toldailytopic: Should congress side with Obama and vote to raise the debt ceiling, or

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The republican controlled Congress. All they had to do was vote for what they wanted.

No, they didn't control Congress. They voted for the Dimm "compromise." The Dimms lied.

Actually, they did. Reagan got what he asked for from Congress. If you're telling me that republicans are so incompetent they can't even win when they rule, why vote for them?

Barbarian observes:
Reagan actually increased spending and cut taxes his first year. Classic Keynsian economics, and it worked.

Nope. Classic Keynes would be to increase spending and raise taxes to match.

Wrong.

When the economies of the world were mired in the deep and
prolonged recession of the 1930s known as the Great Depression, British economist John Maynard Keynes, later Lord Keynes, declared that governments should increase spending and cut taxes to boost their economies.
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/cnelson/Chap11.pdf

Barbarian continues:
The problem is, he didn't realize that you can't do it as a permanent policy. At some point, you have to pay it back.

At some point, you might get your facts straight too.

See above. Would you be offended if I asked you to learn a little about basic economic theory so that you could make an intelligent contribution to this thread?

I'm not counting on your fellow s to realize that debt should be paid back either.

Most of them told Reagan this fact. He didn't get it.

Barbarian observes:
His solution was a series of tax hikes, including the largest tax increase in peacetime history. And he still had the highest peacetime debt up to that time.

And the old Dimm propaganda machine rolls on.

It's a fact. Both GAO and CBO have noted this fact. Want some data?

Barbarian oberves:
Not very much like the tea party, um? The problem was that he had to actually govern. Ideological purity has a much harder time, when faced with the real world.

libs should never use phrases such as "real world." I get cramps from laughing so hard.

See above. You should have been studying when you were laughing. Learn about the issue, and you won't be embarrassed next time.

 

[CabinetMaker]

A fair few posts on this thread are about who to blame. While that may be fun, it serves no purpose. The point is we are here. We are in trouble as a country. Rich, poor, Republican and Democrat, we are all in the same boat. The real question is how to get out of this hole.

Taking a hardline stance and not raising the debt limit may force Washington to spend within their means. But if we think unemployment is bad right now, if you think the last round of foreclosures was bad, wait and see what happens if the world perceives the US defaulting on its debt obligations.

Lets fire half of all government works. The economy is so week right now where would they go to work? Just more on the unemployment rolls.

Fact is, there is no easy way out of this. What ever we do will be difficult and hurt a lot of people financially. Do we bite the bullet for our children so that they may have a better future or do we raise the debt limit and hope our grand-children are willing to pay for our excess?

 

[oatmeal]

There should be no question on raising the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling means actually paying what we said we are going to pay. Not paying our bills is irresponsible and will cause massive economic problems.

If raising the debt ceiling was such a horrible thing there should have been a much bigger fight over the budget in the first place, since every budget has had implicit in it, raising the ceiling. If the US's credit rating gets lowered (very likely in a default) it will mean hundreds of billions of dollars in increased INTEREST payments, money that would be a complete waste. Why would anyone want such a thing is beyond me. But, heavens, we can't let our ideology get in the way of reality now can we? :hammer:

Oh and I think if there is a default, people that elected hardline tea party congressmen should be the first to have all federal payments suspended.

What's so hilarious in this situation is the congressional leaders that are making such a huge deal out of raising the debt ceiling voted to raise it FIVE times under Bush (at close to a trillion dollars a pop) with no required spending cuts. Hypocrites? Yes.

The rest of you that weren't making a big deal back in the Bush years? Also hypocrites.

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government by about 75%

What is this entitlement mentality?

If you don't work, but are able to work, why should the government babysit you?

Why should taxpayers pay for people who don't want to work?

Where is it written that everyone is entitled to health insurance?

How about II Peter 2:24?

The only things you are entitled to is what the Constitution spells out.

You want more, you pay for it, from your wallet, not mine.

Politicians get votes by spending tax dollars, I do not want people in office that use my tax money to bribe their constituents to vote for them.

Less government is the answer.

Not higher debt ceiling.

Our debt divided equally amongst all our citizens, is about $45,000 a piece.

You owe that to the Federal government. Most of that is for all their "entitlement" programs.

Pay it up.

You want to increase the debt ceiling?

So, you want to owe the government more money?

Credit bureaus should take into consideration you debt to the government.

How much have you paid off?

Are you making any payments to reduce your debt to the Federal government?

You should get only what you pay for.

oatmeal

 

[Alate_One]

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government by about 75%

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

You tell me which 75% you'd like to cut.

What is this entitlement mentality?

If you don't work, but are able to work, why should the government babysit you?

No, and that's not what anyone is talking about.

Where is it written that everyone is entitled to health insurance?

So you're for the "let people die in the street model"? And "the rich get healthcare".


Doesn't all of this sound wonderful? Why don't you move to Somalia and tell us how great all of this is?

The only things you are entitled to is what the Constitution spells out.

Perhaps you haven't read your constitution much.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You want more, you pay for it, from your wallet, not mine.

That sounds like a Biblical attitude . . NOT.

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

[Town Heretic]

We need to reduce the size of the Federal government by about 75%

What is this entitlement mentality?

If you don't work, but are able to work, why should the government babysit you?

Why should taxpayers pay for people who don't want to work?

Any idea how few people you're talking about, how those who fit this description are actually committing fraud and how little rooting out every one of them would save in relation to the larger work and good done by social programs to help people in a time of need?

Where is it written that everyone is entitled to health insurance?

Matthew 25:34-46

How about II Peter 2:24?

What about it?

The only things you are entitled to is what the Constitution spells out.

Actually no. The Constitution missed the whole slavery boat, women's suffrage, etc. Else, I'd say the preamble is a pretty good mission statement to guide our actions.

You want more, you pay for it, from your wallet, not mine.

Don't know how to break this to you, but we pay nearly twice what other industrial, Western nations do already (and most of those cover everyone). The problem is the system we have in place only really benefits insurance companies and big pharmaceutical.

Politicians get votes by spending tax dollars, I do not want people in office that use my tax money to bribe their constituents to vote for them.

Say the Amish to you and your war machinery.

Less government is the answer.

Only if you mumble the question.

...You should get only what you pay for.

So you take a personal balloon to work then... lain:

 

[rocketman]

Perhaps you haven't read your constitution much.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "Promote" and "Supply". This is where the differences between the left and right become quite apparent. You lefties believe government's job is to supply it's citizens with entitlements on the backs of the people when the document you quote was written to secure individual freedoms not corporate life support of the citizenry. Sounds like you need to move to Greece, they believe the same thing.

 

[rexlunae]

:darwinsm: The only option is unlimited borrowing and more debt?

Unless you have a real solution that we can implement in the next two weeks.

It's called impeachment. I do believe there is a law in place that SS bennies must be paid. Happened when Clinton's Treasury Secretary tried the same stunt.

Somehow that's not what I recall Clinton being impeached for. And I'm not quite sure how you're going to pay for our commitments without more borrowing, at least in the short term.

We can't "uncommit" to spending the money? Welcome to the world of Kaizari Obama!

Rather, both sides already agreed to a budget that required that the debt ceiling be raised. The Republicans are just taking the opportunity at what should be a fairly routine vote to make political hay, which should backfire on them if the American people aren't completely asleep here.

:darwinsm: Nice of you to pick up on the Obamatheme of "only adult in the room." Right up there with Barbie on the propaganda line. 'Bout time for you Dimms to grow up and realize you can't spend other people's money forever without severe consequences, no?

The consequences of allowing a default to happen will be felt by everyone, and the Republicans will be largely to blame if it happens.

 

[Samstarrett]

Baloney Samstarret; the Tea Party is just the same old folks who have been supporting the same ideology since Reagan. Nothing new at all; same o folks who gave us Reagan, Gingrich and GW. They need to take responsibility for all they have created, but they refuse.

No, they're really not. Bush in particular was definitely an establishment Republican who wasn't much different from Democrats on key TP issues. There's a reason establishment R's fear TPers, and it isn't because they support the same candidates.

 

[Alate_One]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "Promote" and "Supply".

That's not what social programs are about. They're about helping people that need help, not making everyone equal. We're not communists.

The problem is the hard righters like yourself actually don't believe in promoting the general welfare. You want everyone to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Everyone should pay for their own "insert government service". Unfortunately for you the history of the USA is littered with collective/government action and collective programs (Interstate system anyone?)

The lone ranger model of society simply doesn't work long term. We tried it during the early 1800s when issues of factory safety were considered to be a "private matter" for factory owners. It took the deaths of a hundred and fifty young female workers to change that attitude.

Triangle Fire

This is where the differences between the left and right become quite apparent. You lefties believe government's job is to supply it's citizens with entitlements on the backs of the people when the document you quote was written to secure individual freedoms not corporate life support of the citizenry.

For what reason should we NOT be promoting the health and welfare of our citizens? Letting them die on the street was tried in the past. It's being tried in failed states currently. If it's so awesome why don't you move to one of these "low government" countries?

Sounds like you need to move to Greece, they believe the same thing.

Not at all. Greece was managed by corrupt officials and went too far in government provisions. All I want for my own country is that we stay true to our historic social institutions and improve them so that they work better. The current crop of "tea partiers" apparently want to go back to the 1800s. Nobody that actually understands what that was wants that.

The problem is your kind is as ignorant of history as you are of economics.

 

[WizardofOz]

1) Raise the debt ceiling. It must be done.....again. The consequences of not raising it would be too severe.

2) Draft a constitutional amendment limiting the ability of congress to raise the debt ceiling in the future.

Do it this time because we must then never do it again.

 

[rexlunae]

1) Raise the debt ceiling. It must be done.....again. The consequences of not raising it would be too severe.

2) Draft a constitutional amendment limiting the ability of congress to raise the debt ceiling in the future.

Do it this time because we must then never do it again.

Seems like #1 reveals #2 as short-sighted.

 

[WizardofOz]

Seems like #1 reveals #2 as short-sighted.

Why even have a debt ceiling? What's the point if it's never kept in check?

We'll raise it because we must but then there should be fundamental changes made so that this doesn't keep happening. It's too late for those changes to have an impact on the ceiling being raised in the present.

 

[rexlunae]

Why even have a debt ceiling? What's the point if it's never kept in check?

Well, the point of it is to allow Congress to keep a check on the President. But Congress seems to have been infested with children, more in this session than most.

 

[Alate_One]

Well, the point of it is to allow Congress to keep a check on the President. But Congress seems to have been infested with children, more in this session than most.

It seems to me like it was designed to be the other way around. After all it's congress that is supposed to hold the purse strings so ultimately our budget problems are the fault of congress (and in this case a long series of congresses).

The problem with a balanced budget amendment is it will take years to go through the process of amending the constitution and then government would be constrained from running deficits when it actually needs to do so.

Everyone knows what congress needs to do, they simply need to learn to compromise and do what is best for the country. A balanced budget amendment isn't going to help that happen, it'll just make the logjams worse.

 

[kmoney]

We probably need a new WPA and other stimulus, perhaps more targeted to new technology.

Long-term jobs and growth are needed. Can a WPA achieve that? It seems like a WPA would only be a short term solution. But I may not understand what exactly you have in mind. Can you expand?

And before you complain about the last stimulus, most economists say that it actually did help.

I've seen reports go both ways. When you say it did help, are you referring to jobs?

 

[rexlunae]

It seems to me like it was designed to be the other way around. After all it's congress that is supposed to hold the purse strings so ultimately our budget problems are the fault of congress (and in this case a long series of congresses).

Well, that's true, but it's the administration that actually spends the money that Congress appropriates.

The problem with a balanced budget amendment is it will take years to go through the process of amending the constitution and then government would be constrained from running deficits when it actually needs to do so.

Exactly. Furthermore, the budget is one of the most fundamental powers of Congress. If Congress must be Constitutionally constrained in making the budget, it seems to me that it indicates that it's devolved into a very dysfunctional organ of government.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Now in the thirties they let the banks fail and ploughed taxes into public work projects viz a viz FDR but this time they have poured the taxes into saving the banks.

The other options are to print money and bust the dollar or to default and bust the dollar, whatever America does will affect the western world.

The other tried and tested solution is WAR my friends. gunna change my name to doomster

 

[Alate_One]

Long-term jobs and growth are needed. Can a WPA achieve that? It seems like a WPA would only be a short term solution. But I may not understand what exactly you have in mind. Can you expand?

The original WPA was intended to be longer term. It was discontinued because the private sector finally started to catch up. I would be looking at something similar. Continue for the long term unemployed for as long as necessary. And I'd pay for it by taxing the people sitting on their wealth. A sort of "force" trickledown.

I've seen reports go both ways. When you say it did help, are you referring to jobs?

Yes.

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists. Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

The real problem with the US economy isn't supply, it's demand. The middle class has been losing real wages while the top earners have been gaining, even during the recession. Losing wages and inequality has been a problem for a long time. We've been able to cover it up with personal debt, credit cards and . . .home loans. Unfortunately businesses found out free credit can't go on forever so we likely need a real increase in the wages of the middle and lower classes. Companies of today need to remember Henry Ford. Pay your workers enough so they can afford your products. Alas our greedy culture will probably take quite some time to figure that out.

The only way to get the economy going quickly is to get more money to people that will actually spend it, and that includes the unemployed and underemployed.

Here's an article, written by someone with more economic background than me, that explains in detail what we can do. He also explains that the GOP are repeating the mistake of 1937, that is cutting spending in a fragile recovery. But what a surprise, having the GOP repeat mistakes? Never! :rotfl:

 

[rocketman]

That's not what social programs are about. They're about helping people that need help, not making everyone equal. We're not communists.

Unfortunately that is not how they are run, some take it as help others use it as way of life.

The problem is the hard righters like yourself actually don't believe in promoting the general welfare. You want everyone to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Everyone should pay for their own "insert government service". Unfortunately for you the history of the USA is littered with collective/government action and collective programs (Interstate system anyone?)

We as Americans could use a reality check as it refers to entitlements, there are too many handouts and they are geared to enabling people not to change their situation. Help yes, long term support for the able, no.

The lone ranger model of society simply doesn't work long term. We tried it during the early 1800s when issues of factory safety were considered to be a "private matter" for factory owners. It took the deaths of a hundred and fifty young female workers to change that attitude.

I forgot, you love the extremes...

For what reason should we NOT be promoting the health and welfare of our citizens?

promote or provide monetary support for?

Letting them die on the street was tried in the past. It's being tried in failed states currently. If it's so awesome why don't you move to one of these "low government" countries?

If you love the socialist form of government why don't you go to one of the failing socialist countries in Europe. Socialism doesn't work, you eventually run out of other peoples money to spend.

Not at all. Greece was managed by corrupt officials and went too far in government provisions.

Sounds vaguely familiar doesn't it. :think:

All I want for my own country is that we stay true to our historic social institutions and improve them so that they work better.

No, all you want is to get around the constitution and form a socialist form of government. BTW there is nothing in the constitution regarding these social institutions you speak of, they are far from being historical from a constitutional perspective.

The current crop of "tea partiers" apparently want to go back to the 1800s. Nobody that actually understands what that was wants that.

That is your perception but, actually most of the Tea Party people want the U.S. to go back to constitutional values and to squelch this socialist surge that you are a proponent of. Historically America has warmed up to socialism more than once to have it beat back by the people this time will probably end the same way, Americans love their personal freedom and despise an overreaching government.

The problem is your kind is as ignorant of history as you are of economics.

The problem with your kind is you ignorant of the history of this country, the constitution, and what the role of government is in a representative republic, and the economic role the government should hold. The government isn't supposed to be a sugar daddy for the people, you need to move to Europe for that.

 

[Alate_One]

Unfortunately that is not how they are run, some take it as help others use it as way of life.

We as Americans could use a reality check as it refers to entitlements, there are too many handouts and they are geared to enabling people not to change their situation. Help yes, long term support for the able, no.

The people you speak of are in the minority. Why do you want to destroy the social safety net at the very point people need it the most.

I forgot, you love the extremes...

When you demand that regulation needs to keep going down, bad things happen. Maybe you forgot about the recent mine disasters and oil spills? Government doesn't need to regulate less, it needs to regulate effectively. The right wants to keep killing government until it can't perform these necessary functions at all, much less more effectively.

promote or provide monetary support for?

If someone can't afford to pay for medical care, what do you suggest they do?

If you love the socialist form of government why don't you go to one of the failing socialist countries in Europe. Socialism doesn't work, you eventually run out of other peoples money to spend.

That's all you've got? I'm not the one suggesting radical change for the country, you and the tea party are. You probably think highways are "socialist".

No, all you want is to get around the constitution and form a socialist form of government.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about maintaining the status quo and improving how things work not some new utopia. There's been basically no change in that direction. "Obama care" is just a recycled republican idea that allows insurance companies to still make plenty of money.

BTW there is nothing in the constitution regarding these social institutions you speak of, they are far from being historical from a constitutional perspective.

You're talking about destroying things the American people want and depend on for survival because you assume that anyone that has assistance of any sort must be "lazy".

Chalk you up to another follower of supply side Jesus.

Supply Side Jesus

That is your perception but, actually most of the Tea Party people want the U.S. to go back to constitutional values and to squelch this socialist surge that you are a proponent of.

Is social security, medicare and medicaid socialist?

And even if they were apparently the American people LIKE socialism, by a large margin.

Historically America has warmed up to socialism more than once to have it beat back by the people this time will probably end the same way, Americans love their personal freedom and despise an overreaching government.

Overreaching government? You mean the current Republican overreach? The polls are pretty clear about who is best representing the people at the current time. Most people do NOT want a hardline on no taxes.

The problem with your kind is you ignorant of the history of this country, the constitution, and what the role of government is in a representative republic, and the economic role the government should hold. The government isn't supposed to be a sugar daddy for the people, you need to move to Europe for that.

Again, we haven't had your type of government since the 1800s. Nobody wants to go back there. There are plenty of constitutional scholars that disagree with you (in fact most of them). Next question?

Might want to actually learn the lessons of the great depression.