Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hence the Tea Party's push during the debt ceiling debate for the ceiling not to be raised unless ALL their demands were met was a clear example of terrorism. It was terrorism because they knew that the U.S. would suffer catastrophic economic consequences if the debt ceiling wasn't raised and they were trying to use this to coerce the U.S. Government into giving them what they want... essentially paying them a ransom.
At what point do you say we've borrowed too much and it's time to live within our means? And even if Obama's "proposal" had become law (the one that would have raised revenue by anywhere between $800B and $1.2T), we still would have deficits for as far as the eye can see.
It seems to me that the American taxpayer is the one who is being held hostage and forced to pay ransom, all under the guise of "fairness" while continuing to fund a bloated federal govt.
The Tea Partiers are terrorists because they warned that if the debt ceilign wasnt raised, there would be catastrophic economic consequences..
... Where you failed is that it was DEMOCRATS saying there would be catastrophic consequences, not the Tea Partiers, if you didnt raise the debt ceiling.. The DEMOCRATS used terror to get what they wanted.
I didn't say that tea partiers warned of catastrophic economic consequences. I said they knew that that would happen if the ceiling wasn't raised. But they didn't care, as long as it would hurt Obama, it was OK for the U.S. to default in their book.
I didn't say that tea partiers warned of catastrophic economic consequences. I said they knew that that would happen if the ceiling wasn't raised. But they didn't care, as long as it would hurt Obama, it was OK for the U.S. to default in their book.
At what point do you say we've borrowed too much and it's time to live within our means? And even if Obama's "proposal" had become law (the one that would have raised revenue by anywhere between $800B and $1.2T), we still would have deficits for as far as the eye can see.
It seems to me that the American taxpayer is the one who is being held hostage and forced to pay ransom, all under the guise of "fairness" while continuing to fund a bloated federal govt.
But how come you never had a problem when the ceiling was raised 7 times under Bush? Where was the tea party then?
They call the President every name in the book but then bristle when their actions and behavior are been compared to terrorists. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines terrorism as:
Hence the Tea Party's push during the debt ceiling debate for the ceiling not to be raised unless ALL their demands were met was a clear example of terrorism. It was terrorism because they knew that the U.S. would suffer catastrophic economic consequences if the debt ceiling wasn't raised and they were trying to use this to coerce the U.S. Government into giving them what they want... essentially paying them a ransom.
By all accounts their acts of terror worked as the final debt deal was heavily tilted in their favor. That is why I find it a bit odd that people in the tea party would feel insulted when others compare them to terrorists. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.
Quote:
Chambers added, however, that $4 trillion in savings, "depending on whether it was frontloaded or backloaded, is not going to do the trick in terms of stabilizing the U.S. government debt-to-GDP ratio.
Quote:
Chambers noted that, according to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. government would have to come up with savings of about 7.5 percent of its gross domestic product to actually stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio.
S&P: Deficit cuts of $4 trillion a good start - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/p-u-deficit-cuts-4-trillion-good-downpayment-174600124.html - broken link)
That means you need to cut $1.1 trillion a year to get your fiscal ass in order.
I didn't say that tea partiers warned of catastrophic economic consequences. I said they knew that that would happen if the ceiling wasn't raised. But they didn't care, as long as it would hurt Obama, it was OK for the U.S. to default in their book.
And yet the debt ceiling was raised, and we STILL had a credit downgrade.
Furthermore, there would have been NO default. Do us all a favor and take an elementary accounting class. A default would only happen if they couldnt pay the interest, but there is far more than enough coming in to do so.
In addition, as far as "hurting Obama", one could say the tea partiers tried to save Obama by having him be truthful to his word about fiscal responsibilities. I for one didnt want to hear campaign after campaign against Obama based upon his massive increase in the national debt, his campaigns to oppose increasing the debt ceiling, then his support for it. The man flip flopped and LIED to the american public and we have YOU here telling us tea partiers are terrorists.. Give it a break. We could claim that those who get on online forums spouting their lack of economic and accounting knowledge are the real terrorists, but that would be wrong. There is a difference between not knowing 5th grade math, and being a terrorist.
They call the President every name in the book but then bristle when their actions and behavior are been compared to terrorists. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines terrorism as:
It's perfectly legal to criticize the President of the United States of America, that's protected under our freedom of speech. How does typical liberal logic (or lack thereof) equate exercising our freedom of speech to an act of terrorism?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those terrorist at S&P and IMF
typical response when you can't refute an argument. Is that all you got?
