Partisan fight over "fiscal cliff" will harm U.S. economy: Reuters poll

Nov 12, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the U.S. ''Fiscal Cliff'' in the East Room of the White House as Vice President Joe Biden looks on in Washington, November 9, 2012.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of104
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I have also read many of your post with many accusations in them with no proof or back up provided. So is this the dual standard I have been hearing about?
Ahh, the old quick, blame the other guy for not proving something first when you are asked for any evidence of what you are talking about.

Ok, I have recently posted that the GOP seems to want to effectively end Social Security. You may remember bush talking about privatizing SS, effectively giving all our money to a few rich people.

I am not providing proof, but I will provide a number of links which would give a person the impression that indeed the GOP wants to end Social Security:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/lind...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/155001/gops-ple... #

Ok, there are a few links. You may not like those sources, but I bet you could find your own. There is tons of evidence that the GOP is intent on effectively ending SS. What I mean by that, is that if they can't end it, they would transform it into something completely different so that it would not be SS, nor fulfill the functions of SS.

Your turn.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, the old quick, blame the other guy for not proving something first when you are asked for any evidence of what you are talking about.
Ok, I have recently posted that the GOP seems to want to effectively end Social Security. You may remember bush talking about privatizing SS, effectively giving all our money to a few rich people.
I am not providing proof, but I will provide a number of links which would give a person the impression that indeed the GOP wants to end Social Security:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/lind...
http://www.thenation.com/blog/155001/gops-ple... #
Ok, there are a few links. You may not like those sources, but I bet you could find your own. There is tons of evidence that the GOP is intent on effectively ending SS. What I mean by that, is that if they can't end it, they would transform it into something completely different so that it would not be SS, nor fulfill the functions of SS.
Your turn.
Of course SS has to be changed. It has already been found wanting by Obama only giving cost of living increases 2 out of 4 years. Of course government workers got increases every year. Let me put it this way, SS has cancer and it either gets a radiation treatment or it is dead.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Of course SS has to be changed. It has already been found wanting by Obama only giving cost of living increases 2 out of 4 years. Of course government workers got increases every year. Let me put it this way, SS has cancer and it either gets a radiation treatment or it is dead.
Bull. You need a better diagnostician. While minor changes to SS might make it better, it is stable for 30 years. Name any other organization that can make that claim. When bush tried to privatize it, he generated data showing that private investments in the stock market would have made it better, and that without that change, SS would go broke.

The problem was that the assumptions changed. For the investment in the stock market, he assumed a very good economy with the stock market rising steadily. For the scenario showing SS going broke, he assumed a worst case economy. With those assumptions, even the stock market investment would have been insufficient for people to retire. Besides SS is not a retirement investment program, it is an insurance policy. Insurance policies are not designed to have a better return than an investment.

As far as being found wanting by Obama, Obama will say and do anything to please the right wing. He should have changed his political affiliation to republican before the election. While it is fun to watch the right wing hate everything they ever stood for, it is horrible for the nation.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull. You need a better diagnostician. While minor changes to SS might make it better, it is stable for 30 years. Name any other organization that can make that claim. When bush tried to privatize it, he generated data showing that private investments in the stock market would have made it better, and that without that change, SS would go broke.
The problem was that the assumptions changed. For the investment in the stock market, he assumed a very good economy with the stock market rising steadily. For the scenario showing SS going broke, he assumed a worst case economy. With those assumptions, even the stock market investment would have been insufficient for people to retire. Besides SS is not a retirement investment program, it is an insurance policy. Insurance policies are not designed to have a better return than an investment.
As far as being found wanting by Obama, Obama will say and do anything to please the right wing. He should have changed his political affiliation to republican before the election. While it is fun to watch the right wing hate everything they ever stood for, it is horrible for the nation.
You poor poor kiddies. It has survive dispite the left looting the lock box because of the baby boomers and their percent of those adding to the pot. Soon, all of the boomers will be takers and not putting in. That's when it's broke, unless all your burger flippers are going to put in 30% of your paycheck.
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Delegate wrote:
debbie 'blabbermouth' seneca wants her rectal exam.

hahahahahahahaha
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Delegate wrote:
Barry ask MOO to run out and get him some anti diarrhea medicine. Barry has all the rugs stained from the 'runs'. That's what happens when you lie and get caught. Don't worry Barry the GOP will let you 'slide' in your own shyt!
debbie blabbermouth seneca enjoys your enemas. She said that 'ran out', too.

hahahahahahahahaha
Tony

Broken Arrow, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Let us go over the fiscal cliff, we need it to happen.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>You poor poor kiddies. It has survive dispite the left looting the lock box because of the baby boomers and their percent of those adding to the pot. Soon, all of the boomers will be takers and not putting in. That's when it's broke, unless all your burger flippers are going to put in 30% of your paycheck.
More mud slinging? I guess that is all Romney left you with. Since you didn't get everything you wanted, no one else should get anything.

Perhaps you forgot that the boomers paid double. They paid for their parents retirement, and for their own. That is why there are trillions of dollars in the fund. I wish I was that "broke."

As to the left looting the locked box? Now you consider the republicans to be the left? They demanded to starve the beast. They wanted to drown government so they could do whatever they wanted and nothing would be against the law for them. Again, your head has been spun to gibberish. The republicans are extreme right wing conservatives, not liberals. The liberals don't approve of them stealing all the money.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
More Fact-Free conservative ranting & raving.
Enjoy the next 4 years!
(:
Hey Madaman, long time no talk..........haven't been on Topix in a few years. Glad to see the East side hasn't swallowed you up yet.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
None are so blind, as those who WILL NOT see.
Apparently you are unable to comprehend that expensive programs enacted under one President CONTINUE COSTING MONEY long AFTER that President has left office. Obama INHERITED those spendy unfunded programs -- he did NOT implement them. To our good fortune, he ended Iraq as promised, has set an end date for Afghanistan, reformed Medicare Part D with the Affordable Care Act, and will allow the Bush Lite tax cuts to expire as they MUST.
The combination of those Bush Lite tax cuts expiring, AND the HUGE spending cuts engineered by House Republicans means that Obama literally doesn't need to do ANYTHING to see serious improvement on the deficit. NOTHING. He can thank Boner for setting things up so nicely.
However, Iraq ended two years ago, over 100,000 troops have returned from Afghanistan, and yet, the deficit is still over $1.1 Trillion for 2012. Obama can't blame anyone but himself for this 4 years, and the last two of the previous four by all rights belong to him, that or Bush gets to blame Clinton for Jan.2001 - Jan.2005. Take your pick.

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Madaman, long time no talk..........haven't been on Topix in a few years. Glad to see the East side hasn't swallowed you up yet.
Are you the artist formerly known as Pragmatist? Either way, welcome back. The East Side is stable -- no better, and no worse.

Regarding your next post -- I am surprised that, after reading my accurate description of how many of Bush Lite's programs did NOT end upon Obama's inauguration -- you STILL want to give Obama the "credit" for much of the ongoing defict during his time in office.

I am surprised because you were always one of the few intelligent conservatives posting here -- who did not appear to share the Fact-Averse attitude of most Republicans. Fact is, the structural deficit ongoingly created by the Bush Lite tax cuts is still in full force TODAY. You know this -- this is not esoteric data nor Liberal "spin." You know that while troop strength in Afghanistan has diminished, the costs of supporting those that remain is still very high. You know that we did not withdraw from Iraq until long after Bush Lite left office -- placing those billions on Obama's "tab." You know that the Affordable Care Act does not fully repair the fiscally ruinous nature of Medicare Part D until 2014 -- fully 6 years AFTER Bush Lite left office.

I assert that you know all these Facts full well -- which is why your attempt to describe them as "Obama's" is a total mystery to me. I expect such nonsense from Fright Wing warriors such as "Consistent," but I expect better from YOU. Or, am I confusing you with someone else?

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>...or Bush gets to blame Clinton for Jan.2001 - Jan.2005. Take your pick.
I must remind you that Bush Lite inherited a budgetary SURPLUS from Clinton -- which he claimed made clear that taxes were too high, so he took care of that "problem" with his tax cuts.

Did you know that the conservative Heritage Foundation eagerly supported those tax cuts when they were proposed? According to them, those tax cuts would spur such a gigantic economic boom that we could pay off the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT BY 2012 -- and run HUGE annual surpluses thereafter? Yes -- these right-wing nutjobs ACTUALLY BELIEVED that economic rubbish.

Of course, they have taken that precious item off of their web site.

Priceless!
Occupy this

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
Let the liberals drive off the fiscal cliff. Elections should have consequences as well as rewards. The women and children voted left, let them reap the misery of their choices on emotion instead of logic and country.
America lost this election...everybody lost. Most of the sheep just don't know it yet.

They talk about harm due to fighting over the fiscal cliff? How about the harm Obama and liberalism is doing to America? Screw the fiscal cliff. Obama is making sure America dies!

And America will die. She's not coming back. The people have only themselves to blame. Most will eventually realize it, but it's already too late.

“Sustainability Now!”

Since: May 08

Vadnais Heights

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Tony wrote:
Let us go over the fiscal cliff, we need it to happen.
I agree. Just as the Bush Lite tax cuts had virtually NO IMPACT on those in the under-$250,000 brackets, the resumption of Clinton-era rates will also have NO IMPACT.

The large spending cuts of sequestration WILL have a major impact, as that is essentially bringing European-style austerity measures to America. We can see just how well these measures are working over there.

What frightens me is the likelihood of the fiscal consequences of sequestration will be blamed on ending the tax cuts -- NOT on the loss of the stimulative effect of that government spending.

Far too many are buying into Grover Norquist's total absurdity regarding the absolute Primacy of tax rates uber alles. Reputable economists regard this as HOGWASH (to stay polite here).
Occupy this

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Just as the Bush Lite tax cuts had virtually NO IMPACT on those in the under-$250,000 brackets, the resumption of Clinton-era rates will also have NO IMPACT.
The large spending cuts of sequestration WILL have a major impact, as that is essentially bringing European-style austerity measures to America. We can see just how well these measures are working over there.
What frightens me is the likelihood of the fiscal consequences of sequestration will be blamed on ending the tax cuts -- NOT on the loss of the stimulative effect of that government spending.
Far too many are buying into Grover Norquist's total absurdity regarding the absolute Primacy of tax rates uber alles. Reputable economists regard this as HOGWASH (to stay polite here).
Government does not and cannot stimulate the economy. And ending the Bush tax cuts is the same thing as raising taxes.

But why fret? Obama wants to destroy America. All the better if he can blame it on the GOP.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Delegate wrote:
<quoted text>He not only wants to destroy American he has American headed straight to hell on a fast track. The GOP had better insert a spine and derail this flagrant communist dictator before the USA becomes one big FEMA camp.. Look real hard at Jersey and New York, NOTHING BEING DONE! Hey Christie your pal BO is doing NOTHING!
con-nie is spineless. Like debbie blabbermouth seneca and the smellegate....tits-on-a-bullsh itter.

hahahahahahahahaha
the rest of us

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
Nov 17, 2012
 
Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Just as the Bush Lite tax cuts had virtually NO IMPACT on those.....BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.....P rimacy of tax rates uber alles.....BLAH,BLAH,BLAH.....r egard this as HOGWASH (to stay polite here).
Hey pompous ass moronman, you've been popping off a lot on here again with your asinine posts on policy which is way over your head, and which nobody ever agrees with. And you've been told many times that your USE OF CAPS adds nothing to your dumb posts and only serves to reinforce your pompous idiocy. Go volunteer at the DFL HQ in St.Paul and do something of value.....but it will not include discussing policy.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Madaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I must remind you that Bush Lite inherited a budgetary SURPLUS from Clinton -- which he claimed made clear that taxes were too high, so he took care of that "problem" with his tax cuts.
Did you know that the conservative Heritage Foundation eagerly supported those tax cuts when they were proposed? According to them, those tax cuts would spur such a gigantic economic boom that we could pay off the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT BY 2012 -- and run HUGE annual surpluses thereafter? Yes -- these right-wing nutjobs ACTUALLY BELIEVED that economic rubbish.
Of course, they have taken that precious item off of their web site.
Priceless!
I am simply stating a fact, after ending the Iraq war, the deficit is still over $1.2 Trillion a couple of years later. Likewise, if the president can't affect policy 2 years after he started, perhaps he is not an effective president. If you want to give Bush credit for Obama's first four years, you have to give Clinton credit for Bush's first four as well. At some point, the elected representative has to take responsibility for their actions or inactions. Remember, when Bush came in there was a recession going on as well as a result of the dot-com bubble bursting, and 9/11 occurred 8 months into Bush's first term. I know you believe that Clinton and Obama did no wrong while Bush did everything wrong, but that is hardly the case. Obama spent his first term on everything but jobs and the economy, a big reason the deficit is so high is that the economy contracted, still not back to the size it was when Obama took office.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I say Republicans stand your ground

allow Obama people to aquire the failing economy they all voted for

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Delegate wrote:
<quoted text>Acquire it? He's responsible for it! Mitt would have had policy in place already to get things headed in the RIGHT direction and Hostess would not have had to put 18000 people out of work. Hear that whining noise? That's the obese libtards that are being denied welfare and food stamps. It's about to get louder.
Amen Bro

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of104
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••
•••