This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[nodoginnafight]

But Maggie - Obama is responsible for 100% of that deficit -

.

Strawman .
Im done with you .

Yeah, it stinks when someone throws YOUR own tactics back at you, huh?

"No president has ever done what Obama has done"

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You must be a MSNBC watcher.

 

[MaggieMae]

No one has done what Obama has done, we are about to lose our AAA credit rating ,That will cause the interest on the debt to increase, we will not be able to pay the debt and run the country , This will cause hyper inflation and a likely repudiation of the debt, causing a global collapse .
The solution with be global government .
Do worry you wont have to wait very long to find out if Im right tor wrong.

We are not "about to" lose the credit rating. That warning has been there since the deficit reached over a trillion last year. Which isn't to say we should just let it slide further, but I continue to believe smarter people than you and me are not just aware of that danger but will ultimately do something about it.

Reducing deficit key to U.S. rating: Moody's
Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:28am EDT

HONG KONG (Reuters) - The United States, which posted a record deficit in the last fiscal year, may lose its Aaa-rating if it does not reduce the gap to manageable levels in the next 3-4 years, Moody's Investors Service said on Thursday.

The U.S. government posted a deficit of $1.417 trillion in the year ended September 30 as the deep recession and a series of bank rescues cut a gaping hole in its public finances. The White House has forecast deficits of more than $1 trillion through fiscal 2011.

"The Aaa rating of the U.S. is not guaranteed," said Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States said in an interview with Reuters Television.

"So if they don't get the deficit down in the next 3-4 years to a sustainable level, then the rating will be in jeopardy."

Moody's has a stable outlook on the U.S. rating, which indicates a change is not expected over the next 18 months.

Earlier this year, financial markets were spooked by concerns about the risk of the United States losing its top rating after Standard & Poor's revised its outlook on Britain to negative from stable, indicating the risk of a downgrade.

Hess said that reducing the budget deficit would be a challenge.

"Raising taxes is never popular and difficult politically so we have to see if the government can do that or cut expenditure," he said while adding it would be tough to reduce expenditure.

Reducing deficit key to U.S. rating: Moody's | U.S. | Reuters

But Maggie - Obama is responsible for 100% of that deficit - didn't you hear - NO OTHER PRESIDENT has ever run a deficit - no other president!!!!

This hyperbole, straw man, loaded question, make up BS, hate mongering, spin cycle nonesense is so unbelievably boring.

It's true, though, that the deficit needs to be addressed, and soon. I'm sure people in the know lose sleep over how to deal with it especially with unemployment continuing to rise which creates even more of a burden on existing government social programs and depletes the treasury even further.

But you're right about the blame game, which happens regarding all aspects of the tanking economy. Fixing the blame doesn't solve the problem, and I don't ever see the Republicans (or non-Republicans, whatever they're calling themselves these days) offering up any workable solutions either. If everything was stagnant, sure, we could just say STOP THE WORLD WHILE WE PERFORM SURGERY, but businesses continue to fold, money and credit continues to be tight, and reliance on the federal government for help also continues as a result.

Anybody?

 

[MaggieMae]

I won't fight to defend YOUR interpretation of the constitution A good illustration of trying to get someone to accept a faulty assumption and bestow legitimacy to it by responding as if it were true .....

But the question is not what you would not fight for. The question was what the government would have to do to persuade you to take up arms against those in the government, or in less specific terms, is there nothing the government could do that would persuade you to take up arms against it?

As yet you have not answered that question.

I fully understand how difficult a question it is. But how much would YOU be willing for the government to inappropriately revise the Constitution before you would be alarmed enough, angry enough, afraid enough to act?

I am guessing that the rest of us who are as convinced that there could be circumstances that would force us to actively resist our own government are not that different from you.

The difference is, we don't see those who feel that way as somehow subversive or radical or dangerous or wrong. You have sort of suggested that you do see the rest of us that way and that you would be more likely to see 'us' as the enemy rather than the government. But I am guessing that none of the rest of us are any more radical or dangerous than you are and would not take up arms against the government for any reason short of offenses that would prompt you to do that. But--I am speculating here--if you were to admit that, you would have to modify your previous stated conviction. And that is what is so difficult for so many of us to do. We have to try to defend it even as it becomes less and less defensible.

Again, that is sort of the thesis of this thread.

Allow me. I don't think being angry over taxes or spending is a valid reason to take up arms. Now if Obama decided to nationalize all private industry and instituted marshal law to control the outrage, he effectively would have replaced the Stars & Stripes with the Hammer & Sickle, and yes, I for one would join the ranks of an armed revolution. But we're not even close to "socialism" yet, so I fail to see what all the hoopla is all about. The Democrats are trying to solve some major domestic problems that have been lingering on the back burners way too long. Yes, this is probably a terrible time to do it, but it still is no reason for a "revolution" of the sort talked about by the more radical folks out there.

 

[Foxfyre]

As yet you have not answered that question.

Yes, I did. Very clearly. I said I could not conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own county. I invited people to try to come up with a scenario and got alien invasion type fantasies.
So at present I still haven't been able to conceive of or be shown a plausible scenario that lead me to take up arms against my own country.

OK - I did think of one but it's not really my country - if the United States were conquored by a foreign nation, then I would fight against those who would be then calling themselves the government of the United States - but in my estimation - that still would be against "MY" country.

Okay I stand corrected. You are different from those of us who cherish the freedoms and rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. You are different from those of us who believe the Founders who warned us to be ever vigilent and aware of those who would take those away from us. They fought for and forged a revolutionary and experimental Republic that is like no other and that has provided freedoms that were previously unknown in the world. But they also knew there would be many who would challenge it for their own impulses and interests.

You apparently would allow your property, freedoms, choices, and opportunities to be stripped away rather than challenge your government. God help us if there are many who think as you think.

I am grateful that there are still many of us who don't agree with you.

 

[MaggieMae]

We are not "about to" lose the credit rating. That warning has been there since the deficit reached over a trillion last year. Which isn't to say we should just let it slide further, but I continue to believe smarter people than you and me are not just aware of that danger but will ultimately do something about it.

Can you point to anything being done in DC that will
Cut spending?
Slow down government spending ?
increase Government revenues without raising taxes?
Increase confidence in the dollar ,including stopping monetizing the debt.?
Do you see anything changing in the next 3 years?

For starters --
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/trs.pdf

That link doesn't show here that it's only that portion of the budget dealing with reductions, terminations, and savings.

I'll have to come back to the other questions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

We are not "about to" lose the credit rating. That warning has been there since the deficit reached over a trillion last year. Which isn't to say we should just let it slide further, but I continue to believe smarter people than you and me are not just aware of that danger but will ultimately do something about it.

Reducing deficit key to U.S. rating: Moody's
Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:28am EDT

HONG KONG (Reuters) - The United States, which posted a record deficit in the last fiscal year, may lose its Aaa-rating if it does not reduce the gap to manageable levels in the next 3-4 years, Moody's Investors Service said on Thursday.

The U.S. government posted a deficit of $1.417 trillion in the year ended September 30 as the deep recession and a series of bank rescues cut a gaping hole in its public finances. The White House has forecast deficits of more than $1 trillion through fiscal 2011.

"The Aaa rating of the U.S. is not guaranteed," said Steven Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States said in an interview with Reuters Television.

"So if they don't get the deficit down in the next 3-4 years to a sustainable level, then the rating will be in jeopardy."

Moody's has a stable outlook on the U.S. rating, which indicates a change is not expected over the next 18 months.

Earlier this year, financial markets were spooked by concerns about the risk of the United States losing its top rating after Standard & Poor's revised its outlook on Britain to negative from stable, indicating the risk of a downgrade.

Hess said that reducing the budget deficit would be a challenge.

"Raising taxes is never popular and difficult politically so we have to see if the government can do that or cut expenditure," he said while adding it would be tough to reduce expenditure.

Reducing deficit key to U.S. rating: Moody's | U.S. | Reuters

But Maggie - Obama is responsible for 100% of that deficit - didn't you hear - NO OTHER PRESIDENT has ever run a deficit - no other president!!!!

This hyperbole, straw man, loaded question, make up BS, hate mongering, spin cycle nonesense is so unbelievably boring.

It's true, though, that the deficit needs to be addressed, and soon. I'm sure people in the know lose sleep over how to deal with it especially with unemployment continuing to rise which creates even more of a burden on existing government social programs and depletes the treasury even further.

But you're right about the blame game, which happens regarding all aspects of the tanking economy. Fixing the blame doesn't solve the problem, and I don't ever see the Republicans (or non-Republicans, whatever they're calling themselves these days) offering up any workable solutions either. If everything was stagnant, sure, we could just say STOP THE WORLD WHILE WE PERFORM SURGERY, but businesses continue to fold, money and credit continues to be tight, and reliance on the federal government for help also continues as a result.

Anybody?

Oh I agree 100%. I don't think a small, temporary deficit or even a persistent deficit that is very, very small is anything to lose sleep about. But I agree that our deficit has gotten to the point that it needs addressing.

What I detest are silly NeoCons who spent like drunken sailors on leave and were too cowardly to collect the taxes to pay for it. Instead they made things even worse by pandering to their cronies and donors with huge tax breaks.
And NOW - the only problem they really have with government spending is that THEY are not the ones who have the credit card in their hands. Hypocritical scum.

But yes - we need to balance the budget and we even need to start running at least a small surplus.

As for a good plan - I'd start with Pay-go and tackeling entitlements even though it will undoubtly cause outrage and some incumbent tossing.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Okay I stand corrected. You are different from those of us who cherish the freedoms and rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.

That my friends is a textbook straw man. Not what I said - words put in my mouth and arguing with the made-up rather than the actual post.
Thanks for clearing that up for those who were obviously struggling with what a straw man argument really is.
And, of course, wrapping yourself in the flag as you did it (I could almost make out the fifes and drums) was a special lil' lagniappe.

 

[Foxfyre]

I won't fight to defend YOUR interpretation of the constitution A good illustration of trying to get someone to accept a faulty assumption and bestow legitimacy to it by responding as if it were true .....

But the question is not what you would not fight for. The question was what the government would have to do to persuade you to take up arms against those in the government, or in less specific terms, is there nothing the government could do that would persuade you to take up arms against it?

As yet you have not answered that question.

I fully understand how difficult a question it is. But how much would YOU be willing for the government to inappropriately revise the Constitution before you would be alarmed enough, angry enough, afraid enough to act?

I am guessing that the rest of us who are as convinced that there could be circumstances that would force us to actively resist our own government are not that different from you.

The difference is, we don't see those who feel that way as somehow subversive or radical or dangerous or wrong. You have sort of suggested that you do see the rest of us that way and that you would be more likely to see 'us' as the enemy rather than the government. But I am guessing that none of the rest of us are any more radical or dangerous than you are and would not take up arms against the government for any reason short of offenses that would prompt you to do that. But--I am speculating here--if you were to admit that, you would have to modify your previous stated conviction. And that is what is so difficult for so many of us to do. We have to try to defend it even as it becomes less and less defensible.

Again, that is sort of the thesis of this thread.

Allow me. I don't think being angry over taxes or spending is a valid reason to take up arms. Now if Obama decided to nationalize all private industry and instituted marshal law to control the outrage, he effectively would have replaced the Stars & Stripes with the Hammer & Sickle, and yes, I for one would join the ranks of an armed revolution. But we're not even close to "socialism" yet, so I fail to see what all the hoopla is all about. The Democrats are trying to solve some major domestic problems that have been lingering on the back burners way too long. Yes, this is probably a terrible time to do it, but it still is no reason for a "revolution" of the sort talked about by the more radical folks out there.

I haven't seen anybody here suggest that being angry over taxes or spending is a valid reason to take up arms. But bless you for recognizing that it is inconceivable that there could be those who would presume to forever change the USA into a country that it was never intended to be, and that there are principles and values worth fighting for.

I hope you're right that the Democrats (or anybody else) are trying to solve some major domestic problems. But if that was the case, why are they trying to shut down criticism of the solutions they propose even to the point they attempt to destroy any who oppose them? Why aren't they holding hearings to get input from professionals and experts from all segments of society and really trying to achieve a sense of what the people want and a consensus among leaders of the very best solutions possible? Why are they operating under a cloak of secrecy and subterfuge and rushing through legislation that they haven't even read?

Is it inconceivable that they are pushing their own self-serving agenda rather than honestly seeking the best solutions?

And should we not be wary of what that agenda might be? And resist it if it is not in the best interest of the people? Are the Tea Partiers and Protesters and Oath Keepers etc. etc. not resisting peacefully at this time? Are they subversive? Or are they patriots?

At what point do we accept that government is not following either the letter or intent of the Constitution? A minority of Americans voted to resist the British oppression in the 18th Century. Probably a minority of Americans will decide to resist a rogue and subversive government should it get that bad, but I am guessing there are still more Americans who would cheer on that minority than would condemn it. How wrong would they be?

 

[MaggieMae]

As yet you have not answered that question.

Yes, I did. Very clearly. I said I could not conceive of a situation that would prompt me to take up arms against my own county. I invited people to try to come up with a scenario and got alien invasion type fantasies.
So at present I still haven't been able to conceive of or be shown a plausible scenario that lead me to take up arms against my own country.

OK - I did think of one but it's not really my country - if the United States were conquored by a foreign nation, then I would fight against those who would be then calling themselves the government of the United States - but in my estimation - that still would be against "MY" country.

Okay I stand corrected. You are different from those of us who cherish the freedoms and rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. You are different from those of us who believe the Founders who warned us to be ever vigilent and aware of those who would take those away from us. They fought for and forged a revolutionary and experimental Republic that is like no other and that has provided freedoms that were previously unknown in the world. But they also knew there would be many who would challenge it for their own impulses and interests.

You apparently would allow your property, freedoms, choices, and opportunities to be stripped away rather than challenge your government. God help us if there are many who think as you think.

I am grateful that there are still many of us who don't agree with you.

Operative word is "challenge" the government. A "revolution" by people carrying weapons would soon evolve into a war, not a challenge, and I'm guessing the mob mindset would have people not even remembering what they were fighting for. It's what happens during any riot. A lot of blood spilled...for what? Oh yeah, that. What a waste.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Later Mag - been a pleasure as always - I STILL love your song!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

But the question is not what you would not fight for. The question was what the government would have to do to persuade you to take up arms against those in the government, or in less specific terms, is there nothing the government could do that would persuade you to take up arms against it?

As yet you have not answered that question.

I fully understand how difficult a question it is. But how much would YOU be willing for the government to inappropriately revise the Constitution before you would be alarmed enough, angry enough, afraid enough to act?

I am guessing that the rest of us who are as convinced that there could be circumstances that would force us to actively resist our own government are not that different from you.

The difference is, we don't see those who feel that way as somehow subversive or radical or dangerous or wrong. You have sort of suggested that you do see the rest of us that way and that you would be more likely to see 'us' as the enemy rather than the government. But I am guessing that none of the rest of us are any more radical or dangerous than you are and would not take up arms against the government for any reason short of offenses that would prompt you to do that. But--I am speculating here--if you were to admit that, you would have to modify your previous stated conviction. And that is what is so difficult for so many of us to do. We have to try to defend it even as it becomes less and less defensible.

Again, that is sort of the thesis of this thread.

Allow me. I don't think being angry over taxes or spending is a valid reason to take up arms. Now if Obama decided to nationalize all private industry and instituted marshal law to control the outrage, he effectively would have replaced the Stars & Stripes with the Hammer & Sickle, and yes, I for one would join the ranks of an armed revolution. But we're not even close to "socialism" yet, so I fail to see what all the hoopla is all about. The Democrats are trying to solve some major domestic problems that have been lingering on the back burners way too long. Yes, this is probably a terrible time to do it, but it still is no reason for a "revolution" of the sort talked about by the more radical folks out there.

I haven't seen anybody here suggest that being angry over taxes or spending is a valid reason to take up arms. But bless you for recognizing that it is inconceivable that there could be those who would presume to forever change the USA into a country that it was never intended to be, and that there are principles and values worth fighting for.

I hope you're right that the Democrats (or anybody else) are trying to solve some major domestic problems. But if that was the case, why are they trying to shut down criticism of the solutions they propose even to the point they attempt to destroy any who oppose them? Why aren't they holding hearings to get input from professionals and experts from all segments of society and really trying to achieve a sense of what the people want and a consensus among leaders of the very best solutions possible? Why are they operating under a cloak of secrecy and subterfuge and rushing through legislation that they haven't even read?

Is it inconceivable that they are pushing their own self-serving agenda rather than honestly seeking the best solutions?

And should we not be wary of what that agenda might be? And resist it if it is not in the best interest of the people? Are the Tea Partiers and Protesters and Oath Keepers etc. etc. not resisting peacefully at this time? Are they subversive? Or are they patriots?

At what point do we accept that government is not following either the letter or intent of the Constitution? A minority of Americans voted to resist the British oppression in the 18th Century. Probably a minority of Americans will decide to resist a rogue and subversive government should it get that bad, but I am guessing there are still more Americans who would cheer on that minority than would condemn it. How wrong would they be?

I don't think the administration IS trying to cover anything up. If you go to C-Span's main page (C-Span.org), you'll see everything they cover on all three of their channels, and there are a lot of hearings that don't get into the news on a regular basis. Of course not everything that goes on behind closed doors is open to the public, but you can be sure that when the upper echelon finally reaches these hearings, they've done their homework, so it isn't as though nothing is being done.

As far as the "transparency" promise, I also think this administration is much more open than previous ones, and they try to get things up on the Internet, but that isn't an easy overnight process either.

The current stories of the WH trying to suppress Fox News is, I believe, a creation of the media. It gives them something to yak about every day, because there is such strong competition among them. That said, I also think it's perfectly understandable that Fox News is hardly a fave of Obama, given the wild allegations of people like Glenn Beck. Hell, even O'Reilly looks saintly by comparison. It stands to reason that you can't grind up a person and then someday expect his devotion.

 

[MaggieMae]

Later Mag - been a pleasure as always - I STILL love your song!!!

Thanks. It was my all-time favorite (back in the day). Now all I remember as I look in the mirror in the morning is "The morning sun shining in your face really shows your age..." lalalala...

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think the administration IS trying to cover anything up. If you go to C-Span's main page (C-Span.org), you'll see everything they cover on all three of their channels, and there are a lot of hearings that don't get into the news on a regular basis. Of course not everything that goes on behind closed doors is open to the public, but you can be sure that when the upper echelon finally reaches these hearings, they've done their homework, so it isn't as though nothing is being done.

As far as the "transparency" promise, I also think this administration is much more open than previous ones, and they try to get things up on the Internet, but that isn't an easy overnight process either.

The current stories of the WH trying to suppress Fox News is, I believe, a creation of the media. It gives them something to yak about every day, because there is such strong competition among them. That said, I also think it's perfectly understandable that Fox News is hardly a fave of Obama, given the wild allegations of people like Glenn Beck. Hell, even O'Reilly looks saintly by comparison. It stands to reason that you can't grind up a person and then someday expect his devotion.

We will just have to disagree. I think the transparency PROMISED by candidate Obama quickly disappeared when he first met criticism as President. I disagree that this administration is any more open or even as open as the previous one. At least 'secret meetings' in the Bush administration that resulted in public policy, regulation, law etc. were bipartisan affairs.

See Willow's thread on Fox News for very clear evidence that the Obama Administration has actively attempted to isolate, marginalize, and even shut down Fox News which is the only widely viewed media source that is reporting on all aspects of the current Congress and the Obama Administration.

No media should be seeking devotion from government. Without a free and unfettered press, history is a reliable guage that we can soon expect to have no freedoms at all.

Blind faith is in part what this thread is all about is it not? An inability to see, recognize, or admit truth that is contrary to what we choose to believe? There are those of us who think that is extremely dangerous when it comes to government action that will affect every part of our lives now and into our childrens' and grandchildrens' futures.

(And I am a C-span junkie.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I stand corrected. You are different from those of us who cherish the freedoms and rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.

That my friends is a textbook straw man. Not what I said - words put in my mouth and arguing with the made-up rather than the actual post.
Thanks for clearing that up for those who were obviously struggling with what a straw man argument really is.
And, of course, wrapping yourself in the flag as you did it (I could almost make out the fifes and drums) was a special lil' lagniappe.

I think you don't understand a straw man. There are those of us who believe certain freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution are worth fighting for, even fighting our government to preserve. You have unequivocably stated that you would not fight for anything short of a foreign power overthrowing the government.

So where is the straw man?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UErR7i2onW0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Okay I stand corrected. You are different from those of us who cherish the freedoms and rights guaranteed us by our Constitution.

That my friends is a textbook straw man. Not what I said - words put in my mouth and arguing with the made-up rather than the actual post.
Thanks for clearing that up for those who were obviously struggling with what a straw man argument really is.
And, of course, wrapping yourself in the flag as you did it (I could almost make out the fifes and drums) was a special lil' lagniappe.

I think you don't understand a straw man. There are those of us who believe certain freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution are worth fighting for, even fighting our government to preserve. You have unequivocably stated that you would not fight for anything short of a foreign power overthrowing the government.

So where is the straw man?

He's oblivious to what is going on.
Lapping up koolaid does that.

 

[Foxfyre]

YouTube - 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

It was these very statements that elected Obama. I don't know whether he meant them at the time or not or whether they were simply empty rhetoric dreamed up by Axelrod or some other of his speech writers. But he obviously threw all or most out the window as soon as they began interfering with his adopted agenda as President.

And here we have a dilemma of millions of Americans who voted for him on the strength of statements like that and now are in the position of having to either defend him or admit they were fools to believe him.

And Maggie's thesis with this thread is definitely a factor in that I think.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It's true, though, that the deficit needs to be addressed, and soon. I'm sure people in the know lose sleep over how to deal with it especially with unemployment continuing to rise which creates even more of a burden on existing government social programs and depletes the treasury even further.

But you're right about the blame game, which happens regarding all aspects of the tanking economy. Fixing the blame doesn't solve the problem, and I don't ever see the Republicans (or non-Republicans, whatever they're calling themselves these days) offering up any workable solutions either. If everything was stagnant, sure, we could just say STOP THE WORLD WHILE WE PERFORM SURGERY, but businesses continue to fold, money and credit continues to be tight, and reliance on the federal government for help also continues as a result.

Anybody?

If the Dems wanted to do something other than spend on new programs the could do it .
They have both houses and the WHitehouse.
All they want to do is spend borrow and spend tax and spend destroy the dollar and spend.
Whats the end game?

 

[Intense]

It's true, though, that the deficit needs to be addressed, and soon. I'm sure people in the know lose sleep over how to deal with it especially with unemployment continuing to rise which creates even more of a burden on existing government social programs and depletes the treasury even further.

But you're right about the blame game, which happens regarding all aspects of the tanking economy. Fixing the blame doesn't solve the problem, and I don't ever see the Republicans (or non-Republicans, whatever they're calling themselves these days) offering up any workable solutions either. If everything was stagnant, sure, we could just say STOP THE WORLD WHILE WE PERFORM SURGERY, but businesses continue to fold, money and credit continues to be tight, and reliance on the federal government for help also continues as a result.

Anybody?

If the Dems wanted to do something other than spend on new programs the could do it .
They have both houses and the WHitehouse.
All they want to do is spend borrow and spend tax and spend destroy the dollar and spend.
Whats the end game?

They want control.