• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

Just wondering Star. When you sit around the Kitchen table with your family, and discuss the household budget, and realize that you are paying out enough in debt at the moment, if that were to change, and your debt was out of control, would your answer be to increase it?

j-mac

The US federal government is not a household, it is not a business. It is the sum representation of all the people in the nation.

Trying to make analogies that equate the US federal government with Bob down the street who needs to buy a new car is ludicrous.
 
It's better to have a recovering economy that has to increase it's debt then to have no economy at all. Raise the limit, it's the only smart move.

NO, NO, NO.

Look...debt-based money systems operate best when they can grow exponentially forever. Of course, nothing can, which means that even without natural limits, such systems are prone to increasingly chaotic behavior, until the money that undergirds them collapses into utter worthlessness, allowing the cycle to begin anew.

On a pure debt, deficit, and liability basis, the US, ( and everyone else in the world) is past the point of no return. No matter what policy tweaks, tax and benefit adjustments, or spending cuts are made -- individually or in combination -- nothing really pencils out to a solution. If everybody owes everybody else, then kicking the can down the road only works if there's more wealth, more growth, and sufficient economic activity down that road to service the past debts. If any one participant drops the baton in the debt relay race, the absurdity of the situation becomes unavoidable and the cause is lost.

It's time to face the music. We need to get serious about debt.

Period.
 
Just wondering Star. When you sit around the Kitchen table with your family, and discuss the household budget, and realize that you are paying out enough in debt at the moment, if that were to change, and your debt was out of control, would your answer be to increase it?

j-mac

First, a government is not equivilant to a family. But I would consider increasing revenue (taking a second job=raising taxes). Cut some spending yes, but not give away essentials until forced to, and that means taking care of family members who need taking care of. Now, I might let the neighbor I don't like or trust sit while I take of the family and not try to invade their homes of run them out of their house until I had taken care of my home first. But that's me.
 
The US federal government is not a household, it is not a business. It is the sum representation of all the people in the nation.

Trying to make analogies that equate the US federal government with Bob down the street who needs to buy a new car is ludicrous.

Just who the hell do you think makes up the federal gov't?

The gov't is EXACTLY like Bob down the street. The numbers are bigger, and Bob needs his driveway patched and the gov't needs the highways patched, but its exactly the same thing.

Continuing to make excuses for the gov't spending isn't going to solve the problem, libs. Trying to make it more complicated than it really is is what separates the true conservatives from the spend spend spend liberals.
 
Last edited:
This ain't rocket science libs. Obama and the Democrats spent too much money, and then obligated even more still. Social Security and Medicare are not only approaching an insolvency date, but it has been moved up near a decade from where it was assumed to be just a year ago.

The deal on the table is $1 in debt increase for every $1 in cuts to current spending obligations.

We can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way. "Enough already" is the message. No more OPM for you ;)

Right. It was "the libs", Obama and the Democrats.
We'll just ignore the 6 years that the Republicans had control of Congress AND the White House.
We'll completely ignore the spending mandated by TWO FULL INVASIONS.
We'll ignore that the Republicans' response to the increased funds that they decided to send off to be buried in a desert was to cut taxes, primarily for the rich.
We'll ignore the surplus that the Republicans squandered.
We'll ignore the Medicare additions that the Republicans signed into law.
We'll ignore the bubble economy that they sat around and watched.
We'll just ignore the $450,000,000,000 per year interest payments on the debt that the Republicans handed over.
We'll ignore that the TARP was actually signed by a Republican President.

And we'll especially ignore the fact that the Republican plan to "starve the beast" ie shrink the federal government to the size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub" has been motivating the right-wing's attack on America for the past 3 decades.

And now we're supposed to trust the Republicans when it comes to economic matters? After they sat back and watched the subprime market go into critical meltdown taking an economy that was weakened by Republican policies to the point of collapse?

We're supposed to believe that everything will be alright if we listen to the Republicans who want to take us back over the edge of economic destruction.

No thanks.
 
Just wondering Star. When you sit around the Kitchen table with your family, and discuss the household budget, and realize that you are paying out enough in debt at the moment, if that were to change, and your debt was out of control, would your answer be to increase it?

j-mac

A nations budget works differently than a personal budget.
 
Just wondering Star. When you sit around the Kitchen table with your family, and discuss the household budget, and realize that you are paying out enough in debt at the moment, if that were to change, and your debt was out of control, would your answer be to increase it?

j-mac

Why do you imagine YS in the kitchen?

:2razz:
 
The US federal government is not a household, it is not a business. It is the sum representation of all the people in the nation.

Hmmmm. A representation of all the people in the nation, whom ARE households, and businesses no? Fail

Next!

Boo Radley said:
First, a government is not equivilant to a family.

No, it is a sum total of all the families. So the analogy stands.

But I would consider increasing revenue (taking a second job=raising taxes).

Or you could cut your spending, and get back to basics until you get yourself under control and you wouldn't have to get a second job/raise taxes.

Cut some spending yes, but not give away essentials until forced to, and that means taking care of family members who need taking care of.

What spending are you willing to cut? And what if that family member is one who is able, but finds it easier to sponge off you?

Now, I might let the neighbor I don't like or trust sit while I take of the family and not try to invade their homes of run them out of their house until I had taken care of my home first. But that's me.

Oh, so you would plunder your neighbor when you are stabilized eh? I guess that puts to rest all of your prior talk about what business we have in other countries....

Ok, let the shifting begin where you tell me that isn't what you said...:roll:

j-mac
 
First, a government is not equivilant to a family. But I would consider increasing revenue (taking a second job=raising taxes). Cut some spending yes, but not give away essentials until forced to, and that means taking care of family members who need taking care of. Now, I might let the neighbor I don't like or trust sit while I take of the family and not try to invade their homes of run them out of their house until I had taken care of my home first. But that's me.

Actually, in many ways it is. More than enough to make a comparison that debt has to be managed within parameters of income. What libs don't like is any simple way to show the folly of spending beyond our means, as that means we have to acknowledge that free-stuff has to end.
 
It's better to have a recovering economy that has to increase it's debt then to have no economy at all. Raise the limit, it's the only smart move.

Not true, the economy would shift from a consumer debt economy to what it should and has always been, a saving economy, where credit is not given out to just any ole person.

Tim-
 
Just who the hell do you think makes up the federal gov't?

The gov't is EXACTLY like Bob down the street. The numbers are bigger, and Bob needs his driveway patched and the gov't needs the highways patched, but its exactly the same thing.

No, that's just a simplistic analogy just like the "We should run the government like a business". It has little to nothing in common with the reality of the situation other than the comparison that both entities need to pay their bills.

You see, people will come to foreclose on Bob's assets whereas nobody can or will foreclose on the US federal government.

What can happen though, is that our national "credit rating" could be degraded and we'll end up paying significantly more on the national debt past, present and future which is likely to cost us trillions more over the long run.

Continuing to make excuses for the gov't spending isn't going to solve the problem, libs. Trying to make it more complicated than it really is is what separates the true conservatives from the spend spend spend liberals.

The Republican budget requires that the debt ceiling be raised.
The Republican budget does NOTHING to address the ridiculously bloated budget of an overused military.

Any attempts to cut the budget without touching "defense" spending is NOT a serious effort.
Any attempts to cut the deficit without raising taxes back to sustainable levels is NOT a serious effort.

The Republicans are just playing political brinksmanship. They know that all they have to do is drag their feet instead of doing anything productive and an economy recovering from a deep DEEP recession could easily double-dip.

They are the moral equivalents of Caesar laughing while Rome burns. They assume that a completely destroyed national economy will pretty much give them a carte blanche to tear the government apart and put it back together in a Frankenstein mishmash of failed right-wing economic and political pieces.
 
Actually, in many ways it is. More than enough to make a comparison that debt has to be managed within parameters of income. What libs don't like is any simple way to show the folly of spending beyond our means, as that means we have to acknowledge that free-stuff has to end.

I'm not opposed to some management of the debt. Wish republicans really believed it when they were in charge and not just when democrats were. That said, no, it's not a very equivilent comparison. There are differences. But just like when we default on our debt, and there are consequences, the government defaulting will likely have consequences as well.
 
No, it is a sum total of all the families. So the analogy stands.

No, I really don't think it does.

Or you could cut your spending, and get back to basics until you get yourself under control and you wouldn't have to get a second job/raise taxes.

In a large situation I would likely have to do both. Been there and did that.


What spending are you willing to cut? And what if that family member is one who is able, but finds it easier to sponge off you?

Who decides able? I know my family members quite well. I have a brother who sponges. I have a grandmother who needs care. Both are a problem, but I would still choose helping both over invading my neighbor, no matter how much he was a problem in his own home.



Oh, so you would plunder your neighbor when you are stabilized eh? I guess that puts to rest all of your prior talk about what business we have in other countries....

Ok, let the shifting begin where you tell me that isn't what you said...:roll:

j-mac

Well, it isn't what I said, but I sure as hell when do it when I couldn't afford it. Seems to me you're trying to skip the point. ;)
 
the initial wreck less move is not getting a handle on spending.

each and every politicians knows that the debt ceiling was going to be reached. They did nothing to prevent it. That was wreckless.

