toldailytopic: Should congress side with Obama and vote to raise the debt ceiling, or

[eameece]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "Promote" and "Supply". This is where the differences between the left and right become quite apparent. You lefties believe government's job is to supply it's citizens with entitlements on the backs of the people when the document you quote was written to secure individual freedoms not corporate life support of the citizenry. Sounds like you need to move to Greece, they believe the same thing.

You are wrong again rocketman. On the Moon that may be true, but not here on Earth where the people live. Entitlements are those programs that people pay for, so they are "entitled" to the benefits. Your cuts are just taking away money that people paid in order to give tax breaks to non "job-creaters." Safety nets supply, but only to those in need, and that protects you and everyone. The document did not secure freedoms to most of the population; amendments were necessary to do that. This means the document is flexible, so "returning" to it just means to amend it as needed. Greece may provide too much in social programs; the USA supplies too little. Our budget problem is because we don't tax the right people enough money, and if we spend too much, it is not on social programs. If medical entitlements cost too much, it is because a) medicare taxes are too low and b) the medical and insurance industry charges too much.

I notice a lot of you right-wing wackos are hung up on the "enumerated powers" phrases in the constitution. All that means is those were the powers the founders were familiar with back then. The constitution never forbid the enumeration of other powers by law as the need arose.

I know all that is more complicated than just spouting off the slogans of right-wing ideology, but it takes a little bit of work to be a citizen. That's something you claim to approve of. Oh All hail Supply-side Jesus! Better yet, let's forget this church and state separation nonsense. God Bless America, and hail Saint Ronald! And Saint Ayn, and Saint Milton!

 

[eameece]

No, they're really not. Bush in particular was definitely an establishment Republican who wasn't much different from Democrats on key TP issues. There's a reason establishment R's fear TPers, and it isn't because they support the same candidates.

The Tea Party are mostly a bunch of angry old white dudes. They are the ones who voted for Bush, and for Reagan and Gingrich before him; whether they thought they were establishment or not. Bush and the Tea Party mouth the same slogans. Bush did a few things differently from the slogans, especially in 2008 to respond to the recession, but the slogans never were and are not now anything but mere slogans and smokescreens. And that's what the Tea Party spouts. The same ideology that has been spouted for 31 years and counting. There's nothing at all new about the Tea Party or its slogans. It's Reaganism pure and simple. And they ALL represent the establishment, however "populist" they may appear.

 

[oatmeal]

Considering Obama's anti Constitutional policies, his incompetence, (except he is good at vacationing a lot), and his willingness to tax the life out of private enterprise.

Opposing Obama as a general rule works for me.

oatmeal

 

[Town Heretic]

Way to duck an answer while setting out additional nonsense, oat. lain:

Considering Obama's anti Constitutional policies,

Nonsense.

his incompetence,

Supra.

(except he is good at vacationing a lot),

Any actual data comparing his practice with his predecessors?

and his willingness to tax the life out of private enterprise.

By returning to tax levels for the wealthy that were present during one of the greatest economic booms of our nation's history?

Opposing Obama as a general rule works for me.

Right. It's far easier than thinking through and sustaining a rational objection.

oatmeal

More like mush.

 

[eameece]

More like mush.

Indeed, and poisonous mush at that.

 

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

 

[some other dude]

:thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

Oh in case anyone is still following this, a new poll came out yesterday.

66% of Americans support a debt ceiling deal that includes both tax increases and spending cuts.

Among Republicans only 40% wanted the hard line of spending cuts only. Even among Tea Party supporters, only 44% wanted spending cuts only.

The American people are not drinking the tea Republicans say they are.

Yet another amazing disconnect between the Rs and Reality.

 

[some other dude]

Are you arguing that leaders should vote according to what the polls tell them?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Are you arguing that leaders should vote according to what the polls tell them?

These push-polls are excellent examples of:

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Poll question: Would you prefer a tax increase or contracting bubonic plague? I bet the "tax increase" option would be close to 100%.

 

[Alate_One]

These push-polls are excellent examples of:

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Poll question: Would you prefer a tax increase or contracting bubonic plague? I bet the "tax increase" option would be close to 100%.

They're not push polls. You can go back to gallup for the top two I posted and read the question.

Of course you want to deny figures when they disagree with you.

 

[Alate_One]

Are you arguing that leaders should vote according to what the polls tell them?

Politicians are elected to express the will of the people. Do you think they should ignore the polls?

