• 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!

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

When did libs start caring about spending, that's what I want to know. I'm not so dense that I suddenly believe y'all are fiscal hawks all of a sudden. LOL

When did conservatives start objecting to raising the debt ceiling? Come to think of it, since when have conservatives objected to spending? They have done more than their fair share.
 
When did libs start caring about spending, that's what I want to know. I'm not so dense that I suddenly believe y'all are fiscal hawks all of a sudden. LOL

Are you so dense that you can't understand the FACT that Obama offered cuts in return for minor revenue increases? I mean, it's only in every ****ing newspaper in America.
 
When did conservatives start objecting to raising the debt ceiling? Come to think of it, since when have conservatives objected to spending? They have done more than their fair share.

Since when? Since Obama became president.
 
That's all you have? 42 accomplishments and you found one to bitch about.

You think I'm going to go through and find crap on every one? Uh no, I have a life.

I found one that was no accomplishment at all, so your entire list is crap.

So the economic brainiacs at the White House created a program that cost taxpayers $3 billion - or $24,000 per car sold - and in doing so, raised the prices of used vehicles close to $2000 on average for the middle class. Absolute brilliance.

When did conservatives start objecting to raising the debt ceiling? Come to think of it, since when have conservatives objected to spending? They have done more than their fair share.

Nice to see conservatives acting, well, conservative, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
When did conservatives start objecting to raising the debt ceiling? Come to think of it, since when have conservatives objected to spending? They have done more than their fair share.

And Dems haven't? At least the GOP is trying to hold the line now, and liberals act like it's the end of the ****ing world. Seriously Redress, are you concerned about spending? I'm genuinely curious.
 
You think I'm going to go through and find crap on every one? Uh no, I have a life.

I found one that was no accomplishment at all, so your entire list is crap.

Yeah that's what I thought. You find one problem out of 42 and you dismiss the whole list. You're not even worth the time it took to type this post. How about all of those tax cuts? DO you hate tax cuts now? Never mind. You're a clueless partisan hack. Lay down and go to sleep. It's the best thing you could do for yourself.
 
And Dems haven't? At least the GOP is trying to hold the line now, and liberals act like it's the end of the ****ing world. Seriously Redress, are you concerned about spending? I'm genuinely curious.

Yes I am concerned about spending. However, playing games like this with something that can have large negative impact on many Americans is not the way to do it, and pointing out that we would not have had to do this if conservatives actually cared about the debt when republicans are president is a perfectly valid point to make.

There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way.
 
And Dems haven't? At least the GOP is trying to hold the line now, and liberals act like it's the end of the ****ing world. Seriously Redress, are you concerned about spending? I'm genuinely curious.

You're concerned about spending? Then you must be pretty happy with the spending cuts that Obama offered. You know, the ones that the GOP walked away from.
 
It was Clinton who raised taxes on social security in 1993.

The only people that pay tax on social security are those with significant other income. Since social security is primarily intended to be a safety net, imposing taxes on those that are not really in the safety net seems to be a very appropriate reform. Privatizing, restructuring, cutting benefits or pushing out the retirement age, OTH, affects those for whom SS is part of the safety. Sorry, your's is a poor rebuttal to my original assertion: the Repubicans do seek to radically reform and scale back social security.
 
Are you so dense that you can't understand the FACT that Obama offered cuts in return for minor revenue increases? I mean, it's only in every ****ing newspaper in America.
So? For once someone objects to raising taxes. Good for them.

Since when? Since Obama became president.
Because he's spent more in a shorter time than any other president. Duh. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to call others dense, eh?
 
Last edited:
And Dems haven't? At least the GOP is trying to hold the line now, and liberals act like it's the end of the ****ing world. Seriously Redress, are you concerned about spending? I'm genuinely curious.

But raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with paying existing government obligations. Given that virtually ever economist, including the bi-partisan debt commission, has said the revenue enhancements (including taxes) are critical to deficit reduction, those that will not entertain such discussions are merely debt reduction charlatans; they are not really interested in debt reduction, they are interested on taking advantage of a good crisis to attack the social safety net.
 
Yeah that's what I thought. You find one problem out of 42 and you dismiss the whole list. You're not even worth the time it took to type this post. How about all of those tax cuts? DO you hate tax cuts now? Never mind. You're a clueless partisan hack. Lay down and go to sleep. It's the best thing you could do for yourself.

You're the one with the burden of proof. PROVE to me Obama had anything to do with any of that stuff. You come up with some list from some site, without anything to back it up. Where's the proof? Why don't the democrats push all those issues if they are so good for Obama? Why is some hack site from some hack member of a political forum the only place they're mentioned?

*crickets*

And yes, I'm going to bed. IVE GOT A JOB, AIN'T IT NICE? I'm closing on a house next week, you gotta job to? I doubt it, considering your some pansy on a political forum at almost midnight! LOL What a joke.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am concerned about spending. However, playing games like this with something that can have large negative impact on many Americans is not the way to do it, and pointing out that we would not have had to do this if conservatives actually cared about the debt when republicans are president is a perfectly valid point to make.

There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things. This is the wrong way.

So, any debt crisis is solely the doing of the GOP? Reps are just using the leverage they have now, you, like the Dems did with the health care monstrosity. If Obama's serious, why isn't that on the chopping block?
 
Given that virtually ever economist, including the bi-partisan debt commission, has said the revenue enhancements (including taxes) are critical to deficit reduction, those that will not entertain such discussions are merely debt reduction charlatans; they are not really interested in debt reduction
Obama was offered the revenue plan put forth by his debt commission and he refused, so does that make him a debt reduction charlatan?
 
So, any debt crisis is solely the doing of the GOP?

No, but this one certainly is.

Reps are just using the leverage they have now,

The fact that the credit of the United States is being used as "leverage" is a perfect illustration of this point. In order for something to be used as leverage, it has to be something that one side in the negotiation wants, and the other side doesn't want or doesn't care about. Which, sadly, seems to be pretty accurate.

you, like the Dems did with the health care monstrosity.

Obama's "leverage" in the health care debate was the fact that he was elected to the White House, there was a Democratic majority in the House, and a 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the Senate. On the other hand, in THIS debate, Republicans control one-half of one branch of government. Rather than using a strong political position as leverage, they are using the threat of forcing the United States into default as leverage.

If Obama's serious, why isn't that on the chopping block?

For lots of reasons, but let's go with the most simple one: the CBO says that the Affordable Care Act will substantially REDUCE the deficit over the next 10 years, and even more in the following decade.
 
Last edited:
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

images


The Good President will have to let Old People, Disabled people STARVE because of the damned dirty GOP.

Starve you hear, STARVE.

I retired 19 months ago. My wife continues to work and I am on Social Security. Personally, I am at that point of frustration with the deficits and spending that I possibly do not care whether or not the Federal Government stays open for business. It might be best to shut it down. It would be painful for my wife and I, but we would survive.

It is time for this country to have a complete reversal of policy. It is time for both parties to stop spending our hard-earned tax dollars as if it did not matter how much of a deficit they run. It probably is time that we shut down a government that has become tyrannical.

It is probably time that we shut down a government that tells what size car we drive. It is probably time we shut down a government that tells us what type of lightbulb we must purchase, no matter how much we dislike the one we will have to purchase.
It is probably time we shut down a government that tells us we can keep our insurance but entices companies to drop our insurance.
It is probably time we shut down a government who forces us to spend excessive amounts of our hard-earned money for fuel for our cars when energy is abundantly available right now, but companies are not left alone to drill, pump, and refine our oil and gas.
It is probably time that we shut down a government that wants to raise taxes when we are in a lingering malaise with continuing very high unemployment.
It is probably time that we shut down a government that allows 47% of it's citizens to pay no income taxes.

In 1964, there was a book published entitled, "You Can Trust the Communists To Be Communists." Today, one might write a book entitled, "You Can Trust Tax and Spend Democrats To Be Tax and Spend Democrats." President Obama within the past week has intimated that he wants to get this debt ceiling business behind us so he can go on a new or continued spending spree.

Enough is enough! Too many Americans have yet to learn the virtue of frugality and many, unfortunately, will never learn it. Too many Americans have not saved or are not saving over their lifetime and have always lived for today. This is irresponsible. Also, and again very unfortunate, far too many people have become dependent on a nanny state to take care of them. This too is highly irresponsible. The result is the government spends and spends and taxes and taxes to provide services that individuals should provide for themselves. And then, surprise of surprises, the government spends far too much and runs deficits and creates debt that just explodes and the revenues can no longer pay the bills. And some sit around wondering how in the world could this have happened. And some even sit around telling us that their nanny bennies better not be cut.

Shut it down!!! Well, at least shut down the tax and spenders and do it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
But raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with paying existing government obligations. Given that virtually ever economist, including the bi-partisan debt commission, has said the revenue enhancements (including taxes) are critical to deficit reduction, those that will not entertain such discussions are merely debt reduction charlatans; they are not really interested in debt reduction, they are interested on taking advantage of a good crisis to attack the social safety net.

Taking advantage of a good crisis. That sounds familiar. Wasn't it Rahm Emmanual that said you never let a good crisis go to waste. ;) I don't believe that's what the GOP is doing here. What's the point of a debt celiing in the first place? The exact same arguments and scare tactics being used now would be used in the future any time someone wanted to raise the debt ceiling. Besides, the GOP has indicated a willingness to raise it, but not at the expense of taxpayers.
 
But raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with paying existing government obligations. Given that virtually ever economist, including the bi-partisan debt commission, has said the revenue enhancements (including taxes) are critical to deficit reduction, those that will not entertain such discussions are merely debt reduction charlatans; they are not really interested in debt reduction, they are interested on taking advantage of a good crisis to attack the social safety net.

The raising of the debt ceiling has a great deal to do with deficit reduction. We have spent and spent and we have a huge deficit (42 cents of every dollar spent) and the debt is rising as fast as rocket to space. If the debt ceiling is raised with no reduction in spending, the raise will be for naught. Yes, it would authorize the debt, but it would not curb future spending. The President has already assured us that increased spending will commence immediately after this debt ceiling is passed. This must stop. Do you run your personal finances by borrowing 42 cents for every dollar you spend? If not, why not? Hopefully, it's because you have more common sense about your personal finances than many have about our federal budget.
 
No, but this one certainly is.
Really? Thought it was the GOP that seems to be acting as if the debt ceiling should mean something. So you somehow believe that raising the debt ceiling to to allow as much spending as desired, is actually the better policy for debt reduction?



The fact that the credit of the United States is being used as "leverage" is a perfect illustration of this point. In order for something to be used as leverage, it has to be something that one side in the negotiation wants, and the other side doesn't want or doesn't care about. Which, sadly, seems to be pretty accurate.
Yes, Dems want to raise taxes and the GOP doesn't want to. Sorry, but negotiation is part of politics. We've seen what Dems do when they aren't forced to negotiate.



Obama's "leverage" in the health care debate was the fact that he was elected to the White House, there was a Democratic majority in the House, and a 60-vote Democratic supermajority in the Senate.
Oh, did healthcare pass by a super majority vote? The majority of the people did not want Obamacare. That should have been evident when Scott Walker was elected.

On the other hand, in THIS debate, Republicans control one-half of one branch of government. Rather than using a strong political position as leverage, they are using the threat of forcing the United States into default as leverage.
I believe there's actually more of a mandate to attempt a control of govt spending than there ever was for health "reform". It's why Rep gained so much in 2010. I do think it's funny that Obama and the Dems have a super majority and you say it shows a strong political position yet the gains made by the GOP in 2010 meant nothing.



For lots of reasons, but let's go with the most simple one: the CBO says that the Affordable Care Act will substantially REDUCE the deficit over the next 10 years, and even more in the following decade.
The CBO could only work with the numbers they were given. Numbers that have been proven to be quite false.
 
Really? Thought it was the GOP that seems to be acting as if the debt ceiling should mean something. So you somehow believe that raising the debt ceiling to to allow as much spending as desired, is actually the better policy for debt reduction?

I think it's neither better nor worse in terms of debt reduction, as it doesn't have the slightest bearing on how much spending occurs in practice. But raising or eliminating the debt ceiling is certainly a better policy in terms of good governance, as it prevents an accidental default from occurring.

Yes, Dems want to raise taxes and the GOP doesn't want to. Sorry, but negotiation is part of politics. We've seen what Dems do when they aren't forced to negotiate.

Can you please specify what the Republicans are "negotiating" on exactly? What are they willing to give up, compared to the status quo? Their only bargaining chip is that the president actually doesn't want to see the nation default on its debt, whereas Republicans either don't care or are doing a good job of hiding it. So if the Republicans' prize in these negotiations is a whole slew of policy goodies, whereas the Democrats' prize is that the Republicans don't cause the US to default on its debt, that indicates to me that one side cares more about a default than the other. (Note: I'm not suggesting that that's because Republicans are ideologically opposed to it...Democrats did the same thing when they were in the opposition. Which is exactly the point: it's entirely political, and whichever party is in the opposition views the debt ceiling as the other side's problem.)

Oh, did healthcare pass by a super majority vote? The majority of the people did not want Obamacare. That should have been evident when Scott Walker was elected.

It never would have gotten passed if the voters hadn't elected Democrats to the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives in 2008. And really that's all the "leverage" that was needed.

I believe there's actually more of a mandate to attempt a control of govt spending than there ever was for health "reform". It's why Rep gained so much in 2010. I do think it's funny that Obama and the Dems have a super majority and you say it shows a strong political position yet the gains made by the GOP in 2010 meant nothing.

When the Republicans control the White House, House of Representatives, and a supermajority in the Senate (as the Democrats did in 2009) then those situations might be comparable. And that hypothetical Republican government would be well within the scope of its power to choose to not raise the debt ceiling and slash federal spending by 43% if it so desired...not that it actually would.

The CBO could only work with the numbers they were given. Numbers that have been proven to be quite false.

So then what makes you think that the numbers being cited for this round of deficit reduction talks are accurate? You can't just cite the CBO when it's convenient and then write them off when it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Shut it down!!! Well, at least shut down the tax and spenders and do it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not a supporter of Cong. Ron Paul; however, I agree with him on his new ad:

 
but of course it is. not even Democrats would pass these tax hikes, yet Obama refuses to avoid what he says would be a fiscal catastrophe unless Republicans do it for him? what utter baloney.

Time for some honesty here. You know as well as I do that the real problem with tax hikes are that they are unpopular. Period. Obama has to play to the political realities every bit as much as republicans do.
 
I am not a supporter of Cong. Ron Paul; however, I agree with him on his new ad:



Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, blow my head off!
 
I don't see why we should be surprised to see government scare tactics. They do it a lot. How much was sold to us because the big bad terrorist was going to get us? The government loves fear tactics. Fear will keep them in line...fear of this battlestation.

So true. The politics of fear is neither new nor limited to one party.
 
So, any debt crisis is solely the doing of the GOP? Reps are just using the leverage they have now, you, like the Dems did with the health care monstrosity. If Obama's serious, why isn't that on the chopping block?

Just once, can you not put words into my mouth in a conversation? Just once? Seriously, reply to what I say, and not what you wish I had said which you can actually somehow maybe counter a little bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom