Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Please explain why we have this absolute dysfunctionality in Congress to resolve this issue?
Given what's at stake, i really don't get IT.
GG
Given what's at stake, i really don't get IT.
GG
Last edited:
Raising the debt ceiling
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Shoe
Well-known member
Gordon, I have two thoughts; the first one, this is the way democracy works, it is a slow and messy process. I am glad that I live in country where decisions that effect my life is hammered out before put into law. Unlike most countries where a despot can make changes overnight on a whim to suite his own fancy. My secoud thought, is that the current situation up on the hill reveals how deeply divided we are as a county.
I am very confident that a deal will be made and disaster will be avoided. The positive thing that I hope will come from this, is that we as county must start living within our means. That conversation is now taking place for the first time. Sam
I am very confident that a deal will be made and disaster will be avoided. The positive thing that I hope will come from this, is that we as county must start living within our means. That conversation is now taking place for the first time. Sam
Sam I don't know about the 'county' in which you reside but here in Chester 'County' Pa things are rather good............just bustin' your stones !
With regards to Gordons topic at hand...........I trully can't stand either Party and it comes back to what I've said before..........I wish the earth were flat that way the A-holes ultra right and left would have fallen off !!!
This is a sad situation where a small number of extremists (OK, right-wing nut jobs -- thank you very much Rush and Sean and all the other sicko right-wing hate-mongers!) can take this Country and it's Citizens right down the tubes (and possibly much of the rest of the world as well).
But, when one party's leadership has their Primary Goal of ensuring the President serves only one term; when a member of one party rudely interrupts the President's State of the Union speech to yell, "You Lie!"; when one party chooses to render Congress almost completely inept; it is time to "throw the bums out!"
"Send in the Clowns, Don't bother, they're here..."
But, when one party's leadership has their Primary Goal of ensuring the President serves only one term; when a member of one party rudely interrupts the President's State of the Union speech to yell, "You Lie!"; when one party chooses to render Congress almost completely inept; it is time to "throw the bums out!"
"Send in the Clowns, Don't bother, they're here..."
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
I certainly have my own take but the Twitch man is spot on. And funny too.
GG
GG
jmschnur
Well-known member
But the earth is flat but keeps pointed at the sun that goes around it. Always has been since it was started 5000 years ago.
The debt limit is not a crises because the US should not honor obligations made by ignorant people who believe otherwise.
Love the sarcasm! What I long for is for politicians could be removed from office for lying -- like so many have been doing for awhile. I realize the mechanism for this makes this nearly impossible to implement, but I can dream...
Jimna
Well-known member
If the 2 parties let the debt default the waves they will create may well be the waves that lead to the end of our current political system and their reign of power.
Our empire may fall sooner than later....they all do eventually.
I have a son to be born around the end of the yr, all this troubles me for his future.
Our empire may fall sooner than later....they all do eventually.
I have a son to be born around the end of the yr, all this troubles me for his future.
The whole situation is puzzling to me. There is much said about how we can ill afford to have our credit rating lowered. I do understand the credit rating issue being a concern.
S & P and others are suggesting they will lower the rating of the country if we are deemed unable to make committed payments. What they seem to be saying is that it is OK to borrow moneys we will probably never be able to pay back and keep our credit rating or if we don't borrow moneys we will probably never be able to pay back it will be lowered.
Is this not exactly why we are where we are today? We have 2 quite useless parties controlling the country and we keep voting to put them there.
If I am missing something please help me understand.
S & P and others are suggesting they will lower the rating of the country if we are deemed unable to make committed payments. What they seem to be saying is that it is OK to borrow moneys we will probably never be able to pay back and keep our credit rating or if we don't borrow moneys we will probably never be able to pay back it will be lowered.
Is this not exactly why we are where we are today? We have 2 quite useless parties controlling the country and we keep voting to put them there.
If I am missing something please help me understand.
Looks to me like you are not puzzled at all. Sounds to me like you have it about right.
I too can say that I have no affinity for either party any more. The only difference between either party IMO is which part of your life that they want to control. Make no mistake they each want to control your life, it's just one wants to control your wealth and the other wants to control your beliefs and what you can believe in.
Congress without altruism is a terrible waste and will no doubt threaten democracy in the end, sad really.
shakham
Well-known member
We have a party for the poor.
We have a party for the rich.
We don't have a party for everybody in the middle.
Reason is...
The rich have money to influence with greed (you want my campaign funds?).
The poor have the stories to influence with emotion (I live in tiny apartment and can't go do the doctor if i'm sick!).
What confuses me is why is it so hard for other parties to emerge? Is it really about the money? or is it because we are attached to being a democrat/republican as if it's our favorite sports team.
I grew up in Canada, and the needs of the people caused the creation of other parties, Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. Though they never rose to run the government, they did gain enough seats to influence the system heavily when I was there.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Shak,
Trying to answer your question about the lack of a "true" third party, my guess is that it's all about money or lack thereof. Our most recent best chance was Ross Perot.
Now that we appear to know information about the "DEAL", I'm extremely disappointed. I always believed and still believe that there should have been spending cuts along with increases on the revenue side / AKA the "balanced approach". For whatever reason, the latter was dropped for purposes of passing this legislation.
For better or worse, we do have a recent equivalent of a new party or perhaps a sub-set of an existing party. It's called the "Tea Party" and it scares the hell out of me.
Reminds be of the "She's a Witch" scene from the Holy Grail.
I think many people, years from now, will be asking themselves "be careful what you ask for, you might get it" as the short / long term impacts of cost cutting, absent any rational analysis of the impact(s) of those cuts, becomes reality.
The looming giant now, IMO, is that spending cuts will cause a weak recovery to become totally anemic, or worse, a return to recession. Remember what happened in the mid 1930's?
GG
Trying to answer your question about the lack of a "true" third party, my guess is that it's all about money or lack thereof. Our most recent best chance was Ross Perot.
Now that we appear to know information about the "DEAL", I'm extremely disappointed. I always believed and still believe that there should have been spending cuts along with increases on the revenue side / AKA the "balanced approach". For whatever reason, the latter was dropped for purposes of passing this legislation.
For better or worse, we do have a recent equivalent of a new party or perhaps a sub-set of an existing party. It's called the "Tea Party" and it scares the hell out of me.
Reminds be of the "She's a Witch" scene from the Holy Grail.
I think many people, years from now, will be asking themselves "be careful what you ask for, you might get it" as the short / long term impacts of cost cutting, absent any rational analysis of the impact(s) of those cuts, becomes reality.
The looming giant now, IMO, is that spending cuts will cause a weak recovery to become totally anemic, or worse, a return to recession. Remember what happened in the mid 1930's?
GG
Last edited:
Words of Wisdom, Gordon. BTW, we voted for Ross.
And my wife had an interesting observation: Why is this new congressional panel going to be made up of six democrats and six republicans? Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the Democrats control (sort of -- that crazy "gotta have 60 votes to pass anything" you know) the Senate. So, I see 50-50 here (so far). However, the POTUS is a Democrat (OK, OK, sorta / kinda a Democrat). But shouldn't this tilt the balance to give the democrats at least one extra seat at the table?
Just a thought...
And my wife had an interesting observation: Why is this new congressional panel going to be made up of six democrats and six republicans? Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the Democrats control (sort of -- that crazy "gotta have 60 votes to pass anything" you know) the Senate. So, I see 50-50 here (so far). However, the POTUS is a Democrat (OK, OK, sorta / kinda a Democrat). But shouldn't this tilt the balance to give the democrats at least one extra seat at the table?
Just a thought...
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
So now that the Popper Committee has failed, where to from here?
I hope I share most members disgust at our Congress's inability to function.
FWIW, the MSNBC website has a current vote going on regarding the reason for failure.
Current result, with some 70,000 folks voting is:
Both sides / 17 %.
Obama / 13%
Democrats 17%
Republicans 53%
I know that MSNBC is seen (by conservatives) as being somewhat on the liberal side of the equation but this result seems to be reinforced by another poll that asked if the "rich" should be required to pay their fair tax share.
75% said yes.
GG
I hope I share most members disgust at our Congress's inability to function.
FWIW, the MSNBC website has a current vote going on regarding the reason for failure.
Current result, with some 70,000 folks voting is:
Both sides / 17 %.
Obama / 13%
Democrats 17%
Republicans 53%
I know that MSNBC is seen (by conservatives) as being somewhat on the liberal side of the equation but this result seems to be reinforced by another poll that asked if the "rich" should be required to pay their fair tax share.
75% said yes.
GG
To say that MSNBC is somewhat liberial might be considered as a bit of an understatment by some. Was the second poll by MSNBC also?
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Agreed Brad, which is why I stated that up front.
Regarding the second poll, to the best of my knowledge no. This national poll (legit as far as I can tell) occurred a few weeks ago and no one is apparently disputing the results.
I also wanted to state, in Post 14, that the apparent reason for Republicans not agreeing to a "deal" was their unwillingness to agree that the Bush tax cuts should not be extended into the future (post 2012).
GG
Regarding the second poll, to the best of my knowledge no. This national poll (legit as far as I can tell) occurred a few weeks ago and no one is apparently disputing the results.
I also wanted to state, in Post 14, that the apparent reason for Republicans not agreeing to a "deal" was their unwillingness to agree that the Bush tax cuts should not be extended into the future (post 2012).
GG
slowGEEZR
Well-known member
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Steve,
Thanks for sharing. The numbers are quite shocking to say the least.
Awhile ago, I asked if there was any proof / studies backing the Republican's position that taxes diminish the private sectors' ability to create jobs.
This seems to indicate the opposite.
Gordon
Thanks for sharing. The numbers are quite shocking to say the least.
Awhile ago, I asked if there was any proof / studies backing the Republican's position that taxes diminish the private sectors' ability to create jobs.
This seems to indicate the opposite.
Gordon
History teaches us otherwise. Quite simply, look at the tax rates during Clinton's terms and compare with the job growth and economic growth during that time, and then compare and contrast that with the past decade since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, during which time we have had anemic economic and job growth, and two recessions. I think it is pretty clear to any intelligent person that the republicans argument that higher taxes restrict job growth is an outright fantasy.
tsv_1
Well-known member
there in lies the rub... a very large constituancy of sheeple gorging on alarming innacuracies and outright falsehoods - all in the name of "taking back our nation". It's really all quite horrifying.
