WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
I still have yet to see any GOP "Leaders" explain why our having debt is a bad thing. So bad, that we need to risk default in order to stop it.
Don't Be Stupid.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I still have yet to see any GOP "Leaders" explain why our having debt is a bad thing. So bad, that we need to risk default in order to stop it.
wasn't this posted in another thread?
and in 3 weeks they will not go into default, they will shuffle the revenue 'ins' to pay the interest 'outs' on debt., and start cutting down on sending checks out to or funding operating budgets.
From the opening paragraph:
IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.
It was money spent IN the house, not ON the house.
Any money spend by the government IN the country is money spent ON the country. That's a big part that many people fail to see.
Are you saying that the deal being offered includes no tax increases, has a dollar of spending reduction for every dollar of increased debt limit and the Ryan Budget is adopted?
This is the only place that I've heard of this offer.
If you bothered to read the article, you would know what I'm talking about. But I guess something that doesn't jive with your opinion is not reader friendly.
I was responding to what you said, not to the article. You said that what was being offered by the Dems is what the Republicans waned.
It is not. My questions on the substance of what was being offered are a direct response to the misleading statement that you made. If the Dems offer has merit, then state the merit of the offer. By mischaracterizing the offer as something that it is not, you imply that a swindle is underway.
If your point is not made by your implications, perhaps you should more clearly make your point.
And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.
What, in your opinion bert, is it going to take to teach Washington a lesson? What is it going to take to get them to spend within their means?
Default sounds good to me.
Playing russian roulette with a full chamber is not a good way to teach anyone a lesson. You seem to have no idea of the implications of what would happen if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. Washington wouldn't suffer, average Americans like you and me would.
If I quit paying, yes, I would default and my credit rating would take a hit. That's not in question. However, if I'm asking the bank that provides my cc to continuously raise my debt limit from $1000 to eventually $500,000.....I'll never be able to pay it off. The responsible thing to do is pay off the debt and put a cap on the debt limit. Continuously raising it to service interest is completely asinine. It does not compute. I've built up and sold two companies and am working on a third. If I operated at which the federal govt operates I would have been living under a bridge years ago.
Before I address the however, let me continue my line of question. And what happens when your credit rating takes a hit? Is it not more difficult to get any sort of loans in the future? Do your interest rates not rise, making it more difficult for you to pay back your current and future loans?
Letting the same thing happen here would be akin to shooting ourselves in the face.
What we need to do is hammer out a deal, and the President has offered up more than a fair deal to the GOP. Raise the debt ceiling, and then handle more cuts from there. Dealing with it in zero hour because Congress is irresponsible is no reason to punish our creditors or the American people.
It's due in part to BOTH parties and their spending. However, the spending that has gone on in the last two and half years under your messiah and the libs has made a bad situation ten times worse than it should be.
That's a fact, period, end of story. Shame on EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY obama and the dems for doing what they did TO MAKE IT WORSE.
Again, how? Why? You keep making claims about our situation being worse because of our growing debt, but you never say HOW it's worse or WHY it's worse.
Merely making a claim about something being bad doesn't make it bad.
Conceeding the point that default would be a bad thing, how often do you propose we raise the debt ceiling and to what level must it rise before it becomes a problem and spending should be reduced?
Is there any circimstance under which you feel that it might be good to reduce the spending and to stop increasing the debt?
About 30% of the National Debt has been applied in about 2% of the life of the Republic and that is why and how it is worse.
Are you high? if the debt cieling is raised, there is no incentive for the Big 0 to seriously debate the topic.
It's the same as giving the adict his heroine.
Right now, the Reps have his attention. The budget he turned in that got 0 votes from his own party reflects the depth of his complete luacy on the topic. He doesn't think there's a problem.
Now is the time to do something. If he wants to make a deal and the Big Deal is not available, then he can make a small deal. Raise the Debt Cieling by, oh, 100 Billion dollars and reduce spending by the same, then start over because that gives us about one month to figure out something else.
100 Billion in one month. That should reveal something even to you.
What is that now? 5 posts in this thread attacking me and yet none explaining why our current debt is bad.
Interesting.
I don't trust them to do so, no way, no how.
You're right. Relying on people who have proven they are incapable with plans that are inadequate and programs that are misguided and misdirected is just plain stupid.
Hoping they will correct fiscal problems with plans that we all know won't work before the liars and theives even try to say they are what they are not is simply an exercise in hope triumphing over experience.
Are you seriously trying to make us believe that the folks in Washington will cut spending if they are not forced to do so?
On what do you base this conclusion?
Do you plan on making on partaking in the discussion or are you just going to have a conversation with yourself?
The folks in Washington would cut spending if the people who vote for them say to do so. Otherwise they would be voted out. I don't think playing russian roulette with a full chamber when it comes to the economy is the smartest way of cutting spending. All you have is people acting irrational by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling.
You're right. Relying on people who have proven they are incapable with plans that are inadequate and programs that are misguided and misdirected is just plain stupid.
Hoping they will correct fiscal problems with plans that we all know won't work before the liars and theives even try to say they are what they are not is simply an exercise in hope triumphing over experience.
Are you seriously trying to make us believe that the folks in Washington will cut spending if they are not forced to do so?
On what do you base this conclusion?
Do you plan on making on partaking in the discussion or are you just going to have a conversation with yourself?
The folks in Washington would cut spending if the people who vote for them say to do so. Otherwise they would be voted out. I don't think playing russian roulette with a full chamber when it comes to the economy is the smartest way of cutting spending. All you have is people acting irrational by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling.
Did you happen to hear about the last election? I think it was on all the news shows. People who promised to spend less got elected.
When is the best time to try to fix the problems with the budget... Whoops, check that, there is no budget. The Dems prefer to spend without a budget. They have no plan, they activly work to avoid having a plan and they attack anyone who tries to promote a plan.
Since there is no budget, we cannot compare spending to budget. We can compare it to revenues. It's to much.
You are arguing to continue spending too much.
Is there a time in or a set of circumstances in which you think that reducing spending might be a good thing? Maybe that's a good place to start for me to be able to understand your argument.
You should have given this a thought BEFORE you voted for obiedoodle. He told you he was spend money out his wazoooo but you voted for him anyway
He tooka bad situation and made it worse by ten fold. Unemployment 9.2% and climbing..
Except I didn't vote for Obama. Insert another quarter and try again.
Assuming you voted, does this mean you've been won over to the Big 0's camp by his enlightened leadership?
You should have given this a thought BEFORE you voted for obiedoodle. He told you he was spend money out his wazoooo but you voted for him anyway
He tooka bad situation and made it worse by ten fold. Unemployment 9.2% and climbing..
Except I didn't vote for Obama. Insert another quarter and try again.
Assuming you voted, does this mean you've been won over to the Big 0's camp by his enlightened leadership?