Debt ceiling

Xceler8x wrote: Circular discussion seems to be the name of the game here folks.

Seems to be the case. Back to "why didn't the Democrats pass a budget?"

Well here's something new- the Godfather has given his followers an out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/out-from-under-the-anti-tax-pledge/2011/07/20/gIQAoudbQI_story.html

Grover has given it his blessing. So it is written, so it shall be, since Republicans have given their entire fiscal position over to one man- that none of us voted for.

Not sure how quickly a deal can come together, but if you're hearing news that a deal may come, this is why. Grover allows it. Absurd.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Grover has given it his blessing....if you're hearing news that a deal may come, this is why. Grover allows it.

^^^ You are correct.

JoeyM wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Grover has given it his blessing....if you're hearing news that a deal may come, this is why. Grover allows it.

^^^ You are correct.

You want to subscribe to the idea that a single man has that much control over a political party?

Does that put you and individuals who assign the same levels of influence to Soros at the same level?

So, who are the real wing-nuts?

oldsaw wrote: You want to subscribe to the idea that a single man has that much control over a political party? Does that put you and individuals who assign the same levels of influence to Soros at the same level? I don't have to "subscribe" to any idea. It is in writing- in black and white for everyone to see. Not only that, they tout it as something they're proud of. "I will not consider any issue, weigh any facts, consider any variables when it comes to taxes. My decision has already been made for me by Grover Norquist." And people *like* that. So, who are the real wing-nuts?

I dont want to. It just is a fact. Soros? Are you kidding me? Where is the pledge that Soros wrote that any Democrat signed? What future decision did they promise to give over to Soros regardless of circumstances? You're throwing out a crazy red herring, back it up with something.

Two thoughts- it should be illegal for a member of Congress to sign a "pledge" to a special interest group. Their only pledge should be to uphold the Constitution and to act in the best interest of America. Insane that such a thing is considered a positive by any voter.

Second, this deal has to happen. As I've said before, if we're going to cut SS, Medicaid and Medicare, Democrats have to do it. They're using the debt ceiling debate as cover for doing exactly this. They HAVE to get something in return. And Grover has blessed the deal.

And, I'm pretty sure nobody asked George Soros for his opinion.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Where are the "facts"?

You have a man who claims to have the signatures on a document allegedly endorsed by prominent politicians. Where's the document and the "unbiased" handwriting analysis that prove the signatures are authentic.

How do you "know" that Soros wasn't consulted?

Yeah, I'm yanking your chain because you're rapidly falling into unproveable conspiracy territory.

oldsaw wrote: You have a man who claims to have the signatures on a document allegedly endorsed by prominent politicians. Where's the document and the "unbiased" handwriting analysis that prove the signatures are authentic.

(edited- I believe that you really have never heard about the Pledge. While I find it really difficult to believe, you seem to honestly not know about it. I'll leave all the links, but remove the language and replace it with more thoughtful comments. I think I was just shocked that you didn't seem to know about it)

Here is some information about it.

http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge

And the people who signed it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/070711-federalpledgesigners.pdf

Just some random article to show that it's pretty common knowledge, often written about in the media and openly discussed, even bragged about by those who sign it. They consider it a badge of honor.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/us-reps-rich-nugent-gus-bilirakis-stand-firm-on-no-tax-pledge/1181505

Many, many, many more references available. Just use the google.

It is a little surprising that you aren't familiar with it. You have a good deal of input on politics and it has been considered pretty much mandatory for any Republican politician to sign this thing for 20 years or more. I'm sorry, I just really am shocked. I thought it was a joke a couple of pages back when someone said "who's Grover Norquist".

Again, editing commentary, leaving links...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/6d/6d54940f-5340-4398-8c4d-98a54b9f2cf7.jpg

http://www.rickwomick34th.com/images/RickTaxPledge.jpg

http://www.murotake.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/webassets/TaxPledge08Thumb.jpg

http://www.muthstruths.com/2011/07/17/the-war-against-the-tax-pledge/

http://www.muthstruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/a10.jpg

So, you can see it's not unprovable conspiracy stuff. It's something they advertise.

http://www.jacksonforokgov.com/p/taxpayer-protection-pledge.html

http://www.jeffbeardfordelegate.com/wp-content/uploads/Taxpayer-Protection-Pledge-1024x745.jpg

http://sdrostra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bill-Wells-Taxpayer-Protection-Pledge-300x226.jpg

http://electdavebates.com/Documents/Taxpayer%20Protection%20Pledge.jpg

http://www.karafratto.com/web_images/taxpayer_protection_pledge.jpg http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mGDbTerNQaM/0.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3336064984_15e377d680.jpg

http://www.teresahernandez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tax_pledge_web.jpg

http://www.howardmillerforassembly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/taxpayer_pledge.jpg

Nice one here-

http://www.kevincoughlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/210129_211900962171198_211886512172643_755950_4463152_o.jpg

Those are from their own web sites. No one promoting any conspiracy. It's something they advertise.

I'll leave only this one bit of commentary from before...

Remember how insane the idea sounded just a bit ago when you had never heard of it? Well it is EXACTLY that insane.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Congrats, Eddie!

You have proven me to be an insane fellow-traveler who blindly follows the path of my programmers.

Now, how about some tough decisions on necessary and deep spending cuts? Republicans (en masse) refuse to raise taxes, but where is the committment from Democrats to reduce spending in order to avoid reaching or breaching the debt ceiling?

Republicans are committed (on paper, no less) to keep taxation at low rates. Where is the evidence that Democrats have any intention to reduce the national debt and reduce spending - on paper, with signatures, please?

Links to speech transcripts and recorded sound-bites don't count.

My problem with the pledge.. and this goes for any politition who makes a promise. It is MUCH easier to promise the world before you are in office. Once you get that title and sit down in the big room, you get to face just how deep the doodoo really is.. and all the promises you made, pale in comparison to the real issues..

How can anybody in good conscious sign a pledge not to raise taxes when you have not yet confronted the spectre of how big the debt really is. It is Niave at best... ignorance and stupidity at worse

mad_machine wrote: How can anybody in good conscious not cut spending when you have not yet confronted the spectre of how big the debt really is. It is Niave at best... ignorance and stupidity at worse

It works both ways, does it not?

Yeaaaah. I did it again. oldsaw, I think you're a good guy. I really do. Sorry if I've been anything but cordial.

I'd encourage you to do a little research on President Obama's position on the current situation before accusing Democrats of not being serious about cutting spending. I believe Republicans have tried to engineer choices that are either clearly unacceptable to the President or do not include significant cuts. The President has rejected both.

I mean this in the nicest way- I don't think you've put a lot of effort into researching this particular debate. I'm not challenging your intelligence or your beliefs. Just, in this particular case, you don't seem to know exactly what has transpired over the last several weeks. No worries. I wish I could just turn the news off for a while. I'd gladly say "dang, had no idea that was happening" if only I could get away with it.

Have a great weekend and I hope we all see a headline reporting this has been resolved in some productive way very soon.

Take care,

Ed

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Eddie, no offense taken.

As far as researching this debate, no, I'm not delving into the minutiae of details of recently hatched Presidential positions nor a political pact about taxation policies.

However, I do look back on decades of history where uncontrolled government spending has led the country to its' current state. No amount of taxation will solve the problem and certainly not a focus on only raising rates on "millionaires and billionaires".

We have two parties playing a game ideological chicken and a President who has (only in the last few weeks) begun to hint of concessions. Those in opposition want more - either cuts or spending. One side is gonna lose (big time) in the court of public opinion, but the current compromise offers are another episode of kicking the can down the road, a road to nowhere and built with borrowed money.

It's going to be interesting over the next ten days.

oldsaw wrote:

mad_machine wrote: How can anybody in good conscious not cut spending when you have not yet confronted the spectre of how big the debt really is. It is Niave at best... ignorance and stupidity at worse

It works both ways, does it not?

I was not taking a political stance on this issue.. simply stating that I think it is stupid for ANYBODY to sign a pledge to do something before they know the facts surrounding it

US debt vs unfunded liabilities, in stacked $100 bills: (source)

and people still believe a few billion in tax revenue they think they need is really part of the problem by scale, it astonishes me.

Sure glad those tax cuts spurred the economy forward as promised. Hey, they pay for themselves, remember?

Don't worry about the actual historical events. Yes, you are correct. You guys dug the hole so amazingly deep that a return to appropriate tax revenue looks like a futile solution. Congratulations. You may celebrate and revel in the demise of the social contract and the default of the United States. Well played.

I'm sorry, my friend, that started as soon as the social security surplus was made part of the general fund for congress to spend money on other programs rather than directly invest in the health of the SSA.

From there on, almost all irresponsible government spending can be traced that will cause the financial demise of the social contract. Tax cuts didn't dig that hole, no matter what perspective is taken.

However, thats just the financial demise. The true moral demise of the social contract was Flemming V Nestor in which the supreme court ruled that you have no right to Social Security.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

I don;t see how you can use the words "moral" and "government" together..

For the liberal types (not sure how you'd like to be addressed. That was the nicest thing I could come up with -) If you can stomach it, now may be a good time to check out some of the conservative pundits. Hannity drilled John Boehner on the fake math included in his bill on the radio yesterday, and Judge Napolitano had an awesome show last night that included this segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTofqg25sKg

One trillion over 10 years on the BASELINE budget is NOTHING. Not to mention the fact that the CURRENT congress can't dictate how future congresses will spend our money. It's a joke folks. Please don't buy it.

WALL STREET JOURNAL SEZ:

The President isn't serious about real spending cuts.

...Then again, it has long been clear that Mr. OBozo isn't interested in spending reform. In February he proposed a budget that spent more than any in U.S. history. In April he demanded that Congress pass a "clean" debt ceiling hike that included no spending cuts whatsoever. Only after the Republicans unveiled their own sweeping budgetary reforms did the White House rush to also claim it wanted deficit reduction as part of the debt-ceiling debate.

In June, the President dispatched Joe Biden to negotiate spending cuts, only to have the White House insist at the last minute that modest trims be accompanied by significant new taxes. Mr. Boehner and the Senate's BiPartisan Gang of Six produced plans that would have acceded to that White House demand in exchange for substantive tax reform that would have lowered individual and corporate taxes. Yet last week the White House backtracked on it's agreement for the lower tax rates and demanded another $400 billion in tax revenues above the $800 billion the Speaker has already conceded...

Mr. Boehner reached out to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this weekend, only to have the Democrats continue to insist any deal include a sweeping debt ceiling increase that provides the White House with political cover through the 2012 election....

If the bill falls short of President OBozo's and Mr. Reid's demand for a big enough debt increase to push any further fights until after the election, then let the White House or Senate Democrats take the responsibility for killing it on those political grounds.

But it is growing abundantly clear that this (a severe compromise) may be the best Republicans can do with a President who is using these negotiations to finance the blowout spending of his first two years with a tax increase.

And if you'd like to see where most of this uncontrolled spending began you'll have to go back to the New Deal and President Roosevelt (D). Interestingly (or would you call it spooky) many of the "solutions" recommended have been word for word things suggested during the New Deal.

The Wall Street Journal calls the President "Mr. OBozo"?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The Wall Street Journal calls the President "Mr. OBozo"?

Doesn't everybody?

Wasn't cool when people weren't respectful of the presidency under Bush, not cool when people aren't respectful of the presidency under Obama.