House GOP set to reject debt ceiling increase

[Old Rocks]

Democrats: No pay for lawmakers if U.S. defaults - May. 31, 2011

Dems put up salaries. Now its the GOP's turn.

Totally agree. Salary, healthcare, all perks cease the moment we are in default. In fact, cut no checks at all, other than to get all of our military back from overseas, no matter where they are at. Cannot afford military when we are broke. No SS checks, no government checks going out to the states at all.

The GOP wants a real showdown, let us give it to them. Wisconsin and upstate New York are examples of what the people think when the GOP goes out on a wingnut limb.

 

[Oddball]

House set to reject debt ceiling increase - CNN.com

I say...LET'S PLAY CHICKEN! How many of you are prepared to pay 25% interest rates?

If we don't do something about cutting government spending and debt now, 25% rates will look cheap.

But Republicans will not touch the Military Industrial welfare or Corporate Welfare or Welfare to Israel.

All while liberoidal windbags refuse to cut welfare welfare, foreign aid and support of the UN, corn ETOH subsidies, ad nauseum.

OTOH, there are some of us who are for cutting back on all of that crap, while partisan hack windbags weep and wail about their sacred cows getting even the most superficial of cuts.

 

[Anachronism]

Want to end some "unnecessary wars" and save some big money?

Let's start with the "wars" on poverty and (some) drugs.

I agree on the "War on Poverty". That needs to go along with pretty much all other Social Engineering spending.

The War on Drugs actually needs to be STARTED at some point. We've been doing nothing but skirmishing in that conflict for 40 years.

 

[Trajan]

House set to reject debt ceiling increase - CNN.com

I say...LET'S PLAY CHICKEN! How many of you are prepared to pay 25% interest rates?

Maybe if the Democrats had had the balls to do this back when Bush was spending all that money we would never have had a recession.

Just something to think about.

As I recall, the Dems did not have control of the House or Senate at that time.

this has already been commented on and the stats posted as to what bush and the rep congress added and, there after ala 2006 on..........you need a new moniker, this much is certain...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Want to end some "unnecessary wars" and save some big money?

Let's start with the "wars" on poverty and (some) drugs.

I agree on the "War on Poverty". That needs to go along with pretty much all other Social Engineering spending.

The War on Drugs actually needs to be STARTED at some point. We've been doing nothing but skirmishing in that conflict for 40 years.

End Medicaid? So you're content to live in a country where one's health is directly proportionate to one's wealth?

 

[NYcarbineer]

House set to reject debt ceiling increase - CNN.com

I say...LET'S PLAY CHICKEN! How many of you are prepared to pay 25% interest rates?

If we don't do something about cutting government spending and debt now, 25% rates will look cheap.

But Republicans will not touch the Military Industrial welfare or Corporate Welfare or Welfare to Israel.

The Republicans passed a fantasy budget that they know can never become law, and it's about time they grew up and stopped pretending otherwise.

 

[Anachronism]

End Medicaid? So you're content to live in a country where one's health is directly proportionate to one's wealth?

In a single word.... YES.

Then again you need to remember that my prefered time in history is the Feudal society of medieval Europe with its Caste system and everything that brings with it.

 

[saveliberty]

The only fair plan means pain for EVERYONE. This includes Congress that thinks America will keep allowing them to use a credit card without limits. Large debt means inflation and higher interest rates anyways. Only a fool continues down the path to bankruptcy without a change in spending habits.

 

[MikeK]

As has been pointed out many times, the Democrats were in charge of the Senate from 2006 on. That means that the Democrats are the ones that went along with the increasing Bush deficit that you are now crying about. They should have stood up and said no way back then when Obama first gave his little speech about how raising it showed a lack of leadership.

I think it is great that someone is finally standing up for the little guy here.

Because the finance industry's books were so effectively cooked until the bubble burst, which happened shortly before 2008, there is some mitigation for the Democrats prior misfeasance in that regard. They can legitimately claim ignorance, which is a self-condemning fact. One of our major problems is our representatives are expert politicians but with few exceptions are economics dummies. I'm not making excuses, because I have as much contempt for the lot of them as anyone else does, I'm simply examining the facts.

And unless I misunderstand the situation, you are suggesting that allowing the Nation to fall into default is "standing up for the little guy?"

I think it's time to start talking about just which spending to cut, because what the GOP has in mind is handing Social Security and Medicare over to private interests, which will be extremely counterproductive. My suggestion would be to focus spending cuts on the largely redundant Defense budget. That is how Clinton managed to balance the budget and leave Office with a projected surplus -- which Bush promptly wasted and generated the deficit we're dealing with now.

Slash the Defense budget and terminate the wholly counterproductive War On Drugs! Those two things, alone, will significantly contribute to stabilizing the economy and reducing the deficit.

 

[Old Rocks]

One more thing. Go back to the tax structure under Clinton. And eliminate the off shoring of profits, private or corperate.

 

[saveliberty]

which[/u] spending to cut, because what the GOP has in mind is handing Social Security and Medicare over to private interests, which will be extremely counterproductive. My suggestion would be to focus spending cuts on the largely redundant Defense budget. That is how Clinton managed to balance the budget and leave Office with a projected surplus -- which Bush promptly wasted and generated the deficit we're dealing with now.

Slash the Defense budget and terminate the wholly counterproductive War On Drugs! Those two things, alone, will significantly contribute to stabilizing the economy and reducing the deficit.

Your part of the problem Mike. Thinking that fixing a little part here or there will fix it is wrong. Until EVERYONE takes responsibility for the problem and ALL suffer in part, we are doomed. That includes Social Security and Medicare reforms. Looking to government as the cure is false as well. Though widely touted as a problem, we can't even get these jokers to stop pork barreling. America needs to wake up and start a Constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget and cast iron debt ceiling.

