Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

2011-07-16 00:09:35

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

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.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:15:49

#2

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Exactly, stuff the country, the important thing is they gain power and cream off money for themselves.

The Dems would and have also considered sabotaging the success of the President, like with the war effort.

Such as?

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 00:17:22

#3

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

When they threatened to withhold military funding while our soldiers were actively engaged in combat.

Early declarations of failure.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:20:03

#4

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

'Actively engaged in combat' or propping up two puppet govts?
There is a difference, and did they actualy do it?

The GOP blocked the closure of the Guantanamo Gulag, their hands aren't exactly clean.
And if they collapse the US economy, again, their hands will be covered in poo.

Two economic meltdowns in three years, how could they pin that on the Dems?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-16 00:22:01)

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 00:21:24

#5

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
'Actively engaged in combat' or propping up two puppet govts?
There is a difference.

That's not the point. Change the record man.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:22:40

#6

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

The motivation is that the economy would be absolutely devastated if you go into default causing terrible hardship on the ordinary citizen.

If the politicians are in it for themselves only, they shouldn't be politicians.

2011-07-16 00:23:30

#7

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

It is the point, there is a difference between being engaged in combat in defence of the nation and meddling abroad for no clear reason.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 00:24:15

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
If the politicians are in it for themselves only, they shouldn't be politicians.

I've got some terrible news. Not exactly late breaking neither.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:26:36

#9

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
It is the point, there is a difference between being engaged in combat in defence of the nation and meddling abroad for no clear reason.

It's not relevant to the topic, which is political maneuvering. Soldiers don't make the policy Dil.

Harry Reid said the Surge failed when Bush was President, and when Obama was elected he said it was a success. Savvy?

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:30:02

#10

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

So are you saying whenever troops are deployed, for whatever reason, politicians aren't allowed to object or withdraw their support?

I think Obama should make a Bush-esque 'vote against me and you're a traitor' speech.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-16 00:32:13)

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 00:32:24

#11

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
So are you saying whenever troops are deployed, for whatever reason, politicians aren't allowed to object or withdraw their support?

No I am not. However, you don't fuck with funding whilst having your servicemen actively in the line of fire. Especially when you are also responsible for placing them in front of bullets.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:33:21

#12

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
I think Obama should make a Bush-esque 'vote against me and you're a traitor' speech.

Obama has had his share of divisiveness.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:39:23

#13

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Kmar wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So are you saying whenever troops are deployed, for whatever reason, politicians aren't allowed to object or withdraw their support?
No I am not. However, you don't fuck with funding whilst having your servicemen actively in the line of fire. Especially when you are also responsible for placing them in front of bullets.

If cutting funding is the only way you can force a President to stop riding over the will of Congress and withdraw troops I don't see the problem - other than Congress not having any other way to force the issue.

As I said, the GOP saw no problem in preventing Obama deliver on a key election commitment to close Guantanamo by blocking funding so maybe they should just STFU. Blocking something the electorate clearly voted on is pretty low really.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 00:40:53

#14

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

Kmar wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So are you saying whenever troops are deployed, for whatever reason, politicians aren't allowed to object or withdraw their support?
No I am not. However, you don't fuck with funding whilst having your servicemen actively in the line of fire. Especially when you are also responsible for placing them in front of bullets.

And what exactly do you think is going to happen to this funding if you do default?

2011-07-16 00:50:35

#15

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So are you saying whenever troops are deployed, for whatever reason, politicians aren't allowed to object or withdraw their support?
No I am not. However, you don't fuck with funding whilst having your servicemen actively in the line of fire. Especially when you are also responsible for placing them in front of bullets.
If cutting funding is the only way you can force a President to stop riding over the will of Congress and withdraw troops I don't see the problem - other than Congress not having any other way to force the issue.

As I said, the GOP saw no problem in preventing Obama deliver on a key election commitment to close Guantanamo by blocking funding so maybe they should just STFU. Blocking something the electorate clearly voted on is pretty low really.

First of all it's not the only way of forcing a withdrawal. I'm going to stop short in giving you a lesson in American legislation though. They, the Dems, did not have the necessary votes at the time. They were the minority. The will of the American people is a reflection of the elected representatives in Congress. .. But I digress. If you think the Dems were truly interested in reducing the war effort please tell me why the Democratic Congress (with it's super-majority) and the Democratic President expanded the operations abroad?

I need you to think bigger buddy, and recognize it for what it is. Just trying to make the other side look bad. Going so far as threatening to under-fund and under-supply your own troops with vital safety is "pretty low really".

Again, if you think I'm saying this is a Democrat exclusive you're wrong. It would seem it's just natural for you to take a side. Even when the op was indifferent.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:52:42

#16

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So are you saying whenever troops are deployed, for whatever reason, politicians aren't allowed to object or withdraw their support?
No I am not. However, you don't fuck with funding whilst having your servicemen actively in the line of fire. Especially when you are also responsible for placing them in front of bullets.
And what exactly do you think is going to happen to this funding if you do default?

I'm not saying anything good is going to happen. However, the funding wont get cut. Inflation, interest rates, and the COLA is going to explode though.

This is why I love being moderate. Give the thread some time and the the Right will come in and have a go at me for being so dissapointed with the Republicans.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 00:56:30

#17

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Kmar wrote:
I need you to think bigger buddy, and recognize it for what it is. Just trying to make the other side look bad. Going so far as threatening to under-fund and under-supply your own troops with vital safety is "pretty low really".

Did they actually do it?

Did they play politics with the issue or were they really concerned about how Bush was misusing the military?

If they'd been on the ball and could have prevented the attack on Iraq wouldn't that have actually been the patriotic thing to do?

Does the GOP have the country's interest at heart in threatening to derail totally the US economy just to score a few cheap points and improve the likelihood of getting themselves back in power?

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 01:01:29

#18

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

Kmar wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
No I am not. However, you don't fuck with funding whilst having your servicemen actively in the line of fire. Especially when you are also responsible for placing them in front of bullets.
And what exactly do you think is going to happen to this funding if you do default?
I'm not saying anything good is going to happen. However, the funding wont get cut. Inflation, interest rates, and the COLA is going to explode though.

This is why I love being moderate. Give the thread some time and the the Right will come in and have a go at me for being so dissapointed with the Republicans.

The funding won't get cut. Would you be pleased to learn that the funding will actually increase?

On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. The strong bipartisan embrace of the measure came as White House and congressional negotiators face an Aug. 2 deadline on agreeing to trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts and raising the borrowing limit so the U.S. does not default on debt payments.

While House Republican leaders agreed to slash billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account beginning Oct. 1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43688283/ns … austerity/

It's not just a white elephant int he room. It's an elephant trampling on low-income women...

2011-07-16 01:02:08

#19

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Kmar wrote:
I need you to think bigger buddy, and recognize it for what it is. Just trying to make the other side look bad. Going so far as threatening to under-fund and under-supply your own troops with vital safety is "pretty low really".
Did they actually do it?

1.Did they play politics with the issue or were they really concerned about how Bush was misusing the military?

2.If they'd been on the ball and could have prevented the attack on Iraq wouldn't that have actually been the patriotic thing to do?

3.Does the GOP have the country's interest at heart in threatening to derail totally the US economy just to score a few cheap points and improve the likelihood of getting themselves back in power?

1.The ones who were supporting the cut didn't because they couldn't.

2.This is why the vote to send troops in to action can never be underestimated. This is why if you're against the war it's important to hold everyone accountable for their votes of military action. It should never be an easy decision to put lives in danger.

3. No they don't. And that's part of my point. .. which I didn't think could be more obvious.

Keep setting them up. I'll keep knocking them down.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 01:08:04

#20

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

AussieReaper wrote:
Kmar wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
And what exactly do you think is going to happen to this funding if you do default?
I'm not saying anything good is going to happen. However, the funding wont get cut. Inflation, interest rates, and the COLA is going to explode though.

This is why I love being moderate. Give the thread some time and the the Right will come in and have a go at me for being so dissapointed with the Republicans.
The funding won't get cut. Would you be pleased to learn that the funding will actually increase?

On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. The strong bipartisan embrace of the measure came as White House and congressional negotiators face an Aug. 2 deadline on agreeing to trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts and raising the borrowing limit so the U.S. does not default on debt payments.

While House Republican leaders agreed to slash billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account beginning Oct. 1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43688283/ns … austerity/

It's not just a white elephant int he room. It's an elephant trampling on low-income women...

Tell me something I don't know. Personally I think it's a disgrace. We're slowly hanging ourselves.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 01:35:04

#21

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

btw, There is almost a 10% cut at NASA in the works, and I bet you can guess how I feel about that. Remember the GOP thinks repealing corporate tax cuts will only hurt economic growth. I understand the theory, but those corporations have demonstrated that they are not interested in reinvesting that money in this shaky economy. They lack the confidence.

However, expanding technology and innovating with a program that has proven itself as a job creator with spinoff technology and marketable patents (as well as providing life saving health care tech), well that's perfectly acceptable to kill.

I just want some consistency.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 01:59:56

#22

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Kmar wrote:
1.The ones who were supporting the cut didn't because they couldn't.

So they didn't do it. Glad we cleared that up.

2.This is why the vote to send troops in to action can never be underestimated. This is why if you're against the war it's important to hold everyone accountable for their votes of military action. It should never be an easy decision to put lives in danger.

Voting to send troops into action is not the same as reviewing the situation years after the event and questioning the writing of endless blank cheques. Rumsfeld promised it would be over in a few weeks and cost next to nothing IIRC.

Years later, when they found they've been misled over the reasons, a quick cheap invasion has turned into a decade long multi-trillion dollar quagmire, people are allowed to revise their position without being accused of being traitors who would dance on the graves of the troops.

Cutting funding doesn't even necessarily 'put lives at risk', thats GOP hyperbole, it just requires the military to adjust the tempo of their operations.

Keep setting them up. I'll keep knocking them down.

Always funny.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 02:01:31

#23

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Kmar wrote:
btw, There is almost a 10% cut at NASA in the works,

People are always in favour of cuts, right up to the moment they realise it might affect their interests.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-16 02:04:18

#24

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Dilbert_X wrote:
Kmar wrote:
btw, There is almost a 10% cut at NASA in the works,
People are always in favour of cuts, right up to the moment they realise it might affect their interests.

Are you referring to me personally? NASA has proven itself with a demonstrable return on the investment time and time again.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-07-16 02:08:57

#25

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

Lets see the figures, I bet it hasn't.

Compare and contrast with govt spending on the military and private investment in technology generally.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-16 02:09:51)

Fuck Israel

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

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Board footer