America's Debt: Shame on Them

[CrusaderFrank]

What is that now? 5 posts in this thread attacking me and yet none explaining why our current debt is bad.

Interesting.

Run home and get your DNC approved "Why Reagan's Deficits Will destroy the USA" playbook, Dear and read it in front of the class

 

[Trajan]

I don't trust them to do so, no way, no how.

The only big corporations paying 35% are suckers with bad accountants.

*sigh* , if it means squat why would obama think about agreeing to lower it, so as to get even less after DEDUCTIONS and use of tax LOOPHOLES?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is that now? 5 posts in this thread attacking me and yet none explaining why our current debt is bad.

Interesting.

No one attacked you.
You made an incredibly stupid post. Not a smart thing to so with your username.
Don't make stupid posts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

He lies, He's been an obiedoodle ass licker since day one.

He's from the Jake Starkey "I think I have you all fooled" school of political discourse

 

[Modbert]

*sigh* , if it means squat why would obama think about agreeing to lower it, so as to get even less after DEDUCTIONS and use of tax LOOPHOLES?

I don't think it means squat. I'm simply telling you that the idea that any of the large corporations are paying 35% is ridiculous. And it's due in large part because of all the deductions and exemptions they have. What the President wants is to close loopholes and I believe he is open to the idea of cutting the Corporate tax rate last I checked.

 

[WillowTree]

Assuming you voted, does this mean you've been won over to the Big 0's camp by his enlightened leadership?

He lies, He's been an obiedoodle ass licker since day one.

He's from the Jake Starkey "I think I have you all fooled" school of political discourse

 

[code1211]

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.

Except what I said is in relation to the article. In fact I'll repost it again since I guess you can't or don't want to read it.

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.

I read that and it means nothing. You cannot put a percent in the bank. You put dollars in a bank. What you have posted above is gibbersih and unworthy of reply.

The comprimise, if indeed there is one, will not be based on vague percents. The Reps have asked for one dollar of reduced spending for every dollar of increased debt limit. Is that part of the offer?

The Reps have proferred a serious budget in the void left by two and a half years of no budget from the Dems. Has this been adopted?

The Dems current MO is to print 66 cents of money for every dollar they collect in revenue. They have produced no plan, no ideas and no inclination that they have any intention to correct this blind charge into more and faster build up of debt.

What are the Dems offereing to do? If they are still sticking with 2 Trillion in spending cuts during the time span during which we will rack up an additional 18 Trillion in debt, that doesn't work.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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. A bunch of 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 too much.

You are arguing to continue spending too much.

Is there a time 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 have to understand...people like Modbert are hardwired to believe that government is the answer to practically everything. Obama is therefore his dream President.
As you pointed out - the Democrats did not even make a budget. It goes well beyond mere disbelief that the largest economy in the world is operating without a budget.
But - to people like Reid, Pelosi, Obama...and their fans...they fail to see this as a problem. Why should they have a budget...just spend as much as possible is the only answer in their playbook.

 

[Trajan]

*sigh* , if it means squat why would obama think about agreeing to lower it, so as to get even less after DEDUCTIONS and use of tax LOOPHOLES?

I don't think it means squat. I'm simply telling you that the idea that any of the large corporations are paying 35% is ridiculous. And it's due in large part because of all the deductions and exemptions they have. What the President wants is to close loopholes and I believe he is open to the idea of cutting the Corporate tax rate last I checked.

I know that, FGS, I am well aware GE and say Maytag paid little to no net taxes last year....

so, is it not better for obama to lower it only incrementally yet take their deductions and breaks etc.? so the number does count even if it appears no one pays that rate, he wants to stay as close to it as possible and, close the loopholes and deductions etc. to get even more revenue ( if he thinks he can) .

 

[code1211]

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?

Or we can just raise the debt ceiling and continue the spending cuts talks that are currently going on.

We raised the Debt ceiling seven times during the Bush Administration, don't suddenly act like you all care now.

W spent money like a sailor on a three day leave. The Big 0 spends money like a pimp with three days to live.

The Big 0 has equalled the debt increase under Bush in only two years. Impressive.

W was wrong to have done it and the Big 0 is wrong to have done it so much more dramatically.

