US Debt Predictions for Aug. 2.

[Njosnavelin]

- To be honest need to get this shit sorted pronto.
- Get your people and the west re-galvanised for technical innovation.
- Pull out your armies from its useless wars.....Cut it down into a leaner more modernised force it is still the best but it can always get better....Smaller means better.....Moth ball some carriers cutting down isn't negative.
- Improve relations with china you can do this by allowing them to take over some responsibilities in its sphere of influence.
- Compete with the Chinese by improving your infrastructure and working with your European allies to ensure technological supremacy.
- I would look also to improving your manufacturing base once again like start creating some fucking products that aren't all from Asia. Greedy corporations with their short term interests are going to ass fuck the long term interests of the american hegemony.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/wake-up-america-you%E2%80%99re-falling-behind/

 

[josesentme]

Logical but not practical in this case. This is tantamount to playing around with paying the rent just because you want your wife to promise you she'll cut back on her spa visits first...WHILE you refuse to take on more hours at work to pay the bills for your previous shopping spree at home depot.

You think it's wise to get the eviction papers, pay the extra money you already don't have in late fees, legal fees, etc. Then injure your credit with the eviction to the point that it affects your future financing??


True...but everyone isn't to blame for this....get it?

I think you're focused on a problem, not a solution. I will not sell out to any party. Accountability is accountability. Whatever, you're talking about mice nuts in terms of differences in what our focus is.

 

[josesentme]

- To be honest need to get this shit sorted pronto.
- Get your people and the west re-galvanised for technical innovation.
- Pull out your armies from its useless wars.....Cut it down into a leaner more modernised force it is still the best but it can always get better....Smaller means better.....Moth ball some carriers cutting down isn't negative.
- Improve relations with china you can do this by allowing them to take over some responsibilities in its sphere of influence.
- Compete with the Chinese by improving your infrastructure and working with your European allies to ensure technological supremacy.
- I would look also to improving your manufacturing base once again like start creating some fucking products that aren't all from Asia. Greedy corporations with their short term interests are going to ass fuck the long term interests of the american hegemony.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/25/wake-up-america-you%E2%80%99re-falling-behind/

Regarding international opinion - I say "whatever". (after a couple of beers that becomes "go fuck yourself") We've done good so far in our own opinion. This is a bump in the road. We'll work it out.

Most of our problems are because of our politicians being paid for by either big business or the labor unions. You can't negotiate with people who are paying for your meal. We constantly sell out John Q. Public for corporate and labor interest.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think you're focused on a problem, not a solution. I will not sell out to any party. Accountability is accountability. Whatever, you're talking about mice nuts in terms of differences in what our focus is.

I was giving you an analogy..that's what that's called.

re: Why Obama isn't showing the leadership....

I tend to agree that he defers a bit too much....but the other presidents weren't dealing with House members who signed pledges to take one of the central points of contention off the table...

But we could start a separate thread about that if you want to 'discuss' it.:o

 

[bustybbwlover]

here's a fun fact

The U.S Treasury told the world on Thursday that it has $73.768 billion stashed away in various shoes and socks. Apple, on the other hand, in its latest and most fascinating quarterly earnings disgorgement, casually mentioned that it has $75.876 billion lying around.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20085609-71/apple-has-more-money-than-uncle-sam/

 

[josesentme]

I was giving you an analogy..that's what that's called.

re: Why Obama isn't showing the leadership....

I tend to agree that he defers a bit too much....but the other presidents weren't dealing with House members who signed pledges to take one of the central points of contention off the table...

But we could start a separate thread about that if you want to 'discuss' it.:o

I don't like to slow down so people can catch up. So, just take it as a strike.

(You seemed confused with those question marks over your head.)

I think you referred to my signature. It is called a rhetorical question.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Intelligent people haven't been in the GOP for about a decade now. These tea baggers are a flash in the pan. They will be voted out of office based on the fact that they all voted for the Paul Ryan plan. That was enough to make people turn on them. The funny thing is that the very people that put the tea party in office are the people that are now turning on them.

WTF? The tea party has basically been around for 20 years, you can trace some of its roots back to Ross Perot in the early 90s. The movement really started to come together in 2005-2006, so get your shit straight or be silent.
The tea party in general is indeed fragmented around the country, but it confounds me why any reasonable person would oppose the tea party's general message of smaller government and less spending. Most people tend to agree Washington is loaded to the rafters with corrupt people who are on the take from lobbyists. So why would you give them a bigger check and let them raise your taxes? And to whom are referring when you say people are turning on the tea party? That shit's not happening from where I'm standing. Where you getting this crap? The media? LMAO Don't believe what you see or read, pal. Wanna raise the debt ceiling? Sure, we have no choice now. But why in the hell would you not cut back on spending, too? When you're debt, do you keep spending hoping your debt goes away or do you live within a budget. Think about it.

