• 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 to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

Neither party seemed to care about spending until recently. I'd agree that the Republicans probably drew attention to the issue first, but now the Democrats have gone further with it than the Republicans are willing to go.

That said, not passing a budget doesn't mean spending increases, it means it stays the same. Passing a budget those years could very well have meant more spending.

The uproar over current government spending started in 2009 with the Tea Party and extended to the 2010 election where the movement won major gains in the House. Just like the current uproar over money in politics began with the OWS movement. Not passing a budget means no accountability or plan for current or future spending. It does not mean spending stays the same, legislation is passed and spending is incurred without any plan to account for. The federal government will spend to their limit no matter what, passing a budget at least allows for a goalpost to be set.

Maybe you misunderstand that quote. He's not saying you shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, he is saying that you shouldn't spend so much that you have to raise it. Certainly he has always opposed defaulting on the debt.

Maybe you should take your wingnut goggles off. He explicitly says he will be voting against the debt ceiling increase. Saying that you shouldn't spend so much that you have to raise it is exactly what Republicans in the house are saying. The House was fully intent on raising the debt ceiling as long as it was accompanied by spending cuts. That's how the deal got done in the end.
 
The uproar over current government spending started in 2009 with the Tea Party and extended to the 2010 election where the movement won major gains in the House. Just like the current uproar over money in politics began with the OWS movement. Not passing a budget means no accountability or plan for current or future spending. It does not mean spending stays the same, legislation is passed and spending is incurred without any plan to account for. The federal government will spend to their limit no matter what, passing a budget at least allows for a goalpost to be set.

A continuing resolution is basically the same thing as a budget. It just takes the numbers from the previous budget and keeps them the same, maybe with an increase for inflation. Whether there is a budget in place or a continuing resolution, the Congress is still always free to pass additional spending increases or reductions as they see fit. Passing a budget doesn't change that at all.

Maybe you should take your wingnut goggles off. He explicitly says he will be voting against the debt ceiling increase.

Hmm, that is true that he voted against raising it. But the failure of leadership he is talking about is the spending, not the paying of the debt.

Saying that you shouldn't spend so much that you have to raise it is exactly what Republicans in the house are saying. The House was fully intent on raising the debt ceiling as long as it was accompanied by spending cuts. That's how the deal got done in the end.

Why not address it with compromise legislation instead of resorting the threatening to destroy the economy to try to get their way? The hostage situation approach cost us many billions because it forced the credit rating to be dropped. The Republicans have turned down two different $3 trillion deficit reduction plans the Democrats have proposed now, so the claim that they need to threaten to blow up the country to get the Democrats to the negotiating table is obviously false, right? They're the ones refusing to negotiate.
 
I'm going to assume that you are fully aware that the health care reform package actually reduces the deficit and that you're just playing like you didn't know that for dramatic effect....
You honestly believe that. You actually believe that a bill passed a few years ago with services that wont even kick in for another few years, with an uncertain benefit to unknown participants...in the hands of the fed...is going to reduce the deficit and cut costs. Thats hilarious. Well...no...sad...tragic...it pretty much explains why the nation is in such a financial hole...but...still...a LITTLE funny. Whats the OP again? Whats the debt ceiling at?
 
You honestly believe that. You actually believe that a bill passed a few years ago with services that wont even kick in for another few years, with an uncertain benefit to unknown participants...in the hands of the fed...is going to reduce the deficit and cut costs.

Of course it will. It includes new taxes that more than cover the costs even without the public option. The public option would have been the big cost saver, but that didn't pass. So we're covering the costs with taxes. You were aware of that, no?
 
A continuing resolution is basically the same thing as a budget. It just takes the numbers from the previous budget and keeps them the same, maybe with an increase for inflation. Whether there is a budget in place or a continuing resolution, the Congress is still always free to pass additional spending increases or reductions as they see fit. Passing a budget doesn't change that at all.

Right and the continuing resolutions passed held zero reductions in federal spending until Republicans took the House in 2011. If Congress wants to pass additional spending increases over the federal budget they have to pass new appropriations legislation. Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate have refused to pass a budget and voted down all House proposals for a budget because it is politically profitable for them to do so. Harry Reid has come out and publicly said he has no interest in passing a Democratic budget. There's no way even you can dismiss that irresponsibility.

Hmm, that is true that he voted against raising it. But the failure of leadership he is talking about is the spending, not the paying of the debt.
And sweet irony is to be had by all. By definition, Obama is admitting his own failure here.

Why not address it with compromise legislation instead of resorting the threatening to destroy the economy to try to get their way? The hostage situation approach cost us many billions because it forced the credit rating to be dropped. The Republicans have turned down two different $3 trillion deficit reduction plans the Democrats have proposed now, so the claim that they need to threaten to blow up the country to get the Democrats to the negotiating table is obviously false, right? They're the ones refusing to negotiate.

The whole point of the process was to introduce compromise legislation. By not rubber-stamping the debt ceiling increase, budget negotiations began. Do you really think the issue would have been debated seriously if there wasn't political leverage to do so? One needs to look no further then the deliberate attempt of abstaining from a budget in the first place. Please link me to deficit reduction plans passed by the Congress in the first two years while they maintained majorities in both houses. Please show me the Democratic budgets proposed to rein in federal spending prior to the debt ceiling debacle in 2011.

Unfortunately, compromise failed up until the last minute. You can accuse the side you disagree with all you want, it doesn't excuse the failure of leadership throughout the process. And ironically, the credit downgrade didn't cost us a dime. Interest rates continued to plummet before and after the downgrade.
 
Of course it will. It includes new taxes that more than cover the costs even without the public option. The public option would have been the big cost saver, but that didn't pass. So we're covering the costs with taxes. You were aware of that, no?
Hows Medicare doing? Social Security?

yeah boy...this is going to go well.
 
Of course it will. It includes new taxes that more than cover the costs even without the public option. The public option would have been the big cost saver, but that didn't pass. So we're covering the costs with taxes. You were aware of that, no?

Feeding the organism lowers debt? Does the wealth it takes and gives back also a positive return?

Seriously, you know that is a dream.
 
Right and the continuing resolutions passed held zero reductions in federal spending until Republicans took the House in 2011. If Congress wants to pass additional spending increases over the federal budget they have to pass new appropriations legislation. Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate have refused to pass a budget and voted down all House proposals for a budget because it is politically profitable for them to do so. Harry Reid has come out and publicly said he has no interest in passing a Democratic budget. There's no way even you can dismiss that irresponsibility.

To try to paint it as though Democrats are and have been trying to spend like crazy while Republicans have always been trying to reel it in is obviously not an accurate description, right? Bush2 was in the whitehouse while the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 6 years. They used that time to turn the surplus and booming economy they got from Clinton into a massive deficit and economic collapse. Even now the Republicans refuse to accept the largest deficit reduction proposals which are consistently coming from Democrats, not Republicans.

Whichever party doesn't have the white house likes to use slogans about how the opposite party president is spending too much, but that isn't the reality. The reality is that Congress, not the president, decides how much to spend and both parties tend to make the calculation that they would lose more votes by cutting programs people like than they would by doing nothing.

The whole point of the process was to introduce compromise legislation. By not rubber-stamping the debt ceiling increase, budget negotiations began. Do you really think the issue would have been debated seriously if there wasn't political leverage to do so?

Why not just accept the Democrat's massive deficit reduction proposals instead of rejecting those, then threatening to destroy the economy in order to get their own preferred, smaller, deficit reduction proposals through? IMO it's just posturing. They're looking to get soundbites they can put in their ads that make it sound like they're being tough on the deficit and the Democrats are trying to spend like crazy.
 
Feeding the organism lowers debt? Does the wealth it takes and gives back also a positive return?

Seriously, you know that is a dream.

Huh? Of course. Deficit = spending - revenue.
 
Er what? No... As I keep saying over and over, we only have one viable choice for reducing spending- by actually reducing spending. Just refusing to pay for stuff we spent just makes things worse. Owing creditors $2 trillion for bonds or whatever is much better than owing the same creditors $2 trillion that you just refuse to pay.
That's what happens when you promise to pay and you can't pay... you default. That's reality - it's time we had a dose of it.

Yeah that's right. So just trying to handicap Congress's ability to act doesn't reduce government or reduce spending, it just randomizes it. Reductions in some places, increases in others, at random.
You keep using the word "randomize"... there's nothing random about it. it's very focused actually - especially the examples I provided.
 
That's what happens when you promise to pay and you can't pay... you default. That's reality - it's time we had a dose of it.

We can pay. If some day we really were to hit a point where we actually could not pay, that would be a total disaster. Pretty much the end of being a first world country. Why intentionally try to make that happen when it doesn't have to? When we could just reduce spending instead of tearing the whole country down?

You keep using the word "randomize"... there's nothing random about it. it's very focused actually - especially the examples I provided.

So you acknowledge that it would just mean increasing spending in some areas and decreasing it in others, with no decision making to determine which would be which, but you don't think that's randomization? I don't get it. Just flipping a coin would do that same thing.
 
We can pay.
Only if the Fed prints more money. Otherwise, we cannot pay.


So you acknowledge that it would just mean increasing spending in some areas and decreasing it in others, with no decision making to determine which would be which, but you don't think that's randomization? I don't get it. Just flipping a coin would do that same thing.
How did you get that I "acknowledged" any of your ideas in what I said? :lamo No I didn't acknowledge it - in fact, I disagreed and said there was nothing random about it. I know you don't get it... it sounds like you won't get it either, which is a shame.
 
Huh? Of course. Deficit = spending - revenue.

Is a living organism going to cut of its own head when you feed it more?

Is the wealth return for spending a positive return?
 
Last edited:
To try to paint it as though Democrats are and have been trying to spend like crazy while Republicans have always been trying to reel it in is obviously not an accurate description, right? Bush2 was in the whitehouse while the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for 6 years. They used that time to turn the surplus and booming economy they got from Clinton into a massive deficit and economic collapse. Even now the Republicans refuse to accept the largest deficit reduction proposals which are consistently coming from Democrats, not Republicans.

Whichever party doesn't have the white house likes to use slogans about how the opposite party president is spending too much, but that isn't the reality. The reality is that Congress, not the president, decides how much to spend and both parties tend to make the calculation that they would lose more votes by cutting programs people like than they would by doing nothing.

So by that logic, the Democrats are 100% responsible for the Federal Budget from 2006-2010 and the resulting economic collapse and record deficits? Every year, by law, the President is required to submit a budget to Congress. The irony is Obama's budget failed to even garner ONE VOTE in the Senate. All Republican and even Democratic-led budget proposals have consistently failed in the Senate. The Senate failed to even PROPOSE a budget in the first 2.5 years of the Obama presidency. To absolve Obama of all spending decisions is both dishonest and naive. You do realize the disconnect between blaming Bush for record spending and defending Obama by blaming Congress within the same paragraph, don't you?

I never defended Bush and his spending policies. The fact you would even bring him into this argument shows your attempt at diverting from the fact that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years. Are you willing to admit this is irresponsible or not?

Why not just accept the Democrat's massive deficit reduction proposals instead of rejecting those, then threatening to destroy the economy in order to get their own preferred, smaller, deficit reduction proposals through? IMO it's just posturing. They're looking to get soundbites they can put in their ads that make it sound like they're being tough on the deficit and the Democrats are trying to spend like crazy.

Why not just accept the Republican's massive deficit reduction proposals instead of rejecting those, then threatening to destroy the economy in order to get their own preferred, smaller, deficit reduction proposals through? It's hilarious to me that those same soundbites were prominent throughout the 2008 Democratic campaign to criticize Bush for his deficits and spending. The fact that the Democrats would even pretend that they are being tough on the deficit is what sounds crazy. I'm not one to discount the Republicans political posturing as I find many of them to be doofuses, it just amuses me to see hyper-partisans like yourself attribute all failures in compromise on the side you disagree with.
 
Only if the Fed prints more money. Otherwise, we cannot pay.

That's just one of those things right wingers say. It doesn't mean anything. It's borrowing, not creating, money.
How did you get that I "acknowledged" any of your ideas in what I said? :lamo No I didn't acknowledge it - in fact, I disagreed and said there was nothing random about it. I know you don't get it... it sounds like you won't get it either, which is a shame.

Feel free to explain your argument if you have one. There doesn't seem to be anything planned or rational about an approach that just results in cuts in some areas and increases in others basically at random.
 
Is a living organism going to cut of its own head when you feed it more?

Ahh "stave the beast" eh? Look around man. Does it seem to you like that is working? Does spending go down when revenues do?
 
Ahh "stave the beast" eh? Look around man. Does it seem to you like that is working? Does spending go down when revenues do?

Obviously not. Government will spend as much money as it is allowed to do so. It does lead to unpopular deficits, however, and politicians become more focused on how to fix them. Look no further than the bipartisan position of reducing federal spending.
 
So by that logic, the Democrats are 100% responsible for the Federal Budget from 2006-2010

No, I wouldn't say it's 100% on either party ever. 2006-2008 the Democrats controlled Congress, but not the white house, so really only a plan that was at least palatable to both parties could be passed because of the veto. 2008-2010, that'd be mostly the Democrats, but the minority party always has a great deal of influence too as we saw for example with all the compromises the Democrats had to make to get health care through.

and the resulting economic collapse

"Resulting"? The economic collapse wasn't caused by the deficit. Obviously. There are three main theories for what caused it. 1) Too many ARM home loans, rates went up, they got called in, people panicked. 2) Too much money going to the rich to spur investment, not enough going to working people to provide the actual revenues required to sustain the puffed up valuations created by all the investment. 3) Hi finance hijinx. In reality it's probably a combination of all three along with a hundred other less central causes.

To absolve Obama of all spending decisions is both dishonest and naive.

I'm not. You seem to be stuck in the standard conservative binary thinking mode. Both parties share the blame. I keep saying that over and over.

Why not just accept the Republican's massive deficit reduction proposals instead of rejecting those, then threatening to destroy the economy in order to get their own preferred, smaller, deficit reduction proposals through?

Er what? None of those things make sense in reverse. The Democrats didn't threaten to destroy the economy and their deficit reduction proposals are larger, not smaller...
 
That's just one of those things right wingers say. It doesn't mean anything. It's borrowing, not creating, money.
Borrowing from who - at what % interest rate which will be paid from where? It's not just something right wingers say - it's MATH.


Feel free to explain your argument if you have one. There doesn't seem to be anything planned or rational about an approach that just results in cuts in some areas and increases in others basically at random.
That's the funny thing I already have explained it but you're not getting it. I urge you to go back and read it again and then repeat as many times as necessary but I'm not going to repeat myself especially since it's more about you not WANTING to understand ... rather than an inability on your part. I can't you think... :shrug:
 
That's just one of those things right wingers say. It doesn't mean anything. It's borrowing, not creating, money.

What's the right winger talking point? That we print money? Please tell me you aren't serious.
 
Obviously not. Government will spend as much money as it is allowed to do so. It does lead to unpopular deficits, however, and politicians become more focused on how to fix them. Look no further than the bipartisan position of reducing federal spending.

You think deficits are less popular than taxes? I'd say it's the other way around.
 
Printing money is printing money... is this a trick question?

What kiddo? Are you talking about actual printing of money? Like with a printing press? Or are you talking about borrowing money? If you're talking about physically printing bills, obviously you understand that they haven't changed anything with that. They print it based on rates that bills deteriorate and whatnot. If you're talking about borrowing money, and you're calling it "printing money", explain yourself.

It doesn't make sense. It's just a right wing thing. They think "printing money" sounds more irresponsible than "borrowing money" so they decided to just call it that and all the yokels just go with it...
 
Ahh "stave the beast" eh? Look around man. Does it seem to you like that is working? Does spending go down when revenues do?

Not what I said. When you feed the beast in revenues they have more to spend. You assume much in your position here, not only about how economics works but how the organism works, but here I am only looking at the organism. The position is that if we increase taxes and cut little by little that the cuts will continue to happen and deficients will not increase. That is a bad assumption and a faith based idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom