Obama Announces Deal To Raise Debt Limit, Cut Spending

[snarky66]

Because of a pre-existing condition from a childhood disease, I could never get health care. I had rheumatic fever and as a result a heart murmur. I had the disease when I was 12, by the time I was 20, the heart murmur had completely disappeared. Insurance was routinely rejected. Forty + years later, I have never had a complication or problem related to it.

I would be happy if insurance companies would have been mandated to cover me.

But enough about me and thousands of other Americans.

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the death panels.

Yeah & that Australian argument is bunko too. They have a very young population with lots of 20 somethings paying in. They'll be singing a different tune when the population is aging.

Edited August 6, 2011 by snarky66

[Wallaby]

Yes, Obama and those Democrats are horrible people. They will bring the once richest, most powerful nation to its knees with a silly idea like health care. Those poorer people should not be allowed health care. America doesn't need healthy people to fight wars anyway.

Nasty ol' Democrats. The sooner they get rid of them, the sooner another country can be invaded. That, by the way, will help the economy a lot.

Yes I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself with all the moaning about the US changing the health care system to actually help those that can't afford it. Changing a little toward a system we, and other countries wouldn't change for the world.

If we're lucky, the situation will get to the point where we need to cut our military budget to where certain other countries with great healthcare systems will have to start spending their own money on their own defense for a change instead of relying on the US to deter any potential threats with security guarnatees. In parts of Europe and the Pacific Rim they have been able to spend on social programs because the United States has been providing/paying for their defense. Of course, they don't feel the need because they don't feel threatened. Nevermind that the reason they don't feel threatened is because the world's top military power by far is providing security guarantees. I say, let's cut these countries loose and let them take care of themselves for a change. Let Japan and Australia check the Chinese and the Germans/French/English worry about Russian bullying in Europe. That'll carve a good chunk out of the military budget.

How much does the US spend on the military in the UK, Oz, NZ? NZ doesn't even allow US ships in it's ports. The US starts a war and asks for assistance and a lot of countries go in to help them. How many of those countries blame the US for their financial problems?

Oz was going along quite nicely with assisting and being assisted by the Brits for many years. I think OZ and NZ has sent military far and wide and done more than it's fair share in assisting other countries in war. The US asks for help from other countries and they get it, regardless of the majority of people from those countries opposing such decisions. This comes at a cost to those countries but I don't hear them blaming the US for their own financial problems.

I don't think OZ, UK, Canada, NZ etc have been worried about any attack for quite some time. Oz is doing quite well trading with China and it is pretty much the sole reason we have not had too much trouble with the GFC.

I would think that if the US stopped military spending and used the money internally some would still not want a change to the healthcare system. They would rather just grasp at straws and try and blame everyone but themselves.

Do tell how much the US spends on military assitance to Oz and NZ, as opposed to what those countries spend assisting the US in their military expeditions around the world.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Wallaby

[Scott]

I am not sure whose post your referring to. I don't think the US spends money directly (and probably very little indirectly) on protecting the UK, OZ, or NZ. The big expenditures seem to be Korea, Taiwan and Japan. What the costs are, there I don't know.

The situation in Western Europe is a little more complicated, but it would be a far stretch at this point to say the US is protecting them. There is NATO, but that's jointly operated. Europe could most likely take quite good care of itself. I don't know if its level of preparedness, however.

Oh, and yes, there are still people who would be opposed to healthcare for anyone.

[Wallaby]

Because of a pre-existing condition from a childhood disease, I could never get health care. I had rheumatic fever and as a result a heart murmur. I had the disease when I was 12, by the time I was 20, the heart murmur had completely disappeared. Insurance was routinely rejected. Forty + years later, I have never had a complication or problem related to it.

I would be happy if insurance companies would have been mandated to cover me.

But enough about me and thousands of other Americans.

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the death panels.

Yeah & that Australian argument is bunko too. They have a very young population with lots of 20 somethings paying in. They'll be singing a different tune when the population is aging.

Really?

That's news to everyone here. The government has been asking everyone to have more children because we have an increasing aging population.

[venturalaw]

Yes, Obama and those Democrats are horrible people. They will bring the once richest, most powerful nation to its knees with a silly idea like health care. Those poorer people should not be allowed health care. America doesn't need healthy people to fight wars anyway.

Nasty ol' Democrats. The sooner they get rid of them, the sooner another country can be invaded. That, by the way, will help the economy a lot.

