Thank You President Obama!!!

[rwryley]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Let me explain politics real quick for you...

If you want to really paint a party as obstructionist you put up legislation so the other party can shoot it down. It hurts them in the polls. It hurts them in elections. It hurts their unity as a party. When you have that opportunity you do it!

The Democrats can't do that because they have their own problems. They barely got HCR through after a year of working on it.

Both parties have their problems the biggest one being leadership. The rest of your post is just deflection.

I think I understand politics pretty well. Spent many years in it and understand the process. When the Rs marched lock-step and 100% refused to support virtually any form of health-care reform, Obama had no choice but to try to build sufficient support on his own side. In the end he did that. Something no other Democrat was able to do. Any criticism of him suggesting he lacked or the party lacked unity or leadership on the issue is just baloney. Whether you like it or not the bill passed. Case closed.

The idea that it is common practice to put up legislation that will get shot down by the other side is by no means a common strategy. What piece of legislation did the Dems or Obama propose that got shot down by the Rs? Specifically how were they hurt in polls or the election on what issue?

I have seen cases where parties play the referendum or ballot initiative game by putting on the ballot a question intended to bring out voters who typically support their candidates. But I can't remember an instance where a bill was proposed just to get the other side to vote against it and knock it down. But on second thought, maybe Boehner's "Plan B" was such a bill. He knew D's wold never accept it without teeing off large parts of their support. But then, if that was his plan, it failed miserably as he couldn't even get enough R support to bring it to the floor.

Frankly, the Republican fillibuster strategy has been used mostly against bills they knew had sufficient votes to pass if a vote were permitted. We have reached the point where virtually anything has to have 60 votes (not 51) to get considered. Hardly a fair "majority rule" process.

I see the real underlying problem right now not so much about leadership at the top of each party, but a determined minority of members married to ideology who think negotiating and compromise are bad things. Honestly, I see this far more coming from the farther shores of the ring wing than anywhere else. Just my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

According to this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75S25320110629
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost between $3.7 and $4.4 trillion. Or almost half the increase in the National debt since that time. All for nothing.

No, no, no...now hold on there just a damn minute. The war in AFGHANISTAN has been deemed by you and your cohorts to be JUST.

So you can't count that cost.

I was simply asking about Iraq. That's the UNJUST war...or have you forgotten?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Unless according to the idiots at Drudge...........

Stir it up good. Guys Inhale deeply Only a matter of time until you
gents start another revival meeting thread on this "NEW" conspiracy



Hey Fast, don't forget to secure all tin foil beanies, and fill us in on how the Bilderbergers are involved. Remember to orient all beanies north/south to improve reception, and face west while standing on the left leg. There are other curiously anatomical recommendations, but in case any kids are reading this, ..........Oh well.

Why do you continue with this disingenuous nonsense? That is an ADVERTISEMENT at Drudge. Yet you make it out to be some sort of editorial content.

Please stop overextending yourself...you're gonna throw your back out one day...you'll thank me later.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why do you continue with this disingenuous nonsense? That is an ADVERTISEMENT at Drudge. Yet you make it out to be some sort of editorial content.

Please stop overextending yourself...you're gonna throw your back out one day...you'll thank me later.

Funny, you should mention it, I did throw my back out yesterday somewhere around the time I did my regular check of what new junk Drudge is pushing. Sort of like straining to see how bad an accident is while driving by and craning your neck when it becomes apparent just how horrendous the accident really was.

You know the reason Drudge posts adds like that one. Don't you?

[Tom]

You hurt your back jumping to conclusion and dodging the truth.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

No, no, no...now hold on there just a damn minute. The war in AFGHANISTAN has been deemed by you and your cohorts to be JUST.

So you can't count that cost.

I was simply asking about Iraq. That's the UNJUST war...or have you forgotten?

Try this one PA, I believe a little more accurate.
http://costofwar.com/

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dartman51

Try this one PA, I believe a little more accurate.
http://costofwar.com/

So the Iraq war accounts for less than 7% of the current total Federal Debt of this country? Relying of course on the most likely not-very-accurate numbers presented on that link you provided.

Good to know.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So the Iraq war accounts for less than 7% of the current total Federal Debt of this country? Relying of course on the most likely not-very-accurate numbers presented on that link you provided.

Good to know.

I don't think the figure is off as much as you think. As you can see, the totals are still going up. According to the CBO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...f_the_Iraq_War

Indirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[10][11]

People jumped on the 3 trillion figure, because some guy wrote a book about it and the Washington Post reported it. If you have more accurate figures, then show them.

[PaceAdvantage]

My point was not to dispute the actual number. My point was to show that this constant referencing of the Iraq war as some sort of major reason why this country is in a financial mess is easily refuted when it's seen that even by using your numbers, the war accounts for less than 7% of the total debt.

[barn32]

Meanwhile back at the pumps...

Thank you President Obama!

[Tom]

You are a great example of why we are hopelessly in debt that we can never repay.

It is hard to imagine there are still simpletons around who think the president has anything to do with gas prices, but I bet you are one happy fella!

[JustRalph]

Still a dollar more than when he was elected

I'm sure he will get right on that

[fast4522]

There are those in the administration that want what we pay at the pump to be on par with Europe. The real issue with the debt is the amount of despair inflation will guarantee, inflation is in check right now just by circumstance much like the eye of a storm directly over you that will change rapidly. The amount of our debt we still can fix if there was will to do so, sadly we have monsters hellbent at the controls looking to slam the country into walls the likes of which we have never seen before. The key wording is sustenance, because under the current rate of spending there is no way to provide sustenance no matter how much you tax the rich. That being said it becomes obvious that the wall is the objective and the product is despair for complete control and takeover.

[soupan]

Originally Posted by fast4522

There are those in the administration that want what we pay at the pump to be on par with Europe. The real issue with the debt is the amount of despair inflation will guarantee, inflation is in check right now just by circumstance much like the eye of a storm directly over you that will change rapidly. The amount of our debt we still can fix if there was will to do so, sadly we have monsters hellbent at the controls looking to slam the country into walls the likes of which we have never seen before. The key wording is sustenance, because under the current rate of spending there is no way to provide sustenance no matter how much you tax the rich. That being said it becomes obvious that the wall is the objective and the product is despair for complete control and takeover.

Control and takeover?? By Whom??? Obama? The Democrats?

With the ability to manipulate global interest rates,, you won't see any significant inflation until the economy turns enough to ease rates.
That ain't happening soon.

[soupan]

Originally Posted by fast4522

There are those in the administration that want what we pay at the pump to be on par with Europe. The real issue with the debt is the amount of despair inflation will guarantee, inflation is in check right now just by circumstance much like the eye of a storm directly over you that will change rapidly. The amount of our debt we still can fix if there was will to do so, sadly we have monsters hellbent at the controls looking to slam the country into walls the likes of which we have never seen before. The key wording is sustenance, because under the current rate of spending there is no way to provide sustenance no matter how much you tax the rich. That being said it becomes obvious that the wall is the objective and the product is despair for complete control and takeover.

Please name who in what administration that want us to pay at the pump what Europe pays.

You know everyone bitches about taxes here in the good ole' USA but the reason those prices are high in Europe is due to the taxes associated with gas per litre.

Now, shall we talk about the VAT drain on the average citizen overseas?

If we would ever have instituted a VAT type tax years ago, the states wouldn't be able to tax the way they tax and they'd just be bitching to Washington about not getting their fair share back in return.
So which way do you want it? State Tax or Feds?????

(Neither is not an option, unless you want no cops, firemen, teachers, etc)