A politician that ignores too many polls will be un-elected, assuming the people are actually paying attention and feel strongly enough. The Republicans decided their mandate meant one thing, but it doesn't seem to be matching what the people actually want. Now sometimes the people don't actually understand issues or know what's best for them. I think if people understood the federal budget better they would be MORE in favor of tax increases since people don't want to cut what makes up the majority of the federal budget. Plus the math doesn't work.

Revenue was 2.2 trillion, expenditures 3.5 trillion. That means we had to borrow 1.3 trillion to make ends meet.

Now how do we make up for 1.3 trillion dollars with just cuts hmm. 1.3 trillion is almost 40% of the budget. So most Republicans have wanted to look only at nondefense discretionary spending which is 12% of the budget. So lets see that means we need to get 1.3 trillion out of 420 billion . . . hmm oops that doesn't work does it?

If we cut ALL of defense and ALL of discretionary spending (which is totally unacceptable to essentially everyone) that would still only get us to 1.1 trillion.

So no, it isn't just a spending problem, saying it is is dishonest to the desire of ordinary Americans to keep basic government services. We would have to destroy major aspects of government to cover the hole with spending cuts alone.

You might also note how tiny a slice of the revenue pie corporate taxes are. Hard to reconcile that with Republican assertions that corporations are under stress from taxes.

 

[Frank Ernest]

They're not push polls. You can go back to gallup for the top two I posted and read the question.

Of course you want to deny figures when they disagree with you.

And you deny the push-polls because you agree with them. :jolly:

 

[Alate_One]

And you deny the push-polls because you agree with them. :jolly:

How about giving us some evidence they are push polls instead of just asserting they are? I read the methods (the questions and how they were reversed, how many were polled etc.), you've provided no evidence you have read anything other than the results.

Also, how about the math I just posted? Does it match with the "we have a spending problem" line or not?

 

[Frank Ernest]

How about giving us some evidence they are push polls instead of just asserting they are? I read the methods, you didn't.

:darwinsm: which means you bought them whole cloth.

Also, how about the math I just posted? Does it match with the "we have a spending problem" line or not?

It does if you believe spending more than you take in is a spending problem. Being a :Commie:, you believe that taxes must rise to match spending, therefore, any deficit is due to the taxpayers being greedy. :rotfl:
.

 

[Alate_One]

:darwinsm: which means you bought them whole cloth.

So nothing other than assertions. Next . . .

It does if you believe spending more than you take in is a spending problem.

I didn't say it wasn't a problem, I asked if it was ONLY a spending problem.

Being a :Commie:, you believe that taxes must rise to match spending, therefore, any deficit is due to the taxpayers being greedy. :rotfl:

In the future you might want to avoid telling people what they believe, since you'll very often be wrong. I have nothing against cuts in government spending, but cuts ALONE are not going to cover what we have to cut. 40% of the Federal budget is too much of a cut. Having revenues at historic lows isn't helping.

 

[The Barbarian]

It does if you believe spending more than you take in is a spending problem.

I agree. As you might remember, I criticized Obama for that approach. But I also criticized Bush for doing it, while Frankinernest never uttered a peep about Bush's record deficits which we still have to pay off.

So, I'm thinking this is more of a political thing for you than a real concern about the deficit.

 

[Frank Ernest]

So nothing other than assertions. Next . . .

:darwinsm: As if ...

I didn't say it wasn't a problem, I asked if it was ONLY a spending problem.

Answer is still "yes."

In the future you might want to avoid telling people what they believe, since you'll very often be wrong.

:rotfl: As if ...

I have nothing against cuts in government spending, but cuts ALONE are not going to cover what we have to cut. 40% of the Federal budget is too much of a cut. Having revenues at historic lows isn't helping.

Well, then, scrap Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the Whine House Czars, etc. The Senate has already, unanimously, scrapped Obama's budget plan. As it is, the ONLY plan the Dimms have is to raise taxes a trillion or so with no spending cuts whatsoever..

 

[Frank Ernest]

I agree. As you might remember, I criticized Obama for that approach. But I also criticized Bush for doing it, while Frankinernest never uttered a peep about Bush's record deficits which we still have to pay off.

:darwinsm: You were out of the loop. Being loopy doesn't get you into the loop.

So, I'm thinking this is more of a political thing for you than a real concern about the deficit.

:darwinsm: When there's something idiotic to be said, you never fail to meet the standard.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I agree. As you might remember, I criticized Obama for that approach. But I also criticized Bush for doing it, while Frankinernest never uttered a peep about Bush's record deficits which we still have to pay off.

You were out of the loop. Being loopy doesn't get you into the loop.

That's about has honest an admission as we're likely to get. For you, the deficit was just dandy when Bush ran it up, but of Obama adds to it, you think it's horrible.