djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 5, 2011 23:58:52 GMT -5
djlungrot, I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters! -M Oh please, after P.I. copied and pasted verbatum. he didn't quote it verbatim, diamonds. he quoted two paragraphs. the actual document is quite long. it is listed here:
www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563
Geez, it did happen on Obama's watch and there was really no rush as a few more days of discussion could have been hammered out a better deal. One that Obama didn't read and yet veto. that deal did enough cutting, but did not raise revenues. the S&P specifically cited this as a problem with the compromise.It's obvious he follows in the steps of Pelosi's advice as it was obvious with the passage of Obama Care. That piece of crap should have been repealed. And what about the tax-cheat Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury who was supposed to use part of the Stimulus package for job creation? I'm not getting into more, but our country has lost respect around the world for the lack of handling our problems in a sane and responsible way. none of these were actually mentioned in the S&P opinion. that is the interesting part. they were willing to look forward on this, rather than back. and there was an "idea" on the table that would have kept them happy. we passed on it.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 5, 2011 23:59:53 GMT -5
At least I am consistent. Wrong again you usually blame Reagan for just about everything that has gone wrong for the past few years ....try to be more consistent if you want to wear that new label....but it doesn't fit... I blame the people who elected Reagan, for without them we never would have had the man in office. Ok I can deal with it
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Aug 6, 2011 0:00:22 GMT -5
P.I. take a break, great debate and a karma to you. I'm looking at the red 'X" now and will use my mouse to exit. HAGN...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:03:25 GMT -5
I think what we should all be discussing is what will this downgrade by the S&P mean to our economy?? All the other nonsensical sfuff on this thread misses that point IMHO....will this downgrade effect jobs??? will this effect the markets??? will this cause the S&P to downgrade their rating again if the congress faills to act again??? i can answer those questions one at a time: it will raise interest rates, which will syphon more money off to banks, and drain resources from consumer spending, which will not be good for consumer spending and, as a result, jobs. the markets were already peaking over economic fears, and i suspect that this downgrade will exascerbate that, as it lowers "outlooks". that is all the market really cares about- forecasts. and i very much doubt that S&P would downgrade us again, but Moody's might. it was you and others that were arguing the political impacts on this, and i was engaging that argument. but i will go along with your latest argument = who really cares? i don't. i am all about the money. ultimately, i don't care about the politics. this mistake was bad for business, and it was totally unnecessary and foolish. that is why i am angry.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Aug 6, 2011 0:03:46 GMT -5
dj: You, have a good night also.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 0:04:01 GMT -5
P.I. take a break, great debate and a karma to you. I'm looking at the red 'X" now and will use my mouse to exit. HAGN... The S&P John Chambers said that congress and the administration failed to do their jobs after they were both warned months ago... So now we have to deal with their falings IMHO
|
|
WannabeWealthy
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 12:25:17 GMT -5
Posts: 357
|
Post by WannabeWealthy on Aug 6, 2011 0:05:48 GMT -5
djlungrot, I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters! -M Have you read the S&P Statement??? Basically it says both congress and the admininstration fell short of dealing with our debt so that is why the rating was downgraded.....how is that BIASED it is merely what they stated nothing more and nothing less Yes I did. And what djungrot is saying doesn't take a genius to understand. It's quite simple. You have danced around the statement in the S&P for over 3 pages!! Can I get those wasted minutes reading your drivel back?? -M
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:06:45 GMT -5
P.I. take a break, great debate and a karma to you. I'm looking at the red 'X" now and will use my mouse to exit. HAGN... diamond- he has no reason to take a break. i am not beating him up. i could not care less whether he agrees with me or not. this is not personal for me. i am upset at the situation. just like he is. just like you are. there is no reason to make this a battle of "kool aid drinkers" over sensible people like you. seriously.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 0:08:51 GMT -5
Is $4 trillion in debt reduction cuts over the next decade or so enough to satisfy Standard & Poor’s, the credit ratings agency now threatening a 50-50 chance of a swift credit rating downgrade to the U.S.’s Triple-A without that sum? That $4 trillion may not be enough, says S&P, it may want more. Moreover, S&P today blamed "acrimonious" D.C. debt fights that are worse than it expected as for why it fast-tracked the time for when it would downgrade the U.S.'s top-notch credit rating, says S&P's top executive overseeing sovereign ratings. And although downgrades usually come from external shocks to an economy, the U.S.'s wound is "a self-inflicted" problem, says S&P sovereign-rating chief John Chambers. FOX News’ Bret Baier, James Rosen and Mike Emanuel caught this interesting disclosure S&P sovereign-rating chief Chambers made on a conference call today. FOX Business’s Peter Barnes caught this tip, too. The “webinar was held for investors on state and local governments and pension issues,” says an S&P spokesman. Read more: www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/28/sp-4-trillion-is-only-start/#ixzz1UDqmK8Le
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 0:10:55 GMT -5
Yes I did. And what djungrot is saying doesn't take a genius to understand. It's quite simple. You have danced around the statement in the S&P for over 3 pages!! Can I get those wasted minutes reading your drivel back??
