Re: Less than 12 hours until.... [clock stopped; deal reached]

**Jagdgeschwader** on 30/07/11, 11:11 pm

eaustinn36 wrote:@Jag - Well, where to start....

Well for one: the hobo example. Yes he would probably spend the $100 on booze.. which is why you dont give him money... you give him "money with a catch", like Food Stamps, in which forces you to buy the correct things. Same with the stimulus. You think the $700 billion (or whatever it was) was no string attached? Hell if that was the case i'd vote against it too. We gave these banks or companies billions with a million "catches" if they accepted the money, including major core changes to the way things were run, and in many cases they would ultimately have to pay it back.

If there's a million catches, nobody is going to read it and they definitely aren't going to regulate it.

eaustinn36 wrote:As for the first part: 2.6T based on our size I dont consider a lot; what is considered "a lot" is relative. Think about it, everything we measure in the world is relative to someone or something else. Considering we have the biggest economy, everything is unprecedented, and we have no means of measuring it. It is all opinion based; therefore, i'm not sure what "that number would be". Very curious though on the "half the country isnt paying taxes" point. Really? Well get them paying then.

So in other words dodge the question by just saying you don't consider it a lot and that everything measured (or can't be measured) is relative. In other words. You don't know. All you know is more. Which I disagree with for reasons I've stated before.

OK, I'll just tell them to pay their taxes. All I had to do was ask.

eaustinn36 wrote:As for the "GOP Stands for" point.. well, if that isn't your stance, the party is most certainly giving off that impression to everyone else (or at least the tea party).

The Tea Party is constantly demonized by the left just as the far left is by the right. The rough equivalent on your side would be the 'moveon' organization and investors like George Soros who work behind the scenes. Whereas the Tea Party works via protests.

The Tea Party is NOT the Republican party. Please (I mean this in the kindest way possible) get that through your head.

eaustinn36 wrote:As for the Capitalist point, I absolutely agree. Just like with what the GOP stand for, don't think that all us Dems are Commies. Capitalism is a good system, but still has flaws, so we compensate those flaws and negatives in search of a perfect system. I agree on the welfare point, in which is why the govt should give BARELY enough to survive. In the sense that: okay, I might not be working and getting these free checks from the govt, but the checks arent that big and are barely enough for me to pay RENT on my APARTMENT. The point of welfare is to provide humane relief to struggling people, not compensate their income completely. They still have incentive to work because who would want to live a life of borderline poverty where you can't even afford to buy a house or car? Yes I am aware many people abuse the welfare system, but abuse can be found in any system, and is impossible to completely prevent.

I would never stoop to such a hasty generalization that all Democrats are commies. Because not all of them are. But I believe a lot of them are socialists which is step in the direction of socialism and is doing exactly what our Cold War enemies sought for us to do.

"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism until they wake up one day to find they have Communism."
-Nikita Kruschev

No, but I'm not saying to completely prevent abuse in the system. At the moment, I knew people at my school who weren't concerned at all with getting a job. They were completely content with going on welfare and not working.

Newsflash: America's poor, are generally not that poor.

eaustinn36 wrote:Next.. Military is NOT the only thing I am willing to cut. There are more systems out there than Education, healthcare, Social/welfare benefits, and Military. I just couldn't think of any at the moment. However, this goes back to one of my core points: IF you want to ultimately lower a deficit or costs, you have to withstand the initial investment. For example, 'going green". If we converted at least half of our power plants (and other nations have so it is possible) to renewable sources, this would solve the environmental and energy problems; however, the initial cost would be steep. Is it worth the investment? Well, considering we wouldn't need to buy foreign oil anymore, YES. It is a 1-time steep cost versus a lower cost that is continuous each year. Same thing goes with healthcare. A universal system (or Obama's half attempt at it) would lower cost ultimately. Look at us now: We spend the most on healthcare in the world (and military) by far, yet it is horrible and borderline 3rd world. Switch systems, ride the inital cost, and it will ultimately pay off, as it did for SO MANY other 1st world nations.

I don't think it's horrible at all. I think that's a matter of opinion. If we compare it to somewhere like...Canada? It's really a matter of opinion which you prefer.
In Canada, the health care system is payed for in your taxes, so it is in a sense free. The kick in that is that if you're not dying, the waiting periods are long. You also pay for it whether you're using it or not.

Where as in the United States, it's a pay-as-you-go system. When you need it, it is there. This makes things fast, and what would take a couple of months in a "free" healthcare system, takes a matter of weeks in the US. There are also more specialists in the US system.

eaustinn36 wrote:Also, you can't blame the current deficits on Obama; this really pisses me off when people do. Here is an analogy: During Bush's 8 years in office, he rose up the deficit by buying a crap-ton of C4 and strapping it to Americas heart. Just as he left office, he detonated. Bush caused this recession; we had NO DEFICIT during the Clinton years, and 1 guy managed to turn that into a huge deficit and a recession. IF we weren't in a recession now, as Bush left us, we would NOT be running the deficits we are right now. We are merely digging out of a huge hole due to past f-ups. Ever since 2003 we began to sit on a time-bomb based on Bush Policies of deregulation, excessive tax breaks for the wealthy, and etc.

Yes we can!

Only in this world can you defend someone as not being responsible for spending 13 trillion dollars in his presidency.

If you looked at CBO (which I provided), Bush was paying off our deficit slowly but surely until 2008 when the global recession hit (Which was caused by irresponsible banking and a partial collapse in the housing and auto market). The solution to the recession was emergency spending which was continued 10-fold when Obama came to office. He spent 13 trillion dollars in "emergency spending" which is ridiculous and there is no way you can defend that legitimately. It was wasteful spending at its best.

As we saw with Ford Motor Company, this spending might not have even been necessary. Instead again being caused by irresponsible economics on their part. Ford brought themselves out of the red and into the black. Evidenced by their stocks going up dramatically in the coming years.

Let's remember it took us over 200 years to accumulate a 1 trillion deficit.

eaustinn36 wrote:Finally, as for the education part, okay, you got me there. I was somewhat confusing healthcare with education for a second (our healthcare isn't borderline 3rd world, it is 3rd world). Again, everything measured is RELATIVE to someone else. What I was thinking of at the time was an international test (which I just found to be outdated), in which ranked the US in test scored BARELY above Mexico's (that is why I said the above). Granted, it was outdated and a bit of an exageration, so I retract the "3rd world education" statement (it was like 4am when I made that last post). HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the education system isn't still bad. Relative to major 1st world nations, we are doing horrible. Even IF you take a ton of AP-classes here, statistics show you STILL arent competitive on a global scale. And I highly disagree with your statement "all teachers are professionals". I can say this through experience, on a NON-college level. Some are just tenured (I really hate tenure) out of their ass and suck at teaching, but the school can't get rid of them.

I'll give you that not all teachers are professionals.
I find Meatshield to be undeniably right when it comes to this. Other nations (China) put their students in "castes" so to speak. If you're not smart, you're not worth their time. As a result, they're put into the global scores, where in the US everyone is given an equal opportunity.

Are you actually suggesting social darwinism in education?

I still believe your "statistics" are flawed, especially when it comes to a nation like China. As Meatshield said, they more than likely group all of their intelligent students together and say that it's the average. Where in reality most people in China are minimum wage workers because of Communism.

**Meatshield718** on 31/07/11, 03:25 am

eaustinn36 wrote:
Not necessarily so. If you take the top 10 scores from each nation, the US still places roughly where it usually does. And "No child left behind' left the money behind to fund it. Take the best of the best from each nation; the US still isn't even close to the top.

Give me proof of this and I'll believe you.

**eaustinn36** on 31/07/11, 03:23 pm

Jagdgeschwader wrote:If there's a million catches, nobody is going to read it and they definitely aren't going to regulate it.