 

[traveler52]

Exactly how many times and in how many ways did the House and Senate Repugs, with great understanding, camera's rolling and live mic's, vote to block raising the debt ceiling under the Shrub?

None is the answer.

It is all Theater...

This reminds of that scene from Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked to know there is gambling going on," "Here are you winnings Captian. "Thankyou."

Repugnants had no problem voting to increase the Debt Ceiling under the shrub.

Repugnants had no problem increasing the Deficit under the shrub.

Repugnants had no problem with "Generational Debt", hell they loved it.

 

[daveman]

It is all Theater...

This reminds of that scene from Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked to know there is gambling going on," "Here are you winnings Captian. "Thankyou."

Repugnants had no problem voting to increase the Debt Ceiling under the shrub.

Repugnants had no problem increasing the Deficit under the shrub.

Repugnants had no problem with "Generational Debt", hell they loved it.

Do you think there should be no top end? We should just print and borrow and spend no matter how much we're in debt?

Republicans don't.

 

[saveliberty]

Do you think there should be no top end? We should just print and borrow and spend no matter how much we're in debt?

Republicans don't.

I think conservatives belongs where you put Republicans. Is there anyone who wants to defend $20 Trillion in national debt?

P.S. That means your SS or Medicare might be a bit more expensive conservatives.

 

[Anachronism]

P.S. That means your SS or Medicare might be a bit more expensive conservatives.

Some of us are willing to give up anything we've put into those two programs to date in order to be allowed to opt out of having to pay into them from here on out.

 

[saveliberty]

P.S. That means your SS or Medicare might be a bit more expensive conservatives.

Some of us are willing to give up anything we've put into those two programs to date in order to be allowed to opt out of having to pay into them from here on out.

Yes, and I'm willing to have reduced benefits or your option when its my turn. We just need to fix what's broken.

 

[MikeK]

Your part of the problem Mike. Thinking that fixing a little part here or there will fix it is wrong. Until EVERYONE takes responsibility for the problem and ALL suffer in part, we are doomed. That includes Social Security and Medicare reforms. Looking to government as the cure is false as well. Though widely touted as a problem, we can't even get these jokers to stop pork barreling. America needs to wake up and start a Constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget and cast iron debt ceiling.

Your first mistake is regarding the potential yield from slashing the redundant defense budget and scrapping the counterproductive drug war as "little parts." These are massive and unnecessary expenditures.

Your second mistake is presuming I expect those spending reductions to immediately solve the problem. Provided we can stop habitually spending the Nation into debt those reductions, alone, over time will pay down and resolve the deficit. But I'm not opposed to other spending cuts and I'm sure there are many prospects for that.

If you are determined to follow the Republican party line and go after Social Security and Medicare, considering your own parents' and/or grandparents' circumstances, specifically what kind of reforms do you have in mind?

 

[saveliberty]

I would not change existing benefits for most on the program. If you exceed a certain threshhold, then you pay more. Newbies and future folks will pay more and get less. The political parties will try to make this a win-lose situation. I am saying everyone helps and accepts change. It is easier to accept the sacrifices you make, if everyone else on your block is in the same position.

 

[MikeK]

I would not change existing benefits for most on the program. If you exceed a certain threshhold, then you pay more. Newbies and future folks will pay more and get less. The political parties will try to make this a win-lose situation. I am saying everyone helps and accepts change. It is easier to accept the sacrifices you make, if everyone else on your block is in the same position.

Three things that will preserve Social Security as a self-sustaining entity are;

(1) Increase eligibility age to conform with life expectancy ratio.

(2) Remove the contribution "cap."

(3) Apply a means test to suspend payments to individuals whose assets disqualify their need for income supplement.

As for Medicare, two ways to significantly reduce its cost is eliminate the Part D and the Advantage components, both of which were put in place by the Bush Administration to divert a significant percentage of the overall cost to the private sector (Bush's corporate "base").

The bottom line is there is no need or reason to include the lower income brackets as targets in any economic reform program. All that is needed is to focus on undoing the redistribution of wealth resources facilitated by Reaganomics -- which also is responsible for nearly collapsing the Economy. Our system has been methodically disrupted and our treasury has been looted by deviously cunning manipulation of laws and federal policies. We need to stabilize our economic system and recover those resources by restoring the New Deal laws and policies that benefited and protected us and by reversing the manipulations.

I.e., By fighting fire with fire.

 

[Trajan]

Your part of the problem Mike. Thinking that fixing a little part here or there will fix it is wrong. Until EVERYONE takes responsibility for the problem and ALL suffer in part, we are doomed. That includes Social Security and Medicare reforms. Looking to government as the cure is false as well. Though widely touted as a problem, we can't even get these jokers to stop pork barreling. America needs to wake up and start a Constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget and cast iron debt ceiling.

Your first mistake is regarding the potential yield from slashing the redundant defense budget and scrapping the counterproductive drug war as "little parts." These are massive and unnecessary expenditures.

Your second mistake is presuming I expect those spending reductions to immediately solve the problem. Provided we can stop habitually spending the Nation into debt those reductions, alone, over time will pay down and resolve the deficit. But I'm not opposed to other spending cuts and I'm sure there are many prospects for that.

If you are determined to follow the Republican party line and go after Social Security and Medicare, considering your own parents' and/or grandparents' circumstances, specifically what kind of reforms do you have in mind?

you are barking up the wrong tree.

and speaking of redundant, there are tons of gov. prgms that are duplicated and flat out money waters and yes that goes for the DOD too, however the DOD has been and is continuing to cut......how many times must that be said, yet entitlements are off the table according to the dems......

your turn.