No!!! But how about NOT reading my drivel and then you will not waste your time here
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 0:12:09 GMT -5
...well, you only quoted a portion of what I said... so, what part of my opinion do you take issue with? ...although you certainly don't have to tell me... but maybe you have info that could influence my take on the matter? the first part of your reply answered my question, Been. i didn't need to go further..... i think that the Tea Party forced this issue, and it is simple logic that gets me there. the president wasn't asking for the debt ceiling to be made an issue. Democrats certainly weren't. they would be just as happy seeing the debt ceiling rise endlessly, as everyone agrees. and, in fact, the mainstream GOP didn't have a major issue raising it, either. the early negotiations clearly indicated that to me. so it was the Tea Party that stood in the way of a clean debt ceiling bill, and in the way of most of the compromises on this issue, and that is most certainly their prerogative (or, if you listen to them, their "patriotic duty"). i think you are saying that the debt itself forced this issue, but that is clearly NOT true, either. it was raised $2T less than two years ago, with little fuss, just as has been done for the last (87) times. there is nothing magical about the $14T number. the USA won't fold tomorrow if it becomes $15T or $16T. this brinksmanship was just as unneccessary and politically motiviated as the lack of compromise on the part of Democrats and Republicans on key issues. but make not mistake. the Democrats clearly did NOT want this fight. and it ended in a downgrade. those are the facts. ...well, you can argue against my opinion, but I still hold it... and the "magic" about $14T could be considered the GDP... when you start knocking on, or breaking through, the door of 100% d/i ratios, you're in new territory... doesn't matter if it's financial or emotional territory... we didn't need to pass that mark... ...imo... ...and I don't think the Tea Party members forced this issue... had Congress made significant cuts in spending, we wouldn't have had to try to raise the limit, and the Tea Party members wouldn't have had to stand by their guns, at their constituents' behest... ...so, I guess we just have to sit on opposite sides of this particular room, huh?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:14:27 GMT -5
djlungrot, I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters! -M shade: THIS is actually the statement i am looking for. it is one that i think OldTex would make: "damn right the Tea Party forced this debate, and it is ABOUT F(*KING TIME. those damned leeburels would be spending us into oblivion if we don't do SOMETHING, and now was the time to do it. KUDOS to the Tea Party, and F*&K S&P and Obama and the Democrats for not going along with them" that is a position i can understand and respect. but this business of saying that Obama is to blame because he could not fashion a compromise that was suitable to S&P is rubbish. God Himself could not have done so, and Obama is clearly well short of God. so, this is how i see it: the Tea Party brought on this game and were unwilling to take the grand compromise when it was offered in early July. the Democrats were. even Boehner was. he ran back to congress excitedly, only to be replaced by Cantor. what an abortion. what a sad day for our republic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:17:56 GMT -5
