Debt ceiling

townsend7 wrote:

bravenrace wrote: This wouldn't even be an issue if Obama hadn't wasted trillions on a stimulus that didn't work. But now that we are here, I hope the Republicans stick to their guns. So far I'm happy with what Boehner's been doing. This is what he promised, and it's what a lot of Republican representatives were elected to do, so I hope they don't back down.

But that wouldn't be as much of an issue if we didn't have to pay trillions on an ill-advised, poorly run, war in / rebuilding of Iraq. This country's been poorly run for a long time. Reagan started this deficit spending, trickle down, B.S.. Boehner? During Bush Presidency, current GOP leaders (McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Kyl) voted 19 times to increase the debt limit by about $4 trillion without asking for any talk of reducing the deficit. I believe that their current political positions are more posturing than anything resembling actual responsibility. June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.” May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve. November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve. March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve. September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

And Obama opposed those increases. They are all a bunch of damn politicians.

I have a small trickle of hope that the GOP has "come to Jesus" following the '10 election. Whether it's because of a change in philosophy, or just a desperate attempt to not get fired in '12, I'm glad they are thus far holding the line.

bravenrace wrote: So since they were irresponsible in the past, that makes it okay now? I don't think so. Regardless of what happened in the past, and believe me, I'm not happy with that either, the fact remains that if Obama hadn't spent and largely wasted all that money, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling at this time. So I stand by my original statement. Another thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that when all that money was spent all those years ago (right or wrong), we weren't in the dire situation we are right now.

Part of the reason we're in a dire situation now is BECAUSE all that money was spent all those years ago. I'm sure we agree on that. My frustration is that the current GOP leadership is part of the problem. I point out their hypocritical behavior to support that opinion. Wrong then, wrong now.

Some / most of the stimulus money Obama spent at least went toward infrastructure projects and things here at home. I'll agree it didn't have the desired effect on the economy but it was FAR less disastrous than the Iraq war that continues to severely burden our country almost a decade later.

DILYSI Dave wrote: And Obama opposed those increases. They are all a bunch of damn politicians. I have a small trickle of hope that the GOP has "come to Jesus" following the '10 election. Whether it's because of a change in philosophy, or just a desperate attempt to not get fired in '12, I'm glad they are thus far holding the line.

Yes, they are all a bunch of politicians. And we keep electing them.

In reply to townsend7:

Your complaints about Republicans are true, but was then and this is now. The party finally got a long-overdue rude awakening when the country realized what happened on their watch. The rise of the Tea Party and it's focus on economic policies have reminded politicians that a very large group of voters are more attentive and involved in the process and are using their Constitutional rights to address issues.

Suspicion about political posturing is understandable, but the fact remains - Republicans now understand they have to listen to their consitituents or they are getting voted OUT. The RINO's learned a hard lesson last November.

Unfortunately, it seems the Democrats haven't learned anything from a mid-term election that was a flat-out rejection of their policies and agenda. While the "stimulus package" has had some success, people see it for what it is - a failure and a hugely expensive waste of billions of non-existent dollars. And, the abomination of a bill known as Obamacare is just another loop in the noose Democrats are readying for their own necks. Too bad the Blue Dog Democrats haven't had as much influence in their own party as the Tea Party has had on the other side.

The debt ceiling impass is a perfect example of one side taking a responsible approach in dealing with out-of control spending and restoring the economy and some confidence from the rest of the world. The other side has yet to put forth any hard numbers but is only too eager to demagogue it's opposition and to promote class warfare. With that kind of politics, we won't have to worry abut classes anymore; we'll all be berkeleyed, royally.

I believe Obama admitted that his no votes on limit increases were purely political (as in, he new it had to be done but he needed to posture).

Any defense spending adjustments have already been made mute (they already funded it I believe). The Reps, despite all of there supposed interest in controlling government and spending (which the military is both in a big way) seemed to have no interest in making any adjustments.

