Boehner cant deliver on his promise from last night.

[Damocles]

The senate is working on a bill as we speak, the negotiations have included plans that I have read. You know you are being disengenous. How could they have had all of these negotiations without a framework? Even Bohener said that they had a working plan that fell apart when the president demanded more revenue. (That was a lie, it fell apart when the TEA partiers said they would not support it and would strip Bohner from his speakership if he continued.)

So, a negotiation took place without the President that came up with separate plans where neither side compromises. Only by rejecting the "leadership" of the one party who has brought nothing at all to the table (that would be the President) were they even to make any progress at all. That isn't "leadership" that is simply standing in the way and shouting "compromise damn it!"

BTW - I'll note that you don't talk about the fact that Reid also has no support from his own party from his proposed bill...

As I said, I'd love to have a conversation that went beyond the talking points, I wish we could, but almost nobody ever does it....

 

[Jarod]

Again, you are reading only the talking points and believing them rather than looking at the reality around you. Not one of the proposals (including cut, cap, and balance) has suggested cuts that would immediately bring us into balance. This reality shows that the republicans understand that cuts like that would be detrimental. That is real. Now, the rhetoric from both sides simply tells us that both sides understand that there are people like you, those who will never look beyond (unless shamed into it after somebody hits you in the back of the head by the reality) their talking points and will continue to shuffle it onto the eyes of people who should be more aware than this.

After years on political websites the one thing that surprises me is the incapacity of posters to ever simply look at what was done, think through it, then talk about it. It has always been and always will be mostly talking points.

They are attacking him for useless spending as his policy and spending has been almost entirely ineffective and has never stood up to the expectations set by the President himself. He's had a blank check, and it is time to take that away.

I still remember when 6% unemployment was the "worst jobs economy since the Great Depression!" I wish we could return to those days.

I do not belive that any plan will bring us into ballance withing the next 10 years. I also do not belive that any polititians have suggested such. I simply said that to get meaningfull deficate reduction we must use more than spending cuts. We shoudl return to historically workable tax rates.

I also belive that the current economic situation is indicative of how super bad it would have been had we not used the EFFECTIVE spending we did use, the spending everyone who knows anything about economics knows prevented this from being MUCH MUCH worse.

You operate from the presumption that the day Obama took office the downward trend became flat and that there was not a huge supertanker of an economy that had to be turned around and that turning such a tanker around does not take time. That tanker slowed and has begun inching the other direction, and the fact it did not turn on a dime and chug the other direction is Obama's fault.

 

[Jarod]

So, a negotiation took place without the President that came up with separate plans where neither side compromises. Only by rejecting the "leadership" of the one party who has brought nothing at all to the table (that would be the President) were they even to make any progress at all. That isn't "leadership" that is simply standing in the way and shouting "compromise damn it!"

BTW - I'll note that you don't talk about the fact that Reid also has no support from his own party from his proposed bill...

As I said, I'd love to have a conversation that went beyond the talking points, I wish we could, but almost nobody ever does it....

Reid did not promise the nation in a televised address that he would pass his bill.

 

[Damocles]

I do not belive that any plan will bring us into ballance withing the next 10 years. I also do not belive that any polititians have suggested such. I simply said that to get meaningfull deficate reduction we must use more than spending cuts. We shoudl return to historically workable tax rates.

IMHO Without a BBA, it wouldn't. It never will, and this will absolutely cause S&P to lower our credit rating.

I also belive that the current economic situation is indicative of how super bad it would have been had we not used the EFFECTIVE spending we did use, the spending everyone who knows anything about economics knows prevented this from being MUCH MUCH worse.

I believe that effective spending would have had better results, but we haven't had that. The reality is even the Democrats understand that the proposed spending by the President was bad, when the vote for a President's proposed budget goes 0-97, when not even one member of your party will support your own proposal, it isn't because your previous spending has been effective.

You operate from the presumption that the day Obama took office the downward trend became flat and that there was not a huge supertanker of an economy that had to be turned around and that turning such a tanker around does not take time. That tanker slowed and has begun inching the other direction, and the fact it did not turn on a dime and chug the other direction is Obama's fault.

No, I operate from the presented expectations of the President, none of which have ever been met.

This man doesn't lead, he campaigns. People are still talking about President Thebuckstopsanywherebuthere's speech where he spent 90% of it blaming others then saying that others shouldn't.

It's time to speak about the reality, the only plans have come from congress and only one of them would actually show S&P that we are not only willing to, but will ensure that we will pay down our debt at some point in the future.

 

[Damocles]

Reid did not promise the nation in a televised address that he would pass his bill.

Right. Got it. Set your focus again on solely the talking points again. Since that is all we'll be able to do:

President Obama said he had a plan on national TV, we want to see it.

 

[Jarod]

Right. Got it. Set your focus again on solely the talking points again. Since that is all we'll be able to do:

President Obama said he had a plan on national TV, we want to see it.

show me where he said he had a plan?

 

[Jarod]

I will go on record now as saying it looks to me like Boner will get the votes tonight. He would not have scheduled a vote if he did not belive he had the votes.

This is likely a good thing as it will more likely result in a deal, which we need. I dont see the point of having a second debate in December... Can anyone explain to me why we should have this uncertanty lingering again in the holiday shoping season? Do the Republicans want to ensure the economy does not improve prior to the election?

 

[cawacko]

I will go on record now as saying it looks to me like Boner will get the votes tonight. He would not have scheduled a vote if he did not belive he had the votes.

This is likely a good thing as it will more likely result in a deal, which we need. I dont see the point of having a second debate in December... Can anyone explain to me why we should have this uncertanty lingering again in the holiday shoping season? Do the Republicans want to ensure the economy does not improve prior to the election?

Because this deficit/debt problem is not going away and just because politicians don't want to deal with it prior to their re-election attempts doesn't mean the problem goes away. They are in office to deal with issues like this, not to do things on their own time.

 

[Jarod]

Because this deficit/debt problem is not going away and just because politicians don't want to deal with it prior to their re-election attempts doesn't mean the problem goes away. They are in office to deal with issues like this, not to do things on their own time.

So deal with it NOW, not in December.

Do the larger plan the President spoke of, not the smaller plan with a redo in December.

 

[cawacko]

So deal with it NOW, not in December.

Do the larger plan the President spoke of, not the smaller plan with a redo in December.

Ok, and how is Obama leading on that issue? Does he have a larger plan? Has he offered anything?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I will go on record now as saying it looks to me like Boner will get the votes tonight. He would not have scheduled a vote if he did not belive he had the votes.

This is likely a good thing as it will more likely result in a deal, which we need. I dont see the point of having a second debate in December... Can anyone explain to me why we should have this uncertanty lingering again in the holiday shoping season? Do the Republicans want to ensure the economy does not improve prior to the election?

Tell us Jarod.... what is the difference between a short term solution of pushing the problem and debate into 2013 and an even shorter term solution of pushing it out 3-6 months?

One of the two deals with the overall problem SOONER rather than later. Obviously the Reps want to deal with it sooner largely for political reasons.... the SAME political reasons the Dems do NOT want to deal with it next year and would rather push the problem even deeper into the future.

Of the two, which gets the LONG term problem addressed sooner?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So deal with it NOW, not in December.

Do the larger plan the President spoke of, not the smaller plan with a redo in December.

Tell us... HOW does that solve the long term spending addiction problem? All is does is push the problem further into the future.

There is NO plan (other than one that would include a BB amendment) put forth that will stop the deficit spending in good years. Every single one of these idiots talks about cutting the DEFICIT spending. Meaning they ALL plan to continue to outspend.

 

[Damocles]

show me where he said he had a plan?

So, when he said "my plan" that meant not his?

Tell me why Obama's proposed budget was so bad that not even one Democrat Senator voted for it? A bipartisan vote (in fact a unanimous vote) against it pretty much gives you an idea.

 

[Damocles]

This is like arguing with Jim Taggert...

No reality is strong enough to get past the "feelings" he has.

 

[Damocles]

Tell us... HOW does that solve the long term spending addiction problem? All is does is push the problem further into the future.

There is NO plan (other than one that would include a BB amendment) put forth that will stop the deficit spending in good years. Every single one of these idiots talks about cutting the DEFICIT spending. Meaning they ALL plan to continue to outspend.

Exactly. They throw around big numbers... 1 Trillion over 10 years... Trillion, that sounds big!

Nobody mentions that the plan includes 7 percent growth and that this doesn't cut crap it only slows growth and that deficit spending is still included in the plan.

In this case, it is less than the rate of growth... 1.8 Trillion in overspending in one year offset by 1 trillion over 10? That's only 100 billion per year... 1.7 Trillion in overspending isn't that much better. Without the BBA included, there is no plan that will save our credit rating as none of them demonstrate any effort to PAY THE DEBT.;

It's like going to the bank who is about to raise your interest rate on your credit card and telling them you are "good for it" see? I just got another creidt card that I plan on paying my interest with while I run the same deficit I have before, but I canceled HBO so I'm saving $30!

 

[cawacko]

So deal with it NOW, not in December.

Do the larger plan the President spoke of, not the smaller plan with a redo in December.

Didn't you just tell Damo above that Obama didn't have a plan?

 

[Alias]

Didn't you just tell Damo above that Obama didn't have a plan?

 

[Jarod]

Tell us Jarod.... what is the difference between a short term solution of pushing the problem and debate into 2013 and an even shorter term solution of pushing it out 3-6 months?

One of the two deals with the overall problem SOONER rather than later. Obviously the Reps want to deal with it sooner largely for political reasons.... the SAME political reasons the Dems do NOT want to deal with it next year and would rather push the problem even deeper into the future.

Of the two, which gets the LONG term problem addressed sooner?

Im saying get a grand deal worked out that deals with the entire problem now! Dont push the problem out at all, not three months, not a year.... NOW.

 

[Jarod]

So, when he said "my plan" that meant not his?

Tell me why Obama's proposed budget was so bad that not even one Democrat Senator voted for it? A bipartisan vote (in fact a unanimous vote) against it pretty much gives you an idea.

You know better than that DAMO, it was a negotiation position designed to set the stage for what he wanted. You know that.

 

[Jarod]

Didn't you just tell Damo above that Obama didn't have a plan?

No, I did not.