the first part of your reply answered my question, Been. i didn't need to go further..... i think that the Tea Party forced this issue, and it is simple logic that gets me there. the president wasn't asking for the debt ceiling to be made an issue. Democrats certainly weren't. they would be just as happy seeing the debt ceiling rise endlessly, as everyone agrees. and, in fact, the mainstream GOP didn't have a major issue raising it, either. the early negotiations clearly indicated that to me. so it was the Tea Party that stood in the way of a clean debt ceiling bill, and in the way of most of the compromises on this issue, and that is most certainly their prerogative (or, if you listen to them, their "patriotic duty"). i think you are saying that the debt itself forced this issue, but that is clearly NOT true, either. it was raised $2T less than two years ago, with little fuss, just as has been done for the last (87) times. there is nothing magical about the $14T number. the USA won't fold tomorrow if it becomes $15T or $16T. this brinksmanship was just as unneccessary and politically motiviated as the lack of compromise on the part of Democrats and Republicans on key issues. but make not mistake. the Democrats clearly did NOT want this fight. and it ended in a downgrade. those are the facts. ...well, you can argue against my opinion, but I still hold it... and the "magic" about $14T could be considered the GDP... when you start knocking on, or breaking through, the door of 100% d/i ratios, you're in new territory... doesn't matter if it's financial or emotional territory... we didn't need to pass that mark... no, we didn't. but cutting the budget 40% right now, draining 10% out of GDP for that purpose, would have been a DISASTER. if you don't believe me, look at the second quarter growth figures, which cited government cutbacks as one of the reasons for slowdown in growth. and there is nothing magical about 1:1 d/i. Japan has been well over that mark for decades, and their credit rating is AAA.
|
|
WannabeWealthy
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 12:25:17 GMT -5
Posts: 357
|
Post by WannabeWealthy on Aug 6, 2011 0:18:21 GMT -5
djlungrot, I can't believe you are 3 pages into arguing with these goofs. They will NEVER admit what's written in a document about the Repubs because they are tea partiers themselves! Why argue? They are NOT factual debaters but BIASED debaters! -M Oh please, after P.I. copied and pasted verbatum. Geez, it did happen on Obama's watch and there was really no rush as a few more days of discussion could have been hammered out a better deal. One that Obama didn't read and yet vetod. It's obvious he follows in the steps of Pelosi's advice as it was obvious with the passage of Obama Care. That piece of crap should have been repealed. And what about the tax-cheat Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury who was supposed to use part of the Stimulus package for job creation? I'm not getting into more, but our country has lost respect around the world for the lack of handling our problems in a sane and responsible way. Riiightt.. whatever makes you comfortable with life. I'm not wasting my time with this thread. There was never going to be a deal that would have been worth a damn because you can't balance a budget on cuts alone. That's just simple economics. -M
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:19:51 GMT -5
...and I don't think the Tea Party members forced this issue... had Congress made significant cuts in spending, we wouldn't have had to try to raise the limit, that is false, unless you want to cut the budget 40% i think that would have been very very unwise right now. i know many will disagree, but i stand by that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:22:15 GMT -5
...so, I guess we just have to sit on opposite sides of this particular room, huh? not really. i consider myself a fiscal conservative. so we both sit on the same side of the room. you are just rammed up against the wall, whereas i am closer to the middle.
|
|
WannabeWealthy
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 12:25:17 GMT -5
Posts: 357
|
Post by WannabeWealthy on Aug 6, 2011 0:23:49 GMT -5
...so, I guess we just have to sit on opposite sides of this particular room, huh? not really. i consider myself a fiscal conservative. so we both sit on the same side of the room. you are just rammed up against the wall, whereas i am closer to the middle. LOL!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:25:49 GMT -5
Is $4 trillion in debt reduction cuts over the next decade or so enough to satisfy Standard & Poor’s, the credit ratings agency now threatening a 50-50 chance of a swift credit rating downgrade to the U.S.’s Triple-A without that sum? That $4 trillion may not be enough, says S&P, it may want more. Moreover, S&P today blamed "acrimonious" D.C. debt fights that are worse than it expected as for why it fast-tracked the time for when it would downgrade the U.S.'s top-notch credit rating, says S&P's top executive overseeing sovereign ratings. PI- that is not what i had read. let me see if i can find the source. however, if this matter seems "debatable" to you, i am more sympathetic to your position. the fact that i have not read this before should make you more sympathetic to mine.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 0:26:38 GMT -5
...well, you can argue against my opinion, but I still hold it... and the "magic" about $14T could be considered the GDP... when you start knocking on, or breaking through, the door of 100% d/i ratios, you're in new territory... doesn't matter if it's financial or emotional territory... we didn't need to pass that mark... no, we didn't. but cutting the budget 40% right now, draining 10% out of GDP for that purpose, would have been a DISASTER. if you don't believe me, look at the second quarter growth figures, which cited government cutbacks as one of the reasons for slowdown in growth. and there is nothing magical about 1:1 d/i. Japan has been well over that mark for decades, and their credit rating is AAA. ...valid points... but I think that we've been facing a disaster either way... which disaster has a better long-term prognosis? ...I would rather have had drastic cuts over time over recent years, or even long ago, rather than open-heart surgery in one fell swoop in 2011 and 2012... no doubt about it... ...and while there's nothing overly unusual about the 100% mark, it still is a mark... and we've basically done nothing to demonstrate our credit-worthiness for quite some time, so why shouldn't we have lost AAA?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 0:28:01 GMT -5
...and I don't think the Tea Party members forced this issue... had Congress made significant cuts in spending, we wouldn't have had to try to raise the limit, that is false, unless you want to cut the budget 40% i think that would have been very very unwise right now. i know many will disagree, but i stand by that. ...I can certainly understand that... ETA: ...except for the "false" part... lol
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 0:29:42 GMT -5
...so, I guess we just have to sit on opposite sides of this particular room, huh? not really. i consider myself a fiscal conservative. so we both sit on the same side of the room. you are just rammed up against the wall, whereas i am closer to the middle. ...I'm not sure what you mean by ME being rammed up against the wall... this isn't a Michael Jackson thing, is it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:30:45 GMT -5
PI- here is what i read. this came from Chambers on July 26th:
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Standard & Poor's chairman of the sovereign ratings committee reiterated Thursday that the ratings agency would like to see at least a $4 trillion debt deal approved by Congress.
Such a deal should come with bipartisan support as well, said John Chambers during a webcast on the U.Soutlook. Bipartisan support is necessary because without it any plan approved could be overturned in the future if another party takes power, he said.
S&P placed the U.S. government's top-notch debt rating on review for a possible downgrade earlier this month because of worries Congress and the President would fail to raise the legal borrowing limit by an Aug. 2 deadline or enact a credible, long-term deficit reduction plan. .
so, the way i read that was that $4T was the ideal compromise, but that it should be bipartisan.
again, everyone agreed on this, except for the Tea Party, and those NOT in the Tea Party that signed the Nordquist Pledge. therefore, the impasse was caused by that group.
i see of no other way to view it.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 0:30:46 GMT -5
...and, fwiw, I want a faster computer...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:33:53 GMT -5
not really. i consider myself a fiscal conservative. so we both sit on the same side of the room. you are just rammed up against the wall, whereas i am closer to the middle. ...I'm not sure what you mean by ME being rammed up against the wall... this isn't a Michael Jackson thing, is it? LOL! no. i am just stretching that metaphor for all it is worth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:35:58 GMT -5
that is false, unless you want to cut the budget 40% i think that would have been very very unwise right now. i know many will disagree, but i stand by that. ...I can certainly understand that... ETA: ...except for the "false" part... lol i don't view draining 11% out of the economy that is barely above water a good idea, Been. if you disagree, then that is fine. i feel pretty comfortable with that position.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 0:38:07 GMT -5
Chambers added in the interview that even if the parties agree to raise the debt ceiling, it may not be enough to avert a downgrade. Chambers said the country must implement a plan to reduce the annual budget deficit by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years, which makes the debt manageable over the long term.
The White House and Congress have discussed a plan that big, but negotiations have more recently centered on a smaller deal, at $2 trillion or less.
“That could still lead to a downgrade,” Chambers said.
