Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:40 PM) Seriously though, this idea that POOR PEOPLE have CHILDREN who don't starve because of programs like WIC and SCHIP is INSUFFERABLE! That's what's wrong with this country: support for poor families with children. No, f*** that. I'm not saying the system is pointless. But when you actively choose to start a family and quit your job just so you can start getting a check from the government, that's f***ed up. How am I the only one that sees that?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) And are you promoting abortion? Lots of married couples don't use birth control. I'm promoting not having a kid if you can't afford it. Why the f*** should I have to contribute to a system that rewards people like her, who simply choose to sign up for welfare because she wants to have a kid? Why the f*** work? Government will just pay me to live! Ugh. I have to live this thread before I get banned.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:36 PM) And don't buy a TV!! Or a microwave!!!! But I NEED those to survive in this world. I don't NEED a kid. Seriously though, this idea that welfare is a merely a signup sheet is beyond wrong.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 02:34 PM) Perhaps you haven't seen the unemployment rate recently. THEN DON'T START A f***ING FAMILY

That sort of attitude makes me so f***ing angry. My wife and I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to have a kid. Hell, multiple kids. But you know what? They're f***ing expensive. I get it, it sucks and it shouldn't cost what it does. But neither she or I could ever imagine the following thought process: "I want to have a kid. I'm perfectly capable of working, but why work when the government will give me a check to stay at home so I can raise my kids." This country is so f***ing ass backwards it literally makes me sick to my stomach. I'm sorry dude, but your friends suck. Get a f***ing job and make ends meat like the rest of middle America. Why the f*** should other people in similiar situations have to pay for her to stay home while the rest of us bust our asses to prepare ourselves to have kids.

Absolutely ridiculous. How about not having a kid until they can afford it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) And can you admit you were wrong about there being an actual deal in place and Obama coming to the table demanding more out of nowhere? You've also admitted in that post that the Republicans have exploited the economic disaster that will result if we don't raise the debt ceiling in order to extract sweeping fiscal policy changes instead of just passing a simple bill raising the debt ceiling like every other time before. Yes, I admit I was wrong. I thought the deal was essentially done before Obama asked for more. Apparently that was not the case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:54 AM) I didn't say they didn't move at all from their initial hardline stance of "no revenues." But they waited until late July to do so. There's no way you can say that the Democrats, who control the Senate and the WH by the way, did not give up significantly more in this deal than the Republicans have ever offered. Your whole outrage and "Boehner should stick it to Obama now!" was based on the incorrect idea that there was some agreement in place and Obama suddenly asked for more. Boehner's own letter belies that when he claims that a deal was never close. Do you still think this is 100% on Obama? Do you really think that Boehner would have agreed to a deal with Obama, handing him a huge political victory, Friday evening if the White House left revenues at $800M? Just because you don't have a total deal done, doesn't mean you don't make small agreements during negotiations. If I come to an agreement with someone on part of the issue, i'm gonna be pissed off if a few days later they come back and say, no, that's not enough, I need more. And just because they waited until July means nothing. Welcome to negotiations. They almost always go down to the wire because you want to see when the other side jumps. And "giving up more." What the hell does that mean? One party wants to significantly cut the deficit and balance the budget without raising taxes on the people that hire and invest during a stagnant economy. Call me crazy, but that sounds somewhat reasonable. The other wants to cut as much as it raises. That's two schools of thought that you and I (and they) clearly differ on. There's not a right or wrong here. Perhaps 100% is too much, but the fact is I see more movement from ideological positions from the right than the left here. What exactly have the dems given up that they should be sticking for? Just more revenue?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) “A deal was never reached, and was never really close.” Boehner claims they agreed on a firm $800M in revenue. That's the only source for that claim, and after the absurd claims he and Cantor tried to pull after walking out of the Biden talks, I'm a little skeptical. Yes, coming around to $800M in loophole closures is a "compromise" from their ridiculous "absolutely no new revenues at all!" position, but the whole thing is still heavily in their favor. I'm not sure how Obama asking for 3:1 cuts v revenue, including inferiorating his base by raising Medicare ages, is over-demanding. You've essentially set it up such that anything short of giving Republicans exactly what they ask for and then some (because they keep wanting a better and better deal) is some grand compromise by Boehner. That doesn't really make sense when viewed at the larger picture of absolute refusal for weeks if not months to compromise on anything at all. Well, he said she said, the fact is they came up from 0 to 800 billion. That's fine if you think that's ridiculous, but that's still their position, which they clearly moved from. So to claim that they didn't compromise is clearly unfair. They've made concessions. They've compromised. You refuse to accept that. So... I dunno what else to tell you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 10:29 AM) Incorrect, and Boehner walked out on Friday. Boehner claimed that the weekend before, he and Geithner made a "handshake" deal on $800M in increased revenues. The WH disputes this and says there was never any agreement, only discussion. After the G6 plan came out recommending something like $2T in revenues, the WH upped their request to $1.2T. At that point, Boehner left and refused to even return Obama's phone calls. Boehner also tried claiming that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill was "bipartisan" which is just hilarious. So, there's a handshake deal comprising of roughly 4 trillion in cuts/savings, 800 billion of which in the form of increased revenues (that's 800 billion more than the republicans wanted to agree to, but they did anyway). The senate plan comes out and asked for twice that in revenue increases (while also slashing the amount in cuts). Obama doesn't quite ask for that much, but still an additional 400 billion in revenue instead of 400 billion in cuts. And that's not the republicans compromising at all? That's not Obama's fault for clearly over-demanding at the negotiation table?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 26, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) That's all sorts of wrong. Cut, Cap and Balance is the House GOP's plan, not what Obama or the Democrats want or ever agreed to. The only word we have that Obama "got greedy" after giving Republicans every thing they wanted for weeks is Boehner, so that's not exactly an objective source of information. The White House says they upped the revenue side after the "Gang of Six" plan was introduced, which called for far more revenues. And it's pretty hilarious that this is now somehow 100% Obama's fault; I can't believe you're actually buying that rhetoric after the GOP's been offered incredibly favorable plans for weeks. After Cantor holds talks and walks out as soon as revenues come up and tries to pretend that cuts are agreed to. After Obama offers substantial cuts and changes to medicare, medicaid and social security in addition to large discretionary cuts coupled with minimal revenue* increases. Yeah, this is somehow 100% Obama's fault. Now you're actively favoring making this another poltical fight in a few months after saying several times that there's no reason to believe it would be, so at least that's more honest. Boehner's wanted this to be a political issue next year from the start, and that's why he's pushed short-term increases all along. There's absolutely no reason for them other than to repeat this whole charade again in a few months. Correct me if i'm wrong here: My understanding is that on Friday night or Saturday there was a deal in place that both sides agreed to, said deal included 800 billion in tax increases...a gigantic compromise on the part of house republicans that wanted no part of any revenue increases. The WH then asked for more, so Boehner said no. If that's the case, then the fact that we don't have an agreement today is absolutely Obama's fault since a deal was already in place under the terms that the WH wanted.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 05:50 PM) I also wanted to explicitly point out how you're arguing contradictory positions here. On one hand you're saying that "we don't know" whether it'll be another protracted fight to extend the debt ceiling in 6-8 months. While this is literally true, I see no reason to assume it'll be any easier, though you seem confident it will be. Obama is being "me first" by insisting that this deal go into 2013 so that we avoid this becoming a political issue for the campaign. This is narcissistic on his part, putting his campaign ahead of the country. He should acquiesce to Boehner's plan and allow this to become a political issue for the 2012 Presidential Campaign. How, exactly, will allowing this to become a campaign issue in what is likely to be the most heated election we've had result in anything but a protracted, partisan fight against raising the debt ceiling next year? You cannot simultaneously claim that it is selfish to want to push this out of 2012 and thus minimizing the 2012 political implications while at the same time claiming that the second debt ceiling raise will be the typical easy vote to not destroy the economy. I'm coming from the perspective that as of Saturday those evil house Republicans (the ones who agreed to nearly a trillion dollars in what amounts to tax increases) had an agreement with the White House for a long term cut, cap and balance plan that Obama wanted. Except that in the last meeting Obama changed his mind and asked for more, hence why the meeting lasted for 30 minutes before Boehner walked out. It's absolute bulls*** for Obama to claim lack of compromise when compromise was had and he just decided to get greedy and ask for more. I found it telling last night that he couldn't explain to the American people why that wasn't enough. He barely even mentioned the fact that at this point, it's way too late and it's 100% his fault and now we're arguing over whether this should be a 6 month increase or longer. After that bulls*** he just played, i'm 100% behind Boehner to f*** Obama and make this a campaign issue that he'll have to deal with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) Klein with some commentary on a potential compromise between Boehner's and Reid's plans, but I'd like to highlight this: I still don't see how anyone could believe that we won't be right back in the same spot 6-8 months from now, or why Republicans insisting on this being a campaign issue is "Country First" but Obama insisting that it not is "Me First" We might. We might not. Like I said, at this point I don't think there's an option. I don't think they could draft a bill, get it through all the various committees and then vote on it in under a week. So, blame the GOP or Obama or whoever, but some short-term measure is gonna have to come out of this. I'm a fan of the one that doesn't take another year to or more to figure out.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) They didn't think the GOP would actually turn down the various incredibly favorable deals they've been offered. You're still going in circles because the current brinksmanship is absolutely nothing like any debt ceiling increase before. Cantor's been opposed to revenue increases period. Boehner's refused them as well. Where have you been the last few weeks? They've had months already. Why will this be easier in 6-8 months? Will the 90+ House Republicans disavow their pledge to vote against increase no matter what? It's me-first, f*** the country for Obama to want to avoid this being the focus of American politics for the next year, but not for Republicans to insist that it is? Are you paying attention? Boehner got ripped by many in his own party for effectively ok'ing tax increases by closing corporate tax loopholes, anywhere from 800 billion to 1 trillion over the next decade. Obama wanted 1.2 trillion. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/23/...g=re1.galleries

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) I know, I was saying that had such a bill actually passed through the House, the Senate would have passed it and it'd be signed. I was laughing at the idea that the House GOP has done this twice. But this is just a noble stand against out-of-control spending, not political or ideological fighting at all. Never said that

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) No, it has not been done, there was a "give everyone a chance to vote against a clean debt ceiling bill for political posturing" vote a couple months ago. The Republican who introduced the bill even voted against it. Yeah I was thinking of overall budget proposals.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) You're talking in circles. Either the debt ceiling increase is routine and non-problematic to do in two stages, or this dragged out fight is noble and necessary because we're in a bad recession that certainly won't be any better in 6-8 months. But, magically, in 6-8 months the GOP will see the light and realize they almost destroyed the US economy. But you must absolutely refuse any revenues increases and insist that the cuts should come heavily from all the programs you've ideologically wanted to cut for decades anyway. Even if the deficit was largely created by your tax and foreign policies and some significant domestic policy spending as well. Nothing political there, nope. Sarcasm aside, you'll need to explain why it'll be any easier to pass an increase once it's become the Presidential campaign issue that Obama wants to avoid in 6-8 months and how this isn't Republicans setting this up as beneficial as possible for themselves, but Democrats insisting on a deal into 2013 is a cold, calculated "me-first, f*** the country" move, despite various ratings agencies and financial people saying a short-term deal is a bad idea. How on earth is that talking in circles? My "it's routine" argument is that I don't understand why Wall St would all of the sudden freakout just because the decision for the terms of raising the ceiling is being kicked another 6 months. Has the market been freaking out the last 6 months because of uncertainty? No. But that doesn't mean we don't have a deficit problem that needs to be addressed. And the GOP hasn't refused ANY revenue increases. From listening to the radio yesterday they were agreeable to closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes that would increase revenues, as well as lifting a lot of fees. They're against tax increases. Pray tell how small businesses are going to be hiring left and right when their bottom line is getting smaller and smaller. It's not a democrat me-first f*** the country move, it's Obama. Reid was on board with the two step plan. And i'm fine kicking it for 6-8 months because that gives them more time to negotiate a good deal going forward. At this point we don't have the time. And i know, i know, those soulless republicans could have just agreed to Obama's plan weeks ago!