Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • believer
    Con_Alma;832007 wrote:Ever been to San Francisco?
    lol

    I've been there several times. The cable cars are fun, China Town is awesome, and the seafood at Fisherman's Wharf is world class. But - yea - definitely a leftist batsh*t crazy town.
  • derek bomar
    Writerbuckeye;831849 wrote:On fiscal issues, he's a New York version of a conservative -- just not really conservative. Don't know his stands on social issues, but I'd be willing to be they're pretty close to mine.

    Oh and speaking of a party being hijacked -- when are the Democrats going to take theirs back from the socialist nutjobs who now control it?

    No clue - that's why I said it applied to them as well.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;831671 wrote:I'd argue that we can't and couldn't afford the tax cuts that conservatives want and have wanted recently as well. But that never gets brought up.

    I dont see any conservatives calling for tax cuts.
  • jmog
    derek bomar;831709 wrote:He literally has offered $3/$1 and they won't take it. David Brooks gets it. Why don't you?

    $1 of tax increases now for $3 in cuts over 10 years in retarded. Reverse it, $3 in cuts now for $1 in tax increases over 10 years and the republicans will be willing partners.
  • Footwedge
    believer;831630 wrote:Why? Granted McCain is a liberal Republican but I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be arguing about the idiocy of McCainKare and $875 Billion of worthless Porkulus spending right now.{/quote]

    Maybe not McCainKare....but still maybe there would be a plan to reduce healthcare costs. As for the spending.....just as bad under McCain if not a whole lot WORSE. There's a few more wars McCain had his eyeballs on.....Georgia, Iran...to name just a few. Remember...it's the GOP that has the poorest record on expanding the national debt...not the Democrats....and McCain certainly wouldn't have changed that historical pattern.
  • believer
    Footwedge;832583 wrote:Maybe not McCainKare....but still maybe there would be a plan to reduce healthcare costs. As for the spending.....just as bad under McCain if not a whole lot WORSE. There's a few more wars McCain had his eyeballs on.....Georgia, Iran...to name just a few. Remember...it's the GOP that has the poorest record on expanding the national debt...not the Democrats....and McCain certainly wouldn't have changed that historical pattern.
    Perhaps but I sincerely doubt McCain would have come up with a plan to spend $800 Billion....I just don't believe that for a minute.

    As far as the Repubs expanding the national debt, no question about it hence the American electorate kicked the Repubs out and replaced them with the fiscal geniuses named Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

    And the beat goes on......
  • Writerbuckeye
    Footwedge;832583 wrote:
    believer;831630 wrote:Why? Granted McCain is a liberal Republican but I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be arguing about the idiocy of McCainKare and $875 Billion of worthless Porkulus spending right now.{/quote]

    Maybe not McCainKare....but still maybe there would be a plan to reduce healthcare costs. As for the spending.....just as bad under McCain if not a whole lot WORSE. There's a few more wars McCain had his eyeballs on.....Georgia, Iran...to name just a few. Remember...it's the GOP that has the poorest record on expanding the national debt...not the Democrats....and McCain certainly wouldn't have changed that historical pattern.

    What a bold faced lie.

    Democrats have controlled Congress the majority of the last 100 years -- and Congress is who controls the purse strings.
  • Little Danny
    gut;831930 wrote:What, no love for Harry Reid?

    It amazes me that Pelosi continues to get re-elected. I can only imagine how bat-sh*t crazy her constituents must be, too.

    The company I work for is head quatered in the Bay area. I go to the home office a couple times every year. I am being honest when I tell you the people out there think Pelosi is a moderate. They still haven't found anyone they would define as far to the left.
  • jhay78
    BoatShoes;831214 wrote:Never mind that easily more than HALF of the taxed enough already party doesn't pay a dime in federal income taxes based upon their demographics according to Gallup!

    The TEA Party is intellectually bankrupt. They say that we're taxed too much despite being the lowest taxed country in the OECD and then go on to complain that 47% of Americans don't pay any taxes, when their demographics suggest that an even greater percentage of TEA partiers don't pay taxes either! They say the wealthy pay too much in taxes but if we listened to them even more of the tax burden would fall on the wealthy. Tea Party apologists on TV will explain that what they're really asking for is lower rates and a broader tax base to diffuse America's tax responsibility. But if half the Tea Party doesn't pay income taxes today, a broader tax base -- even with minuscule rates -- would raise many of their taxes!
    That's what they don't get, these tax expenditures which are really just government spending make it so they don't pay any taxes and yet they complain about being taxed to much when the crux of the matter is that What amounts to government spending has preserved the fact that most tea partiers don't pay taxes and yet they don't understand this and rail against government spending. Oh but then they mystically support the Paul Ryan plan which shifts the tax burden Onto TEA Partiers by eliminating the distortionary tax expenditures that they're calling "tax raises" in the current budget debate.

    The party's labyrinthine position on tax policy isn't worth untangling any further. They have no solid intellectual foundations. It's a Gordian Knot that deserves a guillotine. It is a political movement that has taken over the news cycle like a particularly aggressive strain of ragweed.
    I'm not going to defend every single position of the Tea Party, or pretend that I know what "ahjghjshfs" means, or act like I know that S+G-Q/RSTLN+Y=G. I will say that I don't think it's inconsistent to assert that Americans (at least those who create wealth and employment/small businesses) are "taxed enough" as a whole, while at the same time pointing out the obviously ridiculous statistic that 46% of Americans have no federal tax liability. But even that percentage still contributes to broken federal entitlement programs, not to mention state and local taxes.

    Perhaps they should change the acronym to the "SEA Party". Get the spending under control, and broaden the tax base (yes that would raise my taxes), and then we can build more pretty bridges.
    believer;831605 wrote:What's even more laughable is the "superiority complex" exhibited by the fence riders who, believing themselves above the partisan bickering (hence the idea of - oh I dunno - political parties), are blindly and conveniently blown about by the shifting political winds.

    Like it or not partisanship has kept this great nation from swinging too far to the left or to the right. Get over it.

    For the record, while I'm a registered Republican, I stopped financial contributions to the party when the idiots spent like Dems the last time they controlled Congress.

    And before all you fence riders call yourselves "enlightened independents" you're the morons who put Obama in the WH. Just sayin'......
    ptown_trojans_1;831624 wrote:No, we usually stay in the middle and pick the candidate that best reflects us or our policies. If that is just left or just right then so be it.

    Oh, I disagree on that one. The lack of civility the last 15 years has really hurt us. The political game and its either right or wrong, no rule for compromise has set us up in the situation today. If our leaders would have stay civil and kept the political game down, like the older days, things would not be this bad.

    As long as politicians are elected democratically, there will always be politics, complete with all the games, pandering, and doing something for a vote instead of doing what's best. Partisanship is fine, as long as honesty and truth are central to the debates. Just like it's OK if my wife and I argue once in awhile. As long as we're honest, "fighting fair", and not slinging accusations, etc., such arguments can be constructive and bring us closer together.

    As for the political glory days of the past, when everyone got along and held hands- ever read about John Adams and the Federalists vs. Thomas Jefferson? Or FDR's packing the Supreme Court? Or Richard Nixon's enemies lists? Civility in politics did not disappear in the last 15 years.
    believer;831817 wrote:Uh oh...you've just invited a 32 page dissertation from Boatshoes on why Big Government deficit spending is essential for promotion of a healthy prosperous economy. ;)

    Coming to a thread near you . . .
    Footwedge;832583 wrote: Remember...it's the GOP that has the poorest record on expanding the national debt...not the Democrats....and McCain certainly wouldn't have changed that historical pattern.

    No, but the Democrats just create endless unsustainable social programs that consume an ever-increasing chunk of federal spending.
  • believer
    Writerbuckeye;832743 wrote:What a bold faced lie.

    Democrats have controlled Congress the majority of the last 100 years -- and Congress is who controls the purse strings.
    I agree but the lefties want us to believe that the Repubs "blew the roof off the sucka" when they controlled both houses of Congress for a very short period of time. Unfortunately the Repubs DID spend like Dems when they controlled the purse strings.
    jhay78;832842 wrote:No, but the Democrats just create endless unsustainable social programs that consume an ever-increasing chunk of federal spending.
    And the pussy Repubs refuse to do anything about it.
  • BGFalcons82
    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/07/18/president-obama-threatens-veto-cut-cap-and-balance

    This isn't surprising from the link above:
    The Obama administration says President Obama would veto the so called "cut, cap and balance" amendment supported by House Republican freshmen and members of the Tea Party if it came to him for signature.

    The bill includes a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget and allows the government to borrow $2.4 trillion more - but only in conjunction with large spending cuts.
    This is wisdom from unelected officials:
    The Office of Management and Budget released a statement that the administration "strongly opposes" it, saying, "Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility."

    Really, Einstein? Since no politician has the cajones to restore fiscal sanity, why is a Constitutional Amendment so far-fetched? How do you propose we do it, oh wise one? What's that? What has your President laid out for us?? What great ideas does he have? He has nothing, as usual. Hmmm....I would think that someone that has no plan shouldn't criticize those that do.
  • derek bomar
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59300.html
  • tk421
    Huh, another Republican plan. What exactly have the Democrats come up with?
  • Writerbuckeye
    If it was put into law that the tax increases would ONLY go toward paying off the deficit -- I'd say fine. The rest of his proposal, as much as I've seen, looks pretty good.
  • tk421
    If it pisses off both parties, it must be pretty good. Both sides must compromise and suffer.
  • gut
    LMAO...what exactly is "arbitrary" about having to spend only what you take in? You've got a $2.4trillion dollar cushion, which before the days of $1.7trillion deficits would have covered a lot of rainy days.
  • jmog

    I love it. Cuts across the board even defense. As long as the taxes are used to pay off debt he just became my favorite politician next to christy.
  • Cleveland Buck

    That's the best plan I've seen yet for taking care of the debt.
  • majorspark
    Its a good reasonable common sense start. Unfortunately those two words are not found in Washington DC. dictionary. You will readily find words like greed, power, and corruption though. When you see a flock of pigs flying by you will know Senator Coburn's bill has passed. The Politico makes that point right off the bat. Might as well not waste your time reading this article. The following proposals will not see the light of day.
    On Monday, the conservative Oklahoma senator released a 614-page report that has virtually no chance of becoming law because it would turn off just about everyone in Washington.
  • tk421
    majorspark;833720 wrote:Its a good reasonable common sense start. Unfortunately those two words are not found in Washington DC. dictionary. You will readily find words like greed, power, and corruption though. When you see a flock of pigs flying by you will know Senator Coburn's bill has passed. The Politico makes that point right off the bat. Might as well not waste your time reading this article. The following proposals will not see the light of day.

    And that's why this country is doomed. Can't compromise for the good of the country when it's needed most. Stick to your petty partisan politics and screw the 300 million plus people.
  • gut
    $9 trillion over 10 years would not be that hard to do, just painful and politically unpopular. But a little perspective - with a $1.7trillion deficit this year, cutting $9trillion over 10 years would still leave deficits of some $800B PER YEAR (granted, receipts and GDP would pick-up, but it would probably take 6 years or more to get a balanced budget under such a plan).
  • majorspark
    gut;833781 wrote:$9 trillion over 10 years would not be that hard to do, just painful and politically unpopular. But a little perspective - with a $1.7trillion deficit this year, cutting $9trillion over 10 years would still leave deficits of some $800B PER YEAR (granted, receipts and GDP would pick-up, but it would probably take 6 years or more to get a balanced budget under such a plan).
    Quite true. That is why I said it was a reasonable start. Evan this reasonable start stand absolutely no chance. When the ship sinks I'll be the guy in the yellow life jacket. The states will have life boats out to collect the survivors.
  • jhay78

    I like it. Time to get serious finally. Sen Coburn's plan is way better than the ones that the Democrats have put forward. Wait, what's that? Oh I forgot, they haven't put a single plan forward! Silly me.

    Even though it has no chance of becoming law, I'd still love to see the House pass a version of Coburn's plan just to dare the Senate Dems or Obama to say no to it, thus setting up a debate for 2012. Which brings me to a depressing reality- if the White House and Congress aren't drastically repaired in 2012, we can forget about a few trillion here or there because we are doomed.
  • gut
    majorspark;833803 wrote:Quite true. That is why I said it was a reasonable start. Evan this reasonable start stand absolutely no chance. When the ship sinks I'll be the guy in the yellow life jacket. The states will have life boats out to collect the survivors.

    Times like this call for Carl Spackler to "kill all the golfers". He's bound to take out at least a few politicians...
  • gut
    jhay78;833845 wrote: Even though it has no chance of becoming law, I'd still love to see the House pass a version of Coburn's plan just to dare the Senate Dems or Obama to say no to it, thus setting up a debate for 2012. Which brings me to a depressing reality- if the White House and Congress aren't drastically repaired in 2012, we can forget about a few trillion here or there because we are doomed.

    All I can say is, if you think Obama has any chance of getting re-elected, you better put all your money in cash (and probably not the USD kind) a few weeks before the election.