• 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!

US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
US debt shot up $238 billion to reach 100 percent of gross domestic project after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday.
Treasury borrowing jumped Tuesday, the data showed, immediately after President Barack Obama signed into law an increase in the debt ceiling as the country's spending commitments reached a breaking point and it threatened to default on its debt.
Click to expand...
US borrowing tops 100% of GDP: Treasury - Yahoo! News

:thumbdown
 
Did we start new programs? Did congress pass new bills requiring new funds immediately? Wow, what did happen that I didn't hear about?
 
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson
Yup, T. Jefferson took such good care of his slaves and his, hum, well he took care of Sally Hemings that the government didn't have to interveen. Right?
 
Great Mr. V, tell me how much money President George W. Bush stole from Americans in terms of social security to buy down debt in his 8 years in office? Hmmm? Have to look that up? I'll wait.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Great Mr. V, tell me how much money President George W. Bush stole from Americans in terms of social security to buy down debt in his 8 years in office? Hmmm? Have to look that up? I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Bush is President, hasn't been for years. Keep living in the past Risky, if this is all you got why do you bother posting?
 
MrVicchio said:
Bush is President, hasn't been for years. Keep living in the past Risky, if this is all you got why do you bother posting?
Click to expand...

Either you can't answer the question or you know the answer.

I actually voted for Bush in 2000.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Great Mr. V, tell me how much money President George W. Bush stole from Americans in terms of social security to buy down debt in his 8 years in office? Hmmm? Have to look that up? I'll wait.
Click to expand...

which makes him like previous presidents of both parties. what makes him unique, however, is that Bush tried to fix Social Security.
 
Are we still worried about blame? Especially when finding someone to blame in the past produces nothing for the future? Lets focus our energy on solutions, and focus our attention to the current gov't who are currently responsible for fixing the US debt problems even if certain individuals are or are not responsible for its creation.
 
MrVicchio said:
Bush is President, hasn't been for years. Keep living in the past Risky, if this is all you got why do you bother posting?
Click to expand...

He was thinking of Clinton.
 
cpwill said:
which makes him like previous presidents of both parties. what makes him unique, however, is that Bush tried to fix Social Security.
Click to expand...


we wouldn't have been a lot better off if social security had been heavily invested in the financial sector in '08.

there would have been two bailouts, which would have led to bailouts every time social security lost money in a crashing market.

the surest way to fix social security is to raise the contribution ceiling.
 
Helix said:
we wouldn't have been a lot better off if social security had been heavily invested in the financial sector in '08.

there would have been two bailouts, which would have led to bailouts every time social security lost money in a crashing market.

the surest way to fix social security is to raise the contribution ceiling.
Click to expand...

that is incorrect - as even the AARP now admits. had we allowed people under the age of 50 into private accounts back in 2005, they would now be 56, and the losses of 2008 would have been more than made up by their retirement; especially given that they would be dollar-cost averaging, and catching the upswing.

if you are interested, i have already run and posted the relevant numbers.
 
Guy guys guys... comon now. Don't we need more "compromise" here? I mean, the last 30 years of Compromises have brought us to this point - 100% of GDP and growing. Don't we want MORE of that so we can throw this country into riots in the large cities with burning tires in the streets with the National Guard roaming around in APV's? That's what we want right - more compromise so that can all come true. THIS is what compromise got us... it's failed, miserably. How about spending more stimulus. Yeah... that's what we need... another few trillion dollars of borrowed money to create more ****ing bridges and patch pot holes using fictitious "shovel ready jobs".


Hope and Change baby! Hope and change....


I know... appeal to emotion right? Or maybe strawman? Don't care.... it's frustrating as hell watching our country flushed down the toilet, so a few logical fallacies will inevitably slip through. :censored
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Guy guys guys... comon now. Don't we need more "compromise" here? I mean, the last 30 years of Compromises have brought us to this point - 100% of GDP and growing.
Click to expand...

Err no offence, but there was zero compromise from 2001 to 2007, and the debt grew considerably during those years and what party was in total power then? Sorry but you cant come now and complain over the debt considering there was very very very few on the right that complained when the debt was rising hand of fist during the Bush administration... during a freaking economic boom.

The US needs to break up its monopolies and write legislation for the people and not big corporate backers. Accountability and transparency are needed in the political system.
 
cpwill said:
which makes him like previous presidents of both parties. what makes him unique, however, is that Bush tried to fix Social Security.
Click to expand...

I figured someone would have to answer for Mr. V. Here's the point, Reagan, Bush the Smarter, Clinton and then Bush the Dumber all stole the money from SS to make their administrations appear to be more fiscally sound than they actually were. Ain't no money left for Obama to steal. I'm not saying that he wouldn't. I'm saying that he cannot do as his predecessors did. What the hideously partisan Mr. V. was attempting to do is to forward an argument based on assumption based on ignorance. I'm not saying Mr.V. lied. I would suggest that he would blindly follow any party line given him by the GOP. I'm not about to accept that crap. Comparing turds to oranges, Mr. V. would have us accept his OP as sound. In truth is grossly misleading and clearly incorrect.
 