W was a Liberal in his spending practices. IMHO, he was wrong to have spent more than was collected. That W was wrong does little to prove the the Big 0 is right.

So, I'll ask again: Is there any circimstance under which you feel that it might be good to reduce the spending and to stop increasing the debt?

 

[bripat9643]

When I get into financial trouble the solution I always turn to is spending more money.

How would you raise the value of your house without spending money on home improvements? It's the same with the economy.

What does government spending improve? Don't give me the roads and bridges crap. that's a small percentage of the budget. What does spending on welfare, ag price supports and the Department of Education improve?

 

[Modbert]

You have to understand...people like Modbert are hardwired to believe that government is the answer to practically everything. Obama is therefore his dream President.
As you pointed out - the Democrats did not even make a budget. It goes well beyond mere disbelief that the largest economy in the world is operating without a budget.
But - to people like Reid, Pelosi, Obama...and their fans...they fail to see this as a problem. Why should they have a budget...just spend as much as possible is the only answer in their playbook.

You clearly know nothing about me. I've been trying to have a civil discussion but looks like you aren't interested.

 

[bripat9643]

The OP is, again, drinking Kool-aid.
The government will not default. That is laughably inaccurate - but as usual simpletons buy into the hysteria.
They will still have 70% of their income coming in without pause.
In reality the left is in horror at the thought of cutting government spending because, like the OP, they are hard wired to believe that government spending solves everything.

The truth is - a refusal to raise the debt ceiling will force the government to take a look at its house of cards that it has been building for 30 years - AND ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The real reason they are horrified is because almost all of them are sucking on the government teat. Animals are always terrified of the thought of their source of sustenance being cutoff

 

[Modbert]

So, I'll ask again: Is there any circimstance under which you feel that it might be good to reduce the spending and to stop increasing the debt?

Your question makes absolutely no sense. I've already called for spending cuts throughout several threads. I think you should read my posts more closely because you seem to be taking conclusions out of them that have nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

[bripat9643]

The government defaults if it doesn't pay legally obligated bills. Any of them. If we bring in only 60% or less, we will default.

The only bills the U.S. government is legally obligated to pay are U.S. Treasury bills.

 

[Modbert]

The only bills the U.S. government is legally obligated to pay are U.S. Treasury bills.

You let me know how not paying our creditors will go. Just as well as you paying only 70% of your credit card bill each month would go.

 

[code1211]

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.

Inflation means the most recent increases are always the biggest and quickest. So what? Are you saying that twenty years from now if the debt goes up $2T in one year that is terrible, regardless of any other circumstances?

I'm saying that the expenditures of the Feds are 159.8% of the revenues of the Feds and getting worse.

One might say that they are not achieving their plan, but they have no plan and refuse to make one.

I'm not talking about anytime in the future. I'm talking about now.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[bripat9643]

I think revenue is closer to 60% but why quibble. The more important part you left out is that revenue is not a constant steady stream into the government over the course of the year. There are some months when the government brings in less and some months more. If August is a low month, that makes the problem even worse.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

It appears that now even The Economist is drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid. Republicans have made crystal clear that tax increases of any kind are off the table.

The government defaults if it doesn't pay legally obligated bills. Any of them. If we bring in only 60% or less, we will default.

 

[Modbert]

It appears that now even The Economist is drinking the Democrat Kool-Aid. Republicans have made crystal clear that tax increases of any kind are off the table.

The article notes that the GOP feels that way and says they're wrong for believing that.

 

[code1211]

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.

I guess you missed the little thing called the election next year. So yes, the President has incentive to seriously debate this topic.

Deciding that the only way to deal with spending is by playing russian roulette with the economy through the debt ceiling is both childish and insane.

Pelosi has already said that the best appraoch to the election is to allow the deal to lapse, cut the payments to SS Recipients and blame the Reps. Reid refuses to allow any debate on a budget on the Floor of the Senate.

The Big 0 is saying that increasing the tax on corporate jets will solve the problem. 700 years of this deduction applied to the deficit would pay for one month of the Big 0's budgetary failures.

What can you produce to indicate that this is anything but a ruse and a swindle?