How's that hope and change treatin you?
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
DOWNGRADED !
WHAT THE FAWK HAPPENED !
CAN I GET ANOTHER VODKA AND TONIC BOY , AND THIS TIME PUT ONE OF THEM LITTLE UMBRELLAS ON IT.
THANKS FOR HURRYING WITH MY DRINK DTBLACKGUMBY...........
"Look... the American people understand that when the
going gets tough, it's time to roll up your sleeves, take a
wide stance and keep tapping your toes."
Last edited:
Playing politics with the future of our country on the line. They should all be voted out of office. Every last one of them.
Bill O'Reilly took some Republicans to task on his Thursday show, saying that they needed to stop their "craziness," tone down their "hateful rhetoric" and pass a debt ceiling increase.
Speaking to guest host Laura Ingraham from Los Angeles, O'Reilly said he had taken a "moderate" stance on the debt crisis, and he warned Republicans who have so far been unwilling to pass a debt ceiling increase would only be helping President Obama, who he said had taken an "enormous hit" from the debate.
"The only thing that can save Barack Obama at this point is craziness on the right," he said. "...It's not only going to hurt the Republican party, which has already been hurt, but it's going to save President Obama who they hate."
"Exactly," Ingraham said.
"The irony is, the people who dislike President Obama the most...are helping him the most," O'Reilly said. "You've got to stop this hateful rhetoric. Some of the rhetoric is so hateful...it'd spin your head around. You have to say, listen, we're at a point in the history when we have to save the country."
O'Reilly has previously offered to fly down to Washington to personally broker the debt talks. Clearly, no one took him up on his offer.
10 hours on twitter lol Seriously, thanks
.............................................................................
wow
pity really................:142smilie
.
Speaking to guest host Laura Ingraham from Los Angeles, O'Reilly said he had taken a "moderate" stance on the debt crisis, and he warned Republicans who have so far been unwilling to pass a debt ceiling increase would only be helping President Obama, who he said had taken an "enormous hit" from the debate.
"The only thing that can save Barack Obama at this point is craziness on the right," he said. "...It's not only going to hurt the Republican party, which has already been hurt, but it's going to save President Obama who they hate."
"Exactly," Ingraham said.
"The irony is, the people who dislike President Obama the most...are helping him the most," O'Reilly said. "You've got to stop this hateful rhetoric. Some of the rhetoric is so hateful...it'd spin your head around. You have to say, listen, we're at a point in the history when we have to save the country."
O'Reilly has previously offered to fly down to Washington to personally broker the debt talks. Clearly, no one took him up on his offer.
10 hours on twitter lol Seriously, thanks
.............................................................................
wow
pity really................:142smilie
.
Tired of the partisan paralysis in Washington? Well, get used to it. The same extremist forces that brought our country to the brink of a historic default are going to get a few more chances before this year is over to show how dysfunctional our political system has become.
This week, Congress goes on vacation, a welcome reprieve for many Americans from the day-to-day wrangling and partisan talking points. But Congress resumes September 6 with less than a month to agree on appropriations for every government agency to avoid a government shutdown (remember that from just this spring?). Even if they agree on a resolution to maintain current funding levels until after the new debt commission "supercommittee" reports in late November, that sets up another shutdown showdown early next year.
The new 12-member supercommittee is mandated to propose legislation by November 23 to cut the debt by more than $1.2 trillion. Even if they succeed, which is highly doubtful, both houses of Congress would then continue to debate the recommendations, with a goal of voting before Christmas.
So there are at least three threshold moments defined later this year for America to witness the same paralysis and avoidance of the real reforms required to control our national debt. For all today's talk of "pivoting back to jobs" and working on measures to strengthen the economy, there will be little time left for that this year.
Want a predictor as to how successful the new debt super committee will be at reaching a bipartisan deal to reign in the debt?
Well, a group of six senators, three Democrats and three Republicans, has already spent months discussing the difficult changes that need to be made to tackle the debt and making some tough compromises to get close to a deal. These senators have stuck their necks out to find a real solution.
Watch to see how many of these "Gang of Six" senators are appointed to the debt supercommittee. The Senate can appoint six members to the committee. The fewer the appointments to the supercommittee come from the Gang of Six, the smaller the chance of a substantive deal that will really get us closer to solving our debt crisis.
Some are referring to this week's deal to avert a national default as a victory for moderates in Congress. Those who supported the final deal, and the calmer heads that came together to agree on a compromise, albeit at the last minute, do deserve some credit for pulling us back from the brink of default. But the big issues were not solved.
A victory of moderate forces would be real bipartisan progress on the critical challenge facing our country: defining America's priorities -- how the government should influence the economic playing field and protect the basic needs of its citizens -- and what sacrifices are needed to meet these obligations in a way that is fiscally sustainable. Given our weak economy, this debate also needs to define a timeline for the changes to take effect to allow for economic recovery.
Right now, extremists control the frame in which debates on how to tackle our national debt are playing out. By effectively ruling out reform to entitlement programs and pathways to increasing revenues, they have prevented the real social debate over America's priorities from taking place.
This week's deal to raise the debt limit and cut spending does not tackle the big questions. It kicks responsibility to yet another committee. And whether that committee meets its stated target for deficit reductions or triggers the automatic cuts to domestic spending and defense called for in the debt-ceiling bill, it still won't finish the job of balancing our national books.
What's the answer then? Perhaps what we need is for the super committee to create four or five options that each meet mandated criteria of balancing the budget over 10 years by establishing funding levels for various national priorities with tax revenues to match. Then, Congress would have to take a binding vote, with the option getting the highest vote tally going to the President.
Better yet, the options would go straight to the American people for selection. Most would probably oppose all the options, but at least we would choose a solution to adopt. This approach may be unlikely, but it has to be better than leaving it to Congress in the current political environment.
Whatever approach is taken, one thing is clear: If you were hoping that the last few weeks represented the worst chapter in the partisan fight in Washington, better enjoy the August break. Things are only going to get worse in September.
.......................................................................
cant wait for these dumb chits who no longer represent the American people to start the next cycle of their dumb ass no decision making ways.
This week, Congress goes on vacation, a welcome reprieve for many Americans from the day-to-day wrangling and partisan talking points. But Congress resumes September 6 with less than a month to agree on appropriations for every government agency to avoid a government shutdown (remember that from just this spring?). Even if they agree on a resolution to maintain current funding levels until after the new debt commission "supercommittee" reports in late November, that sets up another shutdown showdown early next year.
The new 12-member supercommittee is mandated to propose legislation by November 23 to cut the debt by more than $1.2 trillion. Even if they succeed, which is highly doubtful, both houses of Congress would then continue to debate the recommendations, with a goal of voting before Christmas.
So there are at least three threshold moments defined later this year for America to witness the same paralysis and avoidance of the real reforms required to control our national debt. For all today's talk of "pivoting back to jobs" and working on measures to strengthen the economy, there will be little time left for that this year.
Want a predictor as to how successful the new debt super committee will be at reaching a bipartisan deal to reign in the debt?
Well, a group of six senators, three Democrats and three Republicans, has already spent months discussing the difficult changes that need to be made to tackle the debt and making some tough compromises to get close to a deal. These senators have stuck their necks out to find a real solution.
Watch to see how many of these "Gang of Six" senators are appointed to the debt supercommittee. The Senate can appoint six members to the committee. The fewer the appointments to the supercommittee come from the Gang of Six, the smaller the chance of a substantive deal that will really get us closer to solving our debt crisis.
Some are referring to this week's deal to avert a national default as a victory for moderates in Congress. Those who supported the final deal, and the calmer heads that came together to agree on a compromise, albeit at the last minute, do deserve some credit for pulling us back from the brink of default. But the big issues were not solved.
A victory of moderate forces would be real bipartisan progress on the critical challenge facing our country: defining America's priorities -- how the government should influence the economic playing field and protect the basic needs of its citizens -- and what sacrifices are needed to meet these obligations in a way that is fiscally sustainable. Given our weak economy, this debate also needs to define a timeline for the changes to take effect to allow for economic recovery.
Right now, extremists control the frame in which debates on how to tackle our national debt are playing out. By effectively ruling out reform to entitlement programs and pathways to increasing revenues, they have prevented the real social debate over America's priorities from taking place.
This week's deal to raise the debt limit and cut spending does not tackle the big questions. It kicks responsibility to yet another committee. And whether that committee meets its stated target for deficit reductions or triggers the automatic cuts to domestic spending and defense called for in the debt-ceiling bill, it still won't finish the job of balancing our national books.
What's the answer then? Perhaps what we need is for the super committee to create four or five options that each meet mandated criteria of balancing the budget over 10 years by establishing funding levels for various national priorities with tax revenues to match. Then, Congress would have to take a binding vote, with the option getting the highest vote tally going to the President.
Better yet, the options would go straight to the American people for selection. Most would probably oppose all the options, but at least we would choose a solution to adopt. This approach may be unlikely, but it has to be better than leaving it to Congress in the current political environment.
Whatever approach is taken, one thing is clear: If you were hoping that the last few weeks represented the worst chapter in the partisan fight in Washington, better enjoy the August break. Things are only going to get worse in September.
.......................................................................
cant wait for these dumb chits who no longer represent the American people to start the next cycle of their dumb ass no decision making ways.
It is baffling that you do not acknowledge Bush or GOP congress role in all of this. Why is that?
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
But he is (at least theoretically) a smart and potentially thoughtful person who I think ultimately cares about this country more than his own stubbornness. Someone like Skulnik I could care less, but there is still hope for DTB.
We've been hearing it for 2 1/2 years, yes he and all of them are responsible, Would you like to give some blame to Clinton for his roll?
Repeal of Glass Steagall.
:0003
......................................................................
Seriously there is no hope for DTBlackgumby ever being a kind or rational human being that can think for himself.
For some reason the richest ppl in America are put on a pedestal as doing no wrong and the only solution we have to correct the corruption.
Even if the light shown on the congress who are making millions in grift, DTB would not believe it and gladly send them a check to help them create more jobs
:SIB :142smilie
Just as baffling is why Obama let Simpson-Bowles wither and die on the vine. Had he embraced it, there truly could have been a grand bargain. Instead, John Boehner got 98% of what he wanted.
Obama revealed once again that the Republicans can play him like a Stradivarius... :violin:
What part of the spending do you not understand Smurph--maybe I need to make it a little more obvious-
--one more time
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#ededed height=16><TBODY><TR><TD height=20 width=47 align=left>2002</TD><TD width=164 align=left>157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit</TD><TD width=164 align=left>186.204 Billion Deficit</TD><TD width=28 align=left>R</TD><TD width=28 align=left>D</TD><TD width=28 align=left>R</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
if you can't figure it out by now--I can't help you.
Cinnamon roll?
Good for you, skulnutz. Repeal of Glass-Steagall was a huge fuck up.:0074
You didn't really think you'd get a straight answer from Dogs, did you Smurph?
Dogs doesn't undestand that the FY 2009 budget was a Bush budget which included the TARP funding. He's also blocked from his memory the 2008 economic crisis -- the financial sector crash, the housing market crash and the loss of tax revenue that occurs on a national scale during a serious recession. He drones on about the unemployment rate without acknowledging its effect on revenues and spending.
Dogs also refuses to acknowledge that Bush never budgeted for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars while the Obama admin does (which IMO became Obama's wars on May 20, 2010 because he campaigned on getting the U.S. out within 16 months). As misguided as the Stimulus bill was (tax cuts and benefits instead of jobs producing programs), like most Republicans, Dogs refuses to acknowledge that you can't pump $800 billion into the economy without it having some positive effects during an economic crisis (no matter how short-term they were).
