Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anybody know or care exactly what is being cut under the various proposals and possible compromises? I don't see the MSM discussing much on that inconvenient little piece of it.
I can rest assured that it isn't going to help the average citizen much and isn't going to help the deficit much either. All the fear mongering hype about shutting down the government (they won't) will make us so happy to swallow whatever piece of crap budget this turns out to be that we won't even question it.
I'll bet it's not going to cause anybody but the poor and middle class to make any sacrifices- it's just a "chicken little, the sky is falling" method of pulling the rug a little further from under our feet. The MSM looks utterly, transparently ridiculous on this one- as they stretch and strain and flail and lather, rinse, repeat- without providing any truly useful information.
Does anybody know or care exactly what is being cut under the various proposals and possible compromises? I don't see the MSM discussing much on that inconvenient little piece of it.
I can rest assured that it isn't going to help the average citizen much and isn't going to help the deficit much either. All the fear mongering hype about shutting down the government (they won't) will make us so happy to swallow whatever piece of crap budget this turns out to be that we won't even question it.
good question. katie couric nightly news is on in 2 minutes
That is only true when the US has been attacked, or if there is an "eminent threat" to the US. Neither were true in the case of Libya. Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by involving US troops in yet another foreign war without prior congressional approval.
Please don't post about subjects you know nothing about. Look up the War Powers Act and then get back to us. Or do you think Reagan broke the law when he invaded Grenada or ordered air strikes on Libya? Or Bush 1 when he invaded Panama? What about Clinton when he ordered airstrikes against Serbia? None of those had Congressional approval either but all were legal under the war powers act just like the current air strikes in Libya.
Haha. You would do well to educate yourself before responding in the future. Presidents have a window of time before they need to inform Congress and then another before they need formal approval to continue a military operation.
It seems you need to be educated on this AGAIN.. they ONLY have authorization to use the military for war purposes if we are in IMMEDIATE THREAT.. Otherwise, they MUST get authorization from Congress..
I dont know how many times we need to educate you on this because you stop repeating the same old lie...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin
Please don't post about subjects you know nothing about. Look up the War Powers Act and then get back to us. Or do you think Reagan broke the law when he invaded Grenada or ordered air strikes on Libya? Or Bush 1 when he invaded Panama? What about Clinton when he ordered airstrikes against Serbia? None of those had Congressional approval either but all were legal under the war powers act just like the current air strikes in Libya.
Why dont we Oerdin, just to see who was correct?
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
1) I love how you are touting the TARP as returning a profit and that TARP worked AS IF you supported the plan all along. Do you need me to bring up your post history, what happened to the TARP being a utter disaster and will bring America down?
bzzzz.. fail..
Just because TARP returned a profit to the taxpayers, this doesnt mean I suddenly supported its use.. Lets not even discuss that I never went anywhere close to TARP being an utter disaster or even thought it would bring america down. I disagreed with it greatly because of the precidence it set and that government has no authority to bailout industries.
You see if profit was the only motivation for doing something, then I'd be supporting the government buying up McDonalds, US Steel, Exxon.. but I dont.. Just because something was profitable, and I stated this as FACT, doesnt mean I suddently think its a great idea..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
2) Although I agree with the Bush Tax cuts, to say it is not spending as if tax cuts do not affect the deficit the same way spending does is ludicrous.
If the Government spends a $100 or if the Government takes in $100 less income it has the same affect on the deficit .
BZZZ wrong again.. thats two...
to pretend money doesnt come into the government because tax cuts existed is ridiculous. That money stays into the economy, it gets spent, which hires individuals, which results in lower welfare costs, increased tax revenues, more jobs, a lower burden on society..
To proclaim that a government spending $100 that it doesnt have, and a government taking in $100 less is false because they indeed take it in.. Capital gains revenues after the Bush tax cuts DOUBLED because they kept money moving.. And money moving = a better economy as well..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
3) Please reference where the CBO stated that the stimulus would have a negative effect a few years out and what those negative affects are?
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
4) Yes unemployment was 8.9% when Obama signed the stimulus, you ignore though that unemployment was rising fast and during the last stages of the Bush Presidency we were losing close to 750,000 jobs a month.
The economy leveled off so much so that even Democrats were questioning the need for a stimulus.
Unemployment in 2009 (because of the effects of the Housing crisis and the recession of 2007-) would have risen under any President
When you drain a trillion dollars out of the economy, you CREATE job losses..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
**Also you making up numbers, Unemployment never rose to 10.6 under Obama, the highest was 10.1**
Nope.. it was only 10.1% if you removed all kinds of people from the unemployment list, 1/2010 it was 10.6% National Unemployment Rate Chart
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
Obama has risen America out of the recession without things getting a lot worse as Repubs/Right wingers warned the sky would fall (Depression). Jobs are gaining over 200,000+ a month. Unemployment is at a low since the crisis.
Bull crap.. Obama did no such thing.. Its a normal business economic recovery.. In fact even Greenspan said that government was hindering a recovery.. Are you telling me you know more than Greenspan?
The President must realize the chit is about to hit the fan and take some drastic actions. Perhaps locking Congress into a permanent session with US Capitol Police physically preventing any member of Congress from leaving until a budget is passed and signed by the President. Only bread and water would be allowed in and all cell phones confiscated and landlines cut to encourage members of Congress to focus on the task at hand. And suspend their salaries until Congress can get it's act together. And any Congressman attempting to leave would be Nancy Kerrigan'd in the kneecap with a police baton.
Does anybody know or care exactly what is being cut under the various proposals and possible compromises? I don't see the MSM discussing much on that inconvenient little piece of it.
I can rest assured that it isn't going to help the average citizen much and isn't going to help the deficit much either. All the fear mongering hype about shutting down the government (they won't) will make us so happy to swallow whatever piece of crap budget this turns out to be that we won't even question it.
I'll bet it's not going to cause anybody but the poor and middle class to make any sacrifices- it's just a "chicken little, the sky is falling" method of pulling the rug a little further from under our feet. The MSM looks utterly, transparently ridiculous on this one- as they stretch and strain and flail and lather, rinse, repeat- without providing any truly useful information.
Yes. You can find out the details by looking up H.R. 1363, or go here:
That is only true when the US has been attacked, or if there is an "eminent threat" to the US. Neither were true in the case of Libya. Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by involving US troops in yet another foreign war without prior congressional approval.
You should study Jefferson's military actions and then decide. Also, Obama's not involved us in a war. We are providing support to the UN for a limited military engagement. Our role dwindles with each passing week.
bzzzz.. fail..
Just because TARP returned a profit to the taxpayers, this doesnt mean I suddenly supported its use.. Lets not even discuss that I never went anywhere close to TARP being an utter disaster or even thought it would bring america down. I disagreed with it greatly because of the precidence it set and that government has no authority to bailout industries.
You see if profit was the only motivation for doing something, then I'd be supporting the government buying up McDonalds, US Steel, Exxon.. but I dont.. Just because something was profitable, and I stated this as FACT, doesnt mean I suddently think its a great idea..
BZZZ wrong again.. thats two...
to pretend money doesnt come into the government because tax cuts existed is ridiculous. That money stays into the economy, it gets spent, which hires individuals, which results in lower welfare costs, increased tax revenues, more jobs, a lower burden on society..
To proclaim that a government spending $100 that it doesnt have, and a government taking in $100 less is false because they indeed take it in.. Capital gains revenues after the Bush tax cuts DOUBLED because they kept money moving.. And money moving = a better economy as well..
When you drain a trillion dollars out of the economy, you CREATE job losses..
Nope.. it was only 10.1% if you removed all kinds of people from the unemployment list, 1/2010 it was 10.6% National Unemployment Rate Chart
Bull crap.. Obama did no such thing.. Its a normal business economic recovery.. In fact even Greenspan said that government was hindering a recovery.. Are you telling me you know more than Greenspan?
I'm not sure I'd use Greenspan, the guy who misread the entire economic collapse, as a paragon of truth. We all know the right would be hounding Obama if the economy wasn't improving, so to try and suggest his actions, which prevented millinos from being unemployed and cut taxes for millions more, didn't have an impact is pretty silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
