congressional leadership: RESIGN NOW

[rdking647]

the dems say the gop wont compromise. the gop says the dems wont.
maybe this is whats needed.
Im calling for harry Reid,mitch McConnel,Nance Pelosi and John Boehner to resign.
they are the leaders of congress. the have all failed to lead.
so resign. now.

[The Wielding Truth]

1. The Republicans are the ones who should resign.They are still playing games and stopping resolution.

[rdking647]

2. both side are to blame.

yes the GOP has been worse but the dems arent any saints. kick all 4 out and elect new leadership

[ProSense]

3. No, both sides are not to "blame." You're

parroting the GOPMSM's bullshit false equivalency claims.

Reid: We Agree On How To Resolve 97-98 Percent Of Fiscal Cliff
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021809162

Go Nancy!: "Pelosi threatens discharge petition to force vote on middle-income tax cut extension."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021907202

Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787

[backscatter712]

27. +1!

/me checks his troll list... nods...

[TexasProgresive]

4. And what's to guarentee that the replacements will be better?

If what you say is correct then it won't make any real differences.

Personally I say stick with Harry and Nancy. As far as the pukes it doesn't make any difference.

[hrmjustin]

5. I have to say I disagree with you on "both sides are to blame". The gop leadership has shown it will

not work at all with the democrats. I know that it is popular to say throw them all out, but they do not share equal blame.

[jeff47]

6. Please list what Pelosi and Reid have done to block progress.

And be specific.

Alternatively, stop believing the RW bullshit that "both sides are to blame". That's just their attempt to avoid accountability for their actions.

[The Magistrate]

12. The Technical term For This, Sir, Is 'Fucking Bullshit'

You have won the honors for the most blitheringly idiotic post of the day, and are in strong contention for most blitheringly idiotic post of the week....

[kentuck]

15. :-)__~~

[CreekDog]

41. the adjective really nails it

[11 Bravo]

18. Fuck that noise! (And if I need to hear a bunch of false equivalency bullshit ..

I'll listen to David Gregory.)

[backscatter712]

26. Bullfuckingshit. The Dems are finally fighting like should have from the beginning.

Now the rethugs are butthurt because they're not getting concessions.

We had an election. Democrats won. Repubs lost. Now it's time for the Repubs to get lost!

[CreekDog]

33. why do you want Obama to resign?

[JBoy]

7. Yup, Eric Cantor and Jim Demint will fix things.

[fredamae]

8. It's the GOP, NOT the Dems

Last edited Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:43 PM - Edit history (1)

if you look at raw facts...It's Not always a shared blame. We the people have spoken and those who are on the more Democratic/Liberal side of all things govt and all issues right now are saying We Are Not Moving Further To The Right and We Have Already (been) Compromised All We Are Going To Allow. Do Not Error in Denying Consideration For That Which We Have Already Given. For (Just One) Example: We bear the Extra burden of paying for the last 2 Years of BushCo Tax Cuts...because the GOP held all of us hostage.
If you review the bills that have been denied passage, consideration and due process-We would not need this conversation today If what the Dems have tried to do for us-would have passed.
I do reject that opinion of this being the fault of both sides.
Enough. Off the cliff we go.

[Filibuster Harry]

9. No, its the GOP. Whatever Harry and Nancy have done it is in response to the GOPs tactics.

How can you say all have failed when you have a senate minority leader stating that our job is to make Obama a one term president? That is not his job. His job is to help govern this country not block every legislative issue with those damn filibusters. And Boehner -- since he became speaker what jobs legislation has he passed? Job bills dealing with Abortion or Obamacare?

[Southerner]

10. I'm not going to point fingers, but I will list some numbers:

Inflation from 2005 to 2012 was 18%.

Spending increases for some of the major functions of government between 2005 and 2012.

Defense +44%
Education/Training/Social Services +42%
Medicare +62%
Social Security +49%
Veterans Benefits +86%
Dept of Energy +4500%
Natural Resources/Environment +54%
Commerce and Housing +1000%
Transportation +52%
International Affairs (State Dept?) +60%
Justice Department +55%

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist03z1.xls

Federal government outlays as a percentage
of Gross Domestic Product (our total economy size):
2005: 19.9%
2012: 24.3%

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z2.xls

[ProSense]

11. What do those numbers mean?

The OP is about Congressional leadership.

Still, what are you trying to show with those numbers?

[The Magistrate]

13. Why, That That Kenyan Mooslim is Spending All The White People's Money, Ma'am....

On stuff....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. LOL!! I love you!!!

[Southerner]

14. I agree with the OP

They should all resign for not only overspending that much, but then now failing to agree on how to STOP overspending that much.

[ProSense]

16. Funny, you're comparing

2005 to 2012. Does the name Bush ring a bell?

He's the fucking one who left the mess. He's the fucking one who started two wars, one illegal, and the other neglected due to incompetence. He's the one who ran the economy into the ground, prompting the federal government to have to do everything to rescue it from lapsing into a depression.

Want to talk about stopping the overspending: President Obama has done more to rein in deficits than nearly every other President.

"I agree with the OP"

Yeah, typical RW bullshit!

[The Wielding Truth]

17. We gave them everything and more that the GOP wanted, and they still shut us down. REMEMBER?

[The Magistrate]

19. Revenue Is The Problem, Sir, Not Spending

[Southerner]

20. I didn't make up these numbers.

They are straight from the white house budget office records. Nearly every category has increased spending twice, three times, and four times the rate of inflation.

It is most definately a spending problem. Raising the taxes on the rich is a good thing but it only gets us part way there in balancing the budget. That is truth - and something many just don't want to hear.

