Why doesn't what applies to the 'goose' apply to the 'gander' as well?

1. 59

   tobey100posted 13 years ago

   In then Senator Obama's own words, March 2006, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the United States government cannot pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance in foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means, 'The buck stops here.'  Instead Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today to the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and failure of leadership.  Americans deserve better"
   
   If Obama's rant applied to then President Bush why doesn't it apply to The One as well?  Borrowing foreign funds to finance our reckless policies?  Can you say China?  "The buck stops here?"
   
   The mantra that our current financial mess is Bush's fault, that things were much worse than Obama thought doesn't work anymore.  Not by any standard or measure.  The current mess is nestled firmly on the lap of the current President.
   
   In March of 2006, for once, Obama spoke the truth.  The same is true today!

   replyreport
   1. 90

      livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      In March 2006, we were in an economic boom. You don't drastically expand government during an economic boom, when government will compete with industry for jobs and resources. During economic booms, that's the time for government cost-cutting. The Republicans had no interest in cutting costs or trimming government, especially during a time when it was advantageous for our country to do so.
      
      In 2011, we are still in the thick of a recession, where resources are at a surplus, including the workforce. Industry is slow, and unable to employ all employable workers. Government has to step in until the business cycle restores the private sector.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That's a correct analysis as far as it goes, but it can't go on like that forever. Each time you increase the debt, you increase the proportion of total revenue that has to be siphoned off just to service the debt interest.
         A system based on debt interest is inherently unstable. Tinkering with it might buy another few months or years, but it's only putting off the final meltdown.
         (BTW, I'm not arguing against the short term need to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default. I'm just saying that at best it's a fudge. The real imperative is to reform the money system completely).

         replyreport
         1. 90

            livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What's the incentive to lend if there isn't interest? Everyone who's ever borrowed has decided $1 today is worth more to them than $1.10 next year (or whatever), and everyone who's lended has decided the converse of that, given the risks of possible late or non-repayment.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That's why lending (and money printing) should be the sole preserve of a nationalised central bank, not a for-profit venture at all.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  livelongerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Who would make the decisions about who would get the money?
                  
                  The process of lending is far too complex and far-reaching for it to remain the domain of the government. I'm pretty far left, but I would never support such a thing.

                  replyreport
      2. 58

         logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         How many of the electorate encouraged them to do anything?  No one.  Everyone was living in LALA land thinking it would last forever.
         We have to do things that may hurt a little now so that we don't have to do things that will hurt a lot later.  It's like fighting a forest fire with a back fire.  Trouble is no one has the stomach for any sacrifice.  No noble people left, just ingrates and parasites.  At least that is the way it seems.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            When people have already lost their incomes, their, pensions, their homes, it's a bit tough to tell them to start wanting to sacrifice something. They've already done it.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               logic,commonsenseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               They should have had a better plan then shouldn't they?
               They didn't want to sacrifice when things were rosy, so now that times are tough, they are forced to.
               My point is, it may seem tough now, but if we do not get the deficit under control, these will seem like the good ol' days.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  And my point is that of you overcut government spending while simultaneously paying off debt interest, you soon end up with no money in circulation. Nobody seems to be addressing the real problem which is allowing private banks to issue money at interest.

                  replyreport
               2. 70

                  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The Democrats and Obama had a better plan, a balanced approach which included closing a trillion $ in tax loopholes and increasing tax revenues by allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire. Unfortunately, the TeaTards in the House of Representatives blocked this rational approach which was recommended by the Debt Commission and the Gang of Six which included responsible, grown-up Republicans and Democrats. The compromise finally reached accomplished little more than postponing the inevitable day of reckoning.

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     One of those "gang" members is my guy, Saxby!
                     
                     Ralph, you're too intelligent to use the term "Tea Tards." The POTUS asked us to tone down the rhetoric. Remember? BTW, where is Lovemychris??

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Habee, I invented the term Tea Tards, so far as I know. I think it describes many if not the majority of the Tea Partiers.

                        replyreport
   2. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.
      
      "The mantra that our current financial mess is Bush's fault, that things were much worse than Obama thought doesn't work anymore.  Not by any standard or measure.  The current mess is nestled firmly on the lap of the current President."
      
      WRONG! Most of the debt is attributable to Bush's tax cuts for the rich, Bush's unfunded Medicare drug plan which prohibited Medicare from negotiating prices with the big drug companies and two unnecessary, foolish land wars. Further, Bush's (and his predecessor's including Clinton)failure to regulate the banking and mortgage industry led to a deep recession which sharply reduced federal, state and local tax revenues. In other words Bush left a bucket of sxxt for Obama to dispose of. Finally, McConnell and other Republicans did everything they could to block effective proposals to end the recession.

      replyreport
2. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   This has puzzled me, too. And if the TEA Party members are terrorists for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling, is/was Obama a terrorist for actually voting against raising it????

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The Tea Party people are terrorists, not because they are worried about the debt ceiling, but rather because they are using the issue for leverage on issues that they are unable to achieve through democratic processes--destroying Medicare and Social Security and slashing expenditures by government agencies they feel are unnecessary, undermining collective bargaining, etc.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, I don't agree with the TEA Party, and I'm a big believer in compromise. I don't like what they're doing to the moderate Republicans. Calling them "terrorists," however, is uncalled for. I thought only the far right used such rhetoric? Like them or not, the TEA Party members of Congress were elected by our legal process and should not be referred to as "terrorists." Heck, some of the people who are using the term won't even apply the term to real terrorists!

         replyreport
3. 64

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   I'm confused...
   
   If there is a goose in Obama's lap, is it the same one that was in the Bush?
   
   ...and is it related to the chicken that Clinton oft' chocked in the Oval Office??

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think that poor old goose has been passed around a lot! lol

      replyreport
4. 60

   Wizard Of Whimsyposted 13 years ago

   Come out of the closet you Socialists . . .
   
   New Rules!

   replyreport