Obama announces debt deal--GOP/Tea Party members WIN big!

Boehner's plan? Lib, are you drinking or drugging? You are fun to read, that comment is stupid.

It's basically Boehner's Plan. The Democrats just played scummy politics on this as usual. They insulted the guy and feigned all their outrage but ended up passing his plan anyway. Party before Country. That's what the Democrats are all about these days. They couldn't possibly give a Republican any credit. Shame on them.
 
Who cares how many banks were "lost"?

Methinks someone doesn't understand the financial system. Downplaying the impact of a collapsed bank prior to the 1933 Banking act makes you look a bit... foolish.

Those collapsing banks literally took the economy with them. Stopping those collapses was the single most important step towards stabilizing the economy, which otherwise would have continued in a downward spiral.

Unemployment is what mattered (you know - jobs - something else you people hate) and the facts about the unemployment numbers don't lie. Unemployment went up after his second phase of the new deal by 6%

No, unemployment went up after the congress decided to attempt to balance the budget and cut spending. You really need to learn not to trust the bullshit Heritage produces.

You just got destroyed on your entire FDR argument. Deal with it.

Well I think someone has no idea about grammar, much less economics. Unemployment went up after FDR's second phase of the New Deal, but you ignore that fact and try to celebrate that they "only" lost 7 banks per year.

No, it didn't go UP. The 2nd New Deal started in 1935 shortly after the SCOTUS struck down components of the first. Unemployment went up two years later when we attempted to balance the budget instead.

Once you know the most basic facts about the New Deal (not one's poached form Heritage) please come on back.

Here is an undeniable fact: unemployment went up to an ungodly 27% after FDR implemented the second phase of his New Deal.

That's not only deniable, it's wrong. Except for Heritage's *odd* way of calculating - the BLS, for example, pegged it at about 20%.

You just got destroyed on your entire FDR argument - by reality.
 
1. Harding died in 1922.

2. FDR refused to be bound by Hoover's failed programs.

3. Dems demanded transparency in the RFC.

4. Rearmaments and war preparations propelled Germany, Italy, and Japan out of Depression more quickly than the western powers, yes.

5. Relief for the needy and economic reform of banking and stock market exchange were right on.
Hoover's failed interventionist policies you mean? You do realize that when campaigning against Hoover, FDR criticized his policies as too socialist, don't you? Hoover was not a "do nothing" president. He intervened heavily in the economy in unprecedented ways. And it led to disaster. FDR then pursued even more radical policies that led to even more disaster.

The War ending the Depression is also a myth. What was produced was tanks and war materials largely useless outside of war. Cities were destroyed in Europe. Exactly how is the destruction of thousands of homes and businesses economic growth?

Shackled, I imagine Hoover called FDR too conservative. It was an election, nimrod.
There was truth to FDRs statement. If Hoover said do nothing, it would make no sense to call him a socialist. Calling me a nimrod is not an argument, it is a logical fallacy.

Hoover's policies led to disaster because he looked to Old Progressive ways instead of looking to the future in which the full strength of the government was necessary to overcome the complete failure of unregulated capitalism.
What Old Progressive ways? What Hoover did was expand regulations and intervene in capitalism more than ever before. Since 1913, the entire monetary policy of the US has followed the socialist model of central banking. How on earth is that unregulated capitalism? The Federal Reserve is the most regulatory institution in existence. It sets the price of borrowing, monopolizes currency, and can create and destroy money at will. You call that unregulated capitalism? I call that uncontrollable government.

The war industries in America put everybody to work. The government guided and directed business in xfring from war to civilian production at the end of the war.
It put people to work creating things to destroy other people and other wealth. Employment is not an end, it is a means of achieving production. If the entire world were fully employed making pins, we would all starve to death. It matters what the jobs are and what they create. Tanks, bombs, missiles, and the like serve to destroy wealth. They have no economic use to individuals. All of those resources could have been used to provide what people actually wanted and needed, but instead were used to fight wars.

You really do not know history, do you?
Well let us look at actual history:
Dispelling The Herbert Hoover Myth - CBS News
Wait, Herbert Hoover Wasn't a Libertarian? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Herbert Hoover's New Deal - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

articles said:
After the stock market crash of 1929, Hoover browbeat business leaders to keep wages and prices high. He invested heavily in public works projects. He pushed for an international moratorium on debts. He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which later became a home for many of FDR's Brain Trusters. Hoover increased farm subsidies enormously.
In 1932, Hoover in effect repealed Calvin Coolidge's tax cuts, increasing the rates for the poorest taxpayers by more than 100 percent and hiking the top rate from 25 percent to 63 percent.
Hoover didn’t cut federal spending, he doubled it. He established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He propped up wages and prices. Indeed, he launched the New Deal.
Far from being "unwilling to challenge the pillars of free-market capitalism," Hoover reacted to the Depression by promoting extensive government intervention. For example, he established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a new federal agency that gave massive loans and grants to banks, failing businesses and state and local governments—a policy similar to today's bailouts. He also supported (albeit reluctantly) the enactment of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a protectionist measure intended to strengthen American businesses by shielding them from foreign competition. Furthermore, he sponsored a massive increase in federal spending on a variety of relief programs. Similar to today's Democratic Congress, Hoover sought to stimulate the economy by increasing federal funding for public works through the Emergency Relief and Construction Act.

What does "Emergency Relief and Construction Act" sound like to you? Not the Obama Stimulus, perhaps? Such is the epitome of government intervention.

Speaking before the 1932 Republican Convention, Hoover boasted that he had rejected the "disastrous" option of doing "nothing" and instead had "met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic." In that same 1932 campaign, FDR even denounced Hoover for overspending and promised to enact a balanced budget.
FDR calling for a balanced budget seems ironic in retrospect.

I hope you all get the point. Hoover was by no means a free market man. He is in the same camp as all the other big government spenders today. Defenders of the stimulus point to Hoover as an example of failure and then pursue the exact same policies. Hoover doubled spending, massively increased taxes, established bureaucracy to "create jobs" and "save banks," raised tariffs to their highest point in history, and passed a massive bailout bill. Does that sound like doing nothing to you?

Again, the famous mantra manifests itself: "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it." I must say, Jake, you appear quite forgetful.
 
Shackled, I'm not sure where you're getting this misinformation.

Hoover's 1929 budget was 3.81B
His 1933 budget was 5.1B.

Hoover did not double spending. He increased it about 34% in nominal dollars in four years, and some of the 1933 spending wasn't even his.

and if he created a "bureaucracy to save banks" it was an abject failure. FDR dropped the bank failure rate from thousands per year to seven with a single piece of legislation.
 
Last edited:
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?
 
Nobody won on this. $6B in cuts this year is nothing for anyone to be proud of. For anyone crowing victory, higher interest rates and inflation will allow suffering to be shared by the entire world.
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?



Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

LMAO no it just reduces providers. Then add the 500 billion already cut and double counted. It paints quite the picture. I doubt you want to discuss the former head of the CBO stating obumblecare was under estimated at a tiny trillion.
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?

Jobs are gone because Barack Hussein has stifled the economy with regulation, hindered it with the cost of Obamacare, crushed it with $14 trillion in debt, and scared it with anti-capitalist rhetoric and posture...
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?

Jobs are gone because Barack Hussein has stifled the economy with regulation, hindered it with the cost of Obamacare, crushed it with $14 trillion in debt, and scared it with anti-capitalist rhetoric and posture...

The wealthy are still getting the tax breaks. They have NEVER created the jobs that were invisioned, and they never will. What do the rich do with their extra money? They simply get richer...If the GOP has its way, the middle class will be near nonexistant in 15 years. It will be the rich....and the poor.
 
Obama announced Sunday night that leaders of both parties in both chambers have reached an agreement on a debt-reduction deal that will "lift the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy."

According to the president, the deal means an immediate cut of $1 trillion over a 10-year period, followed by the creation of a committee to come up with additional cuts worth $1.5 trillion to be voted on by the end of the year.

Each chamber will nominate lawmakers to the committee to report back in the fall. Tax hikes are not part of the package and a pledge for a Balanced Budget Amendment vote is.
Obama said everything will be on the table and both parties will find some of the cuts objectionable.

The Senate adjourned Sunday night without a vote on a debt reduction deal, but Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said that the parties are going to have to give ground and compromise so the country doesn't default.

"I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff. The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States," Reid said.

Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will both present the agreement to their caucuses on Monday morning. Several objections are expected, including from Republican defense hawks who don't want the military gutted and from the Congressional Black Caucus, which called the deal a "sugar-coated Satan sandwich."

House Speaker John Boehner told his Republican caucus on a Sunday night conference call that the deal isn't done yet.

"The press has been filled with reports all day about an agreement. There's no agreement until we've talked to you," he said.

But Boehner of Ohio said the deal does not violate GOP principles. "We got 98 percent of what we wanted," he said adding gthat the framework cuts more spending than it raises the debt limit. It also caps future spending to limits in the growth of government.

"It would also guarantee the American people the vote they have been denied in both chambers on a balanced budget amendment, while creating, I think, some new incentives for past opponents of a BBA to support it," Boehner said.

According to a Power Point presentation provided by Reid's office, if the committee's recommendations are not approved by the end of the year, a "trigger" in the proposal would automatically enact across-the-board cuts -- with roughly half of the cuts coming from defense.

The 12-member committee, composed of six Republicans and six Democrats, three from each party and each chamber, will report the legislation by Nov. 23. The vote, to take place by Dec. 23, would be an up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed.

The trigger would be enacted for across-the-board cuts if the joint committee doesn't reach at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. If that happens, Obama would be allowed to request a $1.2 trillion debt increase and Congress would have to disapprove it. Across the board cuts would also apply to Medicare, but other programs like Social Security, Medicaid, veterans benefits and military pay would be off-limits.

Obama Announces Debt-Reduction Deal Approved by Senate, House Leaders - FoxNews.com

Knowing that the GOP and tea party only controls 1 house out of the 3 legislative branches--it's really sureal. Balanced budget vote in the amendment.

You quoted Fox news. Nuff said.
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?

Exactly.
 
When I visited the casino a few weeks back the slot machine said I won when I received 10 credits back on a 20 credit play. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee! I'm winning!
 
despite the medias best efforts to spin it, he has his own internal polling, he wants to be re-elected and hes never had a real conviction hes willing to go to the wall for in his whole life, hes a 'mediator' not a leader.

You say that like it's a bad thing....

When he tries to lead, he's a tyrant. When he compromises, he's a pussy. See how that works?

I never said that, but, I would check the ny times, new republic, new yorker, atlantic, salon et al....they have labeled this deal a Dem. cave in and blame obama for lack of leadership among other things etc.

heres a quote each from 2 very different ideological planes....


the wall st journal-

The debt ceiling is a political hostage the GOP could never afford to shoot, and this deal is about the best Republicans could have hoped for given that the limit had to be raised. The Jim DeMint-Michele Bachmann-Sean Hannity alternative of refusing to raise the debt limit without a balanced-budget amendment and betting that Mr. Obama would get all the blame vanishes upon contact with any thought. Sooner or later the GOP had to give up the hostage.

Review & Outlook: A Tea Party Triumph - WSJ.com

now, the new republic-

The broad outlines of this agreement have been clear for a while. And they’ve been clear because, as the date for reaching the debt ceiling approached, the White House lost nearly all of its leverage. The Republicans were willing to risk an economic catastrophe and Obama was not. Given that, I'm not sure the president in the final days should have pushed Republicans harder, thereby risking the immediate, devastating effects of government reaching its debt limit.



The Debt Ceiling Deal Is Less Awful Than Advertised, But Still Awful - And Obama Surely Deserves Some Blame | The New Republic

:eusa_eh:
 
what a bunch of fucking pussies.
How can Obama be a tyrant when he fucking caves to these morons everytime?

despite the medias best efforts to spin it, he has his own internal polling, he wants to be re-elected and hes never had a real conviction hes willing to go to the wall for in his whole life, hes a 'mediator' not a leader.

You say that like it's a bad thing....

Only in the context of what the expectations have been set at...it appears to me that the left is far more angry/upset than the right.

Now, from a political angle, the right won, but in the end we all lost.
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.


you do realize what that means.....right?

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?

those 'tax break' will be totally offset as the bush cuts disappear jan 1 2012. and you do realize thats one major reason why bus. won't spend, right?
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their games again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?

Jobs are gone because Barack Hussein has stifled the economy with regulation, hindered it with the cost of Obamacare, crushed it with $14 trillion in debt, and scared it with anti-capitalist rhetoric and posture...

No, jobs are gone because you stupid motherfuckers still believe that hemorrhage-trade policies like NAFTA works for anyone other than commodity traders. That, and your silly fucking pipe dream of global competition with, say it with me, Chinese sweatshop paupers.


Your silly fucking "regulation! regulation!" circle jerk is this that: an excuse for your mental masturbation. Go talk about deregulation with a thalidomide baby and a few miles of toxic land, ball licker.
 
The more I learn about the deal, it seems like a typical, "kick the can down the road" deal. I am not saying that is good or bad, but that is the way it seems to me.

Anyone else see that?
 
Obama didn't want to see another scene with the Tea Baggers holding the country hostage. He got what he wanted. The Baggers will not be able to play their again until 2013. Plus the trigger will cut medicare providers, not the insured.

Still Batcrazy Bachmann is going to vote against it. Isn't she running for president of the country she is trying to send into Default.

The Dems need to drive home the GOP banner, of letting the Rich keep all their tax beaks and loopholes, The FOX crowd, many of whom are middle class, are all falling for the rich will create jobs with their tax breaks.

So, they have been getting the breaks since W. Where are the jobs?

Jobs are gone because Barack Hussein has stifled the economy with regulation, hindered it with the cost of Obamacare, crushed it with $14 trillion in debt, and scared it with anti-capitalist rhetoric and posture...

No, jobs are gone because you stupid motherfuckers still believe that hemorrhage-trade policies like NAFTA works for anyone other than commodity traders. That, and your silly fucking pipe dream of global competition with, say it with me, Chinese sweatshop paupers.


Your silly fucking "regulation! regulation!" circle jerk is this that: an excuse for your mental masturbation. Go talk about deregulation with a thalidomide baby and a few miles of toxic land, ball licker.

Anger and tariffs will not change the fact we are a global economy.

Now if we had some stones in enforcing unfair trade, it could be different.

Regulation costs business almost two trillion a year in compliance. At least those are the estimates. Here in WASHINGTON STATE it was estimated by the University of Washington that these regulations add 200k to the price of a home here.
 
The more I learn about the deal, it seems like a typical, "kick the can down the road" deal. I am not saying that is good or bad, but that is the way it seems to me.

Anyone else see that?

I'd make a sarcastic comment right now, but I've been trying to stop sarcasm. It's just too mean.

However, I do appreciate the fact that you are starting to see this deal for what it is. Trying to procrastinate the inevitable.

We have to address this overspending. Either we cut back voluntarily now or we go in default, and are forced to cut back, leading to riots and potential government collapse. Not really a good scenario there.

We know the problem is over spending. We are overextending our finances. Why can't we just make reasonable and serious cuts? I don't mean slowing the spending. I mean honest and geniune cuts.

Why don't we get rid of the baseline budgeting which is the problem and start budgeting according to the money we collected the year before?

Why is it so unreasonable for us to have a balanced budget? What is unreasonable about cutting unnecessary bueaucracy?

Why is the fact that we waste so much not bother people more? It's our money they are wasting.

Restore the Republic. Give the States their check back in the Senate. Let's govern real finance principles. Let's work hard to eliminate corruption and waste in government. We dont want waste destroying the environment, why should the government or our finances be any different?
 

Forum List

Back
Top