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

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 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

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

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

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 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.

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

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

-spence

Use your Google, plenty of information out there.

-spence

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

Yet another example of what's wrong.

-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.

This is for you buck...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...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

Not me, that was Fox News...

-spence

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

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 describes your every post:)

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, 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

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/d...lus-plan-ever/