DescentBB

Spidey wrote:Yea, it’s all the right’s fault.

You can’t take a huge part of the budget…call it a sacred cow, declare it off limits…then blame the other guy for being obstinate.

sort of like the Bush tax cuts? The only reason most Dems wish not to tinker with Medicare, et al, is that the VAST MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS LIKE THEM, just as is. They are representing the people they were elected to.

Heh, I've got a new campaign slogan I'm fixing to paint on my truck or something .

Wanna preserve America?
Vote out the incumbent, vote in your neighbor.

Lol, man that would throw a big monkey wrench in the works. I mean, all new relationships would have to be made, train the noobs how it's done, lol, all I see is good from it.

man, that's a quandry. In Virginia, the incumbant IS my neighbor....at least at the Commonwealth level.


Seriously, Flip, you are on to the only way to truly change the course of politics in the nation. It is just that doing what you suggest is so much easier said than done.

Lol, here's the thing Slick. Most of us don't have near as much to lose . Therefore, the "inevitable" default we are heading for is nowhere near as frightening to some as it is to others.

It is just that doing what you suggest is so much easier said than done.

It's getting a lot easier . Only problem is gonna be timing.

flip wrote:Lol, here's the thing Slick. Most of us don't have near as much to lose . Therefore, the "inevitable" default we are heading for is nowhere near as frightening to some as it is to others.

the sad thing is, you will be the first and worst affected. The wealthy can coast for a damn long time, will still own the tangible items of value left(land and other hard capital), and have the flexibility to offload onto a functional economy with most of their assets. You see, this wouldn't be so much a crash as an asphyxiation.

What you described is inevitable.

EDIT: I still have my fingers crossed we could vote them all out and make at least a nuisance because all I see from both sides is compliance now. Even their disagreeing is easily used to achieve common goals. It's called posturing. I wonder this, how many of our elected officials are CFR members? How can one publicly be a democrat and another publicly be a republican, and yet both belong to an exclusionary club by invitation only? Why would you purposely choose people to be in your clan that you disagree with. Let's start with them

The CFR isn't all that scary, Flip.....

Never said they were scary, I said their intent is to create the next age all in their favor. I also find them subtle and deceptive, and they actually chuckle amongst themselves when they say it. Don't make me pull my Dick Cheney video back out. LOL

callmeslick wrote:... The only reason most Dems wish not to tinker with Medicare, et al, is that the VAST MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS LIKE THEM, just as is. They are representing the people they were elected to.

And they are leading them off the cliff like lemmings too! 'Liking it the way it is' doesn't make it viable. Heroin addicts like heroin the way it is, you don't see them retire in comfort...or even live to retire.

callmeslick wrote:....
Because the only way out would be emergency borrowing or outright default.
Either way, you will then have ZERO commercial credit, personal loan rates on flexible vehicles such as
certain mortgages or credit cards would probably float close to 30%. Want to talk about a job killer?
And, yet, we have a cadre of 'politicians' who think it will be good for the People who they oesthensibly represent to make Obama face this fate. Freaking great.....

They want to make him face the potential of that fate so he chooses to cave in a little more to avoid it because he doesn't want to be that guy that let it happen.
Right now the left is spinning like crazy to frame it as something the right is about to do to us...the right is spinning it as something the left/Obama is about to do to us...and both sides are scared it could backfire on them. The hard core gamblers up there probably think they should let the date expire to get the most out of the anticipated capitulation.

The pathetic truth is they all are the ones who have done this to us because they have been successful in convincing stupid people and ignorant people into choosing a side in their big scam instead of choosing to throw the bums out. And you think you are helping but really you are just cheering from the left side's bleachers.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:... The only reason most Dems wish not to tinker with Medicare, et al, is that the VAST MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS LIKE THEM, just as is. They are representing the people they were elected to.

And they are leading them off the cliff like lemmings too! 'Liking it the way it is' doesn't make it viable. Heroin addicts like heroin the way it is, you don't see them retire in comfort...or even live to retire.

bull★■◆●. A pantload of it. Those programs could be made perfectly viable with a few minor changes and a return to the tax rates we managed to do very well under Clinton with. Social Security merely requires a raising of the income that gets taxed. It really isn't that hard. All that is required is common sense and a willingness to take a good hard look at the loony economic nonsense that has come down the pike for around 30 years. Call it trickle down, supply side or whatever, it is wrong, it is proven wrong and has NEVER shown success, ever.

Will Robinson wrote:They want to make him face the potential of that fate so he chooses to cave in a little more to avoid it because he doesn't want to be that guy that let it happen.

so, playing this little 'game' and introducing both uncertainty to financial markets and casting doubt upon the US currency as the currency of choice worldwide is in the national interest, how, exactly?

And you think you are helping but really you are just cheering from the left side's bleachers.

actually, much of the time, I'm just laughing at the rubes from the safety of the clubhouse box seats.

Ok, what's the plan for the ones who don't want to live on subsistence? All I hear is borrow more and more, but hardly any of it is circulating. Now it's peter robbing himself to pay peter. So, one side wants to give more benefits the other thinks it could be a little less, but they both agree that Social Security is a "passing glance at fairness?" I guess they can, it's their pictures on the ★■◆●.

flip wrote:Ok, what's the plan for the ones who don't want to live on subsistence?

well, it would be nice if folks wised up, bit the bullet and sacrificed across the board and actually let the government put down the infrastructure and fund the basic research that would lead to something down the road. However, most folks aren't patient enough anymore to sacrifice for subsequent generations, so that hope is probably in vain. Therefore, my advice is to learn Mandarin........quickly, if possible.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:... The only reason most Dems wish not to tinker with Medicare, et al, is that the VAST MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS LIKE THEM, just as is. They are representing the people they were elected to.

And they are leading them off the cliff like lemmings too! 'Liking it the way it is' doesn't make it viable. Heroin addicts like heroin the way it is, you don't see them retire in comfort...or even live to retire.

****. A pantload of it. Those programs could be made perfectly viable with a few minor changes and a return to the tax rates we managed to do very well under Clinton with. Social Security merely requires a raising of the income that gets taxed. It really isn't that hard. All that is required is common sense and a willingness to take a good hard look at the loony economic nonsense that has come down the pike for around 30 years. Call it trickle down, supply side or whatever, it is wrong, it is proven wrong and has NEVER shown success, ever.

The only pantload is you siting Clinton era but only asking for Clinton era tax levels!
Take us back to Clinton era spending with Clinton era taxes AND Clinton era revenue/economy if you want to make it work!
Don't lie to me like I'm some dumbass democrat voter who believes that crap that if only the taxes went back to Clinton era and we would magically fix everything!!

Yep, there is a weakness that comes from too much association. China is in a hell of a dominant position. I imagine the way of doing things in China is looked upon fondly by globalists. So nice, polite and orderly.

callmeslick wrote: ...

so, playing this little 'game' and introducing both uncertainty to financial markets and casting doubt upon the US currency as the currency of choice worldwide is in the national interest, how, exactly? ...

Heh! I never said they were good people or gave a crap about anyone but themselves! You're the one who has the compulsion to make a political party's antics smell good I'm the one who knows better than to try and make one side any better than the other.

But tell me, how has the constant raising the debt limit and printing more obligations than we can pay for been working out for us so far?!? Seems like that is the real 'game' that has been played on us!

You're the one who has the compulsion to make a political party's antics smell good I'm the one who knows better than to try and make one side any better than the other.

Lol, Slick, that's funny as hell. I don't care who you are

callmeslick wrote:well, it would be nice if folks wised up, bit the bullet and sacrificed across the board and actually let the government put down the infrastructure and fund the basic research that would lead to something down the road.

I think that's the false assumption/hope of the month, easy. "Sacrificing across the board" in order to allow our government to take us where it will is not exactly a wise choice, I don't care how good it sounds in your world. A government unchecked and unaccountable, forgiven for a lack of discipline and given a blank check in hopes of a bright future is just about the worst thing I can think of. Give yourself a pat on the back.

So it's we the people that are really holding us back, is it? Get us out of the way and things will run smoothly, eh? You've been watching too much of Obama the wannabe dictator.

Eh, I feel Slick sees it for what it is with the benefit of being taught exactly how it worked. I fault him for nothing, we just have differing views on it's validity or if it's a cancer.

Lol…the dude is playing party line politics…last time I checked, if you point at the other guy and say “it’s his fault” you were part of the problem.

You are part of the problem. (in case you didn’t get that the first time)

(not you flip)

If everything Slick has said about his self is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it's probably all he knows. But yeah, it's a problem now.

Oh yeah, and impeach that bastard Boner. Talk about a puss passing the buck. That is the epitome of cowardice. What a douchebag. Tantamount to saying "not my problem". I say he's a prime candidate for our own kind of cuts

Will Robinson wrote:[ Don't lie to me like I'm some dumbass democrat voter who believes that crap that if only the taxes went back to Clinton era and we would magically fix everything!!

At what point did I suggest that anything would magically fix everything? I merely cited(note spelling) the Clinton era tax rate as a revenue starting point. At that point, you have to let the American people sort out what programs they wish to keep and which they wish to scale back or eliminate. Figure out the tab, including interest payments and peg the tax rates to the levels necessary to balance. That is how government is supposed to budget. Clearly, the Bush tax cut, with a couple international adventures thrown in, took out the economic slack needed to weather catastrophes, even if the current one should have been avoided, and could have been had the general public been less gullible and greedy. Hence, we are in the current bind, and also saddled with an economy which cannot expand faster than the growth in productivity without a major set of innovations to sell to the world. Add in more new workers graduate every year, and cash-strapped older workers hanging on to their jobs longer, and good luck trying to magically fix squat.

Will Robinson wrote:But tell me, how has the constant raising the debt limit and printing more obligations than we can pay for been working out for us so far?!? Seems like that is the real 'game' that has been played on us!

well, the last long run we had of doing that was in the period 1942-1966. Worked out pretty well.
I'm not saying that borrowing 40% of the budget for any length of time as we presently are is bright. That is where the extra revenue is needed. The nation hasn't made it clear if it would give up any of the big entitlements, and we desperately need both infrastructure and basic research funding. Who but the Federal government would pay for that? As I've said before, my model is proven(by Truman and Eisenhower). As for what you've suggested? Sorry, but I've got higher aspirations for my descendants than what your vision would bring us.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So it's we the people that are really holding us back, is it? Get us out of the way and things will run smoothly, eh? You've been watching too much of Obama the wannabe dictator.

another crock of crap. Are you really concerned about government intrusion? Well, wake up. That horse left the barn when the Manhatten Project got going. What chunk of the federal budget goes for Top Secret projects which most elected officials don't even know details about? Don't know? I don't either, but everyone who is close to the government knows its a LOT of money. A fellow, whose name eludes me, wrote a great book a few years back about the ever-expanding shadow government developed by the need for government security. I'll try and dig it up and insert linkage to this post when I do......

flip wrote:If everything Slick has said about his self is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it's probably all he knows. But yeah, it's a problem now.

I've voted for both parties, given money to candidates from both parties, and currently see very few from either worth a tinker's damn. Here is what I've been brought up to know: you cannot let complete idiots run the show without oversight from the general public for decades on end with good results. Also, you cannot spend 3 decades spouting 'Government is Evil' and run a functional government. Past that, my only loyalty is to the best future possible for my child and grandchildren. As should be the case of every adult.....

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But tell me, how has the constant raising the debt limit and printing more obligations than we can pay for been working out for us so far?!? Seems like that is the real 'game' that has been played on us!

well, the last long run we had of doing that was in the period 1942-1966. Worked out pretty well.
I'm not saying that borrowing 40% of the budget for any length of time as we presently are is bright. That is where the extra revenue is needed.

No, you are looking at it from a politicians perspective, that is, 'we start running out of money so the problem is we aren't taking enough away from the people who earn it'.
If borrowing too much is not bright then continuing to borrow too much and squeeze more out of your neighbors to be able to service the debt is beyond not bright! Why do you even begin searching for solutions from that perspective? That is absolutely idiotic! "extra revenue" isn't needed! Less over spending is needed! And if the working man is going to give you more revenue now to make getting out of trouble easier then you damn well better have a real plan to make the most out of it because the first trillion dollars wasn't spent well! Then the second load of billions went down a similar toilet...promising some cuts that take effect only AFTER you are re-elected and get another 4 years in is a promise of nothing!!
It's time to man up or move out congress/whitehouse

callmeslick wrote:.. The nation hasn't made it clear if it would give up any of the big entitlements, and we desperately need both infrastructure and basic research funding. Who but the Federal government would pay for that? As I've said before, my model is proven(by Truman and Eisenhower). As for what you've suggested? Sorry, but I've got higher aspirations for my descendants than what your vision would bring us.

What are you talking about?!? I stated earlier the correct way out of the immediate mess is a reasonable combination of tax increases and heavy spending cuts. However, to address the underlying problem that this thread seems to be focused on, my solution would be get the budget under control!
You keep offering increasing the debt and increasing the amount of money the asshats in congress and the whitehouse have at their disposal! There is wisdom in the fundamental stance the repubs are taking on the deficit ceiling issue. If spending is out of control then the solution isn't to give the bastards more money! At it's core that is the proper perspective. It isn't a good way out of the immediate mess and I already told you I don't think they will force a default to actually happen but certainly taking the credit card away from the out of control employees is the best thing to do...you want to increase the limit on the card!

The 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone on the tax and spend side are ignoring is…

Sooner or later the self imposed debt ceiling will be rendered moot, when the lenders start to impose their own.

Then what?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But tell me, how has the constant raising the debt limit and printing more obligations than we can pay for been working out for us so far?!? Seems like that is the real 'game' that has been played on us!

well, the last long run we had of doing that was in the period 1942-1966. Worked out pretty well.

We had the most dynamic economy the world has ever known during that period…in case you haven’t noticed…things have changed.

Sooner or later the self imposed debt ceiling will be rendered moot, when the lenders start to impose their own.

Then what?

That's a good point. I feel totally at the mercy of people who are completely unaccountable to me, and the ones we put in there to oversee them, have become their henchmen. It's true, the only way to reverse our heading is to completely remove the old, bought and paid for guard. Any thing else is throwing rocks and running off into the darkness.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:But tell me, how has the constant raising the debt limit and printing more obligations than we can pay for been working out for us so far?!? Seems like that is the real 'game' that has been played on us!

well, the last long run we had of doing that was in the period 1942-1966. Worked out pretty well.

We had the most dynamic economy the world has ever known during that period…in case you haven’t noticed…things have changed.

um, a quick check of commonly available data shows that we went through two postwar recessions. Sometimes memory is a tricky thing. Government policy, sensible tax laws and a public willing to embrace both education and personal sacrifice fed the dynamism.

Spidey wrote:The 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone on the tax and spend side are ignoring is…

Sooner or later the self imposed debt ceiling will be rendered moot, when the lenders start to impose their own.

Then what?

I agree, and what will bring matters to that point isn't the relatively manageable level of debt/GDP we currently have, but allowing our economy to continue deteriorating to the point where payback gets unlikely.
We need to invest in infrastructure, foster a culture of exploration and education, and actually show the national will to regain a top position in the World. We have done this sort of thing before, but if we don't do it again, and pretty soon(historically speaking) the debt collectors will come calling, and they won't come for the car or the furniture, but for the water, farmland and military hardware.

Small point of curiosity... what gives them the farmland?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Small point of curiosity... what gives them the farmland?

Better yet, what is their collateral.

Will Robinson wrote:The only pantload is you siting Clinton era but only asking for Clinton era tax levels!
Take us back to Clinton era spending with Clinton era taxes AND Clinton era revenue/economy if you want to make it work!
Don't lie to me like I'm some dumbass democrat voter who believes that crap that if only the taxes went back to Clinton era and we would magically fix everything!!

Clinton left office with a budget surplus and created 22.7 million jobs during his presidency.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... ton-presi/

Bush only created 1.1 million jobs and LOWERED TAXES! So how does that don't tax the job creators work when it clearly DID NOT WORK under Bush? Republicans keep beating a dead horse thinking that it will miraculously come back to life! And you keep forgetting your God Reagan RAISED TAXES to get his stagnant economy going!

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The only pantload is you siting Clinton era but only asking for Clinton era tax levels!
Take us back to Clinton era spending with Clinton era taxes AND Clinton era revenue/economy if you want to make it work!
Don't lie to me like I'm some dumbass democrat voter who believes that crap that if only the taxes went back to Clinton era and we would magically fix everything!!

Clinton left office with a budget surplus and created 22.7 million jobs during his presidency.

Ignorance would be believing that Clinton got his surplus from only Raising Taxes. which is what CNN claimed yesterday on the news. Clinton he got his Surplus from HUGELY Gutting the Military. and closing HUNDREDS of bases around the world. the same Military that Bush got blasted for for not having the proper equipment when we went into Iraq. he also benefited from the .com boom which burst right after he left office on March of 2000.

CUDA wrote:Ignorance would be believing that Clinton got his surplus from only Raising Taxes. which is what CNN claimed yesterday on the news. Clinton he got his Surplus from HUGELY Gutting the Military. and closing HUNDREDS of bases around the world.

Sounds like a plan!

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The only pantload is you siting Clinton era but only asking for Clinton era tax levels!
Take us back to Clinton era spending with Clinton era taxes AND Clinton era revenue/economy if you want to make it work!
Don't lie to me like I'm some dumbass democrat voter who believes that crap that if only the taxes went back to Clinton era and we would magically fix everything!!

Clinton left office with a budget surplus and created 22.7 million jobs during his presidency.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statemen ... ton-presi/

Bush only created 1.1 million jobs and LOWERED TAXES! So how does that don't tax the job creators work when it clearly DID NOT WORK under Bush? Republicans keep beating a dead horse thinking that it will miraculously come back to life! And you keep forgetting your God Reagan RAISED TAXES to get his stagnant economy going!

No. You keep ascribing statements and positions to me that are totally untrue then you arrogantly rail against the strawman you set up.I didn't say Bush tax cuts were the thing we need I said you can't just herald Clinton era tax levels as the solution. You have to have his lower spending and a roaring economy to go along with the tax level to move us in that direction! Why do you always do that?!? You think I'll forget what I said and fail to read what I said in the quote?!? Did you even read what I said in the words you quoted?!?! You are absolutely weird!

Fact: Clinton era economy grew healthy from a combination of things.

Show me the policy he authored that created 22.77 million jobs....go ahead....I'm waiting....
He hired how many?
Private business hired how many?

Yes jobs were created and he probably didn't do many things to interfere. So he gets props for that. I don't want to take away from his part because it has become increasingly clear that he was a lot smarter than Obama in that respect and many other ways as well. But you are wrong about what I said and wrong about the magic economy you think he created. He cashed in on it like the rest of us. He didn't do a lot other than let it happen and good on him for that. The current guy in charge is dangerous by comparison!