I don't know if it was yesterday's pitiful "I want more money" speech, or a combination of events, but it seems there may be the hope of some competition on the Democratic side of the election.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html
(http://images8.cpcache.com/product/298779168_350x350_Front.jpg)
While I don't actually think there will be a primary challenger, at least now there is some hope the Democrats will be offered another choice, and if we continue to see a lack of leadership, that door may open even wider.
You are so lame. Your party and your views are destroying our economy, our goodwill around the world and eroding common sense in general. And this is the best you can do? Defend Boehner for heaven's sake, if you can. Defend herr Bachmann or Perry if you have the nerve. Make sense of Tea Party hypocrisy if you even recognize it. No, you have no courage for that. Stick with the "winning".
Notice the lack of participation lately on this forum? Both in topic generation and response? Same people all the time. Its because a small group of you are out of control with your partisan, anti-Obama, anti-Dem, anti-Liberal, anti-, anti-, anti- ad infinitum. Another small group tries to defend, correct, inform and deflect. That's entertaining for a while but is wearing thin.
This organization was founded on a positive platform. The forum is a chance to build on what works in Tulsa, why we like it here, how smart we are for living here and how to build on that. It has degenerated into a more literate, but just as negative, mirror of KRMG and talk radio in general. Ugh. Ish.
I'll tell you a little secret. When checking on new remarks or topics, I note which names are associated with them. When I see the hypocritical, negative one's with little credibility and politically dishonest, I usually pass.
Anyone else do that?
Quote from: AquaMan on July 26, 2011, 09:21:55 AM
Anyone else do that?
Yes
Modified to add the only reason I clicked on this is because I saw you responded.
Well said.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 26, 2011, 09:21:55 AM
You are so lame. Your party and your views are destroying our economy, our goodwill around the world and eroding common sense in general. And this is the best you can do? Defend Boehner for heaven's sake, if you can. Defend herr Bachmann or Perry if you have the nerve. Make sense of Tea Party hypocrisy if you even recognize it. No, you have no courage for that. Stick with the "winning".
Notice the lack of participation lately on this forum? Both in topic generation and response? Same people all the time. Its because a small group of you are out of control with your partisan, anti-Obama, anti-Dem, anti-Liberal, anti-, anti-, anti- ad infinitum. Another small group tries to defend, correct, inform and deflect. That's entertaining for a while but is wearing thin.
This organization was founded on a positive platform. The forum is a chance to build on what works in Tulsa, why we like it here, how smart we are for living here and how to build on that. It has degenerated into a more literate, but just as negative, mirror of KRMG and talk radio in general. Ugh. Ish.
I'll tell you a little secret. When checking on new remarks or topics, I note which names are associated with them. When I see the hypocritical, negative one's with little credibility and politically dishonest, I usually pass.
Anyone else do that?
BRAVO! Post of the week so far, AM!
The War on Obama has had many supporters and soldiers here at TNF.
Come August 2, Americans everywhere should join forces and unify with the Teabagging GOPer's and refuse to pay their personal obligations to lenders and dependents.
Way to send us into chaos, wingnuts. They're all so jealous of the educated class (what's left of us).
If anything, it is the republican party that is crumbling under the pressure of trying to satisfy the Tea Party demands to castrate all government by slashing spending while trying to spend more on defense and give tax breaks to the wealthy.
I firmly believe that a prominent republican will run as an independent and fracture the party enough to re-elect Obama.
He doesn't need any help.
Perry the Pastor out of Texass?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 08:40:31 AM
I don't know if it was yesterday's pitiful "I want more money" speech, or a combination of events, but it seems there may be the hope of some competition on the Democratic side of the election.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html
(http://images8.cpcache.com/product/298779168_350x350_Front.jpg)
While I don't actually think there will be a primary challenger, at least now there is some hope the Democrats will be offered another choice, and if we continue to see a lack of leadership, that door may open even wider.
LACK LEADERSHIP?
Boy, are we lucky your ilk weren't around during WWII.
Beach towels for all the Dims...... ;D
The quickest and easiest way to solve this problem is a combination cut of spending and increase of revenues. If I want to pay off something faster or better meet my obligations, I will cut my own spending and look for ways to increase my income. I am pretty sure that is how we all look at it. Well not all of us, I suppose. When you have the President, who is in the higher tax bracket stating that we should put his taxes back at the levels they were before Bush cut them, I put a little stock in that. I could easily say that we should repeal bush tax cuts, but I do not make over 250k.
Hey, the free market is great. Until you lose the balance between the employee and the employer. The employer has always had a majority of the power, they are the ones that are signing the checks... but the employee had the power to dictate some of the terms of employment. Now the employer holds about 99.5% of that power. Companies are not highering because they can dictate that their employees work harder or risk losing their job, while they are pulling in record profits that they can just write off the tax burden on. This is why you have companies like GE making a $5Billion profit and paying minimal to no taxes. Heck, I am willing to say that Joe Blow Janitor paid more in taxes than GE did as a company. He probably paid more than some of the CEO's and VP's.
Feisty!
Since you choose to ignore my posts and remarks, please refrain from rebuttal.
I am not the LA Times. I was simply posting an article and my thoughts. I apologize if I have offended you.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on July 26, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
The quickest and easiest way to solve this problem is a combination cut of spending and increase of revenues. If I want to pay off something faster or better meet my obligations, I will cut my own spending and look for ways to increase my income. I am pretty sure that is how we all look at it. Well not all of us, I suppose. When you have the President, who is in the higher tax bracket stating that we should put his taxes back at the levels they were before Bush cut them, I put a little stock in that. I could easily say that we should repeal bush tax cuts, but I do not make over 250k.
Hey, the free market is great. Until you lose the balance between the employee and the employer. The employer has always had a majority of the power, they are the ones that are signing the checks... but the employee had the power to dictate some of the terms of employment. Now the employer holds about 99.5% of that power. Companies are not highering because they can dictate that their employees work harder or risk losing their job, while they are pulling in record profits that they can just write off the tax burden on. This is why you have companies like GE making a $5Billion profit and paying minimal to no taxes. Heck, I am willing to say that Joe Blow Janitor paid more in taxes than GE did as a company. He probably paid more than some of the CEO's and VP's.
The problem with attempting revenue increases is that you create an Ouroboros. As the economy continues to shrink at new taxes, the revenue then falls more significantly, and you either need more cuts or more revenue increases.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on July 26, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
The quickest and easiest way to solve this problem is a combination cut of spending and increase of revenues. If I want to pay off something faster or better meet my obligations, I will cut my own spending and look for ways to increase my income. I am pretty sure that is how we all look at it. Well not all of us, I suppose. When you have the President, who is in the higher tax bracket stating that we should put his taxes back at the levels they were before Bush cut them, I put a little stock in that. I could easily say that we should repeal bush tax cuts, but I do not make over 250k.
Hey, the free market is great. Until you lose the balance between the employee and the employer. The employer has always had a majority of the power, they are the ones that are signing the checks... but the employee had the power to dictate some of the terms of employment. Now the employer holds about 99.5% of that power. Companies are not highering because they can dictate that their employees work harder or risk losing their job, while they are pulling in record profits that they can just write off the tax burden on. This is why you have companies like GE making a $5Billion profit and paying minimal to no taxes. Heck, I am willing to say that Joe Blow Janitor paid more in taxes than GE did as a company. He probably paid more than some of the CEO's and VP's.
Hey, JC, you just made my list along with the others posting replies here. Your post reflects reality, not some made up conceptual bs.
Of course, BB is on the list because he is the entertaining frat brother. :D
It's the economy, stupid.
EDITORIAL
The Republican Wreckage
Published: July 25, 2011
"
House Republicans have lost sight of the country's welfare. It's hard to conclude anything else from their latest actions, including the House speaker's dismissal of President Obama's plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely succeeded in their campaign to ransom America's economy for the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they walk away.
This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for work grow more out of reach as government job programs are cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the federal government a laughingstock around the globe.
In a scathing prime-time television address Monday night, President Obama stepped off the sidelines to tell Americans the House Republicans were threatening a "deep economic crisis" that could send interest rates skyrocketing and hold up Social Security and veterans' checks. By insisting on a single-minded approach and refusing to negotiate, he said, Republicans were violating the country's founding principle of compromise.
"How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?" he said, invoking Ronald Reagan's effort to make everyone pay a fair share and pointing out that his immediate predecessors had to ask for debt-ceiling increases under rules invented by Congress. He urged viewers to demand compromise. "The entire world is watching," he said.
Mr. Obama denounced House Speaker John Boehner's proposal to make cuts only, now, and raise the debt ceiling briefly, but he embraced the proposal made over the weekend by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, which gave Republicans virtually everything they said they wanted when they ignited this artificial crisis: $2.7 trillion from government spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. It is, in fact, an awful plan, which cuts spending far too deeply at a time when the government should be summoning all its resources to solve the real economic problem of unemployment. It asks for absolutely no sacrifice from those who have prospered immensely as economic inequality has grown.
Mr. Reid's proposal does at least protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And about half of its savings comes from the winding down of two wars, which naturally has drawn Republican opposition. (Though Republicans counted the same savings in their budgets.)
Mr. Boehner will not accept this as the last-ditch surrender that it is. The speaker, who followed Mr. Obama on TV with about five minutes of hoary talking points clearly written before the president spoke, is insisting on a plan that raises the debt ceiling until early next year and demands another vote on a balanced-budget amendment, rejected by the Senate last week. The result would be to stage this same debate over again in an election year. Never mind that this would almost certainly result in an immediate downgrade of the government's credit.
We agreed strongly when Mr. Obama said Americans should be "offended" by this display and that they "may have voted for divided government but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government." It's hard not to conclude now that dysfunction is the Republicans' goal — even if the cost is unthinkable."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26tue1.html?_r=2&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
"Put Bill Clinton in charge of the treasury" Chris Mathews
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 10:53:28 AM
The problem with attempting revenue increases is that you create an Ouroboros. As the economy continues to shrink at new taxes, the revenue then falls more significantly, and you either need more cuts or more revenue increases.
When you look at it from that point of view, you have it half right. Rather than a snake eatings its tail, you have a person with their head up their... I kid.
just blindly stating that any revenue increase would cause utter and complete chaos is scare tactics. We had a budget surplus prior to the cuts. During the Clinton presidency unemployment went from 7.5 to 4.0. That is with the taxes at pre bush levels. I understand that the tax cuts were the right thing to do at the time (9/11 was a bad time, both personally and fiscally), but at some point you need to go back to what was working.
There are some Republicans, like this real life experience former Congressmen, whose conservatism I appreciate because they are tempered with pragmatism and respect for their opposites. Joe Scarboro wrote this piece back on the 18th when 4 trillion was on the table and Boehner et al refused to even return phone calls. These are hard truths for Americans of any politics.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59262.html
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 08:40:31 AM
I don't know if it was yesterday's pitiful "I want more money" speech, or a combination of events, but it seems there may be the hope of some competition on the Democratic side of the election.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html
(http://images8.cpcache.com/product/298779168_350x350_Front.jpg)
While I don't actually think there will be a primary challenger, at least now there is some hope the Democrats will be offered another choice, and if we continue to see a lack of leadership, that door may open even wider.
I don't think you have any sort of desire to actually talk about the horserace aspect of this . . . you're posting it because it's another great way to type "lack of leadership" and "Obama" in the same paragraph. I also don't think you have the least bit of sense about how the Democrats actually view Obama's progress. This is mostly because you think that anyone left of Ron Paul is despicable and a traitor to the Free Market.
But for what it's worth . . yes, I think Obama's coalition is "crumbling," though that's not an apt word for what's happening. Maybe "shifting," or "grumbling." There is, regrettably, nowhere else for liberals/progressives to go, and Obama has indeed done a good job of getting the independents to pony up. Already his 2012 campaign is on pace to break his own record from 2008. So at this point, though there may be a growing desire to challenge Obama or make him more responsive to more traditional lefty concerns, his fundraising to date makes the issue moot.
So there are really only two options for L/Ps in 2012: vote for O or sit it out completely. I don't think the L/Ps are freaked out enough (yet) about Obama's centrism to hang out on the sidelines -- especially when the L/Ps view the Tea Party as such an existential threat to the country. In fact, Obama's gotta be pretty awful in comparison to force the L/Ps out of the arena altogether. This is because at this point, there's more of a value to keeping the Tea Party away from the Presidency than there is to finding someone who better represents liberal attitudes.
I think 2012 is going to be much more anti-Tea Party than was 2010. In fact, I think there's going to be a whole lot of folks who will turn out specifically to undo what the Tea Party's done. Not sure what sort of success they'll see, districts being as gerrymandered as they are, but there will be a sizable anti-Tea Party vote nonetheless.
I know when I over spend I just go ask my boss for a large raise....He never has an issue with it...... ::)
Quote from: Breadburner on July 26, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
I know when I over spend I just go ask my boss for a large raise....He never has an issue with it...... ::)
The awesome thing is that your hypothetical relates in no way to what's happening in our economy right now. I do appreciate you restating the conventional wisdom for the umpteenth time, though. Thanks!
Quote from: AquaMan on July 26, 2011, 11:54:21 AM
There are some Republicans, like this real life experience former Congressmen, whose conservatism I appreciate because they are tempered with pragmatism and respect for their opposites. Joe Scarboro wrote this piece back on the 18th when 4 trillion was on the table and Boehner et al refused to even return phone calls. These are hard truths for Americans of any politics.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59262.html
Joe really put the wood to President Obama throughout that piece.
Personally, I've not been happy with Boehner from day one, he ranks right up on my list of favorite House Speakers with Pelosi and Gingrich. It's truly sad what a somewhat tenure-based system produces in leadership.
Quote from: we vs us on July 26, 2011, 12:01:03 PM
The awesome thing is that your hypothetical relates in no way to what's happening in our economy right now. I do appreciate you restating the conventional wisdom for the umpteenth time, though. Thanks!
You have prepared your screaming circle haven't you....... ???
Quote from: Breadburner on July 26, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
I know when I over spend I just go ask my boss for a large raise....He never has an issue with it...... ::)
Yes, when you state it like that it is unreasonable, but lets look at the whole story. 10 years ago your boss had a bad investment and was struggling and was close to closing up shop and he asked you if you wanted to give up some pay and keep your job. You agreed and everyone was happy. Over the next 10 years your boss started making money hand over fist but never reinstated your pay at the previous level. Now you are going broke and you go to your boss and ask if he can reinstate your pay at the previous level.
In this story you are the boss and the government is the worker. Sounds a little less condescending, doesn't it.
Quote from: we vs us on July 26, 2011, 11:57:49 AM
I don't think you have any sort of desire to actually talk about the horserace aspect of this . . . you're posting it because it's another great way to type "lack of leadership" and "Obama" in the same paragraph. I also don't think you have the least bit of sense about how the Democrats actually view Obama's progress. This is mostly because you think that anyone left of Ron Paul is despicable and a traitor to the Free Market.
But for what it's worth . . yes, I think Obama's coalition is "crumbling," though that's not an apt word for what's happening. Maybe "shifting," or "grumbling." There is, regrettably, nowhere else for liberals/progressives to go, and Obama has indeed done a good job of getting the independents to pony up. Already his 2012 campaign is on pace to break his own record from 2008. So at this point, though there may be a growing desire to challenge Obama or make him more responsive to more traditional lefty concerns, his fundraising to date makes the issue moot.
So there are really only two options for L/Ps in 2012: vote for O or sit it out completely. I don't think the L/Ps are freaked out enough (yet) about Obama's centrism to hang out on the sidelines -- especially when the L/Ps view the Tea Party as such an existential threat to the country. In fact, Obama's gotta be pretty awful in comparison to force the L/Ps out of the arena altogether. This is because at this point, there's more of a value to keeping the Tea Party away from the Presidency than there is to finding someone who better represents liberal attitudes.
I think 2012 is going to be much more anti-Tea Party than was 2010. In fact, I think there's going to be a whole lot of folks who will turn out specifically to undo what the Tea Party's done. Not sure what sort of success they'll see, districts being as gerrymandered as they are, but there will be a sizable anti-Tea Party vote nonetheless.
Good thoughtful reply.
You may be right. There has been significant effort to push Tea Party philosophy on this current crisis, and I am not totally convinced it's a bad idea.
Republicans and Democrats have been complacent. . .no. . .collaborative on the growth of government. The efforts to demonize small government movements by pulling the race card or class warfare weaponry is the typical defense that the Democrats use. Republicans simply view these groups as unsustainable political annoyances.
I am not convinced that the Tea Party is sustainable, but if some of the philosophy of fiscal responsibility rubs off or at least causes the dominant parties pause before spending, that is a good thing.
The media is not good to President Obama today. His plea of desperation last night was an indicator that he relies on the backing of activism rather than any personal leadership or negotiation skills. I don't think you fail to see that, I think you simply don't want to recognize that.
We've raised the debt ceiling successfully dozens and dozens of times. The Tea Party philosophy has made the public in general aware that the government's spending problems do not have to be solved on the backs of the American people, and Republican leadership is taking a big gamble by acting on that. To their credit, they have found themselves up against a weak opponent.
I don't know what will happen if they don't come to an agreement by the imaginary date of Aug 2nd, but I do know that raising taxes in an economy recovering from a recession will effect it negatively. On the purely emotional side of the argument, I can't imagine what it will do to business owners looking for some small shred of confidence in taking future risk.
The Tea Party movement is flawed though. They want small government, they want the government out of their wallet, they want the government to let them live their life... Unless you disagree with their religious or moral beliefs. Then they want the government all up in that. We don't want government to get involved with religion, unless it is a religion that doesn't fit with what they believe to be right. They don't want government to get involved with marriage, unless it is someone who is wanting to go outside the perceived "normal" marriage. They want the government involved when it suits them and them alone. The problem is, you cannot have a government like that. Chaos would rule the land.
You have 3 separate parties now. But one party has "taken its ball and gone home" (or in the words of cartman: "screw you guys, l'm goin home") because they want everyone else to play by their rules. This is not a productive method of government.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on July 26, 2011, 12:26:21 PM
Yes, when you state it like that it is unreasonable, but lets look at the whole story. 10 years ago your boss had a bad investment and was struggling and was close to closing up shop and he asked you if you wanted to give up some pay and keep your job. You agreed and everyone was happy. Over the next 10 years your boss started making money hand over fist but never reinstated your pay at the previous level. Now you are going broke and you go to your boss and ask if he can reinstate your pay at the previous level.
In this story you are the boss and the government is the worker. Sounds a little less condescending, doesn't it.
Well...That clearly went over your head.....
Quote from: JCnOwasso on July 26, 2011, 12:48:13 PM
The Tea Party movement is flawed though. They want small government, they want the government out of their wallet, they want the government to let them live their life... Unless you disagree with their religious or moral beliefs. Then they want the government all up in that. We don't want government to get involved with religion, unless it is a religion that doesn't fit with what they believe to be right. They don't want government to get involved with marriage, unless it is someone who is wanting to go outside the perceived "normal" marriage. They want the government involved when it suits them and them alone. The problem is, you cannot have a government like that. Chaos would rule the land.
You have 3 separate parties now. But one party has "taken its ball and gone home" (or in the words of cartman: "screw you guys, l'm goin home") because they want everyone else to play by their rules. This is not a productive method of government.
None of that orange stuff is in their platform. It does however express to some extent what the left needs them to have in their platform. You did however leave out the raciest element. This is very important because without it, the other charges don't hold up.
So, for future posts, your primary negative assertion needs to be that the Tea Party is raciest, then you need to claim it is anti-woman, then finally you can add Christian and anti-homosexual. This allows you to build a strong foundation and bring up visions of white robes and old fat men before you launch into the other, less impact-full minutia.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 26, 2011, 10:53:28 AM
The problem with attempting revenue increases is that you create an Ouroboros. As the economy continues to shrink at new taxes, the revenue then falls more significantly, and you either need more cuts or more revenue increases.
Didn't happen to St. Reagan. Didn't happen to Clinton. Yet you think it will happen now. Here's the thing: There's about 1.6 trillion in money sitting on the sidelines right now. Taxing some of that will make zero difference to the economy.
Although, as I've said earlier, this concern that both parties have with the debt is pretty much ridiculous, but they've created the expectations in the market now, so it's become necessary to at least say "in
x years, we will be cutting this much and raising taxes that much."
Also, all these comparisons to personal finance are just plain stupid. I'd be more sensitive and call it misguided or something, but it's not, it's just stupid on many levels. I don't know about you guys, but I don't control the currency. I don't get to mint coins and print dollars. Moreover, government is us and we are government. It is not a business, it is not a family. It is government.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif)
And I wouldn't bother placing blame, but Gaspar brought it up...
Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2011, 12:18:03 PM
Joe really put the wood to President Obama throughout that piece.
Personally, I've not been happy with Boehner from day one, he ranks right up on my list of favorite House Speakers with Pelosi and Gingrich. It's truly sad what a somewhat tenure-based system produces in leadership.
Yeah, he is a Republican after all. But Joe really put the wood to intransigent Republicans as well, who are missing opportunity by their fear of TP's. He fears a crumbling of the huge middle of his party. I personally doubt many of his assumptions and conclusions but he does speak from experience in how government should be working.
I'm afraid good leadership has become a term similar in understanding to "good Christian".
Joe is likable only because he has Meka sitting next to him.
Ever see this trashy effort to trash Joe?
http://surftofind.com/scandal
Quote from: Conan71 on July 26, 2011, 04:27:30 PM
Ever see this trashy effort to trash Joe?
http://surftofind.com/scandal
You do realize Joe has had similar sexual issues of other republican government office repressors don't you. That post is ridiculous. Why bring that garbage up? Joe deserved to be trashed for cheating. He's gotten better with age.