20 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

Washington Post said:

The fiscal cliff cometh. And, whether or not the House and Senate — with an assist from the White House — figure out some sort of stopgap(ish) way to avert going over the edge, one lesson is already crystal clear: Congress has failed.

Don’t believe us? Consider the following:

* Both sides put off any discussion of addressing the country’s looming financial crisis until after the 2012 election, which was cast as the peoples’ chance to let their voices be heard as to what direction they wanted their politicians to head. President Obama won with 332 electoral votes, Democrats surprisingly kept the Senate and not so surprisingly picked up a handful of seats in the House. And yet, here we are.

* Given that the country is headed over the cliff in a day or so — triggering a series of automatic cuts across the government — the logistical and political hurdles to any sort of grand bargain to address the country’s long-term debt and spending issues are insurmountably high. That means that any deal will be decidedly narrow in nature in order to pass it through the political and legislative gantlet that is a narrowly Democratic-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House. And if Congress can’t even find common ground on a small-bore deal, what does that say about its chances of cutting a big deal down the line?

Read more

[Babe Ruth]

The 'fiscal cliff' thing seems to be fear-mongering, big time.

Congress failed a long time ago.  Congress passes legislation that works against constitutional provisions.  Congress is what P.J. O'Rourke called them years ago--a parliament of whores.

[Pyridium]

Congress voted on this a year ago.  This is not a fiscal cliff, it is exactly what Obama wanted.  Everything up to this point is blamed on Bush, everything.  What we will end up with will be the Obama tax cuts.  Republicans can not bow to the great one and swallow his garbage, therefore Obama will take total blame from this point on as he will be responsible for the really big fall that we are headed for.

[shaddow134]

The big Fiscal Fiasco would be a better name,all i know is the politicians on both sides are playing with real lives-shame on them i say.

Edited by shaddow134, 31 December 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[Pyridium]

We are told that the rate of inflation is 1%.  We are told that the FED interest rate is 1%.  We are told that the 16.4 Trillion dollar debt is just a number to be ignored.

Obama took Bush's last emergency budget and just kept the same amount each year which was 1.1 trillion in defeict each year.  This is what Obama meant when he said that "voting is the best revenge", if Bush can spend trillions of dollars on illegal wars, then Obama can spend the same trillions of debt for a bloated government.

The United States is a fiscal house of cards built on lie after lie just to passify the low information citizen.  When are people going to realize that what is going on is just smoke and mirrors trying to fool everyone all the time.

[Hilander]

They want our opinion unless they are in a hurry to just pass it before anyone realizes what they are doing.

[shaddow134]

[Yamato]

And so we trust Congress with gun prohibition.  Oh, sweet Irony.
http://www.washingto...n-in-one-chart/

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 01 January 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

And so we trust Congress with gun prohibition.

gun control and repealing the 2nd amendment is not prohibition. Nice strawman though.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 01 January 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

gun control and repealing the 2nd amendment is not prohibition. Nice strawman though.

Bologna.  How is repealing the right to bear arms not prohibition?  You are prohibiting people their rights.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

saying "you can't own a bazooka" isn't prohibiting their right to bear arms, just prohibitng certain arms.

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 02 January 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

saying "you can't own a bazooka" isn't prohibiting their right to bear arms, just prohibitng certain arms.

I'd like to prohibit strategic bombers and aircraft carriers.   Barring that, I think I'll push for the bazooka for my team, the Citizens.

We're not even supposed to have a standing army, the federal government should go into debt raising an army from an armed civil militia when national defense becomes necessary.  We're supposed to have a military more like Switzerland as the Founders envisioned our nation.   How many of these damnblasted wars is Switzerland getting in?   And that was the point, and Switzerland exemplifies the genius of our Founders.   16,000,000 assault rifles in the US held by private citizens who train themselves in their own state militias.   People laugh and claim how inadequate that is in this age of modern warfare.  I don't see how it's inherently inadequate at all to the warfare, I only see how inadequate it is for the policy.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 01 January 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

How is repealing the right to bear arms not prohibition?  You are prohibiting people their rights.

Show me how it is prohibition. All it does is remove the constitutional question and rights. It "can" be prohibited then by other laws but it does not follow that it would be. I don't agree that there should be a "right" to bear arms, but that it can be be allowed and controlled. And it most certainly did NOT come from our creator.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 03 January 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

Show me how it is prohibition. All it does is remove the constitutional question and rights. It "can" be prohibited then by other laws but it does not follow that it would be. I don't agree that there should be a "right" to bear arms, but that it can be be allowed and controlled. And it most certainly did NOT come from our creator.

Show you?  Well you just blew raspberries on the spirit of the entire Constitution saying that.  What does that show you?   That your rights come from pathetic mass murdering hypocrite goons you're so in love and trust with.

Repeal our rights so they can be prohibited and it doesn't follow that they would be.  Then there's no good reason to do it, because if there was, it would follow.

[MiskatonicGrad]

ninjadude, on 03 January 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

Show me how it is prohibition. All it does is remove the constitutional question and rights. It "can" be prohibited then by other laws but it does not follow that it would be.I don't agree that there should be a "right" to bear arms, but that it can be be allowed and controlled. And it most certainly did NOT come from our creator.

and right there is the problem! our country was set up as a free society with little too no goverment intervention( and yes the founders dropped the ball and didn't spell it out very clearly and left the whole power of the goverment open ended). with people able to decided how they wanted to live without someone telling them where they could go what job they could have and what rights they had. it was understood we had the right do do just about what ever we wanted to as long as it didn't infringe on someone elses rights. the founders also saw that a out of control goverment would try to infringe on those rights so they made the first 10 amendments to limit the goverments ability to infringe. they basically said these rights are sacred to the continued freedom of this nation and you (the goverment) cannot in anyway shape or form touch these!! so you may not agree with them but when you let uncle sam start messing with them don't come crying to me when he has your back against the wall for speaking your mind!