David Brooks says it all; The Republican party has gone off the deep end

• majorspark

  

  “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” - Senator Obama 2006

  What happened to this guy?
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;828114 wrote:What happened to this guy?

  I lol'd.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;828114 wrote:What happened to this guy?

  
  Well Major...that is the same guy who is badgering us to "eat our peas" instead of WWII style stimulus which we should be doing. It is the same guy. He has always been about the deficit and the debt....that joke of a stimulus was an emergency measure and was totally and completely inadequate when you consider that in WWII we increased our federal budget by 6X the GDP. That is a stimulus and it grew our economy by 75% in four years. Obama is not a keynesian of any reasonable measure has always preached debt and deficit and even justified his conservative 1990s healthcare plan that guarantees the future existence of private health insurance by arguing that it would decrease the deficit.
  
  Fwiw I think he was wrong to take such a stand in 2006 just like Conservatives are now and I hope that his tance won't come back to bite him when it comes time for a vote.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  majorspark;828114 wrote:What happened to this guy?

  
  He isn't speaking out against a Republican administration now.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah, dude was wrong in 2006.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;828260 wrote:Yeah, dude was wrong in 2006.

  Evidently the dude found out he was wrong about a lot of things when he became president. Patriot Act, closing Gitmo, civilian trials for military detainees, getting out of Iraq, just to name a few.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;828301 wrote:Evidently the dude found out he was wrong about a lot of things when he became president. Patriot Act, closing Gitmo, civilian trials for military detainees, getting out of Iraq, just to name a few.

  Those I'm disappointed in him changing his mind on though.
• Footwedge

  majorspark;828301 wrote:Evidently the dude found out he was wrong about a lot of things when he became president. Patriot Act, closing Gitmo, civilian trials for military detainees, getting out of Iraq, just to name a few.

  I don't believe that he "found out he was wrong" on these issues......he just found himself as a gutless puppet and flip flopped in order to appease the war party members. Just another military statist that thinks galavanting around the globe playing international cop is the American way. What an as s hole.
• gut

  Latest Obama bad-poker face move is "social security checks might not go out". Puh-lease.
  
  Article in the WSJ journal today making a lot of great points. Basically pointing out how the Repubs have dug in because they were elected with a mandate to get spending under control, and the problem with raising taxes is you create a $1.7trillion deficit, refuse REAL cuts and raise taxes so ultimately your able to fund some of the entitlements you created. And curbing budgeted INCREASES in growth of entitlements IS NOT a cut, and in some cases you might only be getting to more normative growth/rates of increase. I think that illustrates why so many of us are opposed to tax increases because this isn't an uncommon negotiating tactic - ask for more than you need (i.e. spend more) and then when the other side balks you "compromise" cutting to a number you really wanted in the first place. The Repubs aren't buying that tactic and I hope they're able to stand their ground.
  
  Another interesting point I haven't considered they mention Obama digging in in opposition to both sides so this time he can run on blaming Congress (as opposed to Bush).
• tk421

  

  Clearly a lie on the SS checks meant to scare those receiving them into pressuring the Rs. We've heard over and over that SS will remain solvent until at least 2037, if this is true even if the debt ceiling isn't raised SS will continue to be paid for from FICA taxes, which will not stop just because Congress cut off the government credit card. The fact that the public is too stupid and the leftist media too partisan to educate them about this is the real reason.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  The 2037 prediction is based on rosy employment numbers - if this "recession" continues for much longer 2037 will happen sooner than "expected." The "peas" comment shows how out of touch Obama is - has he had a normal conversation with anyone in his life? If we're getting out of this mess it will involve shared sacrifice, including reducing SS payments for the generation that got us in this mess.
• stlouiedipalma

  The only problem I've got with you hard-liners who think we need to do nothing is this:
  
  What if you're wrong? Would you be willing to take such a chance on something you THINK might happen? Let's say no deal is made and on August 3rd the world markets implode because the Republican hard-liners wouldn't budge and the U.S. defaults. You can always say "we stood our ground" but what will have been won?
  
  I certainly hope you're right, that nothing bad will happen. Just to be on the safe side, though, I think I'll be having a conference call with my broker before that day comes.
• majorspark

  

  stlouiedipalma;828561 wrote:The only problem I've got with you hard-liners who think we need to do nothing is this:
  
  What if you're wrong? Would you be willing to take such a chance on something you THINK might happen? Let's say no deal is made and on August 3rd the world markets implode because the Republican hard-liners wouldn't budge and the U.S. defaults. You can always say "we stood our ground" but what will have been won?
  
  I certainly hope you're right, that nothing bad will happen. Just to be on the safe side, though, I think I'll be having a conference call with my broker before that day comes.

  Your tin foil hat is crooked.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The only reason there's a default when the deadline hits is IF THOSE NOW IN POWER STOP PAYING DEBT ON THE INTEREST -- because the money will be there. In fact, enough will be there to pay most of vital bills like defense, Social Security and Medicare.
  
  If the government has to end up de-funding things like education and farm subsidies...oh well.
• I Wear Pants

  Farm subsidies, ok. But education? Are you fucking kidding me?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;828684 wrote:Farm subsidies, ok. But education? Are you ****ing kidding me?

  Yeah, I love when the federal govt duplicates the state's job, then I get to watch my money flushed down the toilet twice!
• I Wear Pants

  gut;828689 wrote:Yeah, I love when the federal govt duplicates the state's job, then I get to watch my money flushed down the toilet twice!

  You didn't mean to imply that state spending on education (something you are okay with) is also flushing money down the toilet did you?
  
  The problem I have with it is that both sides do not take our education systems seriously. That's why it's shit. And the states are all suffering financially as well so any added slack they have to pick up from federal education programs being cut problably won't be.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;828684 wrote:Farm subsidies, ok. But education? Are you fucking kidding me?

  Since when has education become more important than food?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  majorspark;828703 wrote:Since when has education become more important than food?

  
  When their workforce is unionized and higher educational loans are ignored.
  
  The U.S. is already highly educated, aside from the M.D. level we turn out far more graduates than there are positions in every field. Unless one thinks the local Starbucks barista should have a Masters in "X studies", the education argument is a maguffin other than for those profiting on the other end. Even in engineering, there aren't enough jobs to fill the number of qualified graduates.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;828561 wrote:.... You can always say "we stood our ground" but what will have been won?
  
  ...

  It's not a bout winning. It's about being convicted in that which you believe is the right thing to do. We must stop spending more than we have.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;828694 wrote:You didn't mean to imply that state spending on education (something you are okay with) is also flushing money down the toilet did you?
  
  The problem I have with it is that both sides do not take our education systems seriously. That's why it's ****. And the states are all suffering financially as well so any added slack they have to pick up from federal education programs being cut problably won't be.

  
  Pretty much all govt spending is flushing some of the money down the toilet - look at the millions spent on new schools, many of which now sit empty because there are no students, not to mention why do we need a new building eveyr 20-30 years in the first place? It's all inefficient - there's a reason it started out with govt largely only doing public works that were either too expensive or too low of an ROI for the private sector to pursue. There's all kinds of dead weight loss when the govt throws its hat into the ring.
• gut

  And, um, we are spending more on education than ever and going backwards on the results...so clearly that means we are wasting our money (I think I've heard that argument somewhere before...)
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;828684 wrote:Farm subsidies, ok. But education? Are you fucking kidding me?

  
  Education is a local choice and has local control. Always did until the Dept of Education was set up by....yep...Jimmy Carter in 1979. Before Carter, it was housed under a department called, Health, Education, and Welfare. Here's their mission statement:
  

  The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access

  If you take out the word, "global", then how is the US Dept of Education different than any local school board or community? Why are they needed? Oh, I forgot, to compete with the world. Umm...how's that working out? Do we have the smartest kiddies in the land after 32 years of this grandiose government expenditure? Should they be measured against their mission statement or are they just words on a laptop? Or...is the Department of Education just another lifeline for the NEA and all other teacher unions to suckle on?
  
  We're broke. We have nothing left to spend. Time to prioritize, isn't it? Shouldn't all government programs be means-tested for viability and accountability? Or...as all taxes and government programs go...once started, they NEVER end?
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;828844 wrote:Or...is the Department of Education just another lifeline for the NEA and all other teacher unions to suckle on?

  This would be my "educated" guess.
• Devils Advocate

  

  believer;828925 wrote:This would be my "educated" guess.