So this is the $2 Trillion difference that Chambers warned about or as he said "fell short" thus leading to his downgrade And the Treasury announced today they don't agree with the $2 Trillion difference which is interesting to say the least which means they are challenging the downgrade
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:44:23 GMT -5
no, we didn't. but cutting the budget 40% right now, draining 10% out of GDP for that purpose, would have been a DISASTER. if you don't believe me, look at the second quarter growth figures, which cited government cutbacks as one of the reasons for slowdown in growth. and there is nothing magical about 1:1 d/i. Japan has been well over that mark for decades, and their credit rating is AAA. ...valid points... but I think that we've been facing a disaster either way... which disaster has a better long-term prognosis? i will take an uncertain future over a manufactured crisis anyday....I would rather have had drastic cuts over time over recent years, or even long ago, rather than open-heart surgery in one fell swoop in 2011 and 2012... no doubt about it... ...and while there's nothing overly unusual about the 100% mark, it still is a mark... and we've basically done nothing to demonstrate our credit-worthiness for quite some time, so why shouldn't we have lost AAA? there are (20) other nations that have more debt on a GDP basis than the US. several of them have AAA ratings. the trick is having enough revenue to cover it. and clearly the US is very much lagging in this category, trailing all but Iceland among developed nations. the analogy i use is this one: how big is your personal debt compared to your income? mine is about 5x as much. i don't know how that compares to the average American, but i am guessing most home owners are fairly near that. if i can manage 5X debt to income, i have no trouble imagining the US being able to do the same. do i want that? of course not. but i don't think 2x is out of the question, and i think 1.5x is downright safe. this is a "comfort issue". some people want no debt. some people are comfortable with lots of it. i am just saying that 1.0x GDP is completely arbitrary, and not extraordinarily high.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Aug 6, 2011 0:48:38 GMT -5
The US Treasury has hit back against a Standard and Poor's downgrade of its AAA credit rating, saying there was a $2 trillion dollar error in the agency's calculations. "A judgment flawed by a 2 trillion dollar error speaks for itself," a Treasury spokesman said, just after the US lost its AAA rating for the first time ever and was downgraded to a AA+. It was the first time the US was downgraded since it first received a triple-AAA rating from Moody's in 1917; it has held the S&P rating since 1941. Moody's and a third ratings agency, Fitch, say they continue to study the deficit plan to see if the US merits being kept in their ranks of AAA countries. Earlier, an official close to the discussions with S&P said: "There are deep and fundamental flaws with the S&P analysis." stocksmarket.in/uncategorized/2011/08/06/2-trillion-error-in-sp-calculations-us-afp/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 6, 2011 0:53:11 GMT -5
Chambers added in the interview that even if the parties agree to raise the debt ceiling, it may not be enough to avert a downgrade. Chambers said the country must implement a plan to reduce the annual budget deficit by roughly $4 trillion over 10 years, which makes the debt manageable over the long term.
The White House and Congress have discussed a plan that big, but negotiations have more recently centered on a smaller deal, at $2 trillion or less.
“That could still lead to a downgrade,” Chambers said.So this is the $2 Trillion difference that Chambers warned about or as he said "fell short" thus leading to his downgrade precisely. it was the weak compromise that resulted in the downgrade. let's be candid for a moment. there were only TWO plans that had the kind of cuts the S&P was looking for, and only ONE that had cuts with revenue enhancements. neither of those compromises had bipartisan support. HOWEVER, the "grand compromise" was MUCH CLOSER to getting that support than the other, which was going to not only not get any Democratic support (thus failing the Senate) but it was going to get vetoed. so i think the argument comes down to this: if you think that the grand compromise was closer to a bipartisan bill than the CC&T bill, then Obama is largely blameless- because that is the bill that the S&P wanted to see (bipartisan-ness is important because, as the S&P guy said, such a bill would face less long term opposition to being overturned). if you think the opposite, then the Democrats and Obama are totally to blame. if you think NEITHER bill was bipartisan, or even close, then they are both to blame. that leaves only one thing to discuss: knowing that compromise was impossible, was this fight even wise to engage in?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 6, 2011 0:54:47 GMT -5
...I'm not sure what you mean by ME being rammed up against the wall... this isn't a Michael Jackson thing, is it? LOL! no. i am just stretching that metaphor for all it is worth. ...ah...
|
|