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) Hey, I have an idea. How about if Congress just passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and sends it to the president? That would work, wouldn't it? I wonder why no one's thought of this before? Hasn't the GOP done this? Twice? (to the zero for Democrats) But the Senate said no? And why waste all that time/effort if ultimately the President is going to say no, like he did last night?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) You just sunk your own argument. As you pointed out, this happened 30+ times before with some posturing but no really big show. The Insane Caucus of the GOP that was elected last fall changed that. Democrats did not do this, and pretending that there's symmetry is just lying to yourself. At some point you gotta say enough is enough. Going through the worst economic recession in 80+ years followed by 2-3 years of absolute horses*** for recovery will do that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) You can accept all of this as true. It still doesn't mean that the Republicans aren't intentionally trying to make this a campaign issue and trying to hurt Obama over this as much as possible. Yeah, duh, Obama's going to try to avoid having this same dumb manufactured problem clog up American politics for the next year. Why are Republicans putting the GOP presidential campaign ahead of the country?!!?!?!!?!?!11 The feasibility isn't a crap argument because these extensions are generally routine, not opportunities for one party to force a complete reworking of domestic fiscal policy, but this is exactly what it's become. This includes several GOP Presidential candidates, 90 House members and right-wing pundits all saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling period. It's like you've completely ignored that we're slightly more than a week away from starting to fail to meet debt obligations. Why on earth would you assume this will be any easier once it becomes a "campaign issue?" "I'm not disagreeing that the GOP hasn't acted like a bunch of giant idiots and said "NO!" to every incredibly favorable plan they've been presented with, but they've held out for so long we've just got to give them exactly what they want!" Oh please. If the tables were reversed we'd be in the exact same f***ing position with the Dems. Bush wants to finance his two wars of choice but the deficits out of control. Of course the Dems would have used this as political leverage to reign in "wasteful" spending. Well, surprise, the GOP is smart and is doing the exact same f***ing thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 25, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) It's really easy to turn that around and say the Republicans are making this an election issue by refusing to reach any agreement whatsoever with Obama, no matter how heavily it leans in their favor, because it will be seen as a political win for him. There's also no reason they couldn't accept the all-cuts Reid plan unless they want this to be a political issue for Obama and Democrats in general by insisting on bipartisan cuts to Medicare. Moronic House Republicans, don't you understand how important this is?!!! Comments from the financial sector on the feasibility of Boehner's two-stage plan: I agree if we were at this point 3 weeks ago. But it's obvious that NO agreement will be made until the last minute, at which point the markets will probably already drop in fear of the possibility of default, even if slight. All indications are that both parties in Congress agreed to the two step plan to avoid that, but Obama said no and Reid quickly followed. He's afraid of this becoming a campaign issue. He's putting his campaign before the country. Let's put it this way, if the two step plan added 6 months to the timeline, don't you think Obama would jump all over it? (yes, he would) And the feasibility of the two stage plan is a crap argument. An extension of less than 5 months has been done like 38 times over the last few decades. It's been done before without a problem. And i'm not disagreeing that the GOP is holding too strong to the no taxes mantra. But it's too late in the game to keep f***ing around here. Just as a practical matter I don't think they can push through legislation in less than a week.

So, NSS, tell me how Obama getting out of the way is a bad thing. As of today, Congress is in agreement for a short term increase (with matching cuts) with the promise to form a bipartisan committee to decide how to obtain 3-4 trillion in cuts within the next 5-6 months. Obama said no. Why? Because he doesn't want this to become an election issue. So, even the moronic Democrats in the Senate understand how important this issue is, but Obama is making it about politics and campaign issues.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) Jesus II? He's a Muslim, dummy. lol, true

He was anointed as the savior of the country despite following just about every "terrible" policy his predecessor did.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 22, 2011 -> 02:24 PM) Or its just the reality of the situation. At the beginning people were hopeful that a resolution would be quick. It turns out Gaddafi is going to do whatever he can to stay in power. There are plenty of news outlets that report on this subject every day (Al-Jazeera) but for the most part its a civil war with a constant ebb and flow. The US Civil War took years, hopefully Libya can be quicker, but this was the reality from the beginning, you never know how long it will take. I.E., a long term cluster f*** that Jesus II got us into for....I still don't know why. And i'm 100% positive he doesn't either.