Couldn't happen to a nicer guy...

[Danzig]

i wonder if those who suddenly want the debt ceiling raised were against it a few years back, when dems were howling against it? dems now recognize the need to raise, so now...they're suddenly smart?



as for novices, our first congresses were made up of nothing but novices. they did one hell of a job getting us started. when did we get indoctrinated into thinking only career politicians knew what was best?


yeah, just what i thought:

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Democrats Did – So why the change?

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Dems Did. The President made an admission along with many other dems that they made a “political” decision in 2006, instead of a fiscal one. They voted not to pass the CR, continuing resolution to to allow the federal government to operate. This was done while the republicans held the House of representatives and Bush was in office. It seemed to have paid off. Sounds like it paid off in getting Obama elected.



At the time, Reid said:

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”

When Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements, Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder if those who suddenly want the debt ceiling raised were against it a few years back, when dems were howling against it? dems now recognize the need to raise, so now...they're suddenly smart?

as for novices, our first congresses were made up of nothing but novices. they did one hell of a job getting us started. when did we get indoctrinated into thinking only career politicians knew what was best?

The debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administrations. This is the first time so much nonsensical posturing about "not having any real consequence" has occurred (there has always been the few who have taken themselves out of the vote in favor of political posturing, Obama included)

I'm not talking Dems vs Republicans, I'm talking novices versus experienced legislators.

Not having novices doesn't mean you're left with career politicians. It's not either-or. No, I most definitely am not in favor of Washington being constantly made up of new classes of novices. I think that would be sheer disaster.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administrations. This is the first time so much nonsensical posturing about "not having any real consequence" has occurred (there has always been the few who have taken themselves out of the vote in favor of political posturing, Obama included)

I'm not talking Dems vs Republicans, I'm talking novices versus experienced legislators.

Not having novices doesn't mean you're left with career politicians. It's not either-or. No, I most definitely am not in favor of Washington being constantly made up of new classes of novices. I think that would be sheer disaster.

lol

a few. that's the first time i've seen every democratic senator, almost half the members, classified as 'a few'.


and an fyi..


the debt ceiling was raised eight times under clinton, seven times under bush. it's really not a party thing, but a spending thing. i just find it laughable that the dems made it such a political issue, and now it's jumping up to bite them in the ass.

and yeah, it's all bs. everyone knows it's going to be raised. again.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol

a few. that's the first time i've seen every democratic senator, almost half the members, classified as 'a few'.


and an fyi..


the debt ceiling was raised eight times under clinton, seven times under bush. it's really not a party thing, but a spending thing. i just find it laughable that the dems made it such a political issue, and now it's jumping up to bite them in the ass.

and yeah, it's all bs. everyone knows it's going to be raised. again.

You've missed my point. Yes, both parties do the political posturing. But how many have said, in the past, "Not raising it won't cause a problem?" That's my point - the ignorance. When you have to have the Secretary of the Treasury sit down with freshmen congressmembers and explain what the debt ceiling is, and yes, if you don't address it, there really are consequences.

I don't want ignorance in there newly fresh every two years. I don't want members that don't know parlimentary procedure, don't know how committees work, don't know how to get legislation through the House or Senate. A little new blood is good, but novices governing gives you things like Sarah Palin leaving little in-the-black Wasilla 23 million in debt.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Riot

You've missed my point. Yes, both parties do the political posturing. But how many have said, in the past, "Not raising it won't cause a problem?" That's my point - the ignorance. When you have to have the Secretary of the Treasury sit down with freshmen congressmembers and explain what the debt ceiling is, and yes, if you don't address it, there really are consequences.

I don't want ignorance in there newly fresh every two years. I don't want members that don't know parlimentary procedure, don't know how committees work, don't know how to get legislation through the House or Senate. A little new blood is good, but novices governing gives you things like Sarah Palin leaving little in-the-black Wasilla 23 million in debt.

Would that be the same Secretary of the Treasury that doesn't know how to fill out his own tax returns? Tim "Tax Cheat" Geithner? I wouldn't be taking any advice from him.

Politicians are typically the type of person who was the leader of the playground as a child...meaning they don't know how to do real work.

When you do get the occasional one who stands by the constitution and had a profession before entering politics they are singled out by the slapd.ick playground brigade and labeled as crazy.

We deserve to fail. We elected a borderline re.tard because of his family name and then we elected an affirmative action ivy league teleprompter champion who has never held a real job in his life.

He is arguably worse than the rich dullard.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

You've missed my point. Yes, both parties do the political posturing. But how many have said, in the past, "Not raising it won't cause a problem?" That's my point - the ignorance. When you have to have the Secretary of the Treasury sit down with freshmen congressmembers and explain what the debt ceiling is, and yes, if you don't address it, there really are consequences.

I don't want ignorance in there newly fresh every two years. I don't want members that don't know parlimentary procedure, don't know how committees work, don't know how to get legislation through the House or Senate. A little new blood is good, but novices governing gives you things like Sarah Palin leaving little in-the-black Wasilla 23 million in debt.

the thing will be raised, it's just that republicans know they have time so they're trying to push some of their bs thru in order to get their vote on the debt. yes, some might misunderstand, just like some of the dems including obama who voted against it, and just like some posters on here.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the thing will be raised, it's just that republicans know they have time so they're trying to push some of their bs thru in order to get their vote on the debt. yes, some might misunderstand, just like some of the dems including obama who voted against it, and just like some posters on here.

My point wasn't about the debt ceiling, it was about term limits and having novices in Congress trying to run the government.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

My point wasn't about the debt ceiling, it was about term limits and having novices in Congress trying to run the government.

but you used the debt ceiling as a 'for instance' of why novice's don't belong..
and yet, we have one in the white house.


yeah, i do see your point after all!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

The debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administrations. This is the first time so much nonsensical posturing about "not having any real consequence" has occurred (there has always been the few who have taken themselves out of the vote in favor of political posturing, Obama included)

I'm not talking Dems vs Republicans, I'm talking novices versus experienced legislators.

Not having novices doesn't mean you're left with career politicians. It's not either-or. No, I most definitely am not in favor of Washington being constantly made up of new classes of novices. I think that would be sheer disaster.

wow.

Zig really crushed you in this subject.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

wow.

Zig really crushed you in this subject.

I agree with what she said about the Dems and Repubs and the debt ceiling. No argument.

That's not what I was talking about.

Duh.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with what she said about the Dems and Repubs and the debt ceiling. No argument.

That's not what I was talking about.

Duh.

where's the support for Weiner? Where is Bill Clinton standing up for this guy's private life? The guy should be a poster boy for the Dem party and now he's garbage tossed under the bus. At least Rangel attempted to stand up for him?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder if those who suddenly want the debt ceiling raised were against it a few years back, when dems were howling against it? dems now recognize the need to raise, so now...they're suddenly smart?



as for novices, our first congresses were made up of nothing but novices. they did one hell of a job getting us started. when did we get indoctrinated into thinking only career politicians knew what was best?


yeah, just what i thought:

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Democrats Did – So why the change?

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 – All Dems Did. The President made an admission along with many other dems that they made a “political” decision in 2006, instead of a fiscal one. They voted not to pass the CR, continuing resolution to to allow the federal government to operate. This was done while the republicans held the House of representatives and Bush was in office. It seemed to have paid off. Sounds like it paid off in getting Obama elected.



At the time, Reid said:

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”

When Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements, Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”

I "thing" I get it. When it was Bush's money to spend, Obama was against it. Now that the credit card is in Obama's hands, he wants to raise the credit limit. What neither got was the credit card is in OUR name and we want to cap the limit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I "thing" I get it. When it was Bush's money to spend, Obama was against it. Now that the credit card is in Obama's hands, he wants to raise the credit limit. What neither got was the credit card is in OUR name and we want to cap the limit.

no, obama and the dems are against anything the republicans are for, and vice versa. this is why everything is crappy, nothing gets done, nothing moves forward, and it's business is usual. now, the dems are in charge, so they want what they want. the reps don't want them to succeed at anything, as the reps want the white house back.
so, we all get the shaft, again, while the pols do their usual.

it's not a matter of what's best, or who can do what. it's about blaming the other guy for everything wrong, and taking credit for everything that's right. both sides engage in the same behavior.
the funny people are those who actually think one or the other of the two parties is the good guy. they both suck. they both hold policy and money hostage to further their own agenda, to keep their power or try to get more. it's why clinton and the dems voted for doma when they're supposedly not worried about people's private lives, it's why congress voted to invade afganistan. it's why republicans are trying to further their agenda while playing politics with the debt ceiling. after obama and company did the same a few years back. it's why clinton was free to fool around and lie, but weiner isn't. or why dems are after weiner, but rangel can stay-after all, his issues were with money, and that's just fine.