[The Magistrate]

21. Again, Sir, the Problem Is Not Enough Revenue Collected To Cover Spending

Your argument amounts to claiming a disequilibrium can be addressed only from one side, which even a moments reflection will disclose is false. In this instance, the record low proportion which taxes collected bear to economic activity strongly suggests the proper direction from which to approach the matter.

[Southerner]

22. So you are perfectly OK with massive spending increases on all fronts despite...

...huge drops in revenue due to the recession? We just have to pay for them. It's that simple?

Let's hear your plan for coming up with $1.3 trillion in new revenue per year. I'm all ears.

[The Magistrate]

24. Perfectly Fine With Deficit Spending at this Point, Sir

As are all competent economists ( a category which does not include free-marketeers and austerians, and similar Randite trash ). It is not good policy at present to reduce deficits or reduce expenditures.

In future it will certainly be advisable to increase revenue, even over the increases that will occur in consequence of improved economic conditions. The best routes to this would be increasing progressivity of the income tax, increasing the rate on capital gains, restoring the estate tax, lifting the 'cap' on the FICA levy, and instituting a transaction tax on the sale of capital instruments.

[Southerner]

25. You are so sure of yourself.

When and where in history has any of that worked?

[The Magistrate]

29. Now, Sir, You Are Just Being Silly

The current market rate for Treasury paper is sufficient to demonstrate the inanity of pretending the country faces a great crisis over debt.

One illustration you will not want to face of the efficacy of deficit spending in times of high unemployment and slack economic activity is the period 1940-1945. There is absolutely no difference economically between running a deficit in war and in peace. Put bluntly, another such is the Reagan period, illustrating what has been referred to as 'military Keynesianism'. The economic growth from a recession base-line in the Reagan years owed to the colossal increases in the nation's debt he wrought, not to his jiggering the tax code to benefit the wealthy.

To pretend it is not possible to tax people of wealth is nonesense; all that is needed is the will to enforce tax laws, and to jail and break wealthy persons who violate them. A government which set out on such a course would find doing so generated tremendous popular support....

[Southerner]

39. Oh I'm being silly?

The national debt in 1945 was about equivalent to where we are now – a little bigger than the total GDP. The spending by the federal government was 41% of the economy in 1945 and dropped to only 11% by 1948. It was possible to pay back the debt at that point with the massive spending cuts. Today we are spending at 25% of the economy and our party is proposing very few spending cuts. I have looked into what the tax increases on the wealthy our party has proposed will bring in and it hardly makes a dent in the annual deficit.

Post Reagan we never did pay off the debt he accumulated. We just added to it.

I never said “it is not possible to tax people of wealth”. Of course it is and we should. It isn’t going to get us very far.

You write very well and use some fancy words but nothing you say is backed up by historical evidence. Whenever I go looking I just don’t find it.

Back up what you say with hard evidence.

[The Magistrate]

45. Try Something Current, Sir, Rather Than Birch society Tracts Recycled Through Murdoch's Rags

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/05/imf-budget-cuts-hurt-growth-a-lot-but-tax-increases-barely-matter/

A new study by the International Monetary Fund raises a further warning flag for fiscal cliff negotiators in the U.S. In what it bills as the first-ever study of its kind, the fund analyzed decades of data on the world’s major industrialized countries to estimate how changes in government spending or revenue affect economic output.

The news isn’t good. Given current circumstances, with a U.S. economy that is growing but still trying to make up lost ground from the 2008 crisis, a one dollar change in government spending could knock as much as $1.80 in output from the economy – what fund researchers called a “statistically significant…and sizeable” outcome.

One brighter spot that could also influence negotiators: the growth impact of a tax hike is estimated to be negligible. The list of measures that automatically become law absent an agreement include both spending reductions and tax increases. While the spending cuts would comprise a heavy drag on growth, the fund paper suggests that a one percent rise in tax revenue would knock just 0.1 percent from gross domestic product.

[RomneyLies]

37. Every economic downturn in history.

Worked every time.

You INCREASE deficit spending during down economic times. When the economy comes back, you cut back on spending and pay down the debt. Bush II failed to do this when he took over and instead he spent like a drunken sailor when he inherited a budget surplus.

[Southerner]

42. Once again, a post with no historical data to back it up.

Tell me when it "worked every time". I would love to be wrong and actually find a case where lots of increases in government spending directly led to a recovery and then the debt was repaid.

[RomneyLies]

43. That's because you are wasting my time

READ!

It's there.

Just look at how we got out of the Great Depression. Deficit spending is REQUIRED during economic downturns. the mistake was made by Bush when he took a budget surplus and squandered it on tax cuts and two wars. When you have good economic times, it is time to pay off the debt.

Sheesh, use your friggin' brain.

[Southerner]

44. I read too much apparently.

I google and I find a thousand articles just like this one:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html

[backscatter712]

28. Concern noted. n/t

[CreekDog]

34. please go elsewhere

[FSogol]

23. Oh Unrec, where is thy sting?

More both-parties-are-the-same nonsense.

[heaven05]

30. the

democratic leadership wasn't in a side room at the last inauguration plotting to keep President Obama from achieving any positive results in his first term. That among much other rethug thuggery, I will NEVER forget till the day I die! You're off on the blame thing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Trashing this thread. You're out of your mind. The Republicans WON'T compromise and they even

told the media that they won't compromise.

You're nuts!

[JoePhilly]

35. Sure ... let Yurdle the Turtle and the Orange Weeping Boner go first.

[backscatter712]

36. Go away, troll.

Red State is that way. ->

[FarCenter]

38. The benches of both the emotional sentimentalists and the rigid dogmatists are very deep.

It's unclear whether there are any quantitative realists in Congress.

[CreekDog]

40. notice the OP absconded long ago, seemingly uninterested in the topic he/she started herd