Raising the debt ceiling...

[BlueTiki]

Barry said there was no more money in the social security bank

I guess that means that SS won't be bankrupt in the near future . . . it's bankrupt NOW! Thanks for the advanced warning.

And how 'bout Medicare . . . is it solvent?

If you want to raise taxes, raise the FICA tax. These folks will be wanting payments in the future, so pony-up now tightwads.

Let's continue watching them rob Peter to pay Paul.

And terrify seniors.

[username]

Thought you might find this interesting. And it's mainstream . . . no obscure economic treatise.

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt

http://moneyland.time.com/2011/07/15/the...g-in-debt/

That made sense. I inferred from it that the author would say "just raise the damn ceiling already". You?

I was watching MSNBC this morning and the anchor (clearly showing her party affiliation) was hammering away at a Republican congressman about the Bush tax cuts. Her point: Bush cut taxes which should have increased jobs, spending etc. Sooo, where are the jobs? How did that work out? I'm paraphrasing her words but her point seemed to be why should tax cuts that didn't work be extended.

Thoughts?

[BlueTiki]

That made sense. I inferred from it that the author would say "just raise the damn ceiling already". You?

Her point: Bush cut taxes which should have increased jobs, spending etc. Sooo, where are the jobs? How did that work out? I'm paraphrasing her words but her point seemed to be why should tax cuts that didn't work be extended.

Thoughts?

Yes. It will be raised.

When the tax cuts were enacted, did unemployment decrease or increase? And the real estate market . . . commercial and residential building happening at break-neck speed or no?

And mortgages? Was there a lull or was anyone with a job getting one . . . or several? Guess that answers the unemployment question.

Yeah . . . the tax cuts didn't stimulate business investment or personal consumption.

Poor investments and horrid personal choices.

And now they want the Fed to bail them out. Go figure.

It's easier to blame than to fix. Besides . . . if the financial condition of the US was so bad under Bush, why did we waste over two years and not tackle this problem first?

I guess health care and immigration rights were more important.

And campaigning.

And bailing out banks and investment firms.

[Cracker]

Obama has been working to cause economic collapse for over 20 years. Now he has it. Somehow we let him slide on that, not sure why, but we do.

Two good background stories from 2008 that predict what is happening now and why:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/2...rtz?page=1
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the...ama-knows/

Here is the strategy all laid out, in case you are slow: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/b...ategy.html

You hope/change voters were suckers. You fucked all of us because you didn't do enough research, you vote based on some simplistic/juvenile ideal. Retards.

I get annoyed with the people who voted him in because they are just fucking stupid. Why discuss politics with a dumbass? If you can't/didn't see, you are fucking blind.

Not that I'm very political. Our kids are going to have to pay for your fucking stupidity. JHC.

[username]

That made sense. I inferred from it that the author would say "just raise the damn ceiling already". You?

Her point: Bush cut taxes which should have increased jobs, spending etc. Sooo, where are the jobs? How did that work out? I'm paraphrasing her words but her point seemed to be why should tax cuts that didn't work be extended.

Thoughts?

When the tax cuts were enacted, did unemployment decrease or increase? And the real estate market . . . commercial and residential building happening at break-neck speed or no?

And mortgages? Was there a lull or was anyone with a job getting one . . . or several? Guess that answers the unemployment question.

Besides . . . if the financial condition of the US was so bad under Bush, why did we waste over two years and not tackle this problem first?

Answering a question with more questions.

I've decided you're a cagey wench.

[BlueTiki]

I always chuckle inside when anyone comments on the Bush tax cuts . . . either pro or con.

The first question I ask: "Are you talking about the first or the second?"

Usually the response is: "Both."

Then I ask: "Help me out, what was the difference between the first and the second . . . I can't recall the specifics?"

Then I start chuckling, inside.

[Cracker]

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926-2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in left-wing[1] magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income...”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).



Any of this sound familiar? Are we at the point we have to either cut SS or Medicare/Medicaid or Welfare? (I don't watch Beck, so don't try the strawman.)

From early 2009:



Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.


The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.


Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation...


Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.


If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.


The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.


If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there's not even the hope of a good paying construction job.


Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat.


As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, "It's going to get worse before it gets better?" If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response -- an unwavering wall of "No!"



Should we raise the ceiling? Hell fucking no.

[BlueTiki]

Should we raise the ceiling? Hell fucking no.

But they will. You know their reason: Global economic disaster!

Greece's debt was $550 B and that caused a Euro panic and bailout.

Lehman Brother's was $650 B. Failed and NO bailout.

For those who are slow on the math (CNN readers) Greece owed $100 B LESS than Lehman.

That one still bothers me.

[Cracker]

That Greece thing pissed off Ireland and Germany. I don't blame the EU. If my country was doing well, I would be fucking pissed having to bail out another one.

Why does this world expect to be bailed out of anything? When did that shit happen? The whole conciousness changed, at least for white countries. Stupid white people.

[BlueTiki]

And Moody's downgraded Irish securities to junk, a few days ago.

Ain't life a hoot!

Dig deeper Van and Bono . . . your fellows need you!

[Cracker]

You are Mock's Dennis Miller. haha If I were stoned (Maggot, Duch) I wouldn't know what the f you were talking about.

[username]

Obama has been working to cause economic collapse for over 20 years.

Right. We wouldn't want to blame the idiots who took out mortgages that they couldn't afford, or the banks that were giving them the loans or Fannie or Freddie or the government that failed to provide sufficient oversight.

The entire housing bubble and recession are Obama's fault because he had a loose association with Acorn.

I'm not buying that bridge, thanks anyway.

[FAHQTOO]

Obama has been working to cause economic collapse for over 20 years. Now he has it. Somehow we let him slide on that, not sure why, but we do.

Two good background stories from 2008 that predict what is happening now and why:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/2...rtz?page=1
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the...ama-knows/

Here is the strategy all laid out, in case you are slow: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/b...ategy.html

You hope/change voters were suckers. You fucked all of us because you didn't do enough research, you vote based on some simplistic/juvenile ideal. Retards.

I get annoyed with the people who voted him in because they are just fucking stupid. Why discuss politics with a dumbass? If you can't/didn't see, you are fucking blind.

Not that I'm very political. Our kids are going to have to pay for your fucking stupidity. JHC.

I'll assume you're talking about this kind of stupid. This interview has been stuck in my head for 3 fucking years!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyvqhdllXgU

[BlueTiki]

You are Mock's Dennis Miller. haha If I were stoned (Maggot, Duch) I wouldn't know what the f you were talking about.

Your post 47 spelled it out beautifully.

Unfortunately, if the information chafes one's belief in their party or leadership, it will be ignored.

It's like the Bush tax cuts. Liberals claim they don't work while conservatives herald them as the life blood of the country.

Neither are accurate.

[username]

Hate him all you want but my sense from these debt ceiling negotiations is that Obama is (for better or worse) willing to go along with some of the more unpopular cuts proposed by the Republicans (ss and medicare) despite the fact that Pelosi is bitching left and right about the possibility.

Somewhere in the beginning of this thread I stated that I thought we'd probably come up with some piece of shit legislation that doesn't do anything to address the deficit/debt (a band-aid). I'm more convinced of that every day.

Although I'm uncertain about what the consequences would be for not raising it I'd almost rather do that than slap some band-aid on our problems. Sucks.

[username]

It's like the Bush tax cuts. Liberals claim they don't work while conservatives herald them as the life blood of the country.

Neither are accurate.

Tiki for president!

[BlueTiki]

If no one wants our paper due to uncertainty, then we must find solutions within our own house, rather than running to our global relatives every time we get in financial straights.

Yup . . . that means cutting social programs.

New ideas and tough decisions.

The South was a greater economic power with slavery than after emancipation.

Global war stimulates industry and the workforce.

Isn't everything "old" the new "new"?

There . . . my two-cents to help the folks in DC.

[Cracker]

Obama has been working to cause economic collapse for over 20 years.

Right. We wouldn't want to blame the idiots who took out mortgages that they couldn't afford, or the banks that were giving them the loans or Fannie or Freddie or the government that failed to provide sufficient oversight.

The entire housing bubble and recession are Obama's fault because he had a loose association with Acorn.

I'm not buying that bridge, thanks anyway.

A fucking loose association? Holy shit. (One of the articles actually mentioned the people calling it "a loose association." Congratulations, they cited you in the article.)

I can post it, but I can't make you read it. Keep thinking what you think. Most of America will. Don't bitch to me when they start redistributing too much of your wealth...

[Cracker]

Tiki for president!

You realize she agreed with me and said you would ignore it, right? hahahahaha

[Cracker]

Your post 47 spelled it out beautifully.

Unfortunately, if the information chafes one's belief in their party or leadership, it will be ignored.

You forgot to post this part, user. hahahahaha

It's amazing how you can cut out the part you don't like and praise the rest.

Do you see that? At all?