Debt ceiling

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Yes, the ecomony was crashing hard. But it was also the result of political policies applied by both parties over the course of five, six, seven (pick one) decades. We had some relief during Clinton's two terms, but only after a Republican-led Congress reigned-in his desires.

How then did the Republicans reign in any spending? You're logic isn't holding up here. Those 3 paragraphs cite many examples of Republicans being "fiscally conservative" when they were in power. Note my sarcasm. Also note how these programs actually work against the working class, you and me, in this country.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. In summary, Republicans reigned-in Clinton's proposed spending. What they did while in control of the WH and Congress is inexusable and why the party is justifiably vilified.

I have the same contempt for the WH and Congress while the Democrats had control from 2008-2010. No, make that more contenpt for the Dems; they exponentially increased spending and debt in the face of a crisis and denied their own culpability by blaming everything on the "other guys".

Both sides are woefully incompetent in successfully managing the economy when it's used as a political tool.

The Republican strategy is to intentionally persue policy that will create a false crisis. Even after all we've been through we're the wealthiest nation on Earth. Yet how many times have we been told we're broke? The hope is to create a crisis so big they can gain support for getting rid of the popular programs they don't want. In other words, they want to create drama so they can over-ride the will of the people to persue their political agenda.

We're watching that now. This is a manufactured crisis. Of course they don't want a ballanced budget amendment. But they know it will sound like they are being responsible if they yell real lound about it and then point the finger at Democrats for not doing it. It's all about setting up the next round of campaign ads. "Senator Taxnspend voted against an amendment to balance our budget." It will probably work, too. Usually does. And when they have the power, they'll do the same nothing they've been doing.

Look at the Presidential election- they're not even trying to win the next round. They think they have a good shot at gaining more house seats and maybe taking the Senate. They want Obama to be there to veto all their dangerous legislation all passed only to "make a point". At the same time, they don't want the economy to recover before 2016. Then they can run all the ads saying Obama vetoed all the bills that would have saved the country.

Am I over-stating things? Yeah, probably some. But generally, that's what's happening. It may back fire on them, though. They lost seats due to their Tea Party extremism. They're looking more and more like a party unwilling to compromise. Democrats did the same thing with health care and it cost them. Now Republicans may feel pain for it. We'll see.

pinchvalve wrote: When I want to raise my debt ceiling, or do anything else related to finances, my wife provides a wise counter-point to my spending. She also helps keep me out of fights and smoothes relations with my neighbors. What the US Government needs is a wife.

That got a laugh.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The Republican strategy is to intentionally persue policy that will create a false crisis. Even after all we've been through we're the wealthiest nation on Earth. Yet how many times have we been told we're broke?

That stance does explain some of the other statements that you've made make more sense.

I tend to believe this is an actual crisis, and am glad / hopeful that someone is finally taking it seriously.

The debt is an actual crisis. Raising the debt ceiling is a manufactured one.

I think we should switch to a 'no' party system. Let people stand or fall by their own actions. That and have a presidential election decided by a popular vote. (Ross, stands up and walks out of this thread; fingers in ears and humming loudly)

Eddie, the reason the other political threads have gone so well is because we left broad generalities and things about people out of it. There is no "republican strategy" and there is no "democrat strategy", at least as long as we're concerned. Let's not forget that 95% of what 95% of them say is utter BS. Let's just concentrate on the ideas and concepts. That being said, it's a fine time to take away the credit card and it isn't the first time the US has defaulted.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The debt is an actual crisis. Raising the debt ceiling is a manufactured one.

I can see that. But, it's forcing them to deal with something that they are unwilling to deal with absent a crisis.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The debt is an actual crisis. Raising the debt ceiling is a manufactured one.

A rational response would be to increase taxes on upper/middle income earners and decrease spending on income consumers. Still, across-the-board tax increases won't cover the rate of expenditures so deeper cuts are necessary. It's supposed to a "shared sacrifice" isn't it?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Raising the debt ceiling is a manufactured one.

Excellent, then don't raise it, nothing will happen, and continue to work on lowering the debt.

WINRAR!

Raising the debt ceiling is a done deal. The congressional battle is just a bunch of theatrics to keep the proletariat in a tizzy. Looks like it is working.

oldsaw wrote: Both sides are woefully incompetent in successfully managing the economy when it's used as a political tool.

That's because the economy will always be used as a political tool when the government is allowed to manage it, and just like people love to whine that the rich don't give a E36 M3 about the poor, guess what - the government doesn't give a E36 M3 about the country. The only thing they give a E36 M3 about is buying votes, and they will continue to do so on exorbitant credit until it becomes literally impossible to do any more.

In reply to Xceler8x:

Obama isn't blaming Bush? Watch this:

Obama speech blaming Bush

"PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It turns out we don’t have to do anything radical to solve this problem. Contrary to what some folks say, we’re not Greece, we’re not Portugal. It turns out that our problem is we cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade. We ended up instituting new programs, like a prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for. We fought two wars, we didn’t pay for them. We had a bad recession that required a Recovery Act and stimulus spending and helping states, accumulated, and there’s interest on top of that. And to unwind that, what’s required is that we roll back those tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals. That we clean up our tax codes so we’re not giving out a bunch of tax breaks to companies that don’t need them and are not creating jobs. We cut programs that we don’t need and we invest in those things that are gonna help us grow. And every commission that’s been out there has said the same thing and basically taken then same approach within the margin of error. So my general view is that if the American people looked at this they’d say, “Boy, some of the decisions are tough, but they don’t require us to gut Medicare or Social Security. They don’t require us to stop helping young people to go to college. They don’t require us to stop helping families who have a disabled child. They don’t require us to violate our obligation to our veterans. And they don’t require us to stop, quote/unquote, 'job-killing' tax cuts. They require us to make some modest adjustments to get out house in order. And we should do it now.” With respect to Senator McConnell’s plan, like I said, I think it is a ... it is constructed to say that if Washington operates as usual and can’t get anything done, let’s avert Armageddon."

The worst part is that the stimulus he says was necessary hasn't done anything to improve the economy. Or is that also Bushes fault.

Maybe the Republicans know the obvious. You can't raise taxes in this kind of economy and expect things to improve.

Anyways, talking about what happened in the past rarely leads to a solution for what is happening now. All you libs want to do is blame, not solve. Here's the truth - Washington is to blame, dems and R's. For each instance you can mention that the Republicans hurt our economy someone else can come up with one for the Democrats. It's a useless conversation. But I'll tell you this, raise taxes right now and see what happens, because history shows it won't be good.
With all the special interests and waste in government, I am really at a loss to those that think taxes should be raised. We need to hold their feet to the fire until they start acting responsibly with our money. You really want them to raise taxes, take more of our money and then waist it like that always have? Not me.

tuna55 wrote: ...and it isn't the first time the US has defaulted.

Oh, well Hell, let's do it again!!! That'll be fun!

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The debt is an actual crisis. Raising the debt ceiling is a manufactured one.

A rational response would be to increase taxes on upper/middle income earners and decrease spending on income consumers. Still, across-the-board tax increases won't cover the rate of expenditures so deeper cuts are necessary. It's supposed to a "shared sacrifice" isn't it?

Completely agree. And I'm reasonably sure that Boehner and Obama had very nearly come to just such an agreement. Unfortunately, one side didn't think compromise was a good idea.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: The debt is an actual crisis. Raising the debt ceiling is a manufactured one.

A rational response would be to increase taxes on upper/middle income earners and decrease spending on income consumers. Still, across-the-board tax increases won't cover the rate of expenditures so deeper cuts are necessary. It's supposed to a "shared sacrifice" isn't it?

Completely agree. And I'm reasonably sure that Boehner and Obama had very nearly come to just such an agreement. Unfortunately, one side didn't think compromise was a good idea.

Perhaps your scenario is true, but I find it far more plausible that one side refused to make the commensurate spending cuts and deal with the problem effectively.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Obama isn't blaming Bush? Watch this: Obama speech blaming Bush

Dood. Ya got me. He's blaming Bush because all Republicans deserve it. They didn't lift a finger to reign in the spending when they controlled all branches of government. Convenient argument when you're trying to say Obama is to blame for the current crisis.

Compromise has to happen and taxes have to go up. Our bills are coming due. If the Republickans are serious about curbing the debt then it's time to tax everyone and cut back on our spending which includes all the sacred programs of each party.

