Democrats want to shut govt down

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#451 Nov 5, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
There is an article in today's OD regarding borrowing to cover deficits and the effect it has on credit ratings. You should give it a look. It spells out exactly what is happening in Utica right now, what happened in Detroit and what will happen if the US government continues deficit spending and running up the national debt.
http://www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x1783714223...
This is "Economics 101".
This not economics 101. Economics 101 covers the difference between small time city finances and the US government. Like the fact we have our own monetary system, central bank, and print our own money, the same currency we borrow in.

Good grief.
Truth

Utica, NY

#452 Nov 6, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
This not economics 101. Economics 101 covers the difference between small time city finances and the US government. Like the fact we have our own monetary system, central bank, and print our own money, the same currency we borrow in.
Good grief.
In both cases money is borrowed to cover deficits in the form of bonds.

In both cases when the debt service exceeds the entity's ability to pay, the bonds are less attractive to investors.

No one is buying Detroit's bonds anymore. As the US debts climbs and the debt service on those bonds consumes a larger and larger part of the budget (along with ever escalating entitlement costs) investors see that the US government's ability to sustain a particular level of debt is inhibited. Some debt is fine. extreme debt is not.

True we can print more and more money. As with all supply and demand issues, what does that do to the value of the dollar do you think?

In several of your posts you refer to history and how the US has always had debt. Just like former rules of thumb like "real estate never goes down" and "expect an annual 10% return on stock market investments" have fallen by the wayside, so has the US government debt paradigm. History showed those rules of thumb to be true for a very long time. Times change. Circumstances change. This is a new world economically and the US is falling further and further behind as time goes on and it has everything to do with liberal, socialist policies and what they cost the American taxpayer.
Muffin top

Syracuse, NY

#453 Nov 6, 2013
That would never work. Sincerely, Newt Gingrich and Robert Dole

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#454 Nov 8, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
In both cases money is borrowed to cover deficits in the form of bonds.
In both cases when the debt service exceeds the entity's ability to pay, the bonds are less attractive to investors.
No one is buying Detroit's bonds anymore. As the US debts climbs and the debt service on those bonds consumes a larger and larger part of the budget (along with ever escalating entitlement costs) investors see that the US government's ability to sustain a particular level of debt is inhibited. Some debt is fine. extreme debt is not.
True we can print more and more money. As with all supply and demand issues, what does that do to the value of the dollar do you think?
In several of your posts you refer to history and how the US has always had debt. Just like former rules of thumb like "real estate never goes down" and "expect an annual 10% return on stock market investments" have fallen by the wayside, so has the US government debt paradigm. History showed those rules of thumb to be true for a very long time. Times change. Circumstances change. This is a new world economically and the US is falling further and further behind as time goes on and it has everything to do with liberal, socialist policies and what they cost the American taxpayer.
You know nothing about economics. The "debt service" on our current deficits is zero: we are selling US bonds at a real interest rate of less than one percent. Was that the case with Detroit? The market shows no signs of worry about our ability to pay the interest on our debt, except to the extent that Tea Party loons threaten to deliberately default and force a catastrophic financial crisis.

Regarding the decline in the value of the US dollar, that would be a good thing for our depressed economy. It would make the price of our exports cheaper, triggering an increase in demand of US products in foreign markets. It would make imports more expense here, causing an increase in demand for domestically produced goods and services. That would lead to an increase in GDP, lower unemployment, increase tax revenue, lower transfer payments, and much lower deficits. This is fundamental macroeconomics.

And pointing to the housing market is a logical fallacy. 1st, we have had historical ups and downs in the real estate market, so for you to say that we've never experienced a decline in real estate is just factually wrong. But so what? There is no connection here. There were easily identified reasons why the real estate bubble happened, its predictable collapse, and the ramifications of it. That is not the case for our national debt. Each purported "fact" cited by you and the Tea Party crowd supposedly substantiating your predicted coming of an imminent debt crisis is easily refuted. It's all emotion.

We have 200 years of history which refutes the nonsense you claim. Ah, we should ignore that history, because our imminent debt crisis has been 200 years in the making, right?

Good grief.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#455 Nov 8, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
... We pay the interest, yes, but interest rates are at their lowest levels in the history of the country. So the interest burden of our current deficits is infinitesimal.
In 2012, our government paid $359,796,008,919.49 in interest to our debt holders. There's nothing "infinitesimal" about $359 billion dollars.

.
Truth Dig wrote:
Our deficits are not at unprecedented levels. I don't know why you keep saying that they are. Not only have they been cut in half the last couple of years, but as a percentage of GDP, our deficit this year is about what it was when Reagan was President. We have a lousy economy, largely because we have been pursuing a pointless austerity agenda which has no basis in economic theory.
Current debt is at world record levels, we owe more than $17 trillion.

GDP has been artificially inflated by including intellectual property, that's never been done before the Obama administration.
Truth

Herkimer, NY

#456 Nov 9, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing about economics. The "debt service" on our current deficits is zero: we are selling US bonds at a real interest rate of less than one percent. Was that the case with Detroit? The market shows no signs of worry about our ability to pay the interest on our debt, except to the extent that Tea Party loons threaten to deliberately default and force a catastrophic financial crisis.
Regarding the decline in the value of the US dollar, that would be a good thing for our depressed economy. It would make the price of our exports cheaper, triggering an increase in demand of US products in foreign markets. It would make imports more expense here, causing an increase in demand for domestically produced goods and services. That would lead to an increase in GDP, lower unemployment, increase tax revenue, lower transfer payments, and much lower deficits. This is fundamental macroeconomics.
And pointing to the housing market is a logical fallacy. 1st, we have had historical ups and downs in the real estate market, so for you to say that we've never experienced a decline in real estate is just factually wrong. But so what? There is no connection here. There were easily identified reasons why the real estate bubble happened, its predictable collapse, and the ramifications of it. That is not the case for our national debt. Each purported "fact" cited by you and the Tea Party crowd supposedly substantiating your predicted coming of an imminent debt crisis is easily refuted. It's all emotion.
We have 200 years of history which refutes the nonsense you claim. Ah, we should ignore that history, because our imminent debt crisis has been 200 years in the making, right?
Good grief.
Wrong. Have you not been paying attention? The recent warnings about a downgrade had to do with the argument over raising the debt ceiling. It has to be raised because the US government is spending more that it takes in to a degree that the national debt has risen
to what many consider an unsustainable level. We need to reverse that trend or face economics disaster. To blame the Tea Party is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors tactic to take the average person's focus off the real problems. It a "if you don't like the message destroy the messenger" deal.

6% of our federal budget is debt service. Add Social Security(which is actually debt service to the Social Security Administration), Medicare and miscellaneous entitlements and you come up with about 62%. That is higher than its' ever been and rising.

You do realize that the Social Security Trust Fund is nothing but IOU's from the US governemt right? Until last year Social Security took in more than is paid out. The surplus was used to by US Treasury bonds that have to be paid back. Now that the Social Security Trust Fund is paying out more than it is taking in, it's time for the US government(taxpayers) to pony up and pay for generations of borrowing. The problem only gets worse given a stagnant economy and more and more "Baby Boomers" retiring every year.
Truth

Herkimer, NY

#458 Nov 9, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
And pointing to the housing market is a logical fallacy. 1st, we have had historical ups and downs in the real estate market, so for you to say that we've never experienced a decline in real estate is just factually wrong. But so what? There is no connection here. There were easily identified reasons why the real estate bubble happened, its predictable collapse, and the ramifications of it. That is not the case for our national debt. Each purported "fact" cited by you and the Tea Party crowd supposedly substantiating your predicted coming of an imminent debt crisis is easily refuted. It's all emotion.
We have 200 years of history which refutes the nonsense you claim. Ah, we should ignore that history, because our imminent debt crisis has been 200 years in the making, right?
Good grief.
The point I was making by using the housing market collapse and stock market returns obviously went over your head.

Let me explain. You keep citing history as evidence for your point of view. You say that we've had over 200 years of debt then debt is ok. My point is that things change. These are different times where paradigms from the past like "real estate never goes down" and "you can expect a 10% annual return on your stock market investments" and " a woman's place is in the home" are no longer widely held rules of thumb because times change, circumstances change and that's regardless of what history shows. They are called paradigm shifts. What was true in the past (even when supported by historical data) isn't necessarily true for the future.

"par·a·digm (pr-dm,-dm)n.
1. One that serves as a pattern or model."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradigm

The old economic paradigms regarding national debt aren't true any more. Stop looking at history and start looking at the current situation. Look at what people in the know (like the Congressional Budget Office) have to say about the problems we are facing. Look at the path we are on toward a Europeon style democratic socialism and look what it is doing to and for the countries who adhere to that model. That is the more accurate predictor.
Da Law

New York, NY

#459 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
GDP has been artificially inflated by including intellectual property, that's never been done before the Obama administration.
This is a huge issue, but it's being almost totally ignored. The addition of IP to the official assets of the US is being used as justification for draconian enforcement mechanisms in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty. Just how draconian we're not really sure, since, like so much else under the current administration, it's legal details are secret.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#460 Nov 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>In 2012, our government paid $359,796,008,919.49 in interest to our debt holders. There's nothing "infinitesimal" about $359 billion dollars.
.
<quoted text>Current debt is at world record levels, we owe more than $17 trillion.
GDP has been artificially inflated by including intellectual property, that's never been done before the Obama administration.
Debt service, as a percentage of GDP, is about 2%. Which it has been for the last 40 years. Reducing the federal government deficit, in the middle of a depressed economy, will have an "infinitesimal" impact on that.

Our national debt is $17 billion. As a percentage of GDP, it's not even close to the all time high.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#461 Nov 9, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Have you not been paying attention? The recent warnings about a downgrade had to do with the argument over raising the debt ceiling. It has to be raised because the US government is spending more that it takes in to a degree that the national debt has risen
to what many consider an unsustainable level. We need to reverse that trend or face economics disaster. To blame the Tea Party is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors tactic to take the average person's focus off the real problems. It a "if you don't like the message destroy the messenger" deal.
6% of our federal budget is debt service. Add Social Security(which is actually debt service to the Social Security Administration), Medicare and miscellaneous entitlements and you come up with about 62%. That is higher than its' ever been and rising.
You do realize that the Social Security Trust Fund is nothing but IOU's from the US governemt right? Until last year Social Security took in more than is paid out. The surplus was used to by US Treasury bonds that have to be paid back. Now that the Social Security Trust Fund is paying out more than it is taking in, it's time for the US government(taxpayers) to pony up and pay for generations of borrowing. The problem only gets worse given a stagnant economy and more and more "Baby Boomers" retiring every year.
Default and "downgrade" are 2 different things. "Downgrade" by S&P or Moody's, 2 corrupt outfits which proved their worthlessness during the run up to the financial crisis, is mostly irrelevant. Failing to pay our debt obligations would be an economic catastrophe, the sort of which you keep predicting will happen if we don't.... default on our debt? Again, it's like committing suicide today because you're afraid of getting sick in the future.

Again, our current deficit is caused mostly be a depressed economy. Austerity will only worsen the economy and will do little, if anything, to improve the budget outlook. Just look at the Eurpoean experience for proof of that.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#462 Nov 9, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I was making by using the housing market collapse and stock market returns obviously went over your head.
Let me explain. You keep citing history as evidence for your point of view. You say that we've had over 200 years of debt then debt is ok. My point is that things change. These are different times where paradigms from the past like "real estate never goes down" and "you can expect a 10% annual return on your stock market investments" and " a woman's place is in the home" are no longer widely held rules of thumb because times change, circumstances change and that's regardless of what history shows. They are called paradigm shifts. What was true in the past (even when supported by historical data) isn't necessarily true for the future.
"par·a·digm (pr-dm,-dm)n.
1. One that serves as a pattern or model."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradigm
The old economic paradigms regarding national debt aren't true any more. Stop looking at history and start looking at the current situation. Look at what people in the know (like the Congressional Budget Office) have to say about the problems we are facing. Look at the path we are on toward a Europeon style democratic socialism and look what it is doing to and for the countries who adhere to that model. That is the more accurate predictor.
The point I'm making is that people like you keep pointing to our current deficits as being "world record" and "unsustainable" and claiming we need to balance our budget when in fact, for most of our 200 years, we have NOT balanced the federal budget, have been running deficits, and have pretty much never paid off the national debt. There is nothing extraordinary or unprecedented about our current levels of debt.

I agree with you, that decades into the future, HEALTH CARE costs, almost exclusively, will drive our deficits to unprecedented levels. But again, that is a function of a health care system which is out of control. Cutting education spending, for example, because of spiraling health care costs 20 years from now, is a lousy idea, for obvious reasons.

Level 7

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#463 Nov 9, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
Debt service, as a percentage of GDP, is about 2%. Which it has been for the last 40 years. Reducing the federal government deficit, in the middle of a depressed economy, will have an "infinitesimal" impact on that.
Our national debt is $17 billion. As a percentage of GDP, it's not even close to the all time high.
$17 trillion, obviously. Not $17 billion.
Truth

Herkimer, NY

#464 Nov 10, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
Default and "downgrade" are 2 different things. "Downgrade" by S&P or Moody's, 2 corrupt outfits which proved their worthlessness during the run up to the financial crisis, is mostly irrelevant. Failing to pay our debt obligations would be an economic catastrophe, the sort of which you keep predicting will happen if we don't.... default on our debt? Again, it's like committing suicide today because you're afraid of getting sick in the future.
Again, our current deficit is caused mostly be a depressed economy. Austerity will only worsen the economy and will do little, if anything, to improve the budget outlook. Just look at the Eurpoean experience for proof of that.
As with Detroit, as with Utica, as with Orange County, California those ratings have everything to do with interest rates for bonding and borrowing so while you may be right in some ways about their effectiveness, they are the arbitors of interest rates in the eyes of wary investors. What they say matters.
Truth

Herkimer, NY

#465 Nov 10, 2013
Truth Dig wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I'm making is that people like you keep pointing to our current deficits as being "world record" and "unsustainable" and claiming we need to balance our budget when in fact, for most of our 200 years, we have NOT balanced the federal budget, have been running deficits, and have pretty much never paid off the national debt. There is nothing extraordinary or unprecedented about our current levels of debt.
I agree with you, that decades into the future, HEALTH CARE costs, almost exclusively, will drive our deficits to unprecedented levels. But again, that is a function of a health care system which is out of control. Cutting education spending, for example, because of spiraling health care costs 20 years from now, is a lousy idea, for obvious reasons.
I never said "world record". I did say unsustainable. And again you use history to bolster your opinion about debt and deficits. In a previous post I cited a recent warning from the Congressional Budget Office regarding the current debt and the trajectory we are on. You obviously didn't read it or just choose to ignore it. In part CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said this:
"The federal budget is on a course that cannot be sustained indefinitely,”

and his agency's report said this:

“Because federal debt is already unusually high relative to GDP, further increases in debt could be especially harmful,” the CBO report said. It said lawmakers would have to make “significant changes” to tax and spending policies to put the U.S. budget on a sustainable path for the long term."

Since you are hung up on history please allow me to to the same using that same CBO report:
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the U.S. national debt is now 73% of gross domestic product, the highest in history except for a period around World War II. The figure is twice the percentage it was at the end of 2007."

and also from the previously cited article:
"It(the CBO report) warned that under current law, growing future deficits will push the debt to 100% of GDP 25 years from now. And under another scenario that envisions changes being made to some laws — including removing the so-called automatic budget cuts known as the sequester — the debt would be even higher, at nearly 190%, by 2038."

Sorry about the cut and paste but but you have continually criticized me, my opinion and by default the sources I rely on for the basis of my opinion. I want you to realize that I haven't just spun a tale here based on emotion and my political leanings. I use those facts compiled by people much closer to the problem and more familiar with the facts. While I do take historic data into account in forming my opinion I don't rely on it exclusively like you seem to.
Ben Gleck

Oriskany Falls, NY

#466 Nov 10, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that the Japanese and Germans manufacture the cars in the US that they sell in the US don't you? And that those foreign owned manufacturing plants are subject to all of the same federal laws as US car manufacturers? As far as I know we have no federal laws that limit the amount of profit they can claim or laws that mandate a lower cost of healthcare.
Their costs are lower because the manufacture in right to work states where unionism and all of the outrageous costa associated with the UAW are a non-issue. And who do the union menmbers support and vote for? Democrats by a very large margin. Who proposes and supports pro-union legislation by a wide margin? Again, Democrats by a very large margin.
That excuse about the big 3 making crummy cars is a an excuse used by the manufacturers when the unions were looking for a scapegoat and a bailout. Stop listening to Ed Shultz. He's not telling the truth.
I don't listen to Ed Schultz.WHY, are you a proud "ditto head?" Are you trying to say that Chrysler and G.M. did not make crappy cars in the seventy and eighties? Even American car ceo's have admitted that. The Japs made better cars for less. And they took over the market. You don't drive around much, do you? I'm sure that that greedy unions were part of the problem. But, the high cost of health care was a significant part of it as well. You attempt to sound like a sincere intellectual, but in the end you're just one more right wing hack. What's the answer , my right wing friend? Of course, just elect more Republicans.
You like to google things. Try googling the distribution of wealth over the last thirty years. And look into the steady stream of deregulatory legislation during that period. What do you make of that? It looks like socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else.
Truth

Utica, NY

#467 Nov 11, 2013
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text>I don't listen to Ed Schultz.WHY, are you a proud "ditto head?" Are you trying to say that Chrysler and G.M. did not make crappy cars in the seventy and eighties? Even American car ceo's have admitted that. The Japs made better cars for less. And they took over the market. You don't drive around much, do you? I'm sure that that greedy unions were part of the problem. But, the high cost of health care was a significant part of it as well. You attempt to sound like a sincere intellectual, but in the end you're just one more right wing hack. What's the answer , my right wing friend? Of course, just elect more Republicans.
You like to google things. Try googling the distribution of wealth over the last thirty years. And look into the steady stream of deregulatory legislation during that period. What do you make of that? It looks like socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else.
Nope. Not a Dittohead. I don't care for Limbaugh (or Hannity for that matter) any more than I do Reverend Al, Rachel Maddow or Ed Shultz. To me they all have the same shtick. Just different sides using the same misleading tactics.

I'd have to describe my leanings as Libertarian if anything. I think we are far from the government that our founders intended from us and getting farther away all the time. I don't like the direction of the country. I think we've moved away from many of the things that made this the greatest country that has ever existed.

The big 3 US auto manufacturers did make unattractive cars when compared with their foreign competitors. It wasn't just Japan by the way but Japan was chief among them. The truth is though that even if they did manufacture cars that were on par with the competition they would still have a price disadvantage due to UAW influence and control. Now, even after a taxpayer funded bailout, they still haven't addressed many of the systemic problems that drove them to the verge of annihilation.

I do use Google. Is there something wrong with that? I find that it allows me to looks at a variety of different viewpoints and facts. That's how I form my opinion on any given subject. I think it's better to take that approach than to allow emotion and sound bites dictate what I think.

I don't think electing more Republicans is the answer nor do I think electing more Democrats will help. I think electing candidates who will not be led like lemmings by party leaders and who will represent the interests of their constituents. Perfect recent example is Ted Cruz. You may disagree with him, what he did and how he did it but the truth is he was doing exactly what the people who elected him wanted him to do. He campaigned on not being a follower who would be beholding to the old guard Republicans (like McCain and Graham) in the senate. It's interesting that much of the media attempted to vilify him rather than trying to attack his message.
Ben Gleck

Oriskany Falls, NY

#468 Nov 11, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Not a Dittohead. I don't care for Limbaugh (or Hannity for that matter) any more than I do Reverend Al, Rachel Maddow or Ed Shultz. To me they all have the same shtick. Just different sides using the same misleading tactics.
I'd have to describe my leanings as Libertarian if anything. I think we are far from the government that our founders intended from us and getting farther away all the time. I don't like the direction of the country. I think we've moved away from many of the things that made this the greatest country that has ever existed.
The big 3 US auto manufacturers did make unattractive cars when compared with their foreign competitors. It wasn't just Japan by the way but Japan was chief among them. The truth is though that even if they did manufacture cars that were on par with the competition they would still have a price disadvantage due to UAW influence and control. Now, even after a taxpayer funded bailout, they still haven't addressed many of the systemic problems that drove them to the verge of annihilation.
I do use Google. Is there something wrong with that? I find that it allows me to looks at a variety of different viewpoints and facts. That's how I form my opinion on any given subject. I think it's better to take that approach than to allow emotion and sound bites dictate what I think.
I don't think electing more Republicans is the answer nor do I think electing more Democrats will help. I think electing candidates who will not be led like lemmings by party leaders and who will represent the interests of their constituents. Perfect recent example is Ted Cruz. You may disagree with him, what he did and how he did it but the truth is he was doing exactly what the people who elected him wanted him to do. He campaigned on not being a follower who would be beholding to the old guard Republicans (like McCain and Graham) in the senate. It's interesting that much of the media attempted to vilify him rather than trying to attack his message.
I agree with much, but not all of what you just wrote, until you get to Ted Cruz. Cruz spent twenty two hours fillibustering against a bill, and then went in and voted for it. Does that sound like integrity to you? I thought we sent Senators to Washington to govern not to shut the civic process down. Not to obstruct. If you're not a member of the Tea Party you might as well join up.
Probably the most powerful Libertarian of our time ws Allan Greenspan. When asked about the cause of the economic melt down, he said it was the deregulation of the banking industry and other sectors of the economy. He also stated that his fundamental world view for the past forty years was wrong. Bernanke, a life long conservative stated the same causes. I'm no economist (obviously neither are you)so I'll take those guys at their word. You can blame liberals and the poor all you want, but, that's just idiotic. You seem like an educated person. Ponder this, Rachael Maddow has a masters from Princeton and a PHD in political science from Oxford. Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity, all together have one year of college with an "F". Of course not all Conservatives are racists but, it's a pretty good bet that when you meet a racist, homophobe, or sexist these days, they will be a Republican voter. Someone is on the wrong side of history here.
Hey Democrackhead

United States

#469 Nov 11, 2013
I'm surprised you even waste your time posting sock puppet man. Your president makes a mockery out of your credibility and delusions! Get off the democrack
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with much, but not all of what you just wrote, until you get to Ted Cruz. Cruz spent twenty two hours fillibustering against a bill, and then went in and voted for it. Does that sound like integrity to you? I thought we sent Senators to Washington to govern not to shut the civic process down. Not to obstruct. If you're not a member of the Tea Party you might as well join up.
Probably the most powerful Libertarian of our time ws Allan Greenspan. When asked about the cause of the economic melt down, he said it was the deregulation of the banking industry and other sectors of the economy. He also stated that his fundamental world view for the past forty years was wrong. Bernanke, a life long conservative stated the same causes. I'm no economist (obviously neither are you)so I'll take those guys at their word. You can blame liberals and the poor all you want, but, that's just idiotic. You seem like an educated person. Ponder this, Rachael Maddow has a masters from Princeton and a PHD in political science from Oxford. Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity, all together have one year of college with an "F". Of course not all Conservatives are racists but, it's a pretty good bet that when you meet a racist, homophobe, or sexist these days, they will be a Republican voter. Someone is on the wrong side of history here.
lefty larry

Utica, NY

#470 Nov 11, 2013
omg gleck actually referenced greenspan! omg really, a hard core zionist, banker, globalist oligarch (like their puppet Nobama)-fox speaking for the hen house- has a worthy word credible enough to quote hereby??? bahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a! gleck and the boys, et al, just keep smearing themselves with fecal cologne and insist on parading around like it's the most fetching aroma ever inhaled by humanity!
Truth

Utica, NY

#471 Nov 11, 2013
Ben Gleck wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with much, but not all of what you just wrote, until you get to Ted Cruz. Cruz spent twenty two hours fillibustering against a bill, and then went in and voted for it. Does that sound like integrity to you? I thought we sent Senators to Washington to govern not to shut the civic process down. Not to obstruct. If you're not a member of the Tea Party you might as well join up.
Probably the most powerful Libertarian of our time ws Allan Greenspan. When asked about the cause of the economic melt down, he said it was the deregulation of the banking industry and other sectors of the economy. He also stated that his fundamental world view for the past forty years was wrong. Bernanke, a life long conservative stated the same causes. I'm no economist (obviously neither are you)so I'll take those guys at their word. You can blame liberals and the poor all you want, but, that's just idiotic. You seem like an educated person. Ponder this, Rachael Maddow has a masters from Princeton and a PHD in political science from Oxford. Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity, all together have one year of college with an "F". Of course not all Conservatives are racists but, it's a pretty good bet that when you meet a racist, homophobe, or sexist these days, they will be a Republican voter. Someone is on the wrong side of history here.
Cruz spent nearly 22 hours trying to get his colleagues to defund the Affordable Care Act not to block all appropriations. That's Ted Cruz who graduated cum laude from Princeton and magna cum laude from Harvard Law(since you seem to think that higher education has so much to do with the validity of one's point of view). In any case, what he did was to fight for a cause that he believed in, one that he campaigned on and one that I think he believes to his core is the right way for the American people. In the end he voted in favor of the whole appropriations package. If the House versions, which divided appropriations into component parts(separate spending bills), were allowed to come up for a vote by majority leader Harry Reid(they weren't) then Cruz would have voted against the Affordable Care Act component, as would have many other Republicans and probably some of the more conservative Democrats, and for the rest. There is more to the story than he spoke for 22 hours against it and then voted for the bill.

If roles were reversed and Republicans had the presidency and the senate, would you call it obstructionism if Democrats used every legislative tool at their disposal to try to foil Republican attempts at much stricter immigration laws? How about if they had a pro-life majority and tried to turn back abortion laws? How about a strengthening of the Defense of Marriage Act? It's been my experience that people's definition of obstructionism more often than not has to do with what side of the fence they are on.

I don't blame the poor. I'm not sure where you get that idea.

History will be the judge. Given the less than successful launch of the Affordable Care Act coupled with predictions that it will collapse under its' own weight in time, I guess we'll just have to wait and see who is on the wrong side of history. If by election day next year things don't change drastically then Tea Party Republicans like Cruz are going to look like prophets and Democrats as well as old guard Republicans will be thrown out of office.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anthony Greasy Brindisi - loser for Congress! 4 min WeAintGotNoMoreMo... 40
7 Days 'Till Riggs! 8 min Hah 7
Millennials BE HEARD 13 min The Facts 2
New Strip Club In South Utica 20 min Tony 20
i guess no more karen and mike post 23 min Tony 2
Who was found in the canal? 25 min Tony 26
Rehab our Existing Hospitals! 42 min Safety First 1
Callihan WKTV 4 hr uh huh 74
Ending Marriages 8 hr Mirror Mirror 24
New UFD Chief 8 hr Venzetti 11

Utica Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Utica Mortgages