Raising the debt ceiling

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Steve, you wrote:

"I think a lot of us are sick and tired of the current do nothing, stonewalling, get Obama out at any cost to the American people, of this republican congress and the inability of the current democratic side to work around them."

"do nothing", "stonewalling", "get Obama out at any cost... republican congress"


As far as carrying on a respectful discussion, in what way have I been disrespectful? Stopping spending is one thing, failure to even try to compromise on any topic is not democracy in action; democracy needs compromise to function. Failure to compromise is what you get in a dictatorship.

I ask for a respectful conversation and what do I get? The "d" word dictatorship. The Republicans control only the House and you use the "d" word! At least you made me smile. :)
 
Last edited:
I see your point, perhaps I was a little heavy handed. I was trying to express that a failure to compromise is contrary to democracy, in fact it is what democracy relies on. But, regarding my comments,"do nothing", "stonewalling", "get Obama out at any cost... republican congress", don't you think there is a reason that the republican party has been called the party of 'NO'? Am I incorrect in that there have been statements made by the republicans in office that their number one goal is to limit Obama to one term?
 
But, regarding my comments,"do nothing", "stonewalling", "get Obama out at any cost... republican congress", don't you think there is a reason that the republican party has been called the party of 'NO'? Am I incorrect in that there have been statements made by the republicans in office that their number one goal is to limit Obama to one term?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.

Gary, surely you can admit that the republicans in office have been more focused on portraying Obama in a negative light and in stonewalling ANY action in Congress than they have been with helping America recover from the worst recession since the great depression. McConnell's quote above says it all, and that is exactly the goal that has driven every action they have taken over the last two years. They have clearly decided that the Country be damned, but this President will only serve one term!
 
As has been said before more politely they are all a bunch of *******s! Term limits are a must for all of them.

Best, Bob
 
I see your point, perhaps I was a little heavy handed. I was trying to express that a failure to compromise is contrary to democracy, in fact it is what democracy relies on. But, regarding my comments,"do nothing", "stonewalling", "get Obama out at any cost... republican congress", don't you think there is a reason that the republican party has been called the party of 'NO'? Am I incorrect in that there have been statements made by the republicans in office that their number one goal is to limit Obama to one term?

Steve, +1 for seeing that "perhaps...a little heavy handed".

But now you put your original accusations into the form of a question. Yes, it is a less confrontational approach, but it either requires me to post an answer or your questions seem to stands as fact to some readers because it went unchallenged. I did not enter this discussion to agrue either Republicans bad - Democrats good or Democrats are socialist and Republicans are free market.

You are essentially repeating the top Democrat talking points. So here are a couple of short answers.

1. The Republican congress is "do nothing" - Actually the Repubs have passed a number of bills but "my" senator Reid tables them in the senate and they don't even get brought up for a vote. In Harry's defense they would not pass the Democrat controlled senate anyway but this way senate Democrats that are vulnerable in 2012 don't have to put their name on something that might cost them votes. Also, when the Repubs put something brave out for a vote or debate such as Paul Ryans budget plan, on come the attacks. I can visualize Debbie Wasserman Schultz (ouch) attacking as I write this.

Full discloser: I voted for Harry Reid in 2004. He does bring home the bacon to Nevada. If I had known it would later lead to an unyielding super majority, I would have voted differently.

2. Repubicans are "stonewalling" has the same answer as #1.

3. "get Obama out at any cost... republican congress" is simply not true. Or if it is true they are doing a very bad job of it. Gordon has put forth a number of comments on polls showing the current Repulicans routinely on the losing side of the poll (this does not make them wrong) in gerneral the Repubs have a different ideology. @ Gordon - The MSNBC poll appears silly to me and I suspect unscientific my guess is that it has about the same validity as a "Sean Hanity" poll.
 
-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.

Gary, surely you can admit that the republicans in office have been more focused on portraying Obama in a negative light and in stonewalling ANY action in Congress than they have been with helping America recover from the worst recession since the great depression. McConnell's quote above says it all, and that is exactly the goal that has driven every action they have taken over the last two years. They have clearly decided that the Country be damned, but this President will only serve one term!

Totally agree.
If people can't see what is going on in this wonderful government then they are totally blind. I have never seen one side soooo against the other.
Sadly we vote for these jerks.
I prefer to be in the middle and look at what they have to say on all fronts. As usual we the people are getting bent over.

Regards, Bob
 
Hi Gary,

If the MSNBC poll seems silly to you,so be it. I was merely reporting the results.

Regarding your comment "get Obama out at any cost" and that it simply is not true, I would argue that Mr. McConnell's statement that his primary goal is to ensure that Obama is a one term President suggests otherwise.

By the way, thanks for your respectful insights.

GG
 
You are essentially repeating the top Democrat talking points. So here are a couple of short answers.

1. The Republican congress is "do nothing" - Actually the Repubs have passed a number of bills but "my" senator Reid tables them in the senate and they don't even get brought up for a vote. In Harry's defense they would not pass the Democrat controlled senate anyway but this way senate Democrats that are vulnerable in 2012 don't have to put their name on something that might cost them votes. Also, when the Repubs put something brave out for a vote or debate such as Paul Ryans budget plan, on come the attacks. I can visualize Debbie Wasserman Schultz (ouch) attacking as I write this.

If and when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passes legislation that is actually worthy of consideration by the adults in Congress, I am sure Senator Reid will be happy to consider it. Unfortunately, the inane, super-partisan crap that the Republican leaders John B. and especially Eric C. keep sending over is being given the appropriate consideration. At this time, sadly, I doubt that this will happen with this extremist group of newly-elected republicans who only seek to have nothing accomplished for the American People, defend millionaires and bow to Grover.

3. "get Obama out at any cost... republican congress" is simply not true. Or if it is true they are doing a very bad job of it. Gordon has put forth a number of comments on polls showing the current Repulicans routinely on the losing side of the poll (this does not make them wrong) in gerneral the Repubs have a different ideology. @ Gordon - The MSNBC poll appears silly to me and I suspect unscientific my guess is that it has about the same validity as a "Sean Hanity" poll.

Just because the Republicans are so transparent and "doing a bad job of it" doesn't mean it isn't true. And, it is now pretty well universally accepted (in the real world -- not where Rush and Mitch live) that the Republicans are in fact losing ground with their ill-advised strategy (used to be "strategery" when Bush was Prez).

IF the Republican leadership would show ANY actual leadership, and/or statesmanship, and willingness to compromise on ANYTHING to try to fix the awful economic mess that THEY CREATED. But, I have little hope of this happening.
 
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president"
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Politics is a full contact sport. The Dems really worked GW Bush over. What would really shock me would be if McConnell didn't consider gaining all three branches of govenment in the next election as their top priority. And make no mistake about it, Obama is on the campaign trail in full force vilifying Republicans.

Here's the shocker. I am in agreement with Mitch on this one. But he should have left it unsaid.

-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.

Gary, surely you can admit that the republicans in office have been more focused on portraying Obama in a negative light and in stonewalling ANY action in Congress than they have been with helping America recover from the worst recession since the great depression. McConnell's quote above says it all, and that is exactly the goal that has driven every action they have taken over the last two years. They have clearly decided that the Country be damned, but this President will only serve one term!

Why would anyone be surprised that the Repubs try to put Obama in a "negative light". This is politics after all.

I do not believe the so called Obama jobs package would "help America recover from the worst recession since the great depression". We are not in a standard business cycle with 2 years or less of recession. We are in a financial crisis and historically the average recovery time for a financial crisis is 7 years. A financial crisis requires de-leveraging. This started at the end of 2007 becoming evident to everyone in Q3 of 2008. Seven years gets us to 2114 or 2115. For more infomation please check out "This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" by Cament M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.

I personally found the lack of oversight on the last couple of trillion dollars of spending to be appalling. Talk about largesse for the political elite.

I adhere to the "Austrian School of Economics" and I would guess that most of the posters on this believe in "Keynesian Economic Theory".

Three last point.

1. The Republicans contol only one branch of govenment and they have controlled that for just over 10 months. Where were the Dems for the 2 years when they had it all?

2. I support letting the GW Bush tax cuts expire. While collecting only 4.6 percent on the top end it raises taxes on all workers and so we all share the pain. This was within Obamas power and he kicked it down the road. I claim he unwisely kicked it down the road for political gain.

3. I support adopting the Simpson-Bowles proposal. I didn't like all of it but I believe it would be good for the country. It was far reaching, bold and fair. It came into play when the Dems had all three branches with super majorities but again they kicked it down the road. A political football. I thank the commision for their hard bipartisan work. If Barack, Harry and Nancy had wanted this to pass it should have been easier than passing the healthcare bill.

Regards,
Gary
 
Gary,

With all due respect, you are missing a very basic point.

"Single, most important" clearly implies that other items of national importance (economy, job growth, deficit reduction, etc.) will play second fiddle to his primary obsession. And he (and other Reps who support that position) could care less about the dysfunction and damage that it does to this Country in the process.

If you can't see / recognize that, I really don't know what else to say.

GG
 
Gary,

With all due respect, you are missing a very basic point.

Gordon,

With all due respect, you are missing a very basic point.

I follow the "Austrian School of Economics" This economic crisis is following a necessary deleveraging process. I only see more wasteful spending and debt growth in the Presidents jobs bill. What happened to the last trillion? We are only a year away from the next election. It's not like the nation will really crumble in the interim. I believe the next election is the most important in my lifetime (for the country). I'm sure we will not be voting for the same candidates but that's democracy.

PS: I personally think Mitch and company are making a mistake. Politically I would vote for the presidents jobs bill. Since we are in a financial crisis and the jobs bill, I believe, would only be of marginal help, the repubs could blame it on Obama and capture the trifecta next year. If it actually produced results (as you probably believe) then we are on our way to better economic time. For me it's a win win. But alas....

Regards,
Gary
 
I repeat these points from an earlier post. Feel free to tell me where I'm going wrong here.


1. The Republicans contol only one branch of govenment and they have controlled that for just over 10 months. Where were the Dems for the 2 years when they had it all?

2. I support letting the GW Bush tax cuts expire. While collecting only 4.6 percent on the top end it raises taxes on all workers and so we all share the pain. This was within Obamas power and he kicked it down the road. I claim he unwisely kicked it down the road for political gain.

3. I support adopting the Simpson-Bowles proposal. I didn't like all of it but I believe it would be good for the country. It was far reaching, bold and fair. It came into play when the Dems had all three branches with super majorities but again they kicked it down the road. A political football. I thank the commision for their hard bipartisan work. If Barack, Harry and Nancy had wanted this to pass it should have been easier than passing the healthcare bill.

Gary
 
1. The Republicans contol only one branch of govenment and they have controlled that for just over 10 months. Where were the Dems for the 2 years when they had it all?

They were stymied in many of their efforts by the republican minority in the Senate, who threatened to filibuster just about everything they tried to pass. And they spent a good deal of time and leverage passing a poor excuse for a Universal Health Care law, which was also stymied and watered down by the republicans. We are the only developed nation in the world that doesn't have some form of Universal Health Care, and this was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation in our lifetime. But unfortunately, what we got was a piece of crap that doesn't really help anyone, thanks in large part to republican obstinance. They have now killed effective Universal Health Care legislation twice in or lifetime, making us one of the richest nations in the world that fails to care for the health of our people.

By the way, the same question could be asked of the republicans, who held both houses of Congress and the Presidency for six years under Bush. What did they accomplish for our nation? Did they deem the debt levels to be a crisis that had to be addressed when they were in charge? Nope, they got diddle done. But suddenly now that they are in the minority, the debt is supposedly at a crisis level and nothing else can be accomplished until we fix it. If the republicans take back Congress in the next election, I predict that the debt will suddenly become less important.

2. I support letting the GW Bush tax cuts expire. While collecting only 4.6 percent on the top end it raises taxes on all workers and so we all share the pain. This was within Obamas power and he kicked it down the road. I claim he unwisely kicked it down the road for political gain.

I agree with you here. In fact, I think kicking it down the road was the dumbest move Obama has made in his first term. He could have made a strong political statement by letting them expire, or he could have used it for leverage in the budget negotiations that the Republicans aren't willing to budge on. Instead, he took that leverage and punted it away. What an idiotic thing to do, politically.

3. I support adopting the Simpson-Bowles proposal. I didn't like all of it but I believe it would be good for the country. It was far reaching, bold and fair. It came into play when the Dems had all three branches with super majorities but again they kicked it down the road. A political football.

The dems kicked it down the road? Hardly. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was created in 2010 by President Obama to identify "…policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run." The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53-46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it. Thereafter, Obama established the Commission by Executive Order. A report was released on December 1, 2010, but failed a vote on December 3 with 11 of 18 votes in favor, with a supermajority of 14 votes needed to formally endorse the blueprint. Voting against were four democrats and three republicans. Source

Clearly, the republicans tried to scuttle this commission. Obama made it happen anyway. But by the time the commission released their report, the election had already occurred that gave republicans a majority in the House. The democrats never had an opportunity to vote on the commission's recommendations when they had a supermajority. Thus your insinuation that they had the opportunity and punted is a mistaken assertion.

Truth is, if it is a far reaching, bold and fair plan, it should be able to be passed by a bipartisan Congress, one that actually compromises for the good of the country. But then, if one side refuses to pass anything for which the other side may claim some credit, then nothing bold and fair can be accomplished for our country and we the people suffer for it.
 
"They were stymied in many of their efforts by the republican minority in the Senate, who threatened to filibuster just about everything they tried to pass. And they spent a good deal of time and leverage passing a poor excuse for a Universal Health Care law, which was also stymied and watered down by the republicans."

The Dems had 60 and were filibuster proof. If they had been truly united they could have passed better legislation instead of the "poor excuse" that happened. I'll save the idea as to whether we should have "universal health care" or a "free market plus" for another debate. Currently we have neither and it is an abomination.


"I agree with you here. In fact, I think kicking it down the road was the dumbest move Obama has made in his first term. He could have made a strong political statement by letting them expire, or he could have used it for leverage in the budget negotiations that the Republicans aren't willing to budge on. Instead, he took that leverage and punted it away. What an idiotic thing to do, politically."





"The democrats never had an opportunity to vote on the commission's recommendations when they had a supermajority. Thus your insinuation that they had the opportunity and punted is a mistaken assertion."

The Dems had the opportunity but chose not to push the timeline.

.[/QUOTE]
 
Gary,

You are still not answering my question regarding Mr. McConnell's quote and the message it clearly sends to the rest of the Republican party.

Whatever.

Best.

Gordon
 
The Dems had the opportunity but chose not to push the timeline.

They were in session for a total of seven days after the commission released its report. Do you really think it would be possible to debate and vote on legislation this important in both houses of Congress in that short of a timespan? Sorry, not possible. And if they would have tried it, the republicans would have raised cain that the dems were trying to force through last minute legislation after losing their majority.

Of course, we would have gotten a vote on the Commision's recommendations if the republicans hadn't blocked the original legislation . . . you know, the legislation they co-sponsored and then voted against! This legislation would have required Congress to vote on the proposals. But the legislation was blocked by Congressional republicans, and Obama had to use an Executive Order just to get the Commission established in the first place. Sorry, but try as hard as you might, you just can't hang this one on Democrats.
 
Sorry, but try as hard as you might, you just can't hang this one on Democrats.

I was referring to a possible push on the commision to bring the proposal in at an earlier date to afford more time for legislative review. However, I will concede to the point that is one was largely killed by Republicans.

Regards,
Gary
 
However, I will concede to the point that is one was largely killed by Republicans.

Ultimately, the Commission's recommendations could still be passed. And the mandatory spending cuts looming could be avoided with a compromise on targeted spending cuts. But until both sides are willing to compromise and sacrifice their sacred cows and take a little political heat for the good of the country, nothing will get done. They will just continue to blame each other for all of our problems and we as a country will continue to suffer. It seems our country is being run by a bunch of toddlers.
 
I If Barack, Harry and Nancy had wanted this to pass it should have been easier than passing the healthcare bill.
Gary

And we all saw how easy THAT was...:ROFL:

Honestly, Gary, if you don't "get" that Mitch and Eric and their cronies care only about political advantage and gamesmanship -- The Country and the economy be damned -- it is difficult to know what else their is to say. It is so very obvious to the majority of voters, and once again the Republicans will wonder what happened as they pi$$ away yet another election by overplaying their hand (and defending the super-wealthy). So predictable. So very sad...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top