Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

  1. #31
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I know the Liberal push to make Congress be the root of all evil - we all know already. Obviously I wasn't addressing your point but ignoring your point and making my own.
    Well, what say you to my point... Congress has two avenues for reducing our debt. One is to actually reduce spending. Congress, after all, is the one who decides how much to spend. That would be a big win. The other option is to continue spending a lot, but then grandstand about how you don't want to pay for the stuff you spent. That is a big loss. It means further downgrades in our credit rating. Why do the later instead of the former?

    You should be pushing for cuts in spending, but pushing against defaulting on what we have already spent.

  2. #32
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well, what say you to my point... Congress has two avenues for reducing our debt. One is to actually reduce spending.
    Let's look at what happens when Congress addresses lower spending: We get platitudes about "eating peas", we get announcements saying that social security checks may not go out to seniors, we get advertisements showing grandma being thrown off a cliff from her wheel chair, we get statements from Democrats calling a debt reduction "satans sandwich" while the RINO poster boy McCain talks about "hobbits". Congress has two avenues? I don't think they do --- they're tax addicts. They're not going to stop spending until the country is so under water that they can make a proclimation from their congressional issue lifeboat: "We need to do something about our debt!"


    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Congress, after all, is the one who decides how much to spend.
    Understood - you tack no responsibility on the Fed or the President, just those that approve what's asked. I would think that only applies to Democrat Presidents though. If I searched for you blaming Bush on DP for spending, I'll bet I could find a few tasty quotes...

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That would be a big win. The other option is to continue spending a lot, but then grandstand about how you don't want to pay for the stuff you spent. That is a big loss. It means further downgrades in our credit rating. Why do the later instead of the former?
    Common sense says, if you want to get out of a hole, you stop digging in the hole. Such common sense seems to elude you. First thing you do is stop spending - or freeze spending. That is an alien concept to our President, our Fed Chairman, and our Congress, and apparently to many Democratic minions vomiting blindly, DNC talking points and some big Government Republicans who wallow in that vomit.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    You should be pushing for cuts in spending, but pushing against defaulting on what we have already spent.
    What's already spent is lost - I've called for a 20% across the board cut in all Federal programs regardless of what they are or what they have planned, and I've supported here on DP a constitutional spending cap.

    The only idiots who don't see the necessity of such a thing are those who benefit by it or are too ignorant to understand the ramifications of falling off the cliff.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  3. #33
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Let's look at what happens when Congress addresses lower spending: We get platitudes about "eating peas", we get announcements saying that social security checks may not go out to seniors, we get advertisements showing grandma being thrown off a cliff from her wheel chair, we get statements from Democrats calling a debt reduction "satans sandwich" while the RINO poster boy McCain talks about "hobbits". Congress has two avenues? I don't think they do --- they're tax addicts. They're not going to stop spending until the country is so under water that they can make a proclimation from their congressional issue lifeboat: "We need to do something about our debt!"
    Er, most of those things happened in the debt ceiling hostage crisis, so you can't possibly be arguing that they only happen with spending reduction...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Understood - you tack no responsibility on the Fed or the President, just those that approve what's asked. I would think that only applies to Democrat Presidents though. If I searched for you blaming Bush on DP for spending, I'll bet I could find a few tasty quotes...
    it's not me that tacks responsibility for spending on the Congress. That's the constitution that does that. And for very good reasons. That is supposed to be the primary check on the executive. The executive branch is naturally going to tend to want to spend more. That's sort of the nature of the branch. The executive is in the weeds trying to accomplish things and is mostly evaluated by the voters on the basis of what they do manage to accomplish. So, they are always going to lean towards wanting more money to accomplish those things. That's true of course of both Democratic and Republican presidents going all the way back. Congress's role, maybe even it's primary constitutional function, is supposed to be restraining that.

    Think of it like this. In a corporation each department submits a budget request each year. No company ever just approves all of them as requested, they'd go bankrupt. Each department always shoots for the moon. They think "what would I like to have ideally" and submit that, then the management goes through and balances priorities against fiscal realities and comes out with a budget. That's how it is supposed to work with the government too, except Congress isn't fulfilling their role, they're just rubber stamping whatever request anybody makes for money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    First thing you do is stop spending
    Yes. Stop SPENDING not start welching on your debts to try to save money.

