Fear Mongering

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:27 pm

So as the budget crisis looms, what does glorius leader say to show his leadership abilities?

Does he say federal workers will start working less hours for less pay?
Does he say dept budgets will be cut?
Does he say federal work projects will be halted?

No. True to his thug community organizing background he says:

"President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks."

Isn't it delightful when the leader of our country singles out the people most needful of their money. You know, the ones that actually paid into the program and the politicians so heinously stole the funds for other purposes. So lets put the squeeze on the retiree's to please the man in the big house so he can sit back and smile at how adroit he is. God save us from gangsta politicians

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:35 pm

Isn't it delightful when deep concessions are offered to Republicans and they walk out of the room?

Republicans are not willing to budge. But I suppose it's more convenient to your narrative to emphasize Obama's simple warning as "thuggish" and "gangsta."

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:55 pm

Who's to say they are not working together? Maybe a goal of globalization is to eventually have just one currency? I'm not sure how you could convince China it's a good idea though

.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:14 pm

Oh no, at least one of them actually wants to see a default happen because he will make wads money off of it!

Eric Cantor the Gambling Traitor

I wonder how many other Republicans, or maybe even a few Democrats, are invested in this scheme against our own country?

I still think Republicans are trying to destroy Obama at all costs, even to the point of destroying our economy. Mitch McConnell, aka Mr. Magoo, has said it in so many words in public. When Bush was in office spending on his wars like a drunken sailor, off the books mind you, the current crop of Republicans voted 19 times to raise the debt limit by 4 trillion! Only when we have a Democratic President do they suddenly go all tightwad and obstreperous. And remember kiddies, Reagan raised taxes when he was in office so as to stimulate spending and bring the economy around. So does that mean if Reagan was pres right now, the Republicans would stick to their guns and NOT give him an increase in the debt ceiling? Somehow I don't think that's what would happen. They'd be practically kissing his ring to make him look good!

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:18 pm

Well, it's like Slick said " nothing new about that". They have always used war to build wealth. Quick wealth that is. Nothing sells gas and steel like a good war. Go back over even recent history and a strong correlation is there. To build a huge fleet of ships, you need a huge amount of steel and gas to run them. Now magnify this to tanks, planes, jeeps all the way down to casings and bullets. That's a huge business. When have we not been at war?

EDIT: My definition of they: Nicolaitans
Etymology

Nico means "conquer" in Greek, and laitan refers to lay people, or laity; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people".

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:35 pm

Like Eisenhower warned, beware the Military Industrial Complex. Now I say: I have seen Eisenhower's future and it's now here. Our nation will be at eternal war just for making profit.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:37 pm

I think we are lay people too

EDIT:http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/bat ... les.htm#s2
This shows it in it's simplest of forms.I'll probably spend a lot of time looking this site over. Highly recommend for it's layout.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:11 pm

It’s the same game they play here in Philly, every time they need to raise taxes…they threaten the police and fire…I guess it just doesn’t have the same affect using bureaucrats, social workers and therapists.

People go….”oh no, we need the police” better let them raise taxes again…

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:16 pm

woodchip wrote:So as the budget crisis looms, what does glorius leader say to show his leadership abilities?

Does he say federal workers will start working less hours for less pay?
Does he say dept budgets will be cut?
Does he say federal work projects will be halted?

No. True to his thug community organizing background he says:

"President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks."

Isn't it delightful when the leader of our country singles out the people most needful of their money. You know, the ones that actually paid into the program and the politicians so heinously stole the funds for other purposes. So lets put the squeeze on the retiree's to please the man in the big house so he can sit back and smile at how adroit he is. God save us from gangsta politicians

do you get the concept that all that other stuff you mentioned is a given? 15 days in or so, a major treasury bond issuance comes due for maturity, and you have to find around 25 Billion in a day with no borrowing power. That's when SS checks will be the least of your(or anyone's) worries.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:23 pm

I vote for default.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:24 pm

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:38 pm

well, we have two people who are:
1. Either so stupid they think default will work out well for them(apparently not needing a banking system,
nor any functioning business community after October or so.....)

2. Willing to stand up publicly and state, "I hate America and am willing to vote for killing it off myself".

I'm shocked, frankly.......

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:52 pm

Or, you could look at it like this.