One of the head republicans has already admitted that his primary goal here is to see that Obama does not win re-election!!! (thanks a-hole, that's really what the country needs you to focus on right now). That gives you an idea what really is going on. Sort of hot potato with a big steaming pile of sh*t with a m80 in it.

aircooled wrote: One of the head republicans has already admitted that his primary goal here is to see that Obama does not win re-election!!! (thanks a-hole, that's really what the country needs you to focus on right now). That gives you an idea what really is going on. Sort of hot potato with a big steaming pile of sh*t with a m80 in it.

You say that as if the Democrat posturing is not an effort to gain Obama's re-election. When has the President offered anything (publicly spoken) that hasn't been a campaign speech?

I heard about this on the radio:

http://budgethero.org

Interesting game...

townsend7 wrote:

bravenrace wrote: So since they were irresponsible in the past, that makes it okay now? I don't think so. Regardless of what happened in the past, and believe me, I'm not happy with that either, the fact remains that if Obama hadn't spent and largely wasted all that money, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling at this time. So I stand by my original statement. Another thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that when all that money was spent all those years ago (right or wrong), we weren't in the dire situation we are right now.

Part of the reason we're in a dire situation now is BECAUSE all that money was spent all those years ago. I'm sure we agree on that. My frustration is that the current GOP leadership is part of the problem. I point out their hypocritical behavior to support that opinion. Wrong then, wrong now. Some / most of the stimulus money Obama spent at least went toward infrastructure projects and things here at home. I'll agree it didn't have the desired effect on the economy but it was FAR less disastrous than the Iraq war that continues to severely burden our country almost a decade later.

At least during my lifetime, the dems have literally lived up to their stereotype of Tax and Spend.
They are for big government (expensive) and many entitlement programs (expensive). Now whether you agree with that or not, tell me the last program the Government has run well and efficiently? And yes, I am talking about the Rebublicans also But the difference is that at least conservative republicans favor small government, less entitlements and no tax increases. Considering how poorly the government runs everything, I think that's a better way to go.

One thing about the stimulus. You are correct that a lot of it went to infrastructure, and that is part of the reason it didn't work. One, infrastructure is already largely the resonsibility of goverment. Two, once these projects were complete, all the jobs went away with them. You have to stimulate the private sector in order to improve the economy. If he had taken those 3 or 4 trillion dollars and instead given us all tax breaks, we would have had more money in our pockets to spend, which ends up creating permenant jobs, not temporary jobs as the stimulus did.

To be clear, I am a conservative. I am not happy with either party, and generally feel that all politicians are pond scum. So please don't think I'm a big supporter of the Republican party, as I'm really not. I will say that I am more satisfied with them now than I have been in a long time, but I'm still not happy with them, and won't be until they realize that they are our servants and are supposed to push for things we as citizens want, not what they personally think is right, and not for what will further their career.

Just curious what you guys that support Obama think about the tactics he's using to scare seniors into thinking their SS is going to get cut off. Is that "hope and change"??

If I was looking at a used car that was in the same shape as our political structure I'd walk away laughing and then post disparraging comments about the experience here.

I'm so fed up with both sides that I would consider expatriating merely on principal. But that doesn't help solve the problem either.

As much as I'm a fan of military hardware (fighter jets == awesome, guns == awesome, reach out and blow someone away == awesome!), methinks the military can get by with a good 10+% cut.

Plus, there are probably hundreds of places in the budget that can get cut by using responsible spending.

There needs to be financial accountability built into the budget design. Right now, it's functionally a money grab from the US population.

oldsaw wrote: You say that as if the Democrat posturing is not an effort to gain Obama's re-election. When has the President offered anything (publicly spoken) that hasn't been a campaign speech?

Not really. I say that as an example that ALL of the politicians seem to use everything as a method to regain their (or others) election. I just don't have a good Dem example on hand (I honestly haven't been paying that close of attention), other then that of Obama voting against the debt increase. They are far more interested their party then the country.

I've spend some time trying to understand all the issues. Not sure if I do or not. I can tell you when I find something that seems like it may be a somewhat objective source of information it doesn't sound anything like what either side is saying. But it does sound to me like there would be some pretty bad consiquences to them not getting this done.

If they don't raise the debt ceiling, we won't owe one penny less. They simply won't make good on promises they made. I think that's the wrong way to go about it. If you want to repeal the health care law, tell the public that's what you want to do, get enough people elected to get the votes and do it. If you want to eliminate or reduce Social Security, get the votes to do it. If you want to privatize Medicaid and Medicare, get the votes. This Brinkmanship doesn't seem to me a reasonable way to get things done and gets both sides to "dig in".

Social Security is a good example. I've said for years something needs to be done. But no productive debate on reasonable changes can be had in this kind of environment. As others have said, both sides are doing more positioning for the next election than anything else.

Seems to me they've found something on the order of $1.4 Trillion in potential savings. Could get more if they look at the revenue side. Those are not insignificant steps in the right direction. They should get the deal done and move on to the next round.

If the Republicans cave, they'll have their card already punched for '12. "We had to do it, because the Democrats would have run the country off a cliff to protect their friends in the (fill in the blank) industry." Meanwhile, you have Mr Golf Pro smiling and talking about raising taxes and not cutting spending in the slightest.

scardeal wrote: I heard about this on the radio: http://budgethero.org Interesting game...

E36 M3 was easy, I'm only upset they didn't let me torch more off Social Security.

bravenrace summed my views up perfectly. Both sides suck mightily.

bravenrace wrote: At least during my lifetime, the dems have literally lived up to their stereotype of Tax and Spend. They are for big government (expensive) and many entitlement programs (expensive).

I wouldn't put it the way you do, but that's fine. Here's the thing people never talk about. Democrats have, time and again, voted to protect entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Everyone knows that's what they will do. And people continue to vote for them because people want Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

I have heard a lot of "the American people want..." coming out of Washington. But whatever follows that set up is always one side of the story. The American People want less spending. That is true. I want that. I want to restructure Social Security. It's a little crazy that someone who earns what I do can look forward to a check from the government in my old age. I can probably take care of myself. In 1978 they gave us the 401k. It's a really powerful tool for people who earn a good living to secure a really good retirement. But no coresponding cut was made to Social Security.

But the American People also want to keep thise programs from being gutted or privatized. They have said so many times and are saying so again now. So when the President says the American People want to keep those programs, he's right. They do. That's part of how he got elected.

The American people - all of us - want both. And they only way to get there is through compromise. I'm sorry, but I see one side unwilling to compromise even if that means threatening an economic disaster. They have a list of demands and that's that. What do you call people who threated the innocent if their demands are not met? That is not what they were elected to do. That's not in the best interest of the country.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Part of what you say makes perfect sense, part of it is contradictory. Even you see the need to revamp Social Security (and the same needs to said about Medicare) but these are "untouchable" areas.

How does that make one side more "evil" than the other? As far as threatening the innocent, so far only the President (and his minions) have made that threat. The Treasury receives enough revenue to cover SS costs and quite a bit more. If SS payments are delayed, it's because the Treasury decided to spend the available income elsewhere.

And right now, the Secretary of the Treasury operates under the auspices of a Democratic administration.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

from what i've seen, there are two sides unwilling to compromise. the Dems won't do a deal unless there are tax increases, the Rs are saying they won't do a deal unless there are NO tax increases. if there were a side willing to compromise it seems there would have been a solution to this by now.

the issue is this: the american people have realized (again) how irresponsible gov't has been with their money, and are hopping mad. they want responsible spending and don't want to see the country heading the way of Greece. because of this, nobody on either side of the aisle wants to be seen as treating this like "just another debt limit increase" these things used to be nothing more than a procedure vote, now its a hot potato.

what i see is that both sides acting so childish about this that they both screw themselves in the end. which one gets screwed the least is what will determine the "winner" here.

I don't know if you fellahs have noticed but we are in the middle of a recession and fighting multiple wars (I can't keep track. Are we at 2, 3, or 4? It seems to change weekly). That means that the amount of tax revenue is decreased substantially, people are calling for government services to help keep them afloat (I'll let you argue whether that keeps the recession from worsening or is just window dressing), and we're shelling out tons of money to the military.

If we had a budget that was written to properly balance an average amount of income and expenditure, it would not be balanced in the event of a recession or protracted war, let alone both at the same time.

There really aren't any good options to balance the budget right now. It's not because of Reps or Dems. But we expect them to have answers, so they point fingers and blame the other side of the aisle.

If you want to see what it takes to turn something like this around, let's look at history. Our society stayed afloat during the great depression because the government spent money on social services and making up jobs in order to put people to work. We got dragged out of that by WW II, and even then people dealt with rationing, donating goods to the war effort, and growing and making for themselves everything they could. It also cost a ton of money. Our economy finally surged forward immensely when the men fighting abroad returned, all went to college en mass, and then went on to be an immensely educated work force.

Salanis wrote: If you want to see what it takes to turn something like this around, let's look at history. Our society stayed afloat during the great depression because the government spent money on social services and making up jobs in order to put people to work. We got dragged out of that by WW II, and even then people dealt with rationing, donating goods to the war effort, and growing and making for themselves everything they could. It also cost a ton of money. Our economy finally surged forward immensely when the men fighting abroad returned, all went to college en mass, and then went on to be an immensely educated work force.

History shows that the US was literally the only country whose industrial base hadn't been devastated during WWII. That gave the country a huge advantage in expanding the economy.

History also shows that the social service systems adopted by countries after the war have led to overwhelming and unsustainable financial strains, in spite of higher taxation and regulation.

History is a beotch regardless of what one chooses to cherry-pick.

I'm not so dismissive towards a balanced-budget amendment. It would force Congress to pay far more attention to fiscal matters and make them face the budgetary concerns that face the public at large.If society has to adjust spending based on income, it would do us well to have the government take the lead in what can be a "teachable moment".

I once heard a great story about Ronald Reagan. Here, I found it on the web.

http://marklerner.blogspot.com/2004/06/remembering-ronald-reagan_06.html

Here's the quote so you don't have to click:

"One of my favorite stories about the past President was told to me by his budget director James Miller. Mr. Miller recalled that he was in the middle of a budget fight with Congress. In a meeting with the President he said he was worried because he could not see a way out of their differences in opinion. He expressed that the battle was so fierce that the government may have to be shutdown. At this the President said to Mr. Miller, 'Don't worry about it. Go ahead and shut it down. Let's see if anyone notices.'"

Strizzo, you are right. By and large, this has been a procedural vote. Why? Because both sides realize that this has nothing to do with the debt. This simply allows us to pay for the debt they already voted to incure. If they want to fight about the budget (which they should, and they did) they should do it when they're doing the budget. You're wrong about their motivations, though. This should and would have been an other procedural vote if the Republcans hadn't decided to try to exploit it for political gain.

I wonder if president Obama should have taken a page from president Reagan's play book and told Boehner to go ahead and default. See if anyone will vote for your gang again. Unfortunately, I guess he couldn't really do that. It would have been too easy to paint him as the one being unflexible and unwilling to compromise. And the consequences are far more broad and long lasting than they would have been in Reagan's case.

Just one more thing- Obama didn't threaten anyone. That is simply not factual. He was asked if he could guarantee that Social Security payments would go out. He answered honestly. He can not. It is not reasonable to be in this position at all. This should have been a procedural vote. How could he say with certainty what would happen. Bachman wants to pass some bill that will guarantee all debt, military and Soicial Security payments would be made. Thing is, if they do that, turns out the entire rest of the government would have to shut down. Think about that. The justice department would shut down. All other programs that provide assistance would shut down. Now I know some of you are saying "great!" but I'm not sure you mean it if you think about it. Somewhere, some kid will die because he didn't get some treatment he needed, or some familly would be homeless, or yadda yadda. Not that big a deal? It would be once they all start popping up on television in campaign ads. That's why Bachman's bill won't happen. Okay, so if we can't guarantee debt payments, military payments and Social Security, then somthing doesn't get paid. What will it be? Will we default on our loans? Will we not pay the troops? Unlikely. Delay or partial payments to Social Security? Seems a more likely option than the others.

I don't think there was any threat there at all. I think it is absolutely possible the checks wouldn't go out and for him to say he can guarantee they would woudl be a lie.

One aspect of this I find interesting is how there seems to be a tendency to call Social Security a huge spending issue. That is technically true, but it is also a huge revenue. That is, if you were to eliminate SS (1,000 B + in the budget) you would also eliminate the revenue that flows in to fund it (mostly). Not that SS is not an issue, but it is not as big of a budget issue as it may appear to be (not yet at least).

By comparison, the other big two: Medicare etc., I believe that is partially directly funded, right? (I need to look at my paycheck stub), but not nearly to the extent of SS. Military is of course completely unfunded directly (no specific taxes of fees for the military).

aircooled wrote: One aspect of this I find interesting is how there seems to be a tendency to call Social Security a huge spending issue. That is technically true, but it is also a huge revenue. That is, if you were to eliminate SS (1,000 B + in the budget) you would also eliminate the revenue that flows in to fund it (mostly). Not that SS is not an issue, but it is not as big of a budget issue as it may appear to be (not yet at least).

I did do some research on this a while ago. You're right, Social Security is self-funded, but it's more complicated. Actually Social Security is opperating at a surplus. Wow, that's great isn't it!? Turns out, not so much. They take the extra money from Social Security and spend it on other stuff. It's a complicated "loan" that's unlikely to ever be paid back. That's one of the things, in my opinion, that needs to be fixed. Problem is, if they fix that they'll have to raise that revinue elsewhere and Republicans are unwilling to do so for fear Grover Norquist would say they violated their "pledge". Another absurd issue. Who the berkeley voted for Grover Norquist and why do Republicans give him so much power?

Salanis wrote: If you want to see what it takes to turn something like this around, let's look at history. Our society stayed afloat during the great depression because the government spent money on social services and making up jobs in order to put people to work.

Of course most historians believe that Roosevelt made matters much worse during the depression by his actions, creating a depression that should have been far less by his spending projects and incredible taxation rates. He severly limited the people that could have made a difference. There is a parallel to our current situation and administration.

I hear so much utter crap being spouted by people on both sides (not from ya'll, but the media) that is simply not true. We will not default on our loans if we choose to fund the necessary line items and defund some that are not essential.

And for those that think rasing taxes is needed, you need to understand why our revenues are tanking to start with. Part of our problem is too much taxation now on those that create jobs to begin with. These days it's easier for a company to move to different, more friendly country that pay the price dictated by our government. And as I have stated here before, those countries are actively shopping here to get companies to move there. We've been contacted before and had offers to fly us down for a "visit". It is simply crazy what companies are being asked to do here. To think they are always going to bend over and take it because our government wants it simply is wishful thinking. We have the 2nd highest business tax rates on earth. We are literally killing off our commerce and production abilities. They can keep playing the "tax the rich" song, but that only works so long until the money dries up.

That said, why is Obama's main GE man a recipient of so much stimulous money, yet his company pays almost no taxes and is moving much of his business overseas? Why did our stimulous go to Brazil to promote offshore drilling? Why did the unions get so much? Why are all of the dems friends getting opt out's of health care?

I was no fan of Bush. I said for years he was a dem lite as he and the Repubs spent like them, but the war expense was exceeded by Obama early on in his administration and is ongoing. Most of it nothing but a payoff to his friends if you follow the money. And, he used the stimulus money figure and put back into the budget as a yearly expense. And don't even get me started on TARP and the automaker bailouts....

Both parties have ran up huge deficits no doubt, and really don't care who fixes it, but they need to man up and put on their big girl panties and get to work.

Also, why is that the dems never submitted a budget last year when they ran the house? It is their primary job and they didn't even attempt it. The president has yet to submit a plan of any kind for anything as far as I can tell.

If they can't even submit a budget, how can they fix the budget?