If they don't read it it, that is the banks/businesses problem. they don't follow term of deal, then the govt forcloses on them and gets all their money back (and then some). They know the terms of the deal, and even if they didn't, again, it wouldn't be a stimulus problem; it would be an enforcing problem.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:So in other words dodge the question by just saying you don't consider it a lot and that everything measured (or can't be measured) is relative. In other words. You don't know. All you know is more. Which I disagree with for reasons I've stated before.

OK, I'll just tell them to pay their taxes. All I had to do was ask.

I wasn't dodging your question, i'm stating facts. The US economy is unprecedented in the world, and we have no means of comparison. I gave you a direct answer: I don't know. That being said, NOBODY knows; again, it is all opinion based on how much is too much. I'm not saying go unlimited, but given the recession and the fact that our tax rates are very low, that number can go up a little.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:The Tea Party is constantly demonized by the left just as the far left is by the right. The rough equivalent on your side would be the 'moveon' organization and investors like George Soros who work behind the scenes. Whereas the Tea Party works via protests.

The Tea Party is NOT the Republican party. Please (I mean this in the kindest way possible) get that through your head.

I am quite aware the Tea Party is NOT the GOP... you can simmer down on that. However, I can say they share more values with the GOP than Dems, and are in many cases, an extreme right-winged version of the GOP. Not the GOP, but an extreme similar version. I'm not comparing you to them, as you are clearly not Tea Partier.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:I would never stoop to such a hasty generalization that all Democrats are commies. Because not all of them are. But I believe a lot of them are socialists which is step in the direction of socialism and is doing exactly what our Cold War enemies sought for us to do.

"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism until they wake up one day to find they have Communism."
-Nikita Kruschev

No, but I'm not saying to completely prevent abuse in the system. At the moment, I knew people at my school who weren't concerned at all with getting a job. They were completely content with going on welfare and not working.

Newsflash: America's poor, are generally not that poor.

So you say you understand we're all not commies, but almost all Socialists trying to slowly convert the nation into a USSR? That was kind of what I was originally going at in my last post...

We will NEVER keep adding socialist things until we are communist. Pure socialism itself is HORRIBLE. Similarly, pure cpitalism is horrible as well; a mixed economy is best. What we (Dems) are trying to do is take the best of each system and combine it for a perfect one. Considering this nations current shape, i'd say we haven't found that balance yet; although Europe seems to have.

Also, Double News Flash: America's poor, are a lot poorer than you think (not relative to 3rd world nations, but OTHER 1st world nations. Got to compare apples to apples here).

Jagdgeschwader wrote:I don't think it's horrible at all. I think that's a matter of opinion. If we compare it to somewhere like...Canada? It's really a matter of opinion which you prefer.
In Canada, the health care system is payed for in your taxes, so it is in a sense free. The kick in that is that if you're not dying, the waiting periods are long. You also pay for it whether you're using it or not.

Where as in the United States, it's a pay-as-you-go system. When you need it, it is there. This makes things fast, and what would take a couple of months in a "free" healthcare system, takes a matter of weeks in the US. There are also more specialists in the US system.

Americas healthcare system (currently) is a joke, and every nation in the world agrees. There is a reason you know why EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD has some sort of a Universal healthcare system... we are clearly missing something. We spend the most on healthcare costs by far, yet we have the coverage of a 3rd world country, and are ranked 37th in the world (on par with a 3rd world country), just barely above Slovenia. You keep referencing how great the healthcare is here; allow me to adjust your statement: "When you need it, it is there, if you can afford it. the simple fact is most Americans can't; bout 50 million of them. And then there is the under insured... you know, statistically, i'd be better off breaking my leg in Israel.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Yes we can!

Only in this world can you defend someone as not being responsible for spending 13 trillion dollars in his presidency.

If you looked at CBO (which I provided), Bush was paying off our deficit slowly but surely until 2008 when the global recession hit (Which was caused by irresponsible banking and a partial collapse in the housing and auto market). The solution to the recession was emergency spending which was continued 10-fold when Obama came to office. He spent 13 trillion dollars in "emergency spending" which is ridiculous and there is no way you can defend that legitimately. It was wasteful spending at its best.