In who's interests (sheer politics) is it for this to even be this big of an issue?

Just think of how many times in your lifetime the debt limit has been raised yet...how come this is the first time the subject is rolling off the collective tongues of the average American??

Oh yeah...and the tea bagging dopes....

:1orglaugh
Corral a tea bagger or two...then ask them how many times the debt ceiling has been raised in their lifetimes? :o

It's a question of how high can it go before it becomes unsustainable? Think of U.S. government spending like a credit card (which is not too far off the mark). Now, let's say you have a card with a $2,000 limit and you max it out. Maybe it's no big deal. You ask your credit card company or bank for an increase in the credit line and they grant it.

For the sake of argument, let's say that over the course of 10 years you make nominal payments on that card but keep spending more than you pay back. You spend more, you reach your limit, then you get your credit line ("debt ceiling") extended. And this cycle repeats itself over and over again.

Before you know, it's 10 years later and your credit card bill is maxed out at $60,000 -- the debt is so high that you can barely afford to pay the minimum monthly payment. But yet you still go back and ask your card company or bank to raise your limit so you have the funds just to pay for the essentials (groceries, gas for your car, bills -- i.e. medicare, military, social security), nevermind the luxury items (like $500,000 for shrimp running on treadmills and giving GE and $14B tax holiday last year).

Raising the debt ceiling a bunch of times 20 years ago, when the economy was stronger and the sum total of entitlement costs were a mere fraction of what they are today, is not even close to comparable to right now. We're staring down the barrel of $14 TRILLION in debt. If they raise the ceiling and raise taxes, we'll just find ourselves in this same predicament in 3-5 years trying the raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, but this time it will be like $20 TRILLION. After a certain point, the U.S. will have raised the debt ceiling so high that it can never hope to pay it down. Just the interest alone will choke this country to death.

And all of this is coming from a so-called tea bagger. We hate that term, BTW. In short, your reasoning is plain fucking absurd. You're simply filtering your BS through a narrow prism to back up your ignorant point of view.

 

[Rey C.]

WTF? The tea party has basically been around for 20 years, you can trace some of its roots back to Ross Perot in the early 90s. The movement really started to come together in 2005-2006, so get your shit straight or be silent.

United We Stand is the only political movement I've ever been involved in over the course of my life. And it most certainly had little to do with this current political movement known as the TEA party - whether some members are shared or not. There are as many, if not more, members of the Libertarian party in the TEA party's various branches. Ours was a center-right movement, but one which welcomed any and all. It was just as likely that you'd be sitting beside some "left wing" professor at a meeting as a businessman. We did not have a reputation for wandering around political rallies carrying AR-15's and calling people "commies" and "socialists". I stand by this til my dying day: United We Stand was the most intellectually relevant and honest political movement of the mid to late 20th Century (and I'll include this 21st Century TEA party thing). The TEA party is, at its core, just a radical off-shoot of the Republican Party. Much like the GOA is, for the most part, just a radical off-shoot of the NRA. United We Stand was not an off-shoot of anything, before or after.

The tea party in general is indeed fragmented around the country, but it confounds me why any reasonable person would oppose the tea party's general message of smaller government and less spending.

Because too many of the members do not seem to have any meaningful knowledge of global economics, geo-politics, business or civics. I may agree with the general message of a street corner preacher. But his method of delivery might very well drive me away. Same here.

It's a question of how high can it go before it becomes unsustainable? Think of U.S. government spending like a credit card (which is not too far off the mark). Now, let's say you have a card with a $2,000 limit and you max it out. Maybe it's no big deal. You ask your credit card company or bank for an increase in the credit line and they grant it.

For the sake of argument, let's say that over the course of 10 years you make nominal payments on that card but keep spending more than you pay back. You spend more, you reach your limit, then you get your credit line ("debt ceiling") extended. And this cycle repeats itself over and over again.

Before you know, it's 10 years later and your credit card bill is maxed out at $60,000 -- the debt is so high that you can barely afford to pay the minimum monthly payment. But yet you still go back and ask your card company or bank to raise your limit so you have the funds just to pay for the essentials (groceries, gas for your car, bills -- i.e. medicare, military, social security), nevermind the luxury items (like $500,000 for shrimp running on treadmills and giving GE and $14B tax holiday last year).

This is an excellent example. I applaud you for offering it. Let's go with it. All of these things have happened, just as you've said. But have you spent the money, yes or no? You have. And as a merchant that you've bought goods from and whom you owe, your lack of fiscal discipline should not concern me. If, as you work through your fiscal issues, you believe that you can delay paying me, I will do all that is within my power to harm your credit rating and see to it that any future borrowing done by you has an interest rate reflective of your unwillingness to pay your bills on time. If you're a person (or in this case, a country) with a LOT of debt, you better think about that before you try to stiff me. Unless you have some double, super secret plan to pay that debt off real quick, you're going to be using more of your GDP to make higher interest payments, no matter if you get your current spending in order or not.

Raising the debt ceiling a bunch of times 20 years ago, when the economy was stronger and the sum total of entitlement costs were a mere fraction of what they are today, is not even close to comparable to right now. We're staring down the barrel of $14 TRILLION in debt. If they raise the ceiling and raise taxes, we'll just find ourselves in this same predicament in 3-5 years trying the raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, but this time it will be like $20 TRILLION. After a certain point, the U.S. will have raised the debt ceiling so high that it can never hope to pay it down. Just the interest alone will choke this country to death.

If the deficit and debt was really of such great concern to the TEA party, then they would support not just spending cuts, but also offer a package which included the elimination of tax breaks, especially those pork barrel cuts that only go to industries, companies and individuals who have filled the right politicians' pockets. They could even specify that the revenue raised could ONLY go to deficit or debt reduction. But they are not opposed to those wasteful, unnecessary breaks. They are not as serious about the debt and deficit as they claim, IMO.


But we still come back to what I've said dozens of times already: only a deadbeat holds hostage the funds that are meant to go for legally purchased goods and services.

 

[D-rock]

but it confounds me why any reasonable person would oppose the tea party's general message of smaller government and less spending.

Why? Because usually with people like them that ends up really being just code speak for, "Hey I got mine. Screw everybody else. It's every man for themselves." Either that or they are practically pandering to an economic ideology that has been mindlessly pounded into their heads all their life like it's a virtual religion no matter how stupid stupid it is or how much it will end up hurting most of the people, especially the less well off in society. Or they are one of those people that think an absolute unlimited right to property is some God given and/or human, civil, constitutional right when it isn't and that thinking is not only sad but selfish. Or they are the type of people that see taxes as "steeling" from them or they are under the delusion that they "did all themselves" and are the ones that made all their success even though they were probably helped out by the society they live in more than most other people and almost certainly have gained more than most from the exploitation of others. Or they are the ones that are under the impression that giving the richest among us even more money and power and having them be responsible for even less of the cost of the functioning of our society and having them have less of a burden then people that are much poorer is a good idea while the poorer people get screwed over like they have countless times before.

But what do people like me know. I wouldn't want to be unreasonable now.

 

[josesentme]

Why? Because usually with people like them that ends up really being just code speak for, "Hey I got mine. Screw everybody else. It's every man for themselves." Either that or they are practically pandering to an economic ideology that has been mindlessly pounded into their heads all their life like it's a virtual religion no matter how stupid stupid it is or how much it will end up hurting most of the people, especially the less well off in society. Or they are one of those people that think an absolute unlimited right to property is some God given and/or human, civil, constitutional right when it isn't and that thinking is not only sad but selfish. Or they are the type of people that see taxes as "steeling" from them or they are under the delusion that they "did all themselves" and are the ones that made all their success even though they were probably helped out by the society they live in more than most other people and almost certainly have gained more than most from the exploitation of others. Or they are the ones that are under the impression that giving the richest among us even more money and power and having them be responsible for even less of the cost of the functioning of our society and having them have less of a burden then people that are much poorer is a good idea while the poorer people get screwed over like they have countless times before.

But what do people like me know. I wouldn't want to be unreasonable now.

I think the Tea Party is primarily "run" by some scarred white people that are misinformed.

However, she was talking about a message of smaller government. That in and of itself appeals to me.

You want to tell me I owe my success to other? I'll buy that. I'll buy that I need to and should pay people back. I do my best. I suspect from the tone that I infer from your post you probably spend more time on giving back and personally give back more than i do and I commend you for that.

Smaller government doesn't have mean eliminating social programs. Why can't it mean cutting military spending? Why can't it mean having social programs that are paid for (eg the way Social Security should be)?

I think we need to take the hate and fear out of both sides (yeah, I detected some of those in your email as well) and make some practical progress. I don't think labor unions should be entitled to unfair benefits, I don't think that corporations should go unchecked, I think people do owe the government something and part of that is taxes to pay for services and social programs to help our there fellow citizens, but it should not be a redistribution of wealth.

Just my thoughts. I'm not running for office and I'm not getting any calls to help work my ideas into party platforms.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think you referred to my signature. It is called a rhetorical question.

Oh, so you knew the main reason why exercising leadership in this particular case is near impossible is because a good degree of GOPers at the prodding of tea bagger 'tards have signed up to take off the table the key point of contention. Okay. Wise man...:yesyes::hatsoff:

It's a question of how high can it go before it becomes unsustainable? Think of U.S. government spending like a credit card (which is not too far off the mark). Now, let's say you have a card with a $2,000 limit and you max it out. Maybe it's no big deal. You ask your credit card company or bank for an increase in the credit line and they grant it.

For the sake of argument, let's say that over the course of 10 years you make nominal payments on that card but keep spending more than you pay back. You spend more, you reach your limit, then you get your credit line ("debt ceiling") extended. And this cycle repeats itself over and over again.

Before you know, it's 10 years later and your credit card bill is maxed out at $60,000 -- the debt is so high that you can barely afford to pay the minimum monthly payment. But yet you still go back and ask your card company or bank to raise your limit so you have the funds just to pay for the essentials (groceries, gas for your car, bills -- i.e. medicare, military, social security), nevermind the luxury items (like $500,000 for shrimp running on treadmills and giving GE and $14B tax holiday last year).

Raising the debt ceiling a bunch of times 20 years ago, when the economy was stronger and the sum total of entitlement costs were a mere fraction of what they are today, is not even close to comparable to right now. We're staring down the barrel of $14 TRILLION in debt. If they raise the ceiling and raise taxes, we'll just find ourselves in this same predicament in 3-5 years trying the raise the debt ceiling AGAIN, but this time it will be like $20 TRILLION. After a certain point, the U.S. will have raised the debt ceiling so high that it can never hope to pay it down. Just the interest alone will choke this country to death.

And all of this is coming from a so-called tea bagger. We hate that term, BTW. In short, your reasoning is plain fucking absurd. You're simply filtering your BS through a narrow prism to back up your ignorant point of view.

1.) The economy is cyclical. Concluding it was stronger at some point in the past than it will ever be...is, well let's just say amazingly prophetic. Do you have the numbers for next Tuesday's powerball too by any chance?:angels:

2.) Take brief look at the deficit spending driving the recent explosion in debt. The bulk of it that has run up the debt in recent years has been the result of 3 circumstances; Bush era tax cuts, the wars and Obama's stimulus. Now here's where your perspective gets a little confusing....I thought I saw in a recent post by you an acknowledgement that these circumstances won't exist forever. If you understand this, how can you conclude based on them from the same brain originating the first point that the debt will grow to be unsustainable??

3.) Equating the US. debt in a linear comparison to a person making minimal payments on a credit card over time is naive and ignorant of some pretty essential facts. The comparison (not precisely but in concept) would be more akin to a major corporation with a sound business model falling on lean times because the larger economy has faltered then needing and infusion of cash. At that point, they're not concerned with the practical implications of their debt as much as their need to survive a lean period. They would care more about keeping the business operating so that they can get back to realizing growth again from their sound business model. In which case they would be relying on their increase productivity, revenues, etc. to tackle their debt at some point in the future.

For a governmental example; in 1950 US debt as a pct of GDP was near 90%. That debt largely a result of WWII could have been considered as you put it as "unsustainable" as today's debt..no?:o You do know from there the debt as a pct. of GDP decreased consistently until it was in the low 30 pct. It didn't start to increase as a pct of GDP again until the early 1980s.

Point is, no one panicked in 1950 over the debt even though it was at near 90% of GDP. And guess what? In spite of that we paid it down.:eek:

4.) ..........

 

[monicasilver]

I think the Tea Party is primarily "run" by some scarred white people that are misinformed.

Well put.

 

[josesentme]

Oh, so you knew the main reason why exercising leadership in this particular case is near impossible is because a good degree of GOPers at the prodding of tea bagger 'tards have signed up to take off the table the key point of contention. Okay. Wise man...:yesyes::hatsoff:

I honestly don't know if you were being insulting or not. Based on what I see from your past posts, I'm going to assume you are being insulting. If you are, I don't appreciate it. I think Monica posted something of the nature of you doing that is a sign of weakness. I agree and from what I know, you're better than that. I'll leave room for my error in understanding your intentions though.

I think we agree on most issues. I do not intend to be insulting towards you. Where we don't agree is, I don't have patience for anyone in my private or personal life who plays the blame game. I really don't care. So when it comes to politics, it is a given that both sides are sold out. My opinion is that the Republicans have proved themselves to be completely clueless (eg .. not wanting to cut defense...wtf?).

So, all the whining, blaming, and excuses you want to come up with are weak minded in my opinion. Obama has done some very good things, he has also made some mistakes. I have no problem with that track record.

Now, I want to see him step up and handle a hostile House, like most other Presidents had to during their terms. I don't the strong leadership I would like from him on this issue. I see posturing.

If you want to bash Bush, I'm on board. I benefited greatly from his stupid policies, but I think it hurt the country. I'll join you in the specific Bush bashing thread or buy the beer at the bar. Bashing push while discussing current day issues may or may not be relevant, but it is not focused on the solution. It is simply business as usual politics.

Argue away on this if you would like. I think it is a waste of time.

 

[Hot Mega]

I honestly don't know if you were being insulting or not.

You claimed your question was rhetorical. The primary reason I understand for most people to state a rhetorical question and not expect an answer is because they know the answer or believe the true answer reveals their point.

Understanding your claim that the question was rhetorical, I replied with a sarcastic, dismissive, Facetious response. Speaking of, not sure how you could have derived 'insult' out of it...who/which are your 'sources'?? (Since the gang's all here coincidentally. Are you guys 'multitasking' together or smth?)

Based on what I see from your past posts, I'm going to assume you are being insulting. If you are, I don't appreciate it. I think Monica posted something of the nature of you doing that is a sign of weakness. I agree and from what I know, you're better than that.

I know it's easier to let someone think for you but since you're at it, in this case I think you would have been served better by thinking for yourself.:o Now, you could interpret that as insulting depending on your perspective but FTR, I consider it instructive. Either way I leave you to your opinion on it. BTW, while you or others may take a statement assigning weakness to you as insulting, I don't take your (well, don't know if I can thoroughly attribute it to you since you're piling...uh, enjoining someone else's belief) opinion as an insult. Just as another opinion among many.

F.Y.I., the silly little girl routine of not being able to tell whether someone is being sarcastic, serious and being 'insulted' is a bit old, unoriginal and tired.

You guys don't know any more tricks (meaning gimmicks...not Johns)?? See this is when I can become less respectful of a person's posts...when they feign ignorance....

I think we agree on most issues. I do not intend to be insulting towards you.

Really??

jose...uh, your favorite posters are one for one everyone who I debate and disagree with here on many issues. Certainly not determinative evidence of youring...but pretty compelling. Maybe you're being Facetious too...

So, all the whining, blaming, and excuses you want to come up with are weak minded in my opinion. Obama has done some very good things, he has also made some mistakes. I have no problem with that track record.

Now, I want to see him step up and handle a hostile House, like most other Presidents had to during their terms. I don't the strong leadership I would like from him on this issue. I see posturing.

If you want to bash Bush, I'm on board. I benefited greatly from his stupid policies, but I think it hurt the country. I'll join you in the specific Bush bashing thread or buy the beer at the bar. Bashing push while discussing current day issues may or may not be relevant, but it is not focused on the solution. It is simply business as usual politics.

Argue away on this if you would like. I think it is a waste of time.

So, there was no point to you posting this? I was right in assuming it was just ?

 

[josesentme]

You claimed your question was rhetorical. The primary reason I understand for most people to state a rhetorical question and not expect an answer is because they know the answer or believe the true answer reveals their point.

Understanding your claim that the question was rhetorical, I replied with a sarcastic, dismissive, Facetious response. Speaking of, not sure how you could have derived 'insult' out of it...who/which are your 'sources'?? (Since the gang's all here coincidentally. Are you guys 'multitasking' together or smth?)


I know it's easier to let someone think for you but since you're at it, in this case I think you would have been served better by thinking for yourself.:o Now, you could interpret that as insulting depending on your perspective but FTR, I consider it instructive. Either way I leave you to your opinion on it. BTW, while you or others may take a statement assigning weakness to you as insulting, I don't take your (well, don't know if I can thoroughly attribute it to you since you're piling...uh, enjoining someone else's belief) opinion as an insult. Just as another opinion among many.

F.Y.I., the silly little girl routine of not being able to tell whether someone is being sarcastic, serious and being 'insulted' is a bit old, unoriginal and tired.

