Already blaming GOP for sequester

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:LOL... The sequestration would be less than 3% of the federal budget and the politicians are yelling DOOMSDAY.

gawd we're dumb.

Well, the less the government spends, the less the Fed needs to print money. The Fed likely confirmed this today; markets are selling off.

That proved on point through the day. Fed = recovery. But even if it happens spending increases over projected years.

How long can this charade sustain itself? You're a brave man... it looks like a game of jinga with real consequences.

PkrBum wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:LOL... The sequestration would be less than 3% of the federal budget and the politicians are yelling DOOMSDAY.

gawd we're dumb.

Well, the less the government spends, the less the Fed needs to print money. The Fed likely confirmed this today; markets are selling off.

That proved on point through the day. Fed = recovery. But even if it happens spending increases over projected years.

How long can this charade sustain itself? You're a brave man... it looks like a game of jinga with real consequences.

With the Fed providing incentive for the government to spend, I'd say it can go on for a long time.

Obama wants a blank check to give to his supporters budget be darned and the GOP wants to reign in spending. I'll go with the reign in spending crowd. We can't afford to give the treasury away to China forever.

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:LOL... The sequestration would be less than 3% of the federal budget and the politicians are yelling DOOMSDAY.

gawd we're dumb.

Well, the less the government spends, the less the Fed needs to print money. The Fed likely confirmed this today; markets are selling off.

That proved on point through the day. Fed = recovery. But even if it happens spending increases over projected years.

How long can this charade sustain itself? You're a brave man... it looks like a game of jinga with real consequences.

With the Fed providing incentive for the government to spend, I'd say it can go on for a long time.

Where was this conversation from the "right" during the Bush years? I will answer that for you "conservatives"...nonexistent...

Typical liberal answer. Blame Bush.

Do you liberals agree with the President continually running trillion dollar deficits?

Captn Kaoz wrote:Do you liberals agree with the President continually running trillion dollar deficits?

Of course they do as long as they keep getting checks that Obama is writing which are funded by the Chinese.

Floridatexan wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:LOL... The sequestration would be less than 3% of the federal budget and the politicians are yelling DOOMSDAY.

gawd we're dumb.

Well, the less the government spends, the less the Fed needs to print money. The Fed likely confirmed this today; markets are selling off.

That proved on point through the day. Fed = recovery. But even if it happens spending increases over projected years.

How long can this charade sustain itself? You're a brave man... it looks like a game of jinga with real consequences.

With the Fed providing incentive for the government to spend, I'd say it can go on for a long time.

Where was this conversation from the "right" during the Bush years? I will answer that for you "conservatives"...nonexistent...

Bush? Still blaming Bush....

PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-emergency-responders-push-republicans-sequester-141651336--politics.html
The GOP in the HOR have passed budgets each year and Harry Reid and the Dems in the Senate always shoot them down. Why doesn't he call out Harry?

I'm afraid it's a result of the GOP spirited by the TEA folks during Obama's first term and getting a reputation of the party of "NO". These perceptions tend to linger.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Margin Call wrote:

PkrBum wrote:LOL... The sequestration would be less than 3% of the federal budget and the politicians are yelling DOOMSDAY.

gawd we're dumb.

Well, the less the government spends, the less the Fed needs to print money. The Fed likely confirmed this today; markets are selling off.

That proved on point through the day. Fed = recovery. But even if it happens spending increases over projected years.

How long can this charade sustain itself? You're a brave man... it looks like a game of jinga with real consequences.

With the Fed providing incentive for the government to spend, I'd say it can go on for a long time.

Where was this conversation from the "right" during the Bush years? I will answer that for you "conservatives"...nonexistent...

Bush? Still blaming Bush....

It was during Bush's last few months of office that we had the "bailout" of the big banks and brokerages. Who should I blame?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Captn Kaoz wrote:Do you liberals agree with the President continually running trillion dollar deficits?

Of course they do as long as they keep getting checks that Obama is writing which are funded by the Chinese.

They have not cared or offered a solution...They only made this a complaint during the previous administration and the cowh during his first campaigned against wasteful overspending---and yet he's had no accountability for the same...At this time the hypocrisy can be aimed towards the democrats/liberals...BUT...to be fair the republicans/conservatives that are now complaining would more than likely become silent should a republican president be elected and continue with wasteful spending....a very vicious cycle and the reason why it continues...

PACEDOG#1 wrote:Obama wants a blank check to give to his supporters budget be darned and the GOP wants to reign in spending. I'll go with the reign in spending crowd. We can't afford to give the treasury away to China forever.

I agree---Obama wants a blank check period !