Debt Ceiling Panic By Democrats – Why?

Debt Ceiling Panic By Democrats – Why?


the entire brought to you by carbonite online
backup so just let the democrats got their problems
will be one of and the republicans are running for that those
polarized claims that the bahcall they’re getting killed in the town halls of settlements
that are character of the democrats of the rest uh… story out today saying the democrats
parking recently where he could be held hostage the
debt ceiling by the held hostage pyramid what some political situation only an eighty democrat would think that they
were being held hostage don’t you have the upper hand should mocks like although it up below bogus and i won’t raise the debt ceiling
ok if they don’t use a look at the stoma mob pictures but they’re stupid plans and now they put their economy that tailspin because
they which wouldn’t raise it mexican is switches p of course you can raise the debt ceiling wall street in the chamber of commerce already
pulled their dogs in the republican party to raise the debt ceiling you think they’re
going to disagree with wall street have wall street journal an article about
it then disincentives for the republican helped set tab arafat you better raise that gets it doesn’t affect their business interests it
would affect their money no way the republicans had a vote against
that but the democrats began either in their infinite
stupidity or just the fact that they’re trying to throw
the game i have sent although they’re in effect at
all now what what’s gonna happen oh are we but what if they don’t know if that’s
what we have to give them something so one of the party again in well scalded
cats rather than house pass it uh… and its crew so rather ivan boesky reader
for yourself decide for yourself being reviewed but that’s
not very good report unit and you’ll see that ah… in david right many times before it at their house who wants a passive would
then put the senate in the top spot this article explains the center of course they’re doing exit polling
democrats and then there are all about it so only after
one thing we do so it’s a cap active cap act says that experts image of g_d_p_ in terms of are spending the government spending has to be capped at twenty point six that means that if you spend more than twenty
point six of the g_d_p_ in the budget they said okay that so you can spend any more
and they start cutting all programs including entitlements meaning social security medicare center it’s a hard cap is actually the most opponents spending-cut because there’s no negotiation there’s no
argument there’s no discussion of which programs to cut is just week okay and does it raise of revenue at all with the
democrats claim they’re fighting for can look at the revenue side increasing taxes for people making over two
hundred fifty thousand no it does not include revenue at all so instead disastrous time and out the democrats are or might not because
that means i don’t know why i was going to happen so we’re opposed to it but but when
the time so it’s running out and we’re getting close to the debt ceiling will probably have
to get another bubbles but they’re hopeless but it’s not if they do this nobody can be to see i mean come on if i tried really really hard to find people
that stupid in week at the local local look throughout the country
take me quite a long time if the democrats fold again and by the way uh… there were they president ceo you said that you bleed this would be a compromise but a
complete capitulation by democrats and our values so if they do it again now that said that they and their corporate you know robots just like the rest of them and the are the guys who are supposed to lose polarized if you don’t mind uh… primaries against every single one of
these democrats and written down from out of office crates dimensional you’re gonna have a computer disaster
your computer’s gonna crash and you know all your files public carbonite online backup
you don’t have to worry about any of that automatically saves your files offsite you
can access all of their back-up files from any computer remotely or if you want you can
also access your files your knife on a blackberry with carbonite often react carbonite cost us if t five dollars a year unlimited backup for your p_c_r_ back because
i have not been five dollars a month get a free trial at carbonite dot com by using
the promo code c_ y_ t_ annual also get two months free if you decide to buy

100 thoughts on “Debt Ceiling Panic By Democrats – Why?

  1. @genie0390 Then why weren't the bitching when Bush was spending trillions on wars? Was it because the republicans worked SO hard to terrify people and then provide themselves as the only solution? Rag on democrats all you want, but your side is no better.

  2. @donthaveanameleft the problem is we are expecting an implementation of his ideals exactly as he has described, but in the world of politics and in a place with so many confounding variables such as society this level of trust can have profound implications. his libertarian ideas are already a bit predisposed to the abuse of business in a government with so many outside interest. his support for school prayer and to repeal roe vs wade might be ideologically coherent when (cont)

  3. @donthaveanameleft Argued but I fear that their implementation in a country with so many uneducated people who organize politically and have an influence on their communities will cause a unintended exploitation of an ideology that on paper is sound. Similar to socialism, it sounds good and can maybe be work under a very educated and politically active body but in reality it fails when implemented in the chaos of a massive group of people that range in their ideological extremism,(cont)

  4. @donthaveanameleft ability to reason, and political activity. I hope that I may have made my concern clear since I did make this in a short amount of time lol but my main point is I would rather have someone ideologically balanced who would support many good ideas but does not want to institute a libertarian paradise. I think having someone who paints themselves as balanced has to justify at all times and be accountable for the balance he proposes, there has to be someone like this (cont)

  5. @donthaveanameleft if not , we can certainly work towards such a goal. libertarian ideas seems reasonable but I remain deeply concerned o their realization in the chaos of human psychology and of the american public.

  6. @ILikeTheThingsIDo

    actually guy, Obowma racked up more debt in 2 short yrs than bush did in 8, and he's now proposing 1.6 trillion deficits for yrs to come.

    certainly in the last number of decades the Dems spent far more on wars than Bush could even imagine

    as far as sides go, i agree that the GOP is gutless too, they're "Dem lite"

  7. Democrats are going for the same goals as Republicans – a 2 class system, the super rich against the rest of us. It's a single party system with 2 faces. The Dems use the Repugs as cover for them; GOP wild dogs guarding the Democrat backstage rape of our economy.

  8. Democrats are not idiots, they are playing the game. They are all payed by the same guys as Republicans, they are playing Good Cop Bad Cop. In the end both Republicans and Democrats win the game and we the ppl ofc lose.

  9. @UncontestedTruth

    "..what the hell is up with all these new names? are people too stupid to spell "Obama" properly? So very idiotic"

    I'm clearly innocent w/r to all these names, really!

    Obowma's real name is Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Dunham, aka Barack Obama, aka Barack Hussein Obama

    it appears that only Jesus Christ has more missing years out of his biography, Sadly the lame stream liberal media never properly vetted this guy, never got into his Muslim schooling in Indonesia

  10. Are people still voting for Democrats & Republicans? Haven't we learned our lesson yet that the "two" party system is just an illusion and they're both eventually going to fall down the same line of corruption?

  11. Cenk is wasting his time, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE SAME CORRUPT BEAST. People need to wake up to this 'democracy' illusion.

  12. @PlanetEarthAwakens01 Yes, because your explanation is nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory.

    A pro-tip. Don't mention the bilderberg, trilateral or CFR anymore.

  13. i have seen many ceilings in my life but never movable ones maybe the US economy is built like dallas cowboy stadium. oh wait the super bowl was a disaster.

  14. f*ck the debt ceiling the repugnicans and the dems led by an alien.. who gives a shit.. the USA is doomed to fail and hopefully they get defeated in all their phoney wars.. what a pack of self righteous blowhards.. congress is useless led by an alien from africa and who wants to get to the truth.. i can't wait for the next chapter.

  15. I'm sure the corporatist Republicans would love to raise the debt ceiling but the Tea Party wing (including most of the 87 freshmen) are willing to tell Wall St. to go to hell. Failure to raise the debt ceiling will not result in default – this is a lie being peddled. The interest on the debt could be paid w/ whatever the IRS collects. Failure to raise the ceiling would only mean that the govt couldn't spend more than it raises.

    I hope the debt ceiling is not raised under any circumstance

  16. Remember Dems. Claire McCaskill is responsible for this most heinous of proposals and she is supposed to to a Dem. She is worse for Dems. than John Boehner is for Tea Party people. I think she needs a primary.

  17. One thing is clear from the vlog and that is the fact that wall street, the chambers of commerce, big business, the Obama administration and establishment republicans are in support of raising the debt "limit". This and may other reasons is why am against raising it, its called a limit for a reason. Senator Obama was right

  18. @DillonDee1 Im in sweden and we are going good btw. Economy is hot and inflation low. Medicare for all baby.

  19. hahaha my hardrive just made a terrible noise while I was watching the carbonite ad…that made it pretty convincing

  20. @UncontestedTruth

    Barry Soetoro was registered in school in Indonesia as a Muslim, matter of record, and studied the Qur'an for 3 yrs, in addition to the crap his stepfather pumped into him at home!

    I'll give you a couple "tenets" of Islam he follows

    first, he is not a christian despite what he claims. Second, Muslims are allowed to lie to protect Islam whenever required. Obowma lies all the time! islam is a system of governing society akin to socialism, explains his far-left leanings

  21. How many times have we been frightened by guys like Cenk Uygur into making a decision over the past 10 years? Raising the debt ceiling is up there with Saddam's WMDs and the 2008 bailout of banks to avoid a Depression. Time to make a stand for our freedom!

  22. @UncontestedTruth

    when he was registered to school his religion was indicated to be Muslim

    "But SO FUCKING WHAT IF HE IS MUSLIM? What difference does it make?"

    what difference would it have made if FDR was a nazi during WWII? China often elects capitalists as Secretaries of the Commie Party. DAs can be criminals as long as they can do the job

    you gotta be up the proverbial tree! Americans have every right to know everything about who is running the country, and we don't

  23. @UncontestedTruth

    "And THIS ISNT CHINA."

    but the analogy holds,..people have every right to elect leaders who represent their values and beliefs system because it affects the way they govern. If Obowma is a Muslim and is hiding this as I believe he is, this is a fraud on the American people! Islam does not even remotely represent American values

  24. @Ghost0630 Our only options are to default, borrow, or inflate our way out of this. There is no easy answer, but defaulting is by far the best of our available options.
    Reputable economists who would not support raising the debt ceiling:
    Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, and Lawrence Reed just to name a few.

  25. Cenk, they need to require an IQ test at MSNBC so idiots like you can't get on there like mold. This is why liberals lose this debate. Here we have the national debt growing faster than viewers turn off MSNBC and idiots like you can only talk about this in the form of politics. Listen to yourself! For real people out here we see this as a looming crises and anyone showing a concern about this will get our attention. But liberals who only want to spend more will soon get fired! Get it?

  26. U know what is stupid Cenk? If someone ever hired u as their political advisor lol. U have no idea what u are talking about.

  27. @bRizzle2009100 And you with your 21 years of life experiance know what you are talking about? Finish your school first and come back here to comment.

  28. @aSingleDallasGuy Do you know where your country spends too much? Cenk has many times said that you spend money too much for wars, military and tax cuts for rich people and subsidies for big (oil) companies. There is your real problem and it doesn´t help if you cut some poor peoples social security.

  29. @Ghost0630 None of them have a deep background in economics? I have to admit I'm a little confused. What exactly do you consider that to mean?
    Lawrence Reed: President of the Foundation For Economic Education–You couldn't hold such a position without serious economic understanding. And if you actually read his work, he absolutely has that.
    Tom Woods: Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and a best selling economic (and historical) author. And he teaches courses on the subject.
    Continue below

  30. @Ghost0630Peter Schiff: The man was raised eating, sleeping, and breathing economics (think about who his father was). He's also a well known author of popular economic texts and has been the president of his investment company for years.
    So when you say they don't have a background in economics, is that actually what you mean, or do you not accept them simply because the Paul Krugman's of the world disagree with them?
    Continue below

  31. @Ghost0630 I would encourage you to read Woods' "Rollback" and check out Schiff's radio show or youtube channel for more "nuts and bolts" economic explanations since that seems to be what you are looking for. But seriously, please explain why their "background" isn't satisfactory.

  32. @IQR77 Yes, actually I do. I am well schooled in economics, business related issues, political science, and history. If you recall, the Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling back in '95, did the economy go into a "tailspin"? No it didn't. The U.S. Treasury was still able to pay its bills and everything was fine. And let me ask u something, how would u bring down the debt? If we're not going to reform entitlements and make cuts to everything, how exactly would u do it? I cant wait to here this.

  33. @bRizzle2009100 1. Cut military spending 2. Tax rich more 3. End subsidies to companies which don´t need them (oil and wall street) 4. Don´t vote any republican or corrupt democrat.

  34. @IQR77 I agree with points 1,3, and 4.We're spending over $500 billion per year to fund the pentagon. I would cut that by 20-25%. We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan both of them are lost causes. Corporate welfare needs to go as well. But what about entitlements? Entitlements are about 45% of the budget. Medicare, Medicaid, & Social Security have over $113 trillion in unfunded liabilities. U cant talk about cuts without talking about entitlements bc they're the biggest driver of our debt.

  35. … oh and i wouldn't vote for any corrupt politician whether its GOP or Democrat. I don't believe all GOP are bad and I don't believe all Dems are bad. I am a conservative person but I don't affiliate myself with either party.

  36. @Ghost0630 You, of course, have every right to establish your own standards for who you will take economic "advice" from. But in my experience, some of the most idiotic individuals I have ever known, read, or heard have had a PhD. A classroom is not the only place in which one can learn and having a PhD doesn't make someone right.

  37. @Ghost0630 Consider this: If you limit your sources to the relative few who have gone through the motions, sat in classroom after classroom, written paper after paper, all in order to receive their coveted piece of paper (degree), and did all of this within the "approved" system and studied the "approved" materials, why would anyone expect them to have any seriously differing opinions on such a topic? They would all be the same.

  38. @Ghost0630 Any substantial disagreement would surely have had to have come from learning/experience outside of the cookie cutter education offered in college economic programs. New schools of thought are born from such disagreements. Unfortunately, it takes time for these heterodoxies to catch on enough for it to even be possible to receive an education culminating in a Phd in this new line of thought, even though it may, in fact, be more correct than preceding schools.

  39. @Ghost0630 State differently: the majority of those with Phd's in economics who's opinions are shared with the mainstream, are all students of Keynesianism because that is what is taught in most schools. But surely you realize there is much more out there than Keynesianism.

  40. @bRizzle2009100 Pentagon spend your money over $700 billion (in 2010). "Your enemies" like China spend around $90 billion and Russia $60 billion. You should cut it over 80% because that money is totally wasted. Also your tax burden (per GDP) is lowest among advanced economic countries so you have to tax those rich more (you need more tax revenue) . Entitlements are a problem, I agree but I would first go to Pentagon&rich peoples pocket and after that turn my attention to poor&old (if needed).

  41. @IQR77 We do need to cut defense spending, but in order to adequately protect us from foreign threats we need to fund the defense dept by the historical average of 2.5% of GDP. Right now its at 3.5% of GDP which is too much. With regards to tax revenue, idk what u define as rich so I will assume the top 5%. As of 2007, the top 5% pay 60% of the burden. The bottom 50% pay less than 3%. The burden of the top 5% has been increasing since 2001 and the burden for the bottom 50% has been decreasing.

  42. @IQR77 (2) My point is this, the "rich" already pay nearly 2/3 of the burden. How much should they pay? 75%? 90%? 100%? According to IRS data, under the Bush tax rates, the top 5% has been paying more in taxes than under Clinton when tax rates were higher. In 1999, they payed 55%, in 2007, 60%. The poor's tax burden also increased under Clinton and the decreased under Bush. In 1999, it was 4%, in 2007, it was 2.8%. So if that is true, why raise taxes on the "rich"?

  43. @uche007us Problem is that you have to raise it. If you like your country you will raise it. If you like economic collapse, you won't.

  44. @tommysch That's interesting. Most left of center ppl would just raise taxes on the rich. However, being that we are in a fragile and delicate economy right now, I don't think raising taxes would be a smart idea. Having said that, say we weren't in a fragile situation and we were in an expansion. U still wouldn't have enough revenue to pay for a $3.5 trillion budget. Revenues were at all-time highs during the Bush era and the highest we ever had was in 2006, $2.4 trillion.

  45. @zebbedi Go to the IRS' historical revenue data. It's on their website. The top 1% pay nearly 40% of the tax burden, top 5% pays nearly 60%, top 10% pays over 70%. The bottom 90% pays less than 30% of the burden, the bottom 50% pays less than 3%. U can go to any website like the Taxpayers Union or Tax Foundation and they have easy to read charts with this information as well. And I don't appreciate u telling me to shut the hell up.

  46. @bRizzle2009100 I don't like it when people manipulate facts. As an accountant and an investor I find this kind of rhetorical argument abhorrent . You didn't give any specific links. The richest people will contribute more of the gross tax revenue because they earn an increasingly exponential amount of the national wealth. This is the purpose of a progressive tax system. In the United States however this is being abused and the rich aren't paying their tax responsibility.

  47. @bRizzle2009100 I will refer to my idol and one of the richest people on the planet to explain the rest…

    watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

  48. @zebbedi How am I manipulation facts? If the top 1%, 5%, and 10% doesn't pay 38%, 58%, and 72% of the burden then how much do they pay?

  49. why can't any liberals make the correct argument for why progressive taxation of the wealthier is a matter of responsibility? it's because in our economy private wealth is possible with access to public markets and infrastructure. corporation operations use roads, air traffic, law enforcement, fire protection, environmental protection and other things that are publicly funded, and use it more so than say a janitor. and that's fine, just pay your share instead of dodging it when you profit more.

  50. also, why can't liberals make the correct argument for why revenue is needed to combat debt and avert default? when you apply for a loan and someone reviews your credit, are they more interested in how much of your food and water budget you are going to cut or how much income you make and how good you are about paying your creditors? when we refuse to collect taxes, we are telling the creditor we would rather deprive to try to pay you back instead of collecting dues and actually paying you back

  51. @IQR77 Obama can stop starting more humanitartian wars, end the drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen while he thinks of ways to end the other 2 wars. I am not sure how I feel about tax cuts for oil companies but one thing I know is, if the oil companies are getting it, we all should get some too hence the Bush/Obama tax cuts. And just like Ron Paul suggests, only when these measures cannot solve our debt problem should SS and medicare be touched.

  52. @bRizzle2009100 The manipulation was presenting the tax burden figures without presenting the fact that the so called 'burden' is a lot less of a burden to those top brackets. That's why percentage of income figures are used and after aggregating income tax and capital gains these higher brackets pay a lower percentage rate than the lower brackets. By looking at gross tax income for the brackets you have missed the fundamental point of tax law.

  53. @zebbedi U responded to me and I think u misunderstood my point. My point was that the "rich" pay most of the tax burden now while the middle class & poor pay almost nothing. He didn't ID what "rich" was so I used the top 5% so that is what I used. The top 5% already pay nearly 2/3 of the entire tax burden. The bottom 50% pay less than 3%. So how much should they pay? 75%? 90%? 100%? If the "rich" are paying nearly 2/3 of the burden and the "poor" are paying less than 3%,

  54. @bRizzle2009100

    Stop listening to the propaganda. These tax fiqures are completely out of context as Bush also took on large amounts or public debt especially in comparison with Clinton. If you divide the debt incurred by the population and add it to the tax fiqures you will find that the bottome 50% were incurring the majority of the budget costs. Even more so with Obama. Also take into cosideration how much of the bailout the top 5% recieved. Then subtract that from what they paid.

  55. @bRizzle2009100
    Funding Defense based on GDP is stupid. GDP fails to take into consideration public debt incured due to an unbalanced budget. This stimulus temporarily increases conumption which increases GDP. One of the ways GDP can be calculated is based on expenditures. If you going to base it on anything it should be tax revenues. In 2010 Defense spending was roughly 35% of tax revenues. Social security 32%, Medicare 20%, Medicaid 13%, Interest on debt 7%. Oh look 107% already.

  56. @jestoninnes I wasn't saying that we should fund defense or any budget item by comparing it to GDP. I was simply making a point that defense needs to go back to its historic averages. If we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, that would cut close to half of defense spending, then cut it again by another 20%, then we would be spending around $370 billion. Thats how much we were spending on defense before 9/11. By your math, thats about 17% of tax revenue, reduced it by approx. half.

  57. @bRizzle2009100

    I apologize I often find that the media uses GDP as the sole measure of economic well being. Much as an investor looks at multiple financial measure we should look at multiple economic measures to successfully measure the economic well being of a nation.

    Your suggestion is a good start but historically, from 1940 to 1991, the annual deficit shows almost perfect correlation with spending on national defense. This should come as no surprise as the first methods of issuing…..

  58. @ScamallDorcha sometimes I think we need a revolution but the more I think about it, the more it scares me. My guess is the big government factions of repubs and dems would team up together to kill out the limited govt segment of their party. This country is too divided to have a revolution, we still see each other as tthe enemy.

  59. @jestoninnes Defense spending is just under 25% of the federal budget. A larger portion of that, and an even bigger driver of the debt is entitlements. Entitlements account for nearly 50% of the budget. The big 3 have over $113 trillion unfunded liabilities. We need to reform those programs. We need to raise the retirement age for Social Security recipients. I like Paul Ryan's block program for Medicaid. No one has come up with a program for Medicare tho. That is the worse of the big 3.

  60. @jestoninnes Defense spending is just under 25% of the federal budget. A larger portion of that, and an even bigger driver of the debt is entitlements. Entitlements account for nearly 50% of the budget. The big 3 have over $113 trillion unfunded liabilities. We need to reform those programs. We need to raise the retirement age for Social Security recipients. I like Paul Ryan's block program for Medicaid. No one has come up with a program for Medicare tho. That is the worse of the big 3.

  61. @jestoninnes Defense spending is just under 25% of the federal budget. A larger portion of that, and an even bigger driver of the debt is entitlements. Entitlements account for nearly 50% of the budget. The big 3 have over $113 trillion unfunded liabilities. We need to reform those programs. We need to raise the retirement age for Social Security recipients. I like Paul Ryan's block program for Medicaid. No one has come up with a program for Medicare tho. That is the worse of the big 3.

  62. @uche007us If you make peaceful revolution impossible you will make violent revolution inevitable – JFK as fucked up as the us politics are now i still think it can change without a revolution for the reasons that you listed and because the US military is too strong, it would just be a blood bath and i don't want that, the only way to avoid that would be with a coup but that is unlikely.

  63. Listen to what Cenk is talking about. That's why the Democrats loss in 2010 election. The moment they won in 2006, they should've stood up for the rule of law against Bush… but they didn't. They should've passed more progressive legislaiton to boost Obama's recovery efforts… but they didn't. They should've solved the 2011 budget before the election, but they didn't. Now they are still trying to sing Kum-bya with the Republicans. Why do I even bother being one of them?

  64. Dammit Cenk, you convinced me a while back that they can't be that bad, they are in it to loose it, stop thinking they won't.

    I mean the democrats really are the republicans best friend… Everytime the GOP is in a bad position, looking like they're going to get steamrolled, the democrats pick them up, dust 'em off, and lie in their place.

    We need a 3rd party, cuz the primary-route is looking way too inefficient. Besides, if the dems needed votes from a 3rd party, that'd be harder bargaining.