Yes I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself with all the moaning about the US changing the health care system to actually help those that can't afford it. Changing a little toward a system we, and other countries wouldn't change for the world.

If we're lucky, the situation will get to the point where we need to cut our military budget to where certain other countries with great healthcare systems will have to start spending their own money on their own defense for a change instead of relying on the US to deter any potential threats with security guarnatees. In parts of Europe and the Pacific Rim they have been able to spend on social programs because the United States has been providing/paying for their defense. Of course, they don't feel the need because they don't feel threatened. Nevermind that the reason they don't feel threatened is because the world's top military power by far is providing security guarantees. I say, let's cut these countries loose and let them take care of themselves for a change. Let Japan and Australia check the Chinese and the Germans/French/English worry about Russian bullying in Europe. That'll carve a good chunk out of the military budget.

How much does the US spend on the military in the UK, Oz, NZ? NZ doesn't even allow US ships in it's ports. The US starts a war and asks for assistance and a lot of countries go in to help them. How many of those countries blame the US for their financial problems?

Oz was going along quite nicely with assisting and being assisted by the Brits for many years. I think OZ and NZ has sent military far and wide and done more than it's fair share in assisting other countries in war. The US asks for help from other countries and they get it, regardless of the majority of people from those countries opposing such decisions. This comes at a cost to those countries but I don't hear them blaming the US for their own financial problems.

I don't think OZ, UK, Canada, NZ etc have been worried about any attack for quite some time. Oz is doing quite well trading with China and it is pretty much the sole reason we have not had too much trouble with the GFC.

I would think that if the US stopped military spending and used the money internally some would still not want a change to the healthcare system. They would rather just grasp at straws and try and blame everyone but themselves.

Do tell how much the US spends on military assitance to Oz and NZ, as opposed to what those countries spend assisting the US in their military expeditions around the world.

"They would rather just grasp at straws and try and blame everyone but themselves." - That would be the same as, for example, a country blaming the U.S. for said country's choosing to become involved in a foreign conflict at the request of the U.S., correct?

I'm all for America becoming isolationist. Let the rest of the world fend for itself, collect from the many countries that owe the U.S., and refuse any future assistance when requested. Fine with me. America isn't appreciated, or reimbursed for all its ongoing philanthropy, so why continue? It's the same as all welfare recipients - they resent being dependent.

Edited August 6, 2011 by venturalaw

[Ulysses G.]

Bottom line, everyone cares about money, but the left cares much more about the value of human lives, including the POOR, than the right wing.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

[venturalaw]

Bottom line, everyone cares about money, but the left cares much more about the value of human lives, including the POOR, than the right wing.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

They do believe that UG. But the truth is that the left believe that, for instance, minorities require special assistance. Now why is that you may ask? It's because they want to control, and have little if any respect for the rights of the individual. It makes the lefties feel superior. It's pathetic.

[koheesti]

Yes, Obama and those Democrats are horrible people. They will bring the once richest, most powerful nation to its knees with a silly idea like health care. Those poorer people should not be allowed health care. America doesn't need healthy people to fight wars anyway.

Nasty ol' Democrats. The sooner they get rid of them, the sooner another country can be invaded. That, by the way, will help the economy a lot.

Yes I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself with all the moaning about the US changing the health care system to actually help those that can't afford it. Changing a little toward a system we, and other countries wouldn't change for the world.

If we're lucky, the situation will get to the point where we need to cut our military budget to where certain other countries with great healthcare systems will have to start spending their own money on their own defense for a change instead of relying on the US to deter any potential threats with security guarnatees. In parts of Europe and the Pacific Rim they have been able to spend on social programs because the United States has been providing/paying for their defense. Of course, they don't feel the need because they don't feel threatened. Nevermind that the reason they don't feel threatened is because the world's top military power by far is providing security guarantees. I say, let's cut these countries loose and let them take care of themselves for a change. Let Japan and Australia check the Chinese and the Germans/French/English worry about Russian bullying in Europe. That'll carve a good chunk out of the military budget.

How much does the US spend on the military in the UK, Oz, NZ? NZ doesn't even allow US ships in it's ports. The US starts a war and asks for assistance and a lot of countries go in to help them. How many of those countries blame the US for their financial problems?

Oz was going along quite nicely with assisting and being assisted by the Brits for many years. I think OZ and NZ has sent military far and wide and done more than it's fair share in assisting other countries in war. The US asks for help from other countries and they get it, regardless of the majority of people from those countries opposing such decisions. This comes at a cost to those countries but I don't hear them blaming the US for their own financial problems.

I don't think OZ, UK, Canada, NZ etc have been worried about any attack for quite some time. Oz is doing quite well trading with China and it is pretty much the sole reason we have not had too much trouble with the GFC.

I would think that if the US stopped military spending and used the money internally some would still not want a change to the healthcare system. They would rather just grasp at straws and try and blame everyone but themselves.

Do tell how much the US spends on military assistance to Oz and NZ, as opposed to what those countries spend assisting the US in their military expeditions around the world.

It isn't about spending on "military assistance". It's about spending on military deterrence. And deterring China, North Korea and Russia with the world's largest navy & air force doesn't come cheap. But I pray for the day we get to find out if you're right or not about Australia/NZ being so safe on their own and we can get around to fixing some of our own problems.

The world has changed. Other countries have caught up or are catching up to the USA. It's time we realize that they can start carrying their own weight and let them worry about their own defense. I love 'em, but they are big enough to take care of themselves now.

[koheesti]

Because of a pre-existing condition from a childhood disease, I could never get health care. I had rheumatic fever and as a result a heart murmur. I had the disease when I was 12, by the time I was 20, the heart murmur had completely disappeared. Insurance was routinely rejected. Forty + years later, I have never had a complication or problem related to it.

I would be happy if insurance companies would have been mandated to cover me.

But enough about me and thousands of other Americans.

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the death panels.

Yeah & that Australian argument is bunko too. They have a very young population with lots of 20 somethings paying in. They'll be singing a different tune when the population is aging.

Really?

That's news to everyone here. The government has been asking everyone to have more children because we have an increasing aging population.

It sounds like the gov't agrees with snarky.

[Jingthing]

Bottom line, everyone cares about money, but the left cares much more about the value of human lives, including the POOR, than the right wing.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

If it's cheap enough, and I can verify you hold the legal right to sell, and that I can collect tolls, send a prospectus.

BTW, the US isn't a complete basket case. There are positive factors. Our population isn't aging as fast as some other major countries like Japan because immigration of younger people and also minorities like Latinos culturally have large families (so are becoming the majority in some states). We also have a good water situation, which is like the oil of the future, and can export a lot of high water usage crops/products.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[venturalaw]

Bottom line, everyone cares about money, but the left cares much more about the value of human lives, including the POOR, than the right wing.

If you really believe that, I have a bridge that you might be interested in buying.

If it's cheap enough, and I can verify you hold the legal right to sell, and that I can collect tolls, send a prospectus.

And if you earn enough money collecting tolls, according to your desire, the government will mandate that you pay a significant percentage of YOUR EARNINGS to support those who choose to be recipients of government handouts.

Edited August 6, 2011 by venturalaw

[Scott]

One off-topic post has been deleted. We won't discuss death panels here. Inheritance tax perhaps, but death panels, no.

Buying or selling bridges is getting out there as well.

Please stay on topic.

[Jingthing]

Scott's on top of things today!

Anyway, here is another rational voice about how the right wing fanatic tea people have DESTROYED the fragile recovery. Nihilists, UNAMERICAN, terrorists, hostage takers, traitors, simply ignorant, whatever you call them, the blame is on THEIR HEADS.

The Great Recession of 2008 has morphed into the North Atlantic Recession: It is mainly Europe and the United States, not the major emerging markets, that have become mired in slow growth and high unemployment. And it is Europe and America that are marching, alone and together, to the denouement of a grand debacle. A busted bubble led to a massive Keynesian stimulus that averted a much deeper recession but that also fueled substantial budget deficits. The response—massive spending cuts—ensures that unacceptably high levels of unemployment (a vast waste of resources and an oversupply of suffering) will continue, possibly for years.

Continued here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2301013/

Edited August 6, 2011 by sbk
edited for fair use

[Ulysses G.]

In fact, the Tea Party has been right on many issues. The left is trying to demonize them as they do to anyone that does not agree with their big spending, money wasting agenda.

The false narrative is that the Tea Party is a bunch of stubborn nuts, if not outright racists. In truth, the Tea Party has been right about everything, while almost everyone else has been nuts, especially the "experts." ...

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_tea_party_right_about_everything.html

Edited August 6, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Yes we know radical right wingers think the tea party is "right" about everything. Big news there.

http://randallhoven.com/

[Ulysses G.]

Yes we know radical right wingers think the tea party is "right" about everything.

You mean something like when the radical left thinks that they are right about everything.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[koheesti]

In fact, the Tea Party has been right on many issues. The left is trying to demonize them as they do to anyone that does not agree with their big spending, money wasting agenda.

The false narrative is that the Tea Party is a bunch of stubborn nuts, if not outright racists. In truth, the Tea Party has been right about everything, while almost everyone else has been nuts, especially the "experts." ...

Read more: http://www.americant...everything.html

from the link:

Here's the funny thing: while Paulson was lending out less than $0.3 trillion, the Federal Reserve was lending out over $16T to do about the same thing! By my calculations, Paulson's TARP slush fund was less than 2% the size of the Federal Reserve's.

Do you think that 2% was critical to staving off financial apocalypse? (FYI, over 3T of the Fed's emergency loans were to subsidiaries of foreign-owned banks.)

Well, here's another source quoting that $16 trillion number. My apologies to that other poster I doubted for thinking it was a typo several pages back. Although I'd still like to know where they get that kind of money.

[Scott]

One post in violation of the fair use policy has been deleted.

[venturalaw]

As George Will put it in his brilliant article entitled "The debt deal and Obama's 2012 problem":

"Regarding the political process: There are limits to what can be accomplished by those controlling only half of Congress, but the Tea Party has demonstrated that the limits are elastic under the pressure of disciplined and durable passion. As Tom Brokaw said in Washington on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, the debt-ceiling drama ended as it did because the Tea Party got angry, got organized and got here."

He also candidly pointed out "During various liberal ascendancies, the federal spider has woven a web of dependencies. The political purpose has been to produce growing constituencies of voters disposed to vote Democratic. "

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will080311.php3

Edited August 6, 2011 by Scott
edited for fair use policy

[Scott]

Another post deleted for fair use policy. Those of you who know better might want to follow the rule. Otherwise the topic will be closed for a clean up and editing.

[Wallaby]

"They would rather just grasp at straws and try and blame everyone but themselves." - That would be the same as, for example, a country blaming the U.S. for said country's choosing to become involved in a foreign conflict at the request of the U.S., correct?

I'm all for America becoming isolationist. Let the rest of the world fend for itself, collect from the many countries that owe the U.S., and refuse any future assistance when requested. Fine with me. America isn't appreciated, or reimbursed for all its ongoing philanthropy, so why continue? It's the same as all welfare recipients - they resent being dependent.

You took my quote out of context. Oz doesn't blame the US for it's finanicial problems even though they come at a high cost..

The US can't be too isolationist. Captitalism needs to expand.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Wallaby

[Scott]

Several posts quoting deleted posts have been removed.

[Wallaby]

It isn't about spending on "military assistance". It's about spending on military deterrence. And deterring China, North Korea and Russia with the world's largest navy & air force doesn't come cheap. But I pray for the day we get to find out if you're right or not about Australia/NZ being so safe on their own and we can get around to fixing some of our own problems.

The world has changed. Other countries have caught up or are catching up to the USA. It's time we realize that they can start carrying their own weight and let them worry about their own defense. I love 'em, but they are big enough to take care of themselves now.

I didn't say oz/nz were so safe on their own and I'm sure the US doesn't particularly spend on defence because we may need them at some stage. It's not a one way street you know, we've also helped the US when requested and consider it a duty because of ANZUS. But we don't go blaming financial problems because of it.

[venturalaw]

"They would rather just grasp at straws and try and blame everyone but themselves." - That would be the same as, for example, a country blaming the U.S. for said country's choosing to become involved in a foreign conflict at the request of the U.S., correct?

I'm all for America becoming isolationist. Let the rest of the world fend for itself, collect from the many countries that owe the U.S., and refuse any future assistance when requested. Fine with me. America isn't appreciated, or reimbursed for all its ongoing philanthropy, so why continue? It's the same as all welfare recipients - they resent being dependent.

You took my quote out of context. Oz doesn't blame the US for it's finanicial problems even though they come at a high cost..

The US can't be too isolationist. Captitalism needs to expand.

Perhaps I was not clear. Your statement "The US starts a war and asks for assistance and a lot of countries go in to help them. How many of those countries blame the US for their financial problems?"

Why blame the U.S. for a decision to enter a war which, according to you, leaves the country that chose to enter the conflict with "financial problems"? Then you assert that the U.S. blames "everyone but themselves" (which BTW, is inaccurate).

Regarding the need to expand, it is communism that will fail if it does not continue to expand, not capitalism. Capitalism's expansion improves the conditions as it expands; communism devours in its need to expand.

Edited August 6, 2011 by venturalaw

[koheesti]

It isn't about spending on "military assistance". It's about spending on military deterrence. And deterring China, North Korea and Russia with the world's largest navy & air force doesn't come cheap. But I pray for the day we get to find out if you're right or not about Australia/NZ being so safe on their own and we can get around to fixing some of our own problems.

The world has changed. Other countries have caught up or are catching up to the USA. It's time we realize that they can start carrying their own weight and let them worry about their own defense. I love 'em, but they are big enough to take care of themselves now.

I didn't say oz/nz were so safe on their own and I'm sure the US doesn't particularly spend on defence because we may need them at some stage. It's not a one way street you know, we've also helped the US when requested and consider it a duty because of ANZUS. But we don't go blaming financial problems because of it.

Well, I'm not blaming our fiscal problems on it. But it is common sense that if you are in financial trouble you look to where you can cut back. One of the ways we can cut back the military portion of the budget is our overseas deployments. We have 100,000's troops stationed in Europe and the Pacific Rim. We have allies there who can/should be able to take care of deterring Russia and China/North Korea themselves. Let me be clear, I am for pulling back, not for abandoning our allies if something actually does happen. But many in Europe and the Pacific Rim don't think they are under threat and if they are right, there will be no harm done and we can save some money in the process.

[Steely Dan]

I suspect that healthcare is a carefully chosen diversion with which to beat the opposition with. FWIW a small, wealthy and culturally homogeneous Country could probably get away with a national health service, something like Sweden in the 50's, which is light years away from the U.S in 2011. I wonder whether the debate about raising the debt ceiling would have even been necessary had $600 billion of U.S citizens future earnings not been used to bail out foreign banks?

I'm sure there must be a rational reason why a democratic president allowed this to happen instead of spending the money on Obamacare, or upgrading foodstamp allowances so people could eat out at decent restaurants.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/exclusive-feds-600-billion-stealth-bailout-foreign-banks-continues-expense-domestic-economy-

In summary, instead of doing everything in its power to stimulate reserve, and thus cash, accumulation at domestic (US) banks which would in turn encourage lending to US borrowers, the Fed has been conducting yet another stealthy foreign bank rescue operation, which rerouted $600 billion in capital from potential borrowers to insolvent foreign financial institutions in the past 7 months. QE2 was nothing more (or less) than another European bank rescue operation!

[Wallaby]

Perhaps I was not clear. Your statement "The US starts a war and asks for assistance and a lot of countries go in to help them. How many of those countries blame the US for their financial problems?"

Why blame the U.S. for a decision to enter a war which, according to you, leaves the country that chose to enter the conflict with "financial problems"? Then you assert that the U.S. blames "everyone but themselves" (which BTW, is inaccurate).

Regarding the need to expand, it is communism that will fail if it does not continue to expand, not capitalism. Capitalism's expansion improves the conditions as it expands; communism devours in its need to expand.

Most countries would rather not go to war. It is expensive and the money could be better spent on other internal matters but we do it because our allies ask for assistance, it is the right thing to do and we will keep doing it even though we, as a country do not agree with the war.

Though I fear we have strayed off topic.

It seems to me that the Tea Party is pretty much laughed at as a lunatic fringe by many in other countries but seems to have some 'power' in US politics. Not so different to what oz has at the moment, a minority govt being dictated to by the Greens and a couple of independents. Such is the downside of our kind of democracy. Perhaps a better way may be found one day.

[Wallaby]

Well, I'm not blaming our fiscal problems on it. But it is common sense that if you are in financial trouble you look to where you can cut back. One of the ways we can cut back the military portion of the budget is our overseas deployments. We have 100,000's troops stationed in Europe and the Pacific Rim. We have allies there who can/should be able to take care of deterring Russia and China/North Korea themselves. Let me be clear, I am for pulling back, not for abandoning our allies if something actually does happen. But many in Europe and the Pacific Rim don't think they are under threat and if they are right, there will be no harm done and we can save some money in the process.

Quite right, and don't forget those US troops stationed in foreign countries aren't a bad little earner for the towns/cities they are stationed.

[uptheos]

Can anyone give a definitive answer?

Why are there troops in Afghanistan and what are they hoping to achieve?

[Jingthing]

I'm not sure, but I'm increasingly feeling it has to do more about having some leverage with Pakistan (the ally that isn't an ally) than actually changing anything much in Afghanistan.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Jingthing