Boehner just asked Obama to move his speech by one day

[mudwhistle]

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.

Revenue increases is a no-brainer, but how you arrive there is the rub.

And sorry to point out the obvious but raising revenue without sufficiently cutting spending is not a solution. Raising revenue will only encourage more spending. You'll never balance the budget.

 

[Trajan]

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.

well, if that happens, that is the house holds, which I believe it will and the senate flips rep. which I believe it will, if obama is reelected we will have split gov. which I believe is usually better than the one party rule. IF obama goes and I think he will and the rest happens, well, you guys had you shot, you had it all, 8 1/2 months of a filibuster proof majority and the WH and a budgetary majority for 2 years........and? whos to blame? the 'people'?

If the reps got punished and lost traction in 08 due to the previous 8 WH and 6 years of rep congressional control, well? ( though they never had a filibuster proof majority btw)....

whos to blame? the 'people'?

 

[geauxtohell]

Obama accepts GOP request to push back speech to Congress - CNN.com

Crisis averted!

 

[Conservative]

Get back to me when the House GOP has done even one fucking thing to improve the jobs situation. They refuse to even talk about a measly increase in revenue. They keep sending right-wing dream legislation to the Senate and then get faux-outraged when (surprise!) the Senate won't simply pass the legislation no questions asked. Where are the jobs, speaker Boehner?

The GOP has always said "let the private secotr create the jobs"..they NEVER said that they were going to take action and make the jobs appear...Only Obama and the democrats made that claim.

But please explain to me how the private secotr can create jobs with the President continually implementing regulations that increase the operating costs of companies?

Regulations are not stifling job growth. That is right-wing make believe. Show me an unbiased source who will back up that claim. You can't.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK8afrIjo1Y"]oseph Coletti explains how unclear government rules and regulations slow job growth[/ame]
Regulatory Barriers Cause Slow Job Growth for Start Ups
Regulation Is Killing Jobs and the American Dream
No Joy in Latest Jobs Report

“Today’s increase in the unemployment rate underscores the need for dramatic action to break down barriers to job creation," said John Engler, president of Business Roundtable, a business advocacy group. "First among these are unnecessary regulations. Regulations are both a drag on job creation and on the economy. Regulations are ‘hidden taxes’ that strangle job creation. We need action by government agencies to clear out obsolete rules and streamline permitting to reduce delays and impediments for companies to invest and grow. The private sector is the only hope for future job creation. We need to recognize this and work together to let businesses, small and large, invest in people.”

Game... set... fucking match, asshat.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Yo...pal....I am a nice guy so cut out the freaking attitude....

Anyway...

Your little analogy of Clinton Bush.....

Why did yoiu leave out the part where Clinton years had the dot com HIRING and the Bush years had the dot com bust?

You do realize that such completely changes the dramatic differences in the two...

Then we add i this little tidbit...

During the clinton years (and I admit he was a great man and an excellent Prewsdient his second term).....

Technology was just starting to boom....wasnt there until early 2000's....but you started to see computers enter the workplace.....more than just that one big computer...but at individual desks....and user friendly....did not alter employment...but certainly started to make jobs easier..

Then...in about the year 2000....

Boolean searches e,iminated scores of research departments
advacned graphics eliminated scores of graphics companies
email eliminated mailrooms of dozens of employees to only 2 or 3
voice mail eliminated switchboards
Cutomer service departments were cut to less than 1/3 by touch tone auto response...

So if you include the loss of ALL OF THOSE JOBS....and yet, no change in the amount employed....it seemes many more jobs were created becuase there were so many that should have been lost.

SO you see...whereas you have a valid argument, so do I.

Doies increase in revenue help?

Yes.

Will it hurt employment if you increase taxes? Yes, I bleieve it will.

You believe it wont.

Yet for some reason, tomorrow you and I will both get up and shower, put our clothes on and look and act almost identically.

Stop hating those who think differently.

Just sayin.

 

[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.

Revenue increases is a no-brainer, but how you arrive there is the rub.

And sorry to point out the obvious but raising revenue without cutting spending is not a solutiopn. Raising revenue will only encourage more spending. You'll never balance the budget.

You think raising revenue is a no-brainer? Then can you talk to the house GOP? Because they refuse to even discuss raising revenue. I agree that spending cuts are also necessary. I just disagree with the GOP's position on where those cuts should come from. Making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient, I can agree with. Blindly cutting Medicare and Medicaid just to reduce the deficit, I don't agree with. Cutting defense, I agree with. Reducing wasteful spending and eliminating redundant depts, I agree with.

 

[Liability]

Obama accepts GOP request to push back speech to Congress - CNN.com

Crisis averted!

Yeah yeah. We get it. It was never exactly a "crisis."

So, in the spirit of the discussion, let's re-frame the headline to be a whole lot more accurate!

Political hackery from the Oval Office reconsidered and rejected (albeit a bit overdue).

Good for Team Obama.

 

[Maple]

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.

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Trajan]

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.

that becasue you are not parsing what they said, revenue increases come in many ways and forms, just raising income, capital gains and dividend taxs is not the answer, its reforming the tax code which is what they (rightly so imho) recommended and THAT would raise revenue.


and, on top of it all its already baked into the cake, you do know that in 2013 that investment taxes cap gains dividends etc. will go up by virtue of a law in Obamacare by 3.8% right?

If 2013 is not soon enough for obama to get his hands on Mo' money thats because he did it on purpose for political reasons, so he would be reelected before the taxes went up, so to say he has no revenue increases coming is disingenuous at best, he has, he just as usual miscalculated.

 

[WillowTree]

the republicans know no one will watch them and will instead watch the president.

They have NEVER shown him ANY respect WHY IN THE HELL should he do ANYTHING for them.

he don't deserve no damn R E S P E C T..

 

[Conservative]

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?

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

it's over his head. Seriously.

 

[J.E.D]

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

Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube

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

Blowing liberals right out of their saddles with nothing but the FACTS and having a great time doing it.

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

 

[Article 15]

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.

well, if that happens, that is the house holds, which I believe it will and the senate flips rep. which I believe it will, if obama is reelected we will have split gov. which I believe is usually better than the one party rule. IF obama goes and I think he will and the rest happens, well, you guys had you shot, you had it all, 8 1/2 months of a filibuster proof majority and the WH and a budgetary majority for 2 years........and? whos to blame? the 'people'?

If the reps got punished and lost traction in 08 due to the previous 8 WH and 6 years of rep congressional control, well? ( though they never had a filibuster proof majority btw)....

whos to blame? the 'people'?

That filibuster proof majority was in name only and when the GOP had a controlled gov't the Dems didn't default to filibustering every bill like we just witnessed. They pretty much bent over and gave Bush everything he wanted.

But anyway....

Yeah, the people who want their cake and to eat it too and are prodded along by the 24 hour-outrage-a-thon media cycle are to blame. Both sides. We've become a misinformed, short-sighted, and reactionary electorate.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Democrats don't stand for all of that, they just say they do.

They're all about unions, socialism, crony-capitalism, and race-baiting.

You say you will only accept proof from non-biased sources that regulations from Obama and now lawsuits from his DOJ is hurting business. That's impossible because if left up to you every source can be easily dismissed. Long as you have your blinders on no truth can penetrate.

 

[Trajan]

Obama accepts GOP request to push back speech to Congress - CNN.com

Crisis averted!

Yeah yeah. We get it. It was never exactly a "crisis."

So, in the spirit of the discussion, let's re-frame the headline to be a whole lot more accurate!

Political hackery from the Oval Office reconsidered and rejected (albeit a bit overdue).

Good for Team Obama.

agreed.....

anyone notice how Carney walked back the cat verbiage wise? first it was the WH had CLEARED the session with Boehner et al, it then morphed into CONSULTED....yea, you betcha....

 

[Jarhead]

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?

JosefK.....you did not offer me your thoughts oin the above.....would like to hear them.
Thanks in advance.

it's over his head. Seriously.

no it isnt. I see JosefK as an intelligent poster on here who is guided by ideology as I am. I have allowed my open mindedness allow me to see certain social issues in a different light and I am hoping I can do the same for him by presenting an example of what is actually happenoing ion the world of "small business"....and the example I gave is exactly what has happened with a client of mine. I can not offer more info such as his product as there is client confidentiality I need to preserve...but it is an actual example....and yes, he WAS looking to hire a middle management guy in manufacturing....but when he got word of the 6% unexpected increase in operating costs, he retracted the order from me.

The probelme we have now is two fold..

We have politicians who spin the truth and the intentions of the ideas of the other party...

and we have 24/7 cable with talking heads doing the same.

So it is up to us, the people, to open each others eyes.

 

[Trajan]

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.

well, if that happens, that is the house holds, which I believe it will and the senate flips rep. which I believe it will, if obama is reelected we will have split gov. which I believe is usually better than the one party rule. IF obama goes and I think he will and the rest happens, well, you guys had you shot, you had it all, 8 1/2 months of a filibuster proof majority and the WH and a budgetary majority for 2 years........and? whos to blame? the 'people'?

If the reps got punished and lost traction in 08 due to the previous 8 WH and 6 years of rep congressional control, well? ( though they never had a filibuster proof majority btw)....

whos to blame? the 'people'?

That filibuster proof majority was in name only and when the GOP had a controlled gov't the Dems didn't default to filibustering every bill like we just witnessed. They pretty much bent over and gave Bush everything he wanted.

But anyway....

Yeah, the people who want their cake and to eat it too and are prodded along by the 24 hour-outrage-a-thon media cycle are to blame. Both sides. We've become a misinformed, short-sighted, and reactionary electorate.

That filibuster proof majority was in name only

I have no idea what that means.......explain please?

 

[Article 15]

well, if that happens, that is the house holds, which I believe it will and the senate flips rep. which I believe it will, if obama is reelected we will have split gov. which I believe is usually better than the one party rule. IF obama goes and I think he will and the rest happens, well, you guys had you shot, you had it all, 8 1/2 months of a filibuster proof majority and the WH and a budgetary majority for 2 years........and? whos to blame? the 'people'?

If the reps got punished and lost traction in 08 due to the previous 8 WH and 6 years of rep congressional control, well? ( though they never had a filibuster proof majority btw)....

whos to blame? the 'people'?

That filibuster proof majority was in name only and when the GOP had a controlled gov't the Dems didn't default to filibustering every bill like we just witnessed. They pretty much bent over and gave Bush everything he wanted.

But anyway....

Yeah, the people who want their cake and to eat it too and are prodded along by the 24 hour-outrage-a-thon media cycle are to blame. Both sides. We've become a misinformed, short-sighted, and reactionary electorate.

That filibuster proof majority was in name only

I have no idea what that means.......explain please?

Meaning they had the numbers but not the votes for cloture.

I'm looking at Sen. Webb and Sen. Nelson.

 

[Article 15]

Maybe Collins, Snowe, and Brown play that role next Congress.