Obama and Democrats, Not Republicans, Need to Answer for Debt Ceiling

[Bonestorm]

Adults also know that not raising a credit limit on a credit card is not the same thing as defaulting.

Other things adults know.

Without seriously restructuring your budget, it doesn't matter if you continue to pay the bills by increasing debt limits, you'll never get out of crippling debt and at some point you will reach bankruptcy.

Telling the family that we either restructure, or we'll force the issue because the limit is reached and won't be raised without serious changes... isn't "defaulting"...

And lastly:

The majority of the nation agrees with the adults.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised we either default on our debt or we don't fund any of the discretionary budget plus we don't fully pay for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and other mandatory spending. Pretending otherwise is stupid and dishonest.

At least the "default won't be so bad" people, while proponents of economic quackery, aren't telling objective lies.

 

[Bfgrn]

bush did it too!!!!

the debt is MUCH higher now....you cannot keep pointing to the past. it simply is not accurate and does not paint a true picture. stop making excuses for obama....

You really are a fucking DOLT. The economy Obama inherited was retracting precipitously. The money government spent was NECESSARY and crucial to any hope of a recovery. Your beloved private sector was MIA, they still are...a fucking decade of Bush tax cuts and ZERO job growth during Bush's regime...ZERO

 

[Damocles]

It is really unfortunate that a group of right wing scum is trying to destroy this nation, and pea brains like you don't have the intelligence to find out the truth. Republicans have framed this issue and their LIES have become accepted truth. But a lie is a LIE. And shame on spineless Democrats and Obama for allowing this to happen. We are no near bankruptcy. The public held debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946.

Reducing the debt is going to take many decades, not days, weeks, months or years. What Republicans are trying to do is destroy social programs and eliminate public jobs. That will make things WORSE, not better. We don't need millions more on unemployment.

You people really need to THINK, because these are the lives of fellow Americans. You better seriously consider the HUMAN toll of these proposals and brinkmanship.

Trying to get the budget into line with reality isn't "destroying" anything. Putting our nation's children into debt to pay for largesse now is immoral. Just because you can take your kid's SSN that you got and open credit accounts "for" them doesn't make buying that sweet sleep number bed any more right, even if you think you have a "right" to that sleep number bed and it would really help your back... The adults know that their kids will throw a fit when they are told "no"... I'm good with that.

 

[Rune]

Nobody wants to raise it. Most of us realize it must be raised.

Do you?

Yurt?

 

[Rune]

bush did it too!!!!

the debt is MUCH higher now....you cannot keep pointing to the past. it simply is not accurate and does not paint a true picture. stop making excuses for obama....

Shut up retard.

 

[Bfgrn]

Trying to get the budget into line with reality isn't "destroying" anything. Putting our nation's children into debt to pay for largesse now is immoral. Just because you can take your kid's SSN that you got and open credit accounts "for" them doesn't make buying that sweet sleep number bed any more right, even if you think you have a "right" to that sleep number bed and it would really help your back... The adults know that their kids will throw a fit when they are told "no"... I'm good with that.

Damo, your examples are adolescent. What you ignorantly call 'largesse' is NOT a generous bestowal of gifts, favors, or money. They are earned programs working Americans contributed into their whole working lives. If there is any 'largesse' in this nation, it's the wealthy who got everything they wanted, a decade of Bush tax cuts that produced ZERO job growth...NOW it's time to put up or pay up...produce the jobs or we raise their taxes.

WHAT don't you understand about the public held debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946? Do you folks on the right EVER consider anything other than tearing down and punishment? Did the thought ever occur to you that a way decrease debt to GDP is the raise the GDP? I didn't think so, it is way too adult.

If you need a REAL example with human consequences of what Republicans are proposing, here it is:

Your daughter is obese and overweight. The Republican solution is fasting along with defensive vomiting, sometimes called purging, the use of laxatives, enemas, diuretics, and over exercising.

Your daughter is no longer obese, and no longer alive...she died of Bulimia nervosa.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, your examples are adolescent. What you ignorantly call 'largesse' is NOT a generous bestowal of gifts, favors, or money. They are earned programs working Americans contributed into their whole working lives. If there is any 'largesse' in this nation, it's the wealthy who got everything they wanted, a decade of Bush tax cuts that produced ZERO job growth...NOW it's time to put up or pay up...produce the jobs or we raise their taxes.

LOL. I was just continuing the analogy pattern set by previous posters. And "producing" jobs isn't going to pay for the Trillions in overspending. Even if you wish really, really hard. I can imagine your household finances. "If I get that $1,000 per year raise I can increase my debt by $250,000! Wooot!"

WHAT don't you understand about the public held debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946? Do you folks on the right EVER consider anything other than tearing down and punishment? Did the thought ever occur to you that a way decrease debt to GDP is the raise the GDP? I didn't think so, it is way too adult.

Shoot, I spent a whole thread arguing with Rootbeer about exactly this. Growth is the way to increase revenue, not just "increase taxes"... Tax increases absolutely won't be enough to pay for our largesse.

If you need a REAL example with human consequences of what Republicans are proposing, here it is:

Your daughter is obese and overweight. The Republican solution is fasting along with defensive vomiting, sometimes called purging, the use of laxatives, enemas, diuretics, and over exercising.

Your daughter is no longer obese, and no longer alive...she died of Bulimia nervosa.

And you say that the previously assigned analogy is "adolescent"...

First, the republicans are asking the people who created the debt to pay for it rather than leave it to "your daughter".

Anyway, the better analogy is that the republicans are Dr. Oz telling you to get a program going where "your daughter" eats less and exercises more, that this will save you money and be better for "your daughter" in the long run, while the Democrats are trying to convince the sane people of the nation that she'll be incapable of eating anything at all unless you increase her McDonald's allowance so that she can buy more Value Meals per day. If you don't she'll starve!!!shiftplusone11!1!!

I suspect that you will be along later, along with Rootbeer, with some quote from an idiot in Congress saying that republicans want your grandma to eat dog food. It's just inane fearmongering.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL. I was just continuing the analogy pattern set by previous posters. And "producing" jobs isn't going to pay for the Trillions in overspending. Even if you wish really, really hard. I can imagine your household finances. "If I get that $1,000 per year raise I can increase my debt by $250,000! Wooot!"


Shoot, I spent a whole thread arguing with Rootbeer about exactly this. Growth is the way to increase revenue, not just "increase taxes"... Tax increases absolutely won't be enough to pay for our largesse.



And you say that the previously assigned analogy is "adolescent"...

First, the republicans are asking the people who created the debt to pay for it rather than leave it to "your daughter".

Anyway, the better analogy is that the republicans are Dr. Oz telling you to get a program going where "your daughter" eats less and exercises more, that this will save you money and be better for "your daughter" in the long run, while the Democrats are trying to convince the sane people of the nation that she'll be incapable of eating anything at all unless you increase her McDonald's allowance so that she can buy more Value Meals per day. If you don't she'll starve!!!shiftplusone11!1!!

I suspect that you will be along later, along with Rootbeer, with some quote from an idiot in Congress saying that republicans want your grandma to eat dog food. It's just inane fearmongering.

You continue to ignore the facts. We are not on the brink of bankruptcy. Even after Bush's three trillion dollar war in Iraq. The public held debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. This is coming from conservative economists. We didn't create the debt overnight, and we will not eliminate it overnight. THAT approach would spell disaster, not recovery Damo. What is important is trajectory. We need to get on a path of debt reduction over the long term.

If you know a way to increase GDP without creating jobs, let's hear it?

 

[Damocles]

You continue to ignore the facts. We are not on the brink of bankruptcy. Even after Bush's three trillion dollar war in Iraq. The public held debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. This is coming from conservative economists. We didn't create the debt overnight, and we will not eliminate it overnight. THAT approach would spell disaster, not recovery Damo. What is important is trajectory. We need to get on a path of debt reduction over the long term.

If you know a way to increase GDP without creating jobs, let's hear it?

Again, you waste time on the point where we agree. Creating jobs will increase revenue, we agree.

We absolutely do need to get on the path to debt reduction, just like in your "adolescent" analogy "your daughter" needs to begin a diet and exercise program. Telling her we refuse to increase her allowance until she comes up with a plan and begins isn't the same thing as saying we're going to force her to purge. It's foolish fearmongering and only sheeple believe that nonsense.

There is a reason that more of the US population agrees with the "adults" (again your 'adolescent' analogy, not mine). People aren't stupid enough to believe that not raising the credit limit on their credit cards is the same thing as just not paying their bills.

 

[Liberty]

You really are a fucking DOLT. The economy Obama inherited was retracting precipitously. The money government spent was NECESSARY and crucial to any hope of a recovery. Your beloved private sector was MIA, they still are...a fucking decade of Bush tax cuts and ZERO job growth during Bush's regime...ZERO

What a blind idiot.

Bush one, or Bush two?

Bush two would be your god,,,,,,,, Obama.

You support a communist that's not much different than the one you say you hate.

You're so full of shit.

You're a good for nothing communist Bfgrn.

 

[Liberty]

You continue to ignore the facts.

No!

You're a communist who hasn't been taken out to the woodshed properly.

Communist, marxist, socialist are nothing more than evil.

That's you dude.

You and your stupid pro socialist points.

 

[Liberty]

I noticed how quick Bfgrn left us.

Ran away.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again, you waste time on the point where we agree. Creating jobs will increase revenue, we agree.

