Right, the Tea Party is the "Villain" here when the plan you support only cuts $1 Billion from this years budget and still adds $7 Trillion to our debt over 10 years. Anyone that thinks republicans are being extreme here in wanting cuts doesn't realize that no one is actually cutting anything. All of their cuts come years down the road after congress has completely changed and the successors have no obligation to keep the word of the predecessors. This whole Reid vs Boener plan is one of the biggest bunch of garbage smoke and mirrors dance we've ever seen in the US. It's just people yelling about ideals that no one actually backs up.
You think you have problems. I miss Carter, an engineer who may have been the last actual truthful president we ever had. Truth, however, doesn't win elections. We preferred the happytalk mythology of a has-been B-Actor in the beginning stages of Alzheimers who was little more than a shill for the financial industry in the person of Don Regan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan [wikipedia.org].
Oh, I know, I'm just saying in contrast to Obushma. He at least left office with a (for all intensive purposes) balanced budget. He didn't pass the buck off to a successor. He actually got things balanced. He never ran the surplus people claim as he just stole the money from SS, but his last budget was balanced.
It would only have remained balanced if the dot com bubble(and associated governmental revenues) had stayed stable. In his 2nd to last year in office it had already started to pop.
Whilst I agree that Clinton wasn't perfect. And he didn't leave a surplus.
But - please take a look at the following diagram [bbcimg.co.uk] attached to this article [bbc.co.uk].
I dare to suggest that if Clinton would have stayed on, the debt ceiling would not have risen to the heights where it is now.
In the last two years of the Clinton administration the debt ceiling did not have an upward trend. We will never know of course what could've happened.
And - from my personal experience - Americans were much happier during the Cli
the debt curve was clearly pointing downward at the end of the Clinton administration. So I would say that he did something right to make Americans happy.
USDebt.png [wikipedia.org]
The Tea Party is the bad contingent here because they turned down a much bigger package over $100bn in loophole closures and I think right now the biggest deal that anybody is proposing is in the $2-3tn range, a significantly smaller deal than what they could have had with a bit of compromise.
What qualifies the Tea Party as the villain here is how they're so focused on getting their way that they're prepared to screw over the entire country to get it. That sort of spoiled, bratty attitude has no place in po
Oh, please, the US is hardly the only nation that does that. Frequently it's the Russians and Chinese that are holding things up as much as the Americans.
You're saying they're villains, because they refuse to buy into the same smoke an mirrors the career politicians have been pushing for the last 30 yrs.
Are you one of those strange types that enjoy being lied to?
MSNBC: Tea Partiers are FOOLS. Obama offered them shit and they turned him down. Idiots. CNN: It is obvious the Tea Party doesn't understand how things work. That was some nice brown shit they turned down. NightLine: Are Tea Party candidates closet shit eaters? Rachel Maddow: The Tea Party won't eat SHIT! Are they crazy? Everybody likes SHIT!
The choice between Boener's plan and Reid's plan is like being asked if you'd rather be shot in the thigh or the calf. I mean, I guess I'd rather be shot in the calf. but they're both still no good and will do absolutely nothing to help the country in the long run.
And if you knew anything about modern history, you wouldn't accept the tax increases either. Bush 1's "Read My Lip's" doctrine fell to a promise from Democrats to cut spending. Bush was left looking foolish. Reagan agreed to raise taxes after an agreement with Tip ONeal to cut spending. Reagan got credit for a huge tax hike, and spending continued unabated.
I wouldn't give an inch until I saw some real spending cuts.
Speaking of which (and all this talk about compromise), just what spending cuts has the G
Oh McCain (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think you have problems. I miss Carter, an engineer who may have been the last actual truthful president we ever had. Truth, however, doesn't win elections. We preferred the happytalk mythology of a has-been B-Actor in the beginning stages of Alzheimers who was little more than a shill for the financial industry in the person of Don Regan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan [wikipedia.org].
Me? Bitter?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would only have remained balanced if the dot com bubble(and associated governmental revenues) had stayed stable. In his 2nd to last year in office it had already started to pop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(for all intensive purposes)
...
As opposed to weak purposes? I think the phrase you're looking for is "for all intents and purposes".
I'm sure you could care less about getting it right, but irregardless, that is a rediculous goof-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst I agree that Clinton wasn't perfect. And he didn't leave a surplus.
But - please take a look at the following diagram [bbcimg.co.uk] attached to this article [bbc.co.uk].
I dare to suggest that if Clinton would have stayed on, the debt ceiling would not have risen to the heights where it is now.
In the last two years of the Clinton administration the debt ceiling did not have an upward trend. We will never know of course what could've happened.
And - from my personal experience - Americans were much happier during the Cli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Tea Party is the bad contingent here because they turned down a much bigger package over $100bn in loophole closures and I think right now the biggest deal that anybody is proposing is in the $2-3tn range, a significantly smaller deal than what they could have had with a bit of compromise.
What qualifies the Tea Party as the villain here is how they're so focused on getting their way that they're prepared to screw over the entire country to get it. That sort of spoiled, bratty attitude has no place in po
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please, the US is hardly the only nation that does that. Frequently it's the Russians and Chinese that are holding things up as much as the Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying they're villains, because they refuse to buy into the same smoke an mirrors the career politicians have been pushing for the last 30 yrs.
Are you one of those strange types that enjoy being lied to?
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
MSNBC: Tea Partiers are FOOLS. Obama offered them shit and they turned him down. Idiots.
CNN: It is obvious the Tea Party doesn't understand how things work. That was some nice brown shit they turned down.
NightLine: Are Tea Party candidates closet shit eaters?
Rachel Maddow: The Tea Party won't eat SHIT! Are they crazy? Everybody likes SHIT!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you knew anything about modern history, you wouldn't accept the tax increases either. Bush 1's "Read My Lip's" doctrine fell to a promise from Democrats to cut spending. Bush was left looking foolish. Reagan agreed to raise taxes after an agreement with Tip ONeal to cut spending. Reagan got credit for a huge tax hike, and spending continued unabated.
I wouldn't give an inch until I saw some real spending cuts.
Speaking of which (and all this talk about compromise), just what spending cuts has the G
Re: (Score:2)
"Man-child"? Obama is a lot more mature than any president we've had in a while, particularly the last president who thought he was a teenager. He's offered a lot of cuts. Do you not read the news? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html?hpid=z1 [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Another speech. The Congressional Budge Office has already stated that they don't score speeches.