You can't sink the Titanic with words, you have to do it with actions Mr. Obama, and I'm glad you are up to the task.

/just getting the "turn the Titanic around" analogy started...in a warped way

But let's not stop any of the legislation we have in the works that will run up a few trillion more in debt.

Kyndig: But let's not stop any of the legislation we have in the works that will run up a few trillion more in debt.

Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

Racht: Kyndig: But let's not stop any of the legislation we have in the works that will run up a few trillion more in debt.

Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

Health reform being deficit neutral is a lie. Democratic leadership compromised with the AMA on the issue of raising Medicare reimbursements as a condition to support the health care reform package, but because that added more than $200 billion onto the price tag, they made it a separate bill, so they could save face with the public.

I love the smell of Waffles in the morning!

Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

Pfffttt easy... blame Bush & problem solved.

Damn, I already used a failboat pic in the other thread.....

ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

Explain how they are not deficit neutral, then.

ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

That's what the CBO says. SO yes it is true as anyone can tell.

Uh, aren't both those statements utterly factual and not mutually exclusive?

ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

I heard that Santa is real.

Nabb1: Racht: Kyndig: But let's not stop any of the legislation we have in the works that will run up a few trillion more in debt.

Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

Health reform being deficit neutral is a lie. Democratic leadership compromised with the AMA on the issue of raising Medicare reimbursements as a condition to support the health care reform package, but because that added more than $200 billion onto the price tag, they made it a separate bill, so they could save face with the public.

And they shouldn't have had to make that compromise in the first place. The Republicans are going to vote against this bill no matter what is in it, save for if it becomes free money for the insurance companies. And then you have all the Democratic factions.

Our legislation is becoming more parlimentary every day. It's sickening.

Nabb1: Health reform being deficit neutral is a lie. Democratic leadership compromised with the AMA on the issue of raising Medicare reimbursements as a condition to support the health care reform package, but because that added more than $200 billion onto the price tag, they made it a separate bill, so they could save face with the public.

Weird Bush did this too. Did he pass healthcare reform when we weren't watching?

Also the Republicans didn't complain this.

Medicare payments is not health care reform they are two very distinct things.

Nabb1: Racht: Kyndig: But let's not stop any of the legislation we have in the works that will run up a few trillion more in debt.

Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

Health reform being deficit neutral is a lie. Democratic leadership compromised with the AMA on the issue of raising Medicare reimbursements as a condition to support the health care reform package, but because that added more than $200 billion onto the price tag, they made it a separate bill, so they could save face with the public.

THIS...although thought the number was $300 million.
Plus the bill is based on 10 years of taxes and benefit reductions but only 6 years of programs.
So in the next 10 years it will be 10 years of programs with either the associated increase in costs or an increase in taxes.

SUBBY,

You forgot to blame Bush somehow. Do it right next time.

+1/2

I_C_Weener: ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

I heard that Santa is real.

It's CBO numbers dumbass. Funny how the right loves to us CBO numbers when they make the Democrats look bad but when it's the other way around the numbers are "made up".

I_C_Weener: I heard that Santa is real.

I heard he drowned because of global warming.

Yea, it's 1937 all over again. Conservatism never ceases to fark things up.

If Obama goes deficit hawk now, he's a damned fool.

Obama on Monday: "I like bacon in my omelets."

Obama yesterday: "Bacon and egg sandwiches are delicious."


/farking flip-flopper
//did anyone point ut that the comments aren't mutually exclusive yet?

ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

Hmmmmm... let me see now. On the one hand, I have analysis from the CBO. On the other, I have a big "nuh-uh!" from an internet loudmouth with a goofy login.

Let me get back to you...

Racht: Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

Really. Can you source where you heard that? Try the CBO for starters.

An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: I love the smell of Waffles in the morning!

Uhhh... circumstances have CHANGED between February and November. It's been over half a year. Remember February? There was still a prevailing opinion that the nation was about to collectively shiat the bed and enter a second Great Depression. Doing essentially ANYTHING to restore investor confidence and thus reverse the downward spiral of pessimism was pretty much necessary - yes, the Stimulus Plan was in fact all smoke and mirrors, but the public bought it hook, line, and sinker and that was the important part.

Now that there are indicators of a building recovery, it's time to start planning monetary policy for the recovery instead of letting things get overheated a THIRD time and creating a THIRD market bubble.

"Flip-flopping" or "waffling" is the most fundamentally retarded accusation I've ever seen popularized in politics. I *want* my elected representatives to have the inherent ability to comprehend and adapt to changes in their circumstances instead of plowing blindly onwards regardless of what occurs around them.

If only there were something that costs about a hundred billion dollars a year that we didn't need to be spending money on.

ApocoLypstick: I_C_Weener: I heard that Santa is real.

I heard he drowned because of global warming.

His corpse would have been eaten by a polar bear, but they are all dead now.

tenpoundsofcheese: THIS...although thought the number was $300 million.
Plus the bill is based on 10 years of taxes and benefit reductions but only 6 years of programs.
So in the next 10 years it will be 10 years of programs with either the associated increase in costs or an increase in taxes.

Wrong. after those 10 years the rate of increase will slow down so it the costs will beomce in line.

Democrats: Deficit neutral plan - OMG THEY ARE SPENDING MONEY!!

BUSH: Drug prescription plan - 1 TRILLION - NO FUNDING WHAT SO EVER - Republicans: "meh!"


Why didn't you care about Bush's UNFUNDED 1 TRILLION DOLLAR prescription plan but now you complain at a deficit neutral plan?

DROxINxTHExWIND: Obama on Monday: "I like bacon in my omelets."

Obama yesterday: "Bacon and egg sandwiches are delicious."


/farking flip-flopper
//did anyone point ut that the comments aren't mutually exclusive yet?



I'd agree with you on this line rehtoric normally, but it looks like Democrats and Mr. Obama are going to start trying to cut back spending beacuse they're scared 2010 will be bad for them if they don't.

Nothing about the economy says that's good. In fact, if they curtail spending, it could get much much worse.

This shiat is not encouraging at all.

Corvus: I_C_Weener: ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

I heard that Santa is real.

It's CBO numbers dumbass. Funny how the right loves to us CBO numbers when they make the Democrats look bad but when it's the other way around the numbers are "made up".

you do understand that the CBO numbers are based on 10 years of taxes and benefit reduction but only 6 years of prorams? Right?

So what do you think 10 years of programs looks like as it relates to being deficit neutral?
(Hint: 10 years of programs cost more than 6 years of programs).

Drakkenmaw: An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: I love the smell of Waffles in the morning!

Uhhh... circumstances have CHANGED between February and November. It's been over half a year. Remember February? There was still a prevailing opinion that the nation was about to collectively shiat the bed and enter a second Great Depression. Doing essentially ANYTHING to restore investor confidence and thus reverse the downward spiral of pessimism was pretty much necessary - yes, the Stimulus Plan was in fact all smoke and mirrors, but the public bought it hook, line, and sinker and that was the important part.

Now that there are indicators of a building recovery, it's time to start planning monetary policy for the recovery instead of letting things get overheated a THIRD time and creating a THIRD market bubble.

"Flip-flopping" or "waffling" is the most fundamentally retarded accusation I've ever seen popularized in politics. I *want* my elected representatives to have the inherent ability to comprehend and adapt to changes in their circumstances instead of plowing blindly onwards regardless of what occurs around them.
=======================

Naw, fark that. Much better for them to keep their heads down, mumbling the same lies repeatedly like the last administration. To hear Cheney tell it, we're STILL going to be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Racht: Kyndig: But let's not stop any of the legislation we have in the works that will run up a few trillion more in debt.

Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

All the phenomenally costly pieces leading to this:



I'd add to your list Barney Frank's suggestion of using $200 billion of left-over TARP money to fund "jobs" and "Stimulus 2 - Rise of the Deficit"

"Deficit neutral" just means they include sufficient taxes to cover their increased costs, according to current projections (which are historically way low due to mission creep post-passage). But health care or cap-n-tax are both huge expenditures and by increasing taxes to cover those expenditures, they impede (destroy) the ability to raise sufficient revenues to operate the government closer to in the black.

DarnoKonrad: I'd agree with you on this line rehtoric normally, but it looks like Democrats and Mr. Obama are going to start trying to cut back spending beacuse they're scared 2010 will be bad for them if they don't.

Nothing about the economy says that's good. In fact, if they curtail spending, it could get much much worse.

This shiat is not encouraging at all.

I'm reserving my opinion for when I see what they plan to cut. For now it's nothing but your general "taxes bad, deficit bad" mantra that gets repeated all the time with no follow-through. If it for once represents advanced planning for how to deal with the nation once it actually fully recovers, I'll be ecstatic.

Shovel ready.

MrGumboPants: Uh, aren't both those statements utterly factual and not mutually exclusive?

Yes, but we can't stop here. This is troll country.

Corvus: tenpoundsofcheese: THIS...although thought the number was $300 million.
Plus the bill is based on 10 years of taxes and benefit reductions but only 6 years of programs.
So in the next 10 years it will be 10 years of programs with either the associated increase in costs or an increase in taxes.

Wrong. after those 10 years the rate of increase will slow down so it the costs will beomce in line.
?

What does that mean?
10 years of taxes and benefit reduction are paying for 6 years of a program.

Do you really think that the next 10 years after that will cost less than the 6 year program? The CBO doesn't.

PanicMan: Yes, but we can't stop here. This is troll country.

Now that is god damned funny.

Drakkenmaw: I'm reserving my opinion for when I see what they plan to cut.

Probably wise.

tenpoundsofcheese: Corvus: I_C_Weener: ApocoLypstick: Racht: Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

you don't honestly believe this do you?

I heard that Santa is real.

It's CBO numbers dumbass. Funny how the right loves to us CBO numbers when they make the Democrats look bad but when it's the other way around the numbers are "made up".

you do understand that the CBO numbers are based on 10 years of taxes and benefit reduction but only 6 years of prorams? Right?

So what do you think 10 years of programs looks like as it relates to being deficit neutral?
(Hint: 10 years of programs cost more than 6 years of programs).

After that costs will be will be more inline. I think you don't understand the plan at all. Things will be cheaper when health insurance doesn't go up 30% every year. Those numbers accumulate. You understand that?

So Bush's unfunded 1 trillion dollar drug prescriptionplan- That was 1 TRILLION UNFUNDED. FOR EVEN THE FIRST 10 YEARS! AND EVEN MORE 10 YEARS AFTER.

You should be for that being repealed since it is costing the government infinitely more!

3_Butt_Cheeks: cinie.files.wordpress.com

Need a pic like that with a dixie cup and rainbow koolaid being poured in.....

3_Butt_Cheeks: Yep, we need to stay the course! Those fools keep saying that cinder blocks won't make us swim faster, but they're just blind to the fact that we just don't have enough cinder blocks yet!

tenpoundsofcheese: Do you really think that the next 10 years after that will cost less than the 6 year program? The CBO doesn't.

Really they don't. can you show me the link on that?

Herpa Derp subby.

"Short-term leveraging of assets for investment in growth can lead to sustainable growth if managed appropriately."

"Over leveraging assets can result in a reduced credit rating which can have a negative impact on consumer confidence."

you're welcome

So says the Spender in Chief...

Drakkenmaw: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Yep, we need to stay the course! Those fools keep saying that cinder blocks won't make us swim faster, but they're just blind to the fact that we just don't have enough cinder blocks yet!

We are staying the debt course. No worries mate!

Corvus: Nabb1: Health reform being deficit neutral is a lie. Democratic leadership compromised with the AMA on the issue of raising Medicare reimbursements as a condition to support the health care reform package, but because that added more than $200 billion onto the price tag, they made it a separate bill, so they could save face with the public.

Weird Bush did this too. Did he pass healthcare reform when we weren't watching?

That has nothing to do with this.

Also the Republicans didn't complain this.


Medicare reimbursements needed to be raised anyway, but that's not the point. It's the lying.

Medicare payments is not health care reform they are two very distinct things.

The AMA and the DNC tied them together. Don't blame me for the lies.

Racht: Which pieces of legislation would those be? Last I heard health reform and cap and trade are both deficit-neutral.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

gallo caldo: But health care or cap-n-tax are both huge expenditures and by increasing taxes to cover those expenditures, they impede (destroy) the ability to raise sufficient revenues to operate the government closer to in the black.

I'm sure the inability to raise sufficient revenues to operate the government in the black has nothing to do with a trillion-dollar war in Iraq or huge tax cuts for the rich.

Nothing at all.

AngryDragon: So says the Spender in Chief...

He spent less than Bush on "stimulus" in his first year.

Bush 2001 stimulus was 1.6 TRILLION. But I know that doesn't count because it was Bush.

AngryDragon: So says the Spender in Chief...

Dear lord, people, stop the knee-jerking. You're going to put your foot in your mouth again.

Do you even contemplate anything you're about to post, or are these little clips and phrases you spew out some sort of autonomous reaction to stimuli containing the phrase "Obama" and "debt"?

Think first, THEN type!