You guys don't know any more tricks (meaning gimmicks...not Johns)?? See this is when I can become less respectful of a person's posts...when they feign ignorance....

Really??

jose...uh, your favorite posters are one for one everyone who I debate and disagree with here on many issues. Certainly not determinative evidence of youring...but pretty compelling. Maybe you're being Facetious too...


So, there was no point to you posting this? I was right in assuming it was just ?

Tough to take you serious when you just want to accuse and argue minutia. I'm not sure what chip you have on your shoulder, but it is yours to deal with, not mine.

 

[MikeyK]

Looks like Senate Democrats and Republicans are working on a deal. Talks seem very positive. The Tea Party members in the House are doomed. If the Senate Democrats and Republicans can work out a plan that they both agree on and the president gives the thumbs up it will go to the House. Most likely the House Democrats will vote in favor of it and the Tea Party members will vote no. They are being set up to look like uncompromising assholes. They don't even see it coming.

 

[mikexmoran]

Tough to take you serious when you just want to accuse and argue minutia. I'm not sure what chip you have on your shoulder, but it is yours to deal with, not mine.

The Internet is a good place for those to hide behind a keyboard. There is either a reading comprehension issue going on or it is simply antisocial behavior. You can sit on a porn site and pound out notes on a board. A compulsion to answer every post and somehow attempt to pound people who may not fully agree with you without really discussing an issue.

While the lashing out is immature and rather boring, the Internet gives people the ability to do this anonymously. It is cowardly in general, but it has been effective on the Internet. I've been accused by this person of being an egghead and too theoretical, so I've seen when the point has been missed and instead of discussing the issue just arguing and accusing follows. I think you said above somewhere "whatever", that is probably the best way to deal with it.

Regarding the prediction, I haven't watched the news today, but I would vote on a compromise with a tax hike.

 

[josesentme]

Regarding the prediction, I haven't watched the news today, but I would vote on a compromise with a tax hike.

That is my prediction as well.

 

[Hot Mega]

Tough to take you serious when you just want to accuse and argue minutia. I'm not sure what chip you have on your shoulder, but it is yours to deal with, not mine.

Tough to take you serious when you make statements that compete with one another.

You'd be right to forgo taking me serious when I'm responding to posts that I don't think should be taken serious.

I apologize for borrowing a page from the book of Facetious but do you post here under another name by chance?

If so, :nono: as that's against the rules. If not...my bad...:stir:

The Internet is a good place for those to hide behind a keyboard. There is either a reading comprehension issue going on or it is simply antisocial behavior. You can sit on a porn site and pound out notes on a board. A compulsion to answer every post and somehow attempt to pound people who may not fully agree with you without really discussing an issue.

While the lashing out is immature and rather boring, the Internet gives people the ability to do this anonymously. It is cowardly in general, but it has been effective on the Internet. I've been accused by this person of being an egghead and too theoretical, so I've seen when the point has been missed and instead of discussing the issue just arguing and accusing follows. I think you said above somewhere "whatever", that is probably the best way to deal with it.

Regarding the prediction, I haven't watched the news today, but I would vote on a compromise with a tax hike.

I don't think I've ever made mention of you specifically...I leave room for the possibility that I may in some erstwhile discussion..

However, I don't really accuse people of being something like 'too' eggheaded. The point I would make if and when it has come to it is there are eggheaded ways to look at an issue and there are practical ways... That doesn't mean the two are necessarily exclusive..but when it comes a time when some one makes a simple, obvious point then another comes along and tries to steer the debate or discussion into an bunch of inapplicable theory...then there should come a time for someone to stand up and say, what the fuck are you talking about?? Why are you making a simple practical point into a debate on some theory??

Either way, take what you will from what I say. I do like the coincidence of you all showing up at the same time though....

 

[josesentme]

Looks like Senate Democrats and Republicans are working on a deal. Talks seem very positive. The Tea Party members in the House are doomed. If the Senate Democrats and Republicans can work out a plan that they both agree on and the president gives the thumbs up it will go to the House. Most likely the House Democrats will vote in favor of it and the Tea Party members will vote no. They are being set up to look like uncompromising assholes. They don't even see it coming.

I agree. Outside of fear, I really don't understand the Tea Party.

I don't see a way around finding ways to increase revenues in addition to cuts.

I think Obama has outplayed the Republicans since he was elected. The Tea Party is a joke.

Lets hope it ends very soon. Damage has already been done and this never should have been brought to this point.