Fiscal Cliff deal "within sight", according to Obama

[Linkedblade]

I'm willing to look at actual pork that was in the bill, but where are you getting your numbers?

From the bill itself. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&
Have fun reading it. It's over 150 pages long. . .

[vastx]

So you don't care how much your 'team' spends, only that the other 'team' has to compromise to give you what you want while you do no such thing? I would direct you to Mr Goldwater again (protip: he was a real republican), but you would just complain that I didn't address your 'points' and call me an idiot once more.

No, I wouldn't call you an idiot for addressing your points by references. I would again call you an idiot for question my links because you don't like the source's political idealogy...as if somehow that lessons the facts.

I did care that spending exploded under Bush. Yeah I shrugged it off at the time. My side, yay..all that crap. I admit it. We should of suspended the tax cuts when it came clear we would be bogged down in a long occupation in Iraq.

Would, shoulda. I associate myself with the Republican party for it's conservative principles. And I learned not all those elected officials follow those principles.

[obdigore]

From the bill itself. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&

Ok I was going to say I think we are talking about two different bills, and we were.

---------- Post added 2013-01-03 at 01:32 AM ----------

No, I wouldn't call you an idiot for addressing your points by references. I would again call you an idiot for question my links because you don't like the source's political idealogy...as if somehow that lessons the facts.

I did care that spending exploded under Bush. Yeah I shrugged it off at the time. My side, yay..all that crap. I admit it. We should of suspended the tax cuts when it came clear we would be bogged down in a long occupation in Iraq.

Would, shoulda. I associate myself with the Republican party for it's conservative principles. And I learned not all those elected officials follow those principles.

And what 'conservative principles' are currently being followed by the GOP, in your opinion? I mean besides hating gays and increasing the size of the government, what else are they doing that is conservative?

[vastx]

Ok I was going to say I think we are talking about two different bills, and we were.

---------- Post added 2013-01-03 at 01:32 AM ----------



And what 'conservative principles' are currently being followed by the GOP, in your opinion? I mean besides hating gays and increasing the size of the government, what else are they doing that is conservative?

Hating gays hmm?

Please learn the definition of hate. Such an overly and misused word these days.

I didn't agree with the creation of Homeland Security. Why couldn't they just reform the related departments and agencies?

[obdigore]

Hating gays hmm?

Please learn the definition of hate. Such an overly and misused word these days.

I didn't agree with the creation of Homeland Security. Why couldn't they just reform the related departments and agencies?

So there aren't any conservative principles the current GOP espouses? Cool.

[Wells]

Calling someone an idiot because they don't take a right wing op ed as a serious citation is in pretty poor form.

[Wildtree]

I don't like that picture because it puts the costs for both Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama.

I prefer the new spending graphs.

Yes, nice graph, someone who thinks their counterpart doesn't have 2 cents worth brain would of course buy into the Obama created all that mess..
But many people have those 2 cents brain, and not only know that this graph reflects the exaggerated spending on 2 wars, which by today are still not over, after 10 or 11 years respectively. And it was already said times and again since 2006 and on, that the war spending will come and bite the country in the ass a few years down the road.. We are those few years down now.
Only thing is, that right wing nuts believe they can put that blame now easily on the current President. Maybe they think people forgetting easy.
Yet, the same people that blame Obama's Admin are the ones extremely vocal on how they want more spending on the military.

I suggest, if anyione really wants to blame someone, then go to the bottom of everything. Get a total bill of what either war costs to the people.
A thorough total amount for Iraq, and one for Afghanistan.
It's really that simple. The more you borrow, the more you owe, the more and the longer you owe, the more you have to pay back. At some point the interest eats you up alive.

The countries debt/spending was already through the roof with the first war on Iraq. See the graph, how it exploded there. And how Reagan had to eat the results of it.
Clinton brought it down a notch, but it was nowhere near to afford but another war again. But who cares, we even started 2 wars.
And if anyone doubts that it has anything to do with military spendings.... Well, look at Roosevelt/Truman and when the debt exploded to it's all time high.

[vastx]

Calling someone an idiot because they don't take a right wing op ed as a serious citation is in pretty poor form.

Yes, ignore the numbers posted. Ignore them. They just made them up.

Jesus Christ.

---------- Post added 2013-01-03 at 12:43 AM ----------

So there aren't any conservative principles the current GOP espouses? Cool.

The GOP is hardly unified. If you're talking about the GOP establishment, they're a bit weak in the knees and more likely to test the air.

[obdigore]

He's got a point. I followed your link and never found the bill in question. Just an analysis from 2 opinion articles - one from townhall.com, and the FreedomWorks opinion article. Neither referenced the bill itself. Linkedblade thought he referenced it, but that was HR8, which was the fiscal cliff bill.

I shouldn't have to stress the "opinion" part of that.

I'm pretty sure Linkedblade has been talking about the Fiscal Cliff deal (which is what the thread is about) throughout, and it might be the rest of us that are off topic.

[Wildtree]

That's why the country struggles:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dot...-unsustainable

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...00-and-rising/
http://news.yahoo.com/something-wron...183400589.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...llars-per-day/

Those articles don't pull their info out of their asses. They are based on information published by the Pentagon.

[obdigore]

The GOP is hardly unified. If you're talking about the GOP establishment, they're a bit weak in the knees and more likely to test the air.

Odd, because that is literally the GOP and conservatives only strength. Unity. Walking in lock-step. It isn't a coincidence that Conservatives score much higher on in group loyalty than Liberals.

---------- Post added 2013-01-03 at 01:57 AM ----------

Talk about confusion. My point still stands. There's no official citation in the townhall.com link that points toward the actual legislation. And the citation is an opinion piece that points to 2 opinion pieces that also point to blog posts.

I'm not saying vastx is lying, but damn, how hard is it to show your work if you're trying to show some pork spending?

I didn't say your post was wrong, I agree that quoting right-wing op-eds that don't actually quote the bill isn't a reliable citation. I was just saying that Linkedblade wasn't trying to prove or even discuss the Sandy Relief bill, but rather was staying on topic, unlike the rest of us wackos.

[obdigore]

I have just slapped myself on the wrist then. You should do the same, you freak!

Just on the wrist? You are no fun anymore, Chonogo!

[Grizzly Willy]

They agreed to address spending in the near future. That's not the same thing as refusing the cut spending. But lets look at the things that actually happen, like Obamacare. Democrats compromised all over that.

Or the fiscal cliff deal where the democrats compromised on tax rates.

Why couldn't they have addressed spending before the deadline and come up with a solution in the time that they new about this mess?

[obdigore]

Why couldn't they have addressed spending before the deadline and come up with a solution in the time that they new about this mess?

Because they were too busy arguing about ending the tax cuts?

[Wells]

Why couldn't they have addressed spending before the deadline and come up with a solution in the time that they new about this mess?

Should they could have. They should have. That's kind of a tangent to the point though.

[mvaliz]

It still baffles me that people really believed we were going over this so-called "cliff".

When has there EVER been a deal done weeks before a deadline? Both sides knew there was a deadline... so both sides just held out as long as possible in hopes of getting as much as possible until the last minute (this time, LITERALLY the last minute!)... but the end result would be passed in the deadline time.

Don't believe me? Well... stay tuned for the Media coverage of the "Debt ceiling" being raised.... will the government agree to a debt ceiling hike? Or will a deal not be brokered and the government get shut down!!!!

...(((Spoiler from the future!))) they'll just keep rejecting bills back n' forth to keep getting more for what they want until the last day, then it will pass.

It never changes... seriously, wake up and see how the damn game is played and stop believing in the damn media hype to keep you glued to reading their articles for fear of your lives... or worse, your wallets! >_<

[Grizzly Willy]

Should they could have. They should have. That's kind of a tangent to the point though.

I dunno, I'm just miffed that they didn't address it and then rushed this mess of a bill out so they could say they did something. And by "they" I mean our collection of monkeys we call Congress.

[Naxere]

I dunno, I'm just miffed that they didn't address it and then rushed this mess of a bill out so they could say they did something. And by "they" I mean our collection of monkeys we call Congress.

That's our current political climate. They need a new crisis every few months so they can look like they're being productive and hence get re-elected. It'll be the debt ceiling next, then spending cuts after that, with some gun control thrown in for good measure.

[Ausr]

It still baffles me that people really believed we were going over this so-called "cliff".

When has there EVER been a deal done weeks before a deadline? Both sides knew there was a deadline... so both sides just held out as long as possible in hopes of getting as much as possible until the last minute (this time, LITERALLY the last minute!)... but the end result would be passed in the deadline time.

Don't believe me? Well... stay tuned for the Media coverage of the "Debt ceiling" being raised.... will the government agree to a debt ceiling hike? Or will a deal not be brokered and the government get shut down!!!!

...(((Spoiler from the future!))) they'll just keep rejecting bills back n' forth to keep getting more for what they want until the last day, then it will pass.

It never changes... seriously, wake up and see how the damn game is played and stop believing in the damn media hype to keep you glued to reading their articles for fear of your lives... or worse, your wallets! >_<

Truthfully, I think the House Republicans would've let us go over the cliff just to fuck the rest of us over.

[Laize]

I would've preferred that as well. The Republicans went from "We want tax reform" to "We'll consider raising taxes on the rich as long as we get spending reform" to "Ok, We'll raise taxes on the rich but we want meaningful spending cuts" to their final position of "Ok, we'll raise taxes and we'll put off spending cuts until later." I'd bet my hat that the proposed spending cuts in March don't happen either (that is, if Boehner is still the Speaker). It'll be interesting to see who gets voted in as Speaker of the House tomorrow. I'm no huge fan of Eric Cantor, but at least he'll have the balls to stand up to the President.

BOEHNER has practically committed (What should, hopefully be) political suicide.

He shunned the Republican Party by not allowing the Sandy Relief bill to come to a vote the other day. He not only spurned REPUBLICAN Congressmen and Senators from states hard-hit by Sandy, but found himself on the wrong end of Republican star-child, Chris Christie's wrath after walking off the floor rather than bringing Sandy Relief to a vote.

Even his own home-state district has to be rethinking their approval of a man who finds it preferable to allow disaster-stricken citizens to sit in outside -5 degree weather than even vote on a proposal to make that not happen.