The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Are we talking about the social programs I'll pay more into with FICA taxes than I'll collect, or just social programs in general?

What does that have to do with anything? For some people to get paid by social programs when they have no income, some people have to pay in but never have anything paid out. I assume if you'll never receive anything from them, that you are doing pretty well. The problem many people have is thinking that it isn't fair that they pay in if they never get paid out. It's a social program for a reason, it's to help those who can't help themselves. (Obviously I do not believe those that are gaming the system should be getting paid, there is quite a bit of reform that could be done to these programs to try to reduce the waste and cheating that goes on.)

That was never the intent, although that is where it is headed.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The GOP had this planned before the shutdown... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A

Wow, good find. There is no doubt about who wants the government shut down.

The Democrats?! Since they could have ended this by now and instead they are intent on shutting down the oceans and parks and dismantling water fountains

Are you on PCP right now?

Democrats care more about their pride than opening the government, are you on H?

You're denying reality like it's your job

So funny. So tragic. So true.

So the Democrats couldn't end this even if they wanted to? Right. They made concessions and deals with their political cronies and big business but somehow they can't negotiate now when it comes to the American people?

Keep your head in the sand, Obamabot.

 

[DrJ]

Are we talking about the social programs I'll pay more into with FICA taxes than I'll collect, or just social programs in general?

What does that have to do with anything? For some people to get paid by social programs when they have no income, some people have to pay in but never have anything paid out. I assume if you'll never receive anything from them, that you are doing pretty well. The problem many people have is thinking that it isn't fair that they pay in if they never get paid out. It's a social program for a reason, it's to help those who can't help themselves. (Obviously I do not believe those that are gaming the system should be getting paid, there is quite a bit of reform that could be done to these programs to try to reduce the waste and cheating that goes on.)

I assume if you'll never receive anything from them that you're going to die before you reach retirement age. That's not so good.

 

[Maelstrom]

Are we talking about the social programs I'll pay more into with FICA taxes than I'll collect, or just social programs in general?

What does that have to do with anything? For some people to get paid by social programs when they have no income, some people have to pay in but never have anything paid out. I assume if you'll never receive anything from them, that you are doing pretty well. The problem many people have is thinking that it isn't fair that they pay in if they never get paid out. It's a social program for a reason, it's to help those who can't help themselves. (Obviously I do not believe those that are gaming the system should be getting paid, there is quite a bit of reform that could be done to these programs to try to reduce the waste and cheating that goes on.)

That was never the intent, although that is where it is headed.

I think it depends whether this is about Social Security Disability or about Social Security for retirement.

But maybe you'd like to elaborate?

 

[Henry Ford]

Are we talking about the social programs I'll pay more into with FICA taxes than I'll collect, or just social programs in general?

What does that have to do with anything? For some people to get paid by social programs when they have no income, some people have to pay in but never have anything paid out. I assume if you'll never receive anything from them, that you are doing pretty well. The problem many people have is thinking that it isn't fair that they pay in if they never get paid out. It's a social program for a reason, it's to help those who can't help themselves. (Obviously I do not believe those that are gaming the system should be getting paid, there is quite a bit of reform that could be done to these programs to try to reduce the waste and cheating that goes on.)

What it has to do with, is the fact that if I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into a retirement program, and then receive my benefits from it, which are expected to be less than I pay in, and then someone calls it an "entitlement" program, that person would be an idiot.

 

[DrJ]

Are we talking about the social programs I'll pay more into with FICA taxes than I'll collect, or just social programs in general?

What does that have to do with anything? For some people to get paid by social programs when they have no income, some people have to pay in but never have anything paid out. I assume if you'll never receive anything from them, that you are doing pretty well. The problem many people have is thinking that it isn't fair that they pay in if they never get paid out. It's a social program for a reason, it's to help those who can't help themselves. (Obviously I do not believe those that are gaming the system should be getting paid, there is quite a bit of reform that could be done to these programs to try to reduce the waste and cheating that goes on.)

What it has to do with, is the fact that if I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars into a retirement program, and then receive my benefits from it, which are expected to be less than I pay in, and then someone calls it an "entitlement" program, that person would be an idiot.

The main problem is that you got into the program at the wrong time. If you had gotten in at the start you could be like Ida May Fuller. That's part of the problem with programs that resemble Ponzi schemes.

 

[DrJ]

How does this nation achieve cuts in spending again?

It doesn't.

Sure it does. Every time we raise taxes.

Outside of the years after leaving WW2, spending never goes down.Also, I personally love this quote from your article:

In 2005, federal revenues were 17.8 percent of GDP. My estimate is that an increase of federal revenues to about 19 percent of GDP would be necessary to stabilize the federal spending percent of GDP. Control of at least one house of Congress by the Democrats, however, is likely to be necessary to achieve this outcome.

Funny, because Democrats having super majorities in both houses and the Presidency isn't enough to achieve this. Might want to stop deluding yourself that they have any interest whatsoever in actually achieving it.Meanwhile, the only group concerned with fiscal sanity is labeled as kooks. Awesome times.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Meanwhile, the only group concerned with fiscal sanity is labeled as kooks. Awesome times.

The brain trust that believes defense is untouchable, social security is essential, keep government's hands of Medicare, and "taxed enough already" might be concerned, but they are clueless in how to achieve sanity.

 

[Joe T]

So when the democrats use the debt ceiling as a negotiating tactic it's called "playing hardball" but when the republicans do it then it's called "holding the country hostage." Sounds about right.

 

[Dr Oadi]

So when the democrats use the debt ceiling as a negotiating tactic it's called "playing hardball" but when the republicans do it then it's called "holding the country hostage." Sounds about right.

Teabaggers started it!

 

[Otis]

Seriously how does Boehner still have a job? I don't care whose side your on, that part makes no sense.

 

[Mario Kart]

So, has Reid done the right thing yet? No? Okay, carry on.

 

[rolyaTy]

How does this nation achieve cuts in spending again?

It doesn't.

Sure it does. Every time we raise taxes.

Outside of the years after leaving WW2, spending never goes down.Also, I personally love this quote from your article:

In 2005, federal revenues were 17.8 percent of GDP. My estimate is that an increase of federal revenues to about 19 percent of GDP would be necessary to stabilize the federal spending percent of GDP. Control of at least one house of Congress by the Democrats, however, is likely to be necessary to achieve this outcome.

Funny, because Democrats having super majorities in both houses and the Presidency isn't enough to achieve this. Might want to stop deluding yourself that they have any interest whatsoever in actually achieving it.Meanwhile, the only group concerned with fiscal sanity is labeled as kooks. Awesome times.

They don't care about fiscal sanity, they care about dismantling a version of the government they're ideologically opposed to, and they wrap this objective in talk of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-senate-impasse-continues-98239.html?hp=t1

Senate leaders remained stuck Sunday over federal funding levels and the length of an increase to the national borrowing limit as they struggled to cut a last-ditch deal to reopen the government and avert the first-ever U.S. debt default.

With the government shutdown approaching its third week and the country poised to exhaust its borrowing authority Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were still trying to hammer out a potential deal. But as of Sunday afternoon, significant hurdles remained, and McConnell slammed Democratic leaders for rebuffing a proposal by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to end the impasse.

Reid and McConnell didn’t speak by phone until mid-Sunday afternoon, a call that a Democratic source characterized as “cordial but inconclusive.” It was the first time Reid called since the two leaders had met Saturday morning, a GOP aide said.

“Our discussions were substantive, and we’ll continue those discussions,” Reid said on the floor late Sunday afternoon. “I’m optimistic about the prospects for a positive conclusion to the issues before this country today.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a close Reid ally, said the two men were “moving closer” after their “good talk today.”

Monday will be critical. With financial markets fearful of a prolonged impasse, there is little margin for error before Thursday, when the Treasury Department warns the government will begin to run out of money and could fail to pay its bills for the first time in history. That possibility would intensify a budget crisis that started Oct. 1, when government agencies shuttered for the first time in 17 years because of lawmakers’ inability to pass a funding bill on time.

It’s far from clear how the high-stakes fight will play out this week. Republicans have already dropped their push to gut Obamacare, which prompted the shutdown in the first place. But McConnell has yet to accept Democratic demands for higher spending levels for at least a portion of the current fiscal year.

Some Democrats began privately floating the possibility of a deal where Democrats would agree to the lower funding levels while Obamacare would be completely untouched. The two sides could then fight out the larger budget issues ahead of next round of sequestration cuts in mid-January.

But talks remained fluid — and the political pressure is beginning to grow more intense.

McConnell, who faces a tough reelection battle next year in Kentucky, is in a particularly tricky spot. If he accepts higher spending levels, he’ll be derided by conservatives for caving at a critical moment, and the plan could face a hostile reception from House Speaker John Boehner’s raucous Republican Conference. But if he can’t get a deal with Reid, Democrats will accuse him of helping perpetuate a damaging fiscal crisis.

Republicans began to warn Sunday the White House and Reid were in danger of “overreaching” themselves, arguing that Democrats were showing little willingness to make any concessions even as the GOP was eagerly looking for a way out of a crisis that has badly hurt its party.

“It’s time for Democrat leaders to take yes for an answer,” McConnell said Sunday before his call with Reid.

Republican leaders are eager to lock in funding levels consistent with the automatic sequestration cuts enacted by the 2011 Budget Control Act, meaning government funding would be slashed to $967 billion after Jan. 15, 2014. That number is far too low for many Democrats, including Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is pushing for funding at $1.058 trillion, consistent with the Democratic budget blueprint adopted by the Senate earlier this year.

Already, Reid has compromised on that number, agreeing to fund the government until mid-November at $986 billion, prompting major consternation among the left in his caucus. He refuses to go any lower or extend government funding at that level through January of next year, when an additional $21 billion would be cut because of the sequester.

On Sunday, Reid’s deputy, Senate Majority Whip **** Durbin (D-Ill.), suggested that a bipartisan accord could be reached between $986 billion and $1.058 trillion.

“Clearly, we need to negotiate between those two — that’s roughly $70 billion,” Durbin said just off the Senate floor.

Still, other Republicans said they didn’t believe McConnell, as their chief negotiator, would agree to spending above the $967 billion level that is slated to kick in during January.

“To agree to something … that raises spending from already pre-agreed levels, I just can’t imagine that,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Sunday. “I can’t imagine that has any possibility of becoming law.”

 

[rolyaTy]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

Still no link?

 

[timschochet]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

Still no link?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=682294&p=16069389

Tim posted it for me. Try reading it.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Just a reminder of GOP demands:

Our Debt Limit Bill on Friday

 One Year Debt Limit Increase
o Not a dollar amount increase, but suspending the debt limit until the end of December 2014.
 Similar to what we did earlier this year.
o Want the year long to align with the year delay of Obamacare.

 One Year Obamacare delay

 Tax Reform Instructions
o Similar to a bill we passed last fall, laying out broad from Ryan Budget principles for what tax
reform should look like.
o Gives fast track authority for tax reform legislation

 Energy and regulatory reforms to promote economic growth
o Includes pretty much every jobs bill we have passed this year and last Congress
o All of these policies have important positive economic effects.
o Energy provisions
 Keystone Pipeline
 Coal Ash regulations
 Offshore drilling
 Energy production on federal lands
 EPA Carbon regulations
o Regulatory reform
 REINS Act
 Regulatory process reform
 Consent decree reform
 Blocking Net Neutrality

 Mandatory Spending Reforms
o Mostly from the sequester replacement bills we passed last year
o Federal Employee retirement reform
o Ending the Dodd Frank bailout fund
o Transitioning CFPB funding to Appropriations
o Child Tax Credit Reform to prevent fraud
o Repealing the Social Services Block grant

 Health Spending Reforms
o Means testing Medicare
o Repealing a Medicaid Provider tax gimmick
o Tort reform
o Altering Disproportion Share Hospitals
o Repealing the Public Health trust Fund

Obamacare/ACA is just one facet of the demands.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Not unless critical means knob slobbing on your knees all of a sudden.

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Democrats are now making demands to change an existing law (The Budget Control Act of 2011) before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling. I'm absolutely shocked that you somehow will find this okay after railing on the republicans for doing the exact same thing.

 

[jon_mx]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

There are lots of outs from both sides. Obama could have ended this last week easily without really giving up nothing. Leading from spite instead of leading for what is best for the country is not a very appealing quality for a President. If you wish to defend that kind of crap, that is your prerogative. But your hatred of the tea party distorts your views.

 

[timschochet]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Democrats are now making demands to change an existing law (The Budget Control Act of 2011) before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling. I'm absolutely shocked that you somehow will find this okay after railing on the republicans for doing the exact same thing.

I actually DON'T find this OK. But you're wrong as usual. The Democrats agree to raise the debt ceiling right now, without any conditions whatsoever. The Republicans have made a series of demands. The Democrats will agree to some of their demands, in exchange for other stuff that they want. I don't especially like that, and I've expressed my dislike over several posts. But again, if the Republicans were to raise the debt ceiling right now, without ANY conditions, the Dems would go for it. It is the Republicans who are demanding conditions in the first place.

 

[Joe T]

To be clear, Tim has around 500 posts in this thread alone blaming the Republicans for wanting to negotiate over Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) while not raising the debt ceiling. I can't count the number of times, I've read that the Republicans are holding the economy hostage for negotiating this.

But I can't wait to read how it is okay for the Democrats to negotiate the Sequester (Budget Control Act of 2011) and its terms while not raising the debt ceiling. I'm sure in Tim's eyes the two are completely different and negotiating existing law while not raising the debt ceiling is okay this time.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Open government, raise the debt limit. And then get what you can get through the normal give and take of politics without taking hostages.

Pretty simple really.

 

[timschochet]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

There are lots of outs from both sides. Obama could have ended this last week easily without really giving up nothing. Leading from spite instead of leading for what is best for the country is not a very appealing quality for a President. If you wish to defend that kind of crap, that is your prerogative. But your hatred of the tea party distorts your views.

FWIW I agree with the bolded, somewhat. I think at this point Obama and the Dems are overreaching. How many times do I have to write it?

However, I don't believe Obama is leading from spite; rather, he is trying to get as much as he can given the situation. It's understandable, but IMO unwise.

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Democrats are now making demands to change an existing law (The Budget Control Act of 2011) before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling. I'm absolutely shocked that you somehow will find this okay after railing on the republicans for doing the exact same thing.

I actually DON'T find this OK. But you're wrong as usual. The Democrats agree to raise the debt ceiling right now, without any conditions whatsoever. The Republicans have made a series of demands. The Democrats will agree to some of their demands, in exchange for other stuff that they want. I don't especially like that, and I've expressed my dislike over several posts. But again, if the Republicans were to raise the debt ceiling right now, without ANY conditions, the Dems would go for it. It is the Republicans who are demanding conditions in the first place.

The republicans gave in to basically everything, but now the Democrats are asking for changes to the Sequester. This is no longer "completely the Republicans fault." Sorry.

 

[Joe T]

Open government, raise the debt limit. And then get what you can get through the normal give and take of politics without taking hostages.

Pretty simple really.

Agree. Not sure why the democrats won't do this without changing the sequester and taking the entire world and women and children hostage.

 

[timschochet]

To be clear, Tim has around 500 posts in this thread alone blaming the Republicans for wanting to negotiate over Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) while not raising the debt ceiling. I can't count the number of times, I've read that the Republicans are holding the economy hostage for negotiating this.

But I can't wait to read how it is okay for the Democrats to negotiate the Sequester (Budget Control Act of 2011) and its terms while not raising the debt ceiling. I'm sure in Tim's eyes the two are completely different and negotiating existing law while not raising the debt ceiling is okay this time.

For the umpteenth time: the Democratic position is to raise the debt ceiling and fund the government without any conditions whatsoever. It is only in response to Republican conditions that the Democrats have conditions of their own. Despite the fact that you refuse to understand this, hopefully others reading this won't.

 

[timschochet]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Democrats are now making demands to change an existing law (The Budget Control Act of 2011) before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling. I'm absolutely shocked that you somehow will find this okay after railing on the republicans for doing the exact same thing.

I actually DON'T find this OK. But you're wrong as usual. The Democrats agree to raise the debt ceiling right now, without any conditions whatsoever. The Republicans have made a series of demands. The Democrats will agree to some of their demands, in exchange for other stuff that they want. I don't especially like that, and I've expressed my dislike over several posts. But again, if the Republicans were to raise the debt ceiling right now, without ANY conditions, the Dems would go for it. It is the Republicans who are demanding conditions in the first place.

The republicans gave in to basically everything, but now the Democrats are asking for changes to the Sequester. This is no longer "completely the Republicans fault." Sorry.

Again this is just false. The Republicans agreed to drop Obamacare from the discussion (for now.) But before they raise the debt ceiling, they want the Democrats to agree to extend the sequester cuts for another year or so. That's an issue that was supposed to be discussed later. The Democrats refused. Perhaps they shouldn't have. But it's a major issue, and it's a lie for you to claim that the Republicans gave in to "basically everything." They merely changed their demands.

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Democrats are now making demands to change an existing law (The Budget Control Act of 2011) before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling. I'm absolutely shocked that you somehow will find this okay after railing on the republicans for doing the exact same thing.

I actually DON'T find this OK. But you're wrong as usual. The Democrats agree to raise the debt ceiling right now, without any conditions whatsoever. The Republicans have made a series of demands. The Democrats will agree to some of their demands, in exchange for other stuff that they want. I don't especially like that, and I've expressed my dislike over several posts. But again, if the Republicans were to raise the debt ceiling right now, without ANY conditions, the Dems would go for it. It is the Republicans who are demanding conditions in the first place.

The republicans gave in to basically everything, but now the Democrats are asking for changes to the Sequester. This is no longer "completely the Republicans fault." Sorry.

Again this is just false. The Republicans agreed to drop Obamacare from the discussion (for now.) But before they raise the debt ceiling, they want the Democrats to agree to extend the sequester cuts for another year or so. That's an issue that was supposed to be discussed later. The Democrats refused. Perhaps they shouldn't have. But it's a major issue, and it's a lie for you to claim that the Republicans gave in to "basically everything." They merely changed their demands.

You have it backwards. As usual: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304106704579133413166676506

As the search for a way to end the partial federal shutdown and avoid a debt crisis shifted to the Senate, Democrats made plain that one of their top priorities was to diminish the next round of across-the-board spending cuts, known as the sequester, due to take effect early next year.

 

[Joe T]

So exactly as I said, the Democrats are now insisting changes are made to the sequester before they will increase the debt ceiling. But this is okay when they do it. I get it.

 

[timschochet]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?

I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Democrats are now making demands to change an existing law (The Budget Control Act of 2011) before they will agree to raise the debt ceiling. I'm absolutely shocked that you somehow will find this okay after railing on the republicans for doing the exact same thing.

I actually DON'T find this OK. But you're wrong as usual. The Democrats agree to raise the debt ceiling right now, without any conditions whatsoever. The Republicans have made a series of demands. The Democrats will agree to some of their demands, in exchange for other stuff that they want. I don't especially like that, and I've expressed my dislike over several posts. But again, if the Republicans were to raise the debt ceiling right now, without ANY conditions, the Dems would go for it. It is the Republicans who are demanding conditions in the first place.

The republicans gave in to basically everything, but now the Democrats are asking for changes to the Sequester. This is no longer "completely the Republicans fault." Sorry.

Again this is just false. The Republicans agreed to drop Obamacare from the discussion (for now.) But before they raise the debt ceiling, they want the Democrats to agree to extend the sequester cuts for another year or so. That's an issue that was supposed to be discussed later. The Democrats refused. Perhaps they shouldn't have. But it's a major issue, and it's a lie for you to claim that the Republicans gave in to "basically everything." They merely changed their demands.

You have it backwards. As usual: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304106704579133413166676506

As the search for a way to end the partial federal shutdown and avoid a debt crisis shifted to the Senate, Democrats made plain that one of their top priorities was to diminish the next round of across-the-board spending cuts, known as the sequester, due to take effect early next year.

IF the Republicans insist on a larger deal, which they have. But if the Republicans simply raise the debt ceiling without any conditions whatsoever, the Democrats will agree.

 

[timschochet]

So exactly as I said, the Democrats are now insisting changes are made to the sequester before they will increase the debt ceiling. But this is okay when they do it. I get it.

If the Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling without any conditions, and the Democrats voted against, ALL of my ire would be against the Democrats.

You're creating your own reality here.

 

[Joe T]

So exactly as I said, the Democrats are now insisting changes are made to the sequester before they will increase the debt ceiling. But this is okay when they do it. I get it.

If the Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling without any conditions, and the Democrats voted against, ALL of my ire would be against the Democrats.

You're creating your own reality here.

I'm quoting the Wall Street Journal. It's not a reality I created.

Again, the fact that you are not outraged when the democrats want to negotiate over existing laws in order to raise the debt ceiling doesn't surprise me at all. Like I said, It's okay when they do it. When republicans do it, its holding the nation hostage.

 

[Joe T]

games back on.

 

[timschochet]

So exactly as I said, the Democrats are now insisting changes are made to the sequester before they will increase the debt ceiling. But this is okay when they do it. I get it.

If the Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling without any conditions, and the Democrats voted against, ALL of my ire would be against the Democrats.You're creating your own reality here.

I'm quoting the Wall Street Journal. It's not a reality I created.

Again, the fact that you are not outraged when the democrats want to negotiate over existing laws in order to raise the debt ceiling doesn't surprise me at all. Like I said, It's okay when they do it. When republicans do it, its holding the nation hostage.

The article doesn't say what you want it to say.

Forget it. In his world, it does.

 

[Joe T]

Senate Democrats Press New Front in Budget Battle

Republicans Oppose Move to Reopen Sequester Cuts

Perhaps the article says what you don't want it to say.

 

[Joe T]

Senate Democrats Press New Front in Budget Battle

Republicans Oppose Move to Reopen Sequester Cuts

Perhaps the article says what you don't want it to say.

None of that says dems won't approve a clean debt ceiling. Read it again.

Never made that argument. Tim did. Try reading the thread again.

 

[Joe T]

The talks also showed Senate Democrats moving aggressively to press their top priorities in a pact that would be presented to the Republican-controlled House at a moment when voting it down could put the nation closer to potential default.

Again, you guys are okay with this. I get it.

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

bump

 

[Joe T]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

bump

The talks also showed Senate Democrats moving aggressively to press their top priorities in a pact that would be presented to the Republican-controlled House at a moment when voting it down could put the nation closer to potential default.

Again, you guys are okay with this. I get it.

How can you reconcile these two statements?

 

[timschochet]

This i

The talks also showed Senate Democrats moving aggressively to press their top priorities in a pact that would be presented to the Republican-controlled House at a moment when voting it down could put the nation closer to potential default.

Again, you guys are okay with this. I get it.

Again, that doesn't say anything. If dems turn down a clean bill in order to push their priorities, then sure.

Obvious to anyone but him.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

bump

The talks also showed Senate Democrats moving aggressively to press their top priorities in a pact that would be presented to the Republican-controlled House at a moment when voting it down could put the nation closer to potential default.

Again, you guys are okay with this. I get it.

How can you reconcile these two statements?

Tumble weeds when you ask good questions.. That and insults..

When the shoe is on the other foot everything is right in the world for either side... These libs in this forum are not immune..

 

[madviking10]

Open government, raise the debt limit. And then get what you can get through the normal give and take of politics without taking hostages.

Pretty simple really.

You haven't exactly been paying attention for the last ten or so years.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Wow, conservatives in complete denial and on the attack.

Entertaining.

 

[timschochet]

Wow, conservatives in complete denial and on the attack.

Entertaining.

Not "conservatives". Joe T and Carolina Hustler. So far, nobody else has had the (courage? stupidity?) to join them.

Night's young though...

 

[jonessed]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Removing the sequester spending cuts is a new demand.

 

[timschochet]

Americans will only be able to return to work, Obama said, "when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands."

But it's okay when my guys do it.

What kind of twisted bizarro world do you live in?I've been critical of Dems in this thread, but let's be very clear: they are refusing to agree to the demands of the Republicans. They are not the ones holding the economy hostage. That's the other side.

Removing the sequester spending cuts is a new demand.

It's a trio!

Any more? The water's warm.

 

[DanFouts]

Moderate republican here.

####### dumb#### teaparty ####ers.