DVD Talk
2011 Budget Cut Thread ptII - Debt Ceiling Armageddon [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : 2011 Budget Cut Thread ptII - Debt Ceiling Armageddon


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

VinVega
07-22-11, 06:48 PM
Previous thread (Part 1): HERE (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/584898-2011-budget-cut-thread-35.html)

Hide the women and children, and yes I'm talking about our elected representatives.

wmansir
07-22-11, 07:15 PM
D'oh. I had a longer post, but when I went to submit I lost it because the thread was closed.

Basic point was I don't get the McConnell plan. It's basically giving up and letting Obama "take the blame" for raising the limit. It's spineless and blatantly political, so blatant that McConnell is publicly trying to sell it to conservatives solely as an opportunity to pick up a cheap campaign talking point. I guess he failed to notice that Obama is perfectly willing, eager even, to take the credit for raising the limit without a deficit reduction deal in place.

Obama says he is going to require that any deal push the next limit raise to 2013. Obviously this is to put the issue on the back burner for the election and give Dems an opportunity to pick up more seats for the next go around. Republicans should not let the issue go so easily. If a deal doesn't get done this week the House should pass a $1T increase and let the WH and Senate Dems take it or leave it.

VinVega
07-22-11, 07:19 PM
I still feel like something is going to get done, but this political brinksmanship is really getting tiresome.

JasonF
07-22-11, 07:21 PM
Boehner began a conference meeting Friday morning by deadpanning that Republicans, the White House and Democrats had reached a deal, according to a lawmaker in the room. The response from his conference was nervous silence before Boehner eased the tension by letting them know he was only joking.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/you-know-the-dizzying-array.php

More and more, I'm convinced there is nobody in the Republican caucus in Congress who is not 100% asshole.

classicman2
07-22-11, 07:22 PM
Current political score: Obama 1 - House Repubs 0.

A major political victory for the president - may be only temporary.

It's obvious that the Speaker was more interested in retaining his speakership than he was in getting a deal done.

classicman2
07-22-11, 07:25 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/you-know-the-dizzying-array.php

More and more, I'm convinced there is nobody in the Republican caucus in Congress who is not 100% asshole.

I'm convinced that both sides are playing politics - despite what the president has said - willing to upset some of his base and some Democrats in the Congres.

Red Dog
07-22-11, 07:30 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/you-know-the-dizzying-array.php

More and more, I'm convinced there is nobody in the Republican caucus in Congress who is not 100% asshole.

Well you're half-way home. I suspect you've always been there.

Th0r S1mpson
07-22-11, 08:11 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Aaaaaaaaa!

And...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

JasonF
07-22-11, 08:47 PM
I'm convinced that both sides are playing politics - despite what the president has said - willing to upset some of his base and some Democrats in the Congres.

Both sides do it! Democrats want to keep the economy from crashing via a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, while Republicans get mad when their leader says he might have made a deal to save the economy. It's exactly the same!

Th0r S1mpson
07-22-11, 08:53 PM
Both sides do it! Democrats want to keep the economy from crashing via a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, while Republicans get mad when their leader says he might have made a deal to save the economy. It's exactly the same!

You're just bitter because The Obama had seemingly brokered a deal to punish both rich people and old people at the same time and had it taken away from him.

kvrdave
07-22-11, 09:47 PM
I disagree with the idea that GOP votes against raising the debt ceiling won't matter. That's an abdication of responsibility by the majority.

Some would call it a precursor of appearing presidential. -wink-

Red Dog
07-22-11, 10:17 PM
Some would call it a precursor of appearing presidential. -wink-

:lol: rotfl :lol:

Nesbit
07-22-11, 11:19 PM
I'm convinced that both sides are playing politics

Have to agree with JasonF. The democrats are playing politics, the tea party is playing crazy. They're playing with fire and trying to ruin the government. That's what people voted them in to do.

classicman2
07-23-11, 08:54 AM
The president is meeting today with Pelosi, Reid, McConnell, and Boehner.

I understand it will be a tag team, winner take all match.

Dr Mabuse
07-23-11, 08:57 AM
Well you're half-way home. I suspect you've always been there.

:lol:

BKenn01
07-23-11, 10:26 AM
Both sides do it! Democrats want to keep the economy from crashing via a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, while Republicans get mad when their leader says he might have made a deal to save the economy. It's exactly the same!

Yes we know those Democrats are going to work hard to balance the budget if only they didn't have the pressure of this debt ceiling thing.:rolleyes:

Sean O'Hara
07-23-11, 10:36 AM
Obama has said his lawyers aren't convinced the Constitutional Option (i.e., the idea that the 14th Amendment trumps the Debt Ceiling) is a viable argument (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/obama_weighs_in_on_constitutio031036.php), but I think if push comes to shove he'll go that route, especially since it's not clear anyone would have standing to challenge him in court. If that happens, the Republicans not only come off as losers politically, but they'll have expanded executive power to an even more absurd extent than it's at now.

Fucking Republicans. Can we get a decent opposition party in this country? Like the Whigs.

classicman2
07-23-11, 10:51 AM
Both parties have been guilty of expanding executive powers for decades & decades - shortly after the ink on The Constitution dried.

Superboy
07-24-11, 07:57 AM
Both parties have been guilty of expanding executive powers for decades & decades - shortly after the ink on The Constitution dried.

We can also thank both parties for the mountain of debt the country is buried under as well.

BKenn01
07-24-11, 04:53 PM
We can also thank both parties for the mountain of debt the country is buried under as well.

Yep!

Dr Mabuse
07-24-11, 04:56 PM
S&P says merely upping the debt ceiling will not stop them from downgrading the US at this point. The article I read made it seem as if some bullshit 'we're cutting spending' bill like Obama/Boehner seems to favor wouldn't stop a downgrade either.

Nesbit
07-24-11, 07:25 PM
WTH is a Super Congress? I don't gain any confidence by cutting the number of idiots and weasels in charge.

I'll give Bush some credit for once. If he were in this position he would have raised the debt ceiling on his own weeks ago and it would have saved us a lot of bullshit. This is one instance where I don't particularly mind expanding executive powers.

The talks over the last month should be happening anyway just not at the expense of our credit rating. I say Obama extends it on the 2nd.

classicman2
07-24-11, 07:37 PM
And the Congress will challenge his authority to do so in the federal courts on the 3rd. ;)

Nesbit
07-24-11, 08:13 PM
And ruin the President's birthday bash?

kvrdave
07-24-11, 08:26 PM
S&P says merely upping the debt ceiling will not stop them from downgrading the US at this point. The article I read made it seem as if some bullshit 'we're cutting spending' bill like Obama/Boehner seems to favor wouldn't stop a downgrade either.

Nor should it. We have been incredibly lucky that the S&P has a bit of a US bias and an anti-euro bias of we would have been treated like the S&P has treated many of their countries for several years. The advantage of being the dominate world leader is that you get slack in things like this. The downside is that when you lose confidence it is much harder to ever get it back.

Sean O'Hara
07-24-11, 09:30 PM
And as expected, the Asian stock markets are starting to slide (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/asian-stocks-fall-as-u-s-lawmakers-fail-to-agree-deal-on-debt.html).

Dr Mabuse
07-24-11, 09:58 PM
Going to be some interesting stuff tomorrow.

X
07-24-11, 10:00 PM
And as expected, the Asian stock markets are starting to slide (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/asian-stocks-fall-as-u-s-lawmakers-fail-to-agree-deal-on-debt.html).And when they take their money out of equities they'll probably put it into U.S. treasuries.

Sean O'Hara
07-24-11, 10:57 PM
And when they take their money out of equities they'll probably put it into U.S. treasuries.

Looks like gold and Swiss francs (http://af.reuters.com/article/metalsNews/idAFL3E7IP09120110725). I guess I shoulda listened to G. Gordon.

kvrdave
07-24-11, 11:55 PM
Looks like gold and Swiss francs (http://af.reuters.com/article/metalsNews/idAFL3E7IP09120110725). I guess I shoulda listened to G. Gordon.

Unless you took his advice when he first started saying it. :lol:

PopcornTreeCt
07-25-11, 01:29 AM
This is going to hurt. :(

DVD Polizei
07-25-11, 01:57 AM
All this does is present an opportunity for those with a lot of cash. The markets will be up by the end of the week.

The US Economy reminds me of a Borderline Personality Disorder patient, who reacts on any impulse and goes wherever it wants, regardless of common sense or logic.

Superboy
07-25-11, 07:05 AM
And as expected, the Asian stock markets are starting to slide (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-25/asian-stocks-fall-as-u-s-lawmakers-fail-to-agree-deal-on-debt.html).

If the US dollar was going to plunge, you'd think gas prices would have gone up by now.

classicman2
07-25-11, 08:43 AM
Permit me to correct the news media about Social Security checks.

Everyone on SS doesn't receive their check on the 3rd of each month. Anyone who filed for SS after, I can't remember the exact year (at least 11 years ago), get their check on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Wednesday of the month.

Dr Mabuse
07-25-11, 08:47 AM
Barclay's did an accounting of funds and said the day checks would actually stop is Aug 10th. Aug 2nd is not the real date according to them.

The effect on all the markets and such will be the same of course on Aug 2nd, but apparently the checks will still be able to be sent on that day.

CRM114
07-25-11, 09:05 AM
So this whole disagreement really boils down to Obama wanting this extended in two 2013 and the Repubs wanting it to be short term so they can hassle Obama over it in his election year.

Sean O'Hara
07-25-11, 09:07 AM
If the US dollar was going to plunge, you'd think gas prices would have gone up by now.

I saw a story last night saying crude prices are doing the opposite -- dropping in anticipation in a decline in demand.

General Zod
07-25-11, 09:10 AM
So this whole disagreement really boils down to Obama wanting this extended in two 2013 and the Repubs wanting it to be short term so they can hassle Obama over it in his election year.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." - Obama 2006

It's always about politics.

Sean O'Hara
07-25-11, 09:20 AM
So this whole disagreement really boils down to Obama wanting this extended in two 2013 and the Repubs wanting it to be short term so they can hassle Obama over it in his election year.

You're being too simplistic. There are factions on both sides who want this resolved, and factions that want to use it for political gain. The Republicans are the most obvious culprits since they're negotiating against Obama, but it's not like the congressional Dems haven't put Obama into a tough position with their own intransigence.

Pharoh
07-25-11, 09:24 AM
You're being too simplistic. There are factions on both sides who want this resolved, and factions that want to use it for political gain. The Republicans are the most obvious culprits since they're negotiating against Obama, but it's not like the congressional Dems haven't put Obama into a tough position with their own intransigence.

It also assumes that the President is operating in good faith, and that his reforms would actually be positively transformative.

Red Dog
07-25-11, 09:32 AM
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." - Obama 2006


So that's what Change meant.

CRM114
07-25-11, 09:48 AM
It also assumes that the President is operating in good faith, and that his reforms would actually be positively transformative.

The President just wanted a clean bill.

classicman2
07-25-11, 09:57 AM
The fact that we don't have a budget is not the president's fault. He submited a budget. The Senate turned it down by a vote of 97-0. It is principally the fault of the Democratic leadership in the Senate that we don't have a budget.

The president has spoken in generalities about 'reforms' in entitlements. I've seen nothing specific coming from the WH.

Superboy
07-25-11, 10:04 AM
It also assumes that the President is operating in good faith, and that his reforms would actually be positively transformative.

He's not proposing any sort of reform, which is the problem, which is why the government and the American people aren't moving forward on this. He's stalling because he knows that only a harsh period of austerity is the only thing that's going to set this country on the right path, and he doesn't want to be the person that does it.

Pharoh
07-25-11, 10:11 AM
The President just wanted a clean bill.

Except when he didn't.

Face it, the White House, GOP leadership, and the Democratic leadership are all playing politics with this issue. For sure, they all somewhat believe that what they are doing is what is necessary and the right thing to do, but the political ramifications of action are never far from their thoughts.

It would be nice if some grown ups could enter the conversation.

(I think the freshmen House Republicans, led by the tea party contingent, have been the worst, followed by the Pelosi wing).

classicman2
07-25-11, 10:14 AM
Good news: 8/2/11 may not be the deadline. More revenue is coming in than was anticipated. It now may be the 5th or even the 13th. Now doesn't that reassure you? ;)

classicman2
07-25-11, 10:16 AM
Except when he didn't.

Face it, the White House, GOP leadership, and the Democratic leadership are all playing politics with this issue. For sure, they all somewhat believe that what they are doing is what is necessary and the right thing to do, but the political ramifications of action are never far from their thoughts.

It would be nice if some grown ups could enter the conversation.

(I think the freshmen House Republicans, led by the tea party contingent, have been the worst, followed by the Pelosi wing).

I think both idealogical wings of the parties (Republican & Democrat) both in the House & the Senate have 'been the worst.'

CRM114
07-25-11, 10:23 AM
Except when he didn't.

Face it, the White House, GOP leadership, and the Democratic leadership are all playing politics with this issue. For sure, they all somewhat believe that what they are doing is what is necessary and the right thing to do, but the political ramifications of action are never far from their thoughts.

It would be nice if some grown ups could enter the conversation.

(I think the freshmen House Republicans, led by the tea party contingent, have been the worst, followed by the Pelosi wing).

That might actually be true if the debt ceiling wasn't raised dozens of time in the recent past without much objection. What makes it objectionable this time is that we have a Socialist, Muslim executive.

CRM114
07-25-11, 10:24 AM
The fact that we don't have a budget is not the president's fault. He submited a budget. The Senate turned it down by a vote of 97-0. It is principally the fault of the Democratic leadership in the Senate that we don't have a budget.

The president has spoken in generalities about 'reforms' in entitlements. I've seen nothing specific coming from the WH.

The President's role is to outline specific policy for the Congress?

classicman2
07-25-11, 10:30 AM
If he's in negotiations with the leadership in congress about extension of the debt ceiling limit then he assumes the role of offering specifics. You can't say the Repubs haven't offered specifics.

What do you believe his role is - a referee?

CRM114
07-25-11, 10:32 AM
If he's in negotiations with the leadership in congress about extension of the debt ceiling limit then he assumes the role of offering specifics. You can't the Repubs haven't offered specifics.

What do you believe his role is - a referee?

You are arguing two different things here. One, the debt ceiling should never have been a "negotiation" in the first place. It never was before, it was an assumption. Two, I see any executive as providing an overall direction and vision. The role usually doesn't involve micromanagement.

Pharoh
07-25-11, 10:36 AM
That might actually be true if the debt ceiling wasn't raised dozens of time in the recent past without much objection. What makes it objectionable this time is that we have a Socialist, Muslim executive.

Yep, that must be it.

Nothing else could have happened in the past two to three years that might have made the situation different this time, is there?

classicman2
07-25-11, 10:39 AM
You are arguing two different things here. One, the debt ceiling should never have been a "negotiation" in the first place. It never was before, it was an assumption. Two, I see any executive as providing an overall direction and vision. The role usually doesn't involve micromanagement.

You've gotta be kidding.

wendersfan
07-25-11, 10:40 AM
(I think the freshmen House Republicans, led by the tea party contingent, have been the worst, followed by the Pelosi wing).I assume you've seen the recent piece by Norman Ornstein:

Worst. Congress. Ever. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/worst_congress_ever)
Two, I see any executive as providing an overall direction and vision. The role usually doesn't involve micromanagement.Presidents, successful ones at least, often become directly involved in Congressional wheeling and dealing. God forbid Obama get his hands dirty - it's only the global economy at stake.

Sean O'Hara
07-25-11, 10:41 AM
That might actually be true if the debt ceiling wasn't raised dozens of time in the recent past without much objection. What makes it objectionable this time is that we have a Socialist, Muslim executive.

There are two problems with this line of thinking:

1) It assumes that political reality is a constant. It isn't. It shifts with every election and every public opinion poll. What the Republicans could get away with last year isn't what they can get away with this year.

2) That it's okay to raise the debt ceiling this time doesn't mean it's okay to raise it next time -- if it were, there'd be no point to having it. (Personally, I do believe that it's pointless and non-binding in light of the 14th Amendment; however, if you're going to have a limit, there's no point to it if it doesn't actually limit anything.)

CRM114
07-25-11, 10:45 AM
Yep, that must be it.

Nothing else could have happened in the past two to three years that might have made the situation different this time, is there?

Let me guess. OBama was elected President? Um, the house went to the Repubs? There was a recession in which massive federal spending was the overwhelming consensus reaction which was painted a Socialist power grab by the Democrats and their President?

CRM114
07-25-11, 10:47 AM
Presidents, successful ones at least, often become directly involved in Congressional wheeling and dealing. God forbid Obama get his hands dirty - it's only the global economy at stake.

Of course he should consider every other President who resided in the White House over the last 30 years had to get his hands dirty to raise the debt ceiling. Oh wait.

CRM114
07-25-11, 10:47 AM
You've gotta be kidding.

Should the President develop his own Excel spreadsheet?

General Zod
07-25-11, 10:49 AM
That might actually be true if the debt ceiling wasn't raised dozens of time in the recent past without much objection. What makes it objectionable this time is that we have a Socialist, Muslim executive.

That would be a good point if it were true. Every democratic senator voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Going with your logic that was only because we had a Conservative, War-loving executive. Right?

Dr Mabuse
07-25-11, 10:53 AM
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." - Obama 2006

It's always about politics.

If we weren't in the situation we're in, that would be hilarious.

What a clown that guy is.

Sean O'Hara
07-25-11, 10:54 AM
Let me guess. OBama was elected President? Um, the house went to the Repubs?

Yes. As Obama once said, "Elections have consequences." That's especially true when a congressional party shift is powered by an upstart political movement that's pressuring them to move in a certain direction.

There was a recession in which massive federal spending was the overwhelming consensus reaction which was painted a Socialist power grab by the Democrats and their President?

You're begging the question.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 10:59 AM
Of course he should consider every other President who resided in the White House over the last 30 years had to get his hands dirty to raise the debt ceiling. Oh wait.

Presidents had to when Obama voted against raising it in the Senate. Let's face it, you just hate Obama getting Obama'd.

wendersfan
07-25-11, 11:05 AM
Presidents had to when Obama voted against raising it in the Senate. Let's face it, you just hate Obama getting Obama'd.I'm guessing you're aware that every Senate Democrat voted against raising the debt ceiling that time?

CRM114
07-25-11, 11:17 AM
A symbolic anti-war vote. They didn't actually mean it like the tea baggers.

Th0r S1mpson
07-25-11, 11:20 AM
Given how many problems there are with the economy that they can't do anything about, it's fairly irresponsible of our leaders to have allowed this particular issue to get to this point. I think we can all agree on that.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 11:21 AM
I'm guessing you're aware that every Senate Democrat voted against raising the debt ceiling that time?

I am. You are aware of the reason Obama gave for voting against it, aren't you?

wendersfan
07-25-11, 11:22 AM
I am. You are aware of the reason Obama gave for voting against it, aren't you?
It was going to pass anyway so he was making a political statement against runaway government debt.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 11:23 AM
A symbolic anti-war vote. They didn't actually mean it like the tea baggers.

"When my side does things like your side, it is because they are doing it for good reasons of symbolism and not because they are jerks like your side."

:lol:

kvrdave
07-25-11, 11:24 AM
It was going to pass anyway so he was making a political statement against runaway government debt.

Ah, brave in the face of no consequences and weak when it matters. That's what I think of him as well.

Red Dog
07-25-11, 11:24 AM
It was going to pass anyway so he was making a political statement against runaway government debt.

So what's his political statement this time? That runaway gov't debt isn't bad when he's in charge?

CRM114
07-25-11, 11:24 AM
The difference is obvious. Turn on the news right now and you will see the difference.

Superboy
07-25-11, 11:29 AM
Given how many problems there are with the economy that they can't do anything about, it's fairly irresponsible of our leaders to have allowed this particular issue to get to this point. I think we can all agree on that.

There are plenty of things that can be done about the economy, and none of them would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of passing in the Congress/Senate, so this issue is them being "nice".

kvrdave
07-25-11, 11:31 AM
The difference is obvious. Turn on the news right now and you will see the difference.

I did. I see the president is a Democrat. The difference is indeed obvious and perfectly explains your well thought out position flipping.

wendersfan
07-25-11, 11:31 AM
So what's his political statement this time? That runaway gov't debt isn't bad when he's in charge?
I think you'd have to ask JasonF what his political statement is this time, but if I had to guess it's probably that runaway debt isn't as bad as government default.

Dr Mabuse
07-25-11, 11:32 AM
"When my side does things like your side, it is because they are doing it for good reasons of symbolism and not because they are jerks like your side."

:lol:

:lol:

CRM114
07-25-11, 11:33 AM
I did. I see the president is a Democrat. The difference is indeed obvious and perfectly explains your well thought out position flipping.

So the US government came within a one week default on the debt before? Wow, fill me in. I don't recall it.

Dr Mabuse
07-25-11, 11:33 AM
It was going to pass anyway so he was making a political statement against runaway government debt.

:lol:

Th0r S1mpson
07-25-11, 11:34 AM
That might actually be true if the debt ceiling wasn't raised dozens of time in the recent past without much objection.

The difference is obvious. Turn on the news right now and you will see the difference.

:hscratch:

classicman2
07-25-11, 11:35 AM
I think you'd have to ask JasonF what his political statement is this time, but if I had to guess it's probably that runaway debt isn't as bad as government default.

I hope he would say they're both unacceptable.

Th0r S1mpson
07-25-11, 11:40 AM
You guys keep going back and forth with jabs that go back to the Bush Presidency, Obama's voting record, Tea Party motivations, blah dee friggin' blah. It's not constructive. You realize this forum only has a matter of days to come to a consensus on this issue?

Lemdog
07-25-11, 11:44 AM
You realize this forum only has a matter of days to come to a consensus on this issue?

Doomed. We are all doomed.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 12:00 PM
So the US government came within a one week default on the debt before? Wow, fill me in. I don't recall it.

Ah, you prefer symbolism to priciple. I'll assume you only prefer that when you ultimately get your way. Why is Obama good for not extending the debt ceiling but the Republicans are bad for not extending it?

wendersfan
07-25-11, 12:02 PM
Ah, you prefer symbolism to priciple. I'll assume you only prefer that when you ultimately get your way. Why is Obama good for not extending the debt ceiling but the Republicans are bad for not extending it?Follow-up question - do you honestly think that Obama would have voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 if he had believed that it would not have passed without his vote?

Th0r S1mpson
07-25-11, 12:05 PM
Follow-up question - do you honestly think that Obama would have voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 if he had believed that it would not have passed without his vote?

Are you questioning the integrity of the current President? :(

orangecrush
07-25-11, 12:07 PM
Follow-up question - do you honestly think that Obama would have voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 if he had believed that it would not have passed without his vote?Probably not, but it seems better to judge people based on their actions, not what we think their actions might have been in different circumstances.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 12:09 PM
Follow-up question - do you honestly think that Obama would have voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 if he had believed that it would not have passed without his vote?

I think it is unreasonable to try to guess what a politician may have done in a different situation when you can see not only what he did, but read his reasoning for doing it. Don't you?

If we can't believe what he said then, why should anyone believe anything he says now? And can't he simply cave if raising the debt ceiling is so important? Isn't that what is expected of the Republicans?

classicman2
07-25-11, 12:13 PM
Follow-up question - do you honestly think that Obama would have voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 if he had believed that it would not have passed without his vote?

We'll never know, will we? ;)

Real answer: Most probably not.

Venusian
07-25-11, 12:18 PM
According to a bunch of articles I've read House GOP says they won't vote for anything with tax increases and Obama says he won't sign anything without a tax increase.

Aren't they both being hard headed? I think both are bluffing and will blink.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 12:21 PM
According to a bunch of articles I've read House GOP says they won't vote for anything with tax increases and Obama says he won't sign anything without a tax increase.

Aren't they both being hard headed? I think both are bluffing and will blink.

Of course they aren't both hard headed. This is the Republicans fault. And every liberal person on TV has assured me that this isn't why the Republicans were elected in November. Apparently they were elected to.....well, we don't know yet. But it certainly wasn't for change. That is why Obama was elected.

Bandoman
07-25-11, 12:21 PM
But why did the Democrats vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006? Here's one likely explanation:

The Baucus (D-MT) amendment, which was to require a study of debt held by foreigners, was voted down 44-55. This was a democratically-backed amendment. All democrats voted "yea," but it did not have the votes to pass the senate.

See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=109&amdt=s3131

The subsequent vote on the unamended joint resultion 47 (HJ47) was conducted 40 minutes after the failure of the Baucus amendment. In an effort to press the Republicans to reconsider the amendment (probably hoping to force that kind of deliberation in committee), the Democrats voted "nay."

See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-54

So, all things considered, this was not a vote not to raise the debt ceiling, but rather a vote to force reconsideration of the failed amendment.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 12:25 PM
I wish Obama wouldn't have mentioned that so that we could go with that rather than what he actually said.

Bandoman
07-25-11, 12:32 PM
He probably forgot.

X
07-25-11, 12:35 PM
So, all things considered, this was not a vote not to raise the debt ceiling, but rather a vote to force reconsideration of the failed amendment.Well that certainly shows that the vote not to raise the debt ceiling was acting fiscally responsible.

Dr Mabuse
07-25-11, 12:36 PM
Man... it's waist deep in here with all the rationalizing.

Bandoman
07-25-11, 12:39 PM
I like Warren Buffet's idea - pass a law that the members of congress are ineligible for re-election if a balanced budget is not passed. (I know, impractical and unworkable, but viscerally appealing.)

BearFan
07-25-11, 12:50 PM
I like Warren Buffet's idea - pass a law that the members of congress are ineligible for re-election if a balanced budget is not passed. (I know, impractical and unworkable, but viscerally appealing.)

They should include the President in that, makes it even more appealing.

Bandoman
07-25-11, 12:53 PM
:up:

Red Dog
07-25-11, 01:02 PM
Follow-up question - do you honestly think that Obama would have voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 if he had believed that it would not have passed without his vote?

I'm surprised he didn't vote 'present.' ;)

starman9000
07-25-11, 01:03 PM
I was pushing that law on the state level here in MN to my friends. I bet some of these lifetime state legislators would have got a deal done much sooner if they couldn't run again.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 01:04 PM
I like Warren Buffet's idea - pass a law that the members of congress are ineligible for re-election if a balanced budget is not passed. (I know, impractical and unworkable, but viscerally appealing.)

I like that very much.

CRM114
07-25-11, 01:05 PM
I wish Obama wouldn't have mentioned that so that we could go with that rather than what he actually said.

You are new to the whole wacky world of "political rhetoric," aren't you?

kvrdave
07-25-11, 02:58 PM
I'm just not nearly as comfortable with the level of cognitive dissonance that you are. You have picked a side despite what they say because you can discern what they really mean.

classicman2
07-25-11, 03:52 PM
The president will speak to the nation tonight on the debt crisis.

Will he or won't he - invoke the power that some say he has under the 14th Amendment?

Th0r S1mpson
07-25-11, 03:58 PM
He will do the right thing. I'll let you know what that is after his speech.

PopcornTreeCt
07-25-11, 04:08 PM
End of the day and the market didn't crash. Yay.

classicman2
07-25-11, 04:52 PM
Why wouldn't Obama unilaterally raise the debt limit?

It's a win-win situation for him.

What can the Congress do - take him to court? So what! It would be months, maybe years, before the final ruling of the Court would occur. By then the economy will be booming, and the American public won't have the saviour of the Republic being removed from office for violating The Constitution. And if the public would want that, the Senate isn't about to remove a president for that small infraction. Hell, they wouldn't remove a prior Democratic president who violated his oath of office by committing perjury two or three times.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 04:58 PM
It may not be a win-win in the short term of trying to get re-elected, though.

RoyalTea
07-25-11, 05:13 PM
Why wouldn't Obama unilaterally raise the debt limit?

It's a win-win situation for him.

What can the Congress do - take him to court? So what! It would be months, maybe years, before the final ruling of the Court would occur. By then the economy will be booming, and the American public won't have the saviour of the Republic being removed from office for violating The Constitution. And if the public would want that, the Senate isn't about to remove a president for that small infraction. Hell, they wouldn't remove a prior Democratic president who violated his oath of office by committing perjury two or three times.
the economy will not be booming in months.

Th0r S1mpson
07-25-11, 05:19 PM
the economy will not be booming in months.

How can you say that when you haven't even heard Obama's speech? :mad:

HistoryProf
07-25-11, 09:22 PM
man is John Boehner an asshole.

General Zod
07-25-11, 09:31 PM
man is John Boehner an asshole.

I know. I love it. :lol:

So all the doom and gloom scare talk that Obama gives about default could be avoided if he would agree to a short term extension but he doesn't want it to come up again during an election year. So he'd rather let us default than risk his election? Sounds like Chicago politics to me.

And Boehner is doing what people wanted the Republicans do when they voted them in. They campaigned on lower taxes and no more out of control spending. To steal a line from Obama "elections have consequences".

X
07-25-11, 09:31 PM
man is John Boehner an asshole.why?

Sean O'Hara
07-25-11, 09:49 PM
I know. I love it. :lol:

So all the doom and gloom scare talk that Obama gives about default could be avoided if he would agree to a short term extension but he doesn't want it to come up again during an election year. So he'd rather let us default than risk his election? Sounds like Chicago politics to me.

But on the flipside, Boehner wants to go for the two-tier approach so the issue will come up during an election year. They're both assholes.

Jack Straw
07-25-11, 10:05 PM
I see it the opposite way. They're both dicks and the American public are the assholes they're screwing for voting them into office.

kvrdave
07-25-11, 10:10 PM
And Boehner is doing what people wanted the Republicans do when they voted them in.

I don't know about that. All the Democrats I've heard speak about this say that this isn't what they wanted.

Sean O'Hara
07-25-11, 11:58 PM
I see it the opposite way. They're both dicks and the American public are the assholes they're screwing for voting them into office.

No, we're the ones who are going to get shit on, so we can't be assholes.

HistoryProf
07-26-11, 12:12 AM
why?

because he lied his ass off tonight and doesn't give two shits about the American people. And he knows it. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20083269-503544.html)

"Obama created this crisis"
he wants a "blank check"
Tea Party Plan is "bipartisan"
"I gave it my all"
etc etc etc....lie lie lie.

He has zero credibility after tonight.

HistoryProf
07-26-11, 12:17 AM
I know. I love it. :lol:

So all the doom and gloom scare talk that Obama gives about default could be avoided if he would agree to a short term extension but he doesn't want it to come up again during an election year. So he'd rather let us default than risk his election? Sounds like Chicago politics to me.

And Boehner is doing what people wanted the Republicans do when they voted them in. They campaigned on lower taxes and no more out of control spending. To steal a line from Obama "elections have consequences".

No, that sounds like Tea Party freshmen hijacking the debt ceiling in order to force it into being an issue for Obama and lying out their asses in trying to make it his "fault" this is happening. He doesn't want it to come up in an election year because he wants Congress to actually do their fucking jobs rather than spending every waking minute campaigning instead of governing. The only reason - ONLY - to make this short term now is in order to replay all this bullshit again in six months in the hopes of smearing Obama. They don't care two shits about spending or taxes or anything else - they care about making Obama a one-term president and they don't give a shit how bad they fuck the country up to do it. It's gotten fucking pathological and has to stop or we are fucking doomed.

There are no good guys here, but the house republicans are the absolute worst for what they are doing. It's pathetic, appalling, and downright unpatriotic.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 12:42 AM
:lol:

RayChuang
07-26-11, 06:34 AM
(getting on eoapbox)

In the end, we will have an agreement--and we may FINALLY do two things post haste that should have been done a long, long time ago:

1. Like it or not, we need to seriously start pruning back the size of government by looking for:

a) Bureaucratic overlap--are there too many agencies trying to do the same job when only one agency can fulfill that same task?

b) Agency bloat--are many agencies just bloated too WAY too big in size?

c) Unneeded regulations--are there regulations that are obsolete or don't justify the cost of the regulation?

2. Completely overhaul the current income tax system. The current system--in my humble opinion!--needs to be overhauled because:

a) The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) plus additional rulings are somewhere between 67,000 and 70,000 pages of code, a tax code so complex that even the IRS can't figure out much of it!

b) Because of that complexity, the compliance cost per year is frightening: the Tax Foundation estimates the current cost is around US$300 BILLION per year, and I've read some estimates place it as high as US$431 BILLION per year including economic opportunity costs. http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/swoon.gif

c) Tax avoidance by various means has become a HUGE issue. Why do you think we've "offshored" millions of jobs, thousands of factories, hundreds of corporate headquarters, and possibly somewhere WAY beyond US$10 TRILLION in American-owned liquid assets sitting in offshore financial center "banks"? (It should be noted that income tax burden is just as big a factor as labor costs in determining where to put a factory or corporate headquarter anywhere in the world.) Or how companies like GE and Exxon Mobil successfully lobbied for provisions in the IRC so they paid NO corporate income taxes in 2010? Or how Google used the very complex Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich accounting arrangements involving financial entities in Ireland and the Netherlands to substantially cut its income tax obligations?

d) The tax code is being used as a means of political favoritism and coercion, the ultimate form of political corruption, in my humble opinion. http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/nea.gif

Maybe it's time for the biggest overhaul in income tax law since the passage of the 16th Amendment. If I were Obama, I would cut the top tax rate on both the personal and corporate side to 25%, but take out the vast majority of obsolete and unneeded credits, deductions and/or exemptions to the IRC. This would dramatically reduce the cost of compliance, since such a change will result in a far simpler tax filing form. Mind you, I'd take it to point we have a simple, no-deductions flat-rate income tax (with one exception, a generous initial income exemption for each member of a household), which would make compliance costs extremely low and would encourage American residents and businesses to keep as much of their savings and capital investments in the USA as possible.

(getting off soapbox)

classicman2
07-26-11, 07:41 AM
The President said last evening - "I will support the Reid Plan. I won't support the Boehner Plan."

I wonder if he realizes that the plans are alarmingly similiar?

And some folks - and maybe even some on this forum - don't believe the performance by the president last evening was strictly political.

al_bundy
07-26-11, 07:47 AM
(getting on eoapbox)

In the end, we will have an agreement--and we may FINALLY do two things post haste that should have been done a long, long time ago:

1. Like it or not, we need to seriously start pruning back the size of government by looking for:

a) Bureaucratic overlap--are there too many agencies trying to do the same job when only one agency can fulfill that same task?

b) Agency bloat--are many agencies just bloated too WAY too big in size?

c) Unneeded regulations--are there regulations that are obsolete or don't justify the cost of the regulation?

2. Completely overhaul the current income tax system. The current system--in my humble opinion!--needs to be overhauled because:

a) The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) plus additional rulings are somewhere between 67,000 and 70,000 pages of code, a tax code so complex that even the IRS can't figure out much of it!

b) Because of that complexity, the compliance cost per year is frightening: the Tax Foundation estimates the current cost is around US$300 BILLION per year, and I've read some estimates place it as high as US$431 BILLION per year including economic opportunity costs. http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/swoon.gif

c) Tax avoidance by various means has become a HUGE issue. Why do you think we've "offshored" millions of jobs, thousands of factories, hundreds of corporate headquarters, and possibly somewhere WAY beyond US$10 TRILLION in American-owned liquid assets sitting in offshore financial center "banks"? (It should be noted that income tax burden is just as big a factor as labor costs in determining where to put a factory or corporate headquarter anywhere in the world.) Or how companies like GE and Exxon Mobil successfully lobbied for provisions in the IRC so they paid NO corporate income taxes in 2010? Or how Google used the very complex Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich accounting arrangements involving financial entities in Ireland and the Netherlands to substantially cut its income tax obligations?

d) The tax code is being used as a means of political favoritism and coercion, the ultimate form of political corruption, in my humble opinion. http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/nea.gif

Maybe it's time for the biggest overhaul in income tax law since the passage of the 16th Amendment. If I were Obama, I would cut the top tax rate on both the personal and corporate side to 25%, but take out the vast majority of obsolete and unneeded credits, deductions and/or exemptions to the IRC. This would dramatically reduce the cost of compliance, since such a change will result in a far simpler tax filing form. Mind you, I'd take it to point we have a simple, no-deductions flat-rate income tax (with one exception, a generous initial income exemption for each member of a household), which would make compliance costs extremely low and would encourage American residents and businesses to keep as much of their savings and capital investments in the USA as possible.

(getting off soapbox)


most people don't want the tax code shortened. getting a refund due to a lot of deductions is a psychological high that people will miss. and too many people who should be paying 25% are only paying in the teens due to a lot of deductions.

even if we shortened the tax code to 1 page next week we would be back at tens of thousands of pages in a few years anyway. for us normal people all the deductions actually make it more fairer for us since corporations have them as well

wishbone
07-26-11, 07:49 AM
Boehner and Reid plans aren't that different: a comparison
By: Philip Klein | Senior editorial writer Follow Him @Philipaklein | 07/25/11 5:24 PM

While the political jousting over the debt limit increase continues, the dirty little secret is that the dueling plans released today by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., aren't all that different, and it isn't hard to see how they could bridge their remaining disagreements. Here's a rundown of the similarities between the two plans, the big differences, possibilities for compromise and the remaining questions.

Similarities:

-- Both plans claim to reduce discretionary spending by $1.2 trillion.

-- Both plans create a joint, bipartisan, Congressional committee to find future savings.

-- Neither plan includes specific entitlement reform.

-- Neither plan includes specific tax increases.

Differences:

-- Reid's plan wants to raise the debt ceiling all in one chunk (and boosts the claimed deficit reduction number by relying on savings from the expected wind down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), but Boehner it raised in two parts.

-- While both plans endorse a joint committee, the Boehner plan makes the second debt limit increase contingent on Congress passing $1.8 trillion in additional deficit-reduction based on its recommendations.

-- Boehner plan would ensure a vote in both chambers on a Balanced Budget Amendment.

-- Boehner proposes caps to future spending.

Possibilities for compromise:

-- It would be easy for Reid to allow a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment.

-- The differences over whether the debt limit increase should be short-term or last through the 2012 election is not an ideological-based disagreement, so it seems either side could give way on that one.

-- Depending on the level of the spending cap, there may be some compromise there.

Remaining questions:

-- How much overlap is there between the $1.2 trillion in discretionary cuts in the two plans? Reid seems to be emphasizing defense cuts more, but if the differences run much deeper than that, they could be difficult to overcome.

-- Does either plan have enough votes, let alone a combined plan? As it is, a number of conservatives have been critical of the Boehner plan. If it's then compromised further with the Reid plan, will Boehner have the votes to get it out of the House without significant support from Democrats?http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/boehner-and-reid-plans-arent-different-comparison

Per the usual the devil is in the details.

Red Dog
07-26-11, 08:02 AM
I don't see the big deal on allowing a balanced budget amendment vote. It would never pass anyhow, but I suppose certain politicians don't want to have a nay on record.

There are no good guys here, but the house republicans are the absolute worst for what they are doing. It's pathetic, appalling, and downright unpatriotic.

rotfl Why do you hate America, House Republicans?

classicman2
07-26-11, 08:07 AM
There are no good guys here, but the house republicans are the absolute worst for what they are doing. It's pathetic, appalling, and downright unpatriotic.

:lol:

BearFan
07-26-11, 08:15 AM
The President said last evening - "I will support the Reid Plan. I won't support the Boehner Plan."

I wonder if he realizes that the plans are alarmingly similiar?

And some folks - and maybe even some on this forum - don't believe the performance by the president last evening was strictly political.

I tend do doubt he has read either of them, he just knows Dem=Good, GOP=Bad ...

BearFan
07-26-11, 08:17 AM
There are no good guys here, but the house republicans are the absolute worst for what they are doing. It's pathetic, appalling, and downright unpatriotic.

You forgot mean spiritied and will kill thousands of children and elderly every 30 seconds, etc.

CRM114
07-26-11, 08:30 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators. Sad.

Sean O'Hara
07-26-11, 08:37 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators. Sad.

Next time Ky-fi posts a crazy anti-Islam rant, or GizmoDVD posts a crazy anti-immigrant rant, respond the same way.

classicman2
07-26-11, 08:40 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators. Sad.

:lol:

You've gotta be kidding - 'so few. I wasn't being critical. I was simply stating the fact - both the Repubs & the Demos and the president are playing politics. You can't believe otherwise.

wishbone
07-26-11, 08:46 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators. Sad.:tinfoil: ;)

dvd-4-life
07-26-11, 08:57 AM
Whats in the Speaker of the House plan that concerns Social Security cuts? All he talks about is big business and paying taxes would destroy jobs even though they aren't paying taxes now and have created very few new jobs.

Red Dog
07-26-11, 08:58 AM
Damn moderators with their 'full endorsements.'

Some people should be thankful they don't charge for emoticon use around here.

Venusian
07-26-11, 09:15 AM
using the cut in troops as a savings is b.s. It was b.s. when the GOP did it in their budget and it is b.s. when Reid offers it.

Venusian
07-26-11, 09:17 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators. Sad.

A liberal posts saying the problem is the GOP's fault and people laugh. It's about the same when conservatives post and say it is all the Democrats' fault. The forum seems to be getting more towards the center where it doesn't support either side blindly, at least that is how I see it. I don't see anyone in this thread saying the GOP is doing it well.

Red Dog
07-26-11, 09:23 AM
A liberal posts saying the problem is the GOP's fault and people laugh.

And that's not even what we were laughing at. If all he said was that it's the GOP's fault, it wouldn't have merited a laugh.

dork
07-26-11, 09:29 AM
A liberal posts saying the problem is the GOP's fault and people laugh.
People used to get warnings for replying with nothing but a laughing smiley.

Then again, we also used to frown upon political generalizations, "so what you're saying is"-type posts, and many other types of behavior without which this forum wouldn't exist anymore.

X
07-26-11, 09:42 AM
The only reason - ONLY - to make this short term now is in order to replay all this bullshit again in six months in the hopes of smearing Obama.How would that smear Obama? If the country agrees with his approach wouldn't it enable him to get his message across one more time?

kvrdave
07-26-11, 09:45 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators. Sad.

It's a good start, anyway.

HistoryProf
07-26-11, 09:45 AM
You forgot mean spiritied and will kill thousands of children and elderly every 30 seconds, etc.

no i didn't. Dave knows i'm no Jingoist, but this performance by the House is the single most appalling display of ignorance and partisan bullshit i've ever seen. I mean just read this from the Economist last week:
At a closed-door meeting Friday morning, GOP leaders turned to their most trusted budget expert, Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to explain to rank-and-file members what many others have come to understand: A fiscal meltdown could occur if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling[...]

The warnings appeared to have softened the views of at least some House members who, until now, were inclined to dismiss statements by administration officials, business leaders and outside economists that the economic impact would be dire if the federal government were suddenly unable to pay its bills.
They don't care about anything but their own incredibly skewed view of economics 101 and think all the nation's problems will be solved by cutting cutting cutting and voila! It's all good! They are the most Idiotic Collective our Congress has ever been subjected to - ever. They are holding our country hostage for ideals brewed in Glenn Beck's teapot and are on the verge of creating a global catastrophe.

I'm no fan of Obama - he's been a huge disappointment - indeed, I don't like any of them. But the House right now is engaging in a brand of politics that is steeped in pure ignorance and threatening to bring the economy crashing down in a way that might be worse than 1932. All because they want to make Obama a one-term president - which they can't do by putting up a decent candidate because they don't have one. And it all pisses me off.

And don't call me a "liberal" CRM...i'm not on your side either.

CRM114
07-26-11, 09:54 AM
And don't call me a "liberal" CRM...i'm not on your side either.

Relax, an honest mistake. Geez.

So there are even fewer liberals than I thought. There's me and....who am I forgetting?

dork
07-26-11, 10:00 AM
I think there's like 2 liberal voices on this forum... and that's only because most of the time JasonF double posts.

CRM114
07-26-11, 10:02 AM
I guess that's some sort of insult. :sigh:

BearFan
07-26-11, 10:02 AM
no i didn't. Dave knows i'm no Jingoist, but this performance by the House is the single most appalling display of ignorance and partisan bullshit i've ever seen. I mean just read this from the Economist last week:

They don't care about anything but their own incredibly skewed view of economics 101 and think all the nation's problems will be solved by cutting cutting cutting and voila! It's all good! They are the most Idiotic Collective our Congress has ever been subjected to - ever. They are holding our country hostage for ideals brewed in Glenn Beck's teapot and are on the verge of creating a global catastrophe.

I'm no fan of Obama - he's been a huge disappointment - indeed, I don't like any of them. But the House right now is engaging in a brand of politics that is steeped in pure ignorance and threatening to bring the economy crashing down in a way that might be worse than 1932. All because they want to make Obama a one-term president - which they can't do by putting up a decent candidate because they don't have one. And it all pisses me off.

And don't call me a "liberal" CRM...i'm not on your side either.


No doubt there is plenty of blame to go around, but how was it not partisan BS when the Dems just wanted the ceiling raised with zero cuts or changes. The system is jacked up and massive changes need to be made in taxation as well as in spending ... You can blame the house GOP for being one sided on this, but up until recently the Dems did not even consider the debt a problem worthy of tackling at this point.

A comparison to 1932 is pretty far off as well, the economy is vastly different and the government is vastly larger than is was back then. A comparison to Japan in the 1990s and France since the 1970s might be more accurate.

CRM114
07-26-11, 10:07 AM
...how was it not partisan BS when the Dems just wanted the ceiling raised with zero cuts or changes

Because that's they way it is always done?

classicman2
07-26-11, 10:08 AM
The real political minority on this forum is us few pragmatic centrists. :)

classicman2
07-26-11, 10:10 AM
People used to get warnings for replying with nothing but a laughing smiley.

When was that?

dork
07-26-11, 10:11 AM
When was that?
In the past.

classicman2
07-26-11, 10:15 AM
Hmm! I don't remember that, and I've been here longer than you have.

Maybe you have a better memory - or maybe just a better selective memory.

BearFan
07-26-11, 10:16 AM
Because that's they way it is always done?

From last years budget the GOP pretty much announced that that should change and would change ... though I guess by that argument all the Bush tax cuts should keep being renewed because that is the way it has always been done ... but I tend to doubt all the Dems will go along with that argument

dork
07-26-11, 10:21 AM
Hmm! I don't remember that, and I've been here longer than you have.

Maybe you have a better memory - or maybe just a better selective memory.

Warning: May contain irony (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/7548868-post16.html)

Venusian
07-26-11, 10:26 AM
Because that's they way it is always done?

that sounds like a terrible reason to do something

Red Dog
07-26-11, 10:28 AM
that sounds like a terrible reason to do something

Don't worry. It's a classic YMMV argument.

classicman2
07-26-11, 10:31 AM
The real 'crime' on this forum is repetition of the same point over & over & over.

I take that back - the real problem is that too many people takes this forum (and probably other forums) a little too seriously.

dork
07-26-11, 10:33 AM
The real 'crime' on this forum is repetition of the same point over & over & over.

And that's why we'll never have a realistic energy policy. :(

classicman2
07-26-11, 10:38 AM
We'll have one when it's too late - maybe.

Th0r S1mpson
07-26-11, 10:43 AM
And you wonder why there are so few liberals posting here. When one does, they just get laughing emoticons and sarcasm which is fully endorsed by the moderators.

<img src="http://www.imageadventures.com/other/mod_approval.gif">

CRM114
07-26-11, 10:54 AM
From last years budget the GOP pretty much announced that that should change and would change ... though I guess by that argument all the Bush tax cuts should keep being renewed because that is the way it has always been done ... but I tend to doubt all the Dems will go along with that argument

When I was speaking of "always" I was referring to the last 30 years not just the last decade.

CRM114
07-26-11, 10:56 AM
Warning: May contain irony (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/7548868-post16.html)

I'm glad you found that. I never could but I know I was reprimanded for that in the past. I'm not one of the conservative club so it's understandable the rules would be different. Remember "Bushite" ??

<img src="http://www.imageadventures.com/other/mod_approval.gif">

Obviously given the selective reprimands and warnings.

wishbone
07-26-11, 11:02 AM
When I was speaking of "always" I was referring to the last 30 years not just the last decade.Updated!

http://i56.tinypic.com/t0696r.jpg

kvrdave
07-26-11, 11:03 AM
Because that's they way it is always done?

When was the last time the deficit was over a trillion dollars? Never has been under any other president. Perhaps that had a little to do with it.

wendersfan
07-26-11, 11:18 AM
When was the last time the deficit was over a trillion dollars? Never has been under any other president. Perhaps that had a little to do with it.
FY2009, under President Bush.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

So I guess there must be a different reason.

classicman2
07-26-11, 11:21 AM
GWB's great sin - he believed it was O.K. for U.S. involvement in wars that didn't require this country to pay for them. ;)

General Zod
07-26-11, 11:26 AM
Wasn't Bush only president for the 1st quarter of FY2009? (I'm not all the familiar with how FY's work but I know Bush was only in office until Jan 20, 2009)

wendersfan
07-26-11, 11:33 AM
Wasn't Bush only president for the 1st quarter of FY2009? (I'm not all the familiar with how FY's work but I know Bush was only in office until Jan 20, 2009)
The spending request made by a president is effective for the following year, so for FY 2009 (10/1/08-9/30/09) we're talking about Bush's budget, well, Bush's and Congress'.

classicman2
07-26-11, 11:34 AM
FY2009 began with 10/1/08 & ended 10/1/09. I believe that's correct.

Th0r S1mpson
07-26-11, 11:36 AM
Bush cut about 4 trillion dollars in spending by not invading Iran and Korea.

classicman2
07-26-11, 11:40 AM
Did we ever decide when was the U.S. actually paid for a war that we engaged in?

Red Dog
07-26-11, 11:40 AM
:lol:*



*Is that smilie okay? I am laughing in agreement with Thor's comment; not at Thor. ;)

JasonF
07-26-11, 11:46 AM
I think there's like 2 liberal voices on this forum... and that's only because most of the time JasonF double posts.

Most of the time? Come on! I only double-post occasionally.

JasonF
07-26-11, 11:47 AM
I think there's like 2 liberal voices on this forum... and that's only because most of the time JasonF double posts.

Most of the time? Come on! I only double-post occasionally.

focker
07-26-11, 11:52 AM
The thing that's sad is that even the Republicans aren't talking about real budget cuts. They put plans out there with cuts of a few trillion over a decade. Usually these 'cuts' are measured relative to projected spending, not the current budget. I'd like to cut $1 trillion+ per year, compared to what we're spending now. The federal budget has grown by trillions in real dollars during the Bush and Obama administrations. We need to make real cuts in real dollars, not to slow the rate of growth slightly.

BearFan
07-26-11, 12:01 PM
When I was speaking of "always" I was referring to the last 30 years not just the last decade.

I did not know there was a limit to always, we "always" had slaves for over 30 years as well, guess that should have not been overturned.

All this aside, my point was that the GOP gave lots of warning that they would not just increase the debt limit witout cuts. Since they control 1/3 of the structure that needed to pass this and strong say in the Senate (combined with Manchin, Nelson from Nebraska, and a few other Dems up for re-election in conservative states) ... it seemed foolish to think a straigh up increase would happen ... hell, the Dems are not even for that any more.

BearFan
07-26-11, 12:04 PM
The thing that's sad is that even the Republicans aren't talking about real budget cuts. They put plans out there with cuts of a few trillion over a decade. Usually these 'cuts' are measured relative to projected spending, not the current budget. I'd like to cut $1 trillion+ per year, compared to what we're spending now. The federal budget has grown by trillions in real dollars during the Bush and Obama administrations. We need to make real cuts in real dollars, not to slow the rate of growth slightly.

Very true, at some point someone needs to be willing to look at government program by program (all of it, entitlements, defense, etc) and cut/eliminate what is not needed, duplicate efforts, and what flat out does not work.

Th0r S1mpson
07-26-11, 12:06 PM
Very true, at some point someone needs to be willing to look at government program by program (all of it, entitlements, defense, etc) and cut/eliminate what is not needed, duplicate efforts, and what flat out does not work.

Didn't Obama already do that when he ordered his cabinet to cut $100 million?

That's a lot of money. I know I don't have 100 million dollars.

wendersfan
07-26-11, 12:20 PM
Didn't Obama already do that when he ordered his cabinet to cut $100 million?

That's a lot of money. I know I don't have 100 million dollars.
Too bad Douglas Dillon isn't around anymore:
During the early years of the Kennedy Administration, Congress passed an increase in the debt ceiling at the last minute. But when JFK went to sign the bill, according to Aaron, nobody could find the document. Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon wanted to know what would happen if the government reached its debt ceiling and an administration lawyer, after some brief research, reported that “it seems, Mr. Secretary, that you are personally liable for interest on the debt.” Dillon, who was an investment banker, pressed the lawyer: How much would that be? “About $150 million a day,” the lawyer reportedly said, prompting Dillon to deadpan “I can’t last more than three days.”http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/80719/lindsey-graham-republican-debt-ceiling

Venusian
07-26-11, 12:41 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470083852743922.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Some House GOP members won't back Boehner's plan. Not looking good.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 01:11 PM
FY2009, under President Bush.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

So I guess there must be a different reason.

Perhaps that they have continued (and grown) when the CHANGE said it would be cut in half by the end of his first term. But I know how we only like other people's feet held to the fire.

Navinabob
07-26-11, 01:37 PM
The thing that's sad is that even the Republicans aren't talking about real budget cuts. They put plans out there with cuts of a few trillion over a decade. Usually these 'cuts' are measured relative to projected spending, not the current budget. I'd like to cut $1 trillion+ per year, compared to what we're spending now. The federal budget has grown by trillions in real dollars during the Bush and Obama administrations. We need to make real cuts in real dollars, not to slow the rate of growth slightly.

Republicans have no trouble suggesting all sorts of wasteful spending; it just all happens to be mostly liberal supported programs in all of the talking-points.

I'd love to see Republicans demand cuts from their own programs as opposed to all of their great ideas like food stamps, planned parenthood and such.

With that said, Democrats do the same damn thing. Our system is based entirely on appeasing their own political party members, not about doing what is good for the country.

wendersfan
07-26-11, 01:44 PM
Perhaps that they have continued (and grown) when the CHANGE said it would be cut in half by the end of his first term.I think it's pretty obvious (with you as a case in point) that there is a misconception by a large number of people that Obama is responsible for things like TARP and the first trillion-dollar Federal deficit when in fact they happened on George W Bush's watch. Our partisanship and ideology filters facts and information in specific and predictable ways. This is one example.But I know how we only like other people's feet held to the fire.:confused:

kvrdave
07-26-11, 01:48 PM
Yeah, but Obama has improved it, so no wonder we adore him.

You can sink up to your neck when I'm trolling, and it won't bother me a bit, but I like you. And I'd hate to see you go through that. :)

Dr Mabuse
07-26-11, 01:55 PM
:lol:

CRM114
07-26-11, 02:04 PM
:lol:*



*Is that smilie okay? I am laughing in agreement with Thor's comment; not at Thor. ;)

Of course it's OK. You are in the conservative club. That's how you roll.

wendersfan
07-26-11, 02:21 PM
Yeah, but Obama has improved it, so no wonder we adore him.Well, you certainly can't think I'm happy with Obama's performance in office.

I will say this - had Obama been president in 2008 he certainly would have done something like TARP, and had Bush been president in 2009 he certainly would have had a massive stimulus - maybe not as big as Obama's, and certainly with emphases on different things. I hold the view that most chief executives have pretty severe constraints placed on them when it comes to things like the economy.

focker
07-26-11, 02:33 PM
Republicans have no trouble suggesting all sorts of wasteful spending; it just all happens to be mostly liberal supported programs in all of the talking-points.

I'd love to see Republicans demand cuts from their own programs as opposed to all of their great ideas like food stamps, planned parenthood and such.

With that said, Democrats do the same damn thing. Our system is based entirely on appeasing their own political party members, not about doing what is good for the country. About 50-60% of the $1 trillion I'd like to see cut from the annual budget should come from defense, maybe more. Outside of defense spending, the vast majority of federal spending is on "liberal supported programs" as you call them. You can't fix the budget without addressing entitlement spending. A complete restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is probably the only way to keep the costs of these programs, and the federal budget as a whole, from spiraling totally out of control.

Th0r S1mpson
07-26-11, 02:46 PM
had Bush been president in 2009 he certainly would have had a massive stimulus - maybe not as big as Obama's

Must... get... image... out of... mind...

Navinabob
07-26-11, 03:01 PM
About 50-60% of the $1 trillion I'd like to see cut from the annual budget should come from defense, maybe more. Outside of defense spending, the vast majority of federal spending is on "liberal supported programs" as you call them. You can't fix the budget without addressing entitlement spending. A complete restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is probably the only way to keep the costs of these programs, and the federal budget as a whole, from spiraling totally out of control.

I wish our offensive military deployments in other countries didn't fall under the term "defense" as it makes it sound pretty awful when you hear people suggest making cuts to it (which I suspect is on purpose).

The crappy thing about the "restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid" is basically we are talking about putting less money in it and by covering fewer people. Having fewer people helped out is an ugly premise because many of those people really need it to live. I recall someone suggesting better investigation towards people abusing government aid, but does that added cost hurt monetarily more than helps? Will it alienate people already distrustful of the government? Pissing off the poor, blue collar & ethnic minorities is as much political party suicide for the Democrats as pissing off the wealthy white guys is to the Republicans.

So if compromise is the only real answer... what side is holding it up? From what I can tell from my liberal media filter is it is the Republicans, what is the FOX News version of that story?

classicman2
07-26-11, 03:12 PM
About 50-60% of the $1 trillion I'd like to see cut from the annual budget should come from defense, maybe more. Outside of defense spending, the vast majority of federal spending is on "liberal supported programs" as you call them. You can't fix the budget without addressing entitlement spending. A complete restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid is probably the only way to keep the costs of these programs, and the federal budget as a whole, from spiraling totally out of control.

I would like to see signficant cuts in the DOD budget. I think 50-60% is a tad drastic.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 03:16 PM
Well, you certainly can't think I'm happy with Obama's performance in office.

You clearly don't understand trolling. -wink-

I will say this - had Obama been president in 2008 he certainly would have done something like TARP, and had Bush been president in 2009 he certainly would have had a massive stimulus - maybe not as big as Obama's, and certainly with emphases on different things. I hold the view that most chief executives have pretty severe constraints placed on them when it comes to things like the economy.

I agree with that.

clappj
07-26-11, 03:18 PM
I believe that the Reps are more to blame for the current budget impasse.
As for the worry about "pissing off your constituents," who else are wealthy white guys going to vote for? :lol:

I wish our offensive military deployments in other countries didn't fall under the term "defense" as it makes it sound pretty awful when you hear people suggest making cuts to it (which I suspect is on purpose).

The crappy thing about the "restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid" is basically we are talking about putting less money in it and by covering fewer people. Having fewer people helped out is an ugly premise because many of those people really need it to live. I recall someone suggesting better investigation towards people abusing government aid, but does that added cost hurt monetarily more than helps? Will it alienate people already distrustful of the government? Pissing off the poor, blue collar & ethnic minorities is as much political party suicide for the Democrats as pissing off the wealthy white guys is to the Republicans.

So if compromise is the only real answer... what side is holding it up? From what I can tell from my liberal media filter is it is the Republicans, what is the FOX News version of that story?

RoyalTea
07-26-11, 03:41 PM
The level of federal spending is about 40% higher than it was a decade ago (adjusted for inflation).

But cutting it back a mere 6% is the end of the world.

focker
07-26-11, 03:55 PM
The crappy thing about the "restructuring of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid" is basically we are talking about putting less money in it and by covering fewer people. Having fewer people helped out is an ugly premise because many of those people really need it to live. I recall someone suggesting better investigation towards people abusing government aid, but does that added cost hurt monetarily more than helps? Will it alienate people already distrustful of the government? Pissing off the poor, blue collar & ethnic minorities is as much political party suicide for the Democrats as pissing off the wealthy white guys is to the Republicans.



There are many relatively wealthy people who qualify for Social Security and Medicare solely based on age. Means testing would be a way to reduce the number of people covered without cutting benefits for the poor. The age at which SS benefits kick needs to raised as well. People are living a lot longer and they are more productive later in life than ever before. Obviously, these changes should only apply to people under 50-55. It would be unfair to make such sweeping changes for current beneficiaries.

As far as Medicare is concerned, we probably need to expose seniors to more of the cost of their care. I'm not saying they should be paying some huge portion of their medical bills, but more expensive care should probably cost the patient more. People will make better decisions and seek more cost effective care if they have some skin in the game. Should two medications given for the same indication have an identical cost to the patient if one of them is 3 times as expensive to the insurer (i.e. Medicare)? Doctors and patients are subjected to aggressive marketing for new and expensive therapies that aren't always better than existing cheaper treatments. There are often free samples available as well (the first hit is free). Nobody is exposed to the real costs when making decisions about medical care. It's all monopoly money the way things work now.

BearFan
07-26-11, 03:58 PM
Republicans have no trouble suggesting all sorts of wasteful spending; it just all happens to be mostly liberal supported programs in all of the talking-points.

I'd love to see Republicans demand cuts from their own programs as opposed to all of their great ideas like food stamps, planned parenthood and such.

With that said, Democrats do the same damn thing. Our system is based entirely on appeasing their own political party members, not about doing what is good for the country.

I would like to see the GOP do that as well, we need to get away from spending more money="caring". We could have a robust defense for less money, we could have better and more effective social programs for less money. No side has clean hands in this to be sure

kvrdave
07-26-11, 03:59 PM
The level of federal spending is about 40% higher than it was a decade ago (adjusted for inflation).

But cutting it back a mere 6% is the end of the world.

Yeah, the actually spending for 2011 is nearly 4 trillion. That will obviously go up over the next 10 years, but even if it doesn't, call it 40 trillion for 10 years, and they can't even cut 2 trillion over those 10 years. It is absolutely stupid.

focker
07-26-11, 04:03 PM
I would like to see signficant cuts in the DOD budget. I think 50-60% is a tad drastic.

Defense spending has more than doubled in the last decade. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and it isn't close. I think drastic cuts are warranted.

BearFan
07-26-11, 04:08 PM
There are many relatively wealthy people who qualify for Social Security and Medicare solely based on age. Means testing would be a way to reduce the number of people covered without cutting benefits for the poor.

I strongly disagree with this, the idea of Social Security is for people to put money away for retirement, these people paid into the system (and a fair amount of money), they should be able to pull this income for their retirement no matter how well they did pre-retirement.

BearFan
07-26-11, 04:14 PM
Defense spending has more than doubled in the last decade. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and it isn't close. I think drastic cuts are warranted.

Asking more of the world to pick up more their own defense would not be a bad idea either.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 04:33 PM
Defense spending has more than doubled in the last decade. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and it isn't close. I think drastic cuts are warranted.

I think it is probably more appropriate to look at spending as a function of GDP so that we have a more accurate picture of what we are talking about. If we spent more on social security than the rest of the world combined, would that warrant cuts simply because of how much we spend? Does something warrant cuts simply because of how much it has increased in actual dollars?

<img src=http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/defense-entitlement-spending-600.jpg>

If we go by your logic (and not your ideology) looking at this graph, we'd have to conclude that we need to cut entitlements by a huge amount.

I'm not saying we don't have room to cut military, because I think we do. But let's look at all this with out eyes wide open.

But I do need to wonder that if we are suppose to have "shared sacrifice" then why can't we let entitlements share in that sacrifice?

Dr Mabuse
07-26-11, 05:02 PM
To add a longer term perspective to that point:


http://i.imgur.com/klMuw.png

http://i.imgur.com/tdGZw.png

For some reason I couldn't find a chart for Social Security spending as a % of GDP going back to the inception of it. Seems like that would be easier to find, maybe I used the wrong queries.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 05:06 PM
I couldn't either. Had to just go with entitlements. That's a bit skewed from the perspective that many many entitlements have been added over the years.

Dr Mabuse
07-26-11, 05:15 PM
Yeah, that was just to show the trend in spending on defense vs healthcare as a comparison.

Also a lot of bullshit charts out there on 'entitlement spending' due to the usual definition games with terms.

While defense is certainly a bloated, very corrupt problem, it's nothing compared to the entitlement spending issue that will be our undoing. That no politician will touch so they can continue their career in politics that the mindless voters want to continue to give them for ruining the country.

HistoryProf
07-26-11, 07:07 PM
:gah: :brickwl2: :gah:

‎"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that the Democratic debt proposal put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) "should be defeated" because the real reason President Barack Obama wants it passed is so he gets re-elected."

Pharoh
07-26-11, 07:15 PM
Question: If the White House is so concerned with a downgrade by the always wonderfully correct ratings agencies, isn't a two step process the only option?

Nesbit
07-26-11, 07:21 PM
Question: If the White House is so concerned with a downgrade by the always wonderfully correct ratings agencies, isn't a two step process the only option?

:lol: most likely given Obama's deal making prowess.

I heard a funny line last week, "If Obama was put in charge of negotiating the release of 30 hostages we'd end up with 43 dead hostages and abortion illegal."

hahn
07-26-11, 08:26 PM
The big flaw in comparing Medicare/SS spending with military spending is assuming that all spending is equal and that all spending is bad. And it seems to me that a lot of people make this assumption.

The other thing that many people seem to forget is that most of the people receiving Medicare and SS funds have also paid into the system over many years via taxes. Whereas with the military, it's pretty much a one-way street.

My question to those who want SS cut, after having paid into the system for 30 years, will you honestly not mind if the government then tells you they're cutting the program, there's no grandfathering, and you're no longer going to receive any funds? And if your healthcare insurance companies screw you over, sorry you're on your own. In my opinion, a lot of the conservatives who want these programs cut either are already very rich, or are young enough that they can't even conceive how the absence of these programs could cause a lot of problems for them in their older age.

Dr Mabuse
07-26-11, 08:35 PM
You're rationalizing.

The point was, military spending is not the problem in the US, and it's on the decline comparatively. I've made long boring posts here citing facts and figures about how out of control the military industrial complex is and how much sway they hold over the US government, our foreign policy and military decisions, etc. Eisenhower was right. We could easily trim so much ridiculous waste and spending from the defense budget, and address possibly the largest corrupting influence on our government too.

That said, even in the 50's when we spent far more than we do now, a lot more it was ridiculous, we ran a surplus that decade as a nation. It's the entitlements and other social/safety net programs that are bankrupting us. We can't pay for them. People don't even pay in a fraction of what they will get out of such programs.

classicman2
07-26-11, 08:40 PM
Military personell pay federal income taxes unless they are deployed to a combat zone. They pay FICA taxes whether they are deployed to a combat zone or not.

I pay federal taxes on my Social Security benefits - both federal & state. So does my wife.

Dr Mabuse
07-26-11, 08:58 PM
There is a 100% certainty that SS and Medicare will not be there for anyone 50 years old or younger. That's incontrovertible.

If there are still programs technically called by those names for that group, they will not be a shadow of what they are today.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 09:08 PM
I disagree. Take money from some at the bottom and continue to pay out more to the top than they put in. What could go wrong?

Th0r S1mpson
07-26-11, 09:32 PM
Maybe just ban abortions and contraception for families making more than $100,000 a year so we have more bodies paying into the system in 18 years.

kvrdave
07-26-11, 09:42 PM
Madate it for those on welfare and you cut SSI by 80% as well. Not to mention free lunch programs, healthcare, etc.

BKenn01
07-26-11, 10:03 PM
So worst case senario they lose their ability to borrow money and we have to live within our means. Whats the problem, shouldnt we be doing that anyway?

hahn
07-26-11, 10:20 PM
I agree that SS and Medicare need some form of reform, but what I'm seeing in a lot of hot headed responses from political posts on other sites are people calling for a straight up elimination of funds. That doesn't address the problem underlying the exorbitant costs and it hurts a lot of people who depend on it as a safety net.

Bottomline is, Democrats have been willing to compromise and cut spending in spite of how much it could hurt the American public. The Republicans have given up NOTHING and held the threat of impending economic collapse as hostage. They have gotten so used to fighting Obama that you could really get them to believe that 2+2 no longer equals 4 by getting Obama to say it in public. It's irresponsible and regardless of the outcome, I think we'll see this backfire on the Republicans at the polls next year.

