Boehner just asked Obama to move his speech by one day

[Liability]

The simple reality is that a 9:1 or a 10:1 cuts to revenue increase has to happen as one of the steps to solving some of the financial mess. Wise Republicans understand this but are afraid of the hard right yahoos.

That is not a hard reality. It is not reality at all.

It is the mere expression of your rather ignorant opinion.

The actual reality is that it was absurdly high levels of constant spending that got us into the mess and it is cutting spending -- and cutting spending ALONE -- which has any chance of getting us OUT of this mess.

Everyone with a brain understands this, but you goobers on the Democrat side of the equation are afraid of your masters on the hard hard left.

 

[Sallow]

Adult up?? Why don't you try reading a history book, there was nothing liberal about Washington, Adams, Lincoln or JFK.

Oh bullshit.

The founders, Lincoln and JFK were all liberals.

Benedict Arnold, The Torries and the Whigs were conservatives.

Um, the Founders fought against TAXATION (without representation), they preached small government and the preached forming a society based on the capitalistic principles of Adam Smith!!! Far from being liberal!

Lincoln was not a liberal or conservative in the relm of today. To make that argument that he either is both arrogant and ignorant.

JFK ==> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY!" Very different than the pay my rent, credit cards and put food on my table liberal base of the democratic party. JFK cut taxes and SPENDING to stimulate growth. He was a pretty good president in his short time at the helm. He was socially liberal no doubt, but his fiscal policies are conservative, much more than the two Bushes!!!

Oh bullshit. What do you think the Whiskey Rebellion was all about. Washington squashed the "small government" types. Same with Lincoln..who was a lawyer by the way.

Kennedy described himself as a liberal.

 

[Article 15]

I know the danger of a majority in both houses and the same in the WH...be it GOP or DEM.

How will this factor in when you fill out your ballot next November?

 

[Liability]

Oh bullshit.

The founders, Lincoln and JFK were all liberals.

Benedict Arnold, The Torries and the Whigs were conservatives.

Um, the Founders fought against TAXATION (without representation), they preached small government and the preached forming a society based on the capitalistic principles of Adam Smith!!! Far from being liberal!

Lincoln was not a liberal or conservative in the relm of today. To make that argument that he either is both arrogant and ignorant.

JFK ==> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY!" Very different than the pay my rent, credit cards and put food on my table liberal base of the democratic party. JFK cut taxes and SPENDING to stimulate growth. He was a pretty good president in his short time at the helm. He was socially liberal no doubt, but his fiscal policies are conservative, much more than the two Bushes!!!

Oh bullshit. What do you think the Whiskey Rebellion was all about. Washington squashed the "small government" types. Same with Lincoln..who was a lawyer by the way.

Kennedy described himself as a liberal.

Kennedy described himself as a "liberal" but obviously was alluding to the emerging "social liberal" construct.

He was a liberal in many respects, too.

But in some ways, his behavior would be difficult to distinguish from that of one of today's conservatives. He was unabashed about projecting an image of our national military strength, for example. Unlike today's "libs" who are oddly embarrassed about it.

JFK also understood that a rising tide lifts all boats (to closely paraphrase his own use of the language) and therefore JFK was not opposed to CUTTING taxes.

 

[Jarhead]

I know the danger of a majority in both houses and the same in the WH...be it GOP or DEM.

How will this factor in when you fill out your ballot next November?

I can not control what happens. I vote for who I deem as best. Locally, I have voted DEM more often than I will admit to my conservative frineds....but I will not vote out of fear of a 3 way majority.....but I am well aware of how compromise is lost when that happens.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's what the man said.

Democrats wanted a clean bill. One page.

Debt ceiling itself is probably unconstitutional.

Probably?

Prove it.

Actually it's essential.

Prove it?

It's not in the constitution and the constitution is quite clear about the government and debt.

Actually you're wrong.

Obama tried to go around the debt-ceiling using the 14th Amendment and had to back down.

XIV Amendment and the Debt Ceiling - Blogs - USConstitution.net Message Boards

The fact is he can always print money and shrink the dollar thus raise inflation. He's done that a couple of times already.

 

[Article 15]

I know the danger of a majority in both houses and the same in the WH...be it GOP or DEM.

How will this factor in when you fill out your ballot next November?

I can not control what happens. I vote for who I deem as best. Locally, I have voted DEM more often than I will admit to my conservative frineds....but I will not vote out of fear of a 3 way majority.....but I am well aware of how compromise is lost when that happens.

The likelihood of a controlled gov't if Obama loses the White House is pretty much the only reason why I will be casting my vote for him.

 

[J.E.D]

The simple reality is that a 9:1 or a 10:1 cuts to revenue increase has to happen as one of the steps to solving some of the financial mess. Wise Republicans understand this but are afraid of the hard right yahoos.

That is not a hard reality. It is not reality at all.

It is the mere expression of your rather ignorant opinion.

The actual reality is that it was absurdly high levels of constant spending that got us into the mess and it is cutting spending -- and cutting spending ALONE -- which has any chance of getting us OUT of this mess.

Everyone with a brain understands this, but you goobers on the Democrat side of the equation are afraid of your masters on the hard hard left.

I guess the majority of economists who say that revenue increases and spending cuts are needed have no brain. I guess the bipartisan deficit panel who recommended the same thing (spending cuts and revenue increases) have no brains.

 

[Jarhead]

So in essence, you're a partisan hack with no interest in moving the country forward.

Come up with ideas instead of crony paybacks.

Regulation is one of the factors in holding things back, but you are more interested in that partisan hackery.

Climb back on Obamas lap now apologist.

Regulations are not holding the country back. You're the third person on the last two pages to make that claim. I asked another to prove it. He didn't. Can you prove it? Show me an unbiased source who agrees with you. You can't

Sit down. You have nothing.

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying....


A company is barely getting by due to the poor economy. The small business owner does not have the same access to credit that he used to have due to the lending crisis. He does not have the same personal savings due to lossses in investments...
His sales are down due to the economy so his revenue is down.
He cant cut back becuase he needs to be there to meet the needs of his clients who, at any time, may request his product...and as any business owner knows, you lose all credibility if your client asks for your product and you cant deliver....so he is forced to run at a level where he is barely breaking even.

Then his accountant calls to inform him of a new regulation implemented that will increase his operating costs by 6%...and have no positive affect on his revenue.

You need to see a link for you to recognize that such a business owner is likely NOT going to look to expand at that point?

I mean...really?

 

[Maple]

Maple, you are not a fool but you sound foolish. By your standards, Washington, Adams, Lincoln, the first Roosevelt, the second Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, and JFK were liberals, and they did just well thank you, along with folks like Eisenhower and Nixon (when he wa not subverting the constitution).

Adult up. We don't want the Weiners or the Ryans running our government for their pet interests. We need to elect people who represent you and me.

Adult up?? Why don't you try reading a history book, there was nothing liberal about Washington, Adams, Lincoln or JFK.

Oh bullshit.

The founders, Lincoln and JFK were all liberals.

Benedict Arnold, The Torries and the Whigs were conservatives.

Does this guy sound like a liberal or progressive to you???? You do know who this is, don't you???? It is JFK,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[J.E.D]

Um, the Founders fought against TAXATION (without representation), they preached small government and the preached forming a society based on the capitalistic principles of Adam Smith!!! Far from being liberal!

Lincoln was not a liberal or conservative in the relm of today. To make that argument that he either is both arrogant and ignorant.

JFK ==> "Ask not what your country can do for you, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY!" Very different than the pay my rent, credit cards and put food on my table liberal base of the democratic party. JFK cut taxes and SPENDING to stimulate growth. He was a pretty good president in his short time at the helm. He was socially liberal no doubt, but his fiscal policies are conservative, much more than the two Bushes!!!

Oh bullshit. What do you think the Whiskey Rebellion was all about. Washington squashed the "small government" types. Same with Lincoln..who was a lawyer by the way.

Kennedy described himself as a liberal.

Kennedy described himself as a "liberal" but obviously was alluding to the emerging "social liberal" construct.

He was a liberal in many respects, too.

But in some ways, his behavior would be difficult to distinguish from that of one of today's conservatives. He was unabashed about projecting an image of our national military strength, for example. Unlike today's "libs" who are oddly embarrassed about it.

JFK also understood that a rising tide lifts all boats (to closely paraphrase his own use of the language) and therefore JFK was not opposed to CUTTING taxes.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

 

[Jarhead]

How will this factor in when you fill out your ballot next November?

I can not control what happens. I vote for who I deem as best. Locally, I have voted DEM more often than I will admit to my conservative frineds....but I will not vote out of fear of a 3 way majority.....but I am well aware of how compromise is lost when that happens.

The likelihood of a controlled gov't if Obama loses the White House is pretty much the only reason why I will be casting my vote for him.

I see the POTUS as the most important position when the opposite party controls both houses...and least important when the two houses are split.

FOr example...right now, I do not see him nearly as important to progress as I see congress.

And with the congress we have? Thats not a very good situation.

 

[J.E.D]

Adult up?? Why don't you try reading a history book, there was nothing liberal about Washington, Adams, Lincoln or JFK.

Oh bullshit.

The founders, Lincoln and JFK were all liberals.

Benedict Arnold, The Torries and the Whigs were conservatives.

Does this guy sound like a liberal or progressive to you???? You do know who this is, don't you???? It is JFK,

You cons have surprised me time after time with your lies and complete disregard for facts. But to claim that JFK was not a liberal is beyond ridiculous. Here, you get one of these too:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?” If by “Liberal” they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer’s dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of “Liberal.” But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” -- John F Kennedy

 

[Jarhead]

The simple reality is that a 9:1 or a 10:1 cuts to revenue increase has to happen as one of the steps to solving some of the financial mess. Wise Republicans understand this but are afraid of the hard right yahoos.

That is not a hard reality. It is not reality at all.

It is the mere expression of your rather ignorant opinion.

The actual reality is that it was absurdly high levels of constant spending that got us into the mess and it is cutting spending -- and cutting spending ALONE -- which has any chance of getting us OUT of this mess.

Everyone with a brain understands this, but you goobers on the Democrat side of the equation are afraid of your masters on the hard hard left.

I guess the majority of economists who say that revenue increases and spending cuts are needed have no brain. I guess the bipartisan deficit panel who recommended the same thing (spending cuts and revenue increases) have no brains.

they all agree that such will help eliminate the debt....it is a no brainer

But they differ as to whether or not that is ALSO in the best interest of job creation....and thus whether or not that ius a solution that should be implemented when you have 9.1 unemployment.

You need to get your facts in order.

 

[Maple]

Adult up?? Why don't you try reading a history book, there was nothing liberal about Washington, Adams, Lincoln or JFK.

Oh bullshit.

The founders, Lincoln and JFK were all liberals.

Benedict Arnold, The Torries and the Whigs were conservatives.

Does this guy sound like a liberal or progressive to you???? You do know who this is, don't you???? It is JFK,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]

You can bet that Obama won't be saying this, it's tax the rich and corporate jet owners.

 

[Liability]

The simple reality is that a 9:1 or a 10:1 cuts to revenue increase has to happen as one of the steps to solving some of the financial mess. Wise Republicans understand this but are afraid of the hard right yahoos.

That is not a hard reality. It is not reality at all.

It is the mere expression of your rather ignorant opinion.

The actual reality is that it was absurdly high levels of constant spending that got us into the mess and it is cutting spending -- and cutting spending ALONE -- which has any chance of getting us OUT of this mess.

Everyone with a brain understands this, but you goobers on the Democrat side of the equation are afraid of your masters on the hard hard left.

I guess the majority of economists who say that revenue increases and spending cuts are needed have no brain. I guess the bipartisan deficit panel who recommended the same thing (spending cuts and revenue increases) have no brains.

(A) Understand that reasonable folk don't take YOUR word for it that this comes from a "majority" of economists.

(B) what they understand and what they SAY are not necessarily the same thing, silly lad.

(C) if you raise taxes in a piss-poor economy, you are hardly doing something likely to "lift all boats," you twit.

 

[J.E.D]

That is not a hard reality. It is not reality at all.

It is the mere expression of your rather ignorant opinion.

The actual reality is that it was absurdly high levels of constant spending that got us into the mess and it is cutting spending -- and cutting spending ALONE -- which has any chance of getting us OUT of this mess.

Everyone with a brain understands this, but you goobers on the Democrat side of the equation are afraid of your masters on the hard hard left.

I guess the majority of economists who say that revenue increases and spending cuts are needed have no brain. I guess the bipartisan deficit panel who recommended the same thing (spending cuts and revenue increases) have no brains.

they all agree that such will help eliminate the debt....it is a no brainer

But they differ as to whether or not that is ALSO in the best interest of job creation....and thus whether or not that ius a solution that should be implemented when you have 9.1 unemployment.

You need to get your facts in order.

I need to get my facts in order? I just did. That is what economists and the bipartisan deficit panel say. Care to show me a majority of economists who think that we don't need more revenue? Care to show me how higher revenue is bad for job growth (see: 8 years of Clinton-era tax rates and 22 million jobs created. Then see: 8 years of Bush-era tax rates and 3 million jobs created). Get your facts straight yourself, pal.

 

[Article 15]

I can not control what happens. I vote for who I deem as best. Locally, I have voted DEM more often than I will admit to my conservative frineds....but I will not vote out of fear of a 3 way majority.....but I am well aware of how compromise is lost when that happens.

The likelihood of a controlled gov't if Obama loses the White House is pretty much the only reason why I will be casting my vote for him.

I see the POTUS as the most important position when the opposite party controls both houses...and least important when the two houses are split.

FOr example...right now, I do not see him nearly as important to progress as I see congress.

And with the congress we have? Thats not a very good situation.

Right now we are stuck with the House, Senate, and POTUS we got.

I'm looking forward to 2012 where the Dems will be defending many more Senate seats than the GOP, many of which they picked up by slim margins in purple or even red states.

The ingredients for a GOP controlled gov't are there.

Fuck. That. Noise.

 

[Conservative]

So in essence, you're a partisan hack with no interest in moving the country forward.

Really? From you?

 

[J.E.D]

That is not a hard reality. It is not reality at all.

It is the mere expression of your rather ignorant opinion.

The actual reality is that it was absurdly high levels of constant spending that got us into the mess and it is cutting spending -- and cutting spending ALONE -- which has any chance of getting us OUT of this mess.

Everyone with a brain understands this, but you goobers on the Democrat side of the equation are afraid of your masters on the hard hard left.

I guess the majority of economists who say that revenue increases and spending cuts are needed have no brain. I guess the bipartisan deficit panel who recommended the same thing (spending cuts and revenue increases) have no brains.

(A) Understand that reasonable folk don't take YOUR word for it that this comes from a "majority" of economists.

(B) what they understand and what they SAY are not necessarily the same thing, silly lad.

(C) if you raise taxes in a piss-poor economy, you are hardly doing something likely to "lift all boats," you twit.

Then show me a majority of economists who disagree with me. Show me the proof that raising revenue will make the economy worse. I'm looking at Clinton's job creation numbers and tax rates, and I'm not seeing what you're talking about. Unless you think 22 million jobs created in 8 years is nothing. Now sit down and shut the fuck up you fucking moron.