Who's gonna win?

[Diogenes]

We can always count on Perky to invent a lot of mindless fiction to support his preconceptions.

Like it or not, the only way to compromise is to raise taxes and they have been higher before, especially including all the Clinton years. The country was fine all those years. There are two things that have hurt us. The first is the uncertainty concerning things like health care expenditures and that has to end. Obamacare needs to be repealed.

The second thing is we can't do simple things like pass budgets because the mindless bastards in Washington won't compromise. Despite that raising taxes will have little effect on revenues, they need to be raised in order to compromise with the left and get things done. Mindless warnings about past betrayals etc. are not worth the time to type. Once Perky grows to be an adult he'll no doubt understand the necessity of compromise instead of clinging to the vain idealism that has placed us where we are with $16 Trillion in debt and no budget for 4 years.

It is not reasonable to compromise with Democrats. We've done that for years, all to achieve the same result; a growing federal budget and deficit. Democrats need to be wiped out as a political and media force. That is the only thing which will work at this point. The party of Misery, Death and Decay, just needs to go away.

Apart from that, I feel no obligation to pay for the debts ran up by Democrats. (Social Spending.) I would however be in favor of confiscating the wealth of all Democrats (especially the Hollywood and Media) and applying that money to their debt, but I do not wish to pay any of my money for these things which I abhor and in which I disbelieve.

[GIThruster]

That's nonsense. No one gets anything accomplished in Washington without compromising, unless they own the House, the Senate and the White House as OBama did back in 2008. Compromise is almost always required. The sooner people wake up to reality, the sooner we can get on to fixing the real problems in this country.

China is cloning iPhones at 1/3 the price because they can afford to violate our patents for as long as they hold a trillion dollars of our debt and the say so whether they'll buy future debt. We need to remove their ability to manipulate us based on our addiction to loans, and the only way to do this is to raise taxes while cutting expenses.

And let me remind you, Bush added to our debt more than any president before him. He didn't fund the prescription plan he gave the elderly and he didn't fund the 2 wars. The Republicans are just as guilty of fiscal irresponsibility as the Democrats, which is why there is now a Tea Party. Republicans who fail to act fiscally responsible are going to be thrown out, just as the Dems were.

[GIThruster]

Wow. As the news comes out today it seems obvious that over 400 top officials in the White House and in the intelligence community knew within 2 hours that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the murders at the embassy in Benghazi, and yet they all conspired to keep this from the American people, and for more than 2 weeks tried to sell the story that it was a simple riot and an uprising because of a video. Unless the media now conspires to spin this story, I see no possibility OBama can be reelected. The president lied to the American people about a terrorist attack on US soil, and propagated that lie for more than 2 weeks. Details still coming in. . .but it's clear the right people knew about this and lied about it.

There is one other way OBama could spin this. He could make a military strike against the perpetrators, assuming he could find a legitimate or at least believable target. If he did this the independents might be swayed to forgive the deception based on the excuse it was necessary to catch the bad guys. He would however lose some of his base, and if he can't justify the target entirely, he'd be impeached. Scary to realize a military strike like this would be the result of a purely political gambit for office.

[ladajo]

Scary to realize a military strike like this would be the result of a purely political gambit for office.

Are you implying that you think this would be the first time??? Seriously?

[GIThruster]

I would not say that. I would say we have a unique situation here where such is foreseeable. It's common to presume a president seeking reelection might foment a military issue in order to stay in office. It's not common to be able to see how/where/why that might happen.

[Diogenes]

That's nonsense. No one gets anything accomplished in Washington without compromising, unless they own the House, the Senate and the White House as OBama did back in 2008. Compromise is almost always required. The sooner people wake up to reality, the sooner we can get on to fixing the real problems in this country.

I don't see how letting a scorpion ride on our back is going to solve anything. We've tried this already. They sting us every time.

China is cloning iPhones at 1/3 the price because they can afford to violate our patents for as long as they hold a trillion dollars of our debt and the say so whether they'll buy future debt. We need to remove their ability to manipulate us based on our addiction to loans, and the only way to do this is to raise taxes while cutting expenses.

I read a dozen or so websites a day. I recently came across an article that points out our problems have always been spending problems. We've never had a revenue problem. As Reagan said: "The government is too big, and it spends too much."

We have given Democrats tax increases in an effort to solve the deficit problem. They took the money, and rather than decrease spending, they spent all the new revenue and more. At what point do you wish to say a line has been crossed and we will give them no more taxes?

And let me remind you, Bush added to our debt more than any president before him. He didn't fund the prescription plan he gave the elderly and he didn't fund the 2 wars.

I am no fan of George Bush, either Senior (whom I blame for giving us A$$hole Clinton) or Junior. (Whom I blame for giving us Obama)

Bush tried to secure the support of the Democrats for his War efforst by trading them legislation they wanted. Many Republicans regard all that "New Deal" crap as illegitimate anyway. Bush taught the Republicans to like pork.

The Republicans are just as guilty of fiscal irresponsibility as the Democrats, which is why there is now a Tea Party. Republicans who fail to act fiscally responsible are going to be thrown out, just as the Dems were.

I disagree. The Republicans are NOT as guilty as Democrats. The Republicans are guilty, to be sure, but all of the worst abuses of Government spending were spear headed and pionered by Democrats. A lot of Republicans went along with it, and after Bush jr. taught them that it was fun to spend money, they started behaving like Democrats, but over the history of this nation, the Major abuses, starting with Woodrow Wilson, going through Franklin Roosevelt, then Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and culmunating with the man who could spend an extra five trillion (mostly to cronies and other boondoggles) in the last four years, ought to result in 90% of the blame being put on the Democrats.

But I agree that fiscally irresponsible Republicans need to be thrown out.

[Diogenes]

There is one other way OBama could spin this. He could make a military strike against the perpetrators, assuming he could find a legitimate or at least believable target. If he did this the independents might be swayed to forgive the deception based on the excuse it was necessary to catch the bad guys. He would however lose some of his base, and if he can't justify the target entirely, he'd be impeached. Scary to realize a military strike like this would be the result of a purely political gambit for office.

That the corrupt Chicago thug would "wag the dog" should not surpirse anyone.

[Diogenes]

Scary to realize a military strike like this would be the result of a purely political gambit for office.

Are you implying that you think this would be the first time??? Seriously?

Unless I am mistaken, the first time would be when Grant Withheld news of battle losses for the benefit of Lincoln's re-election.

[ScottL]

1980-1988 Reagan, doubled, nearly tripled the debt.

2000-2008 Republican Paradise, bastion of conservative law, complete economic failure. Bush created a deficit greater than all the previous presidents combined.

*Fun Fact: Most debt growth up until Obama came under Republican presidents.

I'm sure most of you conservatives were appauled by Romney's performance in the third debate. I'm pretty sure he was 1 "I agree with the president" or "I'd do the same" away from endorsing Obama. In a debate I expect differing views at least. Views that can be respected and coming from an ideology, but all I got was Obama and white Obama the other night. I also take issue with the so called individual success claim by Romney though. Last time I checked, it was United We Stand, Divided We Fall, not I Stand, I Fall, but god knows what this nation ever was, because it certainly was never great. More like a well meaning oaf who bumbles around knocking shit over and not realizing it has caused any trouble.

[GIThruster]

Last time I checked, it was United We Stand, Divided We Fall, not I Stand, I Fall, but god knows what this nation ever was, because it certainly was never great. More like a well meaning oaf who bumbles around knocking shit over and not realizing it has caused any trouble.

Hard to pretend to have an adult conversation with this sort of comment. I'm sure they'd greet you with open arms in China, Scott. Why not go?

[GIThruster]

We've never had a revenue problem. As Reagan said: "The government is too big, and it spends too much."

Yes, yes, yes. Lets not resort to party talking points. It doesn't matter what you think the problem is. The fact of the matter is that no one can get Democratic cooperation to reduce the debt without raising taxes back to the level they were at during the Clinton years. For as long as Republicans treat keeping taxes down as more important than reducing government, they have an excuse to continue over-spending. What we need is to cut through all that and put an end to it. The only way to get a solution that is austere enough to get the job done is for everyone to sacrifice. Everyone. Not just entitlements. Not just defense. Everyone. All spending across the board needs to be cut and to accomplish that, there has to be an agreement to raise taxes. It's that or find a supermajority in all three houses. Don't hold your breath for this last as a solution. There are far too many fiscally irresponsible people in the country with their hand out. As long as we cling to the Republican party line rhetoric about being betrayed in the past, we have no hope for our financial future.

[ScottL]

Last time I checked, it was United We Stand, Divided We Fall, not I Stand, I Fall, but god knows what this nation ever was, because it certainly was never great. More like a well meaning oaf who bumbles around knocking shit over and not realizing it has caused any trouble.

Hard to pretend to have an adult conversation with this sort of comment. I'm sure they'd greet you with open arms in China, Scott. Why not go?

The old, "if you don't like it here, leave" logic. Unfortunately that simply does not apply. I can like/love/be patriotic in living in this nation and still be critical of it's path. Heck, if I were to apply your reasoning for this, I could say the same to you, Diogenes, MSimon, etc. Pretty much anyone who complains of the administration in office at any given point. I'm pointing out the fact that there is 0 empirical evidence of our self-proclaimed "greatness" and for some reason U.S. citizens hate hearing that fact. Just because we say it, does not make it true.

As per the rest of my post, I noted you avoided it altogether. So you don't agree that Mitt Romney virtually endorsed Obama in the last debate? I felt what he did was very dishonst towards the conservative community. He defended Obama for Obama, which was ridiculous. The approach of "Oh, I'd do the same, just better" isn't an argument, it's stupidity. It's candidates like Bush Jr. and Mr. Romney that further drive me from my previously moderate, fiscally conservative view, to a more left leaning libertarian view. The vile rhetoric, lack of empathy at every turn, 1950s culture show, comments on rape, etc. The Republican base is out of touch and it's acceptance of religious zealotry is frightening.

* If it makes you feel better GIT, I agree with your post about needing to work across the aisle though. I think that's the most informed post in this thread so far by anyone. I agree with both the need and the conclusion that tough concessions will need to be made on both sides.

[Diogenes]

1980-1988 Reagan, doubled, nearly tripled the debt.

If you mean he signed the budgets the Democrats gave him (Thank you A$$hole Tip O'Neal, and your little doggy Chris Matthews too!) then you are correct, but of course you do not comprehend what was actually happening at the time.

Reagan wanted a Military buildup with which to confront the Soviet Union. You are obviously too young to remember this period of History, but I remember it quite well. There was not a day which passed that I did not think of the Soviet Nuclear threat poised to annhilate us all, and the encourchments of Communists into the Western Hemisphere. They were invading Afghanistan, Africa, South America, and attempting to expand their influence in Europe and the Middle east.

Reagan was the first President to finally say "Enough." We're not going to tolerate this stuff anymore. He requested Defense Buildups with which to confront the Soviet threat, and of course the Democrats would only give him the National Security tools he needed if he would go along with their stupid a$$ social spending. He consistently asked for the line item veto power, but the Democrats would never allow a vote on this. Had he got such a thing, then you could rightfully blame him for the excess spending, but as he did not, you have to put the blame where it belongs. On the Democrats.

They would only vote for the Defense buildup in exchange for their pork, and other vote buying schemes. What did we get from Reagan's Defense buildup? We got the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Far cheaper than fighting a war with them would have been. ) What did we get for the Democrat Vote buying schemes? Democrats, Debt, and more fatherless Welfare babies.

Of the two Federal expenditures, which do you think were in the best interests of the Nation?


Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" now costs us 1 trillion dollars per year.




I guess it doesn't occur to you to compute the ongoing costs of Democrat Legislation and Presidents.

[GIThruster]

So you don't agree that Mitt Romney virtually endorsed Obama in the last debate?

Romney didn't disagree much with OBama's foreign policy because there's not that much wrong with his foreign policy. You did understand the proper topic of the debate was foreign policy?

Romney was clear that he would be tougher on Iran and he was critical of how little POTUS has supported Israel. He complained about OBama's apology tour and said he wants us to get control of our debt so China can't continue to push us around. He was asked about going to war with Iran and both candidates agreed that would not happen without severe cause. What did you want him to disagree about more than he did? Are you suggesting Romney should have disagreed simply to disagree?

Honestly, the two have world views as diametrically opposed as they could. For you to pretend they're the same just makes you seem foolish as can be. Romney's goal was and needed to be to raise his likability numbers and appeal to the moderates who will decide this election. he did this very well. The simple fact he smiled the whole way through and OBama frowned the whole way through ought to be telling enough who won the debate. Romney/Ryan won all four debates. No contest.

And enough with the lying about your political views already. We went through this months ago when you were lying about being conservative when you obviously are not and have never been. I don't see what you think is to your advantage to continue to lie and in the next sentence prove you are no conservative. Only a moron would believe what you're writing. You're a malcontent, which always places one firmly in the place of a liberal. No conservative or traditionalist would ever agree with the obviously and stupidly wrong position that this has never been a great country. It has been the greatest country in the world for over 100 years. That's not propaganda. That's simple economics. It's also the shining beacon of liberty and freedom the world over, which is why we have the immigration we do. This is the land of opportunity. No nation in human history has so embodied the envy of the planet, nor the fantastical percentages of people forcing their way in that ours does. If you don't agree this is a great nation, go somewhere you think is better. I promise, we'll all get along fine without you.

[Diogenes]

2000-2008 Republican Paradise, bastion of conservative law, complete economic failure. Bush created a deficit greater than all the previous presidents combined.

Only a liberal would claim George Bush was a conservative, or an adherent of Conservative principles. Sure, he claimed such when he was running for election, but he certainly didn't behave like one.

George Bush opened the spigot of Federal Spending and invited everyone to join him at the trough. Now to be fair, he faced the same dilema that Reagan did, the need to get Democrats to agree on what he regarded as National Security issues (the War in Afghanistan and Iraq) but he was far less justified in his spending than was Reagan.

Nobody on his side of the Aisle was clamouring for a perscription drug benefit or Federalising Airport Security. George W Bush left a legacy of Debt, and if Iraq goes back to the Islamists, then he will have failed at his great Gamble too.

Even so, you blame the Economic failures on Bush which rightfully belong at the feet of Democrats. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle (for which the TARP program was created) were entirely the fault of Democrats. The biggest and most expensive mess every created was started by a Democrat (Jimmy Carter with his Comunity Reinvestment Act which Gathered racial data on housing loans) Made worse by a Democrat (Bill Clinton used the racial loan data to create legislation and federal rules which forced banks to loan money to unqualified people just because they were minorities) Ran by Democrats ( Franklin Raines who presided over the mess.) and Oversaw by Democrats. (Barney Frank, pervert from Massachusetts.)

Here is what happened in a nutshell, though I doubt you will bother to look at it and learn what happened.