GOP Presidential candidates MIA in debt ceiling talks

[Surely]

It's pretty simple....

Repubs want to make the President look bad in any way shape or form. Once again, they mission is to do their best to make Obama a one-term president. And they're doing one great job. They jacked up his health care reform, watered down the stimuli spending, extended the Bush tax cuts, and have still made the President look bad. They've even made many blame the bailouts and terrible economy (and debt) on him (all while forgetting the previous abortion and what his horrific policy was for 8 years).

Yeah, Bush sucked and spent money like it was going out of style. Then along comes Obama and takes spending to a whole new level. Does anybody really think that we should just raise the debt ceiling and go on with business as usual? Remember all the fear mongering we've heard for years about running out of money? Well, we're here now. Without some solid plan to reduce the debt in the future what is the point of raising the debt ceiling now? We'll just hit it again in the near future. Like I said we need a solid plan and as far as I can see, Obama and the democrats haven't produced one. If I was the president (and made all sorts of promises while campaigning about running a transparent government) I would bring in C-span into the negotiating room and let the public watch what is going on. But as we all know, we'll never be privy to the behind the scenes deals that are made.

One last question concerning the budget. Isn't the senate required by law to pass a budget every year? If so, where is the budget for the last 2 years?

 

[candrew]

Does anybody really think that we should just raise the debt ceiling and go on with business as usual?

Um, yeah - as any sane person on the planet does.

Like I said we need a solid plan and as far as I can see, Obama and the democrats haven't produced one.

They've produced several - all of which with a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts that would have been considered "Republican" 25 years ago.

 

[One Brow]

Yeah, Bush sucked and spent money like it was going out of style. Then along comes Obama and takes spending to a whole new level.

Slight difference: Bush ran up the debt during economic prosperity (when you should be paying it off), Obama ran it up to stave off a depression.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Yeah, Bush sucked and spent money like it was going out of style. Then along comes Obama and takes spending to a whole new level. Does anybody really think that we should just raise the debt ceiling and go on with business as usual? Remember all the fear mongering we've heard for years about running out of money? Well, we're here now. Without some solid plan to reduce the debt in the future what is the point of raising the debt ceiling now? We'll just hit it again in the near future. Like I said we need a solid plan and as far as I can see, Obama and the democrats haven't produced one. If I was the president (and made all sorts of promises while campaigning about running a transparent government) I would bring in C-span into the negotiating room and let the public watch what is going on. But as we all know, we'll never be privy to the behind the scenes deals that are made.

One last question concerning the budget. Isn't the senate required by law to pass a budget every year? If so, where is the budget for the last 2 years?

Take away the programs and tax cuts meant to "save our economy" and you'll find that Obama isn't quite the spender that foxnews wants to make him out to be.

 

[bat]

THe fact that the gang of 6 measure hasn't gone through yet is a joke. It's s good compromise of spending cuts and tax hikes, but the tea partiers are so set on following campaign promises that they shouldn't have made in the first place that they are going to allow thus US to default.

The problem for the republicans is they aren't hurting the democrats one bit by holding strong. They are undercutting boehner,and creating turmoil. The last thing they need going into an election year is a malfunctioning senate majority leader that is making the entire party seem at odds with one another.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

Take away the programs and tax cuts meant to "save our economy" and you'll find that Obama isn't quite the spender that foxnews wants to make him out to be.

My wife and I were talking and if you look at legislation that Obama wanted to pass he can take credit for two actual big debt Health Care and a second stimulus. He should not get blamed for extending Bush tax cuts, our wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and it is pretty hard to blame him for the aging Americans that want their Social Security. Also, he isn't the CEO of these companies that are getting tax break and making record profits yet are not hiring. So, if you blame him for our unemployed masses when you don't want him to hire them all to a government than you should find that an oxymoron.

 

[bat]

I agree with koc begone, republicans are saying we can't higher because we don't make enough, yet taxes are as low for the rich as they have ever been. Then they say cut the deficit, but don't bring in money to do it, just cut benefits for people who need them. Then they say don't give out government jobs, but the business owners refuse to hire despite record incomes.

I really don't get how so many people are fooled by this circle of lies they keep trotting out. I understand you think the private sector is better left to it's own accord, but show that it can function properly without allowing the wealthy to just stockpile assets while cutting the middle class out of the picture and you see more leniency towards your politics.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think they should be a ceiling on individual earnings. You know, depending on your status as a worker (hourly, managerial, professional, top executive) you should have an income ceiling. Investors and speculators alike. That way no one can make more than, say $250k per year (top execs, high-level professionals like doctors with specialties, congress, president, etc.). The remainder of the "income" should be dispersed to the rest of the population according to their need. So if you are a single mother (or father) with 5 kids you get the most, and if you are married and a 2-income family with no kids or single with no kids, you get nothing. This would instantly eliminate the wealth disparity. Everyone would be roughly at $75-$100k yearly (either due to earnings or due to welfare) and then we can have a true flat tax without any tax breaks, since the money is already being taken from the rich and being given to the poor. Simple.

 

[Mission Accomplished]

I think they should be a ceiling on individual earnings. You know, depending on your status as a worker (hourly, managerial, professional, top executive) you should have an income ceiling. Investors and speculators alike. That way no one can make more than, say $250k per year (top execs, high-level professionals like doctors with specialties, congress, president, etc.). The remainder of the "income" should be dispersed to the rest of the population according to their need. So if you are a single mother (or father) with 5 kids you get the most, and if you are married and a 2-income family with no kids or single with no kids, you get nothing. This would instantly eliminate the wealth disparity. Everyone would be roughly at $75-$100k yearly (either due to earnings or due to welfare) and then we can have a true flat tax without any tax breaks, since the money is already being taken from the rich and being given to the poor. Simple.

Don't try to use slippery slope methods. No one is talking about redistribution of wealth. The rich are making money preying on us. They aren't hiring an you know this quite acting like they need charity. If we tax them they are only going to move back to Clinton preBush tax cut amount. No one is going to take away their million dollar drug binges. But, they are out of control!

 

[sirkickyass]

True story that some may find shocking given my board reputation as some kind of super-liberal:

I am so dissatisfied with Obama that I would consider voting for the right GOP candidate in the 2012 election at this point. It wouldn't be Palin/Bachmann/Newt/Paul or anyone of that ilk. But I might be persuadable in the instance the GOP candidate was Romney or Huntsman.

 

[LunaticWolf]

True story that some may find shocking given my board reputation as some kind of super-liberal:

I am so dissatisfied with Obama that I would consider voting for the right GOP candidate in the 2012 election at this point. It wouldn't be Palin/Bachmann/Newt/Paul or anyone of that ilk. But I might be persuadable in the instance the GOP candidate was Romney or Huntsman.

Romney is essentially the same as Barack.

Thriller

The tea party's views are not that radical at all. They are gaining movement because their ideas make sense and are fundemental.

Your assessment of them making the states into 50 different countries is a pretty radical view of their goals.

 

[sirkickyass]

Romney is essentially the same as Barack.

If at the end of the day I believe that is true I would absolutely vote for Romney. The key difference being that the GOP would actually work with him and the country would become governable again.