BF2S Forums Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Besides, the Democrats were elected to basically increase spending and 'spread the wealth' i.e.: increase taxes, by voting for them the public didn't seem to be concerned about any limit.

The Democrats were elected because people were tired of Bush and Sarah Palin turned off everyone in the middle. I don't think most people that voted for Obama had any idea what he stood for aside from change from the Bush administration. That's hardly a mandate for higher taxes and increased spending.

Partially agree, but if you didn't know his socialist agenda then you were not living on this planet.

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Besides, the Democrats were elected to basically increase spending and 'spread the wealth' i.e.: increase taxes, by voting for them the public didn't seem to be concerned about any limit.

The Democrats were elected because people were tired of Bush and Sarah Palin turned off everyone in the middle. I don't think most people that voted for Obama had any idea what he stood for aside from change from the Bush administration. That's hardly a mandate for higher taxes and increased spending.

Well people were cheering on his healthcare reforms, no? It was a major point of his campaign and it was going to require money. Anyone who didn't see that one coming was obviously not paying attention. Much of what we're seeing now is (imo) a problem of the Republican party's own making; they have taken a hard turn and made the conservative wing their one and only wing. Now they're up against the wall and it's impossible for them to agree on almost any deal. Many republicans of back in the day would now be considered bleeding heart liberals by what's left of the party.

Oh and we're off to a great start, all the markets are in the red and Gold is rising rapidly lol.

Jay wrote:

I was fully aware, which is why I voted for McCain despite Palin being on the ticket.

worded badly, I meant in general. People that voted for him had to be well aware of his social agenda. Sorry.

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

I believe the vast majority were against the Obamacare legislation actually. It was widely reviled at the time of it's passage.

Despite the fact that this was an important talking point in his campaign? The man was hailed as a savior. That it was reviled at its passage is, I guess, just proving the point that people weren't paying attention. They get what they vote for and then start complaining.

Jay wrote:

What you are saying about the Republicans could just as easily be said about the Democrats and their left wing base. There's two sides to this coin.

True, but imo this turn has been the hardest in the republican party as evident by the rise of sarah palin (of all people) & the absorbing of the tea party. The republicans are going nuts... am I going to see them in strait jackets in 10 years time? lol

The polarisation, not only in the US but also in the EU are signs of a storm coming imo.

Shocking, I don't know what your news sources are, but people had only the flimsiest idea of what he stood for. It was a national campaign. Politicians are always incredibly vague in those types of elections. Most people don't know what 'spreading the wealth around' means. I actually had an argument with an Obama supporter that insisted the language was not socialist, at all.

Edit - Also, Nancy Pelosi is the left's version of Sarah Palin and she actually holds high office.

Last edited by Jay (2011-07-29 07:22:05)

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

I believe the vast majority were against the Obamacare legislation actually. It was widely reviled at the time of it's passage.

Despite the fact that this was an important talking point in his campaign? The man was hailed as a savior. That it was reviled at its passage is, I guess, just proving the point that people weren't paying attention. They get what they vote for and then start complaining.

Jay wrote:

What you are saying about the Republicans could just as easily be said about the Democrats and their left wing base. There's two sides to this coin.

True, but imo this turn has been the hardest in the republican party as evident by the rise of sarah palin (of all people) & the absorbing of the tea party. The republicans are going nuts... am I going to see them in strait jackets in 10 years time? lol

The polarisation, not only in the US but also in the EU are signs of a storm coming imo.

Shocking, I don't know what your news sources are, but people had only the flimsiest idea of what he stood for. It was a national campaign. Politicians are always incredibly vague in those types of elections. Most people don't know what 'spreading the wealth around' means. I actually had an argument with an Obama supporter that insisted the language was not socialist, at all.

Edit - Also, Nancy Pelosi is the left's version of Sarah Palin and she actually holds high office.

That part is very true, it happens all the time over here as well. I usually have to fill in the blanks myself because no party ever presents solid numbers or concrete plans. If there's a government program a party opposes, usually they will try to circumvent the question on wether or not they want to cut it in order to try and maintain a large voting base. They do so by using phrases such as "it needs to be more efficient", which usually translates to: "I want to cut this program". I guess we're somewhere at the end of western democracy now that the public is continually 'outraged' over politicians seemingly not doing what the public thought they voted for. The disconnect between 'average joe' and those in legislative positions has never been more profound. Hence the run to extremes on the political spectrum.

Jay wrote:

Via PM, a post request from the netherworld.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I think the house needs to send Boehner's plan to the Senate and let them vote on it. If Dirty Harry wants to play games and leave it on the table then he can accept the blame when the economy fails. Or he can put it to a vote. If it fails, okay, if it passes then it goes to Obama and he can decide the fate of the country.

Which Obama won't accept, and if, it's going to be a last minute deal. If he doesn't pass it then that means political suicide for everyone in the Senate.

All sides painted themselves into a corner.  The sad thing to me is that it is all games anyway.  For all the arguments, debates, straw men, and nastiness, the main plans being discussed all revolve around going into debt a tad more or less quickly.  Are we really reduced to arguing over we should borrow 36 or 38 cents out of every dollar spent?  What does that really get us?  It seems to me that all either side is doing is trying to extend the date when the budget implodes by a year or two.  No one is really dealing with the main problem--the federal budget is seriously in the red.

If this was a battle, it would be the Wehrmacht at the gates of Moscow--over extended.  The federal budget is in the same metaphorical situation.  There is no real way to continue in the present manner and expect things to turn out well.

Increase tax revenue (close the loopholes and tax the rich)

Reform social security, so rich people who dont need it dont get it, raise the retirement age

Decriminalize maurijuana

Re-regulate Wall Street. 

All hail Karl Marx!!  (no but seriously, jay if you want to I'd like to hear what you have to say about my points)

Spearhead wrote:

Increase tax revenue (close the loopholes and tax the rich)

Reform social security, so rich people who dont need it dont get it, raise the retirement age

Decriminalize maurijuana

Re-regulate Wall Street. 

All hail Karl Marx!!  (no but seriously, jay if you want to I'd like to hear what you have to say about my points)

You don't know much about the Federal budget or taxes do you?

"Re-regulate wall street" sounds like something a person would say if they were asked about politics on the street by a film crew working for Jay Leno. Pretty much a broad statement made by a person who knows very little about what they are talking about. Sort of like "fix schools" or "stop terrorist".

Shocking wrote:

http://media.economist.com/sites/defaul … WWD000.jpg

You really need new news sources.

it doesn't agree with his world-view

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

why?

Because the situation is clearly not one sided. Neither of them is willing to compromise.

you have dems putting cuts on the table, repubs putting hot air in the room - yeah, Jay is no libertarian. go vote in the primary Jay, you*ve earned it.