The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

or perhaps Cantor beleives that to reign in spending is what is good for the country. No anyone that thinks that is "stupid".

There are all kinds of problems here. As others have mentioned, cutting payments is not the same as cutting spending. If he wanted to reign in spending, he's an idiot. He should've taken Obama's offer (Democratic spin) or called Obama's bluff (Republican spin). Either way, he had a chance to rope Obama into a conversation on Medicare and SS (and to take some heat off of Paul Ryan and Republicans who've publicly supported Ryan). And he squandered it. Why? Because it's not about cutting spending. It's about posturing in order to get handshakes from conservatives like you. Not trying to be rude-- it's just the truth.

And it's his prerogative to act that way. But then the GOP are fools for letting him have a leadership position.

 

[walrus]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

What are the chances a balanced budget amendment gets passed?, zero?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

What are the chances a balanced budget amendment gets passed?, zero?

It might come close in the House, will never get a sniff in the Senate and would never get the support needed from the Legislatures.

So yeah, none.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You sir, are stupid. Why don't you catch up with the talking points instead of regurgitating the crap republicans were shoveling months ago.

And there you go. It took 18 minutes for someone with an opposing point of view to be called stupid. and all this time I thought it was the Republicans that were devisive?!

Why did he vote for a budget that requires an increase in the debt ceiling then?

Why did Obama vote against raising the debt ceiling? When they did, the economy was in a lot better shape than it is today.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

When they did, the economy was in a lot better shape than it is today.

Depends on who you talk to. There were some folks that knew the entire Bush economy was a house of cards. They bet on the collapse and they were right. They made billions. The ones that lost were bailed out by the taxpayers.

How good was the economy then, exactly? It's pretty much (mentioned on Meet the Press this morning as a matter of fact) common knowledge that the Bush economy netted zero US jobs.

I could go on and on but I think you get the idea.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

And there you go. It took 18 minutes for someone with an opposing point of view to be called stupid. and all this time I thought it was the Republicans that were devisive?!

You're not stupid because you're a republican, or conservative, or a tea bagger, or whatever ****ing label you apply to yourself. You're stupid because what you are saying is stupid. The major republicans were using this as a big grab to force spending cuts (except the military they get more) and now they're trying to play damage control and get their hardcore members under control so they can salvage their chances for the next election.

Anyone who thinks that this wasn't a big political exercise is a dumb.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Why did Obama vote against raising the debt ceiling? When they did, the economy was in a lot better shape than it is today.

This is a stupid argument. Not you. Your argument. Cantor voted multiple times in the 2000's to raise the debit limit under Bush.

June 2002: [Republican-controlled] Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: [Republican-controlled] Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: [Republican-controlled] Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: [Republican-controlled] Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: [Democratic-controlled] Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

They ought to just raise the goddamm thing to 30 or 40 trillion or eliminate it like other normal nations so we don't have hordes of hypocrites switching sides based on who's in the White House.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This is a stupid argument. Not you. Your argument. Cantor voted multiple times in the 2000's to raise the debit limit under Bush.

Winner winner.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Depends on who you talk to. There were some folks that knew the entire Bush economy was a house of cards. They bet on the collapse and they were right. They made billions. The ones that lost were bailed out by the taxpayers.

How good was the economy then, exactly? It's pretty much (mentioned on Meet the Press this morning as a matter of fact) common knowledge that the Bush economy netted zero US jobs.

I could go on and on but I think you get the idea.

Not according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employment in Jan 2001 was 136 Million.
Employment in Jan 2009 was 142 Million.
of course my source is the US Gov., dubious at best. Yours is "Meet the Press".

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

You're not stupid because you're a republican, or conservative, or a tea bagger, or whatever ****ing label you apply to yourself. You're stupid because what you are saying is stupid. The major republicans were using this as a big grab to force spending cuts (except the military they get more) and now they're trying to play damage control and get their hardcore members under control so they can salvage their chances for the next election.

Anyone who thinks that this wasn't a big political exercise is a dumb.

I'm pretty sure that third label is what the liberals use, not me. TY Mr. President for the call for civility. A lot of people want spending cuts, not just the "stupid" people. I, and many others don't see it as a political exercise as much as a way to save the country from economic ruin, ala Greece.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

This is a stupid argument. Not you. Your argument. Cantor voted multiple times in the 2000's to raise the debit limit under Bush.

They ought to just raise the goddamm thing to 30 or 40 trillion or eliminate it like other normal nations so we don't have hordes of hypocrites switching sides based on who's in the White House.

When liberals say things like this we actually believe you. And it scares the crap out of us right wingers.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Not according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employment in Jan 2001 was 136 Million.
Employment in Jan 2009 was 153 Million.
of course my source is the US Gov., dubious at best. Yours is "Meet the Press".