PeteEU said:
Err no offence, but there was zero compromise from 2001 to 2007, and the debt grew considerably during those years and what party was in total power then? Sorry but you cant come now and complain over the debt considering there was very very very few on the right that complained when the debt was rising hand of fist during the Bush administration... during a freaking economic boom.

The US needs to break up its monopolies and write legislation for the people and not big corporate backers. Accountability and transparency are needed in the political system.
Click to expand...

30 years worth. No compromise in 2001 -2007? There were hundreds of Congressional bills passed...


Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2011 112th D D - 51 R - 242
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

Senate filibuster proof majority since 1975 is 60, the house has no such "filibuster proof" number. 2001-2003 Congress was split, 2003-2006 was Republican, 2007-2010 was Democrat. NONE of those Senates a filibuster proof majority to pass whatever they wanted and ALL needed the other party to "compromise". The facts do not support your view.
 
Ockham said:
30 years worth. No compromise in 2001 -2007? There were hundreds of Congressional bills passed...


Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2011 112th D D - 51 R - 242
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

Senate filibuster proof majority since 1975 is 60, the house has no such "filibuster proof" number. 2001-2003 Congress was split, 2003-2006 was Republican, 2007-2010 was Democrat. NONE of those Senates a filibuster proof majority to pass whatever they wanted and ALL needed the other party to "compromise". The facts do not support your view.
Click to expand...

You forget that it is only the current crop of republicans who have decided to subvert the rules of the Senate by filibustering everything. How soon we forget that, for 99% of this country's existence, a simple majority was all that was required in the vast majority of cases.
 
AdamT said:
You forget that it is only the current crop of republicans who have decided to subvert the rules of the Senate by filibustering everything. How soon we forget that, for 99% of this country's existence, a simple majority was all that was required in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...

Not the point nor at issue here. My statement was "compromise" is what got us into this mess for the past 30 years. I've now shown there HAD to be compromise for anything to get done with some exceptions where Congress and the Presidency were in the majority. I FULLY SUPPORT and back the current tea party based conservatives (either (R) or (D) who have changed the narrative of Washington. Compromise is over hyped as what people want. We're at 100% of GDP not seen since WWII, and an economic climate not seen since the Great Depression. No more compromise.... cut and balance the budget in Washington and stabilize the economy so the private sector can compete and can grow. Do this in the next few years or the fake catastrophe over the debt limit discussions will come true - it's just a matter of time.
 
Ockham said:
Not the point nor at issue here. My statement was "compromise" is what got us into this mess for the past 30 years. I've now shown there HAD to be compromise for anything to get done with some exceptions where Congress and the Presidency were in the majority. I FULLY SUPPORT and back the current tea party based conservatives (either (R) or (D) who have changed the narrative of Washington. Compromise is over hyped as what people want. We're at 100% of GDP not seen since WWII, and an economic climate not seen since the Great Depression. No more compromise.... cut and balance the budget in Washington and stabilize the economy so the private sector can compete and can grow. Do this in the next few years or the fake catastrophe over the debt limit discussions will come true - it's just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

My point is that you haven't shown that at all. In your argument you assumed that there had to be compromise if one party didn't have a super majority in the Senate, which was never the case ... until the new breed of republicans hijacked the Senate rules.
 
The time for compromise is gone. Spending money we don't have must stop now. I don't give a damn if elmer fudd did it, it has to stop. If we don't reign in spending we will collapse as a nation.

And then the hardcore repubs and demos will still be pointing fingers at each other.
 
Sorry, but this ill-timed return to the policies of Herbert Hoover is already killing the economy. These idiotic policies have contributed to a massive selloff in the markets that shows no sign of stopping -- Dow is off 300 points just today. All of the gains of the last year have been erased in a week. Apparently we are incapable of learning from the past.
 
AdamT said:
My point is that you haven't shown that at all. In your argument you assumed that there had to be compromise if one party didn't have a super majority in the Senate, which was never the case ... until the new breed of republicans hijacked the Senate rules.
Click to expand...

I guess factual history doesn't prove anything to you. That's fine.... you're in good company with lots of people who are also in denial.
 
Ockham said:
I guess factual history doesn't prove anything to you. That's fine.... you're in good company with lots of people who are also in denial.
Click to expand...

I am always interested in factual history. As soon as you provide one, not assuming that a super majority was required to force compromise, I will have happy to accept it.
 
AdamT said:
I am always interested in factual history. As soon as you provide one, not assuming that a super majority was required to force compromise, I will have happy to accept it.
Click to expand...


Post #15.

Directions: Read. Repeat until it sinks in.
 
From post #15: "Senate filibuster proof majority since 1975 is 60, the house has no such "filibuster proof" number. 2001-2003 Congress was split, 2003-2006 was Republican, 2007-2010 was Democrat. NONE of those Senates a filibuster proof majority to pass whatever they wanted and ALL needed the other party to "compromise". The facts do not support your view."

FAIL
 
AdamT said:
From post #15: "Senate filibuster proof majority since 1975 is 60, the house has no such "filibuster proof" number. 2001-2003 Congress was split, 2003-2006 was Republican, 2007-2010 was Democrat. NONE of those Senates a filibuster proof majority to pass whatever they wanted and ALL needed the other party to "compromise". The facts do not support your view."

FAIL
Click to expand...

Because you say so? :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom