Ok cons...who are you going to screw?

Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/24/2011 7:55:18 PM)
Many cons seem to think that NOT raising the debt ceiling by Aug 2 would be fine and we just need to prioritize our spending. Ok,click the link and go down Bloomberg`s interactive list of invoices that are due Aug. 2 and decide which ones are alright to cut and which ones not to cut to try to make things "balance". http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury’s-limited-choices/ It`s not just for conservatives! Anyone can try and see the dilemmas. "August Invoices Show U.S. Treasury’s Limited Choices" "The U.S. government, whose legal authority to borrow money expires on or about Aug. 2, expects to take in $172.4 billion next month — enough to cover little more than half of its bills due then, according to a study for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a research organization. The U.S. may not have to default on outstanding debts or withhold interest payments for that month; it may be able to cover $29 billion in anticipated interest due on Treasury securities with its cash receipts. After that, the choices become more difficult. The accompanying chart shows the bills coming due and enables the user to pick which ones to pay with the funds available. Jay Powell, undersecretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H.W. Bush, calculated for the policy center that $306.7 billion in bills will come due after Aug. 2. They include Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments and military active duty pay, along with federal pay for every department and agency, in addition to the interest payments. “The government would be faced with a series of unattractive options and have to prioritize what bills are and are not paid,” he said in a statement last week. Deciding which bills to pay — and which to ignore — may involve many scenarios, Powell said. Powell’s research also shows that the daily cash-flow outlook would be just as difficult to manage. For example, if the cash shortage begins on Aug. 3, as projected by Treasury, the government may find itself unable to make a $23 billion Social Security payment due to go out that day

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/24/2011 8:13:28 PM)
Republicans got seriously burned for playing shutdown games in the 90s. If they're going to try it again, they've become even more absurd than I thought.

erieangel -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/24/2011 8:36:40 PM)
Is there even more than a handful of politicians these days who have their constituencies and the nation's best interests at heart?

popeye1250 -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/24/2011 11:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Republicans got seriously burned for playing shutdown games in the 90s. If they're going to try it again, they've become even more absurd than I thought. Music, they did? In "93 or '95?

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 12:16:24 AM)
I would be saddened for the poor/disabled, or any disadvantaged/vulnerable person if this happens... I'd feel sad for having to pay higher interests as well. If I were Obama, I'd go the Clinton advice route (raise it), or let the republicans have their day of reckoning, and see where the chips fall. M

lockedaway -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 12:22:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Many cons seem to think that NOT raising the debt ceiling by Aug 2 would be fine and we just need to prioritize our spending. Ok,click the link and go down Bloomberg`s interactive list of invoices that are due Aug. 2 and decide which ones are alright to cut and which ones not to cut to try to make things "balance". http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury’s-limited-choices/ It`s not just for conservatives! Anyone can try and see the dilemmas. "August Invoices Show U.S. Treasury’s Limited Choices" "The U.S. government, whose legal authority to borrow money expires on or about Aug. 2, expects to take in $172.4 billion next month — enough to cover little more than half of its bills due then, according to a study for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a research organization. The U.S. may not have to default on outstanding debts or withhold interest payments for that month; it may be able to cover $29 billion in anticipated interest due on Treasury securities with its cash receipts. After that, the choices become more difficult. The accompanying chart shows the bills coming due and enables the user to pick which ones to pay with the funds available. Jay Powell, undersecretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H.W. Bush, calculated for the policy center that $306.7 billion in bills will come due after Aug. 2. They include Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments and military active duty pay, along with federal pay for every department and agency, in addition to the interest payments. “The government would be faced with a series of unattractive options and have to prioritize what bills are and are not paid,” he said in a statement last week. Deciding which bills to pay — and which to ignore — may involve many scenarios, Powell said. Powell’s research also shows that the daily cash-flow outlook would be just as difficult to manage. For example, if the cash shortage begins on Aug. 3, as projected by Treasury, the government may find itself unable to make a $23 billion Social Security payment due to go out that day O'scumbag had a plan and he refused it. Why? Because it didn't include a massive tax increase. His leftist ideological bent is inflexible. You can almost hear the music coming from the White House: "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn motherfucker, BURN!" Anybody got any marshmallows????

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 1:07:11 AM)
quote: lockedaway I'm just happy your name is the caviat emptor. I like honest people like you. M

slvemike4u -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 7:55:44 AM)
And the "rightist ideological stance" is what,in your opinion? If you claim flexibility to the stance being taken on the right than you are an out and out liar.The Norquist pledge leaves little wiggle room...though I have heard reports that he views taking no action and allowing the Bush gift to the rich to expire as not breaking the pledge....semantics at it's finest. Where is the courage on the right to admit that revenue must be raised.....President Obama has shown his courage in declaring that reforms on the holy trinity of Democratic principals are on the table.....time for the right to "flex"

DomKen -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 9:23:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway O'scumbag had a plan and he refused it. Why? Because it didn't include a massive tax increase. His leftist ideological bent is inflexible. You can almost hear the music coming from the White House: "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn motherfucker, BURN!" Anybody got any marshmallows???? Why you're not on moderation already is anyone's guess but I'm tired of your bullshit. The President met the GOP more than halfway on spending cuts and expected the GOP to meet him in the middle on new revenue. That is what a compromise is, both sides give something up to get something in return. The GOP flatly refusing to increase revenue by one cent marks them as the intransigent scumbags.

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 9:29:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Republicans got seriously burned for playing shutdown games in the 90s. If they're going to try it again, they've become even more absurd than I thought. Music, they did? In "93 or '95? 95/96 -- Clinton's approval rating fell significantly during the shutdown. According to media commentators, this indicated that the general public blamed the president for the government shutdown.[7] However, once it had ended his approval ratings rose to their highest since his election. During the crisis, Gingrich made a complaint at a press breakfast that, during a flight to and from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in Israel, Clinton had not taken the opportunity to talk about the budget and Gingrich had been directed to leave the plane via the rear door. The perception arose that the Republican stance on the budget was partly due to this "snub" by Clinton[8] and media coverage reflected this perception, including an editorial cartoon which showed Gingrich having a temper tantrum.[9] Opposing politicians used this opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff.[10][11] Later, the polls suggested that the event damaged Gingrich politically[12] and he referred to his comments as the "single most avoidable mistake" as Speaker.[13] The shutdown also influenced the 1996 presidential election. Bob Dole, the Senate Majority Leader, was running for president in 1996. Because of his need to campaign, Dole wanted to solve the budget crisis in January 1996 despite the willingness of other Republicans to continue the shutdown unless their demands were met. In particular, as Gingrich and Dole had been seen as potential rivals for the 1996 presidential nomination, they had a tense working relationship.[14][15] The shutdown has also been cited as having a role in Clinton's successful re-election in 1996.[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 9:30:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Is there even more than a handful of politicians these days who have their constituencies and the nation's best interests at heart? I'm happy with mine. I even communicate with them regularly.

lockedaway -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 9:33:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway O'scumbag had a plan and he refused it. Why? Because it didn't include a massive tax increase. His leftist ideological bent is inflexible. You can almost hear the music coming from the White House: "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn motherfucker, BURN!" Anybody got any marshmallows???? Why you're not on moderation already is anyone's guess but I'm tired of your bullshit. The President met the GOP more than halfway on spending cuts and expected the GOP to meet him in the middle on new revenue. That is what a compromise is, both sides give something up to get something in return. The GOP flatly refusing to increase revenue by one cent marks them as the intransigent scumbags. LOLOL wrong!!! Wow...you libs are so ridiculous. Look, Ken, you don't single out one portion of the population (and the fucking smallest portion at that!!!) to draw on to cover for your fuck ups. OK? You want to have a meaningful compromise? Great. Let's talk about a VAT tax or a federal sales tax and let's couple it with a 10% flat income tax and see how it goes for the next tax season. We may then have to come back and do a 12.5% flat income tax for a certain bracket and maybe even a 15% flat income tax for those earning over 10mm per year. Let's also do a balanced budget amendment and do some corporate tax reform as well. THAT is called compromise! See? If O'piece-of-shit ACTUALLY WANTED to help his country, those would be the discussions going on today. TODAY! We could do a temporary raising of the debt limit for the immediate situation, handle the rest of what has been outlined and this would be a very different country in only a couple of years. Ain't gonna happen. None of it.

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 9:35:21 AM)
quote: THAT is called compromise! Actually, that would be called the Republican agenda, Steve Forbes' version.

lockedaway -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 10:00:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: THAT is called compromise! Actually, that would be called the Republican agenda, Steve Forbes' version. LOLOLOLOL well...Steve Forbes is a pretty bright guy and his plan is more relevant now than ever. Could it be that both parties' plans kinda suck and we need to really consider the Forbes plan?

DomKen -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 11:03:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway O'scumbag had a plan and he refused it. Why? Because it didn't include a massive tax increase. His leftist ideological bent is inflexible. You can almost hear the music coming from the White House: "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn! Burn motherfucker, BURN!" Anybody got any marshmallows???? Why you're not on moderation already is anyone's guess but I'm tired of your bullshit. The President met the GOP more than halfway on spending cuts and expected the GOP to meet him in the middle on new revenue. That is what a compromise is, both sides give something up to get something in return. The GOP flatly refusing to increase revenue by one cent marks them as the intransigent scumbags. LOLOL wrong!!! Wow...you libs are so ridiculous. Look, Ken, you don't single out one portion of the population (and the fucking smallest portion at that!!!) to draw on to cover for your fuck ups. OK? You want to have a meaningful compromise? Great. Let's talk about a VAT tax or a federal sales tax and let's couple it with a 10% flat income tax and see how it goes for the next tax season. We may then have to come back and do a 12.5% flat income tax for a certain bracket and maybe even a 15% flat income tax for those earning over 10mm per year. Let's also do a balanced budget amendment and do some corporate tax reform as well. THAT is called compromise! See? If O'piece-of-shit ACTUALLY WANTED to help his country, those would be the discussions going on today. TODAY! We could do a temporary raising of the debt limit for the immediate situation, handle the rest of what has been outlined and this would be a very different country in only a couple of years. Ain't gonna happen. None of it. That's not compromise that's the GOP wishlist. Understand this, the progressive income tax is better for more of the people than a so called flat tax or VAT will ever be. A balanced budget amendment is a stupendously bad idea. How precisely could we have financed WWII if we were required to balance the budget?

Musicmystery -> RE: Ok cons...who are you going to screw? (7/25/2011 11:06:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: THAT is called compromise! Actually, that would be called the Republican agenda, Steve Forbes' version. LOLOLOLOL well...Steve Forbes is a pretty bright guy and his plan is more relevant now than ever. Could it be that both parties' plans kinda suck and we need to really consider the Forbes plan? Be that as it may.... It's the Forbes' plan, not a compromise, you were selling.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02