PDA

View Full Version : Raising the debt limit?


mintacular
04-25-2011, 10:34 PM
This topic should not be political--we should be able to discuss this like intelligent adults. Is this topic off-limit? Why are there restrictions to begin with on this type of "political" free speech? Those who collect cards should be very well versed on adding debt to the credit card :)

Leon
04-26-2011, 08:27 AM
This topic should not be political--we should be able to discuss this like intelligent adults. Is this topic off-limit? Why are there restrictions to begin with on this type of "political" free speech? Those who collect cards should be very well versed on adding debt to the credit card :)

We took a poll before and overwhelmingly our community thought politics shouldn't be discussed. That is why there are no politics. I think this question could be phrased into a card question too just as you did with your last sentence. That might make it more palatable for some. For the record, I wasn't against it, but most members were.

Personally, I have never put a baseball card on a credit card due to having to put it on one. I think I have put a few on a cc in the past but it was for ease of transaction. I abhor credit card debt so have not had any in 25 yrs....and never had more than about 1k even as a youngster (early 20's). regards

dstraate
04-26-2011, 12:10 PM
My thoughts are that the ceiling must be raised, but it must be done with heavy concessions to limit future spending. I'm pleased that we're finally beginning to have a discussion as a country about spending. It's one that has serious long-term consequences and must not be continually swept under the rug.

As for card-buying policy I'd say I'm conservative, but my wife claims I'm far too liberal.:confused:

jim
07-05-2011, 02:05 PM
I have absolutely no qualms about buying cards on the credit card. I pay off the balance every month and get cash back with every purchase. Isn't everything on ebay now a credit card transaction? Again, you get ebay bucks back with them; just have to remember to pay off at the end of the billing cycle.
jim loewke

sportscardpete
07-05-2011, 02:26 PM
I don't have a credit card, but I wouldn't mind putting on some debt via cards. People just need to know their limits (easier said than done).

teetwoohsix
07-10-2011, 11:57 PM
I would love to discuss this issue as well as MANY other things that are going on in the world, in our country, etc. but I do not see any way around politics ending up in the conversation.

Unless Leon created an amendment to the rules ;) :D (jk)

vintagetoppsguy
07-30-2011, 01:13 PM
I don’t see why the Republicans are getting all the blame. After all, couldn’t the Democrats have voted to raise the debt ceiling early last Fall when they still had control of both the House and Senate?

I don’t mean for my statement/question to be political. I am simply stating a factual observation.

steve B
07-30-2011, 01:51 PM
I don’t see why the Republicans are getting all the blame. After all, couldn’t the Democrats have voted to raise the debt ceiling early last Fall when they still had control of both the House and Senate?

I don’t mean for my statement/question to be political. I am simply stating a factual observation.

Yes, or at any time in the preceeding 2 years.

I will give Obama credit though, he has stated that he thought he could have spent more effort on things like that during his first couple years. I think he's much better than his PR guys allow us to see, which says a lot about the PR guys.

Steve B

barrysloate
07-30-2011, 05:50 PM
Looks like we may have a deal before Monday. Will it be a good one? I'm dubious.

vintagetoppsguy
08-02-2011, 07:21 AM
Yesterday, Joe Biden said the Republicans, "acted like terrorists" and he isn't the only one on the left to make that same comparison. This is hilarious coming from the same group of people that refuse to call the actual terrorists, "terrorists."

mintacular
08-02-2011, 11:52 AM
Seems to make sense...add 6T the next 10 years but cut 2T that should help with the national debt...We have a debt problem not a debt ceiling problem...if we are cutting spending why do we have to raise the ceiling?

tiger8mush
08-02-2011, 12:59 PM
I don't know a lot about politics, but seems the older I get the more interested I'm becoming. Below is a snipet I was sent in an email:

From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better

If he said that back then, then he obviously knew our debt was an issue well before the deadline of the debt ceiling. He spoke about leadership, yet while in office our debt has continued to climb. Why wasn't action taken sooner (like his first year in office) so that we wouldn't continue running the gov't at a defecit? Or did he try and it just didn't work out for some reason?

I'm not saying this is or isn't Obama's fault, I'm just trying to learn.

vintagetoppsguy
08-02-2011, 01:30 PM
I don't know a lot about politics, but seems the older I get the more interested I'm becoming. Below is a snipet I was sent in an email:

From Sen. Obama’s Floor Speech, March 20, 2006: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better

If he said that back then, then he obviously knew our debt was an issue well before the deadline of the debt ceiling. He spoke about leadership, yet while in office our debt has continued to climb. Why wasn't action taken sooner (like his first year in office) so that we wouldn't continue running the gov't at a defecit? Or did he try and it just didn't work out for some reason?

I'm not saying this is or isn't Obama's fault, I'm just trying to learn.

Yes, as a newly elected senator Obama did say exactly that. He backed up his words by voting to refuse to raise the debt limit when Bush was President. Funny how it all changes when the shoe is on the other foot. He is also on record (you can find it on YouTube) in a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos admitting that his vote back then was purely political and also apologized.

There are many others on the left who are also on record with very similar comments in 2006, but since have also flip-flopped. Harry Reid is another that voted not to raise the debt limit when Bush was in office, but for some reason has since changed his mind. Here are his own words, “I shouldn’t have done that. I’m kinda embarrassed I did. It was a political maneuver by we Democrats. The Republicans were in power — there were more of them. The president voted when he was in the Senate the same way. I heard him apologize for it. We all should take a look at how we handle these issues, but that doesn’t take into consideration the numerous times, the numerous times I voted to raise the debt ceiling. The one time I tried to make a political issue of it, I wish I hadn’t.”

In other words, both Obama and Reid admitted politics were more important than country. Don’t take my word for it – look it up yourself.

Edited to add: And for the record, I blame BOTH parties for this economic mess. Instead of fixing the problem, both parties want to play politics.

ibuysportsephemera
08-02-2011, 02:50 PM
Edited to add: And for the record, I blame BOTH parties for this economic mess. Instead of fixing the problem, both parties want to play politics.
Amen Brother!

teetwoohsix
08-08-2011, 11:31 AM
Amen Brother!

I second that !!!

And just a few months ago we were hearing this..........

http://dailybail.com/home/geithner-no-risk-us-will-lose-aaa-credit-rating-ever.html

vintagetoppsguy
08-18-2011, 08:53 AM
After 900+ days in office, Obama finally has a plan to reduce unemployment and boost the economy. He’s going to grace us with this big announcement… next month (after his much needed vacation). Yippee! Just like Chris Mathews, I feel a thrill going up my leg.

Leon
08-18-2011, 12:53 PM
Hey Guys
While we have rules against discussing politics I think I can (I hope) go a head and give one freebie and let ya'll discuss it in this thread. IF it spills over into any other thread you will be given a warning and then something more severe if it doesn't stop. As we know, I never really had an issue with discussing politics, but the board voted "no" to them. However, I have a feeling many that voted no probably don't even participate here in the Lounge, so I see no probs with allowing this thread to continue. Just try to keep it civil and professional please.

And my 1/2 cent. While I still like Obama as a person, and I wish he could have gotten our country on the right track, it seems he has been very ineffective. I think his lack of experience in running a business, or governmental business, is showing.

...best regards

vintagetoppsguy
08-18-2011, 01:12 PM
Thanks, Leon. I agree with you about Obama, and the fact of the matter is he just didn't get the economy back on track (and to think he'll do so in the next 15 months before the election is absurd). I believe that he inherited a mess from Bush, but blaming Bush at this point is just ridiculous. He's been in office long enough that it's HIS responsibility now - not Bush's, not the Arab Spring, not the natural disasters - it's BHO's problem.

I don't know of any job in the world where we could blame our predecessor from two and a half years ago for the current problems in our position today. If I tried that at my job I would probably be fired.

tiger8mush
08-18-2011, 01:58 PM
i agree he inherited a problem and i agree he is not solving the problem.

something is wrong when we bail out the rich for making bad business decisions.
something is wrong when gov't is so big that decisions can't be made quickly nor efficiently nor correctly.
something is wrong when "the american way" has become an ideal of not working and letting the gov't provide for you.
something is wrong when we stick our noses into other countries business trying to overthrow their ideas of gov't with ours.
something is wrong with consistently fighting these decade-long wars.
something is wrong when big US corporations would rather outsource than keep money in the US.
something is wrong when we discover we've reached the max on our credit card and the solution is to just increase it and come up with a 10 year plan to eventually maybe think about perhaps sorta coming close to a balanced budget maybe if things work out the way we plan if we want to.
something is wrong when i open a box of caramel candy and don't get a fresh 1910 E98 on top!!!!

okay, maybe the last one has nothing to do with politics but you catch my drift :)
i don't know enough about every single thing going on in politics, but i know there is enough going wrong that its pretty freakin obvious that people in Washington DC want to play politics instead of doing what is best for the country. They are worried about donkey vs elephant. Instead of making good rational decisions they stick to their party lines. It is hurting us and will hurt even more if changes aren't made.

barrysloate
08-18-2011, 02:04 PM
Maybe these problems are beyond solving. Maybe this is the new look for America.

tiger8mush
08-18-2011, 02:19 PM
Maybe these problems are beyond solving. Maybe this is the new look for America.

:(

teetwoohsix
08-20-2011, 03:49 AM
Great posts guys- and thanks Leon for letting us talk a little politics on this thread.

I may take a beating on this, hopefully not- but right now I'm liking Ron Paul the most. I have a feeling that anyone other than him will keep us on this downward spiral, left or right. Time for a real "change"- hopefully for the better this time.

Sincerely, Clayton

tiger8mush
08-20-2011, 11:34 AM
but right now I'm liking Ron Paul the most.

+1

I agree with him on more issues (not all) than any of the candidates I've looked at so far. It'll take someone like him, IMO, to reduce the size of the gov't, if even he can do it.

vintagetoppsguy
08-20-2011, 12:27 PM
I like Ron Paul too, but I think my favorite at this point is Herman Cain. I know he's a long shot, but here's a guy that's actually ran a successful business and know what it takes to do so.

I also like Rick Perry. It's hard to overlook him when 37% of the private sector jobs created in the US are in the State of Tejas. Oh, wait a minute, my bad, it was BHO's stimulus that created those jobs (yeah, right!).

teetwoohsix
08-21-2011, 01:06 PM
+1

I agree with him on more issues (not all) than any of the candidates I've looked at so far. It'll take someone like him, IMO, to reduce the size of the gov't, if even he can do it.

+1 also.

Herman Cain seems alright, but I worry about his lack of experience in politics.He seems like a decent guy though, just not sure if he's ready yet. As far as Rick Perry, I still need to do a little more research on him before I decide on how I feel about him. It seems like he's hand picking certain subjects from Ron Paul (i.e. going after the fed.reserve & upholding the constitution) to possibly pull votes away from Paul.......and it worries me that he is the "establishments" GOP choice. A little research will help me, I admit I don't know much about him- just what I've seen since the straw polls ended.

I do think it was pathetic of the mainstream media to downplay Ron Paul coming in a VERY close second in the straw polls, especially when a channel claims they are "fair & balanced".

Sincerely, Clayton

Leon
08-21-2011, 01:36 PM
My take on Perry is still, overall positive. One concern with him is from watching him giving either a sermon, or a political speech (I couldn't really tell), to a revivalist type group of 30,000, on one of his stops. As much as I am a Republican by nature, that being to my deceased grandmother's chagrin (sorry grandma), I can't say I want there there to be too close of a relationship between government and politics. It was somewhat disconcerting watching him give that speech/sermon, at least to me. Again, don't get me wrong, I think religion is great for all those who want it, but keep it out of the government. Just my opinion on that one. Ron Paul might have the best ideas, and while I agree with most, a few of them are so way out there, he garners the look that a wacko might. (at least sometimes).

vintagetoppsguy
08-21-2011, 03:55 PM
My take on Perry is still, overall positive. One concern with him is from watching him giving either a sermon, or a political speech (I couldn't really tell), to a revivalist type group of 30,000, on one of his stops. As much as I am a Republican by nature, that being to my deceased grandmother's chagrin (sorry grandma), I can't say I want there there to be too close of a relationship between government and politics. It was somewhat disconcerting watching him give that speech/sermon, at least to me. Again, don't get me wrong, I think religion is great for all those who want it, but keep it out of the government. Just my opinion on that one. Ron Paul might have the best ideas, and while I agree with most, a few of them are so way out there, he garners the look that a wacko might. (at least sometimes).

Huh? Keep religion out of government? What are you talking about? He had a prayer meeting at Reliant Stadium in Houston a couple of weeks ago, but what does that have to do with anything? I really don't think that was mixing religion and politics. Are you saying politicians can't be religious? That's sure what your post sounds like. If not, what exactly is your point because I don't see what is wrong with what he did?

Leon
08-21-2011, 06:35 PM
Huh? Keep religion out of government? What are you talking about? He had a prayer meeting at Reliant Stadium in Houston a couple of weeks ago, but what does that have to do with anything? I really don't think that was mixing religion and politics. Are you saying politicians can't be religious? That's sure what your post sounds like. If not, what exactly is your point because I don't see what is wrong with what he did?

I am saying I think religion and government should be separate. If he wasn't mixing the two then what he did is fine by me. He is free to do whatever he wants to. As for him, or politicians, being religious, that is up to them. I would expect almost all of them to be religious and that is a wonderful thing. No qualms there.

vintagetoppsguy
08-21-2011, 08:55 PM
Not trying to argue with you Leon, but you said you found it disconcerting. I'm just curious what you found disconcerting about a prayer meeting held by a politician outside of the political realm?

And, if watching it bothered you, couldn't you have simply flipped the channel?

On a side note, the white house has had a National Day of Prayer since 1952 - it actually goes back furher than that, but that's when Truman signed it into law. Do you object to that?

Leon
08-21-2011, 11:05 PM
Not trying to argue with you Leon, but you said you found it disconcerting. I'm just curious what you found disconcerting about a prayer meeting held by a politician outside of the political realm?

And, if watching it bothered you, couldn't you have simply flipped the channel?

On a side note, the white house has had a National Day of Prayer since 1952 - it actually goes back furher than that, but that's when Truman signed it into law. Do you object to that?

I am finished arguing this subject. Thanks for your views...

teetwoohsix
08-25-2011, 10:13 AM
I've been doing research on Rick Perry over the last couple of days and I can honestly say he will never get my vote.

So far Ron Paul appeals to me, but I do feel that as a country we need Social Security as well as Medicare- and if he wants to do away with these two programs then I probably wouldn't give him my vote. If he would make the government replace the $$ they looted from S.S. then I'm all for him. This is an important thing, we have too many elderly & disabled who rely on these programs to live, and I don't feel they are "hand-outs",,,,,,,not like "welfare". I know these aren't popular programs with republicans, and I'm still trying to find out what Paul plans to do about these.

I don't fully identify with either left or right 100%.......I try to vote for who I think has the best ideas for us as a country, and am continuously disappointed, to say the least.

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
08-25-2011, 10:27 AM
Clayton,

Rick Perry never said he wanted to eliminate Social Security or Medicare. I'm not sure where you heard that (perhaps it was that political prayer rally :D), but I would love to know your source. Link?

He wants to reform it. I think we can all agree that Social Security needs to be reformed. It's not being used for the purpose that it was originally intended to be used for.

teetwoohsix
08-25-2011, 10:59 AM
Hi David-

Sometimes I jumble things together and what I'm trying to say doesn't come out right. My reason for not wanting to vote for Perry really had nothing to do with Social Security. My final decision on him was based off of this documentary I just watched called "EndGame"......I don't know if you want to watch the whole thing, it's over 2 hours long-and a bit depressing- but here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho

I guess I only brought up S.S. & medicare because it's usually the only thing that keeps me from identifying with the republican view 100%.

Sincerely, Clayton

4815162342
08-25-2011, 04:30 PM
...My final decision on him was based off of this documentary I just watched called "EndGame"......I don't know if you want to watch the whole thing, it's over 2 hours long-and a bit depressing- but here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho...

I don't think I would let Alex Jones sway my voting decisions. :rolleyes:

teetwoohsix
08-25-2011, 07:08 PM
I don't think I would let Alex Jones sway my voting decisions. :rolleyes:

I know what you're saying, and I would never let one person sway my voting decisions. I am not a fan of his style (fear to get his point across) but if you think about it it's not much different than the way the corporate media tries to keep the world in fear.........but at least Jones covers topics that you will never get from your favorite cable news station- some of the topics should be very important to this country.

My choice not to vote for Perry was not just based on this movie, I was very disturbed by the fact that he was willing to force HPV vaccinations on school girls age 11-12, unless parents "opted out". I know he is now admitting his stance on this was a mistake, and I appreciate that, but it's the same old same old- large pharma company (Merck) stands to make billions off of a new drug & all of a sudden a politician is talking about "forced vaccinations".......and Merck's lobbyists doubled up their efforts in the state of Texas at the time. Money buying policy. When does the corruption end?

Anyhow- everyone is entitled to their own choices and opinions. As far as Jones, it's more about the message than the messenger. Interesting thing about that movie is that it came out a couple of years ago? hhmmmm....
Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
08-25-2011, 09:01 PM
My choice not to vote for Perry was not just based on this movie, I was very disturbed by the fact that he was willing to force HPV vaccinations on school girls age 11-12, unless parents "opted out".

If the parents can opt out, how is it force? Aren't our school kids forced to get other vaccinations where there is no opt out? I actually agree with you on this, but for a different reason. It is my opinion that the HPV vaccination wasn't adequately tested for long term side efects.

teetwoohsix
08-26-2011, 01:47 AM
If the parents can opt out, how is it force? Aren't our school kids forced to get other vaccinations where there is no opt out? I actually agree with you on this, but for a different reason. It is my opinion that the HPV vaccination wasn't adequately tested for long term side efects.

As far as I know, 6th graders aren't getting mandatory vaccines for a sexually transmitted virus- that to me is bizarre. And, it really should be the other way around- if the parents choose to have their kids get the vaccine, it is available. Not, it's mandatory unless you opt out. Not for this. Are sixth graders catching HPV nowadays? Maybe I'm out of the loop. Then you have the connections to Merck,,,,then you see greed and $$$.

Here is the story I read about this in the short time I researched Perry- I know it's old, but found it was very telling: http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html

I'm glad you do agree with me on this- I also agree with your reasoning also.
And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating my opinion on things, and that's all it is. I also kind of hoped more members would join into the conversation seeing that these individuals in charge and the decissions they make affect us all in one way or the other. And at the same time, I respect everyone's choice to not get involved in the subject.

In the end, I just want our country to get back on track, weed out the corrupt, end the wars and for us to have real freedom & liberty. Not too much to expect I hope.

Sincerely, Clayton

tiger8mush
08-26-2011, 06:49 AM
In the end, I just want our country to get back on track, weed out the corrupt, end the wars and for us to have real freedom & liberty. Not too much to expect I hope.


not too much to ask - its what many of us (including myself) want. But the rich fill the politicians pockets with $, leading the politicians to run the country according to the way the rich want it run. puppetry.

vintagetoppsguy
08-26-2011, 08:22 AM
As far as I know, 6th graders aren't getting mandatory vaccines for a sexually transmitted virus- that to me is bizarre. And, it really should be the other way around- if the parents choose to have their kids get the vaccine, it is available. Not, it's mandatory unless you opt out. Not for this. Are sixth graders catching HPV nowadays? Maybe I'm out of the loop. Then you have the connections to Merck,,,,then you see greed and $$$.

Again, school age children are required to get other vaccinations before they are allowed to enroll in school. What's the difference?

Your either opposed to mandatory vaccinations or your not. You can't have it both ways. How can you pick and choose which ones you're for and which ones you're against?

Are sixth graders catching HPV nowadays? My guess is probably the majority aren't. However, that's where you're spinning it. The vaccination is to protect young girls BEFORE they become sexually active, not after.

Question: Are you telling me that if you had a middle school daughter and there was a vaccination (assuming it was thoroughly tested for side effects) to prevent her from getting HPV (which causes cervical cancer), you wouldn't do it? Come on!

Edited to add: If you really want to talk about health care decisions being “forced” on people, let’s talk ObamaCare – which the majority of Americans were against. That was forced upon us.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t find it unconstitutional, hopefully it will be repealed or defunded by the next administration.

teetwoohsix
08-27-2011, 09:27 AM
Again, school age children are required to get other vaccinations before they are allowed to enroll in school. What's the difference?

Your either opposed to mandatory vaccinations or your not. You can't have it both ways. How can you pick and choose which ones you're for and which ones you're against?

Are sixth graders catching HPV nowadays? My guess is probably the majority aren't. However, that's where you're spinning it. The vaccination is to protect young girls BEFORE they become sexually active, not after.

Question: Are you telling me that if you had a middle school daughter and there was a vaccination (assuming it was thoroughly tested for side effects) to prevent her from getting HPV (which causes cervical cancer), you wouldn't do it? Come on!

Edited to add: If you really want to talk about health care decisions being “forced” on people, let’s talk ObamaCare – which the majority of Americans were against. That was forced upon us.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t find it unconstitutional, hopefully it will be repealed or defunded by the next administration.

Hi David-

I really wasn't trying to spin anything, that's why I provided a link to the article I read, which IMO pretty much speaks for itself. Now, as far as forced vaccinations, I actually had to research what kids are being vaccinated with to be able to answer this. Here's what I came up with from the Illinois Department of Public Health (as example):

As parents, we all want our children to grow up healthy and free from the effects of serious disease. One of the easiest and most effective steps we can take to help achieve this goal is to make sure that our children receive all the recommended childhood immunizations.

The Illinois Department of Public Health strongly recommends immunizing all healthy children against the 10 vaccine-preventable childhood diseases. Illinois has laws requiring vaccination against some of these diseases before children can enter school. Children who are immunized are not the only ones to benefit from the protection these vaccinations give. Immunizations also contribute to the well-being of everyone by reducing the chance for diseases to spread.

Why should my child be immunized?

Children need immunizations (shots) to protect them from dangerous childhood diseases. These diseases have serious complications and can even kill children.

Newborn babies have antibodies from their mothers and are immune to many diseases. However, this immunity does not last and quickly wears off in the first year of life. By immunizing children at the recommended times, you give their immune systems a chance to make protective antibodies that help fight against disease and illness. Children who are not immunized run the risk of being exposed to germs too strong for them to fight.

Are these diseases very serious?

Today we might not think of these diseases as being very serious because, thanks to vaccines, we don't see them as often as we used to. But the fact is they still exist and may lead to pneumonia, choking, brain damage, heart problems, blindness and death in children who are not protected.

What diseases do vaccines prevent?

Immunizations protect children against —

Diphtheria
Tetanus (Lockjaw)
Pertussis (Whooping cough)
Polio
Measles
Mumps
Rubella (German measles)
Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib)
Hepatitis B
Varicella (Chickenpox)

I did not know what "Diphtheria" was......checked Wikipedia: Upper respiratory tract illness-is contagious, spread by direct physical contact or breathing aerosolized secretions of infected individuals (tried to keep it short).