We can't continue pushing the debt burden on the future. We can't spend the money, then say sorry about that, please cover the check, and then blame the people that eventually tire of picking up the check.
 
I'm not opposed to some management of the debt.

Be specific.

Wish republicans really believed it when they were in charge and not just when democrats were.

Ah, so it is ok as long as one can point to the opposition doing it too....I see....What's this? How to run a country from the 4th grade playground?

That said, no, it's not a very equivilent comparison.

It is valid, and equivalent. You just refuse to accept that your guy makes Bush look like a tight wad.

But just like when we default on our debt, and there are consequences, the government defaulting will likely have consequences as well.

No **** Sherlock! A real Master of the obvious statement there....:roll: Any more useless platitudes you'd like to roll out?


j-mac
 
I'm not opposed to some management of the debt. Wish republicans really believed it when they were in charge and not just when democrats were. That said, no, it's not a very equivilent comparison. There are differences. But just like when we default on our debt, and there are consequences, the government defaulting will likely have consequences as well.

Righty-O!

Shall we start with Medicare?
 
Be specific.

I think the health care problem has to be fixed, in a way that reduces cost. I think a universal payer system would help do that. I think we have to address The big three, moving medicare and medicaid to a Universal payer system would help. I don't oppose means testing to help lower costs. The military must also face cuts, and we don't need to be invading countries and nation building, period.


Ah, so it is ok as long as one can point to the opposition doing it too....I see....What's this? How to run a country from the 4th grade playground?

No, just a wish. Some consistency would be nice. I would bet republicans would give nothing more than lip serice to the debt if they were in power. History shows this to be so.


It is valid, and equivalent. You just refuse to accept that your guy makes Bush look like a tight wad.

Not really. It is larger and with different responsibilities that effect many more people. It is in fact very different.


No **** Sherlock! A real Master of the obvious statement there....:roll: Any more useless platitudes you'd like to roll out?


j-mac

Glad you agree. :coffeepap
 
No, I really don't think it does.

Not my problem that you don't get it.

In a large situation I would likely have to do both. Been there and did that.

So in a bankruptcy situation your response was to increase your debt load? Really?

Or was it to hammer as much as you could before the BK was done, so as to add as much to others as possible?

Who decides able?

Those giving the money, and assistance.

I know my family members quite well. I have a brother who sponges. I have a grandmother who needs care. Both are a problem, but I would still choose helping both

See, I would help the Grand mother, and cut off the sponge.

over invading my neighbor, no matter how much he was a problem in his own home.

How long can you bring Bush in as your whipping boy deflection?

Well, it isn't what I said, but I sure as hell when do it when I couldn't afford it. Seems to me you're trying to skip the point.

Could you clarify that please?

j-mac
 
Not my problem that you don't get it.

:roll:

So in a bankruptcy situation your response was to increase your debt load? Really?

Or was it to hammer as much as you could before the BK was done, so as to add as much to others as possible?

Not following you leap here. I said, I cut spending and took a second job. Where does this lead to your bankruptcy jump? :confused:

Those giving the money, and assistance.

Isn't what we do through our elected represention?

See, I would help the Grand mother, and cut off the sponge.

Perhaps. But blood is often harder to do.


How long can you bring Bush in as your whipping boy deflection?

I didn't mention his name. Not sure why you are. But aren't we in three countries, rebuilding two?

Could you clarify that please?

j-mac

I don't support ever invading anyone witout a just cause, like imminent threat. You're read enough to know that. But, in context of this discussion, I sure as hell wouldn't spend money invading and rebuilding countries when we're broke.
 
Pretty much libs show they are literally 4th grade debaters. That's a good way to put it. "Well, rest assured, if a republican was president you'd be fine with the national debt."

I have issues with that statement and they are as follows:

1. A republican isn't president, so who the **** cares?
2. I would definitely care about the debt, it's just that we're finally not facing 1. the worst terrorist attack on our nation or 2. the worst natural disaster our nation has ever faced....that would drive up debt. We are in a lull, a time where we can actually recover if we behave financially.
3. How the hell do you know how I would think if a republican president was in power? I used to constantly degrade Bush's liberal spending. I just wasn't on this board to do it, but don't tell me how I think or I'll tell you what part of my anatomy you can kiss.

Why don't you actually give real responses to questions instead of the usual grade school "Well, you guys did it too!" response. That ensures you keep the debate down at your level and not on an actual adult level and ensures no answers come from your mouth as you constantly move the goalposts so people who debate you find themselves defending your false baseless accusations and not addressing the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom