This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Was discussed just a little bit.Has this- House Rule XXII, Clause 4, and the change made to it by the GOP been discussed? because I can't find it up in here...??
The market can stay irrational for a long time.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
Yeah - I must be getting some bad information from this thread.You thought wrong.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
The market did NOT behave irrationally. Last night and this morning, the news was announced that a compromise deal before Thursday was extremely likely. That is why the market went up. If an actual deal had been announced, it would have gone up even higher.Yeah - I must be getting some bad information from this thread.You thought wrong.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
The market did NOT behave irrationally.Yeah - I must be getting some bad information from this thread.You thought wrong.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
Sure. Here's the number for the 2009 federal budget. We were slated to spend 3107 in 2009, 3,091 in 2010, 3,171 in 2011, 3,222 in 2012, and 3,399 in 2013. A total of 15,990.Bottomfeeder Sports said:
It was actually down about 70 points when I looked this morning. I think you need some better timelines.The market did NOT behave irrationally. Last night and this morning, the news was announced that a compromise deal before Thursday was extremely likely. That is why the market went up. If an actual deal had been announced, it would have gone up even higher.Yeah - I must be getting some bad information from this thread.You thought wrong.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
On the other hand, if the news had been that there was no deal on the horizon, you would have seen the market fall each day as we got into Thursday...and at that point, I can't imagine how far it would have dropped. Luckily for this nation, the politicians in Washington ignored YOUR advice.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to specifically describe how you would reduce federal spending by 80 billion a month immediately.
Let's see - 2.2 trillion of the 3.7 trillion goes to Defense (652B), SS (812B), Medicare (504B), and Medicaid (267B). That's 60% of our budget.
Why do you believe that giving the GOP a fig leaf will make them any more cooperative? They'll just look at any concession as a lack of fighting spirit of their enemies. It will make them even more determined the next time. If the GOP ever gets the upper hand they'll push their advantage as far as they can take it.In a nutshell, everyone (including me in my more lucid moments) recognizes that expecting the GOP to publically wave the white flag and totally surrender in public isn't going to be helpful.No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. Thehave basically been calling the GOP terrorists for trying to negotiate this way. Now the dems are wanting to "negotiate" laws as part of this compromise?
And that while donning the steel tipped boots and kicking the living hell out of the Republicans when they're down might be gratifying and well-deserved it's not really very useful in terms of future negotiations since the bigger discussions can't even start until this current mess is resolved.
So Dems are saying, fine ... we'll give you a fig leaf. Even though we said we wouldn't do it, politics and reality are messy. Here's something in exchange for opening the government and raising the debt limit.
But for political reasons we can't say that's what we're doing anymore than you can totally surrender. So we need to get a fig leaf of our own. What will you give us in exchange for the concessions we're making here?
No guarantee the House Republicans will accept the Senate deal. You may have me here a while longer.
So when they get back at it in a couple of months, do you start a new thread or bump this one?No guarantee the House Republicans will accept the Senate deal. You may have me here a while longer.
I doubt the Tea Party will shut down the government again. Could be wrong, but I think this was the nadir. (Or zenith, depending on your POV.)So when they get back at it in a couple of months, do you start a new thread or bump this one?No guarantee the House Republicans will accept the Senate deal. You may have me here a while longer.
The S&P is 50 points from an all-time high. If a deal falls apart tomorrow and it falls 100 points, it's not that big if a deal.The market did NOT behave irrationally. Last night and this morning, the news was announced that a compromise deal before Thursday was extremely likely. That is why the market went up. If an actual deal had been announced, it would have gone up even higher.On the other hand, if the news had been that there was no deal on the horizon, you would have seen the market fall each day as we got into Thursday...and at that point, I can't imagine how far it would have dropped. Luckily for this nation, the politicians in Washington ignored YOUR advice.Yeah - I must be getting some bad information from this thread.You thought wrong.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to specifically describe how you would reduce federal spending by 80 billion a month immediately.
Of course not. But many economists predict that if a deal falls apart and we go past Thursday, the market will fall a lot more than 100 points.The S&P is 50 points from an all-time high. If a deal falls apart tomorrow and it falls 100 points, it's not that big if a deal.The market did NOT behave irrationally. Last night and this morning, the news was announced that a compromise deal before Thursday was extremely likely. That is why the market went up. If an actual deal had been announced, it would have gone up even higher.On the other hand, if the news had been that there was no deal on the horizon, you would have seen the market fall each day as we got into Thursday...and at that point, I can't imagine how far it would have dropped. Luckily for this nation, the politicians in Washington ignored YOUR advice.Yeah - I must be getting some bad information from this thread.You thought wrong.I thought the market was going to react badly today...
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to specifically describe how you would reduce federal spending by 80 billion a month immediately.
The concession is for display purposes only. As reported (which may not be right), it's as close to nothing as you could ever expect to see. So they didn't really 'win' anything. Which I expect you'll hear the Tea Party types moaning about soon enough.Why do you believe that giving the GOP a fig leaf will make them any more cooperative? They'll just look at any concession as a lack of fighting spirit of their enemies. It will make them even more determined the next time. If the GOP ever gets the upper hand they'll push their advantage as far as they can take it.In a nutshell, everyone (including me in my more lucid moments) recognizes that expecting the GOP to publically wave the white flag and totally surrender in public isn't going to be helpful.No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The
And that while donning the steel tipped boots and kicking the living hell out of the Republicans when they're down might be gratifying and well-deserved it's not really very useful in terms of future negotiations since the bigger discussions can't even start until this current mess is resolved.
So Dems are saying, fine ... we'll give you a fig leaf. Even though we said we wouldn't do it, politics and reality are messy. Here's something in exchange for opening the government and raising the debt limit.
But for political reasons we can't say that's what we're doing anymore than you can totally surrender. So we need to get a fig leaf of our own. What will you give us in exchange for the concessions we're making here?
And who is keeping it shutdown.Was discussed just a little bit.Has this- House Rule XXII, Clause 4, and the change made to it by the GOP been discussed? because I can't find it up in here...??
Repubes are by and large trying to ignore it.
It lets you know exactly who forced this shutdown. The GOP.
You'll never in a million years convince me that Obama doesn't do and say things from time to time just to rile up the Kenyan Birther Muslim Communist Hitler people.I saw that.
If something seems too good to be true, it usually is. That bit in red seems too good to be true. Even from their current position I'll be surprised if House Republicans sign off on that. It's literally the last thing they want as far as budget negotiations are concerned.
That should have been $1.7 trillion, not $10 trillion - my bad. Too much of a rush.No. You said "additional outlays" meaning new spending (because you rejected tax expenditures or taxes in general). In fact you rejected how I turned the increases in spending from that first spending authorization bill (the one with earmarks) and the one the second year into roughly a trillion dollars over ten years. Also the tax cuts were not in place "permanently" during this discussion. I agree that these tax cuts should have expired across the board and that they will do damage, but they don't count. Neither did the stimulus (you not me). So want to show the $1.7 trillion in new spending from August 2010?
I agree. He's our first troll president and I love him for it.You'll never in a million years convince me that Obama doesn't do and say things from time to time just to rile up the Kenyan Birther Muslim Communist Hitler people.I saw that.
It's almost like he thinks he wins when they go full ape#### in front of a camera.
Cool, I didn't know what you were referring to with this number. Coming up with the 1.7 trillion here is pretty easy.That should have been $1.7 trillion, not $10 trillion - my bad.No. You said "additional outlays" meaning new spending (because you rejected tax expenditures or taxes in general). In fact you[.post] rejected how I turned the increases in spending from that first spending authorization bill (the one with earmarks) and the one the second year into roughly a trillion dollars over ten years. Also the tax cuts were not in place "permanently" during this discussion. I agree that these tax cuts should have expired across the board and that they will do damage, but they don't count. So want to show the $1.7 trillion in new spending from August 2010?
But ultimately the problem is that you see the year over year increases in spending as meaning new or additional spending. That is not the case. It is just more bills coming due - especially among the aging demographics. (i.e. those that changed from liberal to conservative because they turned 30 (or whatever age you want) a long time ago.)
You guys keep saying this but it isn't true. Obama was willing to negotiate and make deals with his political cronies and big business, but won't for the American people. So much for the left fighting for the common man. You guys are full of so much hypocrisy it oozes from your the pores of your skin.And who is keeping it shutdown.Was discussed just a little bit.Has this- House Rule XXII, Clause 4, and the change made to it by the GOP been discussed? because I can't find it up in here...??
Repubes are by and large trying to ignore it.
It lets you know exactly who forced this shutdown. The GOP.
All of those vets tearing barricades down in DC and piling them in front of the White House need to know that the whack jobs- Cruz and Palin- who were egging them on are responsible for the National Parks and memorials being closed.
Anyone who hadn't watched that video needs to.
I buy Noxema by the barrell. It doesn't help with my conscience, but my skin is silky smooth despite the ooze.You guys keep saying this but it isn't true. Obama was willing to negotiate and make deals with his political cronies and big business, but won't for the American people. So much for the left fighting for the common man. You guys are full of so much hypocrisy it oozes from your the pores of your skin.And who is keeping it shutdown.Was discussed just a little bit.Has this- House Rule XXII, Clause 4, and the change made to it by the GOP been discussed? because I can't find it up in here...??
Repubes are by and large trying to ignore it.
It lets you know exactly who forced this shutdown. The GOP.
All of those vets tearing barricades down in DC and piling them in front of the White House need to know that the whack jobs- Cruz and Palin- who were egging them on are responsible for the National Parks and memorials being closed.
Anyone who hadn't watched that video needs to.
Ok, so you can't legally do it, but say you just eliminate SS - our biggest expense. Just remove it entirely. You're still roughly 150B short. Oh, and you get essentially no time to plan, no time to draw down. So, umm, yeah, good luck with that.Let's see - 2.2 trillion of the 3.7 trillion goes to Defense (652B), SS (812B), Medicare (504B), and Medicaid (267B). That's 60% of our budget.
Another 611B goes to discretionary non-defense. So that's 75% of our budget right there.
Then there's about 600B for other mandatory programs and 222B in interest.
I wonder what cuts we should make.
Actually, our deficit is only supposed to be 744B next year if you believe Obama's numbers. So you'll have a 100B surplus. And when the budget magically drops to 576B the following year we're looking at 300B surplus? Do I hear tax cuts anyone?Ok, so you can't legally do it, but say you just eliminate SS - our biggest expense. Just remove it entirely. You're still roughly 150B short. Oh, and you get essentially no time to plan, no time to draw down. So, umm, yeah, good luck with that.Let's see - 2.2 trillion of the 3.7 trillion goes to Defense (652B), SS (812B), Medicare (504B), and Medicaid (267B). That's 60% of our budget.
Another 611B goes to discretionary non-defense. So that's 75% of our budget right there.
Then there's about 600B for other mandatory programs and 222B in interest.
I wonder what cuts we should make.
Then you'd better eliminate FICA. How's revenue looking?Ok, so you can't legally do it, but say you just eliminate SS - our biggest expense. Just remove it entirely. You're still roughly 150B short. Oh, and you get essentially no time to plan, no time to draw down. So, umm, yeah, good luck with that.Let's see - 2.2 trillion of the 3.7 trillion goes to Defense (652B), SS (812B), Medicare (504B), and Medicaid (267B). That's 60% of our budget.
Another 611B goes to discretionary non-defense. So that's 75% of our budget right there.
Then there's about 600B for other mandatory programs and 222B in interest.
I wonder what cuts we should make.
If we eliminate FICA we'll have to eliminate Medicare too. The pair pay 1,384B in 2014 and collect 963B. It appears that SS income isn't taxed as heavily as regular income as well, so you should pick some up in federal income taxes. Probably not quite enough, so we'll have to cut some defense spending or legalize and tax weed and hookers for the time being. There's also 300B in Medicaid to play around with here so maybe we could do that one too. By 2016 it'll be 1562B to 1081B on the SS/Medicare side with a current projected deficit of 528B. So we're basically set.Then you'd better eliminate FICA. How's revenue looking?Ok, so you can't legally do it, but say you just eliminate SS - our biggest expense. Just remove it entirely. You're still roughly 150B short. Oh, and you get essentially no time to plan, no time to draw down. So, umm, yeah, good luck with that.Let's see - 2.2 trillion of the 3.7 trillion goes to Defense (652B), SS (812B), Medicare (504B), and Medicaid (267B). That's 60% of our budget.
Another 611B goes to discretionary non-defense. So that's 75% of our budget right there.
Then there's about 600B for other mandatory programs and 222B in interest.
I wonder what cuts we should make.
In a normal negotiating relationship I'd agree with you but the Dem vs GOP relationship in Congress is irreconcilable. The GOP is never going to give up anything. You can either fight for what you want with the same level of determination as your opponent or you can give in. There are no reasonable people to negotiate withThe concession is for display purposes only. As reported (which may not be right), it's as close to nothing as you could ever expect to see. So they didn't really 'win' anything. Which I expect you'll hear the Tea Party types moaning about soon enough.Why do you believe that giving the GOP a fig leaf will make them any more cooperative? They'll just look at any concession as a lack of fighting spirit of their enemies. It will make them even more determined the next time. If the GOP ever gets the upper hand they'll push their advantage as far as they can take it.In a nutshell, everyone (including me in my more lucid moments) recognizes that expecting the GOP to publically wave the white flag and totally surrender in public isn't going to be helpful.No, I understand what the sequester cuts are and how terribly flawed they are. I get all that...what I don't understand is why the dems now want to "negotiate" them as part of this whole thing. The
And that while donning the steel tipped boots and kicking the living hell out of the Republicans when they're down might be gratifying and well-deserved it's not really very useful in terms of future negotiations since the bigger discussions can't even start until this current mess is resolved.
So Dems are saying, fine ... we'll give you a fig leaf. Even though we said we wouldn't do it, politics and reality are messy. Here's something in exchange for opening the government and raising the debt limit.
But for political reasons we can't say that's what we're doing anymore than you can totally surrender. So we need to get a fig leaf of our own. What will you give us in exchange for the concessions we're making here?
But the rest of the Republican caucus, the ones Dems will eventually do an entitlement reform for tax increase deal with, needs something. Even if it's small. Everyone knows they got their hat handed to them, but we can all pretend now that they 'got something.'
And in general if you're in a long-term negotiating relationship it doesn't pay to do a victory dance or rub their faces in the dirt when you win.
But, yes. They'll continue to push as far as they can. They crossed the line this time (and are paying a price), but in general I admire that about Republicans. This stuff really matters and it's been a long time since Democrats were willing to do everything they could to win. This most recent bout of hardball and the initial results are about the most encouraging thing you could see from a Dem perspective. Maybe they won't give away the farm this time around.
You guys keep saying this but it isn't true. Obama was willing to negotiate and make deals with his political cronies and big business, but won't for the American people. So much for the left fighting for the common man. You guys are full of so much hypocrisy it oozes from your the pores of your skin.And who is keeping it shutdown.All of those vets tearing barricades down in DC and piling them in front of the White House need to know that the whack jobs- Cruz and Palin- who were egging them on are responsible for the National Parks and memorials being closed.Was discussed just a little bit.Has this- House Rule XXII, Clause 4, and the change made to it by the GOP been discussed? because I can't find it up in here...??
Repubes are by and large trying to ignore it.
It lets you know exactly who forced this shutdown. The GOP.
Anyone who hadn't watched that video needs to.
sooooo Rheetarded.
Oh bull####. Tim spends all his time here writing posts. He doesn't have time to become an expert on "several tea party groups" (what does that even mean) and conservative talk show hosts at the same time.
You also going to Logan's Run everyone collecting SS?If we eliminate FICA we'll have to eliminate Medicare too. The pair pay 1,384B in 2014 and collect 963B. It appears that SS income isn't taxed as heavily as regular income as well, so you should pick some up in federal income taxes. Probably not quite enough, so we'll have to cut some defense spending or legalize and tax weed and hookers for the time being. There's also 300B in Medicaid to play around with here so maybe we could do that one too. By 2016 it'll be 1562B to 1081B on the SS/Medicare side with a current projected deficit of 528B. So we're basically set.Then you'd better eliminate FICA. How's revenue looking?Ok, so you can't legally do it, but say you just eliminate SS - our biggest expense. Just remove it entirely. You're still roughly 150B short. Oh, and you get essentially no time to plan, no time to draw down. So, umm, yeah, good luck with that.Let's see - 2.2 trillion of the 3.7 trillion goes to Defense (652B), SS (812B), Medicare (504B), and Medicaid (267B). That's 60% of our budget.
Another 611B goes to discretionary non-defense. So that's 75% of our budget right there.
Then there's about 600B for other mandatory programs and 222B in interest.
I wonder what cuts we should make.
Remember every Republican Presidential candidate talking about cuts-to-taxes? There's not an inch of "give" on their dogmatic stances
People always ask me this. I'm a commercial real estate broker. I spend about 3-4 hours a day on the road looking at properties. I have the radio on constantly. I listen, alternatively to music, political and sports talk radio, and audible.com (books). When I'm not driving, I'm usually on the internet, both in the morning and evening, and I do a LOT of web surfing. I have access to the net on my phone and also keep a laptop in the car as well- sometimes I have to wait for clients a lonngggg time. My days inevitably involve lots of waiting around.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
