When Obama was a senator, he said it was "un-patriotic" and a "leadership failure" that Bush needed to raise the debt ceiling.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/08/24/then-and-now-barack-obama-calls-president-bush-unpatriotic-for-adding-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt/


Today, Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling, and he has no kind words for those who oppose him.

So Spence, and to any other Obama sycophants out there...was Obama right then, or is he right now? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Good luck.

Easy answer Politics is another word for BULLCHIT which means politicians are BULLCHITTERS. No real story here just everyday/normal political BULLCHIT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Easy answer Politics is another word for BULLCHIT which means politicians are BULLCHITTERS. No real story here just everyday/normal political BULLCHIT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WORD! Just like weathermen, they all lie and get away with it!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Easy answer Politics is another word for BULLCHIT which means politicians are BULLCHITTERS. No real story here just everyday/normal political BULLCHIT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget, Obama was the one who promised to put an end to all of the 'politics as uaual'. All that 'change' stuff.

I just want to see what Spence has to say, see how he tries to say that Obama was brilliantly correct on both occasions.

Don't forget, Obama was the one who promised to put an end to all of the 'politics as uaual'. All that 'change' stuff.

I just want to see what Spence has to say, see how he tries to say that Obama was brilliantly correct on both occasions.

Lmao! Spence has jungle fever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lmao! Spence has jungle fever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lmao. Funniest post of the year!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

WORD! Just like weathermen, they all lie and get away with it!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

AND...whether they're right or wrong, honest or currupt, GOD fearing or full-blown satan-sinning traitors.....they still get paid with OUR taxes!!!

From today's Reuters news:

"White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday called Republican tactics on the debt limit a 'political extortion game.' President Obama repeatedly has warned that he wants a debt limit increase with no strings attached."

When Obama bashed Bush in 2006, Bush was attempting to raise the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Obama called that a "leadership failure". Now that Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling to what, $17 trillion? And Obama isn't willing to tolerate any interference?

But Spence said he 'explained all that in 2011' (but would not elaborate when I asked), even though what's happening now is occurring at the end of 2013. So in addition to being cool, handsome, and brilliant, Spence feels Obama can also see into the future...

Leave Spence alone.
He's busy s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& off his Obama blow up doll.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This pretty much sums it up !

No, he quite simply said he realized his responsibility as President was different than that as Senator.

-spence

No, he quite simply said he realized his responsibility as President was different than that as Senator.

-spence

:shocked:Yikes!!!

:shocked:Yikes!!!

I think he's just being honest, one of those you don't know until you really get there sort of things. Bush said basically the same on other issues if I remember.

Seriously, any of you don't think that suddenly becoming the most powerful person on the planet isn't going to influence how you view some things?

-spence

I think he's just being honest, one of those you don't know until you really get there sort of things. Bush said basically the same on other issues if I remember.

Seriously, any of you don't think that suddenly becoming the most powerful person on the planet isn't going to influence how you view some things?

-spence

Spence, is Obama black-mailing you, the way J Edgar Hoover used to? Come on.

To support the current spending increase, Obama says we simply need to do it in order to avoid being in default. He said that failure to pay our bills would mean we are a deadbeat nation.

That's simple stuff, Spence, that's not advanced calculus.

Spence wants us to believe that in 2006, it was beyond Senator Obama's abilities to see the danger in defaulting on debt. According to Spence, Obama could not have possibly understood that, until he became President.

Spence, if you are correct (and you are not), then-Senator Obama was way too much of a simpleton to seek the promotion he sought.

And if you are correct, why hasn't Obama apologized for bashing Bush, since Obama now sees that Bush was 100% right then, and he (Obamna) was 100% wrong? And what else was Obama 100% wrong about before he got to be President?

Finally Spence, if Obama's behavior back then was appropriate for a Senator (since as you said, only a President could possibly understand the need to pay your bills), why is everyone attacking the Republican legislators who oppose raising the debt ceiling?

Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, said that legislators who oppose raising the debt ceiling are playing a "political extortion game". Why didn't Obama tell Carney to say "look, the legislators who oppose raising the debt ceiling, are only doing it because they are doing what's appropriate in their current position."

Spence, I DARE you to try and answer this question...
Spence, if you praise Obama for his opposition of the debt ceiling increase in 2006 (according to you, that's the right thing for a legislator to do), by what logic do you not similarly praise the Republicans who are doing the same thing today? If Senator Obama could not have possibly known any better in 2006, why are the Republicans currently in Congress being held to a higher standard?
God Almighty...

Keep Junior in karate, he will fit in with the Chinese who will soon own this once great nation being led down a path of despair. This hack and his sycophants(Jeff) have no conscience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I guess you were corrcet when you said that then-Senator Obama was wrong. There, you were correct. You are incorrect when you say that it would be unfair to expect a Senator to be able to understand the correct course or action. Back then, other Senators were saying the opposite of what Obama was saying. EVen you admit they were correct, and Obama was wrong.

So what else was Obama 100% wrong about? Closing Gitmo? Enhanced interrogation? The need for Social Security and Medicare reform?

According to Spence, Obama cannot be expected to knowledgably set policy on any topic beyond the scope of his current job. Those are Spence's words. Last time I checked, Obama has never worked with the economics of public healthcare. So according to Spence's logic, how is Obama qualified to suggest that Obamacare would do more harm than good?

Hmmm?

Jim, it has very little to do with anything you just said.

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President, House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

Jim, it has very little to do with anything you just said.

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President, House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence
You are unbelievable ! Literally .
You have a double standard about everything .
Clearly these idiots in congress and the senate have no business running any part of our life's , let alone deciding on my children's health care. I'm glad you are coming around
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are unbelievable ! Literally .
You have a double standard about everything .
Clearly these idiots in congress and the senate have no business running any part of our life's , let alone deciding on my children's health care. I'm glad you are coming around
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There's no double standard here, it's just reality.

Bush went through the exact same thing. All Presidents do, most just aren't as honest about it as Obama.

-spence

Jim, it has very little to do with anything you just said.

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President, House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

OK. So when Obama was bashing Bush, it was just politcs as usual. Sounds like that's what you are saying, and I agree with that.

But if that's the case, where does Obama get off running on a promise to "end politics as usual". If Obama knew that Bush had to raise the debt ceiling, but bashed him anyway to score political points with his base, from where does Obama get the nerve to say he'll do things differently? Isn't that level of dishonesty a character flaw?

Here's the thing, Spence. That type of politics (attacking a proposal that you know is necessary) is dangerous. That's exactly what your side is doing when conservatives suggest necessary cuts to Social Security and Medicare (witness the ads showing Paul Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound old lady off a cliff, boy that's honest). On some issues, that tactic is very dangerous.

How about we elect someone who is above that? Paul Ryan could have said during the campaign "elect me, and I'll give you all a blank check!". But he didn't. He said cuts were necessary, and your side attacked him for it. Congratulations.

All Presidents do, most just aren't as honest about it as Obama.

-spence

What honesty has he showed? Did Obama go on TV and admit that Bush was right, and that he, Obama, was lying to our faces?
Has he begged forgiveness for his ill-conceived attacks of Bush? If Obama did that, I missed it.

Spence, Obama opposed raising the debt ceiliing. There are 2 explanations...

(1) Obama was too ignorant to understand that Bush had no choice, or

(2) Obama knew full well that Bush had no choice, but he attacked him to score political points.

Those are the only 2 choices, I don't see a third possibility. In either case, in my opinion, it means he's unqualified. He's either too stupid or too dishonest.

(3) Obama gained insight from his new responsibility and regrets his previous position.

-spence

(3) Obama gained insight from his new responsibility and regrets his previous position.

-spence

To believe your third option, you'd have to believe that a Harvard-educated US Senator has no appreciation for what happens if the US stops paying its bills.

Finally, if that was the case, why hasn't Obama apologized for his Bush-bashing on this issue, if he now has the necessary insight to understand that we have to pay our bills?

To believe your third option, you'd have to believe that a Harvard-educated US Senator has no appreciation for what happens if the US stops paying its bills.
Remember this was pre-recession when the economy was still doing pretty well riding that cheap credit wave. The implications then appeared much less severe than today.

Finally, if that was the case, why hasn't Obama apologized for his Bush-bashing on this issue, if he now has the necessary insight to understand that we have to pay our bills?
Back then the Dems were advocating pay-go. Situation was certainly not the same...

-spence

There's no double standard here, it's just reality.

Bush went through the exact same thing. All Presidents do, most just aren't as honest about it as Obama.

-spence

We have all heard that before... It's usually in regards to national security . Not basic economics .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember this was pre-recession when the economy was still doing pretty well riding that cheap credit wave. The implications then appeared much less severe than today.


Back then the Dems were advocating pay-go. Situation was certainly not the same...

-spence

"the economy was still doing pretty well riding that cheap credit wave. The implications then appeared much less severe than today. "

OK. So you claim to work in Finance, and you are saying that with a straight face? Spence, remember the absolute dollars here. You are saying, it was worse for Bush to have us $9 trillion in debt in 2006, than it is for Obama to have us $17 trillion in debt in 2013? You believe that? Our balance sheet is healthier now than it was then?

Whew!

Remember this was pre-recession when the economy was still doing pretty well riding that cheap credit wave. The implications then appeared much less severe than today.


Back then the Dems were advocating pay-go. Situation was certainly not the same...

-spence

Can you support that statement please? Do you have any support for your contention, that the consequences of US default would be worse today than in 2006? We had two engaged in two wars in 2006, so presumably we couldn't grind to a halt then?

You keep moving the goalposts. First, Obama couldn't have known about the necessity of raising the ceiling in 2006, because he was only a Senator. Now, it's that Obama was correct to oppose raising the debt ceiling back then, because unlike today, it didn't need to be raised.

Back then the Dems were advocating pay-go.
-spence

Which Democrats in Washington advocated "pay as you go"? Now you're saying that the Democrats in Washington, were opposed to spending unless we had the funds on hand to pay for it?

Yes, those Democrats are real budget-hawks. Obama is clearly a real penny-pincher with the US budget, I'm so sorry I forgot that...

Btw
Pres. Obama's schedule leading up to the shutdown golf on Saturday, golf on Sunday, golf on Monday
You can't get more arrogant than that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Btw
Pres. Obama's schedule leading up to the shutdown golf on Saturday, golf on Sunday, golf on Monday
You can't get more arrogant than that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Curious if you affectionately refer to your information sources as your "dealer".

-spence

The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas.

Oh? I never heard that before. Something new . . . or something you have observed by your more realistic understanding of contexts? I double checked the official guide on how and for what Congress people act--the Constitution. It lists 18 things in which Congress has the responsibility to act. None of the 18 says that members are to be concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. Each of the 18 are enumerated as duties not agendas. And they are very specific, not encumbered by conflicting or various "sides."

This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President,

The House behavior to which you refer was about the funding of a law which was imperfectly written, and which itself has been an "agenda" of progressives for a century. An agenda that is not listed as one of the 18 ways on which Congress is supposed to act. And, yes, Congress can override Supreme Court decisions. It is actually the final arbiter of what is federal law, not the SCOTUS.

I understand, however, that you have no truck with such notions. The Constitution, for you, is an outdated document which was written in a different context than that in which we currently live. High sounding concepts such as liberty, especially individual liberty, no longer apply. We are all totally interdependent in such a way that individualism is an obstacle to efficient social order and good governance thereof. And it is through government, highly centralized and staffed with expert bureaucrats, that we must achieve what is good for all.

The "perception" that a Cruze could be acting honorably to perform his Constitutional duty to country and constituents is probably for you, naïve. Your reading of the relevant context, with its variables and relative agendas, is that what he is doing is only for a run at the presidency.

House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.

Actually, the Tea Party has felt that it has been back stabbed by Republicans whom they helped to victory, and who have abandoned promises that helped them get elected. Any new candidates the Tea Party runs to replace back stabbing Congress people will be to right the ship.

Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.

-spence

Yes, yes, the "perspective" thing. I know, I know, the official guide to what the POTUS's perspective should be is irrelevant. That perspective is much narrower than what modern presidents must have. They are responsible for so much more, just about everything, so that one person couldn't actually handle it and do it well--that jack of all trades but master of none syndrome. So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.

Really?

Curious if you affectionately refer to your information sources as your "dealer".

-spence

Ok. That did get a chuckle out of me but what I said is fact
Look up the word . It helps understand reality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when i flush the toilet
i think of Obama

So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.
Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

Has nothing to do with understanding, it's about measurement.

-spence

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From Spence's responses it is quite easy to answer your question Jim:Yes Obama and his followers Can Have IT Both Ways.Unfortunately its the American citizen taking it both ways.

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-97753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

"Doomsday mission"? Are you reneging on your devotion to "perspectives"? Cruz has a broader perspective than "Republican after Republican" who want to end the budget impasse. What budget? The continuing resolution is a means to AVOID a budget. Raising the debt ceiling is a means to spend, again, even more money than the government has.

And Obamacare does the same. And it is not popular or desired by a majority of citizens.

Anonymous quotes to the contrary, the mess republicans are in is the mess that everybody is in, and that mess includes obamacare, which Republicans didn't vote for. It is not Republicans who have not passed budgets, it is not Republicans who passed Obamacare, but it is Republicans who have also contributed to the debt and also maintained business as usual for the Federal Gvt.

Who cares if they believe they'll get blamed for it all. Most people, including me, don't give a rat's behind if they do. What tea partiers and constitutionalists care about is getting rid of debt, getting rid of oppressive tyrannical mandates (including Obamacare), restoring principled constitutional gvt. and making this, again, a country of free, responsible people, not a populace who must depend on government bureaucracy to sustain their lives.

Cruz's broader "perspective" includes all of that. I have heard him speak on talk shows and he says a lot more than is represented in the article you cite. And the perspective from which he speaks is not a "doomsday mission," but a restoration to sanity and a brighter, once again flourishing nation of individuals who can innovate and produce far more than herds and groups who are all prodded into one way by centralized regulations.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-97753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

As for Obamacare and should it be repealed, read from the same issue of Politico that you cite this article by one of the progressive's favorite billionaires, Warren Buffet: http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/obamacare-buffett.php?code=t-oc-buffett

Politico, now there is an unbiased source. Should be named Pravda...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another detbutch beatdown has Spence grasping at straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps your drive by pot shots aren't conducive towards thinking.

-spence

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;1016210]I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence[/
Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

I should have said " subsidized "
And where do you come up with the statement that most Americans don't want Obamacare defunded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I should have said " subsidized "
And where do you come up with the statement that most Americans don't want Obamacare defunded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There were laws passed, specifically, to ensure that Congress the Senate staffers and the president are taking care of them protected. If not , then why pass those amendments .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


And before we turn this page, the answer is ?????????????? :D

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, please show us which polls you've seen that indicated most of the public doesn't want it defunded. You always ask for proof if someone posts something you don't agree with. It should be expected of you as well.

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

Your drive-by opinion needs some proof or evidence other than your "perception."

Is ego not a portion of courage? Most of the "great" men of history would be perceived as being driven by ego. Are you implying that ego is bad? Perhaps you perceive that your opinions or actions are devoid of ego. Perhaps your own arrogance blinds you to those perceptions and opinions of others as if what you propose without some proofs is obviously true. That is ego and arrogance of a high order.

And "political anarchy"? What we have now is an anarchy. Our government does not operate by consistent principles, and it has abandoned the constitutional structure which provided those principles. A structure which provided the rule of law rather than rule by men. Rule by men rather than law is anarchy. What Cruz is attempting is a restoration of principles that promote individual freedom and the rule of law, not anarchy. See this article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/10/04/sowell-who-shut-down-the-government/?subscriber=1

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Public opinion can be a useful guide in deciding legislation, but only if it is informed by principle and truth, not misguided by spin and lies. Cruz's behavior is backed by principal and constitutional order. If that makes him an attractive candidate for President, I say hooray!

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

Yes, by definition, it gives you more to spend. And the U.S. Gvt. takes in monthly enough to pay current bills. But the constant expansion of government has constantly required more money. And the need to abandon budgets and the borrowing of more money. And the debt that has been accrued by constantly borrowing has become impossible to pay unless the borrowing stops.

And your perception of Tea Party "threats" are perceived by them as means to fiscal and legislative sanity. If sanity is a threat, so be it. Wasn't the so-called government "shutdown" a threat to avoid any compromise?

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting that those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.
Looks like the quote was even taken out of context...ha, seems like everything is these days.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/warren-buffett-on-obamacare/

-spence

Spence, please show us which polls you've seen that indicated most of the public doesn't want it defunded. You always ask for proof if someone posts something you don't agree with. It should be expected of you as well.

Use your Google, plenty of information out there.

-spence

There were laws passed, specifically, to ensure that Congress the Senate staffers and the president are taking care of them protected. If not , then why pass those amendments .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Initially Congress was automatically exempt from the exchanges because they already had insurance...then Republicans amended the bill to force Congress on the exchanges while keeping their existing employer contributions.

There is no there there. This is wingnut talking point fluffery.

-spence

Politico, now there is an unbiased source. Should be named Pravda...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yet another example of what's wrong.

-spence

Looks like the quote was even taken out of context...ha, seems like everything is these days.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/warren-buffett-on-obamacare/

-spence

Interesting. Yes, taking out of context has been around for a long time. By all "sides."

But, according to factcheck, Buffet actually did say "unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much. [Actually, various predictions now say that it does--costs will substantially rise.] And he actually did say in a response to a question if he was in favor of scrapping this and going back to start over, "I would be if I were President Obama."

Though he preferred it to the status quo, he also said "I would rather see a plan C that really attacks cost . . . The American Public is not behind this bill." He seems to support the bill as "a step in the right direction" but not an answer to health care costs. So a compromise on it to "improve" it is another way of saying come up with something different. Which is not so different than what Republicans, or even Cruz, are saying.

Of course as an economic statist who has benefited tremendously by manipulating investments through government regulations, and who may find ways to gain more wealth through investments available because of Obamacare, he wouldn't be totally against it. Just a personal thought for which I have no proof--perhaps arrogance and ego on my part.

How about answering the rest of my post.

There were laws passed, specifically, to ensure that Congress the Senate staffers and the president are taking care of them protected. If not , then why pass those amendments .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is for you buck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/10/04/daily-shows-jon-stewart-bashes-benghazi-comparison-of-fox-news-host/

“As it turns out, it looks as if more personnel were sent in to the World War II memorial to keep people out than the State Department sent to Benghazi.”

Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is for you buck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/10/04/daily-shows-jon-stewart-bashes-benghazi-comparison-of-fox-news-host/

“As it turns out, it looks as if more personnel were sent in to the World War II memorial to keep people out than the State Department sent to Benghazi.”

Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Leave it you you to make a joke of Benghazi and WW2 vets in the same post ... Really ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Leave it you you to make a joke of Benghazi and WW2 vets in the same post ... Really ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not me, that was Fox News...

-spence

Of course as an economic statist who has benefited tremendously by manipulating investments through government regulations, and who may find ways to gain more wealth through investments available because of Obamacare, he wouldn't be totally against it. Just a personal thought for which I have no proof--perhaps arrogance and ego on my part.
That he has constructive criticism doesn't negate his pretty consistent support...

-spence

Sowell's piece is disturbing on two fronts. While certainly spending is used to hamper legislation I'm not aware of it being used to eliminate legislation that's backed by law.

Secondly, his remarks that incoming tax revenues can pay off interest is silly. If the government has no money to continue operations it will still impact our credit because we can't fund other obligations.

As for Cruz's behavior being principled I'm not sure how that can be said with a strait face. This entire showdown is a marketing event.

-spence

That he has constructive criticism doesn't negate his pretty consistent support...

-spence

I don't know what Buffet consistently supports. Sometimes he seems to be all over the place. When he says that Obamacare does not address the cost problem (which is the real problem and for which the gvt. shares a great deal of responsibility) that is not just constructive criticism. That is outright saying that it does not solve the problem which it purports to solve. He seems to support "something" being done rather than the "status quo." His "support" for Obamacare is that it is "something" but not the answer. That it is "a step in the right direction" but not the answer.

What he has said about how to stay out of debt includes:

Avoid credit cards, save, don't constantly be behind the game or you'll never get out of debt. (The federal gvt. has its own credit card in selling securities, etc. and seems to constantly be behind the game and never able to get out of debt.)

Pay off debt as soon as possible and incur as little as you can. (The federal gvt. seems to have a "plan" of paying off debt in perpetuity by constantly getting deeper in debt without a care as to when or how [except by borrowing even more] the debt will be payed.)

Produce wealth by entrepreneurs rather than by gvt. edict. (So all these mandates by central gvt. to stimulate or grow the "economy" might not be the best way? Or anyway? Or counterproductive? Of course, investors like Buffet will always enhance their personal wealth by taking advantage of various regulations.)

Above all, integrity and discipline. (Hmmm. Politicians/integrity? Government spending and discipline? Not.)

yes, there is a difference between some debt and unsustainable growing debt :uhuh:

This is wingnut talking point fluffery.

-spence

this describes your every post:)

Sowell's piece is disturbing on two fronts. While certainly spending is used to hamper legislation I'm not aware of it being used to eliminate legislation that's backed by law.

Eliminating or adding to spending for legislation are opposite sides of the same coin. Sowell refers to this coin of manipulative funding as "legislation by appropriation, and refers to a long history of it, e.g. riders attached to bills.

That you are not aware of the elimination side of the coin is irrelevant to its legality. As Sowell says, spending is authorized by the House of Representatives. That was specifically and strongly inserted into the Constitution for a definite purpose. As Madison says in The Federalist #58:

"The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can
propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They in a word, hold the purse . . . This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

The House CAN REFUSE what is necessary for support of legislation. If this were the first time such a refusal has occurred (I don't know if it is) and that is why you are not aware of such, is irrelevant. If no changes, constitutional or unconstitutional, were ever to have a first time, they would not exist and we would live under the Constitution as written. Obviously, that is not the case. Many first times of something new have occurred. If you don't like this one, others do, and they may not like changes that you do. That is the consequence of change. So beware of progressive "change." You may not like what you get.

Furthermore, Obama himself has subverted laws by not enforcing them. The House can do it by withholding funds--constitutionally. The President does it unconstitutionally by not enforcing or executing, as required by the Constitution, laws passed by Congress. Obama decided not to deport illegal aliens who had only violated immigration laws; he authorized waivers from the No Child Left Behind Law; he waived the main tenet of the Clinton Welfare Reform Law which required that recipients work or prepare to do so, and he has granted various waivers from Obamacare.

Secondly, his remarks that incoming tax revenues can pay off interest is silly. If the government has no money to continue operations it will still impact our credit because we can't fund other obligations.

He didn't say that incoming revenues were only enough to pay off interest. He just mentioned it as an example. There is plenty of money left over after the interest is paid. If there is not enough to fund the entire scope of gvt., there obviously would have to be cutbacks. That's called budgeting. Spending within your means. There are various ways it could, and should, be done. For example" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/03/dont-believe-the-debt-ceiling-hype-the-federal-government-can-survive-without-an-increase/2/

As for Cruz's behavior being principled I'm not sure how that can be said with a strait face. This entire showdown is a marketing event.

-spence

Another drive-by opinion. Cruz is going against a majority of his party and against the main stream media and against the presidential bully pulpit. He is being ridiculed by the know-it-alls and "smart" people who are concerned with "strategies" and pooh pooh his so-called lack of a "long term strategy." Such a marketing event!

yes...the "smart" people who used every trick and maneuver possible to get this trash passed, funny how everything is "Living and Breathing" and subject to change except the schemes that they set in stone for us to toil under for the rest of our lives only to be ridiculed or investigated if we complain....

Spence complains like a criminal that was caught and whining that the authorities didn't play fair when they arrested him....

this administration and the leadership that is pushing the agenda that he supports are the most dishonest and loathsome in our history, they are not bound by any rules or sense of decency

provoke
condsescend
mock and ridicule
pretend that you stand above it all
nauseating:uhuh:



"Contrary to Obama’s latest dissembling, the Supreme Court’s decision is far from an imprimatur. The president insisted that Obamacare was not a tax, famously upbraiding George Stephanopoulos of the Democratic-Media Complex for insolently suggesting otherwise. Yet, the narrow Court majority held that the mammoth statute could be upheld only as an exercise of Congress’s power to tax — i.e., contrary to Obama’s conscriptive theory, it was not within Congress’s commerce power to coerce Americans, as a condition of living in this country, to purchase a commodity, including health insurance.
Note the crucial qualifier: Obamacare could be upheld only as a tax. Not that Obamacare is necessarily a legitimate tax. To be a legitimate tax measure, Obamacare would have to have complied with all the Constitution’s conditions for the imposition of taxes. Because Democrats stubbornly maintained that their unilateral handiwork was not a tax, its legitimacy vel non as a tax has not been explored. Indeed, it is because Obamacare’s enactment was induced by fraud — a massive confiscation masquerading as ordinary regulatory legislation so Democrats could pretend not to be raising taxes — that the chief justice was wrong to rebrand it post facto and thus become a participant in the fraud.

We now know Obamacare was tax legislation. Consequently, it was undeniably a “bill for raising revenue,” for which the Constitution mandates compliance with the Origination Clause (Art. I, Sec. 7). The Clause requires that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Obamacare did not.."

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I don't think I saw an answer on this..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I don't think I saw an answer on this..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He probably can't think of a score high enough...

Ok Spence, I'll mark you down for "Present" on that question.

I read this yesterday. "If the toilet is overflowing with $hit and continues to rise, what do you do about it? Do you address the problem and fix the issue or do you raise the bathroom ceiling and let the issue continue on"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't keep track of all these threads. Scoring a president is a hard thing to do. I've said many times that Obama isn't the best but he doesn't suck nearly as much as people think.

-spence

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

-spence

Yeah, getting a larger line of credit does allow you to "spend" more money than you have on hand, and even more than a smaller line of credit would allow. And if you insist on the illogical reasoning that credit does not allow you to spend, but merely to pay bills, then explain what a bill is other than demand for payment for items on which you "spent." Of course, you have not really paid the bill, you've merely transferred the debt to a lender, presumably, if you're honorable and solvent, to repay the lender at a later time with actual income. That is, you will actually "spend" real money to pay for the borrowed debt which was used for spending on actual goods. So borrowing is a pseudo-method of spending and paying off the debt compounds the spending. And larger lines of credit will allow you to "spend" more money. Of course, if you constantly depend on this circuitous method of spending well beyond any means of income, and resort to more spending to pay-off previous spending as well as new spending, you would not be a reputable spender. And you will be in constant need of larger lines of credit.

As for spending declining faster than anticipated now, think SEQUESTER! Oh yeah, those dreadful cuts that were supposed to result in disastrous blows to our economy and to the help we all needed from the Federal Gvt. Well, now the results of the sequester are being applauded for the wonder of declining spending. Go figure. Strange also, how we need to raise the debt ceiling as spending is declining. Apparently, it needs to decline more. But first we must, once again, be warned of the impending doom that will result with cuts in spending. (The real doom will be to the ruling class as we find that we can actually make do with less and less of its "help"--especially with less and less of the debt it imposes on us for its "help" that makes us helpless.)

Oh . . . and those long term strategies . . . for what? Strategies to reign in the powerhouse of American freedom and transform it into the chains of a ruling class?

Another article by Hayward re "default" and other absurdities:http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/14/debt-default-global-threat-or-greatest-stimulus-plan-ever/