. That to them.

As for the balanced budget, you, of course, read my words wrong again. The fed is so large and needs to deficit spend in times of emergency. States have more leniency due to smaller budgets and less issues.

Wrong. The fed is larger but has less it needs to do. What exactly do the feds do that requires a far greater percentage of money than the states? The states spend more on infrastructure, education, health care, etc than the federal government does. So where is this great overriding need come from?

And again, you did not "slap me around".

Given the fact that you have yet to prove any of your points and I say I have.

You provided zero sources and made zero good debates.

"Made zero good debates". Moving along.

I have provided you with a great source on economics in Nazi Germany. Nothing else I said really needs a source unless there is something specific to talk about.

farson135:

Stagnant:

farson135:

Can you prove the GOP did?

And this is why you don't debate with Farson. ^_^

And these kind of statements show why you do not debate with Stagnant. If you have nothing of value to say then stop cluttering my inbox.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/whats-happening-debt-ceiling-explained

This shit is common fucking knowledge, Farson. We were all there.

farson135:

recruit00:
I'm the one getting smacked around?

Yup.

There are two people debating against you and you have yet to provide a source for your information that is actually reputable. Why not instead of saying I know nothing, actually do real debate.

Like that book by Tooze that I cited earlier? The fact is that you have nothing to back up what you say. I showed that your knowledge about history is woefully inadequate and you could not counter it.

And Coolidge was in the 1920's. How does that have anything to do with the 21st century whatsoever?

Someone else brought it up. That to them.

As for the balanced budget, you, of course, read my words wrong again. The fed is so large and needs to deficit spend in times of emergency. States have more leniency due to smaller budgets and less issues.

Wrong. The fed is larger but has less it needs to do. What exactly do the feds do that requires a far greater percentage of money than the states? The states spend more on infrastructure, education, health care, etc than the federal government does. So where is this great overriding need come from?

And again, you did not "slap me around".

Given the fact that you have yet to prove any of your points and I say I have.

You provided zero sources and made zero good debates.

"Made zero good debates". Moving along.

I have provided you with a great source on economics in Nazi Germany. Nothing else I said really needs a source unless there is something specific to talk about.

All the stuff you said about Nazi Germany is all stuff mentioned by very few historians and economists hence why you need to CITE. I did some research on Tooze and there is very little on the actual guy and his book. And HAH! The fed has less to do than states?! That is a doozy! There is so much wrong with that statement it's not even funny. Oh wait. There is! They have fifty states to deal with, foreign policy to do, immigration, the country economy, federal courts, and tons of other jobs. Don't make me laugh. Just because there is a 10th amendment doesn't mean the states have hundreds of other jobs to do. Oh and when you make debates, you bring multiple sources, not just one guy and his book. That's how research works. You get multiple sources and learn from all the views, not just what you want to see. And considering the common knowledge is that deficit spending helped, I think we know which is assumed to be more correct.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html

See that. That is called a citation to a source on the spending of different sections of the government and comparing it to the total of all the states. I will give you the infrastructure one because that makes sense because that is a local thing. Education also makes sense since it is a STATE issue. Health care which can be seen in the source, is more federal than state along with pensions. Look at the defense budget of the US government. 24% of federal spending.

3,795.6 billion= That is federal spending

213.3 billion= Estimated Texas spending

130.7 billion= Estimated Pennsylvania spending

That number is a drip in the bucket compared to the money the federal government has to spend each year. If that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is.

Agema:

EClaris:

Stagnant:

Oh, and for the record? The german economy going into World War 2 was absolutely amazing. Hitler used deficit spending and totalitarian labor policies to ramp up an economic recovery basically unlike any other the world has seen.

I don't know man, the Japanese economic growth before WWII was pretty fucking absurd. May give them a run for their money

The German economy going into WW2 was superficially amazing, but in truth had considerable underlying problems. Good growth should have been natural as well: it had suffered heavy decline in the 1920s which left it very lean and competitive to rebound in the 1930s.

Japan would grow like crazy in that period because pretty much all countries do during their period of industrialisation. See 1700s UK, late 19th century USA, 1920-1930s USSR, postwar South Korea, or China now.

I was mistaken in thinking that it was either more accelerated or more substantial growth then(I was thinking the years that Matthew Perry visited were waaaay later than they actually were) , thanks for pointing that out!

Tyler Perry:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/whats-happening-debt-ceiling-explained

This shit is common fucking knowledge, Farson. We were all there.

I had people screaming to high heaven when I used a Fox article as a source to show that something happened (not for interpretation). I sure as hell better not be the only one who calls bullshit on this source.

Anyway not increasing a ceiling on an amount of money you spend does not equal default. That is idiotic. Spend less money AND pay the debt then creditors will trust you more because it shows responsibility. What if I was a $100,000 in debt and living in a mansion and just barely paying off my bills? What about the actual position I am in now, where I am a few thousand dollars in debt (student loans), no credit card debt (paid at the beginning at every month in full), and I am asking for a few thousand dollars worth of loans. In which position would a credit company actually loan money out? It is irresponsible to continue to spend money that just does not exist and continue to pile up debt without any plans for the future. Yes, the GOP played politics with the entire event (then again so did the DNC) but in the end run they were still right that we cannot do this forever and it is irresponsible (and no one try and talk to me about their hypocrisy because I know but they were still right).

How in the blue fuck can you justify perpetual spending without any regard for the future payment? Why not cut some of the fat from the government's budget and raise the ceiling? That was what many of the Republicans were calling for (and sort of what we got if you fudge the numbers). Why the FUCK not?

recruit00:
All the stuff you said about Nazi Germany is all stuff mentioned by very few historians and economists hence why you need to CITE.

Actually it is common knowledge. You want more? A History of Modern Germany Since 1815, Frank Tipton. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer. Etc.

YOU have provided a single source to back up your claims. YOU just said that my position is in the minority but why don't you prove that? Go ahead, prove that the majority of the Soviet economy and available resources was in the east.

I did some research on Tooze and there is very little on the actual guy and his book.

You obviously did not look very hard. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/aug/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview16

And HAH! The fed has less to do than states?! That is a doozy! There is so much wrong with that statement it's not even funny. Oh wait. There is!

You better have something really good to have that much glee (the last time it happened you proved to be wholly inadequate).

They have fifty states to deal with

Like doing what? What exactly requires such a massive budget there?

foreign policy to do

And that requires a much greater budget percentage because?

immigration

Handled mostly by the states.

the country economy

Since when are we a command economy?

federal courts

Which require so much more money because? My home town's court house was made by the people of the town in a week long building project (it was a long time ago) and from there the judge just had to be paid. A building, a judge, a few officers, a few secretaries, and you're done.

and tons of other jobs.

You best mention them.

Oh and when you make debates, you bring multiple sources, not just one guy and his book. That's how research works. You get multiple sources and learn from all the views, not just what you want to see.

What do you want me to cite? There is nothing that really needs citation. You are just being too thick to understand basic historical fact.

And considering the common knowledge is that deficit spending helped, I think we know which is assumed to be more correct.

What does "helped" mean? The Nazis sure as hell helped the labor surplus in the Soviet Union but I doubt most people call it an improvement.

You realize that you are talking about a completely different topic right?

That number is a drip in the bucket compared to the money the federal government has to spend each year. If that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is.

You are missing the point in spectacular fashion. Yes the federal government spends more BUT the majority of the money that affects THE PEOPLE is from the states. The federal government can trim a ton of fat from itself and everything will still roll along fine.

farson135:

How in the blue fuck can you justify perpetual spending without any regard for the future payment? Why not cut some of the fat from the government's budget and raise the ceiling? That was what many of the Republicans were calling for (and sort of what we got if you fudge the numbers). Why the FUCK not?

Nobody is "justifying perpetual spending blah blah blah."

The debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with current spending; it has to do with paying bills that have already come due. And the Republicans showed complete willingness to allow those bills to not be paid, causing us to go into default, if they didn't get what they wanted.

There should be a debate over spending in this country. That was not the way to have it, by putting a gun to the economy's head and threatening to pull the trigger. And it's one of the reasons we got downgraded. The GOP was the party who played chicken with the fragile economy. The Democrats were not. There is no conceivable way this can be denied.

And default would have been catastrophic.

Tyler Perry:
Nobody is "justifying perpetual spending blah blah blah."

Really.

The debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with current spending; it has to do with paying bills that have already come due.

How exactly can you only be pay bills that are already due while at the same time paying bills that do not come into existence until months later?

And the Republicans showed complete willingness to allow those bills to not be paid, causing us to go into default, if they didn't get what they wanted.

So much so that the majority were willing to increase the debt ceiling IF they could cut spending levels.

There should be a debate over spending in this country. That was not the way to have it, by putting a gun to the economy's head and threatening to pull the trigger. And it's one of the reasons we got downgraded. The GOP was the party who played chicken with the fragile economy. The Democrats were not. There is no conceivable way this can be denied.

If the DNC had just agreed to drop spending a considerable amount then most of the GOP would have been happy. Couldn't you say that the DNC was playing chicken with the economy? I know you won't and neither will I but the fact is that both sides played politics with this issue.

SenseOfTumour:

What I don't understand is the tendency for people to aim all their hate downwards when things get tough.

I personally suspect it's basic primate pack-heirarchy at work. Getting angry at your bigger, stronger superiors can be VERY DANGEROUS, so primates take it out on whoever's smaller and weaker than they are.

farson135:
How exactly can you only be pay bills that are already due while at the same time paying bills that do not come into existence until months later?

Do you have any clue how the debt actually functions? I don't think you do, if you think this is how it works.

farson135:
So much so that the majority were willing to increase the debt ceiling IF they could cut spending levels.

That wasn't the issue. See below.

farson135:
If the DNC had just agreed to drop spending a considerable amount then most of the GOP would have been happy. Couldn't you say that the DNC was playing chicken with the economy? I know you won't and neither will I but the fact is that both sides played politics with this issue.

Bullshit. You are showing your complete ignorance of the facts here.

The Dems DID agree to drop spending a considerable amount; however, they also wanted some sort of new revenue (such as getting rid of the ludicrous oil subsidies). The Republicans said that any new revenue of any sort was a non-starter.

You are claiming that the Democrats refused to cut spending, which is patently false.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/278426/graphic-obamas-latest-debt-ceiling-offer-is-to-the-right-of-gang-of-six-and-simpson-bowles-gop-still-says-no/

I'm perfectly aware that you're going to complain about the source without refuting its contents.

I'm sorry but you cannot claim a weak German economy, providing no sources, then demand people give you sources to prove your claim incorrect.

Was the German economy perfect, no. It had its cracks, just like every economy then and now. However, you don't prepare and fight a war on the scale that Germany did on the back of a poor economy.

farson135:
snip

Really? You can't see why foreign policy costs a lot? 24% defense spending! Tons of it over seas in soldiers in countries that they don't need to be in. One war with one that just recently finished, Iran, Syria, foreign aid. Seriously, how hard is that to see? And immigration by the states? Yeah, let's see Colorado and Wyoming deal with immigration because they get all those immigrants from... Nevadastan? And I never said that we were a command economy (which I'm surprised somebody knew what that was because lots of people don't seem to know that-Not an insult). I said they have to worry about making sure the economy for all states is stable and okay so that requires looking at the economy and making effective policy. You need to learn how citation and sources work. You never bring only one or two sources. Bring multiples to the table.

Medicare is a federal program and most medicare funding comes from the federal government. Welfare, yes, does come more from the states but the health care comes from federal government.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/01/137536342/how-much-do-states-really-spend-on-medicaid

That article states that in July of last year, the federal government decreased medicaid payments to states by 90 billion dollars. That is a lot of money dude.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2012USbn_13bs1n_00#usgs302

Again, I'm referring back to this. 819 billion for old age social security. 484 billion for medicare. 323 billion for medicaid. That is a lot of money to them for that.

I appreciate other people coming here to help back me up some against farson. And although Think Progress can have a bias, it is better than providing zero sources.

recruit00:
I appreciate other people coming here to help back me up some against farson. And although Think Progress can have a bias, it is better than providing zero sources.

Of course it has a bias; however, data is presented in that post, the actual Democratic proposal that was heavy on spending cuts. The site's inherent bias doesn't mean the data presented is somehow invalid.

One of these days, I'm going to do what Stagnant did and make an instructional thread about accepting and rejecting sources.

Tyler Perry:

recruit00:
I appreciate other people coming here to help back me up some against farson. And although Think Progress can have a bias, it is better than providing zero sources.

Of course it has a bias; however, data is presented in that post, the actual Democratic proposal that was heavy on spending cuts. The site's inherent bias doesn't mean the data presented is somehow invalid.

One of these days, I'm going to do what Stagnant did and make an instructional thread about accepting and rejecting sources.

Oh I honestly have nothing wrong with it as a source. They do actual research which is kind of necessary as a site that provides information. And that source topic idea would be a great idea. I am completely behind you on that.

recruit00:
I appreciate other people coming here to help back me up some against farson. And although Think Progress can have a bias, it is better than providing zero sources.

Actually to be completely honest its not much better than no sources. I am staying out of this argument other than commenting but Farson could post a Fox News article and wield much more credibility than a Think Progress article that is openly biased and has a clear agenda.

Tyler Perry:
Do you have any clue how the debt actually functions? I don't think you do, if you think this is how it works.

Increasing the debt ceiling is not just about current debt but also debt that will be incurred in the FUTURE.

The Dems DID agree to drop spending a considerable amount; however, they also wanted some sort of new revenue (such as getting rid of the ludicrous oil subsidies). The Republicans said that any new revenue of any sort was a non-starter.

You are claiming that the Democrats refused to cut spending, which is patently false.

Actually I said JUST. As in only.

Anyway if the DNC had JUST agreed to drop spending levels the GOP would have gotten on board.

BTW oil subsidies are one of the reasons gas is so cheap. You still want to rail against them?

I'm perfectly aware that you're going to complain about the source without refuting its contents.

I will complain about the source because in the first paragraph it proves its own bias.

Beyond that, many of the GOP politicians agreed to no new taxes. Even though politicians are expected to lie don't you think it is a little fucked up that you WANT them to lie?

pyrate:
I'm sorry but you cannot claim a weak German economy, providing no sources, then demand people give you sources to prove your claim incorrect.

Actually I did. Several in fact.

Was the German economy perfect, no. It had its cracks, just like every economy then and now. However, you don't prepare and fight a war on the scale that Germany did on the back of a poor economy.

The Soviets managed it and with almost half their population, most of their railways and roads, much of their industry, much of their available resources, and most of their immediately available soldiers under German control.

Read through the sources I provided and they will explain it in great detail (especially the Tooze book).

recruit00:
Really? You can't see why foreign policy costs a lot? 24% defense spending! Tons of it over seas in soldiers in countries that they don't need to be in. One war with one that just recently finished, Iran, Syria, foreign aid. Seriously, how hard is that to see?

How about the part where it is necessary? Are you saying that 100% of all the US's defense spending is completely necessary and not one SINGLE dollar can be cut?

And immigration by the states? Yeah, let's see Colorado and Wyoming deal with immigration because they get all those immigrants from... Nevadastan?

Ironically enough- http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19000652

And I never said that we were a command economy (which I'm surprised somebody knew what that was because lots of people don't seem to know that-Not an insult). I said they have to worry about making sure the economy for all states is stable and okay so that requires looking at the economy and making effective policy.

The US government cannot manage the economy to the level you are talking about. No government aside from a command economy can do so (and even then not well).

You need to learn how citation and sources work. You never bring only one or two sources. Bring multiples to the table.

I have. You have provided me with nothing that needs a citation.

Medicare is a federal program and most medicare funding comes from the federal government. Welfare, yes, does come more from the states but the health care comes from federal government.

Your point? You seem to think that just because the government spends a lot they have the right to be less responsible with the money they are given.

Again, I'm referring back to this. 819 billion for old age social security. 484 billion for medicare. 323 billion for medicaid. That is a lot of money to them for that.

And they have a lot more resources to draw from. You conveniently ignore that.

Seekster:

recruit00:
I appreciate other people coming here to help back me up some against farson. And although Think Progress can have a bias, it is better than providing zero sources.

Actually to be completely honest its not much better than no sources. I am staying out of this argument other than commenting but Farson could post a Fox News article and wield much more credibility than a Think Progress article that is openly biased and has a clear agenda.

Dude. The Democrat's debt ceiling offer is in the article. Are you going to completely ignore it because it comes from a liberal source?

The "I am rejecting your verifiable data because it comes from a source I don't like card" gets played far too often around here.

Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from.

farson135:
Anyway if the DNC had JUST agreed to drop spending levels the GOP would have gotten on board.

The Democrats weren't the ones who walked away from the negotiating table.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270388/cantor-and-kyl-jump-ship-andrew-stiles

There. It's from the National Review. Happy?

Tyler Perry:

farson135:
Anyway if the DNC had JUST agreed to drop spending levels the GOP would have gotten on board.

The Democrats weren't the ones who walked away from the negotiating table.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270388/cantor-and-kyl-jump-ship-andrew-stiles

There. It's from the National Review. Happy?

I never denyed that happened. I know it happened because (to put it in your elegent words) I was there (somewhat literally).

Anyway the DNC refused to take taxes off the table which is why the GOP walked out.

farson135:

Tyler Perry:

farson135:
Anyway if the DNC had JUST agreed to drop spending levels the GOP would have gotten on board.

The Democrats weren't the ones who walked away from the negotiating table.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270388/cantor-and-kyl-jump-ship-andrew-stiles

There. It's from the National Review. Happy?

I never denyed that happened. I know it happened because (to put it in your elegent words) I was there (somewhat literally).

Anyway the DNC refused to take taxes off the table which is why the GOP walked out.

Minor quibble, since we're never going to agree on this.

It's not the DNC. The DNC is the Democratic National Committee, which mostly focuses on campaigning. It's not the actual Democrats in Congress; it's the leadership arm of the party.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked