Debt ceiling

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And, again, wondering off topic. Those are the underlying issues that got us where we are, true. But they have nothing to do with a vote to raise the debt ceiling. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will not eliminate any of those programs or lower our debt by a cent. It will just lead to economic chaos making it much more difficult to get out of the hole we're in.

Raising the debt limit without addressing the root cause is akin to punting on the first down. Doing so without a guaranteed commitment from the President and Reid to address spending is no more than tying a blank check to can getting kicked down the road.

Only raising the limit may give some extra time for the polititards to make concessions, but there is precious little evidence (and history) to suggest the Democrats will take heed and make cuts. It does, however, give them more time to pollute the atmosphere with lies about pushing grannie off a cliff or terrorizing those who are receiving SS checks.

And, no, I don't (for a moment) believe the President was giving an honest answer to a simple question.

All it is is... catering to the lowest denominator.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Actually, I hear "Don't tax, don't spend", followed by Nancy Pelosi talking about killing grandma.

Pelosi and Palin should get together and talk through this whole "killing grandma" thing...

...I think they will come to the conclusion that they are both idiots...

No doubt, they over-state it. But there's no quetion that the long-term goal of many Republicans is to eliminate those programs. Yet they stand there and and lie through their teeth that they don't. The whole "take away the check book" strategy is designed to force a false crisis with the hope that if things get bad enough they'll be able to slay the sacred cow.

And I have heard, over and over, that we need to raise taxes. There was a HUGE debate on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Democrats ARE saying we need to raise taxes to pay for these programs. At least it is a reasonable position. If we're going to have these programs we have to pay for them. I have heard only a very few Republicans come out and say they want to eliminate or privatize these programs, and when they have finally revealed that is their real goal, they get bounced out of office quickly. I just with they would all come out and say what they mean. The problem would be solved very quickly.

You guys have said it outright and this is the Republican strategy. You know people want the programs but you want to kill them anyway. The Republcians are looking for a line they can sell that will get enough of them elected to kill those programs despite the will of the people. I appreciate your honesty. And you shouldn't have deleted the part where you said Republicans think they're smarter than "the people". You are absolutely right. That is exactly what they think and they're going to engineer socieity for us because we're all too stupid to govern ourselves as the founding fathers intended.

oldsaw wrote: And, no, I don't (for a moment) believe the President was giving an honest answer to a simple question.

Well you make the case in a much more detailed and compelling manner than I did.

You are free to believe what you like. But you offer little to back it up. You don't like the President so he is always wrong.

You don't answer any of the questions I post. That's fine, but it makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. I asked you point blank when you were on about the Democrats not passing a budget what you thought their grand scheem was- what is the plot they're executing. You just ignore those things and move on to some other innuendo you can toss out there. "Obama is lying, take my word for it, I know these things."

And NO ONE thinks it was a simple question.

I don't think it's a long term goal to eliminate the programs. I do think it's a long term goal to drastically reduce them.

Americans are very good at sticking our head in the sand.

The truth is that by any logic whatsoever, our credit rating SHOULD be downgraded.

My personal credit rating was down graded, and it forced me to stop building projects on spec. Hurts like heck. But the banks' lending practices were screwbally and getting their lending practices in line meant downgrading my credit rating and most everyone else's.

Americans are not as capable of paying back money as we once were. Like it or not, as a nation it is appropriate that our credit rating be downgraded.

Having an inappropriately high credit rating only leads to excessive spending that we can't handle. It is EXACTLY what got us into the housing crises on a personal level, and the debt ceiling will create the same problem on a national level. Just a matter of time.

Downgrade it. Let the chips fall where they may. Then we will finally have the opportunity to make some tough decisions and move forward.

It's not the end of the world.

carguy123 wrote: While I could be wrong, it seems that I heard recently that 47% of the people pay no income tax. That number was supposed to be the % of people on welfare and the rest of the comments went on to say that there are almost enough people able to vote themselves anything they want.

If we're not careful all those people on welfare will rise up and vote for something that works better for them than the system we have now. Who are they to think they have some say in how America is run?

Maybe we should ask ourselves how we ended up building a country that works so poorly for so many people than what we'll do if they all decided to do something about it.

If we're not careful all those people on welfare will rise up and vote for something that works better for them than the system we have now. Who are they to think they have some say in how America is run? Maybe we should ask ourselves how we ended up building a country that works so poorly for so many people than what we'll do if they all decided to do something about it.

Hey, if you haven't noticed, we ARE asking ourselves that very question; hence the debate....

fast-eddie-72 said: You are free to believe what you like. But you offer little to back it up. You don't like the President so he is always wrong.

If/when the debt limit is breached, the US is still collecting billions in revenue. The tough decisions will be based on which obligations to fulfill and which to cancel. The US Treasury will make those choices and the US Treasury is currently under the auspices of the President.

Rather than saying he will guarantee (because he can) payment on SS beneficiaries, he chose not to do so. So, what could have motivated him to make that choice?

Well, my last few posts are a little off my A Game. Starting to get testy. We've had some good points. But I'm not responding from a place I like to be and we're getting into repeating points over and over. I addressed the Presidents remarks in detail twice. Feel free to read those responses again. I don't think I have anything to add to them.

oldsaw wrote: Rather than saying he will guarantee (because he can) payment on SS beneficiaries, he chose not to do so. So, what could have motivated him to make that choice?

As I said- the fact that we can't pay our military obligations, debt obligations, minimal support for the rest of the governmetn AND Social Security. In other words, he told the truth. As I said. Twice before. On the other pages earlier in this thread. In great detail. Twice. With considerable explanation. And there you are, asking it again with no new information and no counter to the answers I already gave. Twice before. The accurate answers with the detail I posted earlier.

And why didn't the Democrats pass a buget either? And if the Republicans think something needs to be done about health care why didn't they do something when they had both houses of Congress and the White House. And Nixon lied!

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I don't "like" the President because he campaigned as a centrist and a uniter. What we got was a man who (minimally) governs from a right-of-far-left perspective and has a propensity to alienate those who truly live their lives as centrists.

Admittedly, I never believed him because I pay a lot more attention to a candidate's history than those who voted for him. Maybe I should be more PO'd at those who elected him.

Oh, wait, I am.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Well, my last few posts are a little off my A Game. Starting to get testy. We've had some good points. But I'm not responding from a place I like to be and we're getting into repeating points over and over. I addressed the Presidents remarks in detail twice. Feel free to read those responses again. I don't think I have anything to add to them.

I win you lose!!!

Props for being smarter than most of us idiots and realizing when you're in a bad place. I'm gonna follow your lead.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: As I said- the fact that we can't pay our military obligations, debt obligations, minimal support for the rest of the governmetn AND Social Security. In other words, he told the truth. As I said. Twice before. On the other pages earlier in this thread. In great detail. Twice. With considerable explanation. And there you are, asking it again with no new information and no counter to the answers I already gave. Twice before. The accurate answers with the detail I posted earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2011/07/11/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/can-president-obama-keep-paying-social-security-benefits-even-if-the-debt-ceiling-is-reached/2011/07/12/gIQA9myRBI_blog.html

So, where are your numbers to conclusively prove otherwise?

DILYSI Dave wrote: I win you lose!!! Props for being smarter than most of us idiots and realizing when you're in a bad place. I'm gonna follow your lead.

Man, we should get together for a beer sometime. Thanks, Man.

In for beer.

oldsaw wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2011/07/11/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/can-president-obama-keep-paying-social-security-benefits-even-if-the-debt-ceiling-is-reached/2011/07/12/gIQA9myRBI_blog.html So, where are your numbers to conclusively prove otherwise?

Did you...

I mean, the links...

That is to say... Uh.

From the link above:

"The Pinocchio Test

"The president obviously does not want to show all of his cards in this high-stakes game of poker. Raising the specter of not issuing Social Security checks is designed to raise pressure on Republicans, but could also cause angst among the elderly.

"At this point the answer is unclear but we become suspicious when politicians begin to use “may,” rather than speak in definitive sentences. If Treasury has the ability to keep paying Social Security benefits, even if the debt limit is reached, the Obama administration should make that clear. The Treasury Department’s new statement begins to add some clarity. We will keep watching how the president speaks about this issue."

Where does that say he was wrong?

Pretty much says what I said- who know what would happen. But not making those payments is certainly one of the possibilities. Kinda like I said before.

Yeah. Really going to try not to come back. I know I need to leave this alone. Really got to stop this. I'm sorry, doing my best.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

No reason to apologize..........

Look, the "Pinicchio Test" result concludes the President is exerting political power while simultaneously raising the fears of SS recipients. Rather than make any effort in assuaging the angst of the elderly, he chose not to. In historical context, this was a text-book play on emotions.

Please come back when you're "feeling" back on your game.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: No doubt, they over-state it. But there's no quetion that the long-term goal of many Republicans is to eliminate those programs. Yet they stand there and and lie through their teeth that they don't. The whole "take away the check book" strategy is designed to force a false crisis with the hope that if things get bad enough they'll be able to slay the sacred cow. And I have heard, over and over, that we need to raise taxes. There was a HUGE debate on letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Democrats ARE saying we need to raise taxes to pay for these programs. At least it is a reasonable position. If we're going to have these programs we have to pay for them. I have heard only a very few Republicans come out and say they want to eliminate or privatize these programs, and when they have finally revealed that is their real goal, they get bounced out of office quickly. I just with they would all come out and say what they mean. The problem would be solved very quickly. You guys have said it outright and this is the Republican strategy. You know people want the programs but you want to kill them anyway. The Republcians are looking for a line they can sell that will get enough of them elected to kill those programs despite the will of the people. I appreciate your honesty. And you shouldn't have deleted the part where you said Republicans think they're smarter than "the people". You are absolutely right. That is exactly what they think and they're going to engineer socieity for us because we're all too stupid to govern ourselves as the founding fathers intended.

You nailed it exactly.

Not only that, but the use the media to manipulate us. All we hear about 24/7 is the deficit the deficit! the DEFICIT!!. If we don't deal with the deficit the sky is going to fall and the entire country will go up in flames.

If we don't go over there and kill all of them, they will come over here and kill every single one of us and destroy the entire country.

If we don't bail out the banks right now Wall Street will crash and our entire infrastructure will evaporate leaving us in a Mad Max Nightmare where we will all be starving and sick while the Great Humungous is knocking at the door.

Berkley it! Time to turn off CNN and go out to the garage. I have projects to work on.

Using Budget Hero I reduced the debt 5.3 trillion in 10 years. It only took me 10 min. and I didn't even repeal Obamacare. I'm now thinking about a 2012 run

My slogan is going to be "get rid of the donkey and get with the honky". Kinda catchy don't ya think?

Seriously though, I'm quite impressed - 5 pages in and the smell of flounder is still quite faint.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You kind of make my point for me. Bush lost and that ad worked. If a large number of people weren't in favor of those programs, then it wouldn't have hurt Bush to take on SS. The fact that it did bears out my point.

Which gets us back to my point. Handling it through the budget process has not, and will not work. Time to cut up the credit card.

My point is that people want the programs. So your point is we should eliminate them anyway?

Yes, eliminate the people that want the programs and there will be no need for the programs resulting in a budget surplus!

(I hope that wasn't already said, I am on like page 4 and needed to say that)

oldsaw wrote: I'm not so dismissive towards a balanced-budget amendment.

I'm not fond of constitutional amendments in most cases. If you resort to that as a means of enforcing change, you run the risk of filling the document with all manner of cruft. Florida, for example, has a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of pigs. Worse, altering it can become addictive (see Florida) and it might not be long before there are efforts to redefine "unreasonable search and seizure" or "the right to bear arms", and I'd rather not open that can of worms.

John Brown wrote: Yes, eliminate the people that want the programs and there will be no need for the programs resulting in a budget surplus!

Mr. Burns likes your way of thinking. I am also a fan of practicing EXTREME prejudice against the lowest common denominator

DILYSI Dave wrote: I don't think it's a long term goal to eliminate the programs. I do think it's a long term goal to drastically reduce them.

then the GOP leaders should man up, come out and say that in simple English without resorting to euphemisms like "streamlining"

Marty! wrote: Seriously though, I'm quite impressed - 5 pages in and the smell of flounder is still quite faint.

Glad to hear you say that. I've been trying to keep it on the up and up, but wasn't sure how I was doing there for a bit. Gonna sit back and see what others have to say. I have a load of posts in this thread- usually a bad sign.

z31maniac wrote: fast_eddie_72, I agree with nearly everything you've said, and we usually share viewpoints from different sides of the aisle. Great comments.

And thanks a ton for that. Meant to say something earlier. It's my birthday today and that is a nice little present.