How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Chicago Politics   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Chicago Politics

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


25 posted 07-16-2011 02:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I said no such thing Mike.  Don't put lies in my mouth.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 07-16-2011 05:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

To do that he selected one possible consequence among an almost overwhelming list of bad consequences that was sure to highlight the dire situation that the US might find itself in.
His statement that he can't guarantee that the checks would go out is true, social security is just one item in amongst the hard choices of what to pay and what not to pay.

Thank you. My point exactly.  An overwhelming list.....the hard choices....and yet he chooses threatening social security receipients to lead that overwhelming list. There IS a big list. Personally, I would rather see our elderly get paid over turtles getting run over by cars, eradication of crickets in Utah, removal of tattoos of gang leaders, or the assuredly thousands of others such examples of frivolous spending. Does Obama mention them? No, he threatens seniors.

If a family gets together to speak of not having enough money to handle their budget, the father doesn't say, "Well, we may have to stop buying food" when he could just as easily say, "We have to postpone the weekly manicures, rent movies instead of spending on tickets, popcorn and soft drinks at the theater, suspend our gym memberships, or a variety of other ways the budget could be trimmed.  Obama has said nothing about ways the budget could be trimmed. He simply threatens not to buy food. The fact is that I don't believe he is interested in trimming at all. The man is a spending machine. He's the kid in the candy store with limitless funds. He's been on a shopping spree ever since he hit the White House. What are the results of his spree? We are further in debt, the housing market is worse, the unemployment rate is higher and the country is worse off.....and still he want his credit limit raised so that he can spend more.

....get back to the topic...the debt ceiling.

Uncas, I will refer you to my response to that in #22.

The topic is about Obama threatening the most vunerable of society with non-payment with regards to the budget, about his threatening them instead of regarding other areas of our spending which could be altered instead of our seniors and sick, who depend on the government to keep it's word and provide the means to live month to month.

THAT is the topic, as I explained.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 07-16-2011 05:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, could you be more specific? Thank you.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


28 posted 07-16-2011 06:04 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


There's no in depth explanation in #22 regarding your thoughts on the debt ceiling and the consequence of inter-governmental debt pushing the national debt through the limit Mike.

There's a link to some dipstick called Cain talking complete twaddle in #23 but it's fairly obvious he has less understanding of simple economics than Huelskamp. I was hoping that you would explain why you think that the US government can avoid breaching the debt ceiling and exactly how they would achieve that.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


29 posted 07-16-2011 06:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

There's no in depth explanation in #22 regarding your thoughts on the debt ceiling and the consequence of inter-governmental debt pushing the national debt through the limit Mike.

That's true. What is in #22 is my definition of what this thread is about. You said.."getting back to the topic". THAT was my topic. If you would like to discuss on the debt ceiling and the consequence of inter-governmental debt pushing the national debt through the limit, then you can create  a thread to discuss it.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


30 posted 07-16-2011 07:09 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


If you don't want to the economic points you raised Mike that's ok, in fact it's probably a good idea based on what I've read so far.



So back to the other topic.

quote:
If a family gets together to speak of not having enough money to handle their budget, the father doesn't say, "Well, we may have to stop buying food" when he could just as easily say, "We have to postpone the weekly manicures, rent movies instead of spending on tickets, popcorn and soft drinks at the theater, suspend our gym memberships, or a variety of other ways the budget could be trimmed.


I disagree. I distinctly remember being told when I was a kid that if I kept wasting electricity by leaving lights on all over the house that pretty soon we wouldn't have enough money to eat. Somehow I don't think that the threat of a reduction in manicures would have had the same impact.



quote:
Obama has said nothing about ways the budget could be trimmed. He simply threatens not to buy food.


Come on Mike, Obama didn't threaten anything - he said that he couldn't guarantee that the checks would go out, which is absolutely true. I could explain why it's true but I'd have to reference the budget figures, the debt ceiling and the relationship between inter-governmental debt, public debt and government bonds. I could also explain why not sending out social security checks might actually be a good idea.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


31 posted 07-16-2011 07:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I disagree. I distinctly remember being told when I was a kid that if I kept wasting electricity by leaving lights on all over the house that pretty soon we wouldn't have enough money to eat. Somehow I don't think that the threat of a reduction in manicures would have had the same impact.

Exactly. Your father used it as a threat, a scare tactic, using a worst case scenario. Obama is doing the same. The difference is that Obama is the one wasting the electricity and doing the threatening.

Come on Mike, Obama didn't threaten anything -

I'll see your "come on" and raise you a "you kidding me?" If you don't see the veiled threat in those words, then it's just because you don't want to.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


32 posted 07-16-2011 08:05 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
Exactly. Your father used it as a threat, a scare tactic, using a worst case scenario.


Actually Mike it was my mother, and it wasn't a threat it was the plain truth, we were what you might call dirt poor but my mother never owed a penny in her life, if I ran up a huge electricity bill broth or soup was a real possibility but the electricity bill would be paid. I'm pretty sure if you asked her on any given day whether she could guarantee that there'd be money for groceries next week her answer would probably have been an emphatic no.

Come Aug 3rd, if the Congress hasn't raised the debt ceiling, even on a temporary basis, your government is going to have to make the same choices that my mother made every day, I'd stock up on the soup if I were you.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


33 posted 07-16-2011 08:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and if your mother were the one wasting electricity while doling out dire prophesies, wouldn't it have made it a different kettle of fish?

Stock up on soup? Well, Democrats regarded Obama as Superman...they just left out the "o".
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


34 posted 07-16-2011 08:47 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


Odd that you blame Obama for all the spending Mike. Congress authorises both your budget and your debt limit, not the President, and the US national debt didn't suddenly appear overnight. It was accrued over a long period by both parties with the full consent of the American people.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 07-16-2011 09:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and the democratic congress went two years, against the law, not producing a budget....but we've discussed that. The spending was Obama's and his congressional cronies in power made it possible for him to pull it off. The billions in pork was also Obama's and they approved that, too. The unstimulating stimulus? Obama's. Now that the complexion of Congress has been altered by a Republican house, Obama is screaming that he wants more money. WHen they won't give it to him, he threatens grandma and grandpa...whatta guy.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 07-16-2011 09:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

CHICAGO (AP) — A liberal group upset over potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security delivered pledges Friday to President Barack Obama's national campaign headquarters threatening to pull its support.

About a dozen people representing the Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered what they said were 200,000 pledges from people who will refuse to donate or volunteer for Obama's re-election campaign if he cuts the entitlement programs.

http://news.yahoo.com/liberal-group-threatens-pull-obama-support-191618329.html


Some people aren't taking his threats sitting down, it seems..
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


37 posted 07-17-2011 04:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


How does bullying and intimidating relate to Obama? That's what he taught in his days as a training instructor for Acorn.

But you know that...[bold]and so does Bob[/bold]. Since you must agree that it is a sleazy tactic in light of the fact you don't claim it isn't, it seems a good idea for the two of you to simply say things like "Hey, the other side does it, too" with you referring to death panels, which had nothing to do with anyone not getting the checks that enable them to live, to Bob referring to ancient Rome, Republican dirty tricks and a whole barrage of items designed to get  away from recognizing Obama's actions in this matter.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


38 posted 07-17-2011 05:37 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     How is anybody supposed to guarantee money for anything when the money is not appropriated?

     Apparently, the President is supposed to lie to the people and pretend that there is money available when the Congress is unwilling to provide it.  The President's true crime is puncturing the illusion that the Congress would like people to maintain that the money needs to come from someplace.  The congress is infuriated at the answer that logic mandates:  It is unfair for Congress to pawn off the burden of government on the middle class and the poor.  The congress would like us to pretend that this is fair, especially the Republican controlled states.

     What the President has done here is to hold up a mirror to what the Congress has been doing, and to what the Republicans have been doing in particular in congress.  The suggestion that Mike makes is that the choice is between cutting caviar and cutting social security.  His examples have made that clear.  Yet he hasn't offered any information to prove his point, only naked assertion and analogy that we are supposed to substitute for fact.  

     Where are the facts that support such drastic assertions?  That we face a choice between cutting social security and doing away with a few frivolous luxuries?  Mike makes the assertions, where are Mike facts?

     Where are Mike's facts, even, about President Obama's Chicago politics?  I haven't seen Mike distinguish "Chicago Politics" from any other sort of gritty politics as practiced in any other political arena.  

     Does this mean that President Obama plays hardball politics?

     Apparently Mike thinks so, but I disagree.  I think that President Obama is far too soft on the Republicans, and has given far too much in an effort to be conciliatory to them on Health care; and so much on human rights that I have severe doubts that he actually is willing to stand up for human rights at home or abroad in any real fashion at all.  He's virtually a modern Republican on the subject.  Certainly many of the solid Republicans of the past  would find him weak on the subject, though not as weak as the majority of the Congressional Republicans of today.

     The Republicans that Mike once spoke of and it seemed to me, spoke of proudly as being leaders in civil rights and human rights would probably be upset with him.  And they'd probably be more upset with their Neo-conservative brethren for the inroads they'd allowed on the Bill of Rights and Posse Comitatus.

     I fear that if Mike believes this is hardball politics he has forgotten the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the politicking that Lindon Johnson did to get that passed, to mention only a single example.  If Mike has been listening to others on the subject, I fear they have misled him.

     And he still has not offered a definition of "Chicago Politics" that is anything other than a Republican campaign slogan.  Repeated frequently enough, the hope is that the words will acquire some sort of reality.  

     From my perspective, President Obama is something of a weak reed.  I wish he were as capable as Mike paints him; if he were, he might get more stuff done, and we'd have rolled back the Bush tax cuts and there wouldn't be the inroads made against collective bargaining rights, and we wouldn't be paying interest on the money we borrowed to pay for the Bush tax cuts in the first place.  Would we?
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


39 posted 07-17-2011 06:16 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
...and the democratic congress went two years, against the law, not producing a budget....but we've discussed that.


Is this on or off topic Mike?

  

If it's on topic I can explain why your statement is incorrect, I would point the discussion we had and show where your suggestion falls down - as I did during that particular discussion. Obviously if it's off topic I'll just ignore it.

  

Going back to the topic of Obama's statement and guaranteeing that the social security checks go out on Aug 3rd. I've taken a closer look at the cash flow data for August and the overall balance sheet and I think it would have made more sense if Obama had said that he could guarantee that the checks wouldn't go out on Aug 3rd. It makes total sense from a fiscal and political point of view and may actually stave off the possible damage to the US AAA credit rating if he defered them. In fact you could argue that not sending them at all would be preferable.

.

[This message has been edited by Uncas (07-17-2011 07:04 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


40 posted 07-17-2011 08:38 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BarackObama-Birthday-DebtCeiling/2011/07/16/id/403823?s=al
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


41 posted 07-17-2011 09:26 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

How about reigning in all the money going to the newly reformed, newly renamed Acorn? I guess he skirts the issue of illegality on that one since they have a new name? Not that he concerns himself with working within the confines of any law anyway. He doesn't think they apply to him. How about all the billions in foreign aid to countries that hate us? How about the billions being spent on an illegal war in Libya? How about reigning in all the extravagant vacations by the First Family? They've had more vacations in 2 years than most of us have had in a lifetime, and way more expensive too. Maybe the First Lady could pare down her 'assistants' from upwards of 20 to the historical norm of 3-5. Maybe the paychecks to Congress and the Administration should stop until there is a resolution on the debt limit and spending.

Threatening the withholding of SS and Medicaid checks and Troop pay has nothing to do with economics. It's purely political.

Congress has NOT had the 'full consent' of the American people on their runaway spending. They've stopped listening to us. A million and a half people gathered in D.C. on 9/12/09 to voice their opposition to the runaway spending and the plans for Obamacare. They mocked us, called us astro-turf and racists, and then ignored us and did what they wanted to do, as they are still doing. We no longer have a 'representative government'. We have political elitists who refuse to reign in an abusive, out-of-control, law breaking, Chicago-thug Chief Executive.

We the people are very familiar with living within the confines of our budgets, yes, even making sure the bills are paid and not only foregoing vacations, even day trips in the car, but also paring down on the food budget in order to make sure that the bills are paid. It's way past time for our government elitists to share in the sacrifice.  
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


42 posted 07-17-2011 09:39 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas

quote:
Threatening the withholding of SS and Medicaid checks and Troop pay has nothing to do with economics. It's purely political.


He didn't threaten to withhold anything Denise.

The rest of what you said would be 'off topic' by Mike's definition so I couldn't possibly comment. If you'd like to start a new thread though I'll be happy to point out all the flaws in your statements.


.

[This message has been edited by Uncas (07-17-2011 10:13 AM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


43 posted 07-17-2011 09:57 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yeah, he did threaten, Uncas, just by mentioning the possibility. If the checks don't go out, that is entirely HIS decision, as it isn't necessary to stop the checks.

Ted Nugent sums it all up well, I believe:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/you-have-the-right-to-remain-stupid/?page=all#pagebreak
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


44 posted 07-17-2011 10:44 AM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
If the checks don't go out, that is entirely HIS decision, as it isn't necessary to stop the checks.


According to the US treasury, Goldman Sachs and the Bipartisan policy Center total revenue due in on August 3rd is 11 billion - social security payments due to be sent out on the same day are 23 billion, by August 2nd the US national debt will already be at or above the limit.

How are you, or Ted, suggesting to pay the 12 billion shortfall without raising the debt limit and borrowing the difference?

There I go - off topic again Mike - sorry.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


45 posted 07-17-2011 03:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

For starters I'd put a halt to all the foreign aid that we send until we can afford it again. Take care of our own house first and then if there is any left over divy that up with the rest of the world. And stop wasting billions a day on an illegal war in Libya.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


46 posted 07-17-2011 04:24 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


I think you misunderstood Denise.

If you don't pay the couple of hundred million for the above items, the 1.4 billion defence vendor bill, the 1.8 billion for the department of education, the 500 million in federal salaries, the 2.2 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, the 1.4 billion for food/HUD/welfare and unemployment, the 100 million for veteran affairs, the 100million IRS refunds to businesses and the 1.3 billion in additional discretionary spending you are still 12 billion short of the amount required to pay social security due on Aug 3rd.

Where are you going to get the shortfall Denise?

.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


47 posted 07-17-2011 04:54 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


Good news Denise - I just found another 1 billion in revenue in maturing foreign bonds for the 3rd of August - so you're only 11 billion short of the amount needed to pay social security!



The bad news is that at the same time I also discovered that on the 4th Aug 93 billion in US bonds mature. Normally the US treasury would roll those over by issuing the equivalent amount in short or long term bonds. Unfortunately, that actually creates debt, which would be illegal with the current debt ceiling in place.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 07-17-2011 04:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Not sorry enough, I see.....ok, let's move along.

Some suggest "tax the rich to make up the deficit". As of the end of 2010, the total worth of all American billionaires is $1.3 Trillion. We could take ALL their worth, not just high taxes, but ALL their WORTH; and it wouldn't dent our national debt. It wouldn't even pay this year deficit! And if we did take their money to pay some of this year's deficit, what would we we do next year?
The debt, and Interest payments on the rising debt will be paid by our children and grandchildren through much higher taxes. Is that Child Abuse?

http://www.federalbudget.com/

So much for Obama trumpeting his "tax the rich" song, much less the corporate jets. We are seeing the "true" Obama legacy now...and so will our grandchildren.


13 July 2011: U. S. Treasury Department reports "Coffers Full Enough to Cover Entitlement Programs, Veterans, Federal Salaries, Interest - Without Borrowing a Dime"

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=11071300.txt
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


49 posted 07-17-2011 05:39 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Well, Mike, while the article you use in posting 40 is bad journalism, I fail to see how it defines "Chicago Politics."  Yes, the politician is not defined by the paper by party, as is generally considered polite and almost a requirement in journalism so we know who's making the accusation.  But almost any bad newspaper run by any partisan organization anywhere could do that.  Not even the slanderous sorts of things the man says are peculiar to Chicago.  

     The fact that the rag that reports this tripe doesn't allow for rebuttal doesn't define the article as "Chicago Politics" either.  It's merely disgustingly bad journalism that doesn't allow  anything but a particular politically slanted voice to appear in its pages.  That's not "Chicago Politics" either.  That's an old American political tactic that goes back at least as far as Thomas Jefferson.

     You may believe that making reference to the past is irrelevant or off base, by the way, as you've implied in previous postings.  I regard it as memory and history, and there are certain kinds of history I choose to remember because I would rather not relive them.  That's a paraphrase of and reference to Lord Acton:  Also history, and very much to the point.

     Nor does the subject of the article define "Chicago Politics."  It is a one-sided smear of a fund-raiser suggesting that everybody there would be spending huge amounts of money.  It also overlooks the Republican contribution to the current economic crisis, which I told you was coming well before President Obama was elected, or even ran for office because of the funding of the Iraq War and the Tax Cuts and the ways that we were paying for them.  

     You didn't believe me when I said the bill would come due, and that it would be larger the longer it was put off.

     That doesn't mean that President Obama is without fault;  though we may disagree about where his economic flaws lay, I think we have some level of agreement that they exist.

     It is difficult to say a man is guilty of a crime that doesn't exist, Mike; and your accusations about "Chicago Politics" cone remarkably close to that standard.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Chicago Politics   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors