• 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

Really? Where have I done this? Feel free to point them out.

It's the typical response that you are the only one that can read what is going on and come to a logical conclusion. That we will not default even has the numbers behind it. We take in more than enough money to not default.

You seem to believe that those with a difference of opinion "simply do not care". On the contrary. I care which is why I do not want the debt limit raised. I would never accuse you of "not caring". You simply have a different opinion. One that I disagree with. Now, if you truely aren't of the type I note, read one of the articles I mention that state that we take in more than enough to not default and tell us why they are wrong.
 
Listen, you smarmy little hack. I don't have burden of proof. I posted the list of accomplishments. Prove that Obama is not responsible.

...In February 2010, President Obama formally acknowledged that debt and deficits were potentially fatal problems for the United States. Declaring that “for far too long, Washington has avoided the tough choices necessary to solve our fiscal problems,” Obama appointed a deficit commission to make recommendations about controlling America’s skyrocketing debt. “I’m confident,” the president blustered, “that the commission I’m establishing today will build a bipartisan consensus to put America on the path toward fiscal reform and responsibility. I know they’ll take up their work with the sense of integrity and strength of commitment that America’s people deserve and America’s future demands.”

They did take up their work in that spirit. The president and his party were another matter. A majority of commission members issued a report in December 2010. Saying, “America cannot be great if we go broke,” the report called for ambitious spending cuts (reducing spending to 21 percent of GDP over the next quarter-century from its current rate of more than 25 percent), dramatic tax reforms, and sweeping changes to entitlement programs, including narrowing eligibility for the wealthy and increasing the retirement age. “The era of debt denial is over and there can be no turning back,” the Bowles/Simpson commission concluded. “In the words of Senator Tom Coburn, ‘We keep kicking the can down the road, and splashing the soup all over our grandchildren.’”

Members of the Republican House leadership issued a respectful response, demurring on some points: “This is a provocative proposal, and while we have concerns with some of their specifics, we commend the co-chairs for advancing the debate.” Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, pronounced the proposal “simply unacceptable.”

The president ignored the report entirely — choosing to douse the grandchildren.

Unlike Republicans under President Bush, Democrats were in full control of the federal government from January 2009 until January 2011. Despite a 77-seat Democratic majority in the House, an 18-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, Congress in 2010 failed to pass a budget for the first time since budget rules were enacted in 1974. Budgets are clarifying. So is the failure to produce one.

President Obama submitted a proposed budget in February that didn’t come close to accounting for the structural increase in spending his health-care plan would impose forever on the U.S. economy. The Democrat-dominated Senate voted it down 97–0. Two months later, with much fanfare, the president, in a highly tendentious and partisan speech, declared his February budget to be superseded by a new approach to the deficit problem. When members of the House Budget Committee asked Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, to evaluate the president’s “budget framework,” Elmendorf was at a loss: “We don’t estimate speeches. We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis.”...

President Obama’s two chosen chairmen of the deficit commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, lauded the Ryan budget as “a serious, honest, straightforward approach.” The president’s budget, they said, “goes nowhere close.”
 
Except they don't seem to actually care. This is the exact wrong way to say "I care". What will happen if the US defaults? No one knows for sure. The experts cannot even agree. The people in congress sure as hell do not know. So playing games with the debt increase is not showing they care(hint: I am not claiming that democrats are any better on this, to forestall your trying to make that stupid charge), it's showing a willingness to risk the US economy for political power(again, republicans are not alone in this to forestall your trying to spin that lie about my words).

Trying to claim "they are now" when everything they are doing in this is showing a complete lack of caring is the saddest attempt at spin ever.

If the US defaults on its debt, the value of the dollar will decrease to the point where hyper inflation takes place.
 
Really? Where have I done this? Feel free to point them out.

well.... you do have a tendency to accuse those who disagree with you of lying/dishonesty/etc.; carrying the implicit assumption that all those with intelligence and reason know that you are correct, and must therefore be engaging in falsehood if they don't admit it.
 
Listen, you smarmy little hack. I don't have burden of proof. I posted the list of accomplishments. Prove that Obama is not responsible. That's on you. Those accomplishments happened on Obama's watch. Therefore, he gets credit. Just like you give him credit for the bad, he gets credit for the good. Pull your ****ing head from your ass-gape and you might understand that.

ANd who the **** are you to accuse me of having no job? I've had the same ****ing job for the last 11 years. Now sit down you clueless hack. I'm this close [holding my fingers about a half inch apart - about the size of your dick] to putting your dense ass on ignore.

Ok, you little ignorant hack, YOU'RE the one who said that he was responsible for those things, I have no burden whatsoever. You said he did them, I say prove it. You can't! You're just pissed that it took me all of 2 seconds to shoot down one of your "accomplishments." Sorry, Obummer is a 1 -termer!!

Put me on ignore, it would be doing me a favor as I would no longer have to answer to your ignorant, stupid and completely irrelevant posts.
 
Last edited:
It's the typical response that you are the only one that can read what is going on and come to a logical conclusion. That we will not default even has the numbers behind it. We take in more than enough money to not default.

You seem to believe that those with a difference of opinion "simply do not care". On the contrary. I care which is why I do not want the debt limit raised. I would never accuse you of "not caring". You simply have a different opinion. One that I disagree with. Now, if you truely aren't of the type I note, read one of the articles I mention that state that we take in more than enough to not default and tell us why they are wrong.

Whether we "default" is not so much the issue, as is the effects that can, and in some cases will, happen when we reach a certain point. We probably won't melt down, but this is not to say that there will not be consequences. What and how severe those might be, I freely admit to not knowing, but I also know based on the fact that experts all disagree, that no one really knows for sure. You can claim all you want to claim, but it is still just a guess based on your willingness to believe what supports your pre-assumed guess.

One of the most dangerous things we can do is assume that because something is what we want to hear, it must be true. Every one does it to an extent, including myself. I do try and question all assumptions however, and you will notice in reading my post history that I use a lot of caveats, alot of disclaimers, and fairly frequently admit that things I would rather not be true, are true.
 
well.... you do have a tendency to accuse those who disagree with you of lying/dishonesty/etc.; carrying the implicit assumption that all those with intelligence and reason know that you are correct, and must therefore be engaging in falsehood if they don't admit it.

Lying/dishonesty is when you know some one knows something, but refuses to admit it. I know you are a smart guy, so when you ignore fairly elementary facts I either have to change my assumption of you, or assume you intentionally did not admit it. I actually, due to my high opinion of you, hold you to a higher standard than I hold many to.
 
You can't seriously be this dense. Obama not taking tax hikes off the table is not an unwillingness to compromise. He offered up 4 trillion in cuts. He asked for tax hikes in return. That's called negotiating. Stop being obtuse. It's beyond ridiculous at this point.
This is laughable.
The Obama is not willing to compromise on the issue of tax hikes.
THis is no different than the GOP unwillingness to compromise on tax hikes.
And yet, you refuse to admit that The Obama is unwilling to compromise.
 
aug 2: united states defaults on its debt

aug 3: the world comes to an end

aug 4: obama turns FIFTY, the big five-oh!

and YOU can celebrate the president's birthday with him, enjoy the glitz and the gala, for 35000 dollars cash

Obama hits Chicago for 50th birthday fund-raisers at the Aragon - Lynn Sweet

party on, mr prez!

.... wow ...
..... it really is true. this administration really has no idea what things look like from outside the bubble.
 
Whether we "default" is not so much the issue, as is the effects that can, and in some cases will, happen when we reach a certain point.

That is an entirely different position. If I misread your postion I'll state up front that I'm sorry but we seem to be beyond the idea that others do not care about the ramifications of the country defaulting.

probably won't melt down, but this is not to say that there will not be consequences. What and how severe those might be, I freely admit to not knowing, but I also know based on the fact that experts all disagree, that no one really knows for sure. You can claim all you want to claim, but it is still just a guess based on your willingness to believe what supports your pre-assumed guess.

I do not know anyone that argues that not raising the debt limit won't create ramifications.

One of the most dangerous things we can do is assume that because something is what we want to hear, it must be true.

But you assume that everyone else makes their decision based only upon "what they want to hear". The facts are, we take in enough to not default.

Every one does it to an extent, including myself. I do try and question all assumptions however, and you will notice in reading my post history that I use a lot of caveats, alot of disclaimers, and fairly frequently admit that things I would rather not be true, are true.

So, what about the idea that we take in enough to not default?
 
there is no way we default if we go past Aug 2. we have literally more than ten times the revenue necessary to avoid such an event. we would have a partial government shut down. not a default.

It would be more than a partial government shut down. What typically happens under the partial shutdowns that have occurred in the past is that entitlements continue to be funded, the debt continues to be paid, the military continues to operate, and any other discretionary programs deemed essential (e.g. food inspection, health care workers, law enforcement) continue to operate.

There is simply not enough money for this solution to work if we must suddenly cut the budget by 43%. A partial shutdown of the kind I described above would get you maybe halfway there.
 
that is true - whether the bond markets go nuts or not (i think there are several powerful reasons they won't and only one weak reason that they might) is anyones' guess. "bad things happening" is not "default".

Depends how bad those bad things are. Even if we continue to pay our bondholders, failing to reach an agreement will undoubtedly cause an immediate credit downgrade and at the very least have a negative effect on the bond market. The immediate danger isn't the rise in our interest rates (although that would certainly undo a lot of those spending cuts that have been negotiated in the long-term). The more pressing concern is the $500 billion debt that is coming due in August, which would normally be rolled over. Who knows if that will be the case if the government is in default or quasi-default? If some substantial fraction of that (maybe 10%) is not rolled over by spooked investors who demand their money immediately, that would mean even deeper cuts into services typically deemed essential. And the fact that we have no way of KNOWING in advance how deep these cuts will need to be, could be truly devastating.
 
There is simply not enough money for this solution to work if we must suddenly cut the budget by 43%. A partial shutdown of the kind I described above would get you maybe halfway there.

Unless you object, please save me from going through this entire thread to discover where the idea that we must suddenly cut 43% of the budget came from?

Thanks
 
He had to spend in order to stabilize the crap economy that Bush left him. You think Republicans don't spend? Are you forgetting the 2 wars, the Medicare drug plan, and the Bush tax cuts for the rich, none of which were paid for? ANd who passed TARP? Here's a hint, it wasn't Obama. Maybe you should just quit at this point. You lose.

For some reason, graphs always seem to help. Either that or a bunny with a pancake on its head.

Scribd

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33% during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5% of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 per- cent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27%.
 
Last edited:
Unless you object, please save me from going through this entire thread to discover where the idea that we must suddenly cut 43% of the budget came from?
Thanks
That's roughly how much spending exceeds current revenues, once you deduct the funds necessary to cover the debt service.
 
Unless you object, please save me from going through this entire thread to discover where the idea that we must suddenly cut 43% of the budget came from?

That's the amount of our current spending that is not covered by tax revenue, and would therefore need to be suddenly eliminated if the government is not allowed to borrow money.
 
I knew it would come down to a statement about two parties. Maybe if I was a purist libertarian, I might see it different. But the problem is, you folks are not getting many elected. You can't stay on the sidelines pointing one finger at the D and the other at the R, just bitch. You have to get involved one side or the other, or just be quiet. Playing the middle or just standing on the outskirts accomplishes nothing. We all know about partisanship and what's going on, you (as a group) are not telling us anything we don't know.

So I have to support the Republocrats in some manner or shut up? Mmmmm, tyranny.

How about this instead. It's America, it's still a free country for now. So long as it remains that way I will run my mouth the way I want to when I want to against who I want to. If you don't like it, don't read my posts. Sorry to point out that decades of Republocrat rule has driven us to this current state, or the fact that while Obama has made concessions and tried to compromise, the Republicans have been obstructionists in this entire thing. Even when given back their call for spending cuts, they refused because they want to keep things like the Capital Gains tax where it is to give big breaks to the super rich instead of doing what is right by the Republic. And they continue to do so. Obama has them in a corner, they had their chance to claim victory; but due to party politics, engaging in the partisan crapfest which has become standard Republocrat rule, they missed it. They ****ed up. Now they're just continuing this little farce for as long as they can but they know they're boned.

You may claim you all "know about the partisanship", I'm not so sure that's a statement of fact. As it seems that many even here are still falling to the partisan rhetoric, attacks, and defenses.

So no, I will not "just be quiet". I have a right to speak, and I will damned well do just that. And if you don't like it, well it's freedom baby. Deal with it.
 
So I have to support the Republocrats in some manner or shut up? Mmmmm, tyranny.

How about this instead. It's America, it's still a free country for now. So long as it remains that way I will run my mouth the way I want to when I want to against who I want to. If you don't like it, don't read my posts. Sorry to point out that decades of Republocrat rule has driven us to this current state, or the fact that while Obama has made concessions and tried to compromise, the Republicans have been obstructionists in this entire thing. Even when given back their call for spending cuts, they refused because they want to keep things like the Capital Gains tax where it is to give big breaks to the super rich instead of doing what is right by the Republic. And they continue to do so. Obama has them in a corner, they had their chance to claim victory; but due to party politics, engaging in the partisan crapfest which has become standard Republocrat rule, they missed it. They ****ed up. Now they're just continuing this little farce for as long as they can but they know they're boned.

You may claim you all "know about the partisanship", I'm not so sure that's a statement of fact. As it seems that many even here are still falling to the partisan rhetoric, attacks, and defenses.

So no, I will not "just be quiet". I have a right to speak, and I will damned well do just that. And if you don't like it, well it's freedom baby. Deal with it.

/slides to a halt

"Your Greek Chorus of Complete and Total Agreement has arrived." :D
 
I'll keep asking, perhaps someone will tackle this question.....



Given all the revenue the government collects each month, who will be paid before the seniors, veterans, and military?



Anyone?
 
I'll keep asking, perhaps someone will tackle this question.....



Given all the revenue the government collects each month, who will be paid before the seniors, veterans, and military?



Anyone?

Rev, those on the list you provided will be paid AFTER the debt holders (of which, social security is the largest followed by the Federal Reserve bank). However, i still believe a deal will be made before the 2nd and this little game of political chicken the GOP created has morphed their power grab for 2012 into a toy elephant. Tis bad form to hold your country by financial hostage....
 
Rev, those on the list you provided will be paid AFTER the debt holders (of which, social security is the largest followed by the Federal Reserve bank). However, i still believe a deal will be made before the 2nd and this little game of political chicken the GOP created has morphed their power grab for 2012 into a toy elephant. Tis bad form to hold your country by financial hostage....



So Obama isn't holding the country in any financial hostage game? It's just the Republicans here? These faux cuts over 10 years amount again to pissing in the ocean.


so SS will be paid, he lied about this.
 
the prez has 3 priorities---lift the roof hi enough to get thru next november (ie, 2.4T), protect programs from cuts, raise revenue

knuckle dragging neanderthals have two demands---d4d (dollar for dollar), no tax hikes

as of last weekend they were sposed to be largely in agreement on 1.7T (biden)---1.1T discretionary, 200B mandatory (described as military pensions or farm subsidies), 200B medicare, 200B interest savings

this morning: House to Vote on $2.4 Trillion Debt Increase, Cuts - Bloomberg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom