This is why Obama can’t make a deal with Republicans

[tweaker2]

I don't have a goal of "gutting" social programs, but simply want to return some sanity to the budget. We can't continue this level of growth from an already high baseline. My favored approach would be to limit spending growth to a percentage point or two below the combined rate of inflation plus population growth. I don't have a preference on what area the drawdowns come from either, although it might have to be across the board just to avoid a death match struggle between the political parties.

IMHO that's both an achievable plan, and after 10 years or so and we might even have a bit of wiggle room for targeted increases.

On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. :thumbsup: The big question is how can we get our legislators to ditch the rhetoric and posturing and actually get some practical and logical thinking out of them for the sake of ALL classes of citizens and not just the privileged few.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes you absolutely do have the right, since it's part of ongoing negotiations with the same dealer at the same pawn shop for the same necklaces; necklaces being the long-term health of the federal gov't in this analogy.

Not particularly difficult to understand.

No.

Necklace was debt ceiling.

Earrings were concessions like chained cpi.

Next day item is sequester.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I don't keep up much in politics, but Obama looks like he's still campaigning to me.

Exactly. That's all the community organizer is capable of. He's a rabble-rouser, not a true leader.

Because he already achieved his revenue increases in January. Now he demands more. Tell Obama to shut up and cut.

He won't shut up. See above. Obama doesn't think we have a spending problem because we're not taxing enough. He thinks all money is belongs to the government to do with as it sees best.

Democrats in the Senate are killing a Republican proposed bill that would give Obama authority to choose the cuts himself.

Obama won't put his name on anything that could hurt him politically. As we've already seen, he wants the sequester to be as painful as possible for political gain. He gets more gain by keeping this a problem than by actually contributing to the solution. See response 1 above.

You and Obama are stuck on the conversation from 2 months ago. Obama already shot his wad on tax increases and we're now on the spending cut discussion. If Obama (or you) thought there would be multiple tax hike measures passed that's quite frankly delusional.

Obama's not delusional; he's a very good manipulator of the sheeple. Class envy is his 'go to' tactic. We're heading toward another showdown the end of this month. He won't compromise. He'll get his tax increases or he'll shut the .gov down. He'll hit the campaign trail hard. It's all politics / power to him.

 

[ivwshane]

Exactly. That's all the community organizer is capable of. He's a rabble-rouser, not a true leader.



Obama won't put his name on anything that could hurt him politically. As we've already seen, he wants the sequester to be as painful as possible for political gain. He gets more gain by keeping this a problem than by actually contributing to the solution. See response 1 above.



Obama's not delusional; he's a very good manipulator of the sheeple. Class envy is his 'go to' tactic. We're heading toward another showdown the end of this month. He won't compromise. He'll get his tax increases or he'll shut the .gov down. He'll hit the campaign trail hard. It's all politics / power to him.

Anyone want to bet that the above was said on rush recently? You can always tell when something is regurgitated from right wing talking heads because of the lack of thought.

It's funny because we have an article with facts that clearly show Obama compromising and "putting his name" on things that are unpopular (chained CPI, higher rates for some) and yet the above poster makes such a claim with zero citations and expects people to see things his way.

With every day that passes and the more posts made by righties the more I think that the bit at the RNC by charlton Heston talking to an imaginary Obama is so perfect and truly encapsulates righty thinking.
They have created their own reality and an imaginary president to go with it. Lol

 

[Juddog]

Anyone want to bet that the above was said on rush recently? You can always tell when something is regurgitated from right wing talking heads because of the lack of thought.

It's funny because we have an article with facts that clearly show Obama compromising and "putting his name" on things that are unpopular (chained CPI, higher rates for some) and yet the above poster makes such a claim with zero citations and expects people to see things his way.

With every day that passes and the more posts made by righties the more I think that the bit at the RNC by charlton Heston talking to an imaginary Obama is so perfect and truly encapsulates righty thinking.
They have created their own reality and an imaginary president to go with it. Lol

Sad but true. The most vocal righties don't even seem to think for themselves, they just regurgitate talking points.

 

[monovillage]

Anyone want to bet that the above was said on rush recently? You can always tell when something is regurgitated from right wing talking heads because of the lack of thought.

It's funny because we have an article with facts that clearly show Obama compromising and "putting his name" on things that are unpopular (chained CPI, higher rates for some) and yet the above poster makes such a claim with zero citations and expects people to see things his way.

With every day that passes and the more posts made by righties the more I think that the bit at the RNC by charlton Heston talking to an imaginary Obama is so perfect and truly encapsulates righty thinking.
They have created their own reality and an imaginary president to go with it. Lol

lol dumb fuck, it was Clint Eastwood.

 

[ivwshane]

lol dumb fuck, it was Clint Eastwood.

Lol! You got me again!! Good thing you pointed out that error otherwise my point wouldn't have made any sense!!



What a worthless human being you are.

 

[Matt1970]

Sad but true. The most vocal righties don't even seem to think for themselves, they just regurgitate talking points.

That's funny. If MSNBC went off the air for a day 70% of this forum wouldn't know what to post for the day.

 

[ivwshane]

That's funny. If MSNBC went off the air for a day 70% of this forum wouldn't know what to post for the day.

You don't watch msnbc so how would you know what their talking points are? And if you don't know what the talking points are then how would you know who is using them?

 

[monovillage]

Lol! You got me again!! Good thing you pointed out that error otherwise my point wouldn't have made any sense!!
What a worthless human being you are.

I was just pointing out that you were as wrong about Heston as you are about the rest of the information in this thread.

The reason you're so good at being wrong is because you get so much practice at it.

 

[ivwshane]

I was just pointing out that you were as wrong about Heston as you are about the rest of the information in this thread.

The reason you're so good at being wrong is because you get so much practice at it.

Yes all the facts and links you provided show just how wrong I am.

It didnt surprise me you knew the name of the guy that talks to an imaginary Obama, after all you righties love your talking heads!

 

[TerryMathews]

Yes all the facts and links you provided show just how wrong I am.

It didnt surprise me you knew the name of the guy that talks to an imaginary Obama, after all you righties love your talking heads!

"you proved I was wrong, so I'll make fun of you for doing so hopefully to negate your point. "

 

[Engineer]

You didn't read the OP did you?

No, honestly I didn't. That is also why I put a question mark in my reply with the link.

 

[First]

No.

Necklace was debt ceiling.

Earrings were concessions like chained cpi.

Next day item is sequester.

No sorry, necklace wasn't debt ceiling, the Obama admin didn't want to be sold the debt ceiling, and since your analogy presupposed someone actually wanted a freaking necklace in the first place, your reimagined analogy is lulz-worthy. Though nice attempt at obfuscation after realizing it was horseshit.

 

[Matt1970]

You don't watch msnbc so how would you know what their talking points are? And if you don't know what the talking points are then how would you know who is using them?

That's funny, I don't remember posting my TV watching schedule on here.

 

[ivwshane]

That's funny, I don't remember posting my TV watching schedule on here.

Oh so you do watch msnbc? Then your original comment doesn't make sense (that's your MO in my opinion).

 

[ivwshane]

"you proved I was wrong, so I'll make fun of you for doing so hopefully to negate your point. "

Yes that's exactly what he did. Thanks for following the thread

 

[fskimospy]

Because he already achieved his revenue increases in January. Now he demands more. Tell Obama to shut up and cut.

Democrats in the Senate are killing a Republican proposed bill that would give Obama authority to choose the cuts himself.

What do you mean already got his revenue increases? This is a common right wing talking point, but it is nonsensical. By that logic Republicans already got their cuts, it is time for them to shut up and raise revenue.

 

[cybrsage]

We are back to requiring comments I believe
-------------

The important point in my opinion is this:

Upton Sinclair’s famous line: “It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”

What neuroscience shows us it that conservatives rationalize when reality causes them to feel emotional pain, that a preference for an altered reality outweighs their ability to deal with reality as it is. This makes them not only dangerous to the general community but total assholes to deal with.

I see you still are posting lies.

 

[cybrsage]

What do you mean already got his revenue increases? This is a common right wing talking point, but it is nonsensical. By that logic Republicans already got their cuts, it is time for them to shut up and raise revenue.

Obama already raised taxes on the poor and the middle class, as well as the rich. He could take 100% of the income of the rich and STILL not have enough to reduce the deficit. It is time to cut.

Did you know the plan the dems put in to stop the sequester included SPENDING INCREASES? Seriously, the dems think the way to reduce the deficit is to increase spending...

 

[cybrsage]

I don't have a goal of "gutting" social programs, but simply want to return some sanity to the budget. We can't continue this level of growth from an already high baseline. My favored approach would be to limit spending growth to a percentage point or two below the combined rate of inflation plus population growth. I don't have a preference on what area the drawdowns come from either, although it might have to be across the board just to avoid a death match struggle between the political parties.

IMHO that's both an achievable plan, and after 10 years or so and we might even have a bit of wiggle room for targeted increases.

Can we wait the many decades this would take to make any substantial deficit reduction? Do we have the ability to owe the many multiple trillions ontop of what we already owe before such a plan would become revenue neutral? I am not sure we do. Instead of 1% or 2% below inflation plus population growth, lets make it 5% below inflation not counting any population growth. Even that will take a long time to make a difference, but I think we can survive it.

 

[zsdersw]

Can we wait the many decades this would take to make any substantial deficit reduction? Do we have the ability to owe the many multiple trillions ontop of what we already owe before such a plan would become revenue neutral? I am not sure we do. Instead of 1% or 2% below inflation plus population growth, lets make it 5% below inflation not counting any population growth. Even that will take a long time to make a difference, but I think we can survive it.

Why not 6%? If 6% can be survived why not 7%? If 7% why not 8%? Arbitrarily picking percentages (as you're doing) doesn't work... and you know it.

 

[cybrsage]

Why not 6%? If 6% can be survived why not 7%? If 7% why not 8%? Arbitrarily picking percentages (as you're doing) doesn't work... and you know it.

You already know the answer, but I will assume you are asking so it is shown by someone other than you. Not a problem, I use that same tactic at times.

I chose 5% because it is half that of the sequester, which is 10% and has so far not destroyed the economy and the nation and shows no signs of having the ability to do either over the long run. 10% cuts are harsh, though, so we should not force that upon everything. I did not choose 1% or 2% for reasons already posted.

5% is tough, but not harsh. It is a good compromise between not enough and too much.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama already raised taxes on the poor and the middle class, as well as the rich. He could take 100% of the income of the rich and STILL not have enough to reduce the deficit. It is time to cut.

Did you know the plan the dems put in to stop the sequester included SPENDING INCREASES? Seriously, the dems think the way to reduce the deficit is to increase spending...

I'm glad to see the democrats understand basic economics. The sequester is a bad idea because it cuts spending, particularly during a time we should be ramping up spending.

The Republicans got their cuts with no tax increases. Europe shows that you invite economic disaster through austerity. It is time to increase short term spending while closing long term deficits through a mix of long term cuts and tax increases. This is simply common sense.

I really look forward to your flailing, dishonest response. Maybe we can get you banned for good this time.

 

[cybrsage]

The Sequester was the idea of the Obama administration. Obama personally agreed to it prior to it being pitched to the republicans. It was designed to be unpalatable to both sides of the isle, in the hopes that it would force both sides to compromise.

Unfortunately, voters refuse to let their parties compromise, so neither party was willing to do so. Obama's sequester plan failed to produce the compromise, so the unpalatable effects of his plan were put into place. He then lied to use and blamed the republicans. The republicans are lying as well when they blame the democrats for the mess - but they are telling the truth when they blame Obama for coming up with the idea of the sequester.

I really look forward to your flailing, dishonest response. Maybe we can get you banned for good this time.

I notice you are still part of the problem with this forum. Congrats on failing to grow or improve yourself.