Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment?
Locker Room, Rumors

Should Obama Invoke the 14th Amendment?

7/28/11 in Locker Room   |   Tiger_Pride2   |   3287 respect

Democrats said Wednesday that President Barack Obama should invoke a little-known constitutional provision to prevent the nation from going into default if Congress fails to come up with a plan to raise the debt ceiling.
 
photo
Jim Watson AP

President Barack Obama addresses the nation from the East Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, July 25, 2011, on the approaching debt limit deadline. (AP Photo/Jim Watson, Pool)

Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

2/7/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

wrote:
Well, it's obvious you have nothing legitimate to add to the conversation.  Next time you jump in, you might want to gauge the probability of making a fool out of yourself first.

BTW, Cactus Jack, great song!

Luckily your opinion means nothing to me, so your feeling that I am a fool is irrelevant. Your condescending attitude  and the "holier than thou" outlook is exactly why the Q has fallen so far in the last year. Many have left the sight because of people like you who refuse to realize that other opinions matter and should be respected. So you can come back with another shot if you want and we can keep this going or you can let it go and show a little bit of class.   

2/7/12   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15305 respect

wrote:
Well, it's obvious you have nothing legitimate to add to the conversation.  Next time you jump in, you might want to gauge the probability of making a fool out of yourself first.

BTW, Cactus Jack, great song!

I figured you'd get it.

2/7/12   |   Cactus_Jack   |   15305 respect

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII....


Wannnaaaa beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


An

Ar

chyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2/7/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

Mannysworld wrote:
I don't need to provide any information at all..you keep proving my points for me..

You're making hillbilly references????

2/7/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

Mannysworld wrote:
Arrogance shining thru once again.......continuing to prove my point. Thank you.

I don't need to provide any information at all..you keep proving my points for me..

2/6/12   |   icfeet   |   22034 respect

wrote:
 Yes, yes......and once again, you're still without any viable information.....


If you two keep at it, it will be like the Super Bowl bar and get to over 5000 posts...  :)

2/6/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

Mannysworld wrote:
The point wasn't the content of the post. It was YOUR response of arrogance that was the issue.

Arrogance shining thru once again.......continuing to prove my point. Thank you.

2/6/12   |   TedDraper   |   39 respect

janet011685 wrote:
I think you're right, but I said the moderates are a dying breed "in politics".  The GOP candidates are fighting over who's the most conservative ("Oh god, Romney's a moderate?!  We can't have THAT"), and use any example of a candidate being moderate as a talking point as to why said candidate shouldn't be the nominee.  It's funny to me.

I'd love to see all the parties dissolved. :)

2/6/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

Mannysworld wrote:
I find it amusing that you take shots at my post, yet earlier in this very same post, you took the opportunity to call someone out about comments they made about your posts. I believe the term "extremely condescending" can be applied to your comments as well. I would appreciate the same kind of respect from you that you expect from others. 
  

The point wasn't the content of the post. It was YOUR response of arrogance that was the issue.

2/6/12   |   ML31   |   3678 respect

janet011685 wrote:
I think you're right, but I said the moderates are a dying breed "in politics".  The GOP candidates are fighting over who's the most conservative ("Oh god, Romney's a moderate?!  We can't have THAT"), and use any example of a candidate being moderate as a talking point as to why said candidate shouldn't be the nominee.  It's funny to me.

Gotcha.

To address the idea that candidates aren't left or right enough...  That has been the traditional way campaigns have been run.  You run to the ends of the party in primaries and to the middle in the general election.

Also...  Cooperation between parties has been a rare thing throughout the history of the US Legislature.  George Washington himself visited congress and found himself disgusted by the mudslinging and partisan politics he saw.

2/5/12   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

ML31 wrote:
I'm not so sure.  I think most folks tend to lean moderate.  It's just that the ones making all the noise are the lefties and the righties.  Giving one the impression that the middle folks aren't as plentiful.  But to this day it's still the moderates who tend to swing national elections. 

I think you're right, but I said the moderates are a dying breed "in politics".  The GOP candidates are fighting over who's the most conservative ("Oh god, Romney's a moderate?!  We can't have THAT"), and use any example of a candidate being moderate as a talking point as to why said candidate shouldn't be the nominee.  It's funny to me.

