Late stab at debt-limit deal to avert U.S. default
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Syria defiantly denies killings, as U.N. council meets
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
74 Comments
Login to comment
0
some14some
In Washington, it's always the 11th hour.. they still have 72 hours left.. no worries (absolutely) !
0
Triumvere
Really coming down to the wire here. Hopefully now congress understands it has to make a compromise. I am afraid that the damage already (partially) been done; international investors (read China) have lost confidence in US treasuries, and even a compromise may not save our AAA rating. (...and the specter of default still looms...)
0
globalwatcher
The Washington needs to keep plugging and get it done! We can buy them a pizza tonight.
Let's raise the debt ceiling with no constitutional budget amendment attached. We can deal it later.
The US Joint Chief of Staff in Afganistan was asked a question today if the soldiers would get paid, his answer was," I do not know". Folks, the truth hurts, but I wanna tell you that the US cash in hands is 36 billions while the APPLE has 76 billions as of 6/30/11. Let's get serious and get this job done by 8/2.
Disapproval rate against Tea Party today is 49% from 27% years ago per CNN. Majority of Americans will not forget this for the next presidential election. You will see......
3
yabits
I am one of many, many thousands of Americans now receiving emails from the organizations that manage 401k retirement funds. These emails read like a message from the captain of a jetliner telling the passengers things could get very, very rough up ahead.
All because of these worthless Tea Party Republicans the entire country hostage until they get their way with a forced amendment to the constitution. You'd better believe people will not forget this. If think the Ryan Plan brought out angry crowds, these people waving their little tea bags around haven't seen anything.
-2
bass4funk
Liberals are just too funny. Who is tanking the country? Who was elected to bring (so called ROFL) fiscal Discipline to Washington after Bush in the last year of his admin. spent money as if it was water? Obama and all three branches were controlled by Democrats and what happened? They outspent Bush 3 times over. Dems had a total Green Light on spending, they were a spending machine on steroids, stimulus, Obama care, bail outs, borrowing, borrowing and more borrowing and print, print, print. Liberals NEVER talk about spending cuts or the serious need to curtail spending and they want to blame the teabaggers and the Repubs? Liberal logic never ceases to amaze me.
2
chewitup
There is little I am sure about with this budget crisis. Is Boehner's bill realistic? Is Reid's? Might depend on what you consider to be realistic. Neither of them are going to dent the debt much, of that I am pretty sure.
But what I am really sure of is that both sides are corrupt and that both sides will play politics first and protect their largest campaign contributors first and the good of the people and the country will come somewhere after that. Its a corrupt system although it might be tolerable if the U.S. government were not so large with fingers in just about every pie on the planet. If there was a neat way to shrink the U.S. government I would love for that to happen. But it just may be that the only way to do it is let these corrupt clowns destroy themselves and damage the government so much that the people start using their heads and actually act for change rather than just vote for it and go home complacent.
It seems it is going to take hard times to do that. And what else is going to make Americans realize that grandma's SS and medicare money is more important than having half a trillion dollars thrown at the military? What else could break the stranglehold of military contractors on our government and purse strings? Failure is not always bad. Depends on whose failing. Our Congressmen don't have the guts to put the country right, and their failure my be the only thing that will do it.
0
globalwatcher
yabit, I have parked all my investments at safer place a couple months ago and I see more bumpy road ahead of us.. Your last post on debt record is very interesting, It is very informative.
0
bass4funk
Don't get me wrong, I am for a limited increase of the debt ceiling, but at the same time, we need spending cuts and that is something that the Dems never put forth, no plan, ideology is more important than the country.
Disapproval rate for Obama is at 41% in the latest Gallup poll. Most Americans too, will NOT forget this at the next presidential election. Without a doubt....
0
globalwatcher
Another 59% approve Obama.
-1
yanee
Yablits: I have three 401K's and not 1 email or letter from any of them. If you are receiving emails from your 401K managers, you do not have very good investment firms. I have never moved a dime of any of my 401K's and am ahead 20 percent. Blame anyone you want but it is all YOURS to lose. All of you site around an pass along blame for your misfortunes instead of pointing the finger and the real person to blame...it makes me laugh...:-)
0
SamuraiBlue
chewitup; That might be saying too much. Maybe they just want the U.S. government to tank, not the country?
It's basically the same thing and if the tea party Republicans were smart enough they would recognize that. Default of the State is tanking the country of the United States of America and they did just that, good work I hope they all pat their backs as they line up for the soup line.
0
chewitup
The question is, which side will they fall on? I don't think any of us have a good enough handle on all that is going on to make a truly informed decision on exactly who is to blame, ahem, MORE than the other. And I don't think most Americans do either.
The elections are going to be a big fingerpointing match, but the three fingers pointing back at themselves will go unnoticed, as usual. The people affiliated with parties will stick with their parties, as usual, unless someone can somehow convince a lot of people that one side is near totally to blame. But I guarantee that explanation will not be honest or completely true or really represent the big picture, but just some sound byte that will resonate with the masses, who, like I said, don't know what the hell is going on.
Even though I am no expert either, I feel completely safe saying both sides suck, and on this issue especially, simply because it involves money. And rest assured, the November after next won't be about the truth or what is right. It will be about insisting your side was not wrong desperately wanting to foist blame on someone else lest it be you.
0
chewitup
Now you insult America, and I take umbrage. That may surprise some people, but I love my country, but I hate my government. Best not to get the two confused. The government can collapse, but I believe the country will go on. I beleive Americans will take the kick in the pants (which they deserve, hell, I deserve it) and will rebuild the government and hopefully build better walls against corruption this time.
0
bass4funk
But overall, Obama is still failing in handling this debt crisis, shown lack of leadership, him and the rest of the Democrats are driving the country off the cliff.
1
proxy
None of them are in the least but serious about getting the fiscal house in order as I don't believe one single person from either party has mentioned cutting defense spending.
It would be pretty easy to cut defense spending by 25-30% and close half of the bases. A good start would be to cancel the 3 aircraft carriers on the books. There is no good reason to replace the Enterprise with the Ford. Retire 5 carriers and sell the keel of the Ford for scrap.
0
globalwatcher
You can still move your 401k portfolio according to maco economic changes in horizon.
0
globalwatcher
Please read the Consitution of US. All bills associated with money issue have to start from the House.
0
chewitup
Would you like him to begin the executions now? I think his second amendment options might be the only ones he has left if both sides refuse to agree. Or maybe you could accept the fact that he is not the Lord of Congress?
The may be in the driver's seat, but the passenger with his foot stretched over onto the accelerator and hands on the steering wheel are also driving you know.
0
globalwatcher
Obama shoot himself? The 2nd is a right to bear arms. You probably meant the 14th Amend, right?
2
smithinjapan
There's absolutely nothing new that can be said on this issue -- politics is still just a big joke in the US (and elsewhere). Nothing's changed since the same thing yesterday and the day before.
0
globalwatcher
smith, I certainly feel the same.
-1
globalwatcher
Very inspiring post indeed.
0
yanee
Smithinjapan...You ARE ON THE DIME!
0
Virtuoso
The shrillness of the media -- bordering on hysteria -- is annoying. This whole thing reminds me of the old fable about Chicken Little and how the sky is about to fall. I'm sure even if the economy goes down the tube the wealthy will write off their losses for a tax refund, coast on their offshore accounts in Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands and come out smelling like a rose.
0
BreitbartVictorious
Another strained and silly analogy from chewitup. Obama has been AWOL for most of this crisis. If a deal gets crafted in the next few days it is because Obama is taking a real hit in the polls - - and his 'popularity' is what means most to him.
2
Laguna
Heh heh - crazed right wing trying to have it both ways again. Obama negotiated in good faith with Boehner and gave the Republicans concessions that in normal times would have counted as a huge victory - but the House turned it down - the REPUBLICANS rejected it - precisely because Obama had signed off on it: their thinking is, if Obama goes for something, it must be some kind of trap.
Now McConnell says that Obama needs to be directly involved in Senate-House reconciliation negotiations - and this is the same McConnell who stated but a few months ago that the main goal of the Republican party through 2012 was to "prevent Obama's reelection."
So we have the top Republican in the Senate recorded as subverting American interests to partisan cause and the House controlled by a crazed band of paranoid extremists who will recoil from anything the President seems to favor, and yet some insist on naming Obama as the stumbling block. Well, it is vacation season, and some have obviously taken one from their senses; others are clearly on permanent vacation from reality. But continue with the comments; they are funny and make me laugh.
0
globalwatcher
What do you expect Obama to do?
Sitting in the House? Sitting in the Senate?
He is in exective branch waiting for the bills from both of them. He truly understand the each roles between the Congress and Executive branches.
Please get it streigt, breit.
-2
globalwatcher
Unlike W who spent 2/3 of his time outside of Washington campaigning for other congress men, Obama is there most of the time. Bush was truly AWOL BIG TIME!!
0
Laguna
WaPo has a status report on negotiations saying:
Defense has been sure to come into this debate at some point. The Democrats are still compromising far more than the Republicans, but this is an interesting strategy.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
global
The more Obama and his fans blame Bush the more they admit that beyond Bush Derangement Syndrome most Democrats have had nothing to offer the country. He's gone. Time to get over Bush. Time for Obama to lead.
0
Serrano
"Time for Obama to lead"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
-1
chewitup
Sorry but you cannot goad us into forgetting how we got to this point. Bush may be gone, but his share of the mess remains.
-1
chewitup
I was not just talking about Obama. The way you switch from macro to micra at whim only shows you have no idea what is happening...even more than most people.
0
SuperLib
Defense cuts are already on the table and going forward. The US will still be stronger than others, but not as much as we once were. In that sense you should feel pretty good about things and stop complaining.
0
Equality
After reading all of the comments, it seems that Laguna has one of the few well-informed posts. I get my news from a variety of paper and online sources and one has to have blinders on to not see how ideological these 'negotiations' have become. It's still hard to believe that most Republicans support continuing tax-breaks for millionaires and those who own corporate jets while sanctioning cuts to social security, Medicade and Medicare, especially in the lean financial times. Interesting ideology.
1
BreitbartVictorious
How many times does it have to be pointed out that Obama, who had super majorities in House and Senate, enlisted Clinton, the only post WW2 Dem to win 2 terms, to inform the American people that Bush 's tax cuts would be renewed.
And again with the corporate jets. How gullible some people are. You'd think these jets are everywhere. Sane people realize this is just cheap demagoguery. Obama and these creepy, left wing authoritarians hate em cuz jet owners and fliers are largely exempt from the groping the TSA inflicts on the rest of the nation's air travelers, policy this president imposed on the country after historic losses in the mid-terms.
-1
Laguna
There is no such thing as a "super majority" in the House. He did NOT have one in the Senate, just as he does not have one now - and that is why the Reid bill is waiting until tomorrow: so that Senate procedures can pass it without threat of Republican filibuster. Really, that Republicans would filibuster such a bill - truly atrocious.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Moody's has already said it appears there is no plan that prevents the nation losing its triple A rating.
MIssion accomplished, Obama.
0
Laguna
Sorry - for those unversed in the subject: a "super majority" is a majority capable of fending off a filibuster, which is a strange creature existing only in the Senate; the House works only on majority vote. In the Senate, a minority party may continue debate indefinitely and thus prevent vote on a bill unless 60 senators vote to cut off debate; thus, a "super majority" is that in the Senate which exceeds 60. Practically, filibusters do not occur, but the threat of one is enough to cause the majority party to rethink its plans and delay the bill.
This "super majority" Senate procedure has been used against Obama repeatedly, and is a major reason why the US currently lacks a budget.
1
sailwind
The U.S has lacked a budget for the past two fiscal years because the Senate did not do its job. And the argument about a filibuster due to Senate procedural rules is the cause is to put it bluntly a crock. The Senate found away around that one when it passed Obama's health care plan. Scott Brown's election brought the filibuster back into to play to stop that unfunded atrocity from passage and the Senate jammed it through anyway with reconciliation with the House bill that they all of the sudden called deemed to pass with out an actual vote on it by the Senate. The Senate knows actually how to get around the rules when it wants something bad enough. Too bad a budget, one of the most fundamental things a responsible Government is suppose to do with the peoples money isn't one of them with this Senate leadership and administration.
0
yabits
If you think lack of communication is a good thing in uncertain times, you should check with some of those who invested with Bernie Madoff.
Two of the largest and best retirement fund investment companies are Vanguard and Fidelity. Both have messages to investors regarding the possible default and the potential adverse affects right off the home page. Care to give us the name of a fund whose website doesn't mention anything about it?
1
bass4funk
I did. The buck stops with the President. No one told him to spend us into oblivion.
-1
Laguna
Sailwind, the Senate's byzantine bylaws are one reason why we're in this mess. Despite a clear majority in both houses, the Democrats were finally able to only pass a fraction of what they had intended. The power to block in Congress far exceeds to power to create.
As you apparently haven't heard, Obama's healthcare initiative is rated by the CBO to actually save money. It is rated to SAVE money as it currently stands, even without provisions that Democrats had supported such as a single-payer system such as available in Japan and direct negotiation with pharmaceutics suppliers. But then, you probably don't believe the so-called "lamestream economists" such as those at the CBO.
These common-sense ideas will inevitably be added on as they are crucial for the long-term budget: American healthcare costs must be brought under control. That will be Obama's second-term push, to be sure.
-2
yabits
Care to cite where the constitution says the buck stops with the president?
Always enjoy it when you start to waffle away.
2
bass4funk
It's always funny to me that the very first thing that liberals want to cut is defense, yet, dishing out lavish salaries and huge pensions to government workers to the point that many of them are making upwards to 100K is astounding. All you liberals whine about millionaires and billionaires getting tax-breaks, 47% of Americans don't even pay taxes, the super wealthy pay their fair share of taxes and in this recession Obama wants more. Hey, what's going to happen when these wealthy people go out of business or relocate? How many poor people can offer someone a job? I am all for paying my fair share and I think, everyone should, EVERYONE, rich poor, in-between, preferably a flat tax. Now that would be fair. When Obama got elected, the Dems controlled all three branches of government and look what happened. The Dems spent like there was no tomorrow, the Repub. had no power at that time, they were a minuscule minority, now that they are trying to bring some sanity and put the brakes on this President, the Conservatives are a bunch of heartless monsters. Give me a break! Personally, I think both sides and especially the President didn't handle this situation in the best possible manner and he still wants to blame Bush(Yawn) and the Repubs. always someone else's fault, never this President's
-1
yabits
Raising the debt ceiling has always been a routine Congressional matter -- issuing the money to pay for what Congress has already authorized spending. It really has nothing to do with the president.
Until, that is, an insane group of Republicans have used it to hold the entire nation hostage simply to punish a president they despise.
Gutless punks describes them better.
-1
Laguna
2
sailwind
CBO estimates are based solely upon the assumptions that the CBO is *ordered *to use by congressional leaders. No independent outside auditors or non-partial actual real world scoring involved. CBO estimates are nothing more then garbage in and garbage out.
Reality from July 29th 2011................
Health tab to soar in decade
July 29, 2011|By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The nation’s health care tab is on track to hit $4.6 trillion in 2020, accounting for about $1 of every $5 in the economy, government number crunchers estimate in a report released yesterday.
How much is that? Including government and private money, health care spending in 2020 will average $13,710 for every man, woman, and child, according to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary.
Compare it with this year, when US health care spending is projected to top $2.7 trillion, about $8,650 per capita, or roughly $1 of $6 in the economy. Most of those dollars go to provide care for the sickest people.
-1
Laguna
To repeat, "But then, you probably don't believe the so-called "lamestream economists" such as those at the CBO."
0
BreitbartVictorious
Quarterly GDP since Obama took office:
2009 2nd Qtr -.7%
2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7%
2009 4th Qtr: 3.8%
2010 1st Qtr: 3.9% (Obamacare passes, March 2010)
2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8%
2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5%
2010 4th Qtr: 2.3%
2011 1st Qtr: 0.4%
2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
-1
proxy
@SuperLib They are nut cutting military spending, they are reducing the size of the increase in spending but the planned "reduced" budget increase will still exceed the rate of inflation.
Instead of reducing the increase in spending by $6 billion they need to cut $200 billion off the top.
American dreams of becoming the new Roman Empire are facing fiscal reality.
1
chewitup
You seem to have rich people confused with mom and pop shops.
Exuse me, but removing the pensions or lowering them won't touch the debt. Not happy about large pensions, but geez, we are talking dollars and you whining about pennies.
No. It would not be fair and it would not be productive. Not unless you at least did something about salaries first. There is a reason 25 percent of the people hold 85 percent of the wealth, and that despite the fact that tax is progressive. Do you know what would happen if you just made a flat tax? In a matter of years, 25 percent would hold 99 percent of the wealth, and 60 percent of America would be in poverty. You know why? Because wages are crap, that's why. Companies don't pay a job what its worth, they pay the lowest wage they can get away with. The owners take the profits and they go...nowhere.
You may think its fine and dandy that Bill Gates is worth 45 billion dollars. But what is 45 billion dollars really doing for Bill Gates? Do think that after the first billion, he somehow got more happy? HIs accumulation of wealth has not really done anything for anybody, not even Bill Gates. And do you think that Bill Gates has actually worked 45 billion dollars worth of work, while some guy on a factory floor punching out DVDs for Microsoft has only worked 40,000 dollars a year hard? Is Bill Gates Superman X1000? I really don't think so. Mostly he is rich because he owns something. And while that might entitle him to more, it does not entitle him to hog so much wealth while the government goes bankrupt. You can hold up some little principle all day long, but what good is it if it brings us all to financial ruin?
Look at it this way. If 100 people were starving to death, and one man had enough food to feed them, do you think he should refuse because they don't have any money? Do you think it would be noble of the 100 people to die rather than take the food from the stingy man? I think they would be stupid not to. There are more principles to deal with in this world than just letting people accumulate wealth to their hearts content. Freedom of speach has limits. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater with no fire. Wealth accumulation also has limits. You don't get hog it all and shout "Let them eat cake!" or you wind up like Marie Antoinette.
0
Serrano
The debt limit will soon be over double what it was in 2006. Incredible...
0
globalwatcher
2009 2nd Qtr -.7%
2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7%
2009 4th Qtr: 3.8%
2010 1st Qtr: 3.9% (Obamacare passes, March 2010)
2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8%
2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5%
2010 4th Qtr: 2.3%
2011 1st Qtr: 0.4%
2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
Plugging the numbers like this means nothing to me unless you explain the trend. Let me hear what has been going on in US? What is the solution to that, breit?
0
yabits
There is a very strong correlation to government stimulus spending which started towards the end of 2Q 2009 and peaked by 3Q 2010.
-2
globalwatcher
yabit, I agree. The stimulas package DID created over 115000 jobs in US and saved entire US auto industry. The 30 billion dollars are already paid off to the US (tax payers), and a few more dollars to go.
1
Wolfpack
@BreitbartVictorious
2009 2nd Qtr -.7% 2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7% 2009 4th Qtr: 3.8% 2010 1st Qtr: 3.9% (Obamacare passes, March 2010) 2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8% 2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5% 2010 4th Qtr: 2.3% 2011 1st Qtr: 0.4% 2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
Well, the numbers don't lie. The economy had already hit bottom and the recession was over by the time President Obama took office. Obama flooded the economy with badly allocated porkulous money and the Fed began printing money like madmen. Obamacare, the war on energy companies, and heavy handed regulatory rulings by unelected federal agency commissions have reversed the recovery and now the US is staring at a likely double-dip recession. Don't be surprised if the 2nd quarter 1.3% GDP growth revised down to zero three months from now.
Despite the likely deal still being negotiated Sunday evening, there will be a rating downgrade - and rightly so. The government will have failed to address the driving cause of the huge debt and annual deficits - that being entitlements (no, not defense spending). Republicans appear to be winning this debate due to the strength of the tea party members. They will have avoided a default, there will be no tax increases, and there will be an equal amount in spending cuts to debt increase. They were the only party to propose and pass legislation prior to the 11th hour. They also will have prevented Obama and Democrats from being able to pin a share the blame politically for Obama's awful economic stewardship of the country. In the end, I suspect that the tea party will still not be happy with the deal but the neo-socialist wing of the Democrat party will be furious.
-1
yabits
More conservative/Repubilcan delusion.
The federal debt has nothing to do with the rating downgrade. Silly nitwit Republicans don't seem to understand that. The deadbeat Republicans -- as exemplified by deadbeat Dad of the quarter, Rep. Joe Walsh (over $100k in arrears in child support payments) -- want the United States to welsh on its bills.
-1
yabits
Nothing, apparently, will make the tea party happy until the US government is rendered kaput. In other words, destroyed.
And look at the logic that seems to care about making other people "furious." That's infantile behavior worthy of an elementary school playground.
Forcing a lowering of the credit rating will drive up interest rates. That increase in interest rates will have the same effect as increased taxation on ordinary people. The government will have to pay MORE in interest on its debt, driving the budget deeper into the red. The Tea Party's position was actually: We're not going to let the government pay its bills until we force legislation to change the constitution. That's immoral as well as self-destructive.
0
bass4funk
I see, so it's ethically wrong to punish the President when he's trying to spend this country out of existence. He had almost 4 years.
I know you feel empathy for this President, but since he already has a head start in making the country kaput, maybe if he would stop spending money, try to cut the deficit, increase and encourage job growth in the private sector, maybe the Repubs would be happy. But as we know, there isn't a tax that liberals don't love.
Why is it that liberals are so far detached from reality? This is what Boehner and the Repubs were trying to get under control, the Dems with their huge out of control borrowing, increasing our national debt and wastful, let me repeat, Wasteful spending on projects that amount and have amounted to nothing is what increased the debt. Does Obama try to cut money in other areas that are being foolishly wasted? Oh, let's cut NASA, great move.
-1
chewitup
Thank you for proving that numbers mean absolutely nothing to you. How does 2 years and 6 months become almost 4 years? That is the same as saying 62.5 percent is almost 100 percent!! Its not even 3 quarters yet!
Yes! You really think NASA has been helping the economy?
Just proof that you don't pay attention to even what is right in front of you. Yabits has at least a couple of time advocated getting rid of income tax and going with a property tax, which is pretty much what we used to have before WWI.
All that nonsense but your obvious partisanship is really what sinks you. The Republicans were doing it before the Democrats. The Rs started the trend. I disagree with it no matter who is doing it, and my complaints about that started under Bush and continue under Obama. But you want to blame only the Ds? Complete joke.
0
BreitbartVictorious
Need to tax property, cuz "property is theft" ! Yeah , I think we know where 'progressives' are going with that line.
Funny you should mention WW1. 'Progressives' of Wilson's day knew that imposing more and more taxes on a free people was, since an authoritarian leftist-statist ideology is always a loser in the marketplace of ideas, the only way to force their agenda on us. The war made a great excuse. The income tax, I always enjoy pointing out to lefties like chewitup who see themselves as such free spirits and America as puritanical, made possible the Democrat imposition of prohibition on the country. Once the government could tax your income, conservative and moderate lawmaker's opposition to a prohibition on alcohol had no chance - the revenues the gov't took in from a tax on booze had been supplemented by a new and much larger source, and the pokenoses and control freaks in the so-called temperance movement got their way. That is the progressive template.
0
bass4funk
If you could read properly, I said "ALMOST" 4 years, try again.
I see, so spending half a million dollars to paint a picture of a Chinook Salmon on an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 or building a Bullet train from San Diego to L.A. to San Francisco, is a project worth investing, right?
Riiiight...as I said, there isn't a tax that almost ALL liberals don't love.
Never said, Conservatives are perfect, but at least, they are trying to CUT wasteful spending. I'll leave the sinking to Dems and the liberals, they are already well on their way of doing what they do best. For the record, not a Conservative: "Independent", leaning slightly Conservative.
0
bass4funk
His majesty is speaking now.
0
bass4funk
So they finally reached a deal. Still incoming news....
1
yabits
Anyone wanting to understand how wrong that statement is need only consider that the legislation that banned alcohol was better known as the Volstead Act -- named after Andrew Volstead, a Republican.
This is one of these easily verifiable pieces of crap that Republicans keep spouting. Why they want to go through their lives totally immersed in their own BS, only they know.
You don't try to get spending under control by defaulting on the nations' debt and damaging its credit rating. Let's try that again because it may not have sunk in: You don't try to get spending under control by defaulting on the nations' debt and damaging its credit rating. Because that route is as insane as it is self-defeating.
I understand why Tea Party Republicans chose that route. They're totally, certifiably nuts. I can only hope that a sufficient number of American people are not nuts and will throw those idiots out of office.
-1
bass4funk
@Yabits
Let's hope the people wake up and throw the real certifiably nut out of office, the Commander-in-chief with the rest of the Dems, so on the Nuts part, I agree.
2
BreitbartVictorious
Or they can check the Congressional record for the actual vote on the matter:
"On August 1, 1917, the Senate passed a resolution containing the language of the amendment to be presented to the states for ratification. The vote was 65 to 20, with the Democrats' voting 36 in favor and 12 in opposition; and the Republicans' voting 29 in favor and 8 in opposition. The House of Representatives passed a revised resolution[2] on December 17, 1917. In the House, the vote was 282 to 128, with the Democrats' voting 146 in favor and 64 in opposition; and the Republicans' voting 137 in favor and 62 in opposition." (wiki)
0
yabits
So, if we check the vote we find that the Republicans in the senate were 80% in favor of the measure, while Dems supported it by 75%. The support in the House was proportionally about even.
Since they were voting on a Republican-authored and sponsored bill, it's total BS to say that it was "imposed" on the country only by Democrats. Especially since the president has no veto power in the process and 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of state legislatures must approve it.
What this example brings out is the following: No matter how much Republican support a Republican-authored bill gains, if the legislation turns out to be a failure, Republicans will always blame Democrats for it and pretend that it was all their fault. In other words, this example illustrates the complete sliminess and lack of honesty of conservatives.
0
BreitbartVictorious
yabits
Nice try. But members of Congress represent the American people. Apparently Democrats tend to forget this. The majority in both the Senate and House at the time was Democrat. 'Dry' states had carried Wilson to victory. And just as the busybody, faux-populist 'progressive' wing of the party today wants to dictate what kind of light bulb or toilet you can have in your own freakin house , or the kind of car you can buy, or what your kids will eat, 'progressives' of Wilson's day were just as authoritarian, just with a different focus.
0
yabits
First off, I apologize to readers for one last post on this tangential issue, which seems off-topic. Ultimately, however, it is a clear example of how so many conservatives can not portray an event, no matter how verifiable, with any degree of integrity.
The temperance movement began and caught fire in dry states like Kansas and Iowa, completely dominated by Republican legislators. Wilson could not have been carried to victory on the issue of prohibition, since he opposed it, and showed his opposition by vetoing the Republican-authored Volstead Act. That there was a Democratic majority in the national Congress was a temporary aberration -- brought about by the Panic of '07 and the divisions within the Republican Party. It had been solid Republican since the civil war and would be solid Republican again from1918 all the way up until FDR took office. It was FDR and the Democratic congress who repealed the 18th amendment that conservative culture warriors from both sides of the aisle imposed on the US.
It is therefore completely dishonest to claim that prohibition was a Democratic initiative when it clearly had tremendous bipartisan support. Banning alcohol was an attempt to use the constitution to legislate morality. Which party today follows in that tradition? Who wants to amend the constitution to outlaw things like gay marriage? (That's right, it's the same old conservatives as the old Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats -- aka future Repubs.) The vast majority of dry counties today are solid red.
By that logic, you should be lobbying for the return of gaslight technology. The "progressives" of Wilson's day were mainly Republicans like TR and LaFollette. Again, this entire example shows why conservatives can't be trusted to portray any event with basic honesty.
0
bass4funk
If that's the case, thank God for liberals for, if the liberals are honest and have integrity, then I would really hate to see what they are like when they are dishonest.
0
BreitbartVictorious
If the neo-Luddite wing of the Democrat Party believed that to be the more 'ecological' choice Obama would mouth such a proposal.
0
BreitbartVictorious
Somebody needs to read a little history.
Back to top