Debt deal

[Lurker]

@ Lurker - Thanks for admitting that the Dems aren't really wanting a deal, they want to play this for political positioning.

First you parrot political spin on a Washington Times blog, and then when called on it you makes an absurd non-responsive post that completely distorts what I said.

Thanks for re-affirming how intellectually dishonest you are.

[Lurker]

3) the Dems were so out of favor with their policies they got a shellacking in the midterms and lost an almost hitoric number of seats in both houses.

I'd also like to respond to your superficial and childish summation of why the Democrats did poorly in the last election. I gave the four main reasons as I saw them after the election. Since Democrats polled better with the populace than Republicans in every instance but "likely voters", it's clear that it wasn't Democratic policy that was the problem.

Embar, Grow up. You look foolish when you don't have any more depth than a Washington Times blog or a Drudge headline.

[Harlowe]

the Dems aren't really wanting a deal, they want to play this for political positioning.

What a relief to know who the real bad guys are. Everything is so black and white now that I know that only the Republicans want what is best for us all.

The Teapublicans are the new super hero.

[Ddrak]

The "filibuster proof senate" idea is a myth. First of all, there were 60 voting Democratic senators for a sum total of 8 months (from Franken being sworn in late July to Kennedy being too sick to vote in Feb/March) - hardly enough time to "resolve this". Second, have you even looked at how Democratic senators vote? It sure as hell isn't lockstep with the President, and shouldn't be for a properly functioning government so criticizing the President for how senators vote is, well, stupid and ignorant.

Next, the public debt limit WAS increased during the period you're talking about (Public Law 111-139).

Also, if you care to cast your memory back, there was this bitching financial crisis that took place during the period in question and whatever you mean by "resolve this", Obama is on record as saying that he did delay a lot of his policies in order to mitigate damage done during that crisis, and the deficit spending at the time was something we all agreed was the lesser of the evils.

Lastly, my response was a hell of a lot more than just the filibustering (which DID happen, even during the height of the financial crisis when you allege the President had "control"), so even if you were accurate on this point it doesn't negate the simple fact that the President can't just ram through major policy shifts, particularly those to reduce the public debt, during the height of a financial crisis.


Now, if the current "deal" gets up, I do expect Obama to lose the election. I think he's pissed off his base by caving to the demands to lower spending without allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire.

Dd

[Harlowe]

This article from Frum was good. He gives me hope there are Republicans left that do give a rational shit about this country and aren't more interested in pandering to the Tea Party and empowering that group of irrational morons hell bent on pushing us off a cliff.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/ ... index.html

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b ... follow-her

What a hypocrite... Pelosi calls the deal a Satan sanwhich with a side of Satan fries, then says she'll vote for it, then tells others to vote their conscience. So her conscience tells her to vote for Satan.

Actually.. that sorta does make sense when its in the context of Pelosi.

[Lurker]

You are so deep.

[Harlowe]

Oh no, what have the evil-doers said/done now?? Real hypocrisy...not like a figurative expression, when people say they had to "hold their nose" in the voting booth, right? Genuine hypocrisy, the kind that only occurs left of hard right? Because we know moderate Republicans and centrists are Rinos and hypocrites too. Anything but Teabaggin, Fox-Newsin, Glenn Beckin', Country lovin'..are evillll hypocrits bent on running our beloved, straight marryin', God fearin', tax dodgin', gun totin', war lovin', xenophobin' country into nothing less than a modern day Sodom and Gommorah pit of badness.

You know, it shouldn't matter that she said Satan anything, because we all know that Democrats are Godless (Fox News & Ann Coulter said so), so she doesn't even believe in Satan. So it's like she said it was a Santa sandwich made of Easter Bunny ass.

[MeGusta]

That much anger is not healthy.

Embar is right about the hypocrisy of Pelosi. No matter how bad of a taste that leaves in your mouth or no matter how much of an opening it left for your sarcastic yet meager comedic offering.

It galls me to say that the only group involved that stood on their stated principles was the so called "Tea Party".

[Harlowe]

I'm sure you were positively "galled" to have to say it. You know, your pompous posts don't really add anything more to conversation than my meager comedic offerings. It's equally full of shit and for your own amusement.

[Lurker]

MeGusta,
It's no surprise that the Tea Party was able to stand by their stated principles. Complete ignorance about the potential damage your stance might cause makes it quite easy to be rigid and avoid compromise. Pelosi doesn't have the luxury of ignorance and indifference, and so she had to support legislation she doesn't agree with to prevent an unthinkable default by the U.S.

And yeah, Harlowe... MeGusta adds practically nothing to the conversation. It's almost like he's the pale ghost of Jecks.

[MeGusta]

Ahh, too true. But I do not recall having stated a goal of contribution. Odd.

The "deal" is not really that bad. Deficit reduction is an admirable goal. I would have preferred some revenue generation to be included, but that was not to be.

Your anger seems a wasted effort to me. The so called "Tea Party" is simply the best player on the field at the moment. Not due to any political mastery but instead due to a lack of spine in their opponents.

Lurker,

I disagree that the Tea Party was ignorant of the consequence. I am of the opinion that they were just willing to accept the result. That makes them infinitely more dangerous than they have been perceived as.

[Lurker]

Harlowe wasn't being angry; she was mocking the sort of shallow commentary that Embar spews on the board.

I agree that the Tea Party is dangerous, mostly because they have control over a political party that had already gone off the deep end. I disagree about the reason they are willing to "accept the result" of their actions. I think most Tea Party members (and their elected officials) are ignorant about policy. They have been duped by their leaders in the media and government. That's certainly borne out by their public commentary and by the "solutions" they propose.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Anything but Teabaggin, Fox-Newsin, Glenn Beckin', Country lovin'..are evillll hypocrits bent on running our beloved, straight marryin', God fearin', tax dodgin', gun totin', war lovin', xenophobin' country into nothing less than a modern day Sodom and Gommorah pit of badness.

Funny you should say that...

[Lurker]

- All mainstream news outlets in the United States have a liberal bias.
- The Drudge Report is the most fair, balanced and centrist news outlet in the United States.
- Fox News’ “Special Report,” which is usually characterized as conservative, is not biased as far right as typical mainstream outlets are biased to the left.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!

I love this part too... “If you’re looking for bias, you’re not going to find it in false statements…the way that the media perpetrates bias is usually in what they don’t report.”

Pretty funny considering sources like Drudge and Fox News use both false statements and omission to dupe their audience.

Fallakin, you uncover the funniest more absurd items. Keep them coming.

[Harlowe]

Haha.... Oh Daily Show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... ctims-unit

He followed with a second montage in which talking heads made severe and less-than-entirely-accurate generalizations about the left (e.g. "liberals love dictators," "liberals don't have five kids"). It ended with a whiny clip from Sean Hannity: "So vicious, so mean, and so cruel. And I don't hear this coming from conservatives about liberals."

"You don't?" Stewart asked. "That is, if I may say, some of the most free-range, organically grown disingenuous, ideologically marinated, un-self-awareness I've ever seen in the wild."

Not angry, just ridiculing the absurd by being absurd. I think it's more "odd" that you would say I'm angry, when what I'm saying is so over the top. Its like your Literal Guy "aka just another incarnation of Jecks".

[Ddrak]

Supporting the Tea Party because they held fast to their ideas of a balanced budget and deficit reduction during a balance sheet recession that have historically been shown to be a batshit stupid macroeconomic policy is hardly a winning argument. Voting for anyone BUT the Tea Party for working towards compromise seems much more sane to me. Standing by your ideological principles in the face of history and logic really isn't a virtue. It's kinda the opposite...

Pelosi may be upset with the deal (and frankly I think it stinks for the Democrats so she's got a good point in her invective) but calling her a hypocrite for voting for it is just dumb. She's clearly voting for the lesser of two evils - the deal or a broken nation. If you think she's a hypocrite then clearly you think the United States defaulting on debt is less important than some partisanship, right? Government is the art of the possible, and right now you need people willing to compromise to ensure the nation continues to function because if you think otherwise then you've really lost the point of government itself, from any ideological standpoint.

As for Fallakin's link, without buying that guy's book, the best I could find looking at his credentials and website (including his "PQ test"), he's a hack. The PQ test itself is biased as hell, defines "liberal" and "conservative" as arbitrary Democratic and Republican positions, and encourages partisanship over compromise (if you like this overwhelmingly good bill with a bit of a sting in a rider then you're obviously "liberal"), so frankly if he thinks the media leans left then it's because he's set up his "science" to give that result.

On the deal itself, it will hurt America's economy by cutting government spending at a time when spending is the only thing that will speed the recovery of the recession. Private industry is busy deleveraging, so liquidity stinks (as Embar repeatedly tells us). Pulling government spending at the same time will just freeze liquidity even more and stifle economic growth, driving unemployment even higher until industry claws together what liquidity it can to finish reigning in debt and looking back at profits again. Read this: http://read.bi/oSNwn0.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Another Daily Show clip....I don't remember who the WH reporter is, but he saw this coming back in December. Obama felt confident back then the Republicans wouldn't hold want to default...silly man.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/264380/the-da ... t-revenues

I knew Fallakin's link would be ridiculous nonsense. Anything that would call Drudge the most reliable, fair, balanced and centrist source is pure theater. Actually usually using terms like "fair and balanced" is pretty much showing their hand or bias to begin with.

[MeGusta]

Supporting the Tea Party because they held fast to their ideas of a balanced budget and deficit reduction during a balance sheet recession that have historically been shown to be a batshit stupid macroeconomic policy is hardly a winning argument. Voting for anyone BUT the Tea Party for working towards compromise seems much more sane to me. Standing by your ideological principles in the face of history and logic really isn't a virtue. It's kinda the opposite...

Could you clarify who you are talking to, please?

[Harlowe]

Just guessing, but this quote probably came off as a certain level of admiration for them, but he's more likley referring to Embar and Fallakin who seem to support the Tea Party. Even if they do not directly say so, they do jump to their defense.

It galls me to say that the only group involved that stood on their stated principles was the so called "Tea Party".