We absolutely do need to get on the path to debt reduction, just like in your "adolescent" analogy "your daughter" needs to begin a diet and exercise program. Telling her we refuse to increase her allowance until she comes up with a plan and begins isn't the same thing as saying we're going to force her to purge. It's foolish fearmongering and only sheeple believe that nonsense.

There is a reason that more of the US population agrees with the "adults" (again your 'adolescent' analogy, not mine). People aren't stupid enough to believe that not raising the credit limit on their credit cards is the same thing as just not paying their bills.

I agree we need to get on a path that is pointed in the right direction, but not jump off a cliff like adolescent chicken littles. No matter how loud Republicans scream that the sky is falling, the debt is NOT at the edge of a cliff.

This MUST be an adult conversation, not the fearmongering and blatant LIES Republicans continued to spew. They have been trying to find a way to destroy social programs and the safety net since the programs were created. The debt LIE is just the latest tactic. What I don't understand Damo, now that you know you were lied to, you still continue to spew their lies. Why?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

seems those who favor it are in the fairly extreme minority.....is anyone listening?

You ever heard of a "Catch-22" Yurt? This is one of them and I'll define a "Catch-22" as "A situation in which the alternatives are impossible".

I do not want to see the debt limit raised. Am I listening? Hell yes but do we really have a choice? What is the alternative to not raising the debt limit? That would be defaulting on our national debt. Would the ramifications of defaulting be worse then raising the debt limit. Yea....it probably would be.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Let's start with the obvious. The less money put into the government plan, SS, the less money the government will have available to pay out.

Some people did invest privately and ended up with nothing. Folks like the Enron employees. Many others took a hit with their stocks when the bubble burst.

It's fine to say a few years later things improved but what would have happened to those who retired at that time? For example, let's say someone had $100,000 in stock and it dropped 25%. They're left with $75,000. Now they need $25,000 a year to live on so over the next two years they take a total of $50,000 leaving $25,000 invested. Then the market picks up.

As you mentioned from 2005 till now the money would be up 5.5%. That's great for the person who didn't need to touch their $100,000. (First it dropped to $75,000 , then increased to $105,500.) What about the person who withdrew $50,000, over two years, to live on? How much do they have left? The stocks that were supposed to regain their value have been cashed out.



Dozens of countries have produced health care plans that save money, savings on average of 30% + compared to the US. Are Republicans prepared to implement a full government health care plan?

What don't people understand? Dozens of countries have taken a medicare plan and a medicaid plan and general health insurance plan and rolled it all in one and are saving over 30%. It's been done. There are dozens of examples and not one plan has been scrapped. Not one country has reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

There is no shortage of examples but until the decision is made to have one government plan it's going to be constant bickering. On the up-side as different initiatives of the ObamaCare plan come on line people will realize the benefits. One more Obama Presidency and a lot of this nonsense will be history. One medical plan for everyone.

This is like reading what SF wrote when debating climactic change with Cypress. Virtually everyone with a professional science background was laughing their ass off at him for making a fool of himself. Same with health care reform and the privatization of SS. He completely ignores the historical precedents and facts on which the programs were originally created and the proposes alternatives which are naive as hell. He seems to have this irrational exuberance that the market is the solution to everything. The problem is, it's not. The market does some things very well but it's not a panacea but try to explain that to people like SF who just bury their head in the sand and ignore the facts.

The banking fiasco that happened due to credit default swaps that caused the great recession is a perfect example. Who in their right mind could advocate privitization of SS after that except for a complete idiot or someone who cynically plans to scam the market on SS investment at the publics expense. I imagine the gods of Wallstreet would love nothing better then to get their hands on our SS money but what happens when they lose that money like they did on credit default swaps? Who takes care of the losers? Does he have an answer for that or is his answer just "Fuck them, it's a cold hard cruel world out there."?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually adults know that raising a credit limit on a credit card doesn't pay your debt.

True but we do need to have an adult conversation on the subject and here's the problem in Washington politics and why we are not having an adult conversation. Democrats do not want to address the spending end of the issue and Republicans do not want to address the revenue end of the issue. Until both parties are willing address both aspects of this problem, both spending and revenue, then they will continue to place the public in the ridiculous Catch-22 in regards to the debt limit. It's just maddening. A pox on both houses I say!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Adults also know that not raising a credit limit on a credit card is not the same thing as defaulting.

Other things adults know.

Without seriously restructuring your budget, it doesn't matter if you continue to pay the bills by increasing debt limits, you'll never get out of crippling debt and at some point you will reach bankruptcy.

Telling the family that we either restructure, or we'll force the issue because the limit is reached and won't be raised without serious changes... isn't "defaulting"...

And lastly:

The majority of the nation agrees with the adults.