I used to disagree with the Republican stance based on just their ideology. Now, the party leaders disgust me for their complete lack of honor and total disregard for the well-being of the nation. It's becoming fairly obvious that the current elected Republican leaders believe in social darwinism where survival is about how much money and power you have, and nothing else matters. Patriotism? Morality? What a joke. The only bright spot that I've seen is that I'm finally seeing some Republican citizens conceding that their representatives have taken things too far.

hahn
07-26-11, 10:29 PM
So worst case senario they lose their ability to borrow money and we have to live within our means. Whats the problem, shouldnt we be doing that anyway?
I don't think you're understanding the situation. It's not a limitation on their ability to borrow money. It's a limitation on their ability to pay off the money they already borrowed. Yes, the deficit needs to be curbed in the future, and that's what the debt talks are about - living within our means.

BTW, where was all this concern about debt when Bush was calling for increased military spending and two wars? What happened to all the nodding in agreement when Cheney stated, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"?

Th0r S1mpson
07-26-11, 11:09 PM
BTW, where was all this concern about debt when Bush was calling for increased military spending and two wars?

I've posted it before, but I'm not going to look it up again. See the initial estimates for the cost of the wars and it will give some insight into this.

Had people known we would be in Iraq and Afghanistan for this many years, the level of support would have been drastically different.

We had an example from the Russians, but we all knew that wouldn't happen to us. Even Obama knew that.

Once we were in neck deep, there were concerns that trumped costs. Now after this many years, those costs have piled up to much greater levels. At some point, it becomes a bigger concern, especially as the balance shifts away from supporting our presence there.

Nobody ever supported making these wars a permanent budgetary expense, no matter how many times Obama tries to claim that drawing down is a "savings."

X
07-26-11, 11:09 PM
So raising the debt ceiling just means we can borrow more money to pay off our previous obligations. Not that we can borrow more for any other purposes.

Yeah, that always works. Just ask my credit cards.

focker
07-27-11, 12:07 AM
I think it is probably more appropriate to look at spending as a function of GDP so that we have a more accurate picture of what we are talking about. If we spent more on social security than the rest of the world combined, would that warrant cuts simply because of how much we spend? Does something warrant cuts simply because of how much it has increased in actual dollars?

<img src=http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/charts/2011/defense-entitlement-spending-600.jpg>

If we go by your logic (and not your ideology) looking at this graph, we'd have to conclude that we need to cut entitlements by a huge amount.

I'm not saying we don't have room to cut military, because I think we do. But let's look at all this with out eyes wide open.

But I do need to wonder that if we are suppose to have "shared sacrifice" then why can't we let entitlements share in that sacrifice?

It's hard to compare defense and entitlement spending, though I think both need to be cut. I'm not sure we should compare what we spend on entitlements to what other countries spend in the way that I did with military spending. Most industrialized nations seem to be happy with socialized medicine, high tax rates, and a far more socialist approach to government than we have here in the US (thankfully).

In the absence of war, defense costs should be relatively stable over time. If we get out of these wars and relinquish the notion that we ought to have military bases in Germany, Asia, etc., we can spend much less money and focus on keeping the US safe from outside military threats. We seem to have a Department of Offense instead of a Department of Defense these days.

Entitlement spending will grow exponentially until there are major reforms. I think the chart you presented does show that we need reform entitlements and cut spending in that area. The really scary graphs are those that depict entitlement spending over the coming decades if there are no reforms. These programs will grow to consume all tax revenues and a huge portion of GDP if we don't make real reforms:

http://www.foundry.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/alc_022_entitlements_3col_c.jpg



That's the real crisis. This debt limit stuff pales in comparison.

focker
07-27-11, 12:22 AM
I strongly disagree with this, the idea of Social Security is for people to put money away for retirement, these people paid into the system (and a fair amount of money), they should be able to pull this income for their retirement no matter how well they did pre-retirement.

I've already accepted that I'll never see the money I'm paying into the system. If people can start working at about 16 and you're saying it's unfair to cut anyone who paid into the system off, we can't stop this nonsense for another 50 years. It's a Ponzi scheme. At some point I think we should just cut our losses, everybody off the merry-go-round. We can fund SS for those who truly need it from the general revenue. Get rid of the withholding and the universal benefits. People who can afford it ought to responsible for their own retirement.

rw2516
07-27-11, 05:27 AM
Means testing-Sounds good and easy to get behind. I have to wonder if there would be constitutional issues with forcing people to pay into a program they can't bebefit from. But then again those without kids have to pay school taxes.
Raising the age limit-Sounds good and easy to get behind. Worry about highly physical jobs. Don't know if I want a 70+ year old fixing my brakes or removing my appendix.
Medicare- I believe Medicaid is the bigger problem. Everyone on Medicare pays a monthly premium of about $100 a month, deducted straight off the top of your social security check. Your have to meet a deductable before medicare pays anything. A lot of the Medicare supplements pre-empt your medicare so that the insurer supplying the supplement program pays all bills and medicare pays nothing. Medicare does subsidize the premiums. You can get a private insurance policy for $20/month that would cost others a few hundred. Don't know if it's cheaper to subsidize private insurance policies over paying the actual medical expenses.
My mom:
SS check : $1350
Medicare premium: -$100
Supplement program: -$20 (Humana Gold Plan)
Medicare will no longer pay any of her medical bills. They are denied as Humana is now the primary payer. Medicare pays a subsidy to Humana for the cheaper policy premium.
Medicaid has to be the real killer. Flat out giveaways. Also, the majority of people in nursing homes are on medicaid. Unless you have the funds to fork out $5000-$8000/month, the nursing home gets your SS check and Medicaid kicks in the difference, while it may not be the entire difference, it's sure to be a few thousand dollars a month, every month, for every person in a nursing home without unlimited funds.

I'm ok with Social Security as it is now for retirement and disability for the primary indivual. I would look at efficency, waste and fraud. I would look into the current program for survivor and dependents benefits. When a spouse dies the surviving spouse continues to receive a portion of the deceased's SS. A disabled person receives a seperate check for spouse and each dependent under 18. Not sure if minor dependents receive SS for a parent who has died.
Another thing I have never been comfortable with, Earned Income Tax Credit(?) I believe it's called. No one should get a tax refund greater the amount that was withheld from their pay.

BearFan
07-27-11, 06:18 AM
I've already accepted that I'll never see the money I'm paying into the system. If people can start working at about 16 and you're saying it's unfair to cut anyone who paid into the system off, we can't stop this nonsense for another 50 years. It's a Ponzi scheme. At some point I think we should just cut our losses, everybody off the merry-go-round. We can fund SS for those who truly need it from the general revenue. Get rid of the withholding and the universal benefits. People who can afford it ought to responsible for their own retirement.

If the system were to change to remove the withholding, then I would agree that it could be means tested, but if the system remains as-is I do think it is wrong to means test.

At some point we need to bit the bullet and decide that we will have to make some massive payouts in the short term to not hose over people close to retirement and put in a better system for younger people that is not based on the SS Trust Fund.

mosquitobite
07-27-11, 07:28 AM
Medicaid has to be the real killer. Flat out giveaways. Also, the majority of people in nursing homes are on medicaid. Unless you have the funds to fork out $5000-$8000/month, the nursing home gets your SS check and Medicaid kicks in the difference, while it may not be the entire difference, it's sure to be a few thousand dollars a month, every month, for every person in a nursing home without unlimited funds.

I'm ok with Social Security as it is now for retirement and disability for the primary indivual. I would look at efficency, waste and fraud. I would look into the current program for survivor and dependents benefits. When a spouse dies the surviving spouse continues to receive a portion of the deceased's SS. A disabled person receives a seperate check for spouse and each dependent under 18. Not sure if minor dependents receive SS for a parent who has died.
Another thing I have never been comfortable with, Earned Income Tax Credit(?) I believe it's called. No one should get a tax refund greater the amount that was withheld from their pay.

I agree with all this!

I do believe there is a lot of Medicaid fraud as well. When I was married to my xhusband my xmother-in-law helped coordinate selling her mom's house and then her mother "gifting" the proceeds to her children so that she would qualify for medicaid to pay for her nursing home stay. The children didn't want the nursing home to get their inheritance :rolleyes: They were red-neck country folk and not the brightest people so if they knew how to game the system I have a funny feeling there's a lot of that.

ETA: the other reason they did it was because the nursing home that she could afford to pay for herself was a crappier nursing home than the one she could get if she was on medicaid. This is something that needs to be reviewed as well. The unintended consequences of govt intervention kind of thing. It might be best for the govt to stop this kind of payment altogether and let the free market solve it. People are living longer and more and more ppl are going to need nursing homes. We need a better solution than medicaid paying for this!


I think at the time of retirement everyone should have to go into the social security office and provide all sources of retirement income. I know this sounds progreesive :eek: of me but if someone has millions of dollars in retirement accounts they do not NEED social security. If it really is a safety net, then MAKE it so.

And I'll never forget my brother's x who made a whopping $10,000 one year and got back a tax refund of $3300+. She was a waitress so she barely had anything withheld. Getting back her $800 she paid in? That's ok. But why should we be playing Robin Hood through tax refunds?? You think, in general, those people spend the money wisely? :lol:

classicman2
07-27-11, 07:55 AM
I've already accepted that I'll never see the money I'm paying into the system. If people can start working at about 16 and you're saying it's unfair to cut anyone who paid into the system off, we can't stop this nonsense for another 50 years. It's a Ponzi scheme. At some point I think we should just cut our losses, everybody off the merry-go-round. We can fund SS for those who truly need it from the general revenue. Get rid of the withholding and the universal benefits. People who can afford it ought to responsible for their own retirement.

I've awaited with a bated breath (once again) for the Ponzi-scheme remark.

You know that millions of Americans won't be responsible for their own retirement. Do you seriously believe that the government will allow those people to starve?

btw: When should that cut-off point be?

CRM114
07-27-11, 08:28 AM
The level of federal spending is about 40% higher than it was a decade ago (adjusted for inflation).

But cutting it back a mere 6% is the end of the world.

Two wars, a new federal department, and a prescription drug program.

The first thing anyone should do is to urge Congress and the President to immediately withdrawal all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Any delay costs billions.

CRM114
07-27-11, 08:32 AM
There are many relatively wealthy people who qualify for Social Security and Medicare solely based on age. Means testing would be a way to reduce the number of people covered without cutting benefits for the poor. The age at which SS benefits kick needs to raised as well. People are living a lot longer and they are more productive later in life than ever before. Obviously, these changes should only apply to people under 50-55. It would be unfair to make such sweeping changes for current beneficiaries.

As far as Medicare is concerned, we probably need to expose seniors to more of the cost of their care. I'm not saying they should be paying some huge portion of their medical bills, but more expensive care should probably cost the patient more. People will make better decisions and seek more cost effective care if they have some skin in the game. Should two medications given for the same indication have an identical cost to the patient if one of them is 3 times as expensive to the insurer (i.e. Medicare)? Doctors and patients are subjected to aggressive marketing for new and expensive therapies that aren't always better than existing cheaper treatments. There are often free samples available as well (the first hit is free). Nobody is exposed to the real costs when making decisions about medical care. It's all monopoly money the way things work now.

While I agree in principle to the second paragraph, not all elderly people have the mental faculties to go around bargain shopping or even making good decisions. Many have no families or no family members that care enough to help.

CRM114
07-27-11, 08:35 AM
I strongly disagree with this, the idea of Social Security is for people to put money away for retirement, these people paid into the system (and a fair amount of money), they should be able to pull this income for their retirement no matter how well they did pre-retirement.

Agreed. The government should just take it all back in higher taxes.

classicman2
07-27-11, 08:37 AM
Two wars, a new federal department, and a prescription drug program.

The first thing anyone should do is to urge Congress and the President to immediately withdrawal all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Any delay costs billions.

Did you support Bush's prescription drug program?

I didn't at first, but those that have it seem to be very pleased with it.

Sean O'Hara
07-27-11, 08:40 AM
The first thing anyone should do is to urge Congress and the President to immediately withdrawal all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Any delay costs billions.

Odd that you chose Afghanistan, which is an actual justified war, but not Libya.

If we want to save money, let's get the fuck out of NATO and bring the boys back home -- they've been stuck in Europe for over sixty years now, the last twenty of which they haven't had a threat to deter against. And while we're at it, let's decommission some aircraft carriers and submarines. And end the War on Some Drugs, liberalize our immigration policy, and abandon the TSA.

There's lots of money that can be saved, but no one in Washington has the guts to do it except Kucinich and Paul.

CRM114
07-27-11, 08:47 AM
I'm on board with everything except abandoning the TSA. If anything, we need to bolster that agency if we are going to change our interventionist ways. Hire better people, pay them better, and make our airlines safe and efficient.

And Libya, hell yeah. I'm all for getting out of there as well.

JasonF
07-27-11, 08:48 AM
So here's a cute tidbit:

The House GOP leadership team, often described as fractious, showed complete unity behind closed doors and in public Tuesday. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Republicans he was “150 percent” behind Boehner and his plan, according to Republicans who attended Tuesday morning’s closed-door meeting. He told Republicans to “stop grumbling and whining and to come together as conservatives” to support the Boehner proposal.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the party’s vote counter, began his talk by showing a clip from the movie, “The Town”, trying to forge a sense of unity among the independent-minded caucus.

One character asks his friend: “I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later.”

“Whose car are we gonna take,” the character says.

After showing the clip, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), one of the most outspoken critics of leadership among the 87 freshmen, stood up to speak, according to GOP aides.

“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied, surprising many Republicans by giving his full -throated support for the plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/boehner-presses-debt-plan-opposed-by-democrats-imf-urges-raise-in-debt-limit/2011/07/26/gIQA0s3taI_print.html

Our leaders are taking their cues from Ben Affleck movies. What could possibly go wrong.

By the way, the Washington Post mis-quoted the line from the movie:
sizo5oZU5To

It's not "I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. It's "I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. And we're gonna hurt some people." Maybe a little too revealing?

Dr Mabuse
07-27-11, 10:18 AM
http://www.foundry.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/alc_022_entitlements_3col_c.jpg



That's the real crisis. This debt limit stuff pales in comparison.

That chart by the CBO is basically nonsense, it's been proven as such and is laughable. Like most of the stuff that comes out of the CBO, it's politicized and rather completely inaccurate.

So while I agree with your post, that CBO chart is little more than propaganda and paints far too rosy a picture. The date for entitlements and interest on the debt alone to exceed total federal income is around 2025. Fourteen years from now.

This is a chart that is accurate base don the government spending numbers. It's done by a partner at a very reputable firm(Kleiner Perkins):

http://i.imgur.com/O10iq.jpg

BearFan
07-27-11, 10:29 AM
Agreed. The government should just take it all back in higher taxes.

Anything to take money out of the economy I guess.

wendersfan
07-27-11, 11:01 AM
Anything to take money out of the economy I guess.It's not like the IRS has some gigantic mattress the size of Alaska under which it puts all the tax money. It all goes back into the economy. You or I might disagree about where it goes, but it all goes somewhere.

classicman2
07-27-11, 11:58 AM
Phew! Analysts say now I can receive my SS check on the 10th. ;)

Dr Mabuse
07-27-11, 12:04 PM
Barclays ran the numbers and said Aug 2nd would still be sending checks, but Aug 10th would not. This was last week.

BearFan
07-27-11, 12:31 PM
It's not like the IRS has some gigantic mattress the size of Alaska under which it puts all the tax money. It all goes back into the economy. You or I might disagree about where it goes, but it all goes somewhere.

Some percentage of it gets sucked up by beuracracy before it is spent elsewhere, from a more moral standpoint I really do not see the government having a right to take money from people by force until they can prove they are spending what they are given as efficiently as possible. The amount of waste and duplication is staggering (not to mention outright fraud)

kvrdave
07-27-11, 12:34 PM
Did you support Bush's prescription drug program?

I didn't at first, but those that have it seem to be very pleased with it.

I understand that those who have won the lottery are also pleased that there was a lottery to win.

wendersfan
07-27-11, 12:34 PM
Some percentage of it gets sucked up by beuracracy before it is spent elsewhereBut once again, it's going somewhere. It doesn't disappear. If you want to discuss the morality of government spending, or the morality of taxation, we can do that. But it's a different discussion.

classicman2
07-27-11, 01:01 PM
I won't argue the morality of taxation. I'll stick to the necessity argument.

kvrdave
07-27-11, 01:07 PM
I had to be on the road at 6am this morning to go do some family business out of town. I was able to catch Rush Limbaugh on the radio and he mentioned something about baseline budgeting. I hadn't thought about that in awhile, but is it correct that everything they are talking about cutting is based on baseline budgeting, so it may not even be an actual cut in actual dollars?

I do remember the good old days when instead of some program spending going up by 5% it would only go up 3% and the Democrats would claim old people would die because the Republicans cut the budget by 2%. That probably really bothers brizz. :)

Dr Mabuse
07-27-11, 01:15 PM
I had to be on the road at 6am this morning to go do some family business out of town. I was able to catch Rush Limbaugh on the radio and he mentioned something about baseline budgeting. I hadn't thought about that in awhile, but is it correct that everything they are talking about cutting is based on baseline budgeting, so it may not even be an actual cut in actual dollars?

Yes. A lot, I think you could say most, of the 'cuts' are nonsense in the current 'spending cut' bills from both parties.

CBO 'baseline' projections are why the two charts about SS spending and federal revenue above are so different. The graph I posted was done by someone who corrected out some of the nonsense to get the projection into some reflection of reality.

Also, never listen to Rush Limbaugh about anything.

kvrdave
07-27-11, 01:20 PM
Also, never listen to Rush Limbaugh about anything.
:lol:
I don't get to listen to anyone about anything. We have 1 country FM station, and one oldies am station. I have to travel 30 miles to get other radio.

When I have been able to listen to Rush, I have found his "fake commercials" to be most entertaining. Even though Spatula City is obviously a ripoff of Weird Al.

wishbone
07-27-11, 01:42 PM
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2XbCWmY0eqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Spatula City!

CRM114
07-27-11, 02:09 PM
I won't argue the morality of taxation. I'll stick to the necessity argument.

IF you listen to the forum members, there is no necessity. Everyone will manage their retirement savings with precision accuracy, no one will ever get sick and if they do, they will have exactly the coverage they need at any given time. No one will have a life changing event but if they do, they certainly have taken measures to guard against any unknowns. They are satisfied with private schools and private highways paid for by tolls. They are completely convinced that the free market will magically mediate any risk they may face. So no, taxes are not necessary.

focker
07-27-11, 02:26 PM
I've awaited with a bated breath (once again) for the Ponzi-scheme remark.

You know that millions of Americans won't be responsible for their own retirement. Do you seriously believe that the government will allow those people to starve?

btw: When should that cut-off point be?

We have a number of government programs to address poverty. If people are so irresponsible that they save no money for retirement, they can keep working. If they are unable to work, these other programs can fill in where there is a need.

As for the cutoff, that's a matter for debate. I think once we've accepted that able bodied 67 year-old millionaires don't need a check from the government, we can start discussing the particulars further. ;)

That chart by the CBO is basically nonsense, it's been proven as such and is laughable. Like most of the stuff that comes out of the CBO, it's politicized and rather completely inaccurate.

So while I agree with your post, that CBO chart is little more than propaganda and paints far too rosy a picture. The date for entitlements and interest on the debt alone to exceed total federal income is around 2025. Fourteen years from now.

This is a chart that is accurate base don the government spending numbers. It's done by a partner at a very reputable firm(Kleiner Perkins):

http://i.imgur.com/O10iq.jpg

I agree that the CBO numbers paint far too rosy a picture. I've seen comparisons of prior CBO projections compared to our current reality, and they always underestimate how fast Medicare spending will grow.

I had to be on the road at 6am this morning to go do some family business out of town. I was able to catch Rush Limbaugh on the radio and he mentioned something about baseline budgeting. I hadn't thought about that in awhile, but is it correct that everything they are talking about cutting is based on baseline budgeting, so it may not even be an actual cut in actual dollars?

I do remember the good old days when instead of some program spending going up by 5% it would only go up 3% and the Democrats would claim old people would die because the Republicans cut the budget by 2%. That probably really bothers brizz. :)

This is exactly what I posted about earlier in this thread. None of these numbers being bandied about are real cuts. They're just talking about slowing the growth in spending. If we slow the growth enough and revenues grow enough to catch up, we might balance the budget someday. Probably not, but anything's possible. :lol:

kvrdave
07-27-11, 02:26 PM
And some people on this forum cannot, or will not, recognize that an entitlement that originally paid out one year beyond a person's life expectancy, and was considered a supplement to retirement, may need some systemic changes in a time when multiple other entitlements have been created as well, and people live 15-20 years longer.

rw2516
07-27-11, 02:55 PM
Anything to take money out of the economy I guess.

If the wealthy could only afford to blow $20,000 on a Casey Anthony mask instead of $25,000 then the economy would be pretty much fucked.

kvrdave
07-27-11, 03:00 PM
If the wealthy could only afford to blow $20,000 on a Casey Anthony mask instead of $25,000 then the economy would be pretty much fucked.

The wealthy will always be able to afford to blow money on stupid shit. They are wealthy.

And GE is moving one of their divisions (X-ray tech?) to China, where they will avoid a buttload of taxes.

If only we could get people to just give up all of their income and let the government decide how much they need to live.

crazyronin
07-27-11, 03:27 PM
:lol:
I don't get to listen to anyone about anything. We have 1 country FM station, and one oldies am station. I have to travel 30 miles to get other radio.


They have this thing called the Internetz, ya hick. There are sites that stream radio stations. (http://johngalt.streamingradioguide.com/streaming-radio-shows.php?)

classicman2
07-27-11, 03:33 PM
And some people on this forum cannot, or will not, recognize that an entitlement that originally paid out one year beyond a person's life expectancy, and was considered a supplement to retirement, may need some systemic changes in a time when multiple other entitlements have been created as well, and people live 15-20 years longer.

I understand that some adjustment to SS, Medicare, & Medicaid need to be made.

It wouldn't have been so necessary if you Repubs hadn't stole money from the trust funds to pay for your tax cuts and give more and more to the millionaires & the billionaires of the society. And, pay for the wars that you were so anxious to get into. ;)

No - don't embarass yourself by bringing up the lock box. That has nothing to do with raiding the trust funds to pay for things that you should pay for in the prescribed manor by a vote in the congress.

And as long as you bring it up, you Repubs have no problem in redistributing the wealth upwards; but, you scream to high heaven when the Democrats want to raise taxes on the very rich a little bit and redistribute the wealth just a touch toward the middle class.

kvrdave
07-27-11, 03:43 PM
It wouldn't have been so necessary if you Repubs hadn't stole money from the trust funds to pay for your tax cuts and give more and more to the millionaires & the billionaires of the society. And, pay for the wars that you were so anxious to get into. ;)


I do not understand the mentality that stems from all the money created is the governments and if you are allowed to actually keep some you have to pay for it. The very idea that the government could spend less is somehow foreign. You "pay" for a tax cut by spending less. It is the fact that Democrats (and Republicans) can't manage to spend less that I am turning to the dark side on the idea of a balanced budget amendment. Government cannot seem to govern itself.