Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 255

Thread: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

  1. #31
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    there was the biden group, the gang of 6, kent conrad's budget committee...

    there were the boehner-obama talks, there was the mcconnell-reid deal...
    If you had read carefully, you would've realized I was talking only about the House.

    the lift a full 50% of the democrats voted AGAINST yesterday in boehner's house might best be called the mcconell-obama plan
    McConnell-Biden plan would be more apt, probably.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  2. #32
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion


  3. #33
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  4. #34
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Conservatives don't care about the cost as long as it serves their political goals, in my opinion.

    Debt ceiling cost: $1.7 billion for Treasury bills - Aug. 1, 2011
    Uhh... you're angry over this $1.7 billion?

    Congress could have carried on for 54 years at that rate and still wouldn't have spent as much as this increase "to get us through 2012."

    Spare us the fake outrage.

  5. #35
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Arbitrary? Continually increasing the debt ceiling without serious consideration to our financial policy has led to us borrowing almost half of every single dollar we spend, but you're calling it arbitrary? Simply passing a new increase (especially a $2.4 trillion increase) would have left those interested in trying to recreate some semblance of fiscal responsibility with absolutely no leverage to get anything accomplished. You know damned well if we had just voted to raise the debt ceiling and said, "Oh, we'll cover our financial disaster later" that we never would have addressed spending.
    Of course the number is arbitrary, what is the number based upon? Does the number take into account the needs of our nation? We know if we exceed this arbitrary figure all of our interest rates would soar.


  6. #36
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Uhh... you're angry over this $1.7 billion?

    Congress could have carried on for 54 years at that rate and still wouldn't have spent as much as this increase "to get us through 2012."

    Spare us the fake outrage.
    It's interest payments, so it is a recurring cost, and it is from one day. Of course you knew that since you read the source...
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #37
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    The republicans have been doing everything possible, short of outright breaking the law, to subvert the democratic process, and it is as damaging to our country and its institutions as it is despicable. It is perfectly clear that their goal is not to help the country, but rather to go to any extreme to deprive President Obama of anything that could be interpretted as an accomplishment. It couldn't be more obvious. They have even voted against measures they themselves sponsored once it became clear that President Obama supported their efforts. Time and time again the President has bent over backwards to represent republican constituents, knowing that republican legislators will not. He knows perfectly well that republicans will oppose virtually everything he does, so actually incorporates what they *would* do if they were reasonable into his proposals. But it matters not.

    Our system depends upon negotiation. If one side has, for example, a 55% majority, then the two sides should negotiate about the provisions in a bill and the end result, on average, should be that the majority gets about 55% of what it wants and the minority should get about 45% of what it wants. Of course that's just an average and individual measure are also influenced by specific popular and special interest opinion.

    But that is not what's happening. The republicans are abusing the rules of the Senate to require a super-majority for virtually every bill -- even for minor executive appointments. There is no give and take. Either the republicans get what they want, and Obama gets nothing he wants, or they will go to any extreme to stop it. No government can function if a super majority is required to accomplish anything. Now the same tactic is being employed by the republican majority in the House. Either the minority concedes every point, or nothing can get through.

    The elimination of earmarks has only made the problem worse. Sometimes horse trading is necessary to break an impasse but it can't be done without horses.

    The only hope is that the American people will eventually wake up and start electing more responsible legislators. The Tea Party has been a disaster for this country.

  8. #38
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You should care. What is the generally accepted method of getting a country through a recession and firmly into recovery? Spending and tax cuts. Why attack Obama then for doing what Reagan and Bush have done to get through tough economic times? Politics and the fact that they have never, not ever, tried to actually fix their spending. If the right thing had been done in the past, Obama's spending would be no big deal.

    We are still in rough economic times. Cutting spending now will only make this worse. The general consensus among economists except the most hardcore fringe elements is that the government cutting spending is going to cost jobs and reduce GDP growth, possibly enough to put us right back into recession. Timing does matter. You spend when times are bad, and you pay off that spending when times get good. For purely political reasons, republicans are forcing the reverse. They spent when times are good, and now expect Obama to cut when times are bad.
    The problem I have is the rate at which spending increased from 2007 to 2011. It is not entirely on Obama's shoulders as President, but as a senator he certainly had a hand in it. The legislators who voted and led the charge on spending for the past four years have shown us an unprecendented increase in debt accumulation and borrowing. I'm not a "doom and gloom" type and try to avoid hyperbole, but we simply can't afford to keep putting off the inevitable. I have no problem with gradual cuts over time for some programs. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that there aren't plenty of ways in which the government COULD cut spending RIGHT NOW, in a significant manner, without hitting the economy too badly. The waste, red tape, redundancy, fraud, foreign aid payments, UN budget, excessive war spending, etc...could all be rachetted down without causing significant job loss. A new bill allowing price negotiations with approved pharmacies in Canada, Mexico, and overseas could save a massive amount of money for medicaid/medicare, means-testing for social security, medicaid, and medicare could save a lot of money every year, work-to-play programs for welfare would eliminate jobs but would also provide marketable skills for welfare recipients and cut municipal costs (and federal aid needs) simultaneously.

    I read an article over the weekend that even if we increase the debt ceiling will still risk a lowered credit rating because we're borrowing way too much of what we spend. How long can we play chicken with our credit rating overall before that, too, causes our economy to suffer? We're up against a wall here, and bad policy on both sides got us here. We're going to have to take our medicine and suffer through, regardless of which scenario plays out. There's no possible action we could take right now that will prevent us from hitting another low spot, IMO, so why don't we take the road that will lead us to the best long-term outcome?
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,006

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    look at all the democrats vote against the COMPROMISE and in favor of DEFAULT

    etc

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll690.xml

    how dangerously IRRESPONSIBLE of them

    how dare they PLAY POLITICS with the full faith and credit, holding the entire united states economy HOSTAGE...

    etc

    meanwhile, our affable, laughable, gaffe-able veep yesterday called those tea party intransigents TERRORISTS

    Vice President Joe Biden calls Tea Party members 'terrorists' after tense debt ceiling negotiations

    good think ms giffords, bless her heart, didn't hear

    civility, anyone?
    You are intentionally distorting the NO vote from the Democrats? Yeah - I know - silly question. Many of those favored other alternatives instead of kissing the posterior of the tea party. Many favored giving the far right NOTHING and simply invoke the 14th Amendment. That would have been far better.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #40
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,343
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    The problem I have is the rate at which spending increased from 2007 to 2011. It is not entirely on Obama's shoulders as President, but as a senator he certainly had a hand in it. The legislators who voted and led the charge on spending for the past four years have shown us an unprecendented increase in debt accumulation and borrowing. I'm not a "doom and gloom" type and try to avoid hyperbole, but we simply can't afford to keep putting off the inevitable. I have no problem with gradual cuts over time for some programs. I do, however, have a problem with the idea that there aren't plenty of ways in which the government COULD cut spending RIGHT NOW, in a significant manner, without hitting the economy too badly. The waste, red tape, redundancy, fraud, foreign aid payments, UN budget, excessive war spending, etc...could all be rachetted down without causing significant job loss. A new bill allowing price negotiations with approved pharmacies in Canada, Mexico, and overseas could save a massive amount of money for medicaid/medicare, means-testing for social security, medicaid, and medicare could save a lot of money every year, work-to-play programs for welfare would eliminate jobs but would also provide marketable skills for welfare recipients and cut municipal costs (and federal aid needs) simultaneously.

    I read an article over the weekend that even if we increase the debt ceiling will still risk a lowered credit rating because we're borrowing way too much of what we spend. How long can we play chicken with our credit rating overall before that, too, causes our economy to suffer? We're up against a wall here, and bad policy on both sides got us here. We're going to have to take our medicine and suffer through, regardless of which scenario plays out. There's no possible action we could take right now that will prevent us from hitting another low spot, IMO, so why don't we take the road that will lead us to the best long-term outcome?
    You are buying into what you are told without examining it. Reagan tripled the debt, and he is the republican deity. Obama was highly unlikely to do nearly that.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •