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.
President Obama is absolutely correct. He has been an incredible President. He has restored dignity, class, intelligence, and versatility to the oval office after Bush tarnished the Presidency with his utter incompetence. Bush left the worst mess in history. If it wasn't for President Obama, we'd be in a severe Depression now. Unemployment would be much worse. The rich would enjoy far more greater perks and advantages than they do now. The deficit would be much, more higher. If a Republican had succeeded Bush, the Tea Party would not exist and speak of "taking america back." The GOP wouldn't be concerned about the budget, spending, or the deficit.
The President said it best. "Ideological purity does not solve problems." This apparently goes over the head of everyone in the GOP. While the GOP is focused on yet another failing effort in trying to make Obama a one-term President, Obama is doing his best to solve the problems that this country has been plagued with because of Bush and the GOP. His sentiments here are absolutely correct and spot on. Shame that the GOP is no longer worthy to uphold these noble principles, and not qualified to remain a major political party in this country.
Would it supprise all of you to know that the statement quoted in the original post was made by Ronald Reagan in 1987?
Let's see those responses again.
So Frank thought it was Barack Obama - so of course the statement must be wrong.
I wonder if that means in Frank's eyes that Reagan was also wrong.
OK, an observation that ignores the original question about whether Reagan was right or wrong about the government defaulting on the public debt.
At least DRob's is staying on target with his message.
A definite response to the question!
According to Mircea, Reagan's not only wrong but he's a liar to boot!
And wrapping it up, one person who agrees with Ronald Reagan about defaulting on the public debt.
Quote:
Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.
Darioush Rezaie, 35, a university lecturer, was shot dead by gunmen in eastern Tehran on Saturday, the third murder of a scientist since 2009. One was killed in a car bomb, the second by a device detonated remotely.
The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time on Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.
For example, a nuclear explosion at an altitude of 100 kilometers would expose 4 million square kilometers, about
1.5 million square miles, of Earth surface beneath the burst to a range of EMP field intensities.
The time required for full recovery of service would depend on both the disruption and damage to the electrical power infrastructure and to other national infrastructures. Larger affected areas and stronger EMP field strengths will prolong the time to recover. Some critical electrical power infrastructure components are no longer manufactured in the United States, and their acquisition ordinarily requires up to a year of lead time in routine circumstances. Damage to or loss of these components could leave significant parts of the electrical infrastructure out of service for periods measured in months to a year or more.
Electrical power is necessary to support other critical infrastructures, including supply and distribution of water, food, fuel, communications, transport, financial transactions, emergency services, government services, and all other infrastructures supporting the national economy and welfare. Should significant parts of the electrical power infrastructure be lost for any substantial period of time, the Commission believes that the consequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities. In fact, the Commission is deeply concerned that such impacts are likely in the event of an EMP attack unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and for rapid restoration of electric power, particularly to essential services. The recovery plans for the individual infrastructures currently in place essentially assume, at worst, limited upsets to the other infrastructures that are important to their operation. Such plans may be of little or no value in the wake of an EMP attack because of its long-duration effects on all infrastructures that rely on electricity or electronics.
Cold War-style deterrence through mutual assured destruction is not likely to be an effective threat against potential protagonists that are either failing states or trans-national groups. Therefore, making preparations to manage the effects of an EMP attack, including understanding what has happened, maintaining situational awareness, having plans in place to recover, challenging and exercising those plans, and reducing vulnerabilities, is critical to reducing the consequences, and thus probability, of attack. The appropriate national-level approach should balance prevention, protection, and recovery.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pledged Saturday that the United States would sustain its military presence and diplomatic involvement in Asia, as he sought to calm regional worries about the potential for a new isolationism brought on by fiscal difficulties at home.
Like a chrysalis, we're emerging from the economy of the Industrial Revolution—an economy confined to and limited by the Earth's physical resources...
But progress is not foreordained. The key is freedom—freedom of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication.
We are seeing the power of economic freedom spreading around the world. Places such as the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan have vaulted into the technological era, barely pausing in the industrial age along the way. Low-tax agricultural policies in the subcontinent mean that in some years India is now a net exporter of food. Perhaps most exciting are the winds of change that are blowing over the People's Republic of China, where one-quarter of the world's population is now getting its first taste of economic freedom.
But freedom is more even than this. Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people. It is the right to dream—to follow your dream or stick to your conscience, even if you're the only one in a sea of doubters. Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put on this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer.
Some of our preliminary assessments are highlighted below:
The whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.
The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.
Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources—particularly energy, food, and water—raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.
The potential for conflict will increase owing partly to political turbulence in parts of the greater Middle East.
NIC 2025 Project (http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html - broken link)
Quote:
Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the president’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.”
CBS News chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell asks White House adviser David Plouffe why President Obama didn't use Monday's address to lay out his plan to solve the debt crisis.
If history teaches anything it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma—predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant.
People do not make wars; governments do. And no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology. A people free to choose will always choose peace.
How long have we been running deficits? In the terms of an economist, every single one of those years under a "balanced budget amendment" would be a recession year. That means we would be in a depression stretching 60 years with the exception of a few times here or there where we created bubbles.
The fever swamp grows as the lying continues!
As soon as it stops we can move forward as a planet...
Every single scheme the federal government has pulled is coming to a very abrupt end. The faster the economy declines the faster they decline.
Mix this with an ever increasing world wide population putting much pressure on the cost of every day items.
Mix this with the fact that the only reason we haven't gone into a depression is because we've been borrowing "prosperity" and it's easy to see the house of cards is coming down fast (and faster and faster).
And if you talk to small business owners, all they want is to know what their taxes will be for 10 years. Thats all they are waiting on.
So it's OK to threaten default, or even to force a default on the debt? All in the name of getting ones way?
You don't believe him when he says that defaulting on the debt, or even threatening to do so, would cause interest rates to skyrocket, financial markets to become unstable and the federal deficit to soar?
There's no need to default. There's enough revenue to service the debt, meet Constitutional obligations, and pay SS and Medicare via the required Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). Cut social spending programs and social entitlements spending. There's no Constitutional mandates for them anyway.
Every single scheme the federal government has pulled is coming to a very abrupt end. The faster the economy declines the faster they decline.
Mix this with an ever increasing world wide population putting much pressure on the cost of every day items.
Mix this with the fact that the only reason we haven't gone into a depression is because we've been borrowing "prosperity" and it's easy to see the house of cards is coming down fast (and faster and faster).
The dems and obama administration conveniently left out the next paragraph......
"Some in Congress will claim that if I reject this bill with its Gramm-Rudman-Hollings fix, then I'm against deficit reduction. But, of course, nothing is farther from the truth. Since 1980 when you first elected me to this office, I have led efforts to control Congress' appetite to spend in deficit. Over a 5-year period, while revenues went up 28 percent, congressional spending went up 46 percent. From 1982 to 1987, for every dollar Congress cut from our national defense, they added $2 for domestic spending. Now, that's not fiscal restraint. Two years ago, Congress took a first step to curb spending with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and I agreed. Its purpose was to get on a track to lower deficits and eventually a balanced budget. Well, the ink was not even dry before Congress walked away from its own plan. Instead of facing the tough choices to reduce Federal spending, Congress attempted to shift the burden to our national security and to you, the American taxpayers, in the form of new taxes."
That is as far from obama as one can get.
Yet again, more proof that Reagan is perhaps the greatest President in over a century.
“Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestical*ly and internatio*nally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchild*ren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership*. Americans deserve better."”
Hmmm....easier to be a critic than to lead, huh bo?
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.
Absolutely
