A question for the Obama apologists

[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.)

[scottw]

yes, there is a difference between some debt and unsustainable growing debt