  4. #34
    Skeptical Optimist
    Rhapsody1447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    09-20-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,510

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That doesn't address my point at all. Congress is who decides how much we spend. What is the advantage of spending a lot and then refusing to pay people for what we bought instead of just spending less to start with?
    The point is not to refuse payment for debts already incurred; it's to use the opportunity of a typical rubber-stamp legislation to demonstrate Ockham's point above and make efforts to reduce spending. The debt ceiling debate in August combined with the presence of the tea party has caused even Democrats to admit we need to rein in spending.
    "There is an excellent correlation between giving society what it wants and making money, and almost no correlation between the desire to make money and how much money one makes." ~Dalio

  5. #35
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447 View Post
    The point is not to refuse payment for debts already incurred; it's to use the opportunity of a typical rubber-stamp legislation to demonstrate Ockham's point above and make efforts to reduce spending. The debt ceiling debate in August combined with the presence of the tea party has caused even Democrats to admit we need to rein in spending.
    Democrats certainly agree we need to reduce the deficit. In fact, they're way ahead of Republicans on that score at present. The Democrats are consistently proposing larger deficit reduction packages than the Republicans are. The reason is that deficit reduction can be accomplished on three fronts- cutting domestic spending, cutting military spending and increasing revenues. Republicans have a hard time tackling military spending or revenues, where Democrats are open to doing all three.

    The difference between just reducing spending and refusing to raise the debt ceiling is that you need more votes to pass a revised budget than you need to refuse to pass a bill increasing the debt ceiling. The Republicans have the house, but not the senate, so they can't just pass their budget, but they can block an increase in the debt ceiling. So, they use it as a threat to try to coerce the senate into doing what they want. But, in my view, that isn't remotely the right way to go about it. Both sides agree that we need to reduce spending. They should just be working towards a way to do that together. The whole hostage taking tactic the GOP used last time with the debt ceiling had a devastating consequence- our credit rating was lowered even though they didn't actually go through with it. If they had failed to reach an agreement and they actually had defaulted, it would have been catastrophic. The way to address our budget issues is not to constantly threaten to destroy the economy to try to spur people to action, it is to honestly enter into budget negotiations and compromise.

  6. #36
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Er, most of those things happened in the debt ceiling hostage crisis, so you can't possibly be arguing that they only happen with spending reduction...
    That's the entire point that it happened in the debt ceiling crisis. I didn't even add in all the vitriol about the tea party members in the House who were behind the "no more spending" movement.



    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    it's not me that tacks responsibility for spending on the Congress. That's the constitution that does that. And for very good reasons.
    That's only half the story ... Congress must provide the yea or nay, but the request to increase the debt doesn't come from Congress and the Constitution doesn't address running up a debt against GDP. So to push it all on Congress isn't accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That is supposed to be the primary check on the executive. The executive branch is naturally going to tend to want to spend more. That's sort of the nature of the branch. The executive is in the weeds trying to accomplish things and is mostly evaluated by the voters on the basis of what they do manage to accomplish. So, they are always going to lean towards wanting more money to accomplish those things. That's true of course of both Democratic and Republican presidents going all the way back. Congress's role, maybe even it's primary constitutional function, is supposed to be restraining that.
    Which is probably why they are demagogued by the President and may explain partly, why the citizens have such a low opinion... especially when media constantly trumpet how the people want govenrment to work together. Nothing further from the truth could be more accurate.... a government that works together screws the people... dry... over a chair with no lubricant.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Think of it like this. In a corporation each department submits a budget request each year. No company ever just approves all of them as requested, they'd go bankrupt. Each department always shoots for the moon. They think "what would I like to have ideally" and submit that, then the management goes through and balances priorities against fiscal realities and comes out with a budget. That's how it is supposed to work with the government too, except Congress isn't fulfilling their role, they're just rubber stamping whatever request anybody makes for money.
    Actually it's a bit different.... each department may shoot for the moon but there's no congress in a corporation. The executives... (read that as "Executive Branch") doles out the money because they are beholden to a higher group: The Board of Shareholders. The Executives in a corporation (at least in mine) are very stingy with money and devise ingenious ways to tell everyone they don't need the money or require it and only those that are willing to go fight tooth and nail actually get some of it and never how much they actually asked for. The Executives are motivated in that, if they bankrupt their company, they are fired and are replaced.

    The problem is our Executives in Government are beholden to their own shareholders - the American people. The problem is, the American people are fed bull**** day and night, and many of them are not interested at all in anything that these executives do. Therefore, the Executives in our government do just what you say they shouldn't.... they give everyone as much money as they can, and they have their toadies in the Congress do it for them, which is basically bribery. The Congress is beholden to the people as well, but no one wants to remove them even though those people that care, think they're collectively doing a horrible job. The Executives get to shell out money like there's no tomorrow because, there's NO CHANCE of going bankrupt... they just print more money!

    So your analogy doesn't quite fit with Government. Corproations can't print their own money, are fired quickly when they don't perform, and are executives are ultimately responsible and accountable. Government executives can print money, use bribes to get laws passed to get and spend more money, all framed with the best intentions and for the "people's own good". We're finally at the end though... printing more money won't work. End of the line.



    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Yes. Stop SPENDING not start welching on your debts to try to save money.
    Exactly... time these bozo's are seen for what they really are. I see no problem with that at all.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #37
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    That's the entire point that it happened in the debt ceiling crisis. I didn't even add in all the vitriol about the tea party members in the House who were behind the "no more spending" movement.
    Then your point there doesn't make sense. You were saying trying to reduce spending doesn't work because of the vitriol, but hostage taking does, but then you gave examples of how the hostage taking led to vitriol. What am I missing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    That's only half the story ... Congress must provide the yea or nay, but the request to increase the debt doesn't come from Congress and the Constitution doesn't address running up a debt against GDP. So to push it all on Congress isn't accurate.
    Not sure what you mean. The power to decide how much we SPEND is given to Congress. The constitution does address debt. It gives Congress the power to spend, and actually it forbids any person whatsoever from questioning the credit of the United States. So, really the option to refuse to pay our debts is unconstitutional for anybody to do- Congress included.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Actually it's a bit different.... each department may shoot for the moon but there's no congress in a corporation. The executives... (read that as "Executive Branch") doles out the money because they are beholden to a higher group: The Board of Shareholders. The Executives in a corporation (at least in mine) are very stingy with money and devise ingenious ways to tell everyone they don't need the money or require it and only those that are willing to go fight tooth and nail actually get some of it and never how much they actually asked for. The Executives are motivated in that, if they bankrupt their company, they are fired and are replaced.

    The problem is our Executives in Government are beholden to their own shareholders - the American people. The problem is, the American people are fed bull**** day and night, and many of them are not interested at all in anything that these executives do. Therefore, the Executives in our government do just what you say they shouldn't.... they give everyone as much money as they can, and they have their toadies in the Congress do it for them, which is basically bribery. The Congress is beholden to the people as well, but no one wants to remove them even though those people that care, think they're collectively doing a horrible job. The Executives get to shell out money like there's no tomorrow because, there's NO CHANCE of going bankrupt... they just print more money!
    Your lack of faith in democracy doesn't really do much for me. It just sounds like you're mad that not everybody agrees with you on everything.

  8. #38
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Then your point there doesn't make sense. You were saying trying to reduce spending doesn't work because of the vitriol, but hostage taking does, but then you gave examples of how the hostage taking led to vitriol. What am I missing?
    That there is no way to win - do the right thing (ie., stop spending) get punished. Do the wrong thing, continue to enable the bribery and run the country off the cliff.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not sure what you mean. The power to decide how much we SPEND is given to Congress. The constitution does address debt. It gives Congress the power to spend, and actually it forbids any person whatsoever from questioning the credit of the United States. So, really the option to refuse to pay our debts is unconstitutional for anybody to do- Congress included.
    The President and the Fed request the increase. They are left out of your description.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Your lack of faith in democracy doