(04-11-2017 03:08 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They had enough time with a supermajority to pass Obamacare

MUH FAILED POLICY

(04-11-2017 03:08 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They had enough time with a supermajority to pass Obamacare

The ACA cost projections are usually for a 10-year period...so its full effect can't be calculated to any reasonable certainty yet.

How Much Did Obamacare Cost?

(04-11-2017 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 02:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obama did not do this in a vacuum.

He did it when he had a supermajority in the house and a filibuster proof senate.

Wrong.

Quote:1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.

The Myth of the Democratic Super Majority

Yes...it's a partisan source...so if you're still willing to argue, argue against facts and not the source.

Instead of arguing the number of days of the supermajority, why dont you take a look and see what was passed during those times of supermajorities which caused the debt to skyrocket.

MUH SUPERMAJORITY!

Why don't you, since you made the claim? And specifically cite which bill added what to the national debt.

MUH PESKY FACTS.

I dont need to. I already know.

(04-11-2017 03:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 02:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 01:12 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  He did it when he had a supermajority in the house and a filibuster proof senate.

Wrong.

Quote:1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days

Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.

The Myth of the Democratic Super Majority

Yes...it's a partisan source...so if you're still willing to argue, argue against facts and not the source.

Instead of arguing the number of days of the supermajority, why dont you take a look and see what was passed during those times of supermajorities which caused the debt to skyrocket.

MUH SUPERMAJORITY!

Why don't you, since you made the claim? And specifically cite which bill added what to the national debt.

MUH PESKY FACTS.

I dont need to. I already know.

Obama and Bush both doubled the debt. Not sure why either party would think they have a high ground here.

(04-11-2017 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Obama and Bush both doubled the debt. Not sure why either party would think they have a high ground here.

Neither has the high ground. Its just that Obama was as bad as everyone else in history combined.

(04-11-2017 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Obama and Bush both doubled the debt. Not sure why either party would think they have a high ground here.

Neither has the high ground. Its just that Obama was as bad as everyone else in history combined.

So was Dubya, at the time. Using the raw numbers in that way is disingenuous at best.

Where I'm sure we agree is that Obama certainly didn't tackle this issue. And it could be argued that he'd have been even worse without the Republican congress in his second term.

(04-11-2017 03:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Obama and Bush both doubled the debt. Not sure why either party would think they have a high ground here.

Neither has the high ground. Its just that Obama was as bad as everyone else in history combined.

So was Dubya, at the time. Using the raw numbers in that way is disingenuous at best.

Where I'm sure we agree is that Obama certainly didn't tackle this issue. And it could be argued that he'd have been even worse without the Republican congress in his second term.

Perhaps. But with a D majority, he could have raised taxes to increase revenue.

(04-11-2017 03:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Obama and Bush both doubled the debt. Not sure why either party would think they have a high ground here.

Neither has the high ground. Its just that Obama was as bad as everyone else in history combined.

So was Dubya, at the time. Using the raw numbers in that way is disingenuous at best.

Where I'm sure we agree is that Obama certainly didn't tackle this issue. And it could be argued that he'd have been even worse without the Republican congress in his second term.

No, trying to equate a 5 trillion increase in debt under Bush to about a 10 trillion increase under Obama as being similar because their percent increases are the same is being disingenuous.

(04-11-2017 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The sooner we agree that the debt is a problem that knows no party, the sooner we might actually come up with a plan to effectively reduce it.

On this?...We are in total agreement. When the Left addresses entitlements and the Right addresses military...and then BOTH go after "discretionary spending"...I will know we are serious. Until then? Nothing will stop this until we simply run out of cash or have inflated our fiat currency so much that our economy implodes.

Im betting on the latter at this point.

(04-11-2017 04:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The sooner we agree that the debt is a problem that knows no party, the sooner we might actually come up with a plan to effectively reduce it.

On this?...We are in total agreement. When the Left addresses entitlements and the Right addresses military...and then BOTH go after "discretionary spending"...I will know we are serious. Until then? Nothing will stop this until we simply run out of cash or have inflated our fiat currency so much that our economy implodes.

Im betting on the latter at this point.

Yep. The Trump budget has a lot of positive cuts in there, but then it just shifts almost all of those cuts straight to military spending. Both sides have to get serious about cutting entitlement spending and military spending or this is going nowhere. You can eliminate the EPA, Education Department, etc and you've barely made a dent.

(04-11-2017 01:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We've already documented the myraid reasons why the spending was needed in the beginning of his presidency. And couple that with the unpaid wars and unpaid tax cuts...economy in the crapper...and the ball just keeps rolling.

I've been pretty clear in the past that I don't mind the amounts spent in 2008-2010. I mind the targets of that spending.

He buttressed states that had unhealthy budgets rather than letting them et their own houses in order. What he should have done with that money is completely upgrade our electrical grid, or out national telecommunications network..

Construction jobs pay out to people and benefit communities. And when the project is done you have a shiny building, a new bridge, or a more efficient electrical grid.

When you bail out a state's spending you end up saving some government jobs for a few years and have little to show when you're done.

(04-11-2017 06:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The sooner we agree that the debt is a problem that knows no party, the sooner we might actually come up with a plan to effectively reduce it.

On this?...We are in total agreement. When the Left addresses entitlements and the Right addresses military...and then BOTH go after "discretionary spending"...I will know we are serious. Until then? Nothing will stop this until we simply run out of cash or have inflated our fiat currency so much that our economy implodes.

Im betting on the latter at this point.

Yep. The Trump budget has a lot of positive cuts in there, but then it just shifts almost all of those cuts straight to military spending. Both sides have to get serious about cutting entitlement spending and military spending or this is going nowhere. You can eliminate the EPA, Education Department, etc and you've barely made a dent.

There is no "both sides" with military spending being on one side. I want military spending to be smart and efficient, but it will need to be what it needs to be, with no correlation whatsover to any other discretionary spending.

w/o reading through the thread.....I'll just this...

we all know how fragile things are/can become...however, as long as they continue to buy our debt, we're still "gold"

why do you think the federal reserve was created in the first place....

#fragilityfearmongering

(04-11-2017 03:34 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Obama and Bush both doubled the debt. Not sure why either party would think they have a high ground here.

Neither has the high ground. Its just that Obama was as bad as everyone else in history combined.

So was Dubya, at the time. Using the raw numbers in that way is disingenuous at best.
Where I'm sure we agree is that Obama certainly didn't tackle this issue. And it could be argued that he'd have been even worse without the Republican congress in his second term.

Shrub and Zero were both awful--on this issue, along as most other issues. That's why I call them Shrub and Zero.

(04-11-2017 06:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 04:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 12:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The sooner we agree that the debt is a problem that knows no party, the sooner we might actually come up with a plan to effectively reduce it.

On this?...We are in total agreement. When the Left addresses entitlements and the Right addresses military...and then BOTH go after "discretionary spending"...I will know we are serious. Until then? Nothing will stop this until we simply run out of cash or have inflated our fiat currency so much that our economy implodes.

Im betting on the latter at this point.

Yep. The Trump budget has a lot of positive cuts in there, but then it just shifts almost all of those cuts straight to military spending. Both sides have to get serious about cutting entitlement spending and military spending or this is going nowhere. You can eliminate the EPA, Education Department, etc and you've barely made a dent.

Define entitlement ?

The military is what gives the dollar it's unique value.

(04-11-2017 09:08 PM)Claw Wrote:  The military is what gives the dollar it's unique value.

it's only a portion of the equation that allows 'the ponds' to be viable trading arteries....

the ponds, raw materials/resources, and longitudinal relationship are the true assets of America...

we develop people.....and we are failing miserably at this point....