2/5/12   |   ML31   |   3678 respect

wrote:
A few years ago, I would definitely have to agree with you.  Perhaps it's my own bias in perception and the circle of people with whom I interact, but I see the essence of polarization spreading like ivy.  The unfortunate aspect that can be added to this equation is the level of the apathetic are growing and also further separating the political process as the adversity is still present, but action.....well, that's contrary to the essence of apathy.

I can't say who's right or wrong in this respect as it comes down to perception.  I do think the results, and subsequent level of acceptance in this respect will be greatly revealed with the 2012 election.  Even so, one thing that can't be denied is the activism of either 'side'.  The Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, the populous movements in Wisconsin, Ohio, and unheralded political activism of other 2010 elected state governments is a trend that is bringing various ideologies to a head.  It's not going to be dull, that is for sure.....

I suppose it's possible I am way wrong on my assessment and that I am wanting to still believe it to keep my comfort level tolerable...   That being said I'm still going with the thinking that the majority of the country is more moderate than mainly left or mainly right.  

2/5/12   |   ML31   |   3678 respect

janet011685 wrote:
Funny you should mention this, because I used to be more of a moderate (believe it or not) until recent years.  I was actually "fiscally conservative", but leaned very left on social issues.  
However, the "moderate" is a dying breed in politics today.  Being called a moderate is a fate worse than death in the political arena.  Which is sad because I don't think this country can fully get back on course without having politically moderate leadership and compromise.

I'm not so sure.  I think most folks tend to lean moderate.  It's just that the ones making all the noise are the lefties and the righties.  Giving one the impression that the middle folks aren't as plentiful.  But to this day it's still the moderates who tend to swing national elections. 

2/5/12   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

wrote:
Then provide substance instead of innuendo.  There is relevant information that can be provided.  The fact is, when addressing the issues at hand is that the efforts of the president are working--despite the obstructionist tactics of the 2010 Congress, and that additional statistics demonstrate that the ills being experienced are vastly attributed to the Bush administration.  The fact of the matter is, that if we hadn't partaken in two unfunded wars, compounded with the Bush tax cuts, AND the Republicans would have adhered to their beloved "cut, cap, and balance" moniker, the foundation that President Clinton had America on a path to have the entire debt paid off by.......(oh wow, what do you know) 2012......

Provide relevant information, statistics, and not the generally spewed propaganda.  The reason America is headed to hell in a hand basket is that people are too lazy to do a little homework.  I voted McCain / Palin in 2008; I have always veered toward the "right" in the political forum until the past few years.  The reason why is that the Republican party has embraced itself as the corporate protectorate, social fascist party.  This is not the America my grandfather raised me to believe in, nor the America I joined the military to support.

Funny you should mention this, because I used to be more of a moderate (believe it or not) until recent years.  I was actually "fiscally conservative", but leaned very left on social issues.  
However, the "moderate" is a dying breed in politics today.  Being called a moderate is a fate worse than death in the political arena.  Which is sad because I don't think this country can fully get back on course without having politically moderate leadership and compromise.

2/4/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

wrote:
 There isn't enough substance in this post to fit in a shot glass.....

I find it amusing that you take shots at my post, yet earlier in this very same post, you took the opportunity to call someone out about comments they made about your posts. I believe the term "extremely condescending" can be applied to your comments as well. I would appreciate the same kind of respect from you that you expect from others. 
  

1/12/12   |   Mannysworld   |   121 respect

I have to chuckle a little when I hear Obama followers still blaming Bush whenever one of Obama's "plans" fail  or when the mean old Congress won't let him do something. People forget that for at least the last half of Bush's reign, he had a Democratic Congress and couldn't get anything done either. How is that different than what Obama is going through now? Obama promised over and over and over how he was "going to change Washington" and it will not operate as it has for years. The country elected a man who had very little knowledge of how Washington worked, foreign policy or how to manage debt, yet was elected because he can read a teleprompter on command. Forget all the TeaParty rhetoric and concentrate on what he was elected to do. HE allowed the TeaParty to grow and gain momentum by failing to fulfill his promises and not standing behind his word. They would be nothing but a lunatic fringe if the Democrats had seized control when they had the chance. They had the chance to save the day but are so busy blaming the past they can't lead us forward into the future. I am not saying Republicans are any better by the way, but take some esponsibiltiy for your actions, or lack of them, Mr' President. Your country needs you.  

7/30/11   |   icfeet   |   22034 respect

janet011685 wrote:
He's a hypocritical blowhard.  I'm angry that he got elected.  Corzine was kind of a dead-beat, so I'm not shocked that Christie got in, but man, there should have been SOME better option available.

Even his supporters are starting to get disenfranchised with him already.  He's made some bonehead moves so far, and it's still relatively early in his term.

All in all, I can't stand him.  

C'mon, Janet...leave Governor Fred Flintstone alone!

7/30/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
Oh, I'm aware. They ALL blow.

btw..... you bein a die hard 20-something Leftie, what are your thoughts of Chris Christie?

He's a hypocritical blowhard.  I'm angry that he got elected.  Corzine was kind of a dead-beat, so I'm not shocked that Christie got in, but man, there should have been SOME better option available.

Even his supporters are starting to get disenfranchised with him already.  He's made some bonehead moves so far, and it's still relatively early in his term.

All in all, I can't stand him.  

7/29/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

janet011685 wrote:
I don't know the specifics, but if it was the 6th or 7th time in 8 years, I'd probably say "hold on, let's take a look at WHY we have to constantly raise it" too.  Perhaps because of the trillions of dollars lost in revenue from the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Besides, if we want to really call a spade a spade, let's look at Republicans' voting record for raising the debt ceiling.  Notice the overwhelming number of votes given to Bush's proposals as opposed to Obama's.  But this isn't about politics, it's the principle.   Riiiiiiight.


Oh, I'm aware. They ALL blow.

btw..... you bein a die hard 20-something Leftie, what are your thoughts of Chris Christie?

7/29/11   |   Drummer99   |   4020 respect

Oh, the Repubocrats and Demicans not getting along....... WHAT, AGAIN?.... gee, thats new .... F-ing with our money, pushing the pawns around, (oh, thats us) I'm tired of both of them. Play nice nice, get a deal, and get on with it.

7/29/11   |   SlowRider   |   344 respect

kramer wrote:
Just go one better and be honest, ALL politicians suck.

Well yea that to.

7/29/11   |   kramer   |   11004 respect

ML31 wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm beating a dead horse since this was already discussed in another thread...

WWII ended the Great Depression.  Roosevelt handing out money to States did not.  there were indeed work programs created but when the programs ended people went right back to being unemployed and the country continued along in an economic depression.  

Other than that, there is plenty of blame to go around to all politicians since most seem to be more worried about getting re-elected than they are with solving the issue at hand.

For all the times you and I have gone round-and-round, your last little paragraph seems to be the root of this whole mess.  That's all politicians do care about is getting re-elected, and God forbid they step across party lines and work together instead of campaigning...

7/29/11   |   kramer   |   11004 respect

SlowRider wrote:
I will just say this and leave it alone. Repukes suck.

Just go one better and be honest, ALL politicians suck.

7/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

wrote:
I agree with Mojo.....we need to get you elected to office....

Question: If you get elected, can I be your sex scandal?

LOL and .

Politician f*cks the "common man".  What kind of scandal is that?  Sounds like the status quo to me.  

7/29/11   |   SlowRider   |   344 respect

I will just say this and leave it alone. Repukes suck.

7/29/11   |   ML31   |   3678 respect

Furthermore, reading all the posts caused me to think of these...



7/29/11   |   ML31   |   3678 respect

wrote:
 Did our President not try to do that?  By the economic stimulus? I don't understand economics, but I do know for a FACT, that during the depression. and yes this IS a depression, that President Roosevelt got us out of it by becoming the largest employer in this country. We handed the states money to put people back to work. President Obama did the same thing, but of course the republicans put up the resistance and it got mired in the bureaucracy this government has become.  And you know what, the only people that this has hurt, is us. Shame on them.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm beating a dead horse since this was already discussed in another thread...

WWII ended the Great Depression.  Roosevelt handing out money to States did not.  there were indeed work programs created but when the programs ended people went right back to being unemployed and the country continued along in an economic depression.  

Other than that, there is plenty of blame to go around to all politicians since most seem to be more worried about getting re-elected than they are with solving the issue at hand.

7/29/11   |   kteacher   |   34439 respect

janet011685 wrote:
I agree, she IS our best friend.  But naming the 50 states is probably the last thing I'd ask her.  Right after:

-  Why did you miss over 1/3 of the votes in the past month?  That's one HELL of a migraine.

-  Why did you take a loan out with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac just weeks before voting to dismantle it?

-  Why do you go on and on about how terrible "big government" is when you have worked your entire career as a government employee?  (lawyer for the IRS before, and now a state representative)

-  If you're so against help from the government, why did your farm receive over a quarter million dollars in subsidies?  And why has your husband's clinic (not-for-profit, but he still receives a nice salary) accepted tens of thousands of dollars from your state and federal government?

-  After publicly opposing Obama's stimulus package, aimed at infrastructure, why did you write SIX letter to the Transportation Secretary asking for money to build bridges and commuter rail in your own home state?

I'll stop there ... for now.

PS - I heart you too.  
PPS - It's not letting me reply to comments for some reason, so this was for Glenda's post.

 

7/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

(Edited by janet011685)

I agree, she IS our best friend.  But naming the 50 states is probably the last thing I'd ask her.  Right after:

-  Why did you miss over 1/3 of the votes in the past month?  That's one HELL of a migraine.

-  Why did you take a loan out with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac just weeks before voting to dismantle it?

-  Why do you go on and on about how terrible "big government" is when you have worked your entire career as a government employee?  (lawyer for the IRS before, and now a state representative)

-  If you're so against help from the government, why did your farm receive over a quarter million dollars in subsidies?  And why has your husband's clinic (not-for-profit, but he still receives a nice salary) accepted tens of thousands of dollars from your state and federal government?

-  After publicly opposing Obama's stimulus package, aimed at infrastructure, why did you write SIX letter to the Transportation Secretary asking for money to build bridges and commuter rail in your own home state?

I'll stop there ... for now.

PS - I heart you too.  
PPS - It's not letting me reply to comments for some reason, so this was for Glenda's post.

7/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
Speaking of facts ... You are aware that when Obama was a Senator, he voted AGAINST Bush Jr's request to raise the debt ceiling?  One of the few votes he actually attended. :)~

I don't know the specifics, but if it was the 6th or 7th time in 8 years, I'd probably say "hold on, let's take a look at WHY we have to constantly raise it" too.  Perhaps because of the trillions of dollars lost in revenue from the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Besides, if we want to really call a spade a spade, let's look at Republicans' voting record for raising the debt ceiling.  Notice the overwhelming number of votes given to Bush's proposals as opposed to Obama's.  But this isn't about politics, it's the principle.   Riiiiiiight.


7/29/11   |   mojo   |   4372 respect

wrote:
This is one element that needs more attention as too many aspects of the government are not reviewed for current need, but rather based upon previous allocations--unfortunately, if agencies were responsible and reported that their budgets didn't need as much one year, then in a future year said that they needed more the chances of getting it are extremely small which is why agencies don't self-regulate, which is sad.

With regard to your main point, the thing that people also need to understand is the rhetoric for the elimination of the "upper 2%" tax cut is that if it is rescinded, it is not a raising taxes--the tax is the same--it just reaffirms the original amount.

with regard to agency budgets, you hit the nail on the head. Working on a military installation i see so much waste and abuse its sickening. Agencies out here will change out light fixture every 60 days if thats what it take to spend the money they were allocated.

Sadly it has taken this clusterf*ck  of a situation to get me more interested in what is happening in the political arena. from my understanding the goverment takes in 200B monthly, so this stuff about grandma Mertyle may not get her social security check and disabliity checks wont be able to go out is all scare tactics to me.  We have the money to pay on the interest, pay social security, medicare/medicaid, active duty  military.  i know we dont have the money to pay for everything on the board and some things need to be cut. What? i cant honestly say without seeing what all our money is going to.  if someone can point in the right direction it would be appreciated.

I agree that rescinding tax cuts is not raising taxes, and even if they do rescind the tax cuts it still wont be enough to fix the problem we have. We have to many politicians, Reps and Dems, worrying about re-election. The guy elected to lead us is leading from behind IMO, meeting with each side for a couple hours each week isnt doing any good and begging the American people to call their reps is not being a leader.  Calling the leadership into your office like your a bad ass and then sending them on their way after a few minutes so you can go play golf isnt leading. Pull them in there and make them sit in their own crap until a deal is hammered out, of course that isnt politically correct and would hurt someones feelings...tough sh*t. get it done.

Maybe we can talk Kjartan and Janet into running in 2012. all we need is a slogan and money....any ideas.

7/29/11   |   icfeet   |   22034 respect

(Edited by icfeet)

One of the farces about "cuts" is that many times, they are NOT CUTS AT ALL!  If the government was set to spend 7.5% more on, say, "widgets" in the 2012 budget, and the lawmakers say "We'll only increase spending by 2.5% next year instead of 7.5%", they will pat themselves on the back and say "We CUT 5%!!"....duh....that's not a CUT.
I don't understand these DOPEY politicians, Dems and Repubs, who have never run a business...never met a payroll...never not taken a paycheck so that the employees could get paid...think that the way to prosperity is to SPEND MORE.  In my business, where I treat a lot of "snowbirds" that leave and go to Florida from January-April, I KNOW that the last half of January until the end of March that my cash flow is down...I DON'T RESPOND BY BUYING LOTS OF THINGS, and spending more money than I take in!  We need REAL CUTS....cut the duplicate programs, cut TAXES so that people can spend MORE of their own money. 

Have a good weekend! 

7/29/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

janet011685 wrote:
Well, actually, if you look at sheer facts and numbers, most recent presidents before him did exactly that (spent WAY more to benefit WAY fewer).  
Reagan raised taxes far more than Obama ever has and tripled our national debt.  
Bush Jr. more than doubled our national debt and cut taxes for the upper 1% which lead to trillions added to our national debt (and even more to come if they are extended).  I'd call that, as you said, "spending sooooooo much to benefit sooooooo few".

Where was the "fiscal conservative" uproar then?  Oh, right.  That's because WHO is in office is more important to them than what they DO in office.

Speaking of facts ... You are aware that when Obama was a Senator, he voted AGAINST Bush Jr's request to raise the debt ceiling?  One of the few votes he actually attended. :)~

7/29/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
As he (and his policies) should be. Noone in the history of this country has ever spent soooooo much to benefit soooooo few.

Well, actually, if you look at sheer facts and numbers, most recent presidents before him did exactly that (spent WAY more to benefit WAY fewer).  
Reagan raised taxes far more than Obama ever has and tripled our national debt.  
Bush Jr. more than doubled our national debt and cut taxes for the upper 1% which lead to trillions added to our national debt (and even more to come if they are extended).  I'd call that, as you said, "spending sooooooo much to benefit sooooooo few".

Where was the "fiscal conservative" uproar then?  Oh, right.  That's because WHO is in office is more important to them than what they DO in office.

7/29/11   |   kantwistaye   |   4219 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
I totally understand the concept of supply and demand. But thanks for explaining it again. However, midway thru you disertation, you couldnt help but throw in tax cuts for the rich. I couldnt help but laugh. The only "debt creator" you could be referring to is the lack of additional funds available to government for subsidies and entitlements. Which again....has NOTHING to do with supply and demand in a ffree market society as it relates to private sector economics or job growth. But nice try!

As for your (and Obamas) claim that the stimulus prevented a depression..... thats purely speculative and there is not one single fact that can prove or disprove that.

 Well, if you actually understood how supply and demand works you'd realize how ridiculous a Balanced Budget Amendment is. And yeah, it does have to do with supply and demand.  Your apparent support (I'll let you confirm or deny it) of the Bush tax cuts added 3 trillion dollars to the national debt and lowered the median income of middle class households.  This raised our debt ceiling and lowered our demand.  So lower taxes for the rich (and middle class, for that matter) significantly pushed us to this bind. To say it isn't relevant is to not understand the situation.

7/29/11   |   kteacher   |   34439 respect

wrote:
I always knew You were smarter than Me Becks.

 

(pssshhh.....you know exactly what you type....lol)

7/29/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

wrote:
I most definitely am referring to the Tea Party actions in this process.  I am an advocate of a balanced budget, and one created to provide for unknown social considerations such as natural disasters, etc., or for a military action--if it is in fact a just action.   A balanced budget is not a radical concept, but the manner upon which the Tea Party is addressing it definitely is, with far more collateral interests than those zealots realize.

However, as a veteran, I've already experienced the affects of a budget cut this year, and the degree to which the entire country would be affected with the current Boener proposal, let alone the completely delusional desire of the cut, cap, and balance proposal would send this country into a condition than would rival that of the Great Depression than we have seen since that very time.  What I find utterly pathetic is that if the Bush tax cuts were eliminated, the budget would be balanced.

One thing, I don't know if it is your intention to take this posture, but the "disappointment" you would feel if a "bright guy" such as myself.......  The manner upon which you phrase that is extremely condescending.  I would thank you not to address me in such a manner henceforth.

haha. Sorry for the condescending tone. It was not meant to be demeaning nor meant as a personal attack. I just found your use of the term "radicalism" a bit extreme and confusing.
I totally disagree with your assumption as to what the result of a "passed" Cut Cap & Balance proposal would be. From my understanding of the proposal, it wouuld merely cap spending at 2011 levels (which are outrageous, but thats for another discussion), would cut targetted unsustainable subsidies and entitlements and balance the budget in 6 yrs by basically reducing the size of goverment involvement by 1%. For the life of me...I dont see what is so radical in that proposal.

p.s. Im sorry to hear that any benefits you receive as a Vet of this great country have been effected. Believe me, even as a fiscal conservative and one that strongly supports reduced government and lower taxes, I would never comprimise benefits to our US military (past or present) if I had a say in it. There are far more appropriate places to make cuts than to those that defend our right to be free and permit us to continue to have open minded discussions like these.

7/29/11   |   kteacher   |   34439 respect

wrote:
Elephants remember everything, they are Holy Creatures in other cultures, and the have Ivory Tusk, for when Social Security runs out.......LMAO!!!!!

 Asses give one hell of a kick in the junk, are really stubborn, wait....wtf? Why am I discussing this further, you just tied elephants to religion--------------------------I win. Donkeys accept everyone. 

7/29/11   |   kteacher   |   34439 respect

wrote:
btw, isn't the logo for the Democrats a JACKASS? just sayin......

 And the Republicans is an elephant and elephants sh*t really big turds. What's your point?


7/29/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

wrote:
 You have got to be kidding me?  This President has been met with more resistance than any I can ever remember. 

As he (and his policies) should be. Noone in the history of this country has ever spent soooooo much to benefit soooooo few.

7/29/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
Because supply works purely from a profit motive and the only way supply expands is if demand is high enough to create more profit.  Therefore demand must go up.  In a bad economy, spending (demand) goes down, so supply matches it resulting in job losses.  Tax cuts for the rich in no way increases demand so that's just a debt creator.  Therefore, government needs to spend on projects which create jobs to temporarily increase demand so that supply must match the demand and create jobs.  

Also I can't this had to be explained.

Also, most good stimulus was paid off in the increase of revenues (and no, the Obama stimulus wasn't very good stimulus, but it did prevent a depression and increased job creation in the private sector).

I totally understand the concept of supply and demand. But thanks for explaining it again. However, midway thru you disertation, you couldnt help but throw in tax cuts for the rich. I couldnt help but laugh. The only "debt creator" you could be referring to is the lack of additional funds available to government for subsidies and entitlements. Which again....has NOTHING to do with supply and demand in a ffree market society as it relates to private sector economics or job growth. But nice try!

As for your (and Obamas) claim that the stimulus prevented a depression..... thats purely speculative and there is not one single fact that can prove or disprove that.

7/28/11   |   kantwistaye   |   4219 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
supply and demand?  Explain to me where "government entitlements" is stated in the free market and capitalistic economic equation. Or how a rise in the national debt or expansion of government relates to supply and demand.

Those chapters must have been omitted from the IU-Kelly School of Business texts I was schooled from.

Because supply works purely from a profit motive and the only way supply expands is if demand is high enough to create more profit.  Therefore demand must go up.  In a bad economy, spending (demand) goes down, so supply matches it resulting in job losses.  Tax cuts for the rich in no way increases demand so that's just a debt creator.  Therefore, government needs to spend on projects which create jobs to temporarily increase demand so that supply must match the demand and create jobs.  

Also I can't this had to be explained.

Also, most good stimulus was paid off in the increase of revenues (and no, the Obama stimulus wasn't very good stimulus, but it did prevent a depression and increased job creation in the private sector).

7/28/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
 Yeah... supply and demand is a liberal bias. 

supply and demand?  Explain to me where "government entitlements" is stated in the free market and capitalistic economic equation. Or how a rise in the national debt or expansion of government relates to supply and demand.

Those chapters must have been omitted from the IU-Kelly School of Business texts I was schooled from.

7/28/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
Disagree.
The government role in a down economy is to create an environment for job growth in the private sector .... NOT the public sector. Obamas policies (and ideology) not only does not do that, but it is completely 180% from that concept.

You mean by extending the tax cuts for the upper echelon in hopes that they'd "trickle down" that prosperity?  Wait.  He already tried that.  And look at the job growth THAT created.  

Even so, no matter what you think is the correct role of government in this mess ... what economic benefit presents itself, that will actually help the American people in the short-term AND long-term, does allowing our nation to default on our PAST debts (we won't get into whose fault that is, even though I do want to point out that Obama is only responsible for 1/14th of the debt incurred since Clinton left office, just to make sure everyone is aware of the facts) and balancing the budget right now, and not raising the debt ceiling (which, more facts, is something that is commonplace ... Bush did it at least SEVEN times during his administration and Reagan, brace yourself, raised it EIGHTEEN times in 8 years) harbor?

Inconvenient Truths About the Debt Ceiling, for those who care enough to know.  


PS - I think you replied to the wrong post ... Mike was talking about the government's role to prop the economy up in a recession/depression, but since you mentioned it...

7/28/11   |   kantwistaye   |   4219 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
Disagree.
The government role in a down economy is to create an environment for job growth in the private sector .... NOT the public sector. Obamas policies (and ideology) not only does not do that, but it is completely 180% from that concept.

 Job growth in the private sector had grown after the stimulus.  It was public sector job losses that covered that. Try again.

7/28/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

janet011685 wrote:
It IS radical in a time like this when the nation's economic troubles should be the first priority.  
It's like trying to go on a diet right BEFORE the holidays.    Just not smart timing.

Disagree.
The government role in a down economy is to create an environment for job growth in the private sector .... NOT the public sector. Obamas policies (and ideology) not only does not do that, but it is completely 180% from that concept.

7/28/11   |   kantwistaye   |   4219 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
haha. Thats a completely liberal interpretation of Macro 101 theory. Not surprised one bit you subscribe to it. I used to love openly contradicting my liberal profs when they tried to preach that theory as well. I cant recall ever losing a debate and they were all relatively lived.

 Yeah... supply and demand is a liberal bias. 

7/28/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
 Its very radical.  When the economy tanks, the government has to prop it up.  A balance budget amendment makes that impossible.  Anyone who's taken a Macro 101 class knows this.

haha. Thats a completely liberal interpretation of Macro 101 theory. Not surprised one bit you subscribe to it. I used to love openly contradicting my liberal profs when they tried to preach that theory as well. I cant recall ever losing a debate and they were all relatively lived.

7/28/11   |   kantwistaye   |   4219 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
Kjartan ... Im curious as to what/who you are referring to when you use the term "radicalism" in your 2nd paragraph. I hope you arent referring to the Tea Party's insistance on a Balanced Budget intiative. I would be very disappointed to hear that a bright guy like yourself considers a Balanced Budget ..... a radical concept.

 Its very radical.  When the economy tanks, the government has to prop it up.  A balance budget amendment makes that impossible.  Anyone who's taken a Macro 101 class knows this.

7/28/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

beach_pirate wrote:
Kjartan ... Im curious as to what/who you are referring to when you use the term "radicalism" in your 2nd paragraph. I hope you arent referring to the Tea Party's insistance on a Balanced Budget intiative. I would be very disappointed to hear that a bright guy like yourself considers a Balanced Budget ..... a radical concept.

It IS radical in a time like this when the nation's economic troubles should be the first priority.  
It's like trying to go on a diet right BEFORE the holidays.    Just not smart timing.

7/28/11   |   kantwistaye   |   4219 respect

 He absolutely should.  Tea Partiers always say Obama will destroy this nation from within when they are now a week away from doing so.

7/28/11   |   kramer   |   11004 respect

The Tea Party is so radical even some Republicans in Washington consider them radical!

7/28/11   |   janet011685   |   25875 respect

(Edited by janet011685)

And baby teabaggers make three.  

It seems that Boehner can't keep his caucus firm, so he keeps having to pull out.    Maybe if they all moved their asses like he asked (no no, slowly ... like that).    Unfortunately, it appears that he's getting Tea Bagged    as practically everyone within his party is standing firm against Boehner's package.  

But seriously ... I understand Obama trying to come to a compromise, but I don't think that the Republicans or the Tea Party jokes are coming to bat with anything viable.  I'm sure he'll end up being forced to invoke the 14th Amendment in the 11th hour.  

Donald Trump was on FIX FOX News the other day and so eloquently laid out the plan that every Republican and Tea Bagger has in their heads, but has not had the balls to say out loud.  Basically, don't allow the debt ceiling to be raised just so Obama looks bad and doesn't get re-elected.  Yes he said that.  Out loud.  On TV.  I can't make this sh*t up.  
Republicans/Tea Baggers:  Forget about the actual real world repercussions, f*ck the American people, just play this all purely on politics at it's worst.


PS - Michelle "Stepford Wife" Bachmann is so concerned with making her voice heard that in the past month, she's missed 50 out of 135 votes.  Mm hmm.  I love that she constantly is finding new ways to sink her own ship.  It tickles me.

7/28/11   |   kramer   |   11004 respect

Every Republican is quick to jump on Obama for the mess the country is in economically, but if Congress would quit dividing themselves right down party lines and actually realize "hey some of the ideas from the other party actually make sense," we might see something accomplished in Washington.

7/28/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

wrote:
Well, considering the Republicans are now negotiating with the Tea Party, just to pass a bill out of the House of Representatives, there may be little choice.  If Boener was smart, he'd tell the Tea Party to go to hell, negotiate with a the Democrats with what is offered in a bill that already favors what the Republicans desire, and end this by throwing those who are trying to throw him under the bus instead.

The level of radicalism is reaching a feverish level.  Honestly, I believe that if the Republican Party wants to remain the dominant entity in the two party system, they need to take advantage of the insanity that's been displayed and the fear that this situation has generated and demonstrate that they still hold the values of the GOP, but will not destroy America in the process.

The current bill by Sen. Harry Reid gives the Republicans everything they desired to begin this issue--no increased tax revenues and massive cuts (which I'm not at all happy with, but this situation is reaching a level of insanity that's only going to create far more adversity in the future.  JMHO.

Kjartan ... Im curious as to what/who you are referring to when you use the term "radicalism" in your 2nd paragraph. I hope you arent referring to the Tea Party's insistance on a Balanced Budget intiative. I would be very disappointed to hear that a bright guy like yourself considers a Balanced Budget ..... a radical concept.

7/28/11   |   beach_pirate   |   1121 respect

wrote:
I really wish I could jump all over this, but I suck at the economic part of this country. I can say this though, if he has away to get around the republicans once again blocking ANYTHING that he tries to do, as they have since he took office, I say go for it.

Uhhh, Glenda ....What is it of Obamas that the Republicans are blocking? Obama has NO plan in play. WHY? .... Because he knows even less about the "economic part of this country" than you claim to know.

7/28/11   |   marcus_nyce   |   27820 respect

bearcub1 wrote:
This is for  Republicans and the Democrats to negotiate for the welfare of its people and country. Any third party involved intrusion is making a joke of us to the world.

Most (if not all) of the rest of the world has more than two political parties in their democratic process. They can't figure out why there are only two here.

7/28/11   |   ohwell_   |   16554 respect

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more, is Congress.
-- John Adams

7/28/11   |   bearcub1   |   6789 respect

This is for  Republicans and the Democrats to negotiate for the welfare of its people and country. Any third party involved intrusion is making a joke of us to the world.

7/28/11   |   kteacher   |   34439 respect

(Edited by kteacher)

 I think he should do it, and let the courts decide if it's right.

This situation is just ridiculous. Why were these same people who aren't accepting Obama's or Reid's deal now, so quick to accept several debt ceiling raises in the past? And more importantly, why aren't people realizing how these people aren't looking out for "their" best interest.   Also, I think every member of the Tea Party (or supporter) receiving Social Security or Medicare should forfeit their money because they are contributing to the "spending." And am I the only one who thinks some sort of anarchy is taking place in this same party? Their actions aren't very patriotic and "Godly." (and let's face it, their numbers are small in comparison to the entire US population, so why the heck do they hold so much frick'n power? ughhhh.)

And Norse, Obama has been more Republican than most Republicans. He gives in to the Repubes wayyyyy too much. Sigh.