The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Tyrones own]

"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 US Government can not 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."

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March  2006


Obama the candidate or Obama the President. Who would you vote for?

A politician making a political statement/vote. He's had to admit as much himself.

Maybe he just mis-spoke

[Oraisteach]

TO, with such strong conservative views, what what Irish political party would you most closely align yourself?

[Tyrones own]

"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 US Government can not 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."

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March  2006


Obama the candidate or Obama the President. Who would you vote for?

A politician making a political statement/vote. He's had to admit as much himself.

Absolutely pathetic...quite simply incapable of finding fault with this inept clown
Can i suggest that you defenders of all things liberal read
back carefully over the above and explain exactly which
part of his speech wasn't absolutely spot on and is as
accurate today as it was 5 years ago.
Then explore the reasoning as to why you're so blinkered to the cause
that ye simply cannot bring yourselves
to call a spade a spade, and admit its clear and absolutely necessary to cut runaway spending

[J70]

"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 US Government can not 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."

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March  2006


Obama the candidate or Obama the President. Who would you vote for?

A politician making a political statement/vote. He's had to admit as much himself.

Absolutely pathetic...quite simply incapable of finding fault with this inept clown
Can i suggest that you defenders of all things liberal read
back carefully over the above and explain exactly which
part of his speech wasn't absolutely spot on and is as
accurate today as it was 5 years ago.
Then explore the reasoning as to why you're so blinkered to the cause
that ye simply cannot bring yourselves
to call a spade a spade, and admit its clear and absolutely necessary to cut runaway spending

Once again TO you attack me based on some right wing caricature of what I apparently personify. If and when you're mature enough to discuss matters in a respectful manner, I'll give it a shot, time permitting. Until then, I've better things to do. No doubt you'll interpret this as a little victory. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back (again) for that.

But just to be clear, as you plainly see all kinds of hidden meanings and evil agendas behind the most innocuous of statements that come from anyone who does not share you're political opinion: I doubt if a single person other than yourself could interpret what I said there as being defensive of Obama. He said his previous vote against it was politically motivated. To point that out could only be interpreted as an indictment of Obama. But you're so f**king demented and irrational in your dislike of him, me or anyone else who is not an arch conservative that you can't even countenance that. And the shit you posted before about the father in the war was embarrassing in its levels of vitriolic hyperbole.

[Tyrones own]

So you do agree then that we need to back down from raising the debt ceiling
in an attempt to curb the ridiculous spending 

[J70]

So you do agree then that we need to back down from raising the debt ceiling
in an attempt to curb the ridiculous spending 

No. Default is not an option. Future deficit spending is a separate issue which, yes, must be addressed.

[Tyrones own]

So you do agree then that we need to back down from raising the debt ceiling
in an attempt to curb the ridiculous spending 

No. Default is not an option. Future deficit spending is a separate issue which, yes, must be addressed.

You are indeed correct, default is not an option cause its only scare tactics
from the empty suit Obama.
There is more than enough revenue to pay the principle and interest
on our debt along with social security, medicare and our military's wages
Drink up J 

[J70]

So you do agree then that we need to back down from raising the debt ceiling
in an attempt to curb the ridiculous spending 

No. Default is not an option. Future deficit spending is a separate issue which, yes, must be addressed.

You are indeed correct, default is not an option cause its only scare tactics
from the empty suit Obama.
There is more than enough revenue to pay the principle and interest
on our debt along with social security, medicare and our military's wages
Drink up J 

Another one of Obama's treacherous schemes to undermine the power and might of the US no doubt.

Right you are TO.

[Tyrones own]

No, simply to scare the sheep!
And Thank You.

[Oraisteach]

C'mon TO.  With what Irish political faction would a person with such strong American  political opinions like you most lkely affiliate him or herself?  For what, in particular, are you waving the tricolour?

[Tyrones own]

C'mon TO.  With what Irish political faction would a person with such strong American  political opinions like you most lkely affiliate him or herself?  For what, in particular, are you waving the tricolour?

You might want to wait til that grass gets a wee bit longer
and try again 

[Orangemac]

Although not completely up to speed on the subject of US politics is it fair to say Obama has been a bit of a let down since coming to power. He was never going to be what he had promised pre election but he seems to try too hard to be all things to all people.

He is not helped by being hamstrung by the Republicans holding the balance of power and the economic crisis has been brewing for the last 10/15 years but he seems to have made no significant impact (bar taking out Bin Laden) which will not put food on anyones table.

Having said that hopefully he can stablise things in the next year and there doesn't seem to be anyone on the Repblican side emerging as a front runner that can take votes from the centre or left next year.

[heganboy]

I have to take my hat of to the tea party here, they took a complete and utter non issue politically here and hyped it so much that they used it as a rod to beat the democrats into pushing legislation through which is absolutely detrimental to the economy of the US. Not a single tax increase anywhere, just a cut on spending to placate those idiots that think reducing spending is the way to get out of a financial crisis.

The credit default that was warned of will be avoided, but the fact that the tea party had the wherewithal to manipulate the entire political system and to put the US economy at risk, is sufficient for the credit agencies to realize that if can happen, and that the US should be downgraded on that basis alone.

Not only this but the tea party has used a non issue to influence the entire US political system. The economic policies of the last 8 years are home to roost and the idiots in the Democratic party seem content to let them happen on their watch.

I despair...

Nobel Prize Winner for Economics Paul Krugman in todays New York Times :

The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN


A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America's long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn't work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won't even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren't accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it's just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn't, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn't taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we're witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn't over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won't be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation's economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can't.

[Tyrones own]

Nobel Prize Winner for Economics Paul Krugman in todays New York Times :

The President Surrenders
By PAUL KRUGMAN


A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America's long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn't work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won't even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren't accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it's just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn't, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn't taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we're witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn't over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won't be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation's economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can't.

[/quote]

Not according to Obummers own economic adviser

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/brawl_with_paul_68959e5b-7791-4011-a536-5a8d71d9aad8.html

Make up your minds FFS... This is exactly what I said would happen in my post to J70.... the country's economy comes in a distant second in the eyes
of the Democrats to placing the blame squarely on the Tea Party or the Repubs when this ultimately fails, and it will... Don't know where you went to
School HB but as in any household, if you're spending more money than you're bringing in, YOU NEED TO CUT BACK ON SPENDING
you could of course go out and get a third or forth job but oh that's right, there aren't any... Thanks Barrack  Wake up to Fcuk!!!

[heganboy]

Don't know where you went to School HB but as in any household, if you're spending more money than you're bringing in, YOU NEED TO CUT BACK ON SPENDING
you could of course go out and get a third or forth job but oh that's right, there aren't any

TO, you are correct, if there is an issues in a household that would be a fairly common sense approach all right, however this isn't a household we're talking about, its the biggest economy in the world and the economics are just a teensy weensy bit more complicated.

Stopping giving a free ride to the richest people in America, and the associated tax income increase. Closing the huge corporate tax loopholes for special interest, huge associated tax increase. Paying a sensible amount of tax at the pump, huge associated tax increase. All those tax increases, and add in the economic benefit of government increased spending and look what we have here- a balanced budget worst case, or heaven forbid even a surplus.

Multiplier effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_(economics) would show that the increase in government spending domestically would actually strengthen the economy, bring more people back to work and increase the amount of money being spent in the economy.

But I see your point, the tea party would rather run the economy as if it were a household, specifically a born again red neck, god bless america, left school at 16, husband wife and two kids with a white picket fence with an income of 20 grand working for an american car company that wouldn't be in existence if big government hadn't already bailed it out against the tea party's own economic policy. Oh wait, it doesn't have an economic policy that any sane person could actually make work in the united states economy of $14.5 trillion dollars per year, or 20% of the global GDP.

in case i wasn't clear on my point IF YOU CUT BACK ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING YOU ARE FUCKED