So, you said : " You're either opposed to mandatory vaccinations or you're not. You can't have it both ways. How can you pick and choose which ones you're for and which ones you're against?"

I don't agree with any of this statement/question. Why can't I have it both ways ? :D Why can't I pick and choose which ones I'm for or against? Let's just say I'm for whatever is best for the children, period. I can see and understand why the above vaccinations are important, and I'm sure almost every doctor would recommend the above vaccinations.

Do I agree with a politician deciding what's best for childrens health because he's getting paid off by the big pharma company? Hell no.

If my family doctor recommended my daughter have the shots ( I don't have a daughter) would I agree? Possibly, after thorough research. But that's my point, I hope I cleared that up ;)

As far as Obama care- let me get to that one a little later in another post- I need a little break :D

Sincerely, Clayton

teetwoohsix
08-27-2011, 09:33 AM
not too much to ask - its what many of us (including myself) want. But the rich fill the politicians pockets with $, leading the politicians to run the country according to the way the rich want it run. Puppetry.

+ 1 !!!!!!!!!!

drc
08-28-2011, 02:04 AM
I'm for mandatory vaccines as long as it's optional.

teetwoohsix
08-28-2011, 02:39 AM
I'm for mandatory vaccines as long as it's optional.

Great answer :D

Well, this was fun and all but after trying to understand "ObamaCare" (Wikipedia) my brain got fried and I decided I need to get back to focusing on T206's. It's a lot more fun reading about cards :)

Ron Paul 2012

Sincerely, Clayton

vintagetoppsguy
08-31-2011, 08:22 PM
After 900+ days in office, Obama finally has a plan to reduce unemployment and boost the economy. He’s going to grace us with this big announcement… next month (after his much needed vacation). Yippee! Just like Chris Mathews, I feel a thrill going up my leg.

Looks like Obama has scheduled his jobs speech for next Wednesday night...the same night as the Republican debate. Very classy.

vintagetoppsguy
09-06-2011, 08:04 PM
Speaking of raising the debt limit, I found this video on Youtube from 2008 where Obama calls Bush unpatriotic for adding $4 Trillion in debt during his 8 years in office. Funny how Obama has already incurred that same amount in only two and a half years. That big eared moron has no right to call anybody unpatriotic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

tiger8mush
09-06-2011, 09:11 PM
That big eared moron has no right to call anybody unpatriotic.


maybe he meant Bush was unpatriotic for ONLY adding $4T in debt, when he could've done SO MUCH MORE!!!! cuz you know, adding debt and printing more currency helps stimulate the economy, at least that seems to be Bernanke's strategy.

vintagetoppsguy
09-06-2011, 09:21 PM
cuz you know, adding debt and printing more currency helps stimulate the economy, at least that seems to be Bernanke's strategy.

The funny thing is that I believe his job speech on Thursday will be nothing more than a call for more stimulus dollars. Opps, I said a bad word. According to Nancy Pelosi, we're not supposed to use the word stimulus anymore. It should now be referred to as "job creation." Yeah, right! Like the first one created so many jobs that we need another one. Unbelievable.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/nancy-pelosi-bans-stimulus-word.html

vintagetoppsguy
09-07-2011, 08:06 AM
Check this out from the left wing nut jobs:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276418/tea-party-zombies-must-die-daniel-foster

How sick is that?!?! Of course you won't hear anything about it in the liberal media.

barrysloate
09-07-2011, 08:49 AM
Might it be time for this thread to be locked?

vintagetoppsguy
09-07-2011, 09:07 AM
Might it be time for this thread to be locked?


For reporting FACTS? Sure, let's lock the thread so nobody can see the sick and disgusting behavior from the left. Let’s hide the truth just like the liberal media is so good at doing. Heck, just have the mods edit my post too and we’ll just hope nobody saw it. Let’s also pretend that Jimmy Hoffa, Jr didn’t say “Let’s take these sons of bitches out” referring to the Tea Party during his Labor Day Speech. If everybody refuses to report it, it really didn’t happen, right?

barrysloate
09-07-2011, 09:36 AM
David- I'm not going to get into a political debate, I won't do that. Every day or so you come back on this thread with some rant, and we have a rule of no politics on the board. Leon and company have allowed some leeway here but there's little to no discussion, just you airing out your grievances

And please try not to confuse facts with opinions.

vintagetoppsguy
09-07-2011, 09:52 AM
David- I'm not going to get into a political debate, I won't do that. Every day or so you come back on this thread with some rant, and we have a rule of no politics on the board. Leon and company have allowed some leeway here but there's little to no discussion, just you airing out your grievances

And please try not to confuse facts with opinions.

Then we agree, no political debate. No, I am not ranting. I am pointing out facts (not opinions) that are germane to the topic of this thread.

It's a FACT that Obama said unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus. We passed it and it rose to 10%.

It's a FACT that Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" for adding $4 Trillion in debt in his 8 years in office, somthing Obama managed to do in only two and a half years.

It's a FACT that Obama, Reid and others voted not to increase the debt limit when Bush was president, but then blasted the republicans for doing the same thing when Obama was president.

Last, it's a FACT (although not related to this thread) that a video game in which the objective is to kill members of a political party is sick and disgusting.

tiger8mush
09-07-2011, 10:08 AM
to get back on topic, they have raised the debt limit and hopefully are working on a plan to balance the budget so in a few years we won't reach the new debt limit and be stuck at the same crossroads.

DaClyde
09-07-2011, 04:02 PM
At some point, Congress has to reign in the unlimited, and almost entirely unrestricted, military and intelligence spending they've allowed over the past 10 years. None of the budget talks that led up to the raising of the debt limit made much noise over the enormous $$$ being thrown into that particular black hole, with very little accountability. As with all budget talks, the first things the politicians go after are the hot button items like heath care and education.

Not surprisingly, those are the exact same things that politicians immediately attack when talking about DoD speding cuts. The first thing they want to talk about cutting is funding for body armor, health care for service personnel and the G.I. bill. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at contractors that disappears, without a trace, with nearly zero return? Why is it Congress can't have a realistic discussion about budget without immediately resorting to hyperbole?

When it comes to actually balancing the budget, the first thing much of Congress wants to talk about, in the rare event of a "projected budget surplus", is HOW TO SPEND THE PROJECTED BUDGET SURPLUS. First of all, it's a "projected" number. It isn't real. It's like having maxed out your credit cards, but then blowing your income tax return on a new TV. That's the mentality that has to change in Washington. As far as I'm concerned any true budget surplus shouldn't even be given back to the taxpayers, it should be applied directly to the national debt.

Until candidates like Ron Paul stop being cast as "extreme" because they advocate a realistic approach to government and finance, as opposed to promoting more of the same and relentlessly attacking their opponents (notice the bulk of Paul's speeches are policy related, not constant attacks on political opponents), nothing will change. Also, the media and the public have to acknowledge that the President of the United States has no power to arbitrarily enact universal health care any more than he has the power to arbitrarily eliminate Social Security. Obama isn't solely responsible for the health care act that passed. That was Congress. Much like Bush wasn't solely responsible for the US being tied up in two wars over seas. There were better than 55% of the 535 members of Congress who were in some way complicit in both actions. It is those individuals who should be held responsible for what is placed in front of the President for his signature.

I think as long as the people who got us into the current mess are still allowed to keep their jobs, all the while ineptly fiddling with the economy, looking for some magic switch to turn it all around, we're not going to see any financial progress any time soon. At the very least, the first thing Congress should implement is no NEW spending programs. Deal with what is already on the table, and trim some of that first.

drc
09-09-2011, 11:25 PM
As far as raising the debt limit goes, you have little choice but to pay your debts. Raising the debt limit was about paying debts due. Whether you're person, company or country, defaulting on loans is bad news for your future credit and financial viability ... I agree that not getting into debt is the ideal thing, but defaulting on money you owe to others is a highly unsound choice-- and most probably illegal, even if you are the U.S. of A.

teetwoohsix
09-10-2011, 03:33 AM
At some point, Congress has to reign in the unlimited, and almost entirely unrestricted, military and intelligence spending they've allowed over the past 10 years. None of the budget talks that led up to the raising of the debt limit made much noise over the enormous $$$ being thrown into that particular black hole, with very little accountability. As with all budget talks, the first things the politicians go after are the hot button items like heath care and education.

Not surprisingly, those are the exact same things that politicians immediately attack when talking about DoD speding cuts. The first thing they want to talk about cutting is funding for body armor, health care for service personnel and the G.I. bill. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at contractors that disappears, without a trace, with nearly zero return? Why is it Congress can't have a realistic discussion about budget without immediately resorting to hyperbole?

When it comes to actually balancing the budget, the first thing much of Congress wants to talk about, in the rare event of a "projected budget surplus", is HOW TO SPEND THE PROJECTED BUDGET SURPLUS. First of all, it's a "projected" number. It isn't real. It's like having maxed out your credit cards, but then blowing your income tax return on a new TV. That's the mentality that has to change in Washington. As far as I'm concerned any true budget surplus shouldn't even be given back to the taxpayers, it should be applied directly to the national debt.

Until candidates like Ron Paul stop being cast as "extreme" because they advocate a realistic approach to government and finance, as opposed to promoting more of the same and relentlessly attacking their opponents (notice the bulk of Paul's speeches are policy related, not constant attacks on political opponents), nothing will change. Also, the media and the public have to acknowledge that the President of the United States has no power to arbitrarily enact universal health care any more than he has the power to arbitrarily eliminate Social Security. Obama isn't solely responsible for the health care act that passed. That was Congress. Much like Bush wasn't solely responsible for the US being tied up in two wars over seas. There were better than 55% of the 535 members of Congress who were in some way complicit in both actions. It is those individuals who should be held responsible for what is placed in front of the President for his signature.

I think as long as the people who got us into the current mess are still allowed to keep their jobs, all the while ineptly fiddling with the economy, looking for some magic switch to turn it all around, we're not going to see any financial progress any time soon. At the very least, the first thing Congress should implement is no NEW spending programs. Deal with what is already on the table, and trim some of that first.

DaClyde-

Just wanted to say this is an excellent post- I agree 100%. Thank you for posting.

Sincerely, Clayton

*edit to add link : http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/divide-and-conquer-are-the-left-and-the-right-in-america-about-to-go-to-war-with-each-other

vintagetoppsguy
09-10-2011, 10:23 AM
Raising the debt ceiling isn't the long term answer. It's like putting a band aid over cancer. It doesn't solve the problem. The real answer it to reduce spending, entitlement reform and for the government to get the Hell out of the way so America can do what it does. That's the only way we'll ever get out of this mess.

Props to Michingan for signing into law new legislation that put a lifetime limit on cash welfare benefits of four years. They say 41,000 people will loose their welfare benefits on October 1st. "F" them!

Leon
09-10-2011, 10:38 AM
I let this one thread go and so far so good. What I don't want is political debate falling into other threads and I will put a stop to it if it goes there.

I truly believe that in order to curb the debt problem it does have to be a many pronged approach. We MUST cut out the fraud in the system. We MUST cut out the subsidies to people that make a lifetime of using the system. Some of them work harder at not working and letting the govt. support them than if they were to go get a job. It makes me sick.

As most know I do volunteering every week at the Salvation Army. I teach life skills to homeless veterans. My new angle for them is NOT letting them use the perennial crutch of "I can't work or my XXXX entitlement will go away".....whether they think they are disabled, underprivileged, or whatever. Just because they are in some stupid program *(not the one they are in at the Salvation Army, but the one they hope to get money from) doesn't mean they have to stay in it. Just because a quack doctor says they can't work, doesn't always mean they can't. I make sure I am not giving them bad advice but just another way of thinking about things. Not one of them has ever prospered while being "in" the system. You have to get out of the system to prosper. Cut out all of the waste, and the losers that don't want to work, and you probably cut entitlements by 30% or more. Then we need to cut the loopholes for the richest Americans. When Warren Buffet says he pays less percentage of his taxes than his office workers it should make the idiots in Washington take notice. I doubt it does. Also, we should really look at helping other countries less until we get our house in order. Let's take care of ourselves before we take care of others. There are some of my rants......

vintagetoppsguy
09-10-2011, 12:13 PM
Leon, props to you for your volunteer work. I think you chose a great group of people to help. I'm very selective of the charities I donate to, but one of my favorites is the DAV (Disabled American Veterans). Those are the guys that put their lives on the line to protect our freedom and are really deserving of our help.

I have no problem with entitlements when they're used to help people, not support them for the duration of their lifetime. I'm tired of hearing about these second, third, etc generation welfare recipients. I really expect to see more states follow suite to Michigan’s new law. I don’t see where they really have a choice in the matter. There’s just no more money.

Tax loopholes do need to be closed. However, anybody that believes that idiot Warren Buffet should wipe the Kool Aid from their chin before it dribbles down their shirt. Buffet pays capital gains taxes. His secretary pays federal income tax. Two different taxes. He’s a typical liberal that likes to spin things to make it sound like he wants you to hear it. Besides, if he really wants to pay more taxes, he can simply stroke a check to the government. Has he ever done that? No. He would rather spin it to push his liberal agenda.

DaClyde
09-10-2011, 03:42 PM
I truly believe that in order to curb the debt problem it does have to be a many pronged approach. We MUST cut out the fraud in the system. We MUST cut out the subsidies to people that make a lifetime of using the system.

I agree with this completely, and this is also where almost all of the congressional budget talks collapse. Someone will make the point that cutting or reforming social program X will "only" save the taxpayers a few million dollars over the next 4-10 years. And somehow that "only" statement seems to contain the implied "so we shouldn't bother with it" tacked onto the end. Instead, all parties either do nothing or "compromise" on a plan that includes almost no actual cuts, but results in more spending.

If they were to follow through and reform, or end, those programs that "only" save a few million here and there, they would ultimately be saving hundreds of millions, if not billions, of taxpayer dollars. In a few short years, they wouldn't need to worry about raising the debt limit again.