As we saw with Ford Motor Company, this spending might not have even been necessary. Instead again being caused by irresponsible economics on their part. Ford brought themselves out of the red and into the black. Evidenced by their stocks going up dramatically in the coming years.

Let's remember it took us over 200 years to accumulate a 1 trillion deficit.

Not even going to argue this, because (and I mean this in the nicest way possible) you are completely blind on this issue. The spending under the Obama administration was digging out of BUSH's hole, not the other way around. The reason Bush was slowly paying the deficit off was that he was cutting corners everywhere to save money in the wrong places (good in short-term, but causes a recession long-term). No matter who went into office, McCain or Obama, the recession would've hit bd. Let's assume Obama didn't spend the 13 trillion, and the govt didn't do anything? Where would be be today after those 8 Bush fail years? Oh yeah, 50% unemployment rates, most of the banking system failing, a "double-dip recession" (something the stimulus prevented; the "double-dip" basically refers to a second stock market crash), poverty levels spiking, the rich packing their bags and fleeing country to protect investments, over 70% of businesses failing, and argueably complete anarchy. Sure I have no proof to back this up, but I would prefer not to gamble with America's future, we don't get any re-do's; better safe than sorry.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Are you actually suggesting social darwinism in education?

I'll agree on the China point, but again, even the top US scorers (best or best) aren't competitive on a global scale.

And suggesting social darwinism? Way to take my view to an extreme again.. No of course i'm not. I'm suggesting a European system where people who give a damn are separated from people who don't. The people who don't will still get an education; just an education more "befitting" to their work ethic.

And Meatshield, i'll work on getting that source.

**RedrumSalad** on 31/07/11, 03:56 pm

Why are political debate posts always so long!?!?! D:

oh, and there was a sign last night of a bill being passed....

best source i could get off the top of my head: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/31/ftn/main20086012.shtml?tag=stack

**Jagdgeschwader** on 31/07/11, 11:11 pm

eaustinn36 wrote:If they don't read it it, that is the banks/businesses problem. they don't follow term of deal, then the govt forcloses on them and gets all their money back (and then some). They know the terms of the deal, and even if they didn't, again, it wouldn't be a stimulus problem; it would be an enforcing problem.

I guarantee you that the Government did not read a million different catches. They're human you know? You can't pay someone do to that work. Nobody remembered it 100% to heart. There is no way everything will be enforced.

eaustinn36 wrote:I wasn't dodging your question, i'm stating facts. The US economy is unprecedented in the world, and we have no means of comparison. I gave you a direct answer: I don't know. That being said, NOBODY knows; again, it is all opinion based on how much is too much. I'm not saying go unlimited, but given the recession and the fact that our tax rates are very low, that number can go up a little.

Then there's no point in arguing this. It's like arguing which is better, rock or rap.

eaustinn36 wrote:I am quite aware the Tea Party is NOT the GOP... you can simmer down on that. However, I can say they share more values with the GOP than Dems, and are in many cases, an extreme right-winged version of the GOP. Not the GOP, but an extreme similar version. I'm not comparing you to them, as you are clearly not Tea Partier.

Obviously they're going to share more values with the GOP then the Democrats. They're a wing of the party.

eaustinn36 wrote:So you say you understand we're all not commies, but almost all Socialists trying to slowly convert the nation into a USSR? That was kind of what I was originally going at in my last post...

We will NEVER keep adding socialist things until we are communist. Pure socialism itself is HORRIBLE. Similarly, pure cpitalism is horrible as well; a mixed economy is best. What we (Dems) are trying to do is take the best of each system and combine it for a perfect one. Considering this nations current shape, i'd say we haven't found that balance yet; although Europe seems to have.

Also, Double News Flash: America's poor, are a lot poorer than you think (not relative to 3rd world nations, but OTHER 1st world nations. Got to compare apples to apples here).

A few things here.
1. Did I ever say pure Capitalism is a good thing? No, it's rife with monopolies and cutthroat business moguls.
2. Europe is not perfect. You seem to imply that Europe is this perfect Godly state (I'm over exaggerating, but it seems to be what you get at.)
3. We're not Europe.
4. No they're not. America's poor have cell phones, internet, cable TV, electricity, cars, gas money, and money to survive each month. The definition of someone who is poor is someone who makes less than $22,000 a year. Unless they're homeless, which is of their own screw-ups in life.

eaustinn36 wrote:Americas healthcare system (currently) is a joke, and every nation in the world agrees. There is a reason you know why EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE ENTIRE WORLD has some sort of a Universal healthcare system... we are clearly missing something. We spend the most on healthcare costs by far, yet we have the coverage of a 3rd world country, and are ranked 37th in the world (on par with a 3rd world country), just barely above Slovenia. You keep referencing how great the healthcare is here; allow me to adjust your statement: "When you need it, it is there, if you can afford it. the simple fact is most Americans can't; bout 50 million of them. And then there is the under insured... you know, statistically, i'd be better off breaking my leg in Israel.

50 million Americans out of what you previously stated as a nation with 400 million people is not most. Again, this is not Europe, this is the US. The people that can't afford basic health care here either:
1. Don't work
2. Are extremely poor
3. Or just decide to not have health insurance for whatever reason.

eaustinn36 wrote:Not even going to argue this, because (and I mean this in the nicest way possible) you are completely blind on this issue. The spending under the Obama administration was digging out of BUSH's hole, not the other way around. The reason Bush was slowly paying the deficit off was that he was cutting corners everywhere to save money in the wrong places (good in short-term, but causes a recession long-term). No matter who went into office, McCain or Obama, the recession would've hit bd. Let's assume Obama didn't spend the 13 trillion, and the govt didn't do anything? Where would be be today after those 8 Bush fail years? Oh yeah, 50% unemployment rates, most of the banking system failing, a "double-dip recession" (something the stimulus prevented; the "double-dip" basically refers to a second stock market crash), poverty levels spiking, the rich packing their bags and fleeing country to protect investments, over 70% of businesses failing, and argueably complete anarchy. Sure I have no proof to back this up, but I would prefer not to gamble with America's future, we don't get any re-do's; better safe than sorry.

What would the other way around be? Bush spending out of Obama's hole?

Your numbers are extremely unrealistic. Above par the Great Depression two-fold at the least, the WORST economic downturn in the globalized world. You're blind on this issue. Where is even your evidence that Bush was cutting corners on spending other than liberal propaganda? In a Capitalistic society, business shouldn't rely on the Government to protect them. Just because you are the largest corporation in the world, doesn't mean you're invincible. Social darwinism in business is like fire to the land. It's devastating at first, but it will prop up again as stronger and more reliable. Something that is needed in our country where handouts are everywhere.

Are you actually bringing an argument to the table where you even admit you have no proof whether it is true or not? On such a large issue? The President is blamed for everything. Even when things are not his fault. It happened with President Hoover in 1929 with the Great Depression. President Hoover was not at fault for the Great Depression, irresponsible banking and industrialization gone mad was.

What even saved us from the Great Depression? It definitely wasn't Roosevelt spending money like crazy (Although it did provide some relief) it was World War II. The largest conflict the world has ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I like Roosevelt as a President.

The difference here is that it is Obama's fault. As I referenced before with Ford Motor Company, they didn't need the Government to pull them out of the red. They did it on their own. As could've every bank and corporation that suffered and was given a handout in the recession. The ones that couldn't aren't strong enough to survive a recession and therefore are not fit for a Capitalistic society. A sad but true reality in our world.

The President is not directly involved in everything in our society. Investors, corporate leaders and corporations play a huge part. More so than the Government.

eaustinn36 wrote:I'll agree on the China point, but again, even the top US scorers (best or best) aren't competitive on a global scale.

And suggesting social darwinism? Way to take my view to an extreme again.. No of course i'm not. I'm suggesting a European system where people who give a damn are separated from people who don't. The people who don't will still get an education; just an education more "befitting" to their work ethic.

