The article says the exact opposite of the headline. The deal doesnt cut enough spending, only 1 trillion over 10years.....rating agency said they need 4 trillion in cuts or they will lower our rating. They said they are going to downgrade because the deal doesnt cut enough. Obama did not lead at all and refuses to cut what our country needs and lost our perfect credit rating. 1 trillion over 10yrs is nothing. How does MTO come up with these headlines
Some compromise. He gave the minority party an equal voice with this 'Super Congress' and if no deal to cut more spending is in effect by November then social programs will be gutted. Where is the incentive for the Republicans to work with Obama when they know all they have to do is wait til November.
Oh yeah, MAJOR co-sign Muffie.
No, Obama didn't win the Republicans did. So Repubs, what is your next fight gonna be? Jobs, maybe? If ya wanna cut spending ya need to add jobs, right? But no, there will be another ridiculous partisan fight with NOTHING being accomplished for middle-class American people. The party of no will continue its agenda to ruin Obama/the country.
@Barnbrat
My problem is this 'Super Congress'. It consists of an equal number of Republicans and if they cannot trim several billion by November then they will make harsh cuts to entitlements (social programs) which will be cuts recommended by the Republicans. Now if they get to help choose which programs to cut then why do they have to bargain in good faith? The Republicans can just keep saying 'no' and wait til November to get the cuts they want.
@Barn
It's true that our rating was already in danger, but according to international agreements, we'll only be downgraded if we default and we only default if the debt ceiling isn't raised (this time around).
All federal revenues go to the treasury. Saying we wouldn't be able to pay our interests was nit really a scare tactic because, like I said, we wouldn't have enough to pay anything else. Remember revenue is before expenses.
"and it's not true that we won't be able to pay for anything else. it's true that we wouldn't be able to pay for everything"
1+3=4 2+2=4.
Thats what I just said. You kinda made a redundant statement there.
Obama did nothing and once again was a follower not a leader. He's to busy tweeting like hes a 12 year old girl trying to get Justin Beaber to come to her local mall.
Knowledge- Your wrong, they will lower are credit rating, just watch. They said they would unless we cut a minimum of 4 trillion from debt, and this bill doesnt come close to that. I know you like to swing things in a liberal light, and most topics you can try to swing it the way the White House tries to. But once our credit rating is downgraded you wont be able to swing the wording to make it untrue.
@Barn
Know why I didn't mention Democrats anywhere? It's because of this part of what the 'Super Congress' really will be about...
Under the new proposal, if the new legislative body, made up of six Democrats and six Republicans from both chambers, doesn't come up with a bill that cuts at least $1.5 trillion by Thanksgiving, entitlement programs will automatically be slashed.
[link to external website removed] deal_n_914272.html
Continued...
Now which programs do you think the Republicans will cut? They wouldn't vote for an extension of unemployment, they wouldn't raise taxes on the rich, they wouldn't cut welfare to corporations.
But they have already been trying to cut medicare, ss, union busting, and anything else that helps the average citizen.
The Republicans don't have to bargain now because all they have to do is keep saying no until November and they will get the cuts they want.
And that is why I didn't mention Democrats because by their weak negotiating, they took themselves out of the debate.
Continued...
Now, this should show anyone who REALLY loves America and who doesn't. The Democrats are willing to gut their own programs so the country doesn't default, but the Republicans could care less. They would rather see the downfall of this country as long as they 'beat' Obama. How *** and simpleminded. Republican supports are worse than cult members. They'll continue to be led off the cliff supporting that illiterate party.
Syymone
You wanna say the 2 parties are just alike? You mean to say they sometimes have the same interest... Let's pretend Gore was President and not Bush...
No Iraq war.
No Enron.
No Halliburton.
No thousands dead due to the war.
No selling our country to China, Japan and India.
No financial crisis.
So you need to stop saying there isn't a difference in the 2 because there is.
And when those cuts come down, watch who they hit hard.
Barnbrats
Who are you to say what a 'drop in the bucket' means to the most vulnerable? A 100 dollars might not be hurting you, but for millions of Americans, that's the difference in being able to afford rent, buying bus tokens, etc.
As far as entitlements, we both know what they mean. Corporations get entitlements too. In fact, they're the largest receiver of entitlements, but for some reason the Republicans like to take them from the poor, but fight to let corporations keep them. We all know who will take the hit with those entitlements.
Syymone
We might have not known what Gore would have done, we know what he WOULDN'T have done.
And Obama drew down the war in Iraq. You can't just leave a country after it's been invaded because what comes will be worse than before the war. That's just silly to think you can just say "Okay, now time to go home." Why do you think Vietnam lasted longer than a decade? Why do you think the two Korea's are STILL at war?
You're on the political plantation, so you can stop telling that lie. You're a died in the wool Republican and that's fine, but stop acting like you're objective.
Syymone
Sure, Gore would have thrown massive subsidies and overlooked crimes by energy companies like Bush did. Halliburton existed before Obama true enough, but when they're over there benefiting from people's death, then that is different than just laying pipelines, etc.
Look at the differences in Bush and Clinton to see how the parties are different? Look at their different responses to Terrorism. Look at who caught Bin Laden and who didn't have a clue as to what they were doing?
Again, just say you're a Republican and get it over with since we all figure you are anyway.
@NJ
The main concern is over the debt ceiling. Without it being raise, we could default on our loan payments, which is the main tangent of a credit rating.
We could still keep our AAA rating even without the $4 trillion in cuts. According to Deven Sharma, president of S&P:
"Wednesday, S&P President Deven Sharma said in testimony before a House subcommittee that some plans under consideration by lawmakers — including plans below the $4 trillion line in the sand — could tackle the debt that's "in the range of the threshold of a triple-A rating.""
[link to external website removed]
To be fair, I haven't read any news about his reaction to the deal. But the main concern was that we got a deal, not necessarily the cuts.
@Barn
You're right. I seemed to have minced words. I *** have said "anything else" but "everything else". We agree here.
Barbrat
I can't even debate with you because you take all of your info from crazy right wing sites instead of trying to learn some facts.
Fact: Republicans were against Obama trying to raise taxes to get the debt ceiling raised...
Fact: Republicans did not want to agree to an unemployment extension to get the debt ceiling raised.
Fact: Reid talked about cutting oil subsidies but Boehner said 'it was a non- starter.'
Sigh.
@Barn
"it's the demo'rats who want to keep loopholes for corporations!!!"
We disagree here. The Democrats have been aiming to end tax breaks for a while now.
[links are about 2 months old, but still relevent to the discussion]
[link to external website removed]
[link to external website removed] ax_breaks_to_ease_bu dget_cuts.html
The Republicans have demonized it as "tax increases" because their proposals don't include lowering the tax limits.
I'm sure there are Dems who've been lobbied to keep the loopholes. But you can find this on the other side as well. We're living in crony capitlism anyway...
@Barn
I already explained to you about wars. I understand sitting at home going to pop warner detaches you from the realities of war, but just go back and read what I said to Syymone.
As for the economy. We don't know if they would have collapsed. Maybe a President with his eye on regulations (Something Republicans call 'government intrusion') would have prevented this and used the powers that he had to reign in things.
I am going to vote Obama out in 2012. There are many reasons but the main one is because he does not work well with Congress. He never served a full-term as a Senator. Therefore, he does not have the support in congress to get his agenda through. For the good of the country, HE HAS TO GO. We need to get someone in the WH who has support in Congress and we can avoid these types of battles. Obama is not worth all the controversy.
@Barn
"the republicans wanted to lower the corporate tax rate(to 20 something percent, i will look it up) and get rid of every single loophole. obama said no. he wanted to keep some. go figure. i figured it was to reward his buddies like GE who manage to pay zero taxes, after loopholes. obama talks out of both sides of his mouth and if you don't know better, you think he wants to cut "loopholes." he conveniently leaves out the word "all."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay a few things here.
1) I know who you're speaking of. It was Rep. Paul Ryan's plan which was criticized by some Republicans as well. This was a house plan, a senate debate, and the senate had to pass it. It failed in the senate. Not Obama's desk. You can't really blame it on Obama or say that Obama turned it down. It failed to leave congress. That's not on the back of Obama.
2) The reason it failed wasn't the closing of the loopholes or the lowering of the tax rate (although I'm sure some voted against it because of one or both of those), it was because of his proposed plan for medicare. It would turn it into a private program, which Democrats have historically been against rank & file. There are other reasons why his plan recieved the EPIC FAIL, but it's much more complicated.
3) How do you know Obama wanted to keep some loopholes? His main attack on the budget was the medicare plan. Not really anything else.
4) You kinda pulled a red herring here. We were talking about the Democrats in general. Not Obama.
How the hell Obama win if all they doing is cutting spending that will directly impact the middle and lower working class. The rich still don't have to contribute s.hit to the economy.. Obama is starting to look like a f.ucking p.ussy and if he continues to give in to Republicans I'm not going to vote ever again... When Bush was in the White House he and the Republicans passed everything they f.ucking wanted but when Democrats get into the White House we have to ask the Republicans for permission first like a bunch of p.ussies...
@Barn...Knowledge and Great1 are to dumb to even debate with. They dont think about what your saying they just call you a liar and disagree with everything. Great1 even says that I wasnt a Marine, hes unpatriotic, uneducated, Al *** wanna-be, so dont pay him any mind. The matter how bad Obama is at his job, he thinks hes God. And knowledge gets really defenses whenever anyone mentions people abusing welfare. I get the feeling his family is on it, so of course he supports it so much.
@NJ
1) Thanks for the lies there and personal attacks. That really helps you out. You mind pointing out when I called you a liar? Go ahead.
2) I've never "gotten defensive" when someone says welfare is abused. That's as known as the sky being blue. I point out that the "welfare queen" example is silly and that welfare is not a huge percentage of our spending. Therefore the argument of it "killing us" or "draging us down" is faulty at best. YOU all get defensive when THAT'S pointed out.
3) You don't know me, you don't know who I am or what I've been through. That being said, *** YOU. Attack me all you want, my family has NOTHING to do with this. The fact that you would dare insult them as part of some personal vendetta you have against me just goes to show what type of person you are. What's next? You're gonna go after my 2-month old nephew as well? You're a sniveling *** coward.
Even though we haven't agreed on almost anything, I've always stayed respectful towards you and even thanked you for your service. I still hold respect for what you've done for this country, but you've lost all respect as a person to me. Nice way to represent the marines there.
Semper Fi, ***.
@Knowledge Your right, I *** have attacked you and especially not your family. I was really just sick and tired of Wanna Be Al Sharpon and I bunched you in with him. But your right, I was an *** for taking a *** at you. You have views I think I crazy but your fair and just looking for a good debate. I apologize and I can admit when I’m wrong and I hope that doesn’t stop us from having a good debate in the future.
@Kn0w
Don't even waste your 'Semper Fi' on him. He aint even a marine. He mixed up calling a sailor a soldier which any marine would know since the marines are part of the navy.
And as a marine, what he is doing on here criitisizing Obama calling him "God" and all the other things he's said is punishable under the UCMJ. If he is on base then it wouldn't take anything for his superiors to see what he is saying.
This is why flaming goes on here because people want to take it personal. Just today I was called 'clueless' by 2 people because I disagreed with them.
@NJ
I accept your apology and also in turn apologize for my brashness. I don't want this to impede further debate either, so let's forget this ugly incident and move on.
@Greg
Well I can't comment on that. I must've missed that thread. But I'll still respect anyone who serves the country so I really hope he ain't frontin.
Barnbrat
Numerous articles in the UCMJ restrict the speech of service members, and two of those could affect political speech. I would point out that under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the military drawing pay, as well as active-duty service members, are subject to UCMJ provisions. So if you think retiring will allow you to escape UCMJ action, you are wrong.
http://www.armytimes.com/community/ask_lawyer/military_askthelawye r_070827w/
This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s. Ltc. Davidson points out, “Since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 only a single known court-martial has occurred pursuant to Article 88. In United States v. Howe, an Army Lieutenant was convicted for carrying a sign during an antiwar demonstration that read ‘Let’s Have More Than A Choice Between Petty Ignorant Fascists In 1968’ on one side and ‘End Johnson’s Fascist Aggression In Vietnam’ on the other side. Lieutenant Howe did not participate in organizing the demonstration, but merely joined it after it began. During the half-hour demonstration, Howe was off duty, in civilian clothes, and no one at the demonstration knew of his military affiliation. Howe came to the Army’s attention only because a gas station attendant, who Howe had asked for directions, spotted the lieutenant’s sign and an Army sticker on his vehicle and subsequently notified the local military police.”
Lt. Howe was sentenced to dismissal, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. The convening authority reduced the period of confinement to one year and otherwise approved the sentence. Three months and two days after his trial he was released from confinement under commandant’s parole.
Barnbrat
This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s.
http://www.armytimes.com/community/ask_lawyer/military_askthelawye r_070827w/
Doesn't matter. You can't compare a Wesley Clarke with some lowly enlisted or officer of the military. If you can be identified as military then you better keep your mouth ***. Period.
You were wrong for saying he had the same rights as you do. In the military, your speech is limited to not criticizing a superior officer.
There was no winning here, but there was a terrible precident that was set and that is to politicise our nations credit. This is not a good look and Americans need to stop with this whose "winning or losing" nonsense because the fact is everyone lost in this. While people continue to sit on the sidelines and allow this party (the GOP) to destroy our standing in the world is beyond me but I fear that Americas best days are behind it and this country should have never exposed itself like this under this President. This will not end well.
@ Envy
What a hypocrite ! You go on whining about there was no winners here, yet you chastise republicans talkin about they destroyed our standing in the world WHICH TELLS ME THAT EVEN YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS GOT THEIR @SSES KICKED !!!
So, I ask all of you, in your opinion, WHO LOST !
And ya can't say the American people. One party got more than the other and it's either democrats or republicans. So who lost ?
..the media is trying to spin it as ob's fault when whites need to be checkin their ranks..like they tell us. The topic should be.. 'White race split..where these other people come from?'.They need some backround checks again. 1st time people go this far and the 1st black prez. This ish aint hard to figure out and u know the bs is so high when they will tell u something is not there when ur looking down at it.