Yea well you're forgetting one tiny little detail. One that republicans just don't want to address. Where are you going to get the money to pay that debt? You can't fix this problem without addressing the revenue side of the issue. The majority of the nations also agree with the adults that the revenue issue must be addressed as well as spending.

 

[apple0154]

You continue to ignore the facts. We are not on the brink of bankruptcy. Even after Bush's three trillion dollar war in Iraq. The public held debt in relation to GDP is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. This is coming from conservative economists. We didn't create the debt overnight, and we will not eliminate it overnight. THAT approach would spell disaster, not recovery Damo. What is important is trajectory. We need to get on a path of debt reduction over the long term.

If you know a way to increase GDP without creating jobs, let's hear it?

Also, the Repub's plan is to destroy social safety nets. I think that was made obvious when Rumsfeld was asked about the Iraq war. He replied, "It was an option we could afford."

Research shows the number of conversations about how much the war would cost and how quick it would end. Whether or not they intentionally knew things wouldn't work out the way they stated one of their objectives was to insure the Federal Government didn't have extra money for social programs.

The Federal Government knew there were people living far below the poverty line. Hungry, homeless...if there was enough money to claim war was an affordable option then helping the less fortunate was also an affordable option but the Repubs are against that whole philosophy.

What better way to put a halt to safety net programs than to run a deficit? If there's no money the conversation ends there. However, Obama decided the citizens needed a medical plan/solution and went ahead with it anyway. It's no longer a matter of "can the US afford it".

The last point is a country's wealth is determined by the wealth of it's citizens unless the country is run by a dictatorship. When the majority have homes and cars and luxuries then the country can afford to look after it's less fortunate citizens. The money is there, in the country.

Whether one cuts spending or increases taxes or does a combination of both the country can afford social programs. It's absurd for anyone to say differently. The problem is social programs haven't been given the importance they deserve. As long as some people believe others should suffer because they can't afford medical care there will never be a decent medical plan. The same applies to food and shelter.

The welfare of fellow citizens needs to be right beside national security in importance. Then other things follow on the list. I see that as what Obama is doing regarding the medical plan. Just as a basic national security policy has to be paid for, regardless of anything else, the same follows for the welfare of the citizens.

As for our children being burdened by debt does anyone believe their children will respect them more when they find out their mom and dad allowed 45,000/yr to die due to a lack of proper medical care?

 

[apple0154]

This is like reading what SF wrote when debating climactic change with Cypress. Virtually everyone with a professional science background was laughing their ass off at him for making a fool of himself. Same with health care reform and the privatization of SS. He completely ignores the historical precedents and facts on which the programs were originally created and the proposes alternatives which are naive as hell. He seems to have this irrational exuberance that the market is the solution to everything. The problem is, it's not. The market does some things very well but it's not a panacea but try to explain that to people like SF who just bury their head in the sand and ignore the facts.

The banking fiasco that happened due to credit default swaps that caused the great recession is a perfect example. Who in their right mind could advocate privitization of SS after that except for a complete idiot or someone who cynically plans to scam the market on SS investment at the publics expense. I imagine the gods of Wallstreet would love nothing better then to get their hands on our SS money but what happens when they lose that money like they did on credit default swaps? Who takes care of the losers? Does he have an answer for that or is his answer just "Fuck them, it's a cold hard cruel world out there."?

" He completely ignores the historical precedents and facts on which the programs were originally created..."

That's exactly what happens. He and others look at government programs and their suggestion is privatization. What they don't seem to understand is everything was private before the government took it over. There was a reason the government took it over.

What can you do? Like Obama said, "Don't show up with old, tired, worn-out ideas." People like SF don't seem to realize privatization has been tired. It was tried for, literally, thousands of years before governments took it over. If the solution was privatization the solution would have been found before governments stepped in.

It's the same with medical care. Since the beginning of time it was "privatized" and because a full government policy is still lacking we see 45,000/yr dying.

The facts mean nothing to folks like SF.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

" He completely ignores the historical precedents and facts on which the programs were originally created..."

That's exactly what happens. He and others look at government programs and their suggestion is privatization. What they don't seem to understand is everything was private before the government took it over. There was a reason the government took it over.

What can you do? Like Obama said, "Don't show up with old, tired, worn-out ideas." People like SF don't seem to realize privatization has been tired. It was tried for, literally, thousands of years before governments took it over. If the solution was privatization the solution would have been found before governments stepped in.

It's the same with medical care. Since the beginning of time it was "privatized" and because a full government policy is still lacking we see 45,000/yr dying.

The facts mean nothing to folks like SF.

I personally have no problems with periodically evaluating these programs to determine if reforms and/or improvements in these public programs can be implemented to improve them. That should always be part of the process. Government should not be immune to the publics demands for continous measurable improvement with public programs just as we do in the private sector. What I do oppose are silly lassiez faire proposals that throw the baby out with the bath water.