# democrats name calling again...



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

With representative Gabby Giffords, the women shot by a deranged killer, making an appearence to cast a vote against the interests of the american people, you would think that civility would front and center.  Of course, you would be wrong.  Not content to just debate the issues, the democrats, who wrongfully tried to blame republicans for the shooters actions, began calling the republicans all sorts of bad things.  Here is an article:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/02/gone-berserk-whats-with-calling-the-opposition-terrorists/

from the article:

[h=2]Gone Berserk: What&#8217;s with Calling the Opposition &#8216;Terrorists&#8217;?[/h]If it was some frothing-at-the-mouth liberal blogger calling Republicans &#8220;terrorists,&#8221; we could dismiss it as the mindless babblings of a hyperpartisan nitwit.
But incredibly, it is not. It is leading Democrats including the vice president of the United States who are referring to their fellow Americans who disagree with them as terrorists:Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having &#8220;acted like terrorists&#8221; in the fight over raising the nation&#8217;s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.
Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.
&#8220;We have negotiated with terrorists,&#8221; an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. &#8220;This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.&#8221;​It is _New York Times_ columnists:You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.
These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America&#8217;s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn&#8217;t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that&#8217;s what it took.​It&#8217;s MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who not only referred to conservatives as &#8220;terrorists, but also as &#8220;wahhabis of American government.&#8221;
In fact, referencing terrorists, or Osama bin Laden, or al-Qaeda when describing conservatives who decided to put their foot down and demand a change in how Washington works &#8212; this done in order to save the country from a fate worse than default in a few years &#8212; has been the _du jour_ pastime among Democrats of all levels. &#8220;Hostage takers&#8221; is another bric-a-brac tossed around when describing Republicans as well.
----------------------------------------------------

THIS IS THE NAME CALLING THAT THE DEMOCRATS DO ALL THE TIME, AND THEN ADD IN THE THUG LIKE ATTACKS BY THEIR POLITICAL ALLIES AND YOU HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY THAT CAN'T DISCUSS ISSUES WITHOUT REALLY BAD BEHAVIOR..  BEFORE THE INTERNET THEY WERE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IT.  WHAT IS IT WITH THE DEMOCRATS THAT DEBATING THE ISSUES IN A CIVIL TONE IS BEYOND THEM.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology.  That is not in rational dispute.  Lost jobs, skyrocketing interest rates, a possible economic collapse due to default - all of these things are of more import to the American people than some people calling other people mean names.

Don't want to be called a terrorist or a hostage-taker?  Don't act like one.


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology.  That is not in rational dispute.  Lost jobs, skyrocketing interest rates, a possible economic collapse due to default - all of these things are of more import to the American people than some people calling other people mean names.
> 
> Don't want to be called a terrorist or a hostage-taker?  Don't act like one.



Benedict Arnold would cover it nicely though....


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

You mean trying to get out of control government under control.  The tax, spend, tax spend cycle with no end in sight that has destroyed the economy and will lose jobs, force interest rates to skyrocket, and will cause an economic collapse that still has yet to be addressed by the politicians in washington.  The tea party republicans are the only serious members in congress right now.  The democrats don't care about anything but spending more money and the establishment republicans are little better.  The debt ceiling was one point, where the issues meant something, where the democrats had to pay attention to something other than raise the debt ceiling, keep raising taxes keep spending and spendin and spending without regard to the safety or stability of the country and it's future.  The country is going to default if nothing is done to control the politicians.  The politicians do not care.  Cutting off their money is the only way to get the country on sound fiscal ground.  Nothing else seems to get their attention.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 2, 2011)

You do realize that the debt ceiling has been raised under every single president since it was introduced in 1917, including 8 times by GWB, right?


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

Yeah, and you see where that has gotten us.  The tea party saw this as an opportunity to challenge the assumption that just giving the government more money, without cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, was a good thing.  How else do you stop spoiled politicians from just spending money without regards to the consequences?  The democrats are always whining about the rich being greedy, but the greediest people in the country are democrat politicians.  They don't care that the country is going into economic disaster.  As long as they have money to give to their voting blocks, they could not care less about the destruction they are causing.  Raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, spend more money, screw the future.  That is essentially the democrat play book on economics.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2011)

Do you want us to send you chocolate and nylons?


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Do you want us to send you chocolate and nylons?



I'll take the chocolate.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The democrats are always whining about the rich being greedy, but the greediest people in the country are democrat politicians.  They don't care that the country is going into economic disaster.  As long as they have money to give to their voting blocks, they could not care less about the destruction they are causing.  Raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, spend more money, screw the future.  That is essentially the democrat play book on economics.



Did you really miss the part about both Democrats AND Republicans have raised the ceiling, over and over again? 

Neither wants do do what needs to be done because neither party wants to cut their pet project parts of the budget.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

Which is why the tea party republicans stood their ground.  They owe the establishment republicans nothing, they apparently aren't looking for plumb committees to sit on, and they don't care if they are re-elected, they don't want earmarks to take back to their states,  you know, the kind of attitude people in this country keep saying they want in a politician but when they actually get it they allow the democrats to call them terrorists.  Who was holding who hostage?  Either give us more money, AND raise taxes or we won't pass the debt ceiling bill.  That was the stand of the democrats.  These are the same politicians who say, "If we don't get that tax increase, we are going to fire teachers, police and firemen, so you better give us the money we want or somebody is going to get hurt."  And they have the nerve to call tea party members terrorists.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 2, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> I'll take the chocolate.



I will send it via the very nice Canadian Military Police officer I was working with today! he's a credit to his country and a pleasure to work with.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

And here is a liberal cartoonist dreaming that Obama would assasinate tea party members:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/08/01/tucson-newspaper-political-cartoonist-fantasized-about-obama-sending-s




From the article:

Today Tucson congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) cast her first vote since she was critically injured in a January shooting.
You'll recall that in the weeks that followed, the media bemoaned the incivility -- supposedly predominantly conservative in nature -- of the political debate which had allegedly created a climate of hate.
But there appears to to be no firestorm over how, just last week, Arizona Daily Star cartoonist David Fitzsimmons fantasized about President Obama sending a SEAL team to assassinate Tea Party-friendly House Republicans.
---------------------------
And the myth is that the republicans are the mean spirited ones who want to push grandma over the cliff, take food from the poor and are the ones causing the trouble.  Meanwhile, the democrats name call and their thug allies beat up their opponents.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Do you want us to send you chocolate and nylons?


I want jelly babies and a tardis key.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 2, 2011)

Just another little tidbit to add to the discussion, the debt has grown 24% under Obama.  It grew 158% under the Bush administration, most of which there was a Republican controlled congress.  Pardon me if I'm sceptical, but it seems many of those crying out the loudest against Obama and the government's spending habits were repsonsable for creating those habits in the first place.  Now we are supposed to believe they have suddenly grown a fiscal concious.  A concious that I might add only seems to show up when it comes to cutting programs the poor or lower middle class use.  No such thing when it comes to adressing issues such as corporate welfare through subsides or huge tax exemptions.

I'd be much more willing to believe that some of these politicians (from both sides of the isle) had a true change of heart and were actually working for the American people if cuts were across the board and many of the tax loopholes were addressed.  Instead it seems corporations, lobbyist, and rich donors have congress working for them, while the poor and middle class are left to fend for themselves.

I will also take chocolate


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The tax, spend, tax spend cycle with no end in sight that has destroyed the economy and will lose jobs, force interest rates to skyrocket, and will cause an economic collapse that still has yet to be addressed by the politicians in washington.



On the 20-30 year time frame, if all spending and debt continues at the same level.  Maybe.

So your defense for destroying the economy now, for certain, is that if we don't do something quickly...in 20 years the same thing we just caused might happen.

Brilliant thinking.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

From the weekly standard, the debt under bush and obama:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

from the article:

How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year &#8212; or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

A few more points these reality-distorting apologetics ignore:

If the economy is the concern, right now is the worst possible time for austerity measures.  The result will be slowed economic recovery and slower job growth.  Which results in less revenues leading to the need for even more cuts.  Brilliant thinking again.

This is not a budget debate.  This is an appropriation to *pay for debt already incurred*.  This debt has been spent already, already signed into law by a previous congress.  This action amounts to sending your house keys back to the bank and walking away.  It is refusing to pay your credit card bill, already charged.  It is default, refusing to pay for what you've already spent.  When refusing to pay your bills involves poor people walking away from their homes they can no longer afford, then the Tea Party has nothing but scorn and outrage.  Now that they want the government to do the exact same thing, suddenly it's an exalted stand.

It's dishonorable.  It's stupid.

It's driven by ideology and a desire to dismantle the government by any means, not by economics.  The economics have been abundantly clear these past weeks.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology.




Since the right's "ideology" IS THE TRUTH, then yes, they said all those things, all of which were true, to advance thier ideology......


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 2, 2011)

what ****ing part of "we are broke, we have to stop spending NOW" is to hard to grasp


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> what ****ing part of "we are broke, we have to stop spending NOW" is to hard to grasp



The part where this debate did not take place during the budget process, where such a debate naturally belongs, but instead took place in the context of a threat to destroy the entire economy.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Since the right's "ideology" IS THE TRUTH, then yes, they said all those things, all of which were true, to advance thier ideology......



A truly remarkable assertion, coming from the people who brought you torture, indefinite detention without trial, and extraordinary rendition, all of which took place in secrecy.

Are you interested in buying a bridge?


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> A few more points these reality-distorting apologetics ignore:
> 
> If the economy is the concern, right now is the worst possible time for austerity measures.  The result will be slowed economic recovery and slower job growth.  Which results in less revenues leading to the need for even more cuts.  Brilliant thinking again.
> 
> ...



It's treason and criminal....


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 2, 2011)

Soime simple steps to help  fix it.
1. remove the bars from inside the halls of congres. (they may *ALL* be sober next time they vote).
2. Retro grade their retirement packages comenserate with time served. (If you only hold office for 2 years. you get retirement until you die just doesn't sound right to me)
3. go to the gas station and fill up like the rest of us do. Drive yourself no more limos and drivers.
4. buy your own plane tickets and quit hitching rides on govmt aircraft that are not going your direction.
5. Get an HMO or PPO like the rest of us pay your co-pay as well.
6. Have your employers (the citizens) approve your raise or not.
7. Mandatory retirement after 20 or 30 years served (How long was Strom or Ted around again?? a bazillion years).
8. Ya only get 3 weeks vacation and 1 week sick time a year (then they might have to acctually work for a living).
9. 30 minute lunch and 2 10 minute breaks for ever 8 hrs worked (we'll let ya have the weekends off, mostly so ya can't pull a fast one on us late friday night).
10. Car allowance and no more company owned and maintained car (you take it to the shop when it breaks and use your vacation/sick time).


Crap it aint rocket seince, just do what the rest of us do everyday.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

Since the debt service was never in jeapordy to begin with the democrats holding up the debate because they just want to keep spending is the problem.  The threats against seniors, the military and anyone else that the democrats use as human shields to their spending is the real crime.  Remember, more than enough money comes in every month to service the debt.  The tea party wanted 2 dollars in cuts for every dollar in the debt limit increase.  Wow, I'm surprised they didn't just detonate their suicide vests over that extreme demand.  The cut,cap and balance approach was sensible and mild compared to what we are going to face when these politicians aren't stopped.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

A little commentary on the cartoonist who imagines Obama sending in SEALS to kill tea party members:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/319571.php

from the article:

So, let's see-- in that one paragraph, Tea Party Congressmen are compared to 1, Nazi totalitarians, 2, Islamist totalitarians, and 3, Communist totalitarians.
Incidentally, _America has gone to war with all three groups._
Does anyone in the media notice this? Or are they having too much fun making the comparisons to realize how breathtakingly contradictory and self-serving they're being?
In a blog post, John Podhoretz notices.
Jonah Goldberg s a remarkable rant about press bias over at National Review Online you really have to read. [I linked it earlier-- ace] He takes on the fact that liberal commentators and liberal politicals now feel entirely free to refer to conservative Republicans, especially those aligned with the Tea Party, as terrorists, jihadists, thugs, dictators, and the like, without fearing the consequences of media blowback. But I&#8217;m struck by a quality shared by all those who engage in increasingly uncontrolled rhetoric about the role of the members of Congress who opposed a debt-ceiling increase and any deal: They sound impotent.They are hurling violent words at the people they dislike because they cannot believe their own arguments are not winning the day....
It isn&#8217;t, of course. These words are tossed about because the people who speak them are becoming aware of the fact that they have lost the national argument they believed they had won in 2008. They are revealing themselves as losers, sore losers, bad losers. And Joe Nocera, Paul Krugman, Fareed Zakaria, and others aren&#8217;t making arguments.​Again, it must be underlined that _Gabby Giffords, the wounded woman said to have been shot due to such angry talk, just returned to Congress today,_ and even that poignant fact is not enough to cause a single liberal a moment of introspection and self-evaluation.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

On the rhetoric of tax increases, by Jonah Goldberg:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272462/terminology-taxation-jonah-goldberg#

From the article:

Ask almost any Republican politician, from lobster-roll-eating northeastern &#8220;RINOs&#8221; (Republicans in name only) to flinty, leather-skinned westerners with calluses on their trigger fingers, to explain why high taxes​ are bad, and they&#8217;ll do a pretty good job of selling it.
Ask almost any Democrat to explain why high taxes are bad, and you will get hit with the velvet fog, minus the velvet. First they&#8217;ll explain that while they do favor &#8220;increasing revenues,&#8221; they don&#8217;t favor higher taxes if by &#8220;high taxes&#8221; you mean taxes that are &#8220;too high.&#8221; They favor &#8220;smart&#8221; tax rates that are &#8220;targeted&#8221; (i.e., &#8220;higher&#8221. Then they&#8217;ll explain that they don&#8217;t want to raise your taxes; they want to raise taxes on your boss, your employer, and the companies that sell you gas, cars​, cigarettes, food, clothes, electricity, and various &#8220;unnecessary&#8221; surgical procedures. They leave out that those taxes get passed on to you.
Then, they&#8217;ll rush to safer territory: all of the wonderful things government does. Government, don&#8217;t you know, is just the word we use for all the things we do together. So every time you cut a check to the IRS, an angel gets its wings.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

Here is Jonah Goldberg on the name calling:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/273444/hell-you-people-jonah-goldberg

From the article:

So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman &#8212; who knows a bit about Hezbollah &#8212; calls the tea partiers the &#8220;Hezbollah faction&#8221; of the GOP bent on taking the country on a &#8220;suicide mission.&#8221; All over the place, conservative Republicans are &#8220;hostage takers&#8221; and &#8220;terrorists,&#8221; &#8220;terrorists&#8221; and &#8220;traitors.&#8221; They want to &#8220;end life as we know it on this planet,&#8221; says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the &#8220;Make an *** of Yourself&#8221; contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that &#8220;the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.&#8221; Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.
Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.
No one cares. I hate the &#8220;if this were Bush&#8221; game so we&#8217;re in luck. Instead imagine if this was_Dick Cheney _calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they&#8217;re called) a &#8220;bunch of terrorists&#8221; on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would _Meet the Press_ debate whether this raises &#8220;troubling questions&#8221; about the White House&#8217;s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for Dick Cheney&#8217;s viciousness? Would Keith Olbermann explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone&#8217;s music in _Rock and Roll High School_? Something inside me hidden away shouts, &#8220;Hell yes they would!&#8221;


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 2, 2011)

Neither party -- and damn few members of Congress individually -- have clean hands over this debacle.  Their insistence on playing political brinksmanship with each other, with eyes on the next election, brought us to the absolute verge of default, and simply delayed resolution.  We still don't have a budget for the current fiscal year, let alone significant progress for the next.  And we never had one for the last.

They aren't doing their damn job.  I'm on the verge of simply voting for the most nutbar fringe person I can -- even if I have to write 'em in -- for every election for the next several years.  Run 'em all out, put the admitted and obvious loons in, and who knows, they may actually do some good.  Hell, maybe we need to start drafting federal elected officials so that anyone who actually wants the job can't get it.


----------



## David43515 (Aug 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Some Republicans used the threat of national default with all the attendant known and unknown consequences as a means to advance their ideology. That is not in rational dispute. Lost jobs, skyrocketing interest rates, a possible economic collapse due to default - all of these things are of more import to the American people than some people calling other people mean names.
> 
> Don't want to be called a terrorist or a hostage-taker? Don't act like one.



So let me get this straight. If you think that spending more and more and more is good, and you are unwilling to look at any possibility of cutting spending on certain programs like high speed rail systems that no one wants or a stimulous package that arguably made lots of things worse.....you`re doing the nation`s business. Where as if you say that you won`t suport a bill that you honestly beleive will cost more money (that the govt doesn`t have) and make the situation worse you`re just "advancing an ideology" and acting like a terrorist, right? Got it.

I`ll have to remember to use that one the next time one of my daughters wants me to commit to spending money we don`t have on something we can`t afford. If I say "no" I`m acting like a terrorist.


----------



## granfire (Aug 2, 2011)

David43515 said:


> So let me get this straight. If you think that spending more and more and more is good, and you are unwilling to look at any possibility of cutting spending on certain programs like high speed rail systems that no one wants or a stimulous package that arguably made lots of things worse.....you`re doing the nation`s business. Where as if you say that you won`t suport a bill that you honestly beleive will cost more money (that the govt doesn`t have) and make the situation worse you`re just "advancing an ideology" and acting like a terrorist, right? Got it.
> 
> I`ll have to remember to use that one the next time one of my daughters wants me to commit to spending money we don`t have on something we can`t afford. If I say "no" I`m acting like a terrorist.



Normally you'd be right.
But they have been sitting around with their fingers up their.....
for 3 years now. Just so they could bombard any meaningful anything.
The tax cuts they don't give up, the cuts they demand to get from those who can't afford to lose any more...

The 'let's stick it to them' kind of politics is really criminal! Instead of high fiving each other they ought to be whipped and flogged!
Kids in the sand box get send home when they behave that badly.

And no, neither side is free of guilt!

I would not have called them terrorists, though hostage taker is pretty apt.
I would have called the US attorney on them. 
Putting the nation in this situation ought to constitute high treason!


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

Three years...hmmm...it seems as though the democrats were in control of the white house and congress for two years and still have not submitted a budget.  The republicans have, the democrats haven't.  The "budget process," only works when someone actually tries to submit a budget.  Once again, the democrats threatened seniors, the military and all sorts of other groups if they didn't get their way.  Who was holding who hostage?  The plan the tea party wanted would have increased the debt ceiling one dollar in exchange for two dollars in spending cuts, and yet they were the terrorists?  The republicans submitted cut cap and balance and the democrats refused to pass it.

voting in any nut is exactly what the establishment politicians want.  They know that they won't win and they will stay in office.  It is very important to vote in the primaries and remove all the politiicians who have been there too long.  The primaries are the key, that is how you take things back.  Vote out politicians who have already served, maybe, two terms in the house and one in the senate.  Clean the place out.  Get rid of the leadership of both parties and we'll start from scratch.


----------



## billc (Aug 2, 2011)

This is a response to a Pajamasmedia article that points out what was achieved in this debt deal: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/08/02/why-is-the-tea-party-complaining/

*5. Kipling*
If we won, then what did the Democrats actually lose? They got a spending increase. The cuts are not real cuts because they are only cuts in the projected spending increases &#8211; not actual cuts in expenditures. The Left got a super commission that will lead to tax increases or the crippling of our defense budget. Harry Reid told NPR that Boehner and McConnell agreed that &#8220;revenue increases&#8221; would be a part of any measure coming out of the commission. Mr. Obama gets to spend more money to buy more votes and Boehner and McConnell look like chumps for undermining their own legislation. Not to mention that we will face a loss in our credit rating because the whole debt ceiling compromise is a fraud.
I am not sure the republic can stand many more victories like this one.


----------



## blindsage (Aug 3, 2011)

My lord this thread is full of LOLs.  Please, please keep posting.


----------



## crushing (Aug 3, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> You do realize that the debt ceiling has been raised under every single president since it was introduced in 1917, including 8 times by GWB, right?



According to Politifact, it was *only* 7 times.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-reagan-raised-debt-ceiling-18-times-geo/



> "There were seven increases between January 2001 and January 2009 -- during George W. Bush's presidency. We should also note that it has been raised three times already under President Obama, on Feb. 17, 2009, Dec. 28, 2009 and Feb. 12, 2010."





> "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills," Obama said before a March 16, 2006, vote on raising the debt limit. The Senate narrowly approved raising the limit along partisan lines, 52-48, with all Democrats opposed.



People looking at the number of times it was raised may be why Obama wanted the "grand deal" and was willing to destroy the economy in order to not have to raise it again next year, especially with it being an election year. Some may equate his obstinate deal breaking stance as hostage taking or try to equate it to terrorism, but that just sounds ridiculous, except maybe to the partisan loyal opposition.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 3, 2011)

David43515 said:


> So let me get this straight. If you think that spending more and more and more is good, and you are unwilling to look at any possibility of cutting spending on certain programs like high speed rail systems that no one wants or a stimulous package that arguably made lots of things worse.....you`re doing the nation`s business. Where as if you say that you won`t suport a bill that you honestly beleive will cost more money (that the govt doesn`t have) and make the situation worse you`re just "advancing an ideology" and acting like a terrorist, right? Got it.
> 
> I`ll have to remember to use that one the next time one of my daughters wants me to commit to spending money we don`t have on something we can`t afford. If I say "no" I`m acting like a terrorist.



In your analogy, you've already spent the money on your daughter and the bill arrives.  Which you then refuse to pay because "you can't afford it."  You should have thought of that before you spent it.

Honorable people pay their bills.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 3, 2011)

TA FRIGGIN DA


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 3, 2011)

blindsage said:


> My lord this thread is full of LOLs. Please, please keep posting.



To steal a line from "Frasier", if the rhetoric in this thread was anymore twisted, it could open a wine bottle.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

Big Don said:


> TA FRIGGIN DA



the mean elefant is hurting the kwute wittle donkey!


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

No one was going to default on the debt, that was a scare tactic to push this through while trying to stampede the republicans into tax increases which would have damaged them with their base.   It didn't work because the tea party stood up to their own party to hold the line.  The deal is still bad, but increasing taxes would have made it even worse.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> No one was going to default on the debt, that was a scare tactic to push this through while trying to stampede the republicans into tax increases which would have damaged them with their base. It didn't work because the tea party stood up to their own party to hold the line. The deal is still bad, but increasing taxes would have made it even worse.



And in this narrative, the brave, noble Tea Partiers wield lightsabers and bolster the resolve of the bleaguered, failing Old Republic(an) Party who's under constant attack by the evil, corrupting Demoncratic Sith and its cowardly Emperor Obamatine. Your call where the Wookies factor in.

Edit: How could I forget this?!  :jediduel:


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> No one was going to default on the debt, that was a scare tactic to push this through while trying to stampede the republicans into tax increases which would have damaged them with their base.   It didn't work because the tea party stood up to their own party to hold the line.  The deal is still bad, but increasing taxes would have made it even worse.



There would have been no tax increases, tax cuts, deals good or bad, or anything else to even talk about if it wasn't for the Tea Party, because the debt ceiling increase would have been voted on in a non-controversial and bipartisan manner, as it has been for nearly 100 years, without them.  They created the very threat they were "standing strong" against.

In your fun little story, how do the positions of Tea Partiers like Michele Bachmann factor in who said she wouldn't vote against a ceiling increase *under any circumstances*?

The apologetics are getting pathetic.  They don't even make sense.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

Yes, thanks to the tea party the assumption that if congress just keeps spending, they can just raise the debt limit, which posters here have pointed out, in a non-controversial and bipartisan manner, over and over and over again without regard to fiscal responsiblity, is over.  Does anyone think that it is a good idea for congress to just keep spending and then just raising the debt limit without anyone saying, hmmm...maybe we should change the way this whole process works.  Burn through one credt card and just give yourself another one, and on and on.  Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a big government liberal?


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

From pajamasmedia.com:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/03/my-email-to-charles-lane-of-the-wapo/

from the article:

[h=2]My email to Charles Lane of the Washington Post re: the &#8216;Tea Party = Terrorists&#8217; Meme[/h]Today, editorial writer Charles Lane wrote an opinion piece for the _Washington Post_ in which he (correctly) points out what a political blunder it is for the Democrats to start describing the Tea Party as &#8220;terrorists.&#8221; But in so doing, he carelessly repeated an _earlier_ slandering of the Tea Party.
I quickly tracked down the _Post_&#8216;s contact form for Lane, and just now zipped him this email:
Dear Mr. Lane,
Regarding your opinion piece today in the _Washington Post_ entitled &#8220;Tea Party terror?&#8221; about the new incivility in political discourse:
Your basic premise &#8212; that it&#8217;s a strategic mistake for the Democrats to demonize their political opponents as &#8220;terrorists&#8221; &#8212; is a valid premise. But unfortunately in the first paragraph you already undermine your thesis by parroting an untruth that itself was part of an _earlier_ round of demonization.
You say,
&#8220;If liberals believe anything, it is that the right is either solely, or mostly, responsible for the degradation of political discourse in America. And they are surely correct to condemn such ugly rhetorical excesses as the Obama-is-Hitler placards that flowered across the land in the summer of 2009.&#8221;​Now, I dare you to peruse these two blog posts I made in 2009 in response to that false charge, and tell me if it was the right or the left who started calling the president &#8220;Hitler,&#8221; and which side is the most extreme:
*Bush as Hitler, Swastika-Mania: A Retrospective*
*Death Threats Against Bush at Protests Ignored for Years*
Furthermore, you certainly must know as well as anyone that the false charge that the Tea Party was displaying &#8220;Obama=Hitler&#8221; signs was roundly debunked at the time: turns out that 99% of such signs depicted in the media were being displayed by Lyndon LaRouche proponents who showed up uninvited at Tea Party events and who were most definitely not in any way connected with the Tea Party (the LaRouche group is a bizarre left-leaning conspiracy cult). Yet even so, the charge (that the Tea Party degraded itself _en masse_ by comparing Obama to Hitler) was run up the flagpole, everybody in the media saluted, and then it was instantly ossified as fact, despite being almost instantly disproven by various blogs (including mine).
Not only that, but the same LaRouchites frequently show up at _left_-wing rallies too, but no one ever condemns the left because of it &#8212; such as in this picture I recently took at an anti-war rally:


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Yes, thanks to the tea party the assumption that if congress just keeps spending, they can just raise the debt limit, which posters here have pointed out, in a non-controversial and bipartisan manner, over and over and over again without regard to fiscal responsiblity, is over.  Does anyone think that it is a good idea for congress to just keep spending and then just raising the debt limit without anyone saying, hmmm...maybe we should change the way this whole process works.  Burn through one credt card and just give yourself another one, and on and on.  Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a big government liberal?



you are so full of it, your breath stinks.....

It's more like thanks to the Tea Party the nation almost lost face (or whatever is left of it since GWB)


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Does anyone think that it is a good idea for congress to just keep spending and then just raising the debt limit without anyone saying, hmmm...maybe we should change the way this whole process works.  Burn through one credt card and just give yourself another one, and on and on.



Again, you conflate separate issues.  Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending.  *It authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred.  *It is the credit card bill arriving in the mail, which you have somehow convinced yourself that it's wise not to pay.  Stop spending so much?  Yes.  Pay the bills already incurred so that the entire financial system doesn't go up in smoke?  Also yes.

You can  only defend this by repeatedly calling it something it is not.



billcihak said:


> Does that make sense to anyone who isn't a big government liberal?



Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, and George W Bush are now "big government liberals"?  As are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and John McCain?  

If meeting your obligations makes you a big government liberal, then sign me up.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, you conflate separate issues.  Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending.  *It authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred.  *It is the credit card bill arriving in the mail, which you have somehow convinced yourself that it's wise not to pay.  Stop spending so much?  Yes.  Pay the bills already incurred so that the entire financial system doesn't go up in smoke?  Also yes.
> 
> You can  only defend this by repeatedly calling it something it is not.
> 
> ...




I don't know, but isn't paying your bills considered fiscal conservative?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> I don't know, but isn't paying your bills considered fiscal conservative?



There is precious little conservative about today's conservatives.  

That's too bad, because we could use some actual conservatives.  Ones that want to defend the Constitution and our civil liberties.  Ones that want to stop the destruction of our moral authority through torture and other immoral means.  Ones that don't consider the potential destruction of the world economy an acceptable political tactic.  Ones that could counter the excesses of the Obama administration and their shameful record on civil liberties and war.

Alas, anyone who believes along those lines is labeled either a "RINO" or a Democrat.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> There is precious little conservative about today's conservatives.
> 
> That's too bad, because we could use some actual conservatives.  Ones that want to defend the Constitution and our civil liberties.  Ones that want to stop the destruction of our moral authority through torture and other immoral means.  Ones that don't consider the potential destruction of the world economy an acceptable political tactic.  Ones that could counter the excesses of the Obama administration and their shameful record on civil liberties and war.
> 
> Alas, anyone who believes along those lines is labeled either a "RINO" or a Democrat.



Sounds like liberal you and communist me....


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

the article:
http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/08/03/tea-party-group-responds-to-lawmaker-media-attacks/

from the article:

The St. Louis Tea Party condemns the comparison of private citizens who desire fiscal restraint in Washington to murderous terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans world-wide.
&#8220;It&#8217;s reprehensible to me that our Vice-President and other elected leaders would make such a grotesque analogy when in just over a month we will mark the tenth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil,&#8221; remarks Dana Loesch, Co-Founder of the St. Louis Tea Party.
&#8220;It&#8217;s an insult to Americans and the Democratic process to refer to dissenting Americans in such a way,&#8221; says Bill Hennessy, St. Louis Tea Party Co-Founder. &#8220;Are our elected leaders so out of touch with what terrorism actually is that they are willing to defame, by way of analogy, a vast group of people? We have members who lost friends to terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. We do not have any members who have lost friends due to peaceful protest.&#8221;


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

Here is a great article about the left overusing words when they have hissy fits.

http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/08/03/liberals-please-stop-using-the-word-terrorists-its-one-of-our-only-good-word-left/

from the article:

Look leftists, you&#8217;ve taken every good word that use to mean something and run it into the ground. Because of your overuse brought on by your hysteria and uncontrollable tantrums, the once strong words that specifically defined someone has been rendered impotent &#8211; much like your brains.


Here are a few examples of watered-down words in modern American lexicon.
*Fascist*. That was a good one. But no, you went and watered it down. It was once a serious word that described a real threat and a growing ideology. Now it&#8217;s used to describe those who believe that &#8220;In God We Trust&#8221; on our currency is OK. Or simply just happen to disagree with you over the right to prayer at a high school graduation.
*Nazi*. A little more nuanced than fascism but doubly meaningful when directed at someone. Nazism was the closest thing to the Devil&#8217;s army that man has ever produced. Writers have been trying for over 60 years to understand its origins and existence. It&#8217;s so deep and dark and evil that it was really a rare phenomenon in human history. So inhuman were their actions, we still can&#8217;t grasp it all. Now ironically, if you are pro-life, you are a Nazi.
*Racist*. Ah, now there&#8217;s a word you never get tired of hearing. Racism is a clinical condition. I personally think you have to be somewhat insane to fully subscribe to it. That&#8217;s not to say there aren&#8217;t real differences between cultures and values. And certainly some are indeed better than others. See, I&#8217;m a racist. I just held and expressed a less than flattering idea. Ergo, racist! That&#8217;s not its only use, though. If you are pounding a liberal opponent in debate, you can expect to be called racist. For instance, if you hold the view that lower taxes are better than higher taxes, you run the danger of being a racist. It is like the nuclear bomb in the liberal arsenal.
Which now leads us here.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Here is a great article about the left overusing words when they have hissy fits.
> 
> http://biggovernment.com/jbradley/2011/08/03/liberals-please-stop-using-the-word-terrorists-its-one-of-our-only-good-word-left/
> 
> ...



where is the article about you overusing terms?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 3, 2011)

Wow...

Anybody getting a little warm?  Maybe under the collar there? 

I got an idea...  Let's keep to the issues and maybe hold back some of the shots, 'k?


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Wow...
> 
> Anybody getting a little warm?  Maybe under the collar there?
> 
> I got an idea...  Let's keep to the issues and maybe hold back some of the shots, 'k?



Been too hot all day, why?


OOOHHHH, you mean....

NEVER MIND.....

<off to take a cold shower>


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Again, you conflate separate issues. Raising the debt ceiling does not increase spending. *It authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred. *It is the credit card bill arriving in the mail, which you have somehow convinced yourself that it's wise not to pay. Stop spending so much? Yes. Pay the bills already incurred so that the entire financial system doesn't go up in smoke? Also yes.



My admittedly limited understanding of the debt ceiling was that it was the amount, by statute, that limited how much Congress could borrow per fiscal year, as a total for all programs.  In other words, the intuitive meaning of "debt ceiling".  You're saying it's the opposite: authorization to pay off debts incurred, rather than authorization to take on more debt.  Mind elaborating for me, since I'd hate to be running on such an important misconception?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> You're saying it's the opposite: authorization to pay off debts incurred, rather than authorization to take on more debt.  Mind elaborating for me, since I'd hate to be running on such an important misconception?



It is a statutory limit on the total amount of debt able to be incurred.  It is not authorization to take on specific debt, that is accomplished through the budget process (which originates in the House).  Due to budgets passed by recent Congresses, we sailed past that limit on December 16, 2009.  So the money was spent, and the limit already exceeded.  Without the statutory extension of the debt limit, the Government would have needed to either immediately cut all spending by 40%, default on bond obligations, or some mix of the two.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> It is a statutory limit on the total amount of debt able to be incurred. It is not authorization to take on specific debt, that is accomplished through the budget process (which originates in the House). Due to budgets passed by recent Congresses, we sailed past that limit on December 16, 2009. So the money was spent, and the limit already exceeded. Without the statutory extension of the debt limit, the Government would have needed to either immediately cut all spending by 40%, default on bond obligations, or some mix of the two.



So by raising the debt limit, Congress is authorized to take on more debt to pay that already owed. That avoids default, which is certainly a good thing, but it still sounds like just adding more to the problem. It's also assuming that's what the new money acquired is actually spent on, or will they just continue sailing? 

Again, I ask these as a sideliner. All I know for certain is that the last six weeks was spent arguing and risking default over a fairly standard procedure. The rest I'm relatively clueless on.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> So by raising the debt limit, Congress is authorized to take on more debt to pay that already owed. That avoids default, which is certainly a good thing, but it still sounds like just adding more to the problem. It's also assuming that's what the new money acquired is actually spent on, or will they just continue sailing?



No money can be appropriated except through the budget process (basically).  Deciding to spend is done in the yearly budget.  The debt ceiling is a separate total borrowing authority, but it makes no decisions upon what or if money will be spent.  We could in theory have a debt ceiling of 500 trillion dollars and a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (what we have now).  There is no causal connection.  You could even have a national surplus and still have a high debt ceiling.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> No money can be appropriated except through the budget process (basically). Deciding to spend is done in the yearly budget. The debt ceiling is a separate total borrowing authority, but it makes no decisions upon what or if money will be spent. We could in theory have a debt ceiling of 500 trillion dollars and a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (what we have now). There is no causal connection. You could even have a national surplus and still have a high debt ceiling.



I guess what I'm trying to ask is how raising the debt ceiling "*authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred*", instead of authorizing more spending.  You're saying that it's a specifically responsible decision that conservatives should be backing, instead of the decision to borrow even more which they would not.  If I understand things correctly, anyway.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Ask him how much the actual service on the debt is, and how much we take in each month in government revenue.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Ask him how much the actual service on the debt is, and *how much we take in each month in government revenue*.



And,while you're at it,ask how much of our budget is devoted to defense spending, and what the government is doing-and remember, _we're_ supposed to be the government-about increasing revenue....


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

double post.  Sorry.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Don't worry, Obama and the democrats are doing there best to cut off the military.  the Russians and chinese really appreciate their efforts.  Our friends and allies, not so much.

While we are on the topic of the debt deal, why doesn't someone look up what exactly the tea party republicans wanted in exchange for the increase in the debt ceiling?  What did they want that was so important that they would have set off their suicide vests if they didn't get it?  What completely unreasonable requests did they make that were beyond the pale?  Inquiring minds would like to know.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Here is the Cut cap and balance plan:

http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/

Wow, you read that and you can see how crazy these tea party guys are...NOT.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

I guess 2/3 rds of americans are terrorists:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...ricans-support-house-cut-cap-and-balance-plan

The poll in the article is from CNN.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 4, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I guess what I'm trying to ask is how raising the debt ceiling "*authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred*", instead of authorizing more spending.



The debt ceiling is not a spending authorization.  That occurs through the budget and appropriations process.  It doesn't matter if the debt ceiling is eleventy billion trillion gazillion, not a single penny can be spent without a budget authorized by Congress.  That is where the decision to spend or not spend occurs.  That is why without a budget or a continuing resolution, the government shuts down - as it did in 1994.  The debt ceiling and the budget are entirely separate.



RandomPhantom700 said:


> You're saying that it's a specifically responsible decision that conservatives should be backing, instead of the decision to borrow even more which they would not.  If I understand things correctly, anyway.



What I am trying to get across here is that *the borrowing has already happened*.  The budgets were approved by Congress, which pushed us past the debt ceiling last December.  The spending and appropriations had already occurred.  That is why we're even using the word "default."  For instance, in 1994 when the government shut down and there was no budget, there wasn't a default.  

That is why the responsible decision is to raise the debt ceiling to pay for what has already been spent.  The responsible point of time to slash spending is during the budget and appropriations process.  Even a government shutdown is defensible, and I might disagree, but I could understand it.  Default is completely and totally indefensible however, and grossly irresponsible.  The decision to spend or not to spend should be made when you are pulling out your wallet, not when the credit card bill arrives in the mail.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

There was not going to be a default.


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 4, 2011)

MIght be off topic but it relates.

Name changeing.

Govmt doesn't produce a widget. So their income is a TAX. How do we now call it Revenue (both sides are doing it)?


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

People don't like Taxes, so the politicians need something that fools people.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 4, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> No money can be appropriated except through the budget process (basically).  Deciding to spend is done in the yearly budget.  The debt ceiling is a separate total borrowing authority, but it makes no decisions upon what or if money will be spent.  We could in theory have a debt ceiling of 500 trillion dollars and a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (what we have now).  There is no causal connection.  You could even have a national surplus and still have a high debt ceiling.


As I understand it, the debt ceiling is kind of like the credit limit on a credit card.  You don't have to max the card out -- and we don't HAVE to max the debt ceiling out (in theory...  practice has become something different.)


----------