Let's also keep in mind that compromise is how adults get along. Republicans? They need to learn how to be adults again instead of stamping their feet and demanding their pony Right Now.

bravenrace wrote:

tuna55 wrote: ...and it isn't the first time the US has defaulted.

Oh, well Hell, let's do it again!!! That'll be fun!

This said by a guy who has a Calvin pi$$ing on something avatar.

In reply to oldsaw:

I have to agree with that.
The republican's so far seem to be doing exactly what they were voted in to do in 2010, and part of that is to NOT compromise on something that is going to ultimately hurt the American citizens. Time will tell if they are serious or not, but I see no reason to doubt it at this point.

Xceler8x wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

tuna55 wrote: ...and it isn't the first time the US has defaulted.

Oh, well Hell, let's do it again!!! That'll be fun!

This said by a guy who has a Calvin pi$$ing on something avatar.

Okay, first, in case you didn't catch it, that was sarcastic. Second, I noticed that Dr. Hess was pissing on my Hondas, so I decided to piss on his Toyota. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

You mised the mark with Dr. Hess: make it a Lotus. (Can see the good Dr.'s veins popping from here on the floor behind my desk.

Something about no one winning in a pissing contest comes to mind.

oldsaw wrote: Perhaps your scenario is true, but I find it far more plausible that **both** sides refused to make the commensurate spending cuts and deal with the problem effectively.

FTFY. Republicans and Democrats differ ONLY in what flavor ice cream they prefer to buy when wasting trillions of taxpayer dollars.

Xceler8x wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Obama isn't blaming Bush? Watch this: Obama speech blaming Bush

Dood. Ya got me. He's blaming Bush because all Republicans deserve it. They didn't lift a finger to reign in the spending when they controlled all branches of government. Convenient argument when you're trying to say Obama is to blame for the current crisis. Compromise has to happen and taxes have to go up. Our bills are coming due. If the Republickans are serious about curbing the debt then it's time to tax everyone and cut back on our spending which includes all the sacred programs of each party. Let's also keep in mind that compromise is how adults get along. Republicans? They need to learn how to be adults again instead of stamping their feet and demanding their pony Right Now.

The ALL deserve blame. Of course the republicans deserve blame. But I don't know how you look at a balance that has increase by 40% under his leadership, and somehow hold the president blameless.

Xceler8x wrote: Let's also keep in mind that compromise is how adults get along. Democrats? They need to learn how to be adults again instead of stamping their feet and demanding their pony Right Now.

See how that works both ways?

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Let's also keep in mind that compromise is how adults get along. Democrats? They need to learn how to be adults again instead of stamping their feet and demanding their pony Right Now.

See how that works both ways?

It may work both ways in general, but in this particular case, it works way better one way than the other.

One side is proud that they won't act like adults and even consider compromise.

And before I get blasted as an Democrat/Obama slappy, a careful reader will note that the only president from the past 30 years (farther back than that and the circumstances are different enough that it gets hard to compare, changes in global dynamics in the late 70s make for a pretty different ballgame) I've said positive things about was a Republican. The stuff I said about Clinton was at best neutral.

That one got stuck holding the bill after 8 years of fiscal insanity. Note the first two years of his presidency, the guy holding the ball after 8 years of idiocy has little choice in the matter, the deficit will continue to skyrocket, it will probably even accelerate for a while. So I give Obama a partial pass on some of it, but there was certainly no need for it to continue to accelerate in the manner it did, so that pass is very, very partial.

That guy that did his job responsibly, he lost his job after one term for making people (to borrow Obama's words now) "eat their peas". The economy suffered because he had to pay some other guy's bills in addition to attempts to fix it and then as his longer term policies came to fruition, the next guy got the credit after ousting him on the "It's the economy stupid" platform.

And yes, the economy suffered for it, which is what some will point to. But they ignore that paying the bills either way means the economy's going to suffer for it. That's why the "see how that worked historically" that bravenrace trots out is such a fallacy. It implies that the alternative doesn't damage the economy.

People don't want to pay for decades of mismanagement. So anyone who promises them they won't have to (due to cuts or taxes) gets the idiot vote. The problem with gunning for the idiot vote is that you then have to act like an idiot to keep it. The idiot vote is valuable to both sides, because there are a lot of them. Because of this value, both sides do this (you can't get elected without it), but currently one side is willing to piss off its idiots, and one isn't.