We are on a course that puts all the worlds resources and power into the hands of a few elite. That's not American, that's nicolatian. Since obviously, throughout history and the benefit of hindsight, we see that as an inevitable conclusion. No? If so, since we can actually see this with our own eyes, what is left for the American that loves the ideals this country was founded on. Were on a crash course anyway, and my kids are gonna be knee-deep in this ★■◆●. I stand by my vote to default. Were all gonna die anyways, don't be a pussy when you do.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:15 pm

so, the bold, courageous course is to pick the dumbest option available and pursue it? Wouldn't that be dooming your children and grandchildren without giving them the benefit of a chance to do better?

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:21 pm

I'd rather leave it to chance than what I see of the nicolatians intentions. Do you actually think things are gonna get better for the poor, or is Social Security and Medicare and government housing your end-all solution. Cramp enough people under those circumstances, and they will start killing each other out of misguided anger, anyways.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:33 pm

The dumbest choice is only one man’s opinion.

The federal government is now borrowing 44 cents of every dollar it spends…

I looked it up, that’s the definition of mental insanity.

Now according to null’s theory, the government should be institutionalized, and studied…because they need “help”.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:40 pm

flip wrote:I'd rather leave it to chance than what I see of the nicolatians intentions. Do you actually think things are gonna get better for the poor, or is Social Security and Medicare and government housing your end-all solution. Cramp enough people under those circumstances, and they will start killing each other out of misguided anger, anyways.

where I try to take hope is this simple fact:

the US system, warts and all, has, for 230 plus years, been the only one to date that has bettered the fate of such a large part of it's populace, consistently. I hope we pass through this lunacy(we've done so before), and that we don't make a WW I type of miscalculation that leads to disaster.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:40 pm

Spidey wrote:The dumbest choice is only one man’s opinion.

The federal government is now borrowing 44 cents of every dollar it spends…

I looked it up, that’s the definition of mental insanity.

Now according to null’s theory, the government should be institutionalized, and studied…because they need “help”.

nice, another heaping helping of Clueless.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:49 pm

I'm not sure you can fairly make that comparison, too many variables. Do I actually think that Rockefeller meant to become the richest man in the world? No. Lucky timing. I imagine before he and others like him became a threat, we didn't even know to have anti-trust laws. That is the core root of this problem and the back-stabbing politicians who allowed and fluffed it. This is same behavior as always throughout history. Biggest difference being the over all scope this time. There is nowhere else to go after that. Whatever it becomes will never change again. Vote out every sonofabitch that's been in there too long, and make these huge corporations disband. Either that or start calling them daddy, huh?

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:49 pm

Spidey wrote:It’s the same game they play here in Philly, every time they need to raise taxes…they threaten the police and fire…I guess it just doesn’t have the same affect using bureaucrats, social workers and therapists.

People go….”oh no, we need the police” better let them raise taxes again…

Exactly, they do the same thing here in Washington. (not DC)

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:08 pm

null0010 wrote:Isn't it delightful when deep concessions are offered to Republicans and they walk out of the room?

Republicans are not willing to budge. But I suppose it's more convenient to your narrative to emphasize Obama's simple warning as "thuggish" and "gangsta."

Didn't they offer some cuts a year ago and the fine print (which was authored after the deal

) showed there was something like only .10 on the dollar in actual cuts?!?

So now they offer, supposedly 3 dollars of cut for every 1 dollar of tax increase. Well, it sounds good doesn't it? But where is the fine print? The President is already talking in terms of decades to see the cuts. The repubs should say 'OK, we'll sign on for implementing the tax increases on the same schedule you implement the cuts do it now do it ten years out whatever...'

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:33 pm

It’s funny how all of the government's little lies come out when a crisis comes…I thought Social Security was solvent to the year two thousand fifty or something…lol.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:42 pm

Don't get me started on the reasons the tobacco company used to justify a 500% overnight increase on tobacco products.

I distinctly remember the MAIN reason being an account to cover smokers "when" the new healthcare bill passed, and the logic was that non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for people who smoke, so let's raise the price on them and make them cover themselves. Short memories make short damn work doesn't it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:43 am

tunnelcat wrote:

I still think Republicans are trying to destroy Obama at all costs,

No, Obama is destroying himself quite nicely.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:47 am

callmeslick wrote:so, the bold, courageous course is to pick the dumbest option available and pursue it? Wouldn't that be dooming your children and grandchildren without giving them the benefit of a chance to do better?

They are already doomed. What makes you think the politicians running the country in our grand-children's future will be any different than the ones today? The way it looks we will default at sometime and , if we are thinking of our descendants, perhaps it is better to default now and get over it. Maybe then the future politicians will take running the country a bit more seriously.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:19 am

Mitch McConnell has suggested that the debt ceiling will be raised, though without a deficit-reduction package attached.

I do not understand Republicans. Wouldn't the smart thing for the GOP to do be something like, "Even though we only controlled the House and not the Senate or the White House, and Democrats wanted 50/50 spending cuts and tax increases, we fought them all the way to 85/15 spending cuts and tax increases and managed to get the economy growing again the right way despite the best efforts of Democrats to raise your taxes!"

I really felt like the Healthcare overhaul that passed was a pretty incredible win for them considering they didn't have the House, Senate, or White House, and for some reason no one ran on the "we fought them back from the single payer system they wanted to the health care reform WE planned in the 1990s!" train...

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:23 am

woodchip wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:

I still think Republicans are trying to destroy Obama at all costs,
No, Obama is destroying himself quite nicely.

You mean by putting a reasonable proposal on the table, while the batshit insane GOP leadership categorically ignores it in favor of a completely-unworkable one? Yeah, he's really sending himself to hell in a handbasket there.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:25 am

woodchip wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:

I still think Republicans are trying to destroy Obama at all costs,
No, Obama is destroying himself quite nicely.

No. We started out with a surplus after Clinton left office, his NAFTA creation set the stage. Then little Republican Bushie takes over, spends like there's no tomorrow on his war toys (one of those wars unnecessary by the way) because he followed that Reagan mantra that deficits don't matter, hides those war costs from the budget until the next guy, Obama, get's in office, gets his own party to raise the debt ceiling 19 times to pay for his excursions, cuts taxes on corporations and the wealthy which didn't create any of those promised jobs, further cutting revenues and burgeoning the deficit and setting us up for the Great Recession, presides over the greatest outsourcing of jobs in history which gives us the greatest job losses since the Great Depression and then leaves office with a f*ck you very much for letting him screw up the government and country.

Now Obama inherits this runaway train, which is going to take miles to stop just due to inertia, and gets hindered at every turn by Republicans who literally hate his guts and refuse to work with him and who won't raise revenues at any cost and suddenly get religion and won't raise the debt ceiling and want to shrink government (because they don't run it right now) to the point that it only serves or at least doesn't interfere with the new Oligarchs and corporate interests.

So that's all Obama's fault? Partially. Here's the part Obama is responsible for, not following through with his promises he made to his base, creating a hairball of a health care plan that didn't fix the cost problem, not letting the Bush tax cuts expire, staying in Bush's wars and not being a leader and forcing Democrats to slow their addiction and pare down spending to necessary-to-function items so that we start down the road to repairing the Bush deficit mess and getting the government back to under the control of the people and FOR the people, not the corporate interests. Responsible, not by a long-shot, but it sure would've helped if he'd had at least some cooperation from the other party and quit kissing that corporate butt that's taking us all for a ride.

Oh, an then we have the Tea Party, who just want to cut all taxes except for a regressive national sales tax, get rid of the rest of government no matter what, except for that o-so-necessary defense spending and needed and intrusive morals laws, forgetting that we really need a government run FOR the benefit of ALL the people, not the corporate or religious interests. The next candidate or party that comes up with a plan that promotes fixing our government rather than trashing it and leaving all of us to the wills of an unfettered and unregulated free market and other greedy interests, will get my vote.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:14 pm

Sorry TG and TC, unemployment stands at 9.2%. No president in living memory has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7%. Remember back at the start of Obama's tenure when he and "Gaffer" Biden promised us no unemployment above 8% if we trusted them? Perhaps the Laurel and Hardy comedy team should look at the Regan years and how Ronnie turned around the Carter "Misery Index" years and made it so Seniors didn't have to eat dog food to survive.

edit add:

It seems that not only is Obama's approval falling with American voters but also in the Arab world:

"President Obama, whose standing abroad helped earn him a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office, has declined in popularity in the Arab world since his Cairo speech in the summer of 2009. From an American Arab Institute poll conducted by Zogby International:"

"In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France—or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... world.html

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:37 pm

woodchip wrote:Sorry TG and TC, unemployment stands at 9.2%. No president in living memory has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7%. Remember back at the start of Obama's tenure when he and "Gaffer" Biden promised us no unemployment above 8% if we trusted them?

Well, according to this graph, unemployment has been going down since Obama took office. Unemployment has yet to hit 9.71% that the country enjoyed in 1982, Reagan's second year in office.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:57 pm

woodchip wrote:Sorry TG and TC, unemployment stands at 9.2%. No president in living memory has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7%. Remember back at the start of Obama's tenure when he and "Gaffer" Biden promised us no unemployment above 8% if we trusted them? Perhaps the Laurel and Hardy comedy team should look at the Regan years and how Ronnie turned around the Carter "Misery Index" years and made it so Seniors didn't have to eat dog food to survive.

edit add:

It seems that not only is Obama's approval falling with American voters but also in the Arab world:

"President Obama, whose standing abroad helped earn him a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office, has declined in popularity in the Arab world since his Cairo speech in the summer of 2009. From an American Arab Institute poll conducted by Zogby International:"

"In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France—or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... world.html

So? My original point was that he was dealt a stacked deck of collapsing cards and was hindered at every turn by Republicans bent on destroying him no matter the cost for the last 3 years and that's why our economy is stuck and our jobless numbers are still high. Republicans still can't get that mantra of don't tax the job creators out of their heads. It didn't work during the 8 years of Bush's reign, so why the idiots are sticking to a failed idea and forcing Obama to follow it is not going to fix the problem. Even Reagan raised taxes to fix the economy he inherited.

But I will agree that Obama's foreign policy so far is dismal and looks too much like he took ideas from Bush's playbook, nation building or go to war to either get what we need or get the bad guys at any costs, so he's screwed himself on that count. The Arabs, and I, can see that side of Obama's failures quite well. He's relying on his military advisers a little TOO much and not thinking of the consequences of following that advise in a world that thinks we are empire builders (which we seem to be).

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:24 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Obama's foreign policy so far is dismal

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:31 pm

The one HUGE bright spot on Obama's record, I'll agree. Can't take that one away.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:24 pm

The most hilarious/frightening part of all of this is that US income tax rates are, taking inflation and other such adjustments into account, at their lowest level in decades. And yet, when we're facing massive deficits and an imminent credit default, the concept of raising certain tax rates in addition to spending cuts is complete anathema.

Please, somebody wake me up from this nightmare.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:37 pm

null0010 wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Obama's foreign policy so far is dismal

So his best foreign policy effort was to continue the Bush policy that led to Ossama's discovery, policy that as a Senator and candidate he called illegal by the way, and then...wait for it....BOLDLY agree to let the military kill him. Wow!
I think even his rookie press agent could come up with something Obama could call his own instead of that!
Or maybe not, perhaps dismal is generous...

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:57 pm

It’s the economy and unemployment that are primarily responsible for the drop in tax revenue…not the rates.

It’s been proven over and over, that lower tax rates actually increase tax revenues. Yes it’s counter intuitive, but it’s a fact…nonetheless.

But, this is in a normal economy…of course.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:43 pm

Spidey wrote:It’s the economy and unemployment that are primarily responsible for the drop in tax revenue…not the rates.

which does NOTHING to change the fact that the rates, especially toward the top end, are at near-historical lows. Frankly, the past 11 years have been a tax gift, which continually astounds me. Guys like me get to keep an extra 20, 30 or more thousand bucks a year, yet the average working guy keeps around $300 more than he did under Clinton. Depending on which state they live in, certain fee increases ate all of that 300 bucks.

It’s been proven over and over, that lower tax rates actually increase tax revenues. Yes it’s counter intuitive, but it’s a fact…nonetheless.

examples would be nice. However, there aren't any.

But, this is in a normal economy…of course.

no, that one doesn't fly in ANY economy, unless the taxation gets excessive. At no time has the US tax rate ever approached the level the theory holds to be excessive. That's the part of that economic theory that a lot of folks leave out.......decreasing taxes only increases revenue in very specific tax situations. None of which apply to the US.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:53 pm

I never said we were at the point on diminishing returns, as far as tax rates go…but I can’t imagine we are very far away. The idea is to avoid getting there, because of people believing that low rates are at fault.

Spending is the problem…not lack of taxes.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:50 pm

No, both are at fault. The problem is that the Republicans are focused on one to the complete exclusion of the other. There's an old idea about being forced to compromise, that if both sides are pissed off by part of the final decision, it's probably the right one. The Republicans just want spending cuts, and many Democrats would probably love to see mostly tax increases with few cuts. So what would piss off both of them? Yup.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:01 am

Honestly TopGun, what else are you willing to give up? Equal adversaries compromise assets, the disenfranchised must stand firm and be immovable. We have sacrificed enough. It's time we thought more highly of ourselves and draw a line in the sand. Who knows what comes of it, but one thing I do know. It's our watch and just maybe we have good favor on our side

.