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

Stingray24 wrote:

Jay wrote:

We have massive debt and a massive annual deficit and he wants to create more programs. This is why I'm firmly in the court of the Republicans when it comes to reining in spending. This administration is out of its fucking mind.

That's why I don't understand why anyone thinks Obama wins in this situation.  Increased spending is no longer a viable option at this point.  If there is negative fallout from this situation, it won't be those in favor of spending cuts who take the blame.

Macbeth wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

the way the republicans have been acting these last few years have ensured my future vote going somewhere else

I'm not quite there but I'm hesitate to vote for any Republican on a national level because of their pandering to the crazies and social conservatives. I don't want to be an enabler for ''hurr durr abortion is mordor''

The last thing I can remember the current congress doing was going after was planned parenthood and NPR.

In America’s case, we have all the ingredients to succeed in the 21st Century. We have the most innovative companies in the world such as Facebook, Apple and Google. We have the best universities in the world. We have a nexus between universities and research-oriented companies. We have the most dynamic capital markets in the world. We have an incredibly flexible, diverse society, which is also very much a part of our inherent societal innovation and dynamism.

But what we don’t have is a political system that can harness all of this and execute.

You see this with regard to energy policy. America has no energy policy and hasn’t had one for thirty years. It’s not just that. We also don’t have an immigration policy. We don’t have a policy toward jobs and growth. We don’t have a policy toward the budget deficit.

Instead, we have an absurd political paralysis in Washington where everyone is more concerned with scoring points and maintaining their viability with their most extreme members rather than just coming together and solving problems.

There used to be a model in which you became famous as a lawmaker by making deals - by reaching out to the other side and doing some compromising, which you have to do because not everyone agrees with you, and moving the issue forward. Now the way you get famous and powerful in Congress is by not making a deal, by being a deal breaker rather than a deal maker.

You can see this in the Republican Party right now where the energy is all in saying “No, there’s no deal we could possibly accept.”

If “No” is where we end up as a country, we could have all the innovation and ideas and dynamism in the world and we’d still will have a society that is crumbling.

Kmar wrote:

Why would the GOP want to pass a new budget ceiling? With election season around the corner it's more politically prudent for them to make sure the US defaults on their debts. Although it's just a technicality it would undoubtedly cause our credit rating to be downgraded. Since the average voter rarely looks deep in to the cause and effect of things, the degradation of our credit would make an excellent talking point in a Presidential debate.

This isn't necessarily an attack on the GOP. The Dems would and have also considered sabotaging the success of the President, like with the war effort. Each party has a vested interest in making sure the other side fails, even if it is a detriment to the greater good of the country.

If I'm wrong tell me.

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes, because having even narrower viewpoints is what we need.

yes, and you don't want the "dailyshow viewers" to express their viewpoints.

*slow clap*

Jay wrote:

Read a book and stop watching tv.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

The proof is in the pudding dilbert. All government spending is not equal. You have to weigh the benifts and returns of each program. I listed just a miniscule amount of technology generated by nasa. Expediency is important when it comes to who developes what technology first. NASA has without a doubt played a major role in pushing leading edge technology and job growth. Its rather easy to put two and two together. .. for most people.

Sorry, you need to provide some figures if you're going to say giving money to NASA provides better cost-benefit than, say, increasing R+D tax credits to technology companies or spending on nuts and bolts military technology.

Otherwise you just sound like lowing.

Kmar wrote:

• Implantable Heart Aid
• Cardiac Imaging System
• Laser Angioplasty
• Thermal Video
• Blood Analyzer
• X-Ray Imaging System
• Collision Avoidance System
• Air/Wastewater Purification Systems
• Solar Energy
• Cordless tools
• Memory Metals
• Heart Rate Monitor
• Water Filter/Conditioner
• Digital Image Processing
• Laser Technology
• Satellite Dish
• Advanced Plastics
• Smoke Detectors
• Thermal Gloves and Boots

.. and on and on and on.

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. Was it all really developed exclusively by NASA? Reckon not.

2. Does it give a real return on investment to the US taxpayer? I doubt it. If Kmar is claiming it does lets see the figures, royalties on NASA patents which exceed the cost of running NASA for example.

"We should fund NASA because, um, non-stick frying pans dude" (which weren't developed by NASA) is no more of a convincing argument than "we should give the military more money because, like, GPS man".

Jaekus wrote:

X-Ray, blood analysis, solar energy, satellite dishes

FEOS wrote:

For someone who harps about "the greater good" all the time, Dilbert's a lot more focused in NASA's bottom line than on the differences their scientific contributions have made to the world at large. And, IIRC, government entities couldn't patent or earn royalties from their designs until recently...still can't earn royalties, for sure. So the money thing is moot.

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

For someone who harps about "the greater good" all the time, Dilbert's a lot more focused in NASA's bottom line than on the differences their scientific contributions have made to the world at large. And, IIRC, government entities couldn't patent or earn royalties from their designs until recently...still can't earn royalties, for sure. So the money thing is moot.

I seriously hope he's not taking this rather dumb line of argument up simply because NASA is an American organization.