So why isn't our President

[spence]

This pretty much sums things up...

Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

WASHINGTON—After months of heated negotiations and failed attempts to achieve any kind of consensus, President Obama turned 50 years old Thursday, drawing strong criticism from Republicans in Congress. "With the host of problems this country is currently facing, the fact that our president is devoting time to the human process of aging is an affront to Americans everywhere," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who advocated a provision to keep Obama 49 at least through the fall of 2013. "To move forward unilaterally and simply begin the next year of his life without bipartisan support—is that any way to lead a country?" According to White House officials, Obama attempted to work with Republicans right up until the Aug. 4 deadline, but was ultimately left with no choice except to turn a year older.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Their priority should be fixing the country...I'm not happy paying them their salary to spend the next year and a half focusing on removing the president instead of working on the issues that need to be fixed.

just so we can repeat the process the next 4 years w/ the roles reversed.

that is the #1 problem w/ politics....they spend more time trying to screw the other party than working for US.....

Dad, throwing his Bolshevik rear-end out will be good for the country. We need someone who understands that no matter how sensible it seems, we cannot get out of this by taxing rich people. If it was that simple, I'd be in favor of it.

Obama is a man for whom ideology trumps mathematical reality. If we cannot get Obama to face irrefutable mathematical facts, then he has to go.

[Jim in CT]

Spence - you are precious, you really are...

"and despite all our current problems...we've still managed to build the most prosperous and successful nation in the history of the modern world.Can't be all bad."

Funny, when Obama was campaigning on the need for "change", libs like you were not saying that things weren't so bad. All they talked about was how bad things were, thus the need for "change". And things are worse now than they ever were in 2008. Go figure.

Furthermore, all that borrowing you say isn't a big deal? It soon will be. Medicare has a $30 trillion shortfall projected for the next 50 years. If you don't think that's a big deal, you are as clueless as they come.

"All their federal tax dollars are sucked away and sent to the Red states to fund projects that create jobs "

Spence, listen to me, please. Wealth re-distribution is the cornerstone of your ideology, not mine. Now you are complaining that rich states are suffering because they are forced to give too much money to poor states. SPENCE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION!!! You sound like a tea-partier. AND YOU'LL STILL VOTE DEMOCRAT. Unfreakinbelievable.

"Most states are suffering because of bad management."

And which party has dominated in the states that are nearly bankrupt? CT, IL, RI, MA, CA? Notice any patterns there? Those are blue states. TX is adding jobs like crazy.

"I've never advocated union excess."

Your party does. If you mention that unions need to be reasonable, libs say you hate the middle class.

"Can you show me an inner city dominated by Republicans improving or not?"

I can show you that red states are the ones adding jobs. I can show you that, but it won't mean anything to you, because somewhere along the way, you surrendered any ability to think.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I agree he's got to go....but isn't that our job as voters to get rid of him. I prefer that washington "Business" doesn't come to halt because the next 14 months they need to focus on removing him.

That time can be spent more constructively trying to fix what's broken....if they did the right thing they wouldn't have to worry about being re-elected

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much sums things up...

Obama Turns 50 Despite Republican Opposition | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

from MSNBC to the ONION...

and you chastise Jim about FACTS ...

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I agree he's got to go....but isn't that our job as voters to get rid of him. I prefer that washington "Business" doesn't come to halt because the next 14 months they need to focus on removing him.

That time can be spent more constructively trying to fix what's broken....if they did the right thing they wouldn't have to worry about being re-elected

Ever since the Democrats took the Senate in 2008 they GOP has pretty much played a prevent defense, starting with the use of the filibuster skyrocketing to essentially shut down the normal operation of the Senate.

About the only constructive thing done in a bi-partisan manner since was the addition of another ladies bathroom in the House.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

from MSNBC to the ONION...

and you chastise Jim about FACTS ...

I didn't say it was factual, I said it pretty much summed up the situation.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't say it was factual, I said it pretty much summed up the situation.

-spence

I would never accuse you of employing facts to sum up a situation accurately.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence - you are precious, you really are...

Funny, when Obama was campaigning on the need for "change", libs like you were not saying that things weren't so bad. All they talked about was how bad things were, thus the need for "change". And things are worse now than they ever were in 2008. Go figure.

Obama didn't campaign that America was bad, he was talking about the leadership in Washington.

Furthermore, all that borrowing you say isn't a big deal? It soon will be. Medicare has a $30 trillion shortfall projected for the next 50 years. If you don't think that's a big deal, you are as clueless as they come.

You're misquoting me, I never said that debt wasn't a big deal, rather, that even considering it the past 100 years have been pretty damn good for Americans. Additionally, that debt is a product of both Democratic and Republican leadership...

Spence, listen to me, please. Wealth re-distribution is the cornerstone of your ideology, not mine. Now you are complaining that rich states are suffering because they are forced to give too much money to poor states. SPENCE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION!!! You sound like a tea-partier. AND YOU'LL STILL VOTE DEMOCRAT. Unfreakinbelievable.

Not complaining that they are suffering, rather pointing out that your Red states are benefiting disproportionately from this "liberal" ideology on one measure. If you are to present a rounded argument I'd think you'd want to factor this in.

The real world isn't black and white, or red and blue for that matter.

And which party has dominated in the states that are nearly bankrupt? CT, IL, RI, MA, CA? Notice any patterns there? Those are blue states. TX is adding jobs like crazy.

About 40 states have serious budget shortfalls.

And as has already been mentioned, the job growth in Texas has largely been driven by high energy prices and perhaps investment in education along with a generally pro-business climate. Look at what Perry has done to fight environmental regulation to benefit local corporations...but at what expense to the health of Texans?

There's also the other side of Texas, it has one of the worst poverty rates in the Country. In fact looking nationwide the bottom of the list seems to be filled with Red states.

Your party does. If you mention that unions need to be reasonable, libs say you hate the middle class.

My party? It may surprise you how I vote...

I can show you that red states are the ones adding jobs. I can show you that, but it won't mean anything to you, because somewhere along the way, you surrendered any ability to think.

My thinker is actually working quite well.

The problem Jim is that your arguments are really shallow. Get below the surface just a bit and the real world is a heck of a lot more complicated. I agree some Red states are doing well, but did you ever ask yourself why? Is it simply because they're Red or are there other reasons like Federal investment or industry trends that are part of the equation? If some Red states are doing well does that mean they're all doing well? Does that mean all Blue states are failing?

Are EU nations struggling simply because of large social programs, or could an inability to integrate millions of immigrants also be a factor?

The funny thing is that the success of the USA hasn't been because of liberal or conservative ideas...it's been because of both.

It was interesting to see the Republican debate the other night when every candidate said they wouldn't take a 10:1 spending cut to tax increase ratio to reduce the deficit. This doesn't sound like leadership, it sounds like absolutism of those trapped by dogma.

Reagan would have taken 10:1 and proudly proclaimed it as a great Conservative success.

Remember the wise words of Obi Wan Kenobi - "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence, I never said things were simple, nor are my conclusions over simplified. But some things are not as sophisticated as elite liberals want them to be.

For example, you cannot spend more than you take in, forever.

Spence, you are correct, we have been great for the last 100 years,neither liberal ideology nor conservative ideology has prevented that. However, our greatness is now directly threatened by liberal ideology. Here is what's changed...in response to deranged hatred of Bush, the Dempcratic party, at the national level, has endorsed San Francisco-style radical liberalism. The Democratic party has moved 100 miles to the left,and that has happened at precisely the wrong time for our country.

Our debt has never been $14 trillion, and that's expected to increase to $22 trillion by 2020. That ignores Medicad's $30 trillion shortfall.

Conservatives recognize that the time for ignoring this is over. Liberals want to continue to kick the can down the road, because liberals know they need to keep mailing out checks to secure votes. Conservatives like Paul Ryan offer solutions to deal with the threat. What do liberals do? Instead of suggesting a better alternative, THEY MAKE A COMMERCIAL SHOWING RYAN PUSHING OLD LADIES OFF A CLIFF. That's YOUR SIDE SPENCE, not mine. Real f-ing productive. Really honest. Are you proud of those commercials? You get a kick out of that?

Spence, we are facing the most forseeable, the most predictable, crisis that you can imagine. And one side, your side, continues to demonoze those who dare to say "I think we should address this...". One side, your side, frames the debate in terms of class warfare, instead of focusing on the facts. Why? Because it's easier to blame the boogeyman (the rich) than it is to say that we all need to sacrifice.

Liberalism is a complete, total mental disorder. "Let's solve our debt problems by continuing to give fabulous benefits to public unions. Let's mandate that health insurers charge nothing for birth control. Let's give out free cell phones. Let's sit on jillions of gallons of oil, because God knows we have no use for that revenue right now." Somehow, liberals believe thatthe solution is to spend more. Spence, I hate to break it to you, but you cannot dig your way out of a hole.

[detbuch]

Jim in CT: Spence, can you please tell me what evidence there is, that liberal economics are a good idea?

Originally Posted by spence

Well, looking at the past century of tax increases, debt increases, regulation increases and bloated government...and despite all our current problems...we've still managed to build the most prosperous and successful nation in the history of the modern world.

Can't be all bad.

-spence

You've failed to actually make the connection between "liberal economics" and building "the most prosperous and successful nation in the history of the modern world." If by "liberal economics" we mean Progressive and Keynsian, it could well be said that our strong, conservative foundation has been able to withstand (less and less)the intrusion of liberal economics (tax and spend massively in excess of revenue). And that we built that "most prosperous and successful nation" before, not "despite," our current problems, and that the liberal economic intrusion in the form of "tax increases, debt increases, regulation increases and bloated government" have begun to finally strangle that success. If you track the growth of the National Debt, it really began to grow almost continually and in large quantity with the ascendence of progressive politics. It started out around $75 million with the debt accrued due the Revolutionary War, and was lowered with bumps up and down due to spending on Constitutionally sanctioned Federal actions until somewhere in 1835 it had shrunk to less than $34 thousand. After the costly Civil War and the beginning of progressive political views it started on a gradual then sharp uptick. And by progressive I don't mean Democrat. Both parties have been acting "progressively." Certainly Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were progressives. FDR simply jumped the shark and created progressivism on steroids, which Obama wants to emulate and surpass.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama didn't campaign that America was bad, he was talking about the leadership in Washington.


-spence

he didn't??? I think it's time to relive some quotes

[UserRemoved1]

Michelle Obama takes separate government jet to get a few hours of extra vacation time in Martha's Vineyard before President arrives (as he uses TWO helicopters and Air Force One for 500 mile journey) | Mail Online

SPENCE will tell you this is ok. HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. WASTED.













AGAIN.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Michelle Obama takes separate government jet to get a few hours of extra vacation time in Martha's Vineyard before President arrives (as he uses TWO helicopters and Air Force One for 500 mile journey) | Mail Online

SPENCE will tell you this is ok. HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars. WASTED.













AGAIN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
In the long term, I'd bet that it will provide a net-savings.

[UserRemoved1]

A DIFFERENCE OF 4 HOURS

$100 freakin thousand dollars.

I hate these people.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I never said things were simple, nor are my conclusions over simplified. But some things are not as sophisticated as elite liberals want them to be.

What about the non-elite liberals?

For example, you cannot spend more than you take in, forever.

No #^&#^&#^&#^& Sherlock.

Spence, you are correct, we have been great for the last 100 years,neither liberal ideology nor conservative ideology has prevented that. However, our greatness is now directly threatened by liberal ideology.

Actually, I'd think many economists would argue that conservative intolerance on tax policy is a gigantic threat to our greatness.

Here is what's changed...in response to deranged hatred of Bush, the Dempcratic party, at the national level, has endorsed San Francisco-style radical liberalism. The Democratic party has moved 100 miles to the left,and that has happened at precisely the wrong time for our country.

Number three.

Our debt has never been $14 trillion, and that's expected to increase to $22 trillion by 2020. That ignores Medicad's $30 trillion shortfall.

Under Reagan our debt had never been 3 trillion before, under Bush 41 it had never been 4 trillion before, under Clinton it had never been 5 trillion before and under Bush 43 it had never been 10 trillion before.

I'm not sure I see the influence of democrat vs republican ideology in this picture.

Conservatives recognize that the time for ignoring this is over. Liberals want to continue to kick the can down the road, because liberals know they need to keep mailing out checks to secure votes. Conservatives like Paul Ryan offer solutions to deal with the threat. What do liberals do? Instead of suggesting a better alternative, THEY MAKE A COMMERCIAL SHOWING RYAN PUSHING OLD LADIES OFF A CLIFF. That's YOUR SIDE SPENCE, not mine. Real f-ing productive. Really honest. Are you proud of those commercials? You get a kick out of that?

Never seen 'em.

Spence, we are facing the most forseeable, the most predictable, crisis that you can imagine. And one side, your side, continues to demonoze those who dare to say "I think we should address this...". One side, your side, frames the debate in terms of class warfare, instead of focusing on the facts. Why? Because it's easier to blame the boogeyman (the rich) than it is to say that we all need to sacrifice.

It's interesting that the Reagan generation of Republicans is just as responsible as Democrats for our fiscal issues, yet conservatism is still as pure as a spring flower in your eye. The Right uses class warfare just as much as the Left. The facts neither bolster or admonish either position.

But I agree that all need to sacrifice. Social programs will need to be cut and the wealthy will need to pay a bit more than the historic low taxes they pay today.

Liberalism is a complete, total mental disorder....Somehow, liberals believe thatthe solution is to spend more. Spence, I hate to break it to you, but you cannot dig your way out of a hole.

Funny, perhaps a solid 75% of the country is influenced somewhat by what they see as positive liberal positions and you think it's a mental disorder? I think you're watching too much Hannity and listening to too much Savage. Try to think on your own for once.

-spence

[UserRemoved1]

Aren't ignore lists great?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, I'd think many economists would argue that conservative intolerance on tax policy is a gigantic threat to our greatness.

"Intolerance"? How about disagreement? Is to disagree the same as to not tolerate? Are "conservatives" supposed to tolerate tax policies they think are wrong? It's apparent that so-called conservatives and whatever is the so-called monicker of their opponents have a gigantic difference in view of what is our greatness.


Under Reagan our debt had never been 3 trillion before, under Bush 41 it had never been 4 trillion before, under Clinton it had never been 5 trillion before and under Bush 43 it had never been 10 trillion before.

I'm not sure I see the influence of democrat vs republican ideology in this picture.


So what ideology do you see the influence of in this picture? Is there the influence of "conservative intolerance to tax policy" in this picture? Or do the administrations all have in common that they spent more than they took in--REGARDLESS of whether they raised or lowered taxes? There seems, to me, to be a SPENDING problem in common to all administrations, not a taxing problem.


It's interesting that the Reagan generation of Republicans is just as responsible as Democrats for our fiscal issues, yet conservatism is still as pure as a spring flower in your eye. The Right uses class warfare just as much as the Left. The facts neither bolster or admonish either position.


So you got all the monickers in play here--"conservatism," "Republicans," "Democrats," "Right," "Left." And they're ALL equally responsible for our fiscal "issues."

No #@&<#@&<#@&< Sherlock (as you responded to Jim in CT).

But are they responsible in the same way? Are there no differences? And if not, what is our vote for? How does the "Right use class warfare just as much as the left"? Do ALL the facts neither bolster nor admonish either position? And what is "pure" Conservatism, and will there be no stopping the growth of the Federal debt regardless if Conservatives/Republicans/Rightists or Liberals/Democrats/leftists are elected to solid majorities? And if that's true, could there be another monicker that might be applied to both sides that is a problem--Progressive? The Central government has grown in a progressive manner regardless of which other monicker has been in power. "Pure" Conservatism, if that is original Constitutionalism, might be the antithesis to this growth.



But I agree that all need to sacrifice. Social programs will need to be cut and the wealthy will need to pay a bit more than the historic low taxes they pay today.

-spence

And when"all," excluding, of course, the 50% who don't pay Fed income tax sacrifice and the wealthy pay a bit more taxes, and the debt is paid and the budget is balanced, will we then not have to sacrifice and will the wealthy's "bit more" taxes be reduced?