No, actually that source says the LABOR FORCE was 153 million in Jan 2009, employment was 134,580,000 jobs. Close though.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

Pete "Stripper" Sessions and his wife are <del>displaying strong family values</del> splitting after 27 years.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

When liberals say things like this we actually believe you. And it scares the crap out of us right wingers.

I'm scared that there's even such a thing as a debt ceiling. Give Congress the power to appropriate money, and then also give them the power to decide whether to pay it . . .what could go wrong?

And even by Republican standards, it's a bad thing. Symbolism is easy. Budgeting is hard. Giving representatives an opportunity to score cheap points, while not actually doing anything . . . I have to admit, politically it's kind of genius. In every other respect, though, it's more Washington B.S.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

No, actually that source says the LABOR FORCE was 153 million in Jan 2009, employment was 134,580,000 jobs. Close though.

You're using nonfarm employment. As I read it, total employment was 142M.

So there *was* some job growth (of course, there was also population growth). It may not seem that way because employment was 144M halfway through Bush's 2nd term. The US economy then burned off 2 million jobs from that time until Jan 2009.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm pretty sure that third label is what the liberals use, not me. TY Mr. President for the call for civility. A lot of people want spending cuts, not just the "stupid" people. I, and many others don't see it as a political exercise as much as a way to save the country from economic ruin, ala Greece.

Clearly (It was only after these idiots were told what the "term" meant did they stop using it.)

And no one said spending cuts were bad, what has been endlessly repeated is that you can't expect any kind of positive result when that is the only option. Which is what the republicans have stated. That the only time taxes can be on the table is if they are going down. As Bakunin mentioned, the earlier plans were close to 80% spending cuts and 20% tax reform. So you can't even claim that democrats wanted to get it all with tax hikes.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

There are lots of places where we can reduce spending, but the best way to get out of the current mess is for revenue to increase.

Not necessarily though higher taxes. Through economic growth.

The truth is, both parties have a vested interest in misrepresenting how much - or little - influence they actually have on the economy. It serves their interests for us to think they have more power than they really do.

When debt/gdp really goes down again, it won't be because we taxed our way to a balanced budget, or because we've reduced taxes on <s>mature industries</s> job creators. It'll be because some nerd started the next big thing, 90s style.

The trick will be to maintain responsible spending levels so that we aren't completely hosed when that bubble bursts.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

There are lots of places where we can reduce spending, but the best way to get out of the current mess is for revenue to increase.

Not necessarily though higher taxes. Through economic growth.

The truth is, both parties have a vested interest in misrepresenting how much - or little - influence they actually have on the economy. It serves their interests for us to think they have more power than they really do.

When debt/gdp really goes down again, it won't be because we taxed our way to a balanced budget, or because we've reduced taxes on <s>mature industries</s> job creators. It'll be because some nerd started the next big thing, 90s style.

The trick will be to maintain responsible spending levels so that we aren't completely hosed when that bubble bursts.

All of this. Tip of the hat.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

When liberals say things like this we actually believe you. And it scares the crap out of us right wingers.

Yeah, like your right wing leaders aren't going flip flop in 2 or 6 years and piously ask for their own ceiling hike. Put the Norquist book down and pick the other one that Republicans claim to follow, the part about removing the plank from your own eye first.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress: Debt ceiling edition

I'm pretty sure that third label is what the liberals use, not me. TY Mr. President for the call for civility. A lot of people want spending cuts, not just the "stupid" people. I, and many others don't see it as a political exercise as much as a way to save the country from economic ruin, ala Greece.

I agree that lots of people (myself included) feel spending cuts are necessary. I struggle with why the 80/20 split is rejected. Although there are some that believe we are hiding $ somewhere we need to be realistic and know that polititians feed on delivering to their constituants. That means that cutting all the waste out of government is like finding a 100% pure product. Not going to happen no matter how many times someone says it should.

Most people trying to pay off debt do 2 things- they try to increase their revenue and cut spending. They don't stop eating, using electricity, heating the house or flushing the toilet. They attempt to decrease the consumption but still use things. I would expect the same out of the government. I expect cuts but I also expect that they should stop practices that are harmful in our current financial climate such as continuing to give tax breaks to people that used to pay those taxes.

I also feel that decreasing spending (translation a decrease in investment) in some areas will be more costly in the long run. A perfect example is the decrease of the funding for education. We can whine all we want that the money should be there, the teachers are screwing us (I do not believe this), there is massive waste. Yup, maybe all that is true but the schools are still falling behind. States haven't picked up the pieces. Our kids do not measure up to some of the other countries. Not investing in education has not solved anything and has had an adverse result.