And Meatshield, i'll work on getting that source.

China isn't the only nation that manipulates their scores.

Again, just because Europe does it doesn't mean it's perfect. Let's remember individual European countries have a lot less to deal with than the US does. Europe has to gang together (Or as my German teacher referred to it, the "United States of Europe") to be anywhere near the size economically the US or China is.

It is darwinism when you take the underachieving students and place them in remedial classes because they either don't understand or don't give a damn.

It's one thing if they don't give a damn, but another when they're simply slower students.

If you want to talk about class warfare, that right there is the start of it.

@Redrum
I saw that just now, I'm glad a deal was reached.

**eaustinn36** on 31/07/11, 11:56 pm

Jagdgeschwader wrote:No they're not. America's poor have cell phones, internet, cable TV, electricity, cars, gas money, and money to survive each month. The definition of someone who is poor is someone who makes less than $22,000 a year. Unless they're homeless, which is of their own screw-ups in life.

If this is really how you think Americas lower class (not homeless) lives, you need a serious reality check. I find it funny how ONLY GOP MEMBERS seem to believe this.. at least of whom i've talked to.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:50 million Americans out of what you previously stated as a nation with 400 million people is not most. Again, this is not Europe, this is the US. The people that can't afford basic health care here either:
1. Don't work
2. Are extremely poor
3. Or just decide to not have health insurance for whatever reason.

Um... I work, i'm not extremely poor, and if my job didn't provide health insurance as a benefit, I couldn't afford it. Maybe I could get some insurance, but I would be UNDER-INSURED as millions of Americans are, and struggling to pay ridiculus premiums. Many people argue "oh I dont want the govt in my pocket!"... well, would you rather have an extremely greedy insurance company in your pocket? Govt is non-profit, they aren't trying to con anyone. Again, you need a massive reality check on this issue; not everyone who is less fortunate than you chooses to be that way.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:What would the other way around be? Bush spending out of Obama's hole?

Your numbers are extremely unrealistic. Above par the Great Depression two-fold at the least, the WORST economic downturn in the globalized world. You're blind on this issue. Where is even your evidence that Bush was cutting corners on spending other than liberal propaganda? In a Capitalistic society, business shouldn't rely on the Government to protect them. Just because you are the largest corporation in the world, doesn't mean you're invincible. Social darwinism in business is like fire to the land. It's devastating at first, but it will prop up again as stronger and more reliable. Something that is needed in our country where handouts are everywhere.

Are you actually bringing an argument to the table where you even admit you have no proof whether it is true or not? On such a large issue? The President is blamed for everything. Even when things are not his fault. It happened with President Hoover in 1929 with the Great Depression. President Hoover was not at fault for the Great Depression, irresponsible banking and industrialization gone mad was.

What even saved us from the Great Depression? It definitely wasn't Roosevelt spending money like crazy (Although it did provide some relief) it was World War II. The largest conflict the world has ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I like Roosevelt as a President.

The difference here is that it is Obama's fault. As I referenced before with Ford Motor Company, they didn't need the Government to pull them out of the red. They did it on their own. As could've every bank and corporation that suffered and was given a handout in the recession. The ones that couldn't aren't strong enough to survive a recession and therefore are not fit for a Capitalistic society. A sad but true reality in our world.

The President is not directly involved in everything in our society. Investors, corporate leaders and corporations play a huge part. More so than the Government.

Um.. oh dear. Where to start. One, ford was not even close to as bad of shape as Chevy and Chrysler. Without govt intervention neither would exist today (or they would but would just be owned by some Indian Company taking all their profits). Next of course FDR's stimulus brought us out of the depression... The US didn't get involved in WW2 until the 40's... by the late 30's, thx to the stimulus, we were already halfway out of the depression. WW2 was just the icing on the cake (considering the cost and jobs it added, from the GOVT, it was a stimulus in itself).

I'll sum up the rest of the section with the following: EVERY SINGLE economic downturn is US history occurred after a Republican left office (Harding/coolige, Regean, Bush), and followed a period of DEREGULATION where the markets were allowed to fluorish more and had less restrictions put on them by the govt. Does America learn from history? nope. Just watch. Next GOP member to take office will start deregulating everything once again, and we'll be in yet another depression/recession by the end of his/her term.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:Again, just because Europe does it doesn't mean it's perfect. Let's remember individual European countries have a lot less to deal with than the US does. Europe has to gang together (Or as my German teacher referred to it, the "United States of Europe") to be anywhere near the size economically the US or China is.

The only reason the US has more to deal with is because we CHOOSE to have more to deal with. We randomly invade other ppl for our own interests, and Europe wisely stays out of the picture. And "United States of Europe"? lol... I think you mean the EU (European Union).

Jagdgeschwader wrote:I saw that just now, I'm glad a deal was reached.

Actually, if you read the article, a deal was NOT reached yet. All it says is some progress has been made, and there is now (for the first time) actual hope that a deal just might be reached in time.

**Jagdgeschwader** on 01/08/11, 12:13 am

Seeing as at 8:40 Eastern and deal was reached. I will grant you the final word.

Both sides made good points. But seeing as the debt crisis was solved just a few minutes ago, I will end with this:

Mission Accomplished.

I could continue to debate your points for days. As you could for mine. We'll let the forum decide for themselves who succeeded, but right now, I'm going to read the rest of Brave New World.

Good night.

(And yes of course I mean the European Union. God! My German teacher referred to it as a reference in Freshman year of high school. Who the fuck would call it the "United States of Europe" except to tell high school students that who likely don't know shit about world economics???)

**eaustinn36** on 01/08/11, 01:10 am

hmm... conflicting articles i'm getting. Some say a deal has been reached, while others say a deal that House and White House can agree on has been reached, but congress has yet to vote on it.

I'm not sure if everything is set in stone yet; going to wait till morning.

(and btw jag, it has been a pleasure debating with you. After looking back at this past page.. the post lengths... damn lol)

EDIT: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Jul/31/key_politicans_outline_emerging_debt__default_deal.html

And take a look at the polls on the left of page lol... congress isn't doing too hot at 19% approval.

**Jagdgeschwader** on 01/08/11, 01:47 am

It's always a pleasure to debate with another intellectual.

Even if this plan doesn't go through, the emergency plan is to cut half of defense spending and the other half on entitlements.

Not the greatest plan, but that's why it's plan B. I'm just glad something is set in stone. Whether it be A or B.

**eaustinn36** on 01/08/11, 01:50 am

Jagdgeschwader wrote:It's always a pleasure to debate with another intellectual.

Even if this plan doesn't go through, the emergency plan is to cut half of defense spending and the other half on entitlements.

Not the greatest plan, but that's why it's plan B. I'm just glad something is set in stone. Whether it be A or B.

Been reading on it, and while neither is chosen yet... plan B on the surface at least doesn't sound bad at all (not opening up a "'we spend too much on defense" debate). Especially since there is no tax increases whatsoever as part of the deal; Dems didn't get much out of it.

**Jagdgeschwader** on 01/08/11, 01:52 am

**Tophat 44** on 01/08/11, 03:39 am

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

**eaustinn36** on 01/08/11, 05:35 pm

Just checked the updates, and the latter assumption was right. While a deal has been reached in extreme compromise, it hasn't been voted on yet in the House or Senate. The agreement is also being blasted by both parties, as neither are completely satisfied.

Read more here: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-debt-winners-20110801,0,1468308.story?track=rss

Still nothing set in stone, all verbal at this point. The clock remains ticking still for now.

**SlaughterShyful** on 01/08/11, 08:41 pm

What happened to all the golden camoflouge guns in Black Ops
we coulda just sold those

**Jagdgeschwader** on 01/08/11, 09:36 pm

...

House passed it. Obviously both sides are going to have problems. But we're not here to satisfy everyone. We're here to get shit done.