  65. @IQR77 … I got news for you bub. tax cuts are free! yes, they are. They do not cost anything to get your own money back. BTW, the Bush extension is not a tax cut, it's keeing it the same since 2001. keeping taxes the same is not a tax cut no matter how libers do math. Who is cutting anyone social security? Oh I see, cry wolf like liberals always do. Pretend there will be dead people laying in the streets if you cut a nickel from anyttting! LOL Your socialism will never happen, ge over it!

  66. @aSingleDallasGuy Tax cuts are free.Cutting taxes means reducing revenues, means reducing government services. Cut what? Police, schools, libraries, emergency services, garbage collection, parks, museums, repair of bridges, pot holes, sewers, water filtration, electric grid, defense, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, what? So your house catches fire, too bad. We cut the fire department. You see cutting taxes doesn’t cost us anything, Why are Liberals so stupid to think it does?

  67. @Jack194343 …. yeah police, schools, fireman. If you listen to a liberal that's all the govt funds. No, we cut anything and everthing that is not needed. Hand me a list for any city with where each dime govt spends and I will cut the bejesus out of it and they will not be in the red any longer. You can't just say general pot holes, etc… You have no idea of all the waste in govt. In fact you assume there is none and more money needs to be spent. Wake up. All of us must deal wth a budget!

  68. For GOP the budget is a slight of hand to distract you from reality. Look what they are doing in the states. Florida, they cut a billion from education. Not one penny of that savings went into the deficit. It all went to tax cuts for the rich. Wisc, they eliminated contract standards freeing them to sell without regard to state cost. In Mich they are dissolving local elected gov to install dictators. GOP only serves the big bucks. I doubt you are one of them. Wake up, the dictatorship is coming.

  69. "When I was 15 years old, I got my first job. I had a paper route. It was great because I earned almost $1000 per year. Since then though, my expenses have gone up; since I have several children, a car payment, a house payment and a wife. So the paper route just doesn't cover that cost anymore.

    But I have a secret weapon for maintaining a standard-of-living; I just keep increasing the debt limit on my credit card.. that's how Washington does it.. right?

    angrydude net"

  70. Today,
    I agree a bit with Cenk.
    Democrats are indeed "idiots and schmucks"
    But wait. Sen Obama said in 16 March 2006 before the Congress, that,
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americans debt limit is a sign of leadership failure, (and), I therefore intend to oppose the effort".
    Oops.

  71. "The democrats have the republicans just where they want them"? You people are proof of the braindead amongst the status quo. The country is collapsing and you're still toting that party line, Breznev.

  72. republican thinking: yeah, lets cut social security, medicare, education, EPA, and whatever screws the middle class and the rest of the 99% of the country…but OH GOD NO, we can't ask the top 1% to make any kind of sacrifice

  73. senator obama was right.the fact that we are debating raising the debt ceiling is a sign of failed leadership in washington.

  74. @falcoperegrinus82 YEAH ! let's tax those evil Corporations ! ok – economics 101 for liberals.
    If you triple the tax on every Sears lawnmower sold – who is going to pay the tax – SEARS?! – No ! The people who buy Sers lawnmowers are going to pay the tax! Increasing taxes on business is increasing tax on YOURSELF.
    Corporations are tax COLLECTORS – not tax PAYERS.

  75. The Democrats could have settled this last year, but they wanted to screw the country, and blame the republicans, so they waited till now.

  76. @MetalDetroit Um … No, Econ 102, price competition remains. Profit and dividends are the first place money is drawn from. You tax a percentage of profit only then there is no impact on cost of production. This also encourages companies to divert profits into growth. Raising marginal taxes has an even stronger effect.

  77. "Obama had no plan and his position shifted by the hour. First, he wanted a clean debt limit increase with no budgetary attachments. Then, he would settle for cuts, but only minor ones. Then, he signed on for major cuts as long as there were tax increases to go with them. Finally, he abandoned it all and asked only that the deal last until after the election, so he would not have to go through this process again." –Dick Morris, Aug. 3, 2011

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *