A question for the Obama apologists

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Should talk to Sen. Cruz about his doomsday mission then.

"Doomsday mission"? Are you reneging on your devotion to "perspectives"? Cruz has a broader perspective than "Republican after Republican" who want to end the budget impasse. What budget? The continuing resolution is a means to AVOID a budget. Raising the debt ceiling is a means to spend, again, even more money than the government has.

And Obamacare does the same. And it is not popular or desired by a majority of citizens.

Anonymous quotes to the contrary, the mess republicans are in is the mess that everybody is in, and that mess includes obamacare, which Republicans didn't vote for. It is not Republicans who have not passed budgets, it is not Republicans who passed Obamacare, but it is Republicans who have also contributed to the debt and also maintained business as usual for the Federal Gvt.

Who cares if they believe they'll get blamed for it all. Most people, including me, don't give a rat's behind if they do. What tea partiers and constitutionalists care about is getting rid of debt, getting rid of oppressive tyrannical mandates (including Obamacare), restoring principled constitutional gvt. and making this, again, a country of free, responsible people, not a populace who must depend on government bureaucracy to sustain their lives.

Cruz's broader "perspective" includes all of that. I have heard him speak on talk shows and he says a lot more than is represented in the article you cite. And the perspective from which he speaks is not a "doomsday mission," but a restoration to sanity and a brighter, once again flourishing nation of individuals who can innovate and produce far more than herds and groups who are all prodded into one way by centralized regulations.

This is pretty telling...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...753.html?hp=l7

I'm surprised actually. Ted Cruz is a really smart guy, too bad he can't see past his own arrogance.

-spence

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

As for Obamacare and should it be repealed, read from the same issue of Politico that you cite this article by one of the progressive's favorite billionaires, Warren Buffet: http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/o...e=t-oc-buffett

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is that "arrogance" that allows him to see past the insular fear of timid Republicans who care for their image more than fighting for what is right. And it is that "arrogance" that gives him the courage not to care what Spence, or politico, or timid Republicans wish to brand him with snotty and irrelevant comments.

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

[buckman]

[QUOTE=spence;1016210]I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence[/
Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Your comical Spence, everything you said about Cruz is verbatim the way Obama behaves. It is the reason we have a poorly thought out "Obama Care" law . And the reason He, the Congress and the Senate want out of it.
And for Christ sake , Buffet makes his billions projecting into the future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And before we turn this page, the answer is ??????????????

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence,

Just curious, straight up question, on a score of 1-10 where do you rate this President?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I don't think I saw an answer on this..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Spence, I don't think I saw an answer on this..............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He probably can't think of a score high enough...

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I love it, the old Congressional Exemption misinformation train...

-spence

I should have said " subsidized "
And where do you come up with the statement that most Americans don't want Obamacare defunded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I should have said " subsidized "
And where do you come up with the statement that most Americans don't want Obamacare defunded?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There were laws passed, specifically, to ensure that Congress the Senate staffers and the president are taking care of them protected. If not , then why pass those amendments .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Congress has the same employer contribution they had before. This is made up outrage to stir the pot...

As for public opinion. People are certainly confused about the HCB but polls I've seen just last week indicated they certainly don't think it should be defunded and most appear to like key changes for pre existing conditions etc...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, please show us which polls you've seen that indicated most of the public doesn't want it defunded. You always ask for proof if someone posts something you don't agree with. It should be expected of you as well.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I watched the guy on MTP Sunday, he's all about Ted. His courage is driven by ego, his arrogance blinds him to the consequences of politics by anarchy.

Your drive-by opinion needs some proof or evidence other than your "perception."

Is ego not a portion of courage? Most of the "great" men of history would be perceived as being driven by ego. Are you implying that ego is bad? Perhaps you perceive that your opinions or actions are devoid of ego. Perhaps your own arrogance blinds you to those perceptions and opinions of others as if what you propose without some proofs is obviously true. That is ego and arrogance of a high order.

And "political anarchy"? What we have now is an anarchy. Our government does not operate by consistent principles, and it has abandoned the constitutional structure which provided those principles. A structure which provided the rule of law rather than rule by men. Rule by men rather than law is anarchy. What Cruz is attempting is a restoration of principles that promote individual freedom and the rule of law, not anarchy. See this article by Thomas Sowell: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

A majority doesn't want the HCB de-funded by the way. Cruz's behavior isn't in any way backed by public opinion.

Public opinion can be a useful guide in deciding legislation, but only if it is informed by principle and truth, not misguided by spin and lies. Cruz's behavior is backed by principal and constitutional order. If that makes him an attractive candidate for President, I say hooray!

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

Yes, by definition, it gives you more to spend. And the U.S. Gvt. takes in monthly enough to pay current bills. But the constant expansion of government has constantly required more money. And the need to abandon budgets and the borrowing of more money. And the debt that has been accrued by constantly borrowing has become impossible to pay unless the borrowing stops.

And your perception of Tea Party "threats" are perceived by them as means to fiscal and legislative sanity. If sanity is a threat, so be it. Wasn't the so-called government "shutdown" a threat to avoid any compromise?

As for Warren Buffet. Did you seriously mean to reference an article quoting him from nearly 3-1/2 years ago? It looks like Money Morning doesn't have a lot of editorial oversight.

-spence

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting that those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I know that you "perceive" things of long ago as not relevant to today, but 3-1/2 years ago? Has so much changed? And, if anything, what Buffet said seems more likely now than when he said it. I found it very interesting those who will benefit the most are the greedy investors from whom Obama wants wealth redistributed to the rest of us.

Looks like the quote was even taken out of context...ha, seems like everything is these days.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/war...-on-obamacare/

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Looks like the quote was even taken out of context...ha, seems like everything is these days.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/war...-on-obamacare/

-spence

Interesting. Yes, taking out of context has been around for a long time. By all "sides."

But, according to factcheck, Buffet actually did say "unfortunately, we came up with a bill that really doesn't attack the cost situation that much. [Actually, various predictions now say that it does--costs will substantially rise.] And he actually did say in a response to a question if he was in favor of scrapping this and going back to start over, "I would be if I were President Obama."

Though he preferred it to the status quo, he also said "I would rather see a plan C that really attacks cost . . . The American Public is not behind this bill." He seems to support the bill as "a step in the right direction" but not an answer to health care costs. So a compromise on it to "improve" it is another way of saying come up with something different. Which is not so different than what Republicans, or even Cruz, are saying.

Of course as an economic statist who has benefited tremendously by manipulating investments through government regulations, and who may find ways to gain more wealth through investments available because of Obamacare, he wouldn't be totally against it. Just a personal thought for which I have no proof--perhaps arrogance and ego on my part.

How about answering the rest of my post.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Of course as an economic statist who has benefited tremendously by manipulating investments through government regulations, and who may find ways to gain more wealth through investments available because of Obamacare, he wouldn't be totally against it. Just a personal thought for which I have no proof--perhaps arrogance and ego on my part.

That he has constructive criticism doesn't negate his pretty consistent support...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That he has constructive criticism doesn't negate his pretty consistent support...

-spence

I don't know what Buffet consistently supports. Sometimes he seems to be all over the place. When he says that Obamacare does not address the cost problem (which is the real problem and for which the gvt. shares a great deal of responsibility) that is not just constructive criticism. That is outright saying that it does not solve the problem which it purports to solve. He seems to support "something" being done rather than the "status quo." His "support" for Obamacare is that it is "something" but not the answer. That it is "a step in the right direction" but not the answer.

What he has said about how to stay out of debt includes:

Avoid credit cards, save, don't constantly be behind the game or you'll never get out of debt. (The federal gvt. has its own credit card in selling securities, etc. and seems to constantly be behind the game and never able to get out of debt.)

Pay off debt as soon as possible and incur as little as you can. (The federal gvt. seems to have a "plan" of paying off debt in perpetuity by constantly getting deeper in debt without a care as to when or how [except by borrowing even more] the debt will be payed.)

Produce wealth by entrepreneurs rather than by gvt. edict. (So all these mandates by central gvt. to stimulate or grow the "economy" might not be the best way? Or anyway? Or counterproductive? Of course, investors like Buffet will always enhance their personal wealth by taking advantage of various regulations.)

Above all, integrity and discipline. (Hmmm. Politicians/integrity? Government spending and discipline? Not.)

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Nor is raising the debt ceiling a means to spend more, it's a means to pay the bills. Spending happens to be declining faster than anticipated right now. Perhaps the Tea Party should focus on reinforcing a positive than legislation through threats...it's not a long-term strategy.

-spence

Yeah, getting a larger line of credit does allow you to "spend" more money than you have on hand, and even more than a smaller line of credit would allow. And if you insist on the illogical reasoning that credit does not allow you to spend, but merely to pay bills, then explain what a bill is other than demand for payment for items on which you "spent." Of course, you have not really paid the bill, you've merely transferred the debt to a lender, presumably, if you're honorable and solvent, to repay the lender at a later time with actual income. That is, you will actually "spend" real money to pay for the borrowed debt which was used for spending on actual goods. So borrowing is a pseudo-method of spending and paying off the debt compounds the spending. And larger lines of credit will allow you to "spend" more money. Of course, if you constantly depend on this circuitous method of spending well beyond any means of income, and resort to more spending to pay-off previous spending as well as new spending, you would not be a reputable spender. And you will be in constant need of larger lines of credit.

As for spending declining faster than anticipated now, think SEQUESTER! Oh yeah, those dreadful cuts that were supposed to result in disastrous blows to our economy and to the help we all needed from the Federal Gvt. Well, now the results of the sequester are being applauded for the wonder of declining spending. Go figure. Strange also, how we need to raise the debt ceiling as spending is declining. Apparently, it needs to decline more. But first we must, once again, be warned of the impending doom that will result with cuts in spending. (The real doom will be to the ruling class as we find that we can actually make do with less and less of its "help"--especially with less and less of the debt it imposes on us for its "help" that makes us helpless.)

Oh . . . and those long term strategies . . . for what? Strategies to reign in the powerhouse of American freedom and transform it into the chains of a ruling class?

Another article by Hayward re "default" and other absurdities:http://www.redstate.com/2013/10/14/d...lus-plan-ever/