Users who Dugg This
Away for a while
3984 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Liz Farrell
67 Followers
1KrazyKorean
13258 Followers
quickdigger
5219 Followers
cranelakeJul 15, 2011Submitter
"Playing poker is part of politics, as is theatrical posturing. That's fair enough. But what America is currently exhibiting is the worst kind of absurd theatrics. And the whole world is being held hostage."
That's what happens when you let a once proud political party get hijacked by a bunch of anti-science, gun-toting, religious fanatics who love corporations more than their country.
otrmnJul 15, 2011
So if your kid told you he wanted to go on a big expensive trip or buy a new car, but knew he couldn't afford it, you'd what--hand him another credit card? Guess the next thing you'd do would be advise him to find yet another card and transfer balances? And after that, what the heck, just declare bankruptcy. Yeah, that's responsible.
But I guess that's what the party of tree-hugging, God-hating, achievement bashing amoralists would recommend.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cranelakeJul 15, 2011Submitter
Wow! What a fantastically imaginative metaphor, so incisive it simply demands an answer.
No, I'd tell him to stop spunking money on pointless wars and the tax corporations and the rich who pay a smaller percentage of tax than the average working family.
Then I'd tell to stop tree hugging and start girl hugging, (after having a good laugh at the poor people who spend all their lives worshipping a giant bearded fairy who lives in the sky.)
Now that really would be an achievement to bash one out over.
floorboardJul 15, 2011
By pointless wars you mean securing the oil, a commodity whose slight price increases cause economic havoc and grief?
Oh how CUUUUUTE. You bring out Obama's class warfare trip perfectly. Yes, wasteful spending is PERFECTLY OKAY so long as you can gouge the EEEEEEEVIL RICH. Dear young, idealistic tree-hugging loser, go see what Labor politics of this ilk did in 1970s England. Here's a hint - if you sold candles, you made a fortune. And it's why all the well-off people and productive ones moved out. John Lennon was murdered in New York, not London. Rod Stewart now lives in California. Or what happened when "credit cards? Run em up" went wild in 1990s Ontario under very socialist Bob Rae. HINT: Crash and cuts required. Tool.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJul 15, 2011
Are you advocating going to war over oil? No thanks.
Class warfare? We're in a 'class warfare' now. I have no problem with that term. Many notice when one group (very small group) does amazingly well while almost everyone else treads water. Oh wait, that's right, nothing to see here.
Now, what's with hating on people that love trees? You have a mission to cut em' all down? That's right. You're in the party that hates the environment or would 'level' the Smokey Mountains if it meant a couple more jobs.
floorboardJul 15, 2011
No, but miiitarily protecting oil supply lines, yes. Just like the leftie Euro-poofs are doing in Libya, with Obama "I love Europe and hate the US" support.
Maybe because that small group works hard and succeeds, whereas most expect a union or a handout or something else to improve their lot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NinjaTheNickJul 16, 2011
floorboard there's no way. Statistics point out that the rich get richer and stay there, and same goes for everyone else. It has nothing to do with hard work. You tell the single mom who works 2 jobs she isn't working hard enough and see what she has to say.
As for for afghanistan, it's costing us way more than we could hope to profit at this point. It's a lost cause and has been for some time. Most don't expect a handout, and some NEED a handout. We're a country of means and if we put our minds to being a great nation and bringing everyone up we could easily do just that.
And stop with the hippy bashing, it's childish and irrelevant to the matters at hand.
IdealobbycomJul 16, 2011
The worst class warfare being commited is being done by Government--not business.
The Government divides us into public and private sectors and sucks the working middle class dry with taxes, while the government sector is the largest growing sector.
Shrink Government and class warfare will decrease greatly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
Agreed. Trees are awesome. :D
u2canfailJul 16, 2011
Actually they are blowing the tops off of mountains, but not "for jobs". For profit, mining companies kill employees easily, for fun and profit.
jdlechJul 22, 2011
Yes, he is. And he's not the first, or the only, American conservative to advocate war for foreign resources. Read the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by a group called People for a New American Century. This group happens to have had no less than 16 members in the Bush Administration.
We can expect a new war in a resource rich nation each and every time American conservatives gain enough political power to authorize one.
hahnJul 15, 2011
Check oil price history please. Gas prices went up AFTER we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not like there was a shortage of supply before that. Prices went up *because* of instability. Instability caused by war.
At least some conservatives are finally admitting that the war was primarily to secure oil rather than for homeland security.
gwincr11Jul 16, 2011
It is also important to note that the price of gas goes up with demand, and no entity uses more gas then the military especially when engaged in two wars.
mrteflonJul 16, 2011
well whre are the huge disdounted oil prices were were supposed to get after taking over Iraq? ohh yueah in the Oil CEO and stockholders and in the futures traders pockets thats where. Wheres the relief for the common man or citizen of this country?
u2canfailJul 16, 2011
I would say Iraq was started "for Halliburton", not oil, security, or any other reason. Halliburton profited greatly, no one else did. Certainly today we have no extra oil.
floorboardJul 17, 2011
@ninjathenick: bullsh*t. The rich is a rather dynamic class of people. Some go upwards from the middle class, while some of the rich get decadent and lazy and fall back into the middle class.
JustSayNoPartyJul 18, 2011
It's not really BS. There are plenty of studies showing that if you're born rich, you're quite likely to stay rich. If you're born in any 'class', your likely to stay there. Of course, there are many reasons for that.
floorboardJul 18, 2011
@foster: wrong. Sorry. Royal families maybe, but in this country the rich are quite dynamic - new people get added, others drop off. Your info is just categorically wrong.
JustSayNoPartyJul 18, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/national/class/15MOBILITY-WEB.html
This is a pretty good take on 'movement' in and out of 'classes'. Is there no movement up and down the class strucutre? Of course there is movement. But, living in the 'real world', it does appear that this movement is becoming more difficult than in previous times.
SnarpoJul 15, 2011
Hee hee, I wish I could spunk money. That would be a REAL money shot!
thechauvinistJul 16, 2011
Crane, while I agree w you on basically all points, I'd like to get a link to some data that suggests working families pay a higher percentage of tax than wealthy families.
Most working families pay a significant amount in SALES tax, while very little, if at all, in income tax.
But I'm not sure you could say any wealthy guy pays less percent to the government that a poor guy does.
Thanks in advance.
thechauvinistJul 16, 2011
Or are you referring to tax-dodging corporations? Cuz f**k them. Nobody should get loopholes that allow them to throw $$ into offshore accounts w/o being taxed on the way out.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
The poster child for "tax-doging corporations" is called GE. You may have heard of them. Their CEO is a big Obama backer and his jobs guru: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-jobs-chief----the-ceo-of-ge----pays-no-corporate-taxes/1Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
udjetJul 16, 2011
@ Dudeinaustin
I think GE has been beaten out. Look at the recent Rupert Murdoch articles. He not only didn't pay taxes, but made a huge profit on them: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/news-corp-makes-profit-off-taxes.html
Oh, and since you want to make this partisan. He is most definitely not an Obama backer.
JustSayNoPartyJul 18, 2011
@Dude: Where did that come from? Are you implying that because there is a connection between Obama and GE that we shouldn't be angry at 'tax dodging corporations? Or, are you merely parroting the current Republican talking point? Most know that 'both sides' are beholden to large corporations. Though, Republicans over playing their hand on this one Corp out of thousands is telling. Is it about politics or getting the country in order?
nodumbmassesJul 22, 2011
Corporations don't pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes.
u2canfailJul 16, 2011
Google: Warren Buffet pays less income tax than his secretary. Simple fact, easy to google. Buffet is extremely wealthy, his secretary on salary.
dustbunny52Jul 16, 2011
Actually, this is for a pretty simple reason. Unlike normal people, the very wealthy do not make most of their money in a salary. Most of their money comes from investment of the money they already have.
The maximum tax rate for salary is 35% which kicks in somewhere above a salary of $300K. Most middle class people have salary ranges that result in ~22-28% income tax rate. However, the income tax rate for long term investment return has a maximum of 15%. So the more money a rich person makes usually means that their net tax rate approaches the 15% because more and more of it tends to be long term capital gain. The more money a salaried poor or middle class person makes tends to raise the tax rate closer to 30%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
thechauvinistJul 17, 2011
Knowledge!
betonethernetJul 16, 2011
"tax corporations and the rich who pay a smaller percentage of tax than the average working family"
what's your source for this? for the sake of a fair rebuttalComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrteflonJul 16, 2011
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.
betonethernetJul 17, 2011
These are pretty much reflexive facts that define themselves but do not prove the statement.
udjetJul 16, 2011
I wish I could have made billions on taxes instead of paying them:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/news-corp-makes-profit-off-taxes.html
thechauvinistJul 16, 2011
The author of the article retracted and corrected his article.
udjetJul 16, 2011
Thank you for the update.
Retraction statement:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/column-dcjohnston-murdoch-idUSN1E76C25320110713?mwh=1
udjetJul 16, 2011
Retraction link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/column-dcjohnston-murdoch-idUSN1E76C25320110713?mwh=1
u2canfailJul 16, 2011
You can even google the: CBO on corporations that do not pay income taxes, a huge list, including Boeing, EXXON, BofA, Goldman Sachs, GE. But you won't ever see that info on FAUX NEWS.
lion_ooooJul 16, 2011
@cranelake - I like you. Let's be besties!
halikarJul 15, 2011
The funny thing, national financing doesn't work the way personal financing does. It can't, or there's no way a government could economically operate.
But then, someone who resorts name calling and bashing wouldn't know that, because they are too busy wasting brain power inventing insults to cope with complex topics.
publiclurkerJul 15, 2011
I certainly hope he didn't waste any brain cells on that insult as that would imply that he didn't have any to spare.
user500Jul 15, 2011
Who is a bigger fool, the fool or the person trying to argue with a fool?
halikarJul 15, 2011
I suppose that depends on if you view it as arguing or attempts at education. Education is always a worthwhile goal, even if it fails.
motty32Jul 16, 2011
ugh. im happy you are cool with us identifying with the lowest pieces of your s**tty revolution
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
That is just one of those silly things that people like to say without applying logic. Of course the same rules of economcs apply! No entity can have more go out than comes in forever -- with increasing future obligations and interest payments piling up. The inevitable result is defaulting on the debt or bankrupting the currency itself. It is silly to assert otherwise.
States manage to operate just fine with constiutional requirements to balance their budgets. They adjust expenditures to meet revenues and make tough choices that the federal government keeps postponing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
halikarJul 16, 2011
The same RULES of economics apply, but the same process does not. Similar to how the same laws of physics apply to small particles and large planets, but the same processes don't.
A government is designed to operate with a deficit, that's a basic rule of economics. A person isn't, which is also a basic rule of economics. If you aren't starting on the same foundation, you can't employ the same processes to dealing with their finances.
And unless I'm mistaken, quite a few states are NOT just fine being able to balance their budgets. California, Wisconsin, Florida, just to name the obvious ones. They are coping with the exact same problems the Feds are, and are having just as many problems, issues, and infighting doing it.
JustSayNoPartyJul 15, 2011
Nice rant. Except, if you agree with the Republicans, you're only going to make matters worse. You're analogy doesn't work for me either. No, the kid doesn't want to buy a nice new car. He wants to make a payment on his home before he's on the street. Sure, maybe he deserves to be on the street. But, he's put together a sound plan and I'm not letting my child go homeless.
The last sentence is just laughable and very telling. Except, the poster before also generalizes too much as well.
gkisystemsJul 16, 2011
Put together a sound plan? Seriously? The only plan this country has to pay its bills is by borrowing money. Sure, given the current circumstances, the world is happy to lend us the money and Republicans look like idiots for not wanting to take it...but what happens when the world refuses to loan us more money? Even if BOTH the Republicans and Democrats agree to borrow more, that won't do anything to help pay our bills if the world refuses to continue lending to us.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NinjaTheNickJul 16, 2011
That's precisely why Obama's plan is two-fold. Cut deficit AND raise revenue. It will work but we need to give it time by raising the debt ceiling. This is Americas opinion, not just Democrats. But if you Republicans want to just hold your hands over your ears til the problem goes away then you will see how far this nation can truly fall.
gkisystemsJul 16, 2011
The problem is not two fold. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
NinjaTheNickJul 16, 2011
This problem can;t be solved by just spending cuts alone
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
Look forward a few years and ponder what percent of world GDP will be needed to finance the ever-escalating U.S. debt. Now ask yourself how long the rest of the world will keep buying those T-bills. Ain't gonna happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Jul 15, 2011
Assign blame for something that didn't really happen to a group that likely wouldn't or really didn't do it = logical fallacy so great its argument-invalidating. Good job!
hahnJul 15, 2011
I would tell him to spend less. But I would also tell him to find a way to get more money. Using your analogy, it seems that you would tell him to try to make less money.
gkisystemsJul 16, 2011
The problem with "getting more" money is that a person earns it by doing something productive and by producing products and services that add value to consumers.
Our government does not have the ability to earn more money. It can only steal more money.
Would you tell a poor meth addict that it is prudent for him to steal more money so he can pay his bills?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JustSayNoPartyJul 18, 2011
The makes debate almost impossible. The moment you equate tax revenue with stealing and meth addiction, the whole debate will then go in to some form of sophomoric argument. I don't buy such a radical view of revenues.
Does the Government need to do a better job of spending? Few would argue with you on that. Are taxes way too high now? That's is arguable. Compared to the rest of the world, no, they are not too high. Corp taxes are too high however (just the base rate without the exemptions and loopholes). To solve our debt crisis, we need both spending cuts and strategic revenue generation.
RichysDiggNameJul 16, 2011
God-hating amoralists? Really? I don't think they're god-hating, they're just smart enough not to let religion govern their actions
Think before you typeComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thechauvinistJul 16, 2011
I am not god-hating. I am frustrated with people that use 'god' to justify poor decision making.
RichysDiggNameJul 16, 2011
Me too. I just don't understand how so called "Christians" can protest with signs that say "God hates fags" and keep a straight face.
motty32Jul 16, 2011
I hope you get cancer. and then ask god why this happened
dreamtigerJul 15, 2011
Also rather interesting at this point is Obama seems to finally be taking a stand against the 1% elitist GOP death machine that has stolen our future. He may have finally figured out that it's necessary for him to actually stand for something, and not let the Repugs take down the economy again, and blame it on him. We are the world, and we want our future back!
floorboardJul 15, 2011
1% elitist GOP death machine. HAR HAR HAR. Here's a hint. Did you get any Obama handouts? How about socialised healthcare? Oh no wait, all you got was the legal obligation to buy insurance from the private market? That record deficit spending went to big business, my friend - the insurance and legal industries, most of whom gave big bucks to Obama. All he wants is the handouts to his friends, on your tab. GROW UP.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredJul 15, 2011
You mean that filibusters by the republicans meant that Obama could not fulfill his promises? Ahh yes, of course you didn't.
GROW UP
floorboardJul 15, 2011
Don't promise something you don't have the filibuster-proof majority to fill. He got his billions in stimulus to make sure unemployment never went over 8%. How'd that one work out?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
Unemployment went to 10 percnet and is now hovering in teh nines. But, the Digg community doesn't want to be reminded of that, so they will bury it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
halikarJul 16, 2011
Yes dudeinaustin, I'm well aware of the unemployment rate, being caught up in it personally. Except I'm having to cope with 12.9% unemployment, in a state you seem to thing from up above is having no trouble with it's budget.
And before I hear the "you're on the dole!" arguments, I don't qualify for unemployment, my family doesn't qualify for food stamps or any kind of assistance, and we don't make more than 27K a year for a family of four.
And just to be contrary, I dugg you up for mentioning something I think should be mentioned, facts and figures about unemployment.
johnnysoftwareJul 15, 2011
Well, he and the rest of the country have no options unless a smoking gun bribery evidence shows up in next 2 weeks whooping Republicans are colluding with someone to wreck the US economy. I am sure they are going to cause the US to default no matter what. Hopefully there is a money trail out there.
babycodyJul 22, 2011
Aren't you forgetting who controlled Congress during the last two years of Bush's administration? Who controlled the House during 9/11 and the Dot Com Bubble Burst, and brought us back. Who controlled the economy during the "Clinton economy" that Dems love to talk about. Where do you get again Freddy or Fanny? It's simple 6 years we are OK last two we start having problems. Democrats take complete control, and we have the worst economy since the Great Depression. Dems get their arses handed to them in the last election, which some of you still don't understand why, and they blame the Republicans for their spend like a new Mega Lotto winner approach to the economy. When the Republicans act like adults about things then the Dems put up an article about Germany, proclaiming the whole world thinks we are maniacs because of what some people in Germany said. I knew I should have paid more attention in history class. I guess the Germans did take over the world during WWII. Maybe you should ask yourself why Wall Street rallied the day after the last Congressional elections. As far as I can tell everything that the Democrat party touches turns to vinegar. California, Detroit, Social Security, Fanny...........While places like Texas are creating more jobs than all the other states combined. Are you people so blind?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dreamtigerJul 22, 2011
What planet are you from? On Earth, Republicans steal everything that isn't nailed down, run the economy into the ground, and dump the mess on the Democrats to clean up.
babycodyJul 22, 2011
Keep dreaming there tiger. If someone comes up to me with a gun and takes my wallet, to get themselves out of whatever financial hardships they got themselves into, it is theft. Yet when the Democrats raise taxes that people find impossible to pay, well tough luck. They are going to use the guns of law enforcement to take it from you, even if you don't think it is fair, because someone has to pay off the trillions in debt that we the people now owe thanks to them. Exactly who was it that fixed the economy? Your definition of fixing the economy is to spend trillions that we don't have? Oh wait we can fix that by taxing the rich more. Most Republicans see the Democrats as a party that punishes the people who create jobs "the evil rich", and buys the votes of the "poor" with gime legislation. I mean they use my tax dollar to give the "poor" cell phones among many other things. In any society there will always be more "poor" people than rich people, and the Democrats know that and prey on it. In the mean time the only thing this board ever states is the Republicans are "religious nuts", "religious nuts", "religious nuts", and "greedy Republicans". Jeez talk about a broken record. Come at me with more than that. I see greed being defined by, taking from the rich what you did not earn. If you are poor it is probably your fault. Everything that you have done up until this point has gotten you where you are. Whether you did not pay attention in school, slack off at work, too many kids, substance abuse.....Admitting that you have any part in the life you created would show personal responsibility. Most people can not take a good look at themselves and admit that they are at fault for their current circumstances. It will always be easier to blame the next guy.
Why do you think rich people owe you anything when they are taking all the real risk? You just have to show up for work every day. They are the ones who take on an enormous amount of debt and responsibility. Most of those companies are small business owners who don't get bailouts like the big companies.
Please look at how the economy is affected by each party when they control the House. http://massrad.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chart-djia.jpg We always give credit to a president, but it is Congress that has a real affect on the economy. Then come back and argue against my points. Look at how the unemployment rate is affected by who controls the House. http://massrad.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chart-unemployment1.jpg Didn't the Democrats have to extend unemployment for another year after spending all that money to create new jobs? Well I guess we did get the "change" we were promised. Please Democrats just get out of the way, so that those of us who drive the economy can steer for a change. We already have to give half the people on the bus a free ride.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dreamtigerJul 22, 2011
The rich are driving the economy nowhere but into the ground. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. The foundation of all wealth is not the activity of business. The foundation of all wealth is the health of the soil and the oceans, and the daily life of the people. Business merely exploits these. Oil, weapons, drugs, war. The ultimate corruption. Your way of thinking is the problem on this planet. Nature is delivering her solution, and you aren't going to like it.
babycodyJul 22, 2011
That's it? That's what you came back with? Mother Nature is going to get me, and some childish phrase about wits. You are aware that the Republicans founded the EPA, and those gun toting Republicans do more to preserve wildlife than you have started to dream of. I do find it funny how many Dems here will talk about big business, but you mainly gather in large cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. While people who farm, care for the earth, and feed you are called hicks. You also talk about the daily life of the people. I here Democrats always talking about their concern for their fellow man, but you give far less to charity than the red states. http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004&orderby=generosity_index The planet and I are on good terms. I have a yard full of trees, and I live a mile from work. I do not harbor any bad feelings toward you for wanting to protect the Earth. It isn't as if Republicans can jump on a Space Shuttle and leave. Well mainly because President Obama killed that possibility yesterday. I wonder how the Kennedys feel about that. Anyway, I just don't trust some of the environmentalist out there. The founder of Green Peace left Green Peace, because he said it had been taken over by the Communist. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n38_v13/ai_19969858/ I also believe that Global Warming is a sham that rakes in millions from its followers. One day it will be compared to a time when people took Radium or Arsenic, because they thought it was good for their health. I still haven't heard anyone explain why the temperature on Mars is rising at the exact same rate as Earth.
kamtsaJul 15, 2011
We should do what's for the US, not what is good for our competitors.
savetheseaJul 15, 2011
Are you saying that Germany is a competitor? We do not need to have an "us against them" attitude when it comes to the rest of the world. We would all be much better off if that thinking was abolished. We are all part of the human race hurtling through space on the same rock.
andrewh7Jul 15, 2011
I'm in space! AHHHHHHHHH!
crapsaladJul 24, 2011
That's the best thing I've ever seen.
crapsaladJul 24, 2011
While I agree with the idea that we should not think of ourselves as competitors on a global scale, I also believe the thought that the human race will ever abolish the us and them prospective is naive and unrealistic. Not that Germany really is our competitor anyway...
aladinsaneJul 15, 2011
Well, given that you've already pandered so relentlessly to Digg's lowest common denominator- that is to say, pseudo-intellectual douchebags who still think it's Edgy to make "sky fairy" jokes, I suppose there's little point in trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. Still, the fact remains that even Obama realized that an open-ended Debt Ceiling was a stupid idea... back when he himself voted AGAINST it during the Bush administration.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bcronosJul 16, 2011
Hey, Obama has reversed himself on EVERY major issue in the last several years...
jaxxbatJul 16, 2011
a man with no spine
NinjaTheNickJul 16, 2011
If so many people these days are calling it the sky fairy maybe they aren't doing it because its "edgy"
How about the right stops pretending we're a christian nation, huh?
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
Again, Digg regulars don't want to be reminded that he was against it then. So, they will bury the comment.
SPATIALGUYJul 16, 2011
Well put!
charlesdkraussJul 15, 2011
"Irrespective of what the correct fiscal and economic policy should be for the most powerful country on earth, it's simply not possible to stop taking on new debt overnight. Most importantly, the Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition."
I've known this for quite some time. Democrats are not perfect by any means, but they are not the ones causing this s**t storm. Hell, The GOP caused the situation we're in now, and they're complaining about how the democrats are supposed to fix their f**k ups?
(I'm an Independent)
bdbrJul 15, 2011
As an independent, I've seen the argument about "who caused" this mess many, many times - it's just repetition of diatribes about the 200x Republican administration vs Democrat congress, and whatever Clinton did. People will come away from the argument believing exactly what they believed at the start, and they'll get angry and call each other names. They'll argue that it's meaningful discussion, but as a nonpartisan I see it as unbelievably pointless.
Unfortunately, it's very much like the "negotiations" that are going on right now. They're literally pointing fingers at each other and yelling. We all know that only hardens the opposition.
It is wise to learn from history, unfortunately in politics two sides will often look at the same history and come away with completely opposite lessons (particularly when their party is involved!). They'd be better off to drop the Republican vs Democrat arguments and just ask the question of what has worked in the past: successful deficit reductions (not just in the US) have always included some revenue increases and larger spending decreases.
starmanjonesJul 16, 2011
i'm not really arguing with you. it is not a debate that is won or lost with a consensus reached. its the opposite.
the sad truth is that democrats are still playing by the rules that have been established and worked for about 200 years... and the republicans are not. ironically they have not been playing by the rules since we reached 200 years...
what this is about is the rise of propaganda in american politics. the creation of a propaganda tool with modern communications and using it to sell fringe politics.
the slippery slope has led to a change from legislating politics and arguing over ideas to undermining the democrats ability to govern with slander and acts that are at best political vandalism but may be better described as attacks on america.
when bill clinton was attacked by the republicans the only possible gain was to make it impossible for him to do his job as president while he had a full plate of presidenting to do. we all know what was done i'm not going to list the events but it was completely outside of anything that could be consider normal for reasons that were questionable.
the jist is that it was an attack on the function of the u.s. government in a way we wouldn't tolerate in any other context. another country waging attacks with similar results would be risking war. it was an attempt at presidential assassination without the bullet.
the current dialog has served this purpose. it has allowed the republicans... the neocons... to slowly cop to what we all knew was going on.
they are using any tactic they can to disillusion americans about our government... the one that has served us well and led us to the top.
they have created a world class propaganda machine and employ modern psychology to manipulate people.
they want our government fundamentally changed for ideological reasons to some theoretical model with an all but irrelevant government. its simply the other end of the political scale from communism and is just as impractical.
here is the current situation. republican legislators have exceeded their purview and authority in an attempt to force down sizing of the u.s. government to a place where the majority of americans wouldn't want. the message that has begun to flow in the public dialog is that america has two options.
do it our way
or
we will crash the american economy to get what we want.
they are not acting as legislators. they are acting as terrorists. they are acting as revolutionaries. they are conducting a direct assault on america.
its not only that... but they are threatening the economic stability of the entire world. let me make it clear what the means.
famine... starvation... the collapse of healthcare in europe... [the u.s. healthcare system is already collapsed] the possible beginning of world war 3. this isn't exaggerated concern by liberals its what the world thinks. the fact they don't see it is a measure of how far away from reality they are. it may be less than this if it occurs... but don't count on it.
our allies have a right to demand obama take steps to avoid this possibility. this is no less threat to our allies than the nazi's or the soviets. what should obama do?
the thing this dialog has done is draw out the intention behind the acts so its on the table with everything else. they want to bring down the u.s. government. that is an act of war. obama has to preempt this. he can't let it happen then fix it with a heavy hand. the heavy hand has to come before...
it may mean we need to take the threats written in the neocon manifesto as real... and treat them as terrorists.
babycodyJul 22, 2011
LOL oh my God you're a loon. All the Republicans are doing is using this as leverage to get the Democrats to agree to some fiscal responsibility. You do realize that while the Dems controlled the House they failed to produce a budget twice. Why? That is the biggest responsibility of Congress. I do think you might have a future in Hollywood. "They came from the red states spreading fiscal responsibility. Oh the calamity!" I really like how you are setting the scene to blame us if the healthcare system in Europe fails. "It's those damn Republicans fault! Get em!" Obama is the President, not a god. We have checks and balances not heavy hands. We the people decided that the Dems were doing a terrible job in Congress and booted them out. You will have to adjust just like we did when you took control of the House in 2006. You know the year when the economy started spiraling down. Please review this chart to see who has had what affect on the economy in Congress. Which is the branch that can truely affect our economy. Then come back to me. http://massrad.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chart-djia.jpg The Republican Congress left the economy stronger in 2006 than it was when Clinton left office. The little black dot is 9/11 in case you are wondering.
"it was an attempt at presidential assassination without the bullet. "
That's funny coming from people who heralded the book "Checkpoint" about assassinating Bush while he was still in office. http://www.amazon.com/Checkpoint-Novel-Nicholson-Baker/dp/1400079853/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311340775&sr=8-1 I can't count the Dems who were orgasmic about the guy throwing a shoe at Bush.
"they are using any tactic they can to disillusion americans about our government... the one that has served us well and led us to the top. "
That is one of many places where we differ. The people of this country led us to the top not the government. I get disillusioned about the government when I see the Legislative branch decide to expand what they consider a reasonable right under the constitution to take someones property for "public use". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London When I hear people talk seriously about a balanced budget I feel like I just realized I was holding my breath, and can finally breath again. The government does not make any money other than what it collects in taxes. Every government job that is created is a strain on our economy. It's like asking a car to produce its own gas. The private sector is the only place that has a real affect on the growth of our GDP.
babycodyJul 22, 2011
Before someone corrects me I meant to say Judicial not Legislative in the last paragraph.
starmanjonesJul 22, 2011
@babycody
>LOL oh my God you're a loon. All
>the Republicans are doing is using
>this as leverage to get the
>Democrats to agree to some fiscal
>responsibility.
this is ridiculous. leveraging is part of politics. politics is part of gaining a consensus. this is has nothing to do with either. they have no right to threaten the american people with poverty, joblessness, hunger... in order to force this downsizing of the u.s. government. its extortion.
they have no right to threaten our allies with the same thing. they are threatening world stability.
the chinese or whoever you think our enemies are would know better than try this on us because it would be declaring war on the u.s. and the western world. doesn't matter if we don't know for sure what would happen... we know for sure what could happen. whats even likely to happen.
we aren't sure its not what this neocon band of subversives doesn't intend. as crazy as it sounds its what they say they intend.
>You do realize that while the Dems
>controlled the House they failed to
>produce a budget twice. Why? That
>is the biggest responsibility of
>Congress.
this idea that obama and democrats could clean up the mess in a couple years is ridiculous and just demonstrates how out of touch with reality you are.
there has never been a government charged with figuring out how to deal with a mess this profoundly broken. the republicans left our foreign policy a mess. they were scaring our allies. our economy is on the verge of compete collapse. what budget do you lock yourself into? don't you have to play it by ear?
answer: yes.
not only that but if its this easy to fix [2 years] then why are republicans worried about it in the first place?
thats the attitude you just offered me. the debt is so big we have to risk everything to fix it... even though obama could have done it in a couple years.
see... that bit of backward logic is the product of propaganda because nobody that isn't indoctrinated enough to just buy it with no logic applied would give it the time of day. so do you believe it or just parrot it.
but that brings up another question. if you aren't really worried about debt and deficit then what is your purpose for advocating crashing the world economy?
>I really like how you are setting
>the scene to blame us if the
>healthcare system in Europe fails.
no. quit spinning. what i said was if the republicans carry out their threat and the worlds economy drops into chaos then you have for all practical purposes declared war on europe. that collapses their economies and one of the big budget items for most modern countries is healthcare so... ya. republicans did it. if you don't want the blame from creating a world wide calamity then stop doing it. easy.
i'll add that for this reason our allies should have some say over what obama allows republicans to do. i think that might mean putting a stop to it. that is once again republicans pushing a piece of dogma until unintended consequences requires obama do something that he would abhor. putting a stop to this instead of letting it die because the ramifications letting it play out are too great.
>Obama is the President, not a god.
>We have checks and balances not
>heavy hands.
and republicans are in the process of trying to do an end run around the checks and balances to force down sizing of the u.s. government. and they are willing to jeopardize world peace to do so.
>The Republican Congress left the
>economy stronger in 2006 than it
>was when Clinton left office. The
>little black dot is 9/11 in case
>you are wondering.
thats what the propaganda machine is trying to pushing. but the reality is bush decided not to follow up on "democrat" successes and maintain the success. he went another route and it all went to hell. period. get back to me when you know what you are talking about.
this is the perfect example of... the level of bizarre you are arguing. i said...
>>"it was an attempt at presidential
>>assassination without the bullet. "
you replied:
>That's funny coming from people who
>heralded the book "Checkpoint"
>about assassinating Bush while he
>was still in office.
in that statement you are comparing the weight of the entire republican party... invoking legal proceedings... independent councils... breaking the law... legislators marching up to the senate to impeach the president for no more gain than to attempt to keep him from doing his job and therefore failing as president...
that is an attempt at assassination without the bullet. it is not in their job description.
you compare them too... a nut who is pissed off about the gw bush bringing the world close to catastrophe of various sorts. by the way... never even heard of it so thats how big it was for democrats.
thats classic.
and then you add...
>I can't count the Dems who were
>orgasmic about the guy throwing a
>shoe at Bush.
a shoe. not criminal charges. a shoe. its not because he doesn't deserve it. its the respect democrats have for the office and what that might do to the country.
shwaavayJul 16, 2011
" it's simply not possible to stop taking on new debt overnight."
That's why we've been trying to not take on new debt since the stimulus. Unfortunately nobody has cared, so now we have to do it in a week.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
What are you talking about? Think, please think. We have taken on new debt like crazy! That's why we hit the debt ceiling! If we weren't borrowing 43 cents on the dollar of ever-increasing federal spending -- we wouldn't be hitting these debt ceilings all the time. Do they still teach logic in school these days?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
haso18Jul 16, 2011
Its f**king stupid. What the govt did was loan money to the banks for no interest.. ie. for free. and then they allowed them to invest in government bonds.. for an INTEREST! THIS BLOWS THE MIND! Basically, its like you borrow from me 100$ and you have to give me back the same 100$ in 5 years ie no interest. I go around and borrow that same 100$ back from you for an interest ie i give you 10$ a year to borrow back my 100$. You now are taking 10$ a year because I'm stupid enough to lend you free money. And you wonder why the US is broke as f**k... The banks are so powerful, they pulled this off during a recession!!!!
lion_ooooJul 16, 2011
Could you post any evidence of this? I'm not saying that you're wrong, at all. I'm ignorant and would honestly like to read up on your claim.
sloppyjoes7Jul 16, 2011
"Hell, The GOP caused the situation we're in now, and they're complaining about how the democrats are supposed to fix their f**k ups?"
You're not only an Independent, but you haven't been paying attention either.
I've said it before: Under Obama, we're accruing MUCH more debt in a SINGLE year than the entire cost of the entire Iraq war.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hanzoJul 16, 2011
Have you looked at this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
sloppyjoes7Jul 17, 2011
Yup.
Here's the irony: Republicans "prime the pump," so to speak. Lower taxes help the economy, while higher taxes slow the economy. So, Republicans lower taxes, and the economy is spurred.
Then Democrats come in, raise taxes, and get a windfall. "Less debt! We solved the problem!" However, the economy reacts slowly. Their higher taxes slow growth, lowering taxable income, taxes drop, and eventually a Republican comes in.
Republicans lower tax rates, helping the economy. "Hopefully they'll leave this alone this time, and the economy will continue to grow, and we'll get more in taxes in the long run!"
Democrats come in, raise taxes, killing all the Republicans worked for. But, in the short term, they get a windfall of tax money. They take credit for reducing debt.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
JustSayNoPartyJul 18, 2011
Lower taxes help the economy while higher taxes slow the economy.
We don't see strong evidence for that help. Taxes have been lowered quite nicely over the last decade. Result? As for raising taxes, how much have Dems raised taxes in the last t 30 years?
Both parties are broken and unable to work together. Therefore, no significant structural changes can be made and we continue a downward slide. That's closer to the truth.
mrteflonJul 16, 2011
Boehner has a great plan, to saddle average Americans with this debt, while reducing funding for all public resources, and giving billionaires a tax break so maybe they'll creat a job or two (which they still have not done). Hey Boehner, where are the jobs?
best quote ever...
starmanjonesJul 16, 2011
this is the perfect example of the mindset and real danger you have led us to.
>You're not only an Independent,
all he did was not agree with you and you label him as one of them...
sloppyjoes7Jul 17, 2011
He said "(I'm an Independent)"
starmanjonesJul 17, 2011
i stand corrected.
davedavisJul 16, 2011
Why are you "independant" and not a Democrat?
chronically420Jul 16, 2011
are you kidding? both of them did this to us. bush spent more than any president in history and obama has just about tripled that. youre insane for thinking that its all the republicans. democrats are just as guilty for bringing on this financial s**t hole.
this is the reason why things arent being fixed. so many people are so f**king fixated on "us vs. them" so they dont care about anything but winning. what a bunch of f**king idiots this country has turned in to.
then again. the former head of the entire education department wrote a book called "the dumbing down of america" and its very accurate. so many people are so uneducated and ignorant yet they think theyre the brightest crayon in the box because they see some msnbc or fox clip about something.
if you guys want to know why we're going bankrupt and will have no future, look no further than yourselves for allowing this to happen.
footbag01Jul 16, 2011
Keep in mind that Bush started with a surplus and a strong economy producing significant tax revenue. Obama began with a deficit and faltering economy with a significant drop in revenue.
Without the Bush tax cuts, the debt would be 25% of what it is today.
bobcat7407Jul 16, 2011
Bush started with an economy that was already heading down because of the .com bubble bursting and the myth of a surplus.
I'm not saying he made things better, but the rosy picture that people paint of what Bush started with is not accurate.
footbag01Jul 16, 2011
GDP continually increased even during the dot com bubble which technically occurred before Bush took office. It wasn't until Bush's last year in office that GDP decreased. Since you have to base taxation and spending off GDP, that doesn't fit your hypotheses.
Bush did spend on everything from wars to tax breaks and Medicare D as well. You can give him credit for lowering taxes, but you also have to blame him for spending more then he was taking in.
He did inherit a surplus and that is not a myth.
bobcat7407Jul 16, 2011
My hypothesis is that the economy was not going as strong as it had been during the late 90's, which is accurate.
"Since one popular rule-of-thumb definition of a recession is two or more consecutive quarters of shrinking GDP, it became possible, based on the revised data, to say a recession began in January 2001."
http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/
"Bush did spend on everything from wars to tax breaks and Medicare D as well. You can give him credit for lowering taxes, but you also have to blame him for spending more then he was taking in."
I'm not sure what your point is? I do blame him (and Congress) for that which is why I said "I'm not saying he made things better"
"He did inherit a surplus and that is not a myth."
Please point out where the national debt went down since that would have been the result of a surplus.
footbag01Jul 16, 2011
If that's your hypothesys, the you are wrong. GDP, increased every year during the 90's. Even though the growth slowed a few times, it continually increased.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+gdp
Bush did inherit a surplus...
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
bobcat7407Jul 16, 2011
Your link takes me to the adolescent fertility rate for the world... I don't think that's what you intended. The GDP did decrease during two quarters of 2001 which shows that things were not as strong as the continued growth that had been shown for years. Sorry, I'm not wrong.
I know what factcheck.com says. They get their numbers from the CBO. If it's true please show where the national debt went down. That's all I'm asking. If there was a surplus the debt should have gone down, so when you can show that you can prove that the "surplus" was not simply smoke and mirrors.
kellyferroneJul 16, 2011
Amen brother. I have been seeing this for a long while. Unfortunately I don't have much hope in the Jones's catching on and the battle will rage.
upnorthgirlJul 15, 2011
And all this will come back to haunt the US in other ways. Who wants to work with a bunch of yahoos like this? Credibility destroyed. thanks, GOP
markglJul 15, 2011
You're welcome.
ericschc1Jul 15, 2011
With an attitude like that, YOU shouldn't be allowed to bitch following another 9/11 if, god forbid, another were to happen.
Your "f**k Everyone Else" attitude is the new calling card of the GOP and the reason we're at odds with any other country or group of people in the world and its costing us more than you think the big bad liberals are in the long run, as enemies are more expensive to manage than allies. Nevermind the fact that anyone who hides behind such a philosophy is an arrogant coward, in the first place because said philosophy is indefensible.
markglJul 18, 2011
These liberals are getting more and more mad that they're losing ground everyday.
kamtsaJul 15, 2011
Don't worry, Obama will go there and will apologize for the US as he did in the past.
publiclurkerJul 15, 2011
Adults have had to apologize for the sins of children for generations. Having to do so for so called adults that insist on acting like children is actually a source of shame that failures like you have inflicted on this country.
JustSayNoPartyJul 15, 2011
Exactly. He should do like the Republicans. Tell the world they can 'suck it' if they don't like our actions. That should work out great.
daboobzJul 15, 2011
Check this out: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/03/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-traveled-around-glob/
To sum it up, Politifact contacted a few experts and the only one that claimed he did apologize was an analyst from the heritage foundation (conservative think tank) who coauthored a paper called "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower." ... so i think it's fair to say that that guy was pretty biased.
Politifact says your claim is a "pants on fire" lie.
farmthisJul 15, 2011
because he's mature. If a gaggle of little self-interested republicans hurts the world, one would HOPE the president would be a good enough man to apologize for them, since they won't own up to their mistakes.
ericschc1Jul 15, 2011
Only arrogant, unintelligent pricks go through life thinking they never make an apology-worthy mistake.
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
ZOMG, heaven forbid if the US were to act like an ADULT in it's relations with the rest of the planet.
We have much to apologize for. We had best get started.
bcronosJul 16, 2011
Obama already destroyed our credibility over the last few years...
imoverJul 15, 2011
First the title is wrong, the article is from Germany not the world. Second, I wish I could just raise my debt ceiling and print money like everybody wants to do. How about taking a look at the programs we are involved in like giving billions each month to other countries so they can fight their own wars and giving money to business so they can stay afloat. We are supposed to be a capitalistic market and we have our government supporting business? Also Republican or Democrat they both are the reason for financial problems right now.
bdbrJul 15, 2011
The article doesn't say we shouldn't reduce our deficits. It says, "Irrespective of what the correct fiscal and economic policy should be for the most powerful country on earth, it's simply not possible to stop taking on new debt overnight."
kamtsaJul 15, 2011
Today is never a good day for addicts to quit the habit.
vectorbJul 15, 2011
An addict that goes into total collapse after stopping rarely takes a global economy down with him.
herojonJul 15, 2011
Except that at some point the creditors will stop wanting to credit us and we will literally be forced to stop taking on new debt overnight. It's better to try and solve that problem by any means necessary then to keep pushing against the barrier until we break it.
bdbrJul 15, 2011
The government borrows one of every three dollars it spends. That's 11% of our GDP, and if you know anything about how GDP is calculated, government spending is a part of it. Can you imagine what would happen when 11% of the GDP suddenly disappears? At best, a depression. Plus, we'd owe billions more in penalties for defaulted contracts. A sudden rush to balance would make 2008 look like good times.
I don't favor deficits. I abhor debt, and have no debts of my own. But for the government to just suddenly stop borrowing on one day during an economic slow period would be disastrous. Not drawing down the deficits will eventually be disastrous, too. I'm glad the credit rating companies have warned them. They need to to start soon and actually *do* it...just not all at once.
herojonJul 16, 2011
Right it will suck and I don't advocate stopping all spending. But raising the debt isn't going to be a viable solution for very long either. We need to cut spending and at the same time encourage spending without cutting tax revenues.
That is obviously a tough task, but it's one that gets harder and more mandatory each time we increase our debt.
floorboardJul 15, 2011
You forgot the billions to Pakistan to harbor Osama Bin Laden, laughing their heads off while we wasted trillions in Afghanistan looking for him.
kaelyiestaJul 15, 2011
Interestingly, among the things Wikileaks got from Mannings, the recent "foreign aid" being sent to Afghanistan is 75% f-16 funding. Maybe the US government is tired of being despised for bombing villages and wants to pay them to do it instead.
So naturally, any group threatening to cut off the spigot of cash will be verbally attacked, even if their move is just a political bluff. It is utterly disgusting to see so many people cheer the whining pleas for more money, especially considering how our government dishes it out.
floorboardJul 15, 2011
I'm opposed to military spending.
dauntless1Jul 16, 2011
So is anyone who actually believes in any part of the constitution.
Unfortunately we see what a short list of people that leaves today.
floorboardJul 17, 2011
Don't get me started on the constitution: I'd free the slaves and keep the constitution as it freakin was back before the Civil War.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
Military spending is a constitutional function of the federal government. Indeed, it is one of the handful of things they are SUPPOSED to fund. Next, military spending is 20 percent of the total federal spending pie -- and we are borrowing 43 cents of each dollar of current federal spending. If you completed eliminated our military, you still borrow hundreds of billions. Entitlement programs drive the budget.
halikarJul 16, 2011
20 percent? Don't think so. Back in 2009 it was 54%:
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
Depending on who you listen to, military spending consumes somewhere between 50-75% of discretionary spending.
No idea where you got that 20% figure, unless that's including non-discretionary spending and other expenditures we can't just wave away. Even then, it seems suspect.
jhw539Jul 15, 2011
"How about taking a look at the programs we are involved in like giving billions each month to other countries so they can fight their own wars and giving money to business so they can stay afloat. "
Sure, why don't YOU get off your ass and do that? And then if you can accept the reality that foreign aid (most of which is military material) and "giving money to business" is a negligible part of the problem* perhaps you might has something intelligent to add to the discussion.
*There is pretty strong evidence it is a net profit. Heck, the internet was created and fostered by direct government spending and then government giving money to businesses.
kaelyiestaJul 15, 2011
That is the wrong comparison to make. One cannot validly justify 'direct government spending' by comparing that to subsidizing corporations. That is like justifying rape by comparing it to murder.
As for the internet argument, it isn't very rigorous since you haven't actually demonstrated the 'net profit' (or considered just how little the government funded contribution was compared to the investment by the rest of society in building the internet, excluding utility monopoly ISP funding which is clearly harmful) but there is a thread of value in it, in that the internet can be considered good. However, even if we don't have to prove whether or not that money would have been more productive if spent by society itself(which actually one must to justify the policy), one still must be consistent in ones reasoning. So, consider the following example that can be substituted into your argument: the egyptian pyramids. They have an observable benefit like the internet, bringing in massive welcome tourism. Does that justify the cost of the required labor taken from egyptian peasants who would have rather spent it on food, clothing and medicine? In fact, you can replace your argument with any example where theft and coercion benefited at least some people.
This is the problem I have noticed with those who argue social science issues from appeals to effect. Even if one could ignore logical contradictions in ones position(which they cannot), they still fail to consider all effects of the policy they support. These two failures in reasoning lead to the mistakes above.
Lastly, I challenge you to watch the following, and then reconsider your claim about how negligible the problem of government giving money to business is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf2hIwBgFcComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kellyferroneJul 16, 2011
FYI if your referring to Libya on giving money to wars, we gave their money back to them that Ghadafi had invested in the US. Thats not to say that we should be involved in the first place.
suite307Jul 15, 2011
American politics is a big clusterf**k of stupidity.
jaxxbatJul 16, 2011
yup
lion_ooooJul 16, 2011
And corruption as well. The worst is that there doesn't seem to be a balance of intelligence and genuine concern for the masses in the government's leadership. We just might be doomed.
starkravingJul 15, 2011
Can I Digg this twice?
user500Jul 15, 2011
You could be like most Republicans and open a few accounts to rig the vote. That's why they love electronic voting, its easy to rig.
RichysDiggNameJul 16, 2011
Yep, I personally never believed that a son of a former president became president himself through honest means
cybersaurJul 15, 2011
republicans **are** dangerous maniacs!
theonewhoknowsJul 15, 2011
Yes, because sticking to one's principles and the promises they made their constituants sure is a crazy thing to do.
cybersaurJul 15, 2011
Yes, because harming the country economically because they're all ideological extremists sure is a crazy thing to do.
theonewhoknowsJul 15, 2011
You don't get it. They were elected to vote a certain way, and they are doing it. That is comendable. If you want to blame someone, blame the person that voted them in. That's who they represent. At least the Republicans do what they say they are going to do. Don't fault them, fault the people who voted for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cybersaurJul 15, 2011
They weren't elected to cause the U.S. to default on its debt!
The time for budget negotiations is when they're negotiating the budget. Congress already enacted this budget into law so now they have an obligation to pay the bills coming due!
theonewhoknowsJul 15, 2011
You are mixing concepts. Do you always finance new debts, or do you sometimes cut back expenses to pay for them?
It isn't fair to say they don't want to pay the bill. They are sayign that they don't want to pay for other things so that they CAN pay the bill... without having to resort to further financing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NinjaTheNickJul 16, 2011
We wanna pay the bill and cut back. If you only cut back and stop bringing money in you will bankrupt anyway. We need both. Soon.
user500Jul 15, 2011
Republicans do what they accuse the Democrats of doing. So were were these deficit minded Republicans during the Bush years?
juliochavezJul 15, 2011
Deficits don't matter. We'll make it up later with growth. This is the republican stance since reagan - unless there's a darkie in the White House. Then it's just whatever is opposite of what he wants.
daboobzJul 15, 2011
1) i think that's too simple a way to look at things.
2) They represent more than just the people that voted them in. They represent all the people in their district or state. And they overwhelmingly want a compromise. Most of them want some increase in taxes on the wealthy.
theonewhoknowsJul 18, 2011
Good points.
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
They were elected to create jobs and get this country out of the economic hole it's in.
They haven't done f**k all in regards to jobs bills. They've done little or nothing in regards to measures that would actually improve our economy (more goddamn tax cuts for the rich doesn't count, because those don't work like they claim).
They've wasted a lot of time and public patience playing their little 'social-issue politics' bulls**t, and doing their best to 'make Obama a one-term President', rather than actually FIXING the country.
Of course, these are Republicans we're talking about. They don't know how to govern, and they certainly don't know how to fix their own messes in government.
publiclurkerJul 15, 2011
I would hardly call bringing down a countries economy in order to ensure handouts for the wealthy to be a principal that should be stuck up for. then again, I'm a respectable human being and not an ignorant bagger.
floorboardJul 15, 2011
Oh come on. Name ONE promise Obama has kept.... oh wait, you can't. Maybe that's how Democrats work!
breadfredJul 15, 2011
Jesus f**king christ. There are WEBSITES devoted to his track record - and it ain't that bad. Google it yourself, you willfully ignorant idiot
miklkitJul 16, 2011
Oh gee, have you forgotten so soon? Get yourself some gingko biloba.
http://whatthef**khasobamadonesofar.com/
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
Hey. . .nice website. Thanks for posting the link! :)
RichysDiggNameJul 16, 2011
Floorboard, read your statement one more time and realize how irrational it really is. You can't name one promise Obama has kept because you simply choose not to.
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
Yeah. Apparently, willful ignorance is a foreign concept to right-wing trolls and hacks.
Both 'sides' do it. Everyone does it. Part of human psychology, it seems.
ericschc1Jul 15, 2011
"Yes, because sticking to one's principles and the promises they made their constituants sure is a crazy thing to do."
What happens when their constituents don't know what the f**k they're talking about? Sorry, but I'm not going down with that ship.
"Hurr durr, spending's bad, tax the poor for needed revenue we couldn't even get from them, but...
Hey, why is our infrastructure going to s**t?
Where's the EPA to tell us don't eat fish from the Gulf for another 20 years?
Why's my private insurance premium 200% higher than last year's?
Why did my boss's pay grow 300% more than mine?
Why are more of my friends & family out of work or experiencing declining working conditions?
Why has our national average health been consistently declining (well before Obamacare)?
Why are our national educational test scores dropping (right after education cuts)?
Why does Wal-Mart have more rights & privileges than me or any one real person I know?
...etc., etc., etc."
Bill Maher was right. Republican middle class voters are just like the Casey Anthony jury...dismissive in the face of inarguably damning evidence to the contrary, then utterly clueless as to why things are getting progressively worse.
bcronosJul 16, 2011
That's deep man, you ought to write a book...
justa__free__thinkerJul 15, 2011
Just a game to make the Dems look bad. Name one thing the repubs have done right since they got the house back.
It's all about stalling and racking up points till 2012. They don't care if America and the rest of the world goes down in flames as long as they can point to Obama when it's done and say "look he did it". Like some 6 year old kid that needs a timeout.
dauntless1Jul 16, 2011
No, not a timeout. Someone to beat them until the stupid falls out and they realize they aren't gods.
cappremauditJul 22, 2011
It's not only Republicans, it's the entire political system. This is like the story of the Scorpion that promises the Turtle that he will not sting him, if he can only ride on his back across the river to the other side. After much debate the turtle agrees and allows the scorpion a ride across the river. Of course, the Scorpion stings the Turtle in the middle of the river and they both die. Why? Because he's a Scorpion and that's what Scorpions do. Same thing with a career politician. This is all grandstanding on both sides to fool the American people (Turtle) and they are going to sting us, yet another time. After all the drama, they will increase the debt ceiling and very little will change and both will take a bow to their supporters. Regardless of the flag that they fly... cut government. Go to a flat tax, abolish the I.R.S. and the Federal Reserve, reduce the SEC and kill the Dodd Frank bill. Most if not all of the career politicos have never run a successful business. Let's send a Fortune 500 company CEO (business man) to Washington to clean up the massive mess that both parties have caused. Look at the money we have wasted on the wars! What has been the result, our freedom has been more restricted... and we paid for it! The inflation numbers out of Washington have all been lies. Fuel has increase 300% over the past 10 years and so have other commodities.
hibby76Jul 16, 2011
So since when is "the whole world" defined as "some dude in Germany"? Worst title ever.
the4thaggieJul 16, 2011
Sadly, our government is full of thieves and bribes. Once you let corporations influence public policy, you lose. Corporations do not care about the welfare of people. By their very nature they are for profit and will do any means necessary to get it. Politicians are in the pocketbook of lobbyists and corporations, and most actions are representative of selfish political monetary/political gain. Rarely will you see a leader within the House/senate or other political position that stands up for what our country was founded upon.
It is the job of the government to serve the people in a democracy. Lets take, for example, a staff worker in a government office. If they use their position to obtain personal wealth outside the guidelines of the job description, they will be fired and possibly prosecuted. Why should a representative be any different? Yet we allow campaign contributions that pretty much guarantee 3rd party influence into public policy.
I strongly resent lobby groups that are allowed to make contributions, and I resent anyone who has conflict of interest issues. This is what allowed our economy turn into a downward spiral. It wasn't the only cause, but it made politicians think to obtain short term profit at the expense of a clusterf**k government. "Here's $10 mil. Make sure we get a fat bonus check with the bailout."
If our government was firm and had honor, we would never have allowed ourselves to go down this path. To do what's best for the American public in adherence to the Constitution our country was built on, to destroy corrupt governments even if it was our own (1776 btw), and to build a better future for our children, is our duty. Personal gain created by a public servant by selling out another, whether political or monetary, is not in the best interest of the country, and it should be dealt with accordingly.
What angers me the most is that Republicans bastardize the Christian religion. They use it to gain a foothold with voters under a common ground, and they influence them using misguided news and politically-motivated promises. They used it to gain support for a war against Muslims, when their intentions were more profit-guided. I'm pretty sure any hardcore GOP'ers don't hold any regard to the religion they "subscribed" to.
The bailout was a failure. If you want to boost the economy, give it to the people. They will buy stuff. When you do a top down approach, the money will never leave the Board Room. If it does, it will be sent overseas.
I'd like to call them terrorists, but only some of their actions are like that. It is as my history professor once quoted: "The rich keep getting richer, and poor keep getting poorer." when talking about the 1900-1940's. In otherwords, we are either a plutocracy with the guise of a democracy, or we are close.
hippielandJul 16, 2011
The republicans are willing to risk the world in order to push their religious agenda.
johnyc252Jul 16, 2011
The Republicans are advocating a plan to borrow 2.5 trillion more dollars over the next 3 years instead of slightly raising corporate and personal taxes for the top 2 percent of Americans who are already receiving greatly diminished rates as the middle and lower classes struggle for air. I find it very telling seeing a party who postures on the idea of the common working so adamantly against throwing that same common man a life raft when he so desperately needs it all to save a few bucks from their already over inflated bank accounts.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
How does taking more away from employers help create jobs? Did "the rich" blow almost a trillion bucks on a "stimulus" bill that saw unemployment skyrocket after passage? Nope. Will some of them lay off a few more hired hands to cover the costs of the "slightly" raised tax bite? Yup.
johnyc252Jul 16, 2011
How does giving away 100 plus million dollars of golden parachutes and shoveling off workers benefits in favor of failed management and obvious bad business decisions increase the likelihood of progress economically or technologically? Maybe if these people were more focused on creating strong sustainable businesses which reward innovation and less focused on covering their own asses we wouldn't be placed in this current predicament in the first place. Why should 98 percent of the country suffer and struggle so 2 percent can buy an extra yacht and a new Rolex? This country was founded on the principals equality and competition and while there is posturing on both sides I ask you this question: is destroying our entire economy really worth it just so the haughty and materialistic can continue their gains?
This is about the American "People" not the American "Person" and these increases are not aimed at small or mid sized businesses as recent tax breaks have been levied in their favor on recent years. We need to stop this idea of wealthy entitlement and go back to the competitive reasoning which made this country what it is today. The fact is the Republicans are shooting down a bill and standing their ground not based on conservative ideals or American values, they're posturing a bad play to make the president look bad. Our country shouldn't burn for a politician's ego.
jaxxbatJul 16, 2011
Small business assets are sliding according to the Debt clock, what sane business owner would hire in this mess rather than hord cash..
brsox2445Jul 15, 2011
Business Insider is a great publication and it good to see that the rest of the world knows who is screwing with the world.
macliberalJul 15, 2011
Yes the repugs are insane. To think at a time when corporations are sitting on billions in cash, making record profits, and refusing to hire workers, the repugs want to lower their taxes. It's time that the corporations begin to pay their fair share, a large increase in taxes for corporations would begin to solve this crisis.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
The poster child for the corporations you are describing is named General Electric. You know, the guys that paid no federal taxes last year and who have cut thousands off their U.S. workkforce. Oh, but they are big Obama supporters and their CEO is the "jobs" guy for the president. So, how many of their cushy loopholes and tax credits will go away? Try zero.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-jobs-chief----the-ceo-of-ge----pays-no-corporate-taxes/1
Hey, this is also the same GE that supported the incan light-bulb ban, closed their last U.S. plant that made them - and then moved the jobs making the CFL to China.
Go clean your own house first.
neilglassman688Jul 15, 2011
Whether or not one agrees, always interesting how things look from the outside in.
MagnusHJul 22, 2011
Who writes this garbage?
spade0511Jul 18, 2011
tell a lie a thousand times and that lie will become truth.
jaxxbatJul 21, 2011
sad but true
roddackJul 17, 2011
Neither party is the answer they both have far more in common than differences. The current MO is pretty much Republicans do some stupid things. The Dems gain control and continue doing the stupid crap. Both parties continue to blame each other while the people are not getting a reach around.
The two party delusion is our failure until people wake up and actually hold politicians accountable for their actions nothing is really going to change.
karmashockJul 16, 2011
actually lots of countries are going through the same issue and most of them are not responding to the issue by jacking up taxes and then sweeping the whole problem under the rug like the democrats want.
And really beyond that, who cares what other countries think? They don't have to deal with the consequences. Some of them actively don't have our interests in mind as well. The chinese for example have expressed the belief that we spend too much on our military.
Well... from their perspective we do because our military interferes with their hold over south east asia and the pacific. There are variations on that all over the world. So take the opinions other countries with a grain of salt. In many cases their disapproval is in fact a sign of successful policy.
ka5p3rJul 16, 2011
all i have to say is at this link.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dosklown
gregstechblogJul 16, 2011
Imagine the world without political nonsense.
Go on, imagine it, I'll wait.
...
Nice, huh? Now we just have to demand that from our politicians.
teh0cuJul 16, 2011
With getting re-elected in the back of their minds, they are making a case to their base but i wonder if they will still get elected if their is no money to hold elections.
crubiaJul 15, 2011
why is this happening? to get elected? it happens every cycle. didn't einstein say something about repeating mistakes being insane?
TheMightyZordonJul 16, 2011
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
pedro9Jul 21, 2011
The whole world with the exception of the really stupid people.
gkiltzJul 16, 2011
Not everyone!
Some of us just think they are a bunch of bitter, ornery old white guys!!
myconnecthubJul 16, 2011
i thought everyone knew that
walt01Jul 16, 2011
You guys are nothing but hacks for the DNC.
This site is a joke.
jaxxbatJul 21, 2011
yup
ilcanislupus07Jul 16, 2011
It's about time, hopefully before they manage to inflict permanent damage upon our republic.
chronically420Jul 16, 2011
you say "they" as if its the republicans being the sole instigator and the only ones continuing this. obama took everything bush and amped it up ten fold. when will people understand that we are being robbed because of both sides and because of the retarded as f**k "us vs. them" mentality?. anyone who participates in that are no better than the nazi supporters who had no idea what was happening to jews (most didnt know they were being exterminated)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dudegivemeanameJul 16, 2011
Ugh, Godwin. Us vs. them political parties with financial agendas pulling the wool over the public's eyes is a little different than murderous hate mongers convincing the people to sentence minorities to their deaths. While I agree with the general basis of your argument, I find your comparison to be histrionic.
chronically420Jul 16, 2011
you must have missed the last part which explained the analogy. you might want to read more carefully next time
dudegivemeanameJul 16, 2011
Actually, I didn't miss it all. You might want to make valid comparisons next time. Like I said, I agree with the sentiment. I simply think buying into party politics is different from buying into a madman's murderous rants.
chronically420Jul 16, 2011
then comprehend better. im saying that the people today are no smarter or better than them because we are buying the same lies. most germans didnt know their neighbors were getting exterminated, hence their support. most americans dont know how they are killing our country, hence why they ignorantly support the fall of this nation.
dudegivemeanameJul 16, 2011
I have to reply to the below comment up here. You said they are no better. Um, I'm pretty sure ignoring hate speech is different from ignoring financial issues. I'll comprehend better when you make sense instead of trying to make your argument sound valid by Godwinning this comment thread. You would have been better served if you made a more fitting comparison, but you'll never see that because drama is apparently what you do. Anyway, I still agree with the sentiment, just not with your shoddy comparison. Argue it all you want. The lack of similarity is striking to anyone who cares to think for themselves.
lion_ooooJul 16, 2011
That's a very poor analogy, my friend. I'm sure you didn't mean it to be, but it's terrible.
vroomeryJul 16, 2011
A two party system as closed as ours brings question the the term "republic".
jaxxbatJul 21, 2011
Yup
downeycaraJul 16, 2011
yes it is about time the amercian people see the republicans for they truly are.
downeycaraJul 16, 2011
yes it is about time the amercian people see the republicans for they truly are.
Oldstones365Jul 15, 2011
Yes it is pretty maniacal, to cry about out of control deficit spending, and refusing to consider increasing revenue at the same time. It is even more maniacal in my opinion, for the republicans, to put the entire country at risk, in pursuit of their own partisan political agenda
shwaavayJul 16, 2011
First, I don't know how cutting spending can be considered a political agenda. If you want to get elected in this country it only makes sense to vote for more spending and handouts.
Second, the best way to increase revenue is to get the economy growing. While it's true that economists the world over argue about whether or not cutting taxes increases economic activity, they all agree that raising them hurts an economy.
dauntless1Jul 16, 2011
"First, I don't know how cutting spending can be considered a political agenda."
The term "sacred cows" comes to mind, both parties have them, both parties refuse spending cuts to them.
"If you want to get elected in this country it only makes sense to vote for more spending and handouts."
Sounds like you're busy bashing the "lazy" poor again. Guess what? Best study done, by a blatantly right wing think tank, still says at MOST the actual number of people on welfare who are "gaming" the system sits at less than 10%. Incase you're not up on efficiency ratings, but for anyone outside NASA, ten percent is workable.
"Second, the best way to increase revenue is to get the economy growing."
Agreed. It means we need demand. You know creates demand? Jobs. Of course, anyone paying attention already knows that so called "job creators" have the lowest taxes and more incentive to create jobs than they've had in over three decades, they're CHOOSING not to.
So, how long do we keep ignoring that primary problem, and it is a problem, and it rest ENTIRELY with "job creators". No one else is involved.
Closed AccountJul 16, 2011
If the root problem is out of control spending, then why does it follow that the "solution" is to take more money from the productive class to pour down the rathole. Recall that "stimulus bill" that cost almost a trillion bucks and left us with skyrocketing unemployment in its wake. It is the spending!
johnnysoftwareJul 15, 2011
The Republican party line now is that they want to run the country like they would eru a business: destroy its credit rating and leave its customers high and dry, while shutting down the business.
Okay, then, now we know the framers of the party line are wizards at business. Just like the Wall Street firms that had to get bailed out by the public.
polarisphilsJul 15, 2011
That's terrible
jeremybriggs11Jul 16, 2011
Republicans are stupid.
shwaavayJul 16, 2011
...and you're a bright shining light of intellectual superiority.
bouviJul 15, 2011
should read politicians
charlesdkraussJul 15, 2011
Yes, and no. Democrats aren't perfect, but the GOP are the ones holding the government hostage right now. Hence, the article.
novenatorJul 16, 2011
That's conservative defense tactic #4: say "both sides do it"/blame it on ALL politicans/government
They use it over and over and over
gorenrocksJul 15, 2011
Indeed!
quantumparadoxJul 15, 2011
IT'S OFFICIAL: The Whole World Thinks Republicans Are Dangerous Maniacs Threatening Everyone
davedavisJul 15, 2011
Its very possible to cut spending. Just ask both sides which programs they want to cut and agree to them both. :-)
bernalilloJul 22, 2011
Is anyone really surprised? They watched us screwup single payer/medicare for all. They watched us screw up teh hunt for Osama Bin Laden. They watched us screwup the koyoto protocols. We act like heavily armed, coked-up, psycotic, autistic adolesants. The world has cause to both fear and snicker.
joanieiJul 17, 2011
Would love to see who these dangerous maniacs friends are?? Hum, perhaps they have a lot of money. Yes, they are doing their best at trying to make us into a third world country, where your are either rich or richer and then there is the poor. no middle. Sorry not going for it.
Enough of this crap. The GOP best get their hear out of their ___ like now.
u2canfailJul 16, 2011
It is interesting to me, that WAR and THE WALL STREET idiots caused most of our problems, yet the blame is bandied around? Why, the debt is here. Americans know what made the problem, now move on. If you want cuts, please start with your salary and perks Congress, your approval rating is now at 18. Why do you even get paid?
letsgetreal50Jul 16, 2011
"The Whole World Thinks Republicans Are Dangerous Maniacs Threatening Everyone."
Truer words have never been spoken.
kellyferroneJul 16, 2011
Its just now official? People are finally wising up to their rouse