DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:Obama, his arrogance will set him up like Apollo Creed in Rocky

The rest of your post aside, Rocky lost that fight. Hard.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Obama, his arrogance will set him up like Apollo Creed in Rocky

The rest of your post aside, Rocky lost that fight. Hard.

Post spoiler warnings next time. I actually haven't seen that Rocky movie yet. It's on my Netflix queue.

Lothar wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Obama, his arrogance will set him up like Apollo Creed in Rocky

The rest of your post aside, Rocky lost that fight. Hard.

Post spoiler warnings next time. I actually haven't seen that Rocky movie yet. It's on my Netflix queue.

He didn't really do it justice with his description. Great movie.

From "Oohs" To "Boos". Giving a speech at a Chrysler plant in Ohio:

“We’re going to pass through some rough terrain that even a Wrangler would have a tough time with,” Obama said, in reference to the Jeep truck produced at the Toledo plant. The quip was met with boos from the otherwise supportive employees in the audience.

So if Big Ears Obama didn't hear those boos, I'd like to remind him that the boos came from his golden boys, his high end supporters...UAW rank and file voters. Still think Palin doesn't stand a chance? With the latest unemployment figure at 9.1%, Obama better get off the golf course and start showing us how he is "focused like a laser beam" on creating jobs. If he doesn't, a Pep Boy bobble head could beat him.

woodchip wrote:With the latest unemployment figure at 9.1%, Obama better get off the golf course and start showing us how he is "focused like a laser beam" on creating jobs. If he doesn't, a Pep Boy bobble head could beat him.

That's up to the Republican-controlled House. I don't know if you remember your Schoolhouse Rock, but the President cannot draft legislation. The Republicans largely ran on a program of job growth and have done nothing[/i] but obstruct progress and propose non-job-creating ideas like destroying Medicare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and ending NPR. They haven't proposed a single job-creation bill since winning control of Congress in 2010.

No, the Republicans ran on smaller government and lowering the debt/deficit. Legislation may begin in the congress, but people are looking to the White House for ideas.

And all we get is the same old tired, rehashed ideas that involve going further into debt…see the problem.

Aren’t there any way to build and stimulate the economy that don’t involve massive spending…apparently not, because that’s the only way this government knows how to do things.

Some clever ideas, would be really nice about now.

Spidey wrote:No, the Republicans ran on smaller government and lowering the debt/deficit. Legislation may begin in the congress, but people are looking to the White House for ideas.

They haven't done anything about the deficit either. It's just ideological legislation and empty gestures.

some of you need to read up on the presidency of Andrew Jackson if you think the Chief executive cannot influence the economy.

CUDA wrote:some of you need to read up on the presidency of Andrew Jackson if you think the Chief executive cannot influence the economy.

I don't think destroying banks is the solution.

.

Bet51987 wrote:

null0010 wrote:They haven't done anything about the deficit either.

Yes, they did. They added almost a trillion more to the national debt by forcing Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Bee

I'm open to correction here but...

I don't think math or logic supports the notion that keeping the taxation levels the same as they were increases debt. You would have to spend more to increase the debt.

If your family earns X dollars this month and next month it is determined your family will still bring in the same amount any additional debt your family incurs will be caused by your family spending even more than it had the previous month or suffering an increase in any interest you were already obligated to pay.

And how did the republicans force him to do anything? Didn't he have a choice in the matter?

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

null0010 wrote:They haven't done anything about the deficit either.

Yes, they did. They added almost a trillion more to the national debt by forcing Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Bee

I'm open to correction here but...

I don't think math or logic supports the notion that keeping the taxation levels the same as they were increases debt. You would have to spend more to increase the debt.

Then you understand neither. If taxes remain low and spending remains high, the debt will go up. Here is an article explaining how the CBO came to this conclusion.

There was no Federal Reserve when Jackson was President. Has nothing to do with our current situation.

null0010 wrote:...

Then you understand neither. If taxes remain low and spending remains high, the debt will go up. Here is an article explaining how the CBO came to this conclusion.

First of all, you just agreed with me...read it again...
Second, you are always in such a hurry to prove me wrong that you don't really read what I say and once again you fail.
From the article you posted:

"Under that . . . scenario, economic growth would be stronger next year; unemployment would be lower next year," Elmendorf said. But he added that "over time, that extra borrowing -- and it's a good deal of extra borrowing -- would have negative consequences on the economy."

If they are borrowing to make payments they have spent too much! And much of the looming payments due are interest on obligations already taken on before the extension of any tax revenue level! which, if you really read what I said with any intent to understand my point you would know I brought that up.

Holding ones income stream at a fixed rate does not cause debt.
Increasing your spending to exceed your income does!!
Having interest compiling on your current debt is not the result of failing to increase your income level, it is the result of having undertaken too much liability relative to your actual income level.
Projecting how much of an increase in your income you need to cover your rising liability is a way to find the break even point but not being able to increase one's income to that level is not the reason one went into debt when the spending level was in their control and they refused to keep it down to a level at or below their income level. That is irrefutable.

The mindset that too many people in politics and their willful idiot voter base have is the budget can grow as they like it and if the tax payer doesn't allow the tax rate to increase to cover the rising spending level then the tax payer has caused the deficit. That is wrong at it's core.

Yes the best way out of our predicament is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts but the old ways of politicians borrowing against the future to bail out the present are now coming to an end and that mindset has to be broken if we are going to really have financial policy that starts us toward recovery...a practical ratio of those cuts in spending and increased tax revenue levels.
As long as voters are willing to think Obama was forced into extending the tax cuts and that is why our debt is increasing they are part of the problem and the proper financial policy won't be developed.

Politicians create bad policy because they need to use our revenue to buy votes and favors with not just pay down debt. They give our revenue away in the form of corporate welfare and subsidies to all sorts of voter blocks and until voters recognize that game they will line up behind an Obama who can get re-elected on the false premise that the republicans forced him to extend the cuts and if not for the cuts he could have balance the budget!
You give him 50% more revenue right now they will swarm like sharks in a pool of fresh blood and will calculate how much of that increase they can squander on their power play and pork and a trickle will go toward the debt. they have been doing it that way for decades and just printing money and borrowing into future congress's and administrations to let someone else deal with. Now we reach the tipping point and it has to stop! It won't stop if enough people believe what Bee posted.

Will Robinson wrote:[Yes the best way out of our predicament is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts but the old ways of politicians borrowing against the future to bail out the present are now coming to an end and that mindset has to be broken if we are going to really have financial policy that starts us toward recovery...a practical ratio of those cuts in spending and increased tax revenue levels.

As long as voters are willing to think Obama was forced into extending the tax cuts and that is why our debt is increasing they are part of the problem and the proper financial policy won't be developed.

At long last, we agree on something.

woodchip wrote:From "Oohs" To "Boos". Giving a speech at a Chrysler plant in Ohio:

“We’re going to pass through some rough terrain that even a Wrangler would have a tough time with,” Obama said, in reference to the Jeep truck produced at the Toledo plant. The quip was met with boos from the otherwise supportive employees in the audience.

So they thought his joke was lame, therefore he's going to lose. Ladies and gentlemen, I present woodchip, esteemed political expert.

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:From "Oohs" To "Boos". Giving a speech at a Chrysler plant in Ohio:

“We’re going to pass through some rough terrain that even a Wrangler would have a tough time with,” Obama said, in reference to the Jeep truck produced at the Toledo plant. The quip was met with boos from the otherwise supportive employees in the audience.

So they thought his joke was lame, therefore he's going to lose. Ladies and gentlemen, I present woodchip, esteemed political expert.

I don't think they were booing a bad joke....unless the bad joke was Obama.

Part of Jackson's logic was that the "money power" might corrupt the Congress before 1836. Wealthy supporters of the Bank might buy off enough congressmen to pass another re-chartering bill—and even enough congressmen to override a second veto. But Jackson was also driven by passions that were both philosophical and personal; his belief that the bank aided the wealthy in their exploitation of common people merged with a fiery resolve to destroy the northeastern political enemies who had opposed him throughout his career. Therefore, rather than wait for the charter to expire, he decided to drive the Bank into immediate bankruptcy by redirecting all of the nation's tax collections into one of seven state banks while still paying all of the government's bills from its accounts in the BUS. Soon the government's BUS accounts would be empty and, starved of cash, the Bank would die.

Another Contender

Will Robinson wrote:At the same time she has such bad favorability ratings she's running a very close second to the leader, Romney, and she hasn't even announced a candidacy!

which says something about the current state of the GOP Presidential campaign. In first place, you have a guy who I suspect can't win the nomination. In second, a woman who even Republicans generally don't think is up to the job of President, who is so disliked by so broad a crossection of Independents and Dems that she cannot possibly win. Not a good position. It will change, but how is anyone's guess....

and this whole disgusting scenario is the way it is played and the reason I have a little extra contempt for you Slick because you are so smug and proud to play an active role in maintaining it. Not personal but you paint the target on your own back

huh?

I think Slick is just telling it like it is. Not endorsing it or condemning it just acknowledging it.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:and this whole disgusting scenario is the way it is played and the reason I have a little extra contempt for you Slick because you are so smug and proud to play an active role in maintaining it. Not personal but you paint the target on your own back

huh?

Will's angry at the two party system.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:At the same time she has such bad favorability ratings she's running a very close second to the leader, Romney, and she hasn't even announced a candidacy!

which says something about the current state of the GOP Presidential campaign. In first place, you have a guy who I suspect can't win the nomination. In second, a woman who even Republicans generally don't think is up to the job of President, who is so disliked by so broad a crossection of Independents and Dems that she cannot possibly win. Not a good position. It will change, but how is anyone's guess.... ...

I think you must be implying a low turnout for opposition to Obama. All voters will have only two choices, either let Obama win or try to remove him and if their only choice is Palin they will cross their fingers and pull the lever for her.

I think you may be underestimating the degree of fear and loathing non-liberals have for Obama and the state we'll be in with another year of this economy. Those conditions will make him vulnerable to anyone who can tie their own shoe and promise new hope and change.

null0010 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:and this whole disgusting scenario is the way it is played and the reason I have a little extra contempt for you Slick because you are so smug and proud to play an active role in maintaining it. Not personal but you paint the target on your own back

huh?

Will's angry at the two party system.

Yes. Or to be more precise, I am angry at the way we have let the parties become the foundation of a ruling class instead of a function of a democratic republic and that means anyone who considers himself enlightened and superior for having worked for one of the two cells of that cancerous organism is particularly despicable.

You absolutely will not affect change from without. May be that Slick really is the position to influence, who knows. Why charge him with all that's wrong?

I think "enlightened" and "superior" are incorrect words for now Slick is posting here. He has experience that you (i am assume) and I haven't got with regards to the inner workings of the election mechanism.

flip wrote:You absolutely will not affect change from without. May be that Slick really is the position to influence, who knows. Why charge him with all that's wrong?

Did I not say "I am angry at the way we have let the parties become..."?
I did not charge him with all that is wrong. I include myself the group of guilty ones. I said I find people that take pride in being a part of perpetuating the ruling class to be despicable. You can be but a pawn in the effort and be despised for your part in it.

@null: The more knowledge he has of the system the more culpable he is for it's result. You don't have to be on the inside of the bus to see who is being thrown under it! Sometimes the view of that event is clearer from the road and the less of yourself you have invested in the bus the less inclined you will be to make excuses for it.

Well my question to Slick is "what are you doing to improve the economic workings of this country or are you just trying to get the same Dems back in office"?

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The more knowledge he has of the system the more culpable he is for it's result.

This makes no sense. Non sequitor.

I fixed it for you. I thought you would understand but now the grammer/syntax is all more better...

Will Robinson wrote:The more knowledge he has of the system the more culpable he is.

This makes no sense. Non sequitor.

It makes perfect sense because the deeper one gets involved the more rah rah for the party you become and less trying to change it for the better.

Misdirected anger. To even think that Slick could be responsible for the state of things is absurd. We're all in this together as we are all American, we don't look like anybody else so I don't expect them to love us as much .

This ass kissing is making me want to puke.

Spidey wrote:This ass kissing is making me want to puke.

Who is kissing the ass of whom?

And meanwhile, more Palin revisionist history lessons.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot ... 49982.html

But I heard a good reason today that shows Palin is probably NOT going to be running for pres. She hasn't been let go from her FOX duties ................... yet. Everyone else that's announced so far has quit their jobs at FOX.

Weirdo.

Will Robinson wrote: He didn't really do it justice with his description. Great movie.

X2, Rocky and Harvey are the two best "life lessons" movies out there....

[ Post made via Android ]

Ok, maybe your right. Let's all attack Slick for being more fortunate than most and blame him for all the world's problems instead of maybe influencing him with our own thoughts and will.I imagine he at least has a good grasp on our reality. The narrow-mindedness of the short-sighted makes me want to puke.

woodchip wrote:It makes perfect sense because the deeper one gets involved the more rah rah for the party you become and less trying to change it for the better.

Does anyone else get the feeling that woodchip isn't referring to slick?

tunnelcat wrote:And meanwhile, more Palin revisionist history lessons.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot ... 49982.html

But I heard a good reason today that shows Palin is probably NOT going to be running for pres. She hasn't been let go from her FOX duties ................... yet. Everyone else that's announced so far has quit their jobs at FOX.

Nice job on taking what she said too literally And I suspect when Palin is ready to run she'll be let go of quite nicely knowing that Fox will have the inside track on getting interviews from her

flip wrote:Ok, maybe your right. Let's all attack Slick for being more fortunate than most and blame him for all the world's problems instead of maybe influencing him with our own thoughts and will.I imagine he at least has a good grasp on our reality. The narrow-mindedness of the short-sighted makes me want to puke.

Dude! Relax, did you not notice the smiley at the end of my post? I was just letting him know what my motivation was for giving him so much grief. I said it wasn't personal it was just the role he plays that makes him worthy, in my eyes, of being singled out a little bit.
I seriously doubt he's concerned with me one bit just like I seriously doubt I could change the mind of someone so invested in the Party like he is! He came here, by invitation, specifically to represent the one side and he's carrying out that chore quite well.