Obama '08?

@okie,

okie wrote:

What have the Democrats offered in the way of serious compromise?

So...
Are you completely ignorant?
Or do you think a 4 Trillion offer isn't serious enough?

The party of NO is the democrat party.

They have said NO to establishing a budget for the last 800 days or so.

Obama's 'change' is NO good for America.

0 Replies

@parados,

You mean to say it's the first time okie made a misstatement? LOL From my observations, more than 90% (this is being generous) of okies posts are without foundation or evidence. He just spews what he learns from FOX News.

0 Replies

Guys, rather than give Okie a hard time, let's give him a chance to answer the question of what Republicans have done to EARN spending cut compromises from the Dems. What have they brought to the table?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Are you kidding? When has okie ever provided realistic options other than his own opinion that hasn't a chance in hell? Geezuz christ, man. What kind of reality do you live in?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Are you kidding? When has okie ever provided realistic options other than his own opinion that hasn't a chance in hell? Geezuz christ, man. What kind of reality do you live in?

The point isn't to make fun of Okie - there's not much sport in that - but to get him to realize the ridiculousness of his position, by asking him to explain in detail things that he tries to gloss over or leave unmentioned.

It is simply a different tactic of achieving the same end that you would like to achieve; less confrontational, but I have found it to be more productive.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

More productive? If you're successful, the next dinner is on me!

0 Replies

Isn't earn a word that most of us would associate with spending? Like "I earn so many dollars per month so I can spend so many dollars per month". If you want to spend, you have to either earn or borrow. Spending cuts are not earned: they are what you get if you don't earn.

3 Replies

@roger,

True, that! Spending cuts helps to reduce the deficit; it's not "earning" by any definition of that word.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Spending cuts are not earned: they are what you get if you don't earn.

Spending cuts are required when you want to save money and pay off debts with or without earning more revenue.

A debt paid off is additional money going directly to the bottom line without increasing revenues.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Yep. In strict income statement terms, lower spending has the same bottom line effect as higher revenues. Accounting doesn't consider the issue of whether government makes better use of money than citizens.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Yep. In strict income statement terms, lower spending has the same bottom line effect as higher revenues. Accounting doesn't consider the issue of whether government makes better use of money than citizens.

It's a real shame that the people can't or won't hold government employee's accountable
for how they perform at the job we elected them to do and how they manage our money.

0 Replies

re H2O:

We do, which is why Obama will be re-elected in 2012 and the Tea Party types in Congress are going to suffer catastrophic job loss numbers, not to mention Wisconsin Republicans in recall elections before then.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I do have to agree that in 2012, Obama will have a record to run on.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Spending cuts are not earned: they are what you get if you don't earn.

Something to consider also, To a Democrat, a spending cut is when the government is budgeted to spend less than what they wanted to spend, not less than what they have spent. For example, if they spent 100 billion last year on a program and want to spend 125 billion on that program in the next year, if Republicans propose a budget of 120 billion instead of the 125 billion that Democrats want, that is a draconian "spending cut" which will probably starve children and kill old people. Yes, even though 120 billion is a 20% increase in budget, in Democrat terms, it is a "draconian 5 billion dollar "cut." The Democrats and the Main Stream Media have tried to get us to unerstand this, but some of us conservatives are just too dumb to understand it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Hey, man:

Both parties have agreed that the limit has to be raised. So what, exactly, are the Dems supposed to be compromising with? What have the Republicans done that merits compromise? Tell me, specifically.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Guys, rather than give Okie a hard time, let's give him a chance to answer the question of what Republicans have done to EARN spending cut compromises from the Dems. What have they brought to the table?

Cycloptichorn

A more important question is What have Democrats earned in the way of deserving more spending? They have not even earned any respect in my opinion.

1 Reply

Let's look at the way the system REALLY works, okie. There's a really popular program that's doing a lot of good, which costs $100 billion a year. Democrats want to expand it so more people will get its benefits, and ask for $105 billion for next FY, barely keeping pace with inflation. Republicans demand its total funding be cut by 75% to $25 billion for next fiscal year.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, In the event you missed it, I'll repeat it here for my humour.

okie write,

Quote:

A more important question is What have Democrats earned in the way of deserving more spending? They have not even earned any respect in my opinion.

ROFLMAO

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Guys, rather than give Okie a hard time, let's give him a chance to answer the question of what Republicans have done to EARN spending cut compromises from the Dems. What have they brought to the table?

Cycloptichorn

A more important question is What have Democrats earned in the way of deserving more spending? They have not even earned any respect in my opinion.

BOTH PARTIES agree that the limit MUST be raised. ALL your leadership agrees that it must be raised.

So, why should the Dems have to pay a ransom of giant spending cuts, that they don't want, in order for your party to do what they've already agreed MUST be done? I'd like a specific answer from you on this one.

It's almost as if you don't realize, that this debt limit increase is to pay for the spending bill YOUR party just passed out of the House a few months ago - not next year's spending. It's to pay for things they've already authorized. You do realize this, yes?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know