« previous   politics   next »

Republicans point second gun towards the hostage


By iwog   Follow   Mon, 3 Dec 2012, 10:12am PST   4,045 views   74 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (2)  

The hostage being America of course. This time it's the debt ceiling. Obama has proposed taking the debt ceiling out of the hands of congress and allowing the president to unilaterally raise it.

I agree with this since the debt ceiling is simply a big piece of red tape that allows debt to be issued to pay for spending congress has already authorized. Again.....congress has ALREADY spent the money, raising the debt ceiling is ONLY the authorization to make good on bills that congress has already passed. There is no spending power associated with raising the debt ceiling. There is no policy power associated with raising the debt ceiling. There are no issues of fiscal responsibility associated with raising the debt ceiling. It is ONLY THE PROCESS OF PAYING FOR BILLS THAT CONGRESS HAS ALREADY APPROVED.

Of course Republicans in the House have no honor, no morality, and no respect for the country or the government. They intend to hold the debt ceiling hostage along with the fiscal cliff and are demanding unspecified (yes we don't know what Republican demands are yet) concessions in order to pay for bills that most of these same Republicans voted for.

“As I told the president a couple weeks ago, there are a lot of things I’ve wanted in my life, but almost all of them had a price tag attached to them. If we’re going to talk about the debt limit in this, there is going to be some price tag associated with it.”

~ John Boehner

Just the latest in a long list of government terrorist actions and a sign that election losses have made Republicans more desperate and not conciliatory at all. What next? Cut taxes on billionaires or Republicans will burn down the White House?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/influencealley/2012/12/business-groups-sounding-alarm-on-debt-limit-03

« First     « Previous     Comments 35-74 of 74     Last »

iwog   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 9:26am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 35

Melmakian says

Hey Iwog, what's with the new avatar, dude?

It looks like you showed up at a Klan meeting at the wrong time and wrong place.

Fireduck rules.

Seymour   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 11:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 36

iwog says

Obama didn't abandon Simpson-Bowles, in what alternate reality do you suppose Obama is the legislature and is responsible for passing a tax plan?

I absolutely agree that the legislature is responsible for passing a budget. I also believe that POTUS should be leading his party in delivering that budget. Has our current president been effective at leading his party to pass ANY budget in the Senate?

iwog says

Simplified:
Obama says "I want X and I'm open to compromising on everything else."
Republicans say "We want X,Y, and Z and will absolutely refuse to compromise on anything the Democrats want."

Further Simplified:
Obama says "I want X and I'm not willing to compromise on it"

The republicans have offered caps on deductions and other revenue generating alternatives, some included in either Simpson-Bowles or, as Roberto notes, acceptable compromises that raise revenue on higher wage earners without changing marginal rates.

iwog says

If you don't fucking understand this, you have no business casting a vote in this country. I am not being the least bit unfair here. This is the true nature of the impasse and all the bullshit in the world isn't going to change it.

As always, Iwog's solution is as simple as Obama's: Agree with me without compromise because my opinion is correct therefore you must be stupid.

Call it Crazy   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 11:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 37

Seymour says

As always, Iwog's solution is as simple as Obama's: Agree with me without compromise because my opinion is correct therefore you must be stupid.

Wow, with only 14 comments, you already figured Iwog out!!!

iwog   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 12:12pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

Seymour says

Obama says "I want X and I'm not willing to compromise on it"

Absolutely correct. Obama refuses to compromise on tax increases just like Republicans pretend to refuse to compromise on spending cuts. That is how you start negotiations towards compromise, by giving each side something they want.

Unfortunately while Democrats have said repeatedly they will accept spending cuts, Republicans have signed a sworn oath to refuse Democrats tax increases. Furthermore while Democrats have made VERY specific demands on tax increases, no one has any fucking clue what Republicans want. Simpson-Bowles is the wrong answer since it directly contradicts the sworn Grover pledge.

So I consider any equity argument to be a gross misrepresentation.

Seymour says

As always, Iwog's solution is as simple as Obama's: Agree with me without compromise because my opinion is correct therefore you must be stupid.

Disagree with me all you want, just support it.

Homeboy   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 4:29pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 39

iwog says

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't even quote Obama or provide context? Forgive me if I don't trust your recollection as anything more than fog-shrouded Newscorp memory implants.

And he paid for a Mars vacation.

kochevnik   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 10:39pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 40

The math is pretty simple : the Federal Govt ALONE spends 50% more than it takes in taxes each year. That run rate means the total debt will be well over 20 trillion by the time Hoover2 - whoops, I mean Obama - leaves office. That is far past fixable. And the state budgets in many cases are worse. And putting in a Red colored retard instead of a Blue one in the top post will fix nada.

Arguing about the 'fical cliff' and who is or was responsible is like children arguing about candy as the house is burning down all around them.

I come to this blog and see the same crackheads who were pumping up the housing bubble and the tech bubble and all the other bubbles spouting their delusions once again. It is beyond disheartening to see how little people learn from their prior mistakes - but amazingly predictable.

In a twisted sort of way I have to thank them - they've kept this whole bizarre thing on the rails long enough for my family to save a lot of cash to spend to prepare for the disaster that is barreling down on us all. It is nice to have the extra time, and it is entertaining in an odd way to watch people make the same mistakes over and over again and refuse to understand or acknowledge them - kind of like one of those horror movies where the girl in the skimpy T-short goes searching thru the 'haunted' house crying out for her missing friends - you know exactly what's coming next, but you just can't stop yourself from watching it all unfold.

If you're a member of the Remnant (as defined by Charles Hugh Smith), if you've read the Fourth Turning and acknowledge the 80 year Crisis cycle ( 1780 Rev War - 1860 Civ War - 1940 WW2 - 2020 The Next Big War ) don't get discouraged, you have a lot of work to do if you want those you love to live.

For the rest, well maybe I will save some posts from the regulars here on this blog to read to my children as examples of just how insane your regular, 'positive-thinking' American was as his entire nation was right on the verge of total collapse.

Red-Blue. Now THAT is some funny shit right there.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 10:49pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 41

K,

I'm ready. The wife is ready. The kids just finished pitchfork combat training. They can eat week-old human carrion and can keep it down. We're ready for horrors that would make Charles Manson's head explode.

Cannibal anarchy!

Boo-yah!

marcus   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 11:02pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 42

Seymour says

my opinion is correct therefore you must be stupid

Is it possible this is true ?

In fairness, Iwog usually makes compelling arguments most of which are ignored or at least not responded to. He doesn't say you're stupid, he just usually says something like, "why do you run from the truth (not answering the good questions).

CaptainShuddup   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 11:11pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 43

marcus says

He doesn't say you're stupid, he just usually says something like, "why do you run from the truth (not answering the good questions).

Well sorta, it's more like...
Re why I think there should be anti Oil speculation laws.
"So you're willing to go to the rabbit farm and pick up each bunny rabbit by its soft tender ears and pull out a 38 and blow their brains out, aren't you?
Then that wont be enough for you, you sick fuck you'll then skin those rabbits and copulate with each bloody carcass, wont you?
Why don't you answer my questions? "

marcus   Tue, 4 Dec 2012, 11:11pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 44

CaptainShuddup says

Obama's answers to everything Romney said was... "Oh My God! Meee Toooo!"

hahaha. Wow. Yes. funny stuff.

This was the most true in the one on foriegn policy where everything Mitt said he wanted to do, Obama said "gosh me too ! Your ideas are so good that I'm going to time travel and implement your ideas in the past."

As for everything else, everyone has observed Romneys stunning move to the middle in the debates (yes the first one threw Obama, because even he couldn't believe how much of a liar Romney is, and how far he had changed from what he was saying only days earlier).

"What, me lower tax rates ? What are you talking about?"

You are funny CAptain. I'll give you that.

thunderlips11   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 3:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 45

Where was the Debt Ceiling Debate during the Bush Administration when the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency?

iwog   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 5:15am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 46

thunderlips11 says

Where was the Debt Ceiling Debate during the Bush Administration when the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency?

There has never been a debt ceiling 'debate' before Obama because it takes a special kind of moron to oppose paying for things you have already voted to spend money on.

This is extortion in its purest form. This is naked slash and burn. No Republican on earth can defend it because it defies explanation.

1. Boehner votes yes on Medicare D.
2. Boehner votes yes to authorize war with Iraq.
3. Boehner votes yes to lowering taxes during a time of war.
4. Boehner decides he's going to block the United States from paying for his yes votes.

How in hell can anyone vote for a Republican candidate??? What drives someone to voluntary carve out sections of his or her brain and join the foxbot zombie apocalypse???

iwog   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 11:03pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 47

Melmakian says

Which YOU have previously expressed not having any problem with. Does the phrase 'Go ahead! Let them kill the hostage' ring a bell, duck?

Letting the tax cuts expire and automatic spending cuts take place will be annoying but we'll get through it.

You can't "get through" defaulting on debt payments. Apples and oranges.

Melmakian says

Uh, because we don't want to pay for any of that shit, either? DUH!

So you're in the camp who thinks it's okay to go on a spending spree, then throw away the credit card statements when they show up in the mail.

Entitlemented   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 11:23pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 48

Why do tax rates expire anyhow? Should not in a Republic with Virtue, should not taxes expire, and tax rates remain constant?

iwog   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 11:28pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 49

Entitlemented says

Why do tax rates expire anyhow? Should not in a Republic with Virtue, should not taxes expire, and tax rates remain constant?

This was an invention from the ever toxic Republican party. You're correct that Reagan's tax increases never expired, Clinton's tax increases never expired, etc.

Our modern clown show decided to include an expiration into the new tax law so they could have something to run on. They wrongly assumed that they would be on the winning side of any future debate over lower taxes, so THEY CREATED the fiscal cliff to fuck with us.

Obama gave in and extended the deadline by 2 years, but he's not going to do it again. Public opinion has since turned against Republicans and all polls show them taking damage from the fight.

bdrasin   Wed, 5 Dec 2012, 11:32pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 50

Entitlemented says

Why do tax rates expire anyhow? Should not in a Republic with Virtue, should not taxes expire, and tax rates remain constant?

Basically its because the Republicans had to put in a sunset provision so they could pass it using reconciliation (i.e. so the Democrats couldn't stop them with a filibuster). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision#Budget_Act_and_the_Byrd_Rule

Many on the Republican side see this as a feature rather than a bug because it meant that they can play the same irresponsible hostage-taking game every few years.

Seymour   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 10:42am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 51

iwog says

Unfortunately while Democrats have said repeatedly they will accept spending cuts, Republicans have signed a sworn oath to refuse Democrats tax increases. Furthermore while Democrats have made VERY specific demands on tax increases, no one has any fucking clue what Republicans want. Simpson-Bowles is the wrong answer since it directly contradicts the sworn Grover pledge.

Simpson-Bowles is the right answer. Compromise is the right answer. You seem to believe that Grover has more power than the president. If so, the polarization will simply continue and we'll drop off the fiscal cliff. Look at the bright side; our credit rating may actually be restored as we defer the next debt ceiling debate.

marcus says

Seymour says

my opinion is correct therefore you must be stupid
Is it possible this is true ?

It's likely that my IQ isn't a match for Iwog's brilliance.... and he'll confirm that in every one of his posts on patnet. It's that same smug, pompus attitude of Obama that puts half the country into a defensive stance. Why does he do it? Because when HE attempts to compromise, the other half of the country spits bullets because he won and shouldn't be giving in on THEIR precious principles. POTUS should be the clear, unifying leader of the country and should initiate the compromise. Mr Obama, by Iwog's admission, is simply digging in his heels and stating "My way or we're fallin' off the highway".

Cheers.

iwog   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 12:16pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 52

Seymour says

Simpson-Bowles is the right answer. Compromise is the right answer. You seem to believe that Grover has more power than the president. If so, the polarization will simply continue and we'll drop off the fiscal cliff. Look at the bright side; our credit rating may actually be restored as we defer the next debt ceiling debate.

Republicans have about as much chance of passing Simpson-Bowles as a toad has of landing the space shuttle. Can I see Democrats going for it? Probably not but at least they would accept it as a starting point for some give and take. Republicans ARE NOT a legitimate political party with a legitimate ideology. They are a total fraud, a cult, and anyone who votes for them is very very confused.

Republicans are the party that tried to impeach a president for lying about a blow job when 2/3rds of the country was strongly against it. Republicans are the party who attempted to kidnap Elian Gonzales from his father after his mother died. Republicans are the party that tried to issue a congressional subpoena to a brain-dead woman in Florida. Republicans are the party of filibustering their own bills and their own amendments.

I'm not talking about radicals within the party, I'm talking about the WHOLE FUCKING PARTY!!

There is no polarization and there is no ideological debate. There is a legitimate government in the Democrats with all their flaws and shortcomings and then there is a hostile toxic political cancer pretending to represent America but in reality slashing and burning our institutions at every opportunity.

iwog   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 12:17pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 53

Seymour says

Mr Obama, by Iwog's admission, is simply digging in his heels and stating "My way or we're fallin' off the highway".

Why are you lying about what I wrote? I defy you to post an actual quote of mine that is even remotely what you paraphrased.

marcus   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 12:31pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 54

Seymour says

Because when HE attempts to compromise, the other half of the country spits bullets because he won and shouldn't be giving in on THEIR precious principles. POTUS should be the clear, unifying leader of the country and should initiate the compromise. Mr Obama, by Iwog's admission, is simply digging in his heels and stating "My way or we're fallin' off the highway".

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

But I'll tell you this. In my view, Obama is actually quite conservative (and if you like I'd be happy to list some respected republicans (yes they're RINOs in this crazy wacked out insane right wing world now - but just a few years ago they were respected republicans) that agree with this. Hell, even Geogre Bush senior says (I'm paraphrasing), "Who the fuck is Grover Norquist anyway?"

Obama is a very centrist pragmatic guy. He's not digging his heels in on some extremist left wing agenda.

In 2010, at this time he TOTALLY CAVED and extended the Bush tax cuts on everyone. This time he campaigned on the EXTREMELY MODEST
CENTRIST PROPOSAL, that only the top rates go back up. That is, only on those rates would the Bush tax cuts that republicans said were temporary go back up.

It's insane that they shouldn't.

So yeah. OBama is digging in, if that's what you call his center right position when he insists that he won't cave this time to the extremist right wing insane pro-plutocrat agenda.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 12:34pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 55

Obama would make Nixon look like St Francis and Ike like a flower child. In fact, he is a fucking war criminal on the same level as W. And he is riding shotgun for Wall Street. If he's progress, Jeffrey Dahmer should have a cooking show.

tatupu70   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 8:14pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 56

Seymour says

Mr Obama, by Iwog's admission, is simply digging in his heels and stating "My way or we're fallin' off the highway".

Actually, Mr. Obama is saying the one thing we need is to raise the top tax rate on filers above $250K. Everything else is negotiable. That doesn't really sound like digging in ones heels to me.

tatupu70   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 11:17pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 57

Melmakian says

Once again, you won't get shit for revenues from the tax increases on the 'rich' relative to the spending that needs to be paid for.

Once again you entirely miss the point. Raising taxes on the rich is NOT solely to reduce the deficit. It is primarily to reduce the income and wealth disparity. If you fix that disparity, you go a long way towards fixing the economy, and if you fix the economy, you go a long way to fixing the deficit.

CaptainShuddup   Thu, 6 Dec 2012, 11:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 58

iwog says

How in hell can anyone vote for a Republican candidate???

It's like Jazz Iwog.

You don't get to get Jazz, until you GET Jazz.

AverageBear   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 1:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 59

iwog says

The hostage being America of course. This time it's the debt ceiling. Obama has proposed taking the debt ceiling out of the hands of congress and allowing the president to unilaterally raise it.

------------------------------------------------
What you really mean is Obama wants to shred the Constitution. Doesn't Congress decide on budgets? I'll admit I'm woefully not up to speed on the topic of the Constitution, but IIRC, the president can't " take the debt ceiling out of the hands of congress"

iwog says

They intend to hold the debt ceiling hostage along with the fiscal cliff and are demanding unspecified (yes we don't know what Republican demands are yet) concessions in order to pay for bills that most of these same Republicans voted for.

-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's called 'balance of power'.... I thought Obama was a 'uniter' anyway? I thought he'd "work w/ those on the other side of the isle" for a solution", and not telling them 'how it's gonna be'.....This is a trait Clinton had, that Obama sorely lacks.

BTW, IWOG, if Obama's $1.6 Trillion in tax hikes were the panacea of our economy and the ultimate fix for avoiding the cliff, how come Harry Ried squashed a vote, when it was presented as a separate bill? Hmmmm? You'd think all Democrats would back the president on this. But the cold reality for liberals is that this is far from the truth.....

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/06/jay-carney-democrats-obamas-proposal/

...."On Thursday, Jay Carney said he wasn’t sure how many Democrats would support President Obama’s “$1.6 trillion in tax increases, no debt limit and new stimulus spending” plan that is somehow supposed to reduce the deficit — and Harry Reid has taken it upon himself to make sure nobody ever does find out. Mitch McConnell tried to bring the Obama plan to a vote in the Senate either as an amendment or a stand-alone bill and Harry Reid swatted it down so fast you’d think McConnell had proposed a ban on cowboy poetry.

At a press conference, Jay Carney was asked about Reid’s aversion to allowing a vote on Obama’s proposal:

Reporters: Why is he afraid to put the President’s plan on the floor. Do you think you have democratic support?

Carney: We know that, and the filibuster is certainly an issue here, that we don’t have 60 votes in the Senate. So, I would not argue with the idea that the President’s proposal cannot at this time, or has not at this time, garnered Republican support. That’s what this debate is about. ".......

iwog   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 1:42am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 60

AverageBear says

What you really mean is Obama wants to shred the Constitution. Doesn't Congress decide on budgets?

The debt ceiling has nothing to do with budgets. The debt ceiling is entirely an executive function. Congress has spent the money, therefore the executive must find ways to pay for it.

AverageBear says

Yes, it's called 'balance of power'.

Hardly. It's called Republicans passing legislation and spending money then deciding they don't like the cost so they rip up the credit card statement. I'm not exaggerating, this is EXACTLY what they are doing.

AverageBear says

BTW, IWOG, if Obama's $1.6 Trillion in tax hikes were the panacea of our economy and the ultimate fix for avoiding the cliff, how come Harry Ried squashed a vote, when it was presented as a separate bill? Hmmmm? You'd think all Democrats would back the president on this. But the cold reality for liberals is that this is far from the truth.....

It's called politics. Harry Reid doesn't want to waste time attempting to vote on an issue that Republicans have already sworn to block at any cost. Why is this complicated????

tatupu70   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 1:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 61

AverageBear says

What you really mean is Obama wants to shred the Constitution. Doesn't Congress decide on budgets? I'll admit I'm woefully not up to speed on the topic of the Constitution, but IIRC, the president can't " take the debt ceiling out of the hands of congress"

The Constitution doesn't ever mention a debt ceiling so that argument is pretty ridiculous. Congress still sets the budget whether there is a debt ceiling or not. If they want to reduce spending and shrink the deficit, they should pass a budget that does so. The debt ceiling is completely irrelevant.

Bellingham Bill   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 1:52am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 62

AverageBear says

Doesn't Congress decide on budgets? I'll admit I'm woefully not up to speed on the topic of the Constitution, but IIRC, the president can't " take the debt ceiling out of the hands of congress"

Congress has the constitutional power to tax monies into the treasury, yes.

Congress has the constitutional power to direct the executive to spend out of the treasury, yes.

Congress has the constitutional power to borrow money:

Article I, Section 8: "To borrow money on the credit of the United States"

So in our Constitutional system, Congress gets to tell Obama how they want their conflicting directives worked out.

This is a trait Clinton had, that Obama sorely lacks.

Complete bullshit. Clinton never had to deal with: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

http://americablog.com/2010/10/mcconnell-says-top-priority-for-gop-congress-is-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president.html

Single. Most. Important. Thing.

It's all bullshit, all the way down. This country is going to tear itself apart on this.

Good going, Republicans! Thanks for destroying my country, 1995-2005.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=dzq

blue is annual consumer debt take-on, red is the trade deficit

Bellingham Bill   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 1:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 63

tatupu70 says

The debt ceiling is completely irrelevant.

No, the executive has no authority to borrow money. That's Congress' power.

The Debt Ceiling is just a formalized, more convenient way of authorizing borrowing (before, each individual issue had to be authorized).

People don't understand that the seat of power is Boehner's, not Obama's now. This has allowed the Republican snakes in Congress to sabotage everything 2009-now and the electorate not really pick up on what's going down.

Bellingham Bill   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 2:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 64

iwog says

Congress has spent the money, therefore the executive must find ways to pay for it.

no. I don't want the Executive going off into new weeds on this. We need to cut the bullshit here and let the House figure out what it wants to do with this nation.

AverageBear says

Yes, it's called 'balance of power'

The term of constitutional art you're looking for here is actually "checks and balances".

The current "balance of power" is just an artifact of recent Republican gerrymandering at the state level.

And given the current Congress has an approval rating somewhere around dogshit on the sidewalk, I don't see much power with Boehner or McConnell now.

Seymour   Fri, 7 Dec 2012, 2:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 65

iwog says

Seymour says

Mr Obama, by Iwog's admission, is simply digging in his heels and stating "My way or we're fallin' off the highway".

Why are you lying about what I wrote? I defy you to post an actual quote of mine that is even remotely what you paraphrased.

Here's what you wrote. I am not lying but I may be misinterpreting your words. They seem pretty clear to me:

•On 4 Dec 2012 in Republicans point second gun towards the hostage, iwog said:

Absolutely correct. Obama refuses to compromise on tax increases just like Republicans pretend to refuse to compromise on spending cuts.

Seymour   Sat, 8 Dec 2012, 5:26am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 66

iwog says

Republicans have about as much chance of passing Simpson-Bowles as a toad has of landing the space shuttle. Can I see Democrats going for it? Probably not but at least they would accept it as a starting point for some give and take.

The Democrats have had many chances to use Simpson-Bowles as a starting point but refuse to do so. Mr. Obama, who initiated the bipartisan initiative, has ignored the recommendations and instead insists on driving his agenda. Rather than showing leadership and driving to a compromise that would be good for the country, he insists on clinging to his pre-election promise. It's no different than the Republican's tax pledge except he will not be up for re-election.

You're being disingenuous.

Bellingham Bill   Sat, 8 Dec 2012, 5:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 67

Seymour says

has ignored the recommendations and instead insists on driving his agenda.

of course! The Commission failed to reach an agreement, and Simpson (an idiot) and Bowles (another idiot) put their idiot plan forward instead.

And heaven forfend the Democrats stop driving their "agenda".

Seymour says

Rather than showing leadership and driving to a compromise that would be good for the country

oh, bullshit. "Compromise" with stupidity is still stupidity.

This nation needs to do what is right. Raise taxes a lot. The Democratic plan is a step in the right direction. The Republican thing -- Ryan Plan, whatever Boehner wants to do, is not.

This is not to say the Democrats have a solid plan for retrieving the situation. They do not.

iwog   Sat, 8 Dec 2012, 5:34am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 68

Seymour says

The Democrats have had many chances to use Simpson-Bowles as a starting point but refuse to do so. Mr. Obama, who initiated the bipartisan initiative, has ignored the recommendations and instead insists on driving his agenda. Rather than showing leadership and driving to a compromise that would be good for the country, he insists on clinging to his pre-election promise. It's no different than the Republican's tax pledge except he will not be up for re-election.

You're being disingenuous.

Seriously what does it take to convince you Foxbots which side is being unreasonable when a signed sworn oath isn't enough? What the hell is wrong with you?

It's not the fucking job of Democrats to propose spending cuts. It's the job of Democrats to propose tax increases and spending increases and have the Republicans counter with what they want in return so Democrats can shoot it down or accept it.

Instead of putting something on the table, Republicans have repeatedly KILLED all negotiation by drawing a line in the sand that effectively states: Balance the budget with 100% spending cuts and 0% tax increases. Democrats have no such line in the sand and in fact have proposed several budget cuts of their own.

iwog   Sat, 8 Dec 2012, 5:37am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 69

Seymour says

Absolutely correct. Obama refuses to compromise on tax increases just like Republicans pretend to refuse to compromise on spending cuts.

Is not the same as:

Seymour says

Mr Obama, by Iwog's admission, is simply digging in his heels and stating "My way or we're fallin' off the highway".

Obama will accept nothing less than tax increases on the richest Americans. He will ALSO accept spending cuts.

Republicans will accept nothing less than pretending to want budget cuts. They will ALSO accept not a god damned thing the Democrats want.

I am not being disingenuous in any way. This is reality. Come join it sometime.

zzyzzx   Sun, 9 Dec 2012, 10:54pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (2)     Comment 70

tatupu70   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 4:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 71

Melmakian says

You just contradicted your own bullshit. First, you say it is not the job of the Dems to propose budget cuts and now you say that they have done just that.

That's not a contradiction. It's entirely possible for Dems to do something that's not "their job".

zzyzzx   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 8:55am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 72

thunderlips11 says

Where was the Debt Ceiling Debate during the Bush Administration when the Republicans controlled both houses and the Presidency?

It was less of an issue then because Bush didn't spend money like the proverbial drunken sailor, at least when compared to Obama. Emphasis on the comparison part.

iwog   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 9:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 73

zzyzzx says

It was less of an issue then because Bush didn't spend money like the proverbial drunken sailor, at least when compared to Obama. Emphasis on the comparison part.

You are dead wrong in every tiny way possible. Your understanding is corrupt and bloody ignorant. Every iota of data is at your fingertips to prove this statement false. I could prove it beyond any shred of doubt and lead you to all the relevant numbers.

What's the point? You'll continue to believe the lie no matter what. You're in the cult ad you're not leaving. Facts don't matter to you. Reality is simply whatever the internet dictates to you.

BTW MarketWatch, the source of this graph, comes from the Wall Street Journal which is owned by Newscorp. You have gotten SO radical that you're even telling Fox they are biased to the left now.

You are utterly lost.

Bellingham Bill   Mon, 10 Dec 2012, 9:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 74

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=dGu

Blue line is federal expenditure.

Red line is federal expenditure less medicare/medicaid.

FLAT after the 2009 stimulus.

NOT FLAT during the Bush spending spree.

« First     « Previous comments    

iwog is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net