punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 It gets so silly discussing anything with you. It just turns into a juvenile back and forth. Pelosi said Democrats won't accept any spending cuts, but who cares? She has as much power in the house as McConnell does. If Republicans pass their Second in Commands "new idea" Pelosi will have the power to raise the debt ceiling with no Republican votes that is the point of McConnell's walk back. Again you are behind on your talking points and it is making you look uninformed. Quote
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) It gets so silly discussing anything with you. It just turns into a juvenile back and forth. Pelosi said Democrats won't accept any spending cuts, but who cares? She has as much power in the house as McConnell does. Shady is one confused fellow. He doesn't seem to realize that even though the Republicans hold the majority in the House they don't have the votes to sustain a position. Edited July 12, 2011 by pinko Quote
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Shady is one confused fellow. He doesn't seem to realize that even though the Republicans hold the majority in the House they don't have the votes to sustain a position. Even if they don't go with their new plan. No matter how many cuts the Dems come up with it wont be enough for 40-60 republicans and they are going to NEED Nancy. Shady doesn't get it. Quote
GostHacked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 It is Obama's problem. He's know what the debt limit is for the last 3 years, but he decided to blow right through the ceiling. It's almost as bad as the Democrats in congress refusing to release a budget last year. The first time that's happened in like 30+ years. Actually its not the first time. it has been continually happening. When the debt is raised, they just raise the upper limit to accommodate. So the deeper they go into debt, the more they raise the debt ceiling in order to maintain solvency. Eventually that catches up to you, no matter if you are a Dem or a Rep. Quote
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Even if they don't go with their new plan. No matter how many cuts the Dems come up with it wont be enough for 40-60 republicans and they are going to NEED Nancy. Shady doesn't get it. When Bush was in office the debt limit was routinely renewed. Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Actually its not the first time. it has been continually happening. When the debt is raised, they just raise the upper limit to accommodate. So the deeper they go into debt, the more they raise the debt ceiling in order to maintain solvency. Eventually that catches up to you, no matter if you are a Dem or a Rep. Exactly. Which is why so many of the new Republicans are against arbitrarily raising the dent ceiling without addressing spending. Yes, it's not the way it's been done in the past, for either party. But that obviously can't continue. Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 When Bush was in office the debt limit was routinely renewed. Yep. and that was part of the problem too. Quote
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Exactly. Which is why so many of the new Republicans are against arbitrarily raising the dent ceiling without addressing spending. Yes, it's not the way it's been done in the past, for either party. But that obviously can't continue. That is not what top Republicans say Shady. Don't worry you can say "I didn't leave the party it left me" but today was not a win for them. Quote
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Exactly. Which is why so many of the new Republicans are against arbitrarily raising the dent ceiling without addressing spending. Yes, it's not the way it's been done in the past, for either party. But that obviously can't continue. Except it will continue when push comes to shove. Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 That is not what top Republicans say Shady. Don't worry you can say "I didn't leave the party it left me" but today was not a win for them. Yes, but the top Republicans aren't the new Republicans. They're the same establishment. Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Except it will continue when push comes to shove. Not of the non-establishment Republicans in the house have a say. That's the point. Quote
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Yes, but the top Republicans aren't the new Republicans. They're the same establishment. I have no clue what your point is here. When Republicans blink are you going to move the goal posts to "but new Republicans voted against it therefore they are the best party ever and believe all I believe in"? Seriously Shady they are blinking just like you said they wouldn't. Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 I have no clue what your point is here. When Republicans blink are you going to move the goal posts to "but new Republicans voted against it therefore they are the best party ever and believe all I believe in"? Seriously Shady they are blinking just like you said they wouldn't. Republicans don't have to blink. However, the president does. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Republicans don't have to blink. However, the president does. Right...this is a game of chicken that Obama cannot win. All that's left is to see what the final score will be. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Republicans don't have to blink. However, the president does. Then why are they blinking Shady? Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Then why are they blinking Shady? I haven't seen that they are. Quote
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Not of the non-establishment Republicans in the house have a say. That's the point. That may be your point but the group you refer to is not representative of the majority. Quote
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 I haven't seen that they are. That is because you are blind the Number two guy just said he wants raised as long as Dems have the power to do it. Quote
dre Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 Nope..there was a broader context and dollar devaluation in play. The US no longer "owed" anything once the decision was made to abandon the gold standard. Redeeming gold was still possible, but not desired. There was no decision made by anyone but the US. They welched on the deal, and ended the convertability they had promised to maintain as a signatory and the holder of the Bretton Woods reserve currency. Other countries had absolutely no choice in the matter... they were now stuck with gigantic stacks of US dollars that they could not trade in for gold (like they had been promised origionally when they aquired the dollars). A classic act of bankruptcy. There was a run on gold, and countries were starting to redeem their dollars in large numbers, and the US just flat out didnt have what they owed, if the run spread. "Well... I dont have what I owe you, so Im going to give you something else instead". Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 There was no decision made by anyone but the US. They welched on the deal, and ended the convertability they had promised to maintain as a signatory and the holder of the Bretton Woods reserve currency. Other countries had absolutely no choice in the matter... they were now stuck with gigantic stacks of US dollars that they could not trade in for gold (like they had been promised origionally when they aquired the dollars). I have a great promise joke that would be appropriate, but this is a family web site! A classic act of bankruptcy. There was a run on gold, and countries were starting to redeem their dollars in large numbers, and the US just flat out didnt have what they owed, if the run spread. "Well... I dont have what I owe you, so Im going to give you something else instead". Good....I knew you were spouting such bankruptcy nonsense despite your recent denial. Wrong on both counts. The US "owed" nothing in the wake of a fallen Bretton Woods agreement and actions by other governments. Logically, if the US can enter into such an agreement...it can also decide to leave. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 I have a great promise joke that would be appropriate, but this is a family web site! Good....I knew you were spouting such bankruptcy nonsense despite your recent denial. Wrong on both counts. The US "owed" nothing in the wake of a fallen Bretton Woods agreement and actions by other governments. Logically, if the US can enter into such an agreement...it can also decide to leave. It had nothing to do with the actions of other governments. There was a run on US gold, and the US suspended convertability unilaterally before it could get out of hand. They had issued to much currency and didnt have the gold to back it. Good....I knew you were spouting such bankruptcy nonsense despite your recent denial. Again your problem is you dont understand the basic definition of that word. Its causing you to argue a claim that isnt even relatively contraversial. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 It had nothing to do with the actions of other governments. There was a run on US gold, and the US suspended convertability unilaterally before it could get out of hand. They had issued to much currency and didnt have the gold to back it. Didn't that run come from Countries who were planning to draw down all their US gold so they could get out of the system? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 It had nothing to do with the actions of other governments. There was a run on US gold, and the US suspended convertability unilaterally before it could get out of hand. They had issued to much currency and didnt have the gold to back it. You have contradicted yourself....where did the "run" eminate from? Mars? Again your problem is you dont understand the basic definition of that word. Its causing you to argue a claim that isnt even relatively contraversial. Revisiting the concept and definition: bank·rupt (bngkrpt, -rpt) n. 1. Law A debtor that, upon voluntary petition or one invoked by the debtor's creditors, is judged legally insolvent. The debtor's remaining property is then administered for the creditors or is distributed among them. 2. A person who is totally lacking in a specified resource or quality: an intellectual bankrupt. adj. 1. a. Having been legally declared financially insolvent. b. Financially ruined; impoverished. 2. a. Depleted of valuable qualities or characteristics: a morally and ethically bankrupt politician. b. Totally depleted; destitute: was bankrupt of new ideas. c. Being in a ruined state: a bankrupt foreign policy. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/12/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Washington (CNN) -- Partisan warfare over the looming debt ceiling crisis escalated Tuesday as GOP leaders once again refused to consider any tax hikes and President Barack Obama warned that, absent a deal, he can't guarantee older Americans will continue receiving Social Security checks next month."There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Obama said, according to excerpts of a CBS News interview scheduled to air Tuesday night. However there is money to continue the war in Libya, there is money to bail out banks, there is money to beef up the police and military, but no money to spend on healthcare, education or social security. So you see where the priorities are, and the american people are not the priority. Quote
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Posted July 12, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/12/debt.talks/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 However there is money to continue the war in Libya, there is money to bail out banks, there is money to beef up the police and military, but no money to spend on healthcare, education or social security. So you see where the priorities are, and the american people are not the priority. I'm not sure what you're talking about. America spends more money per student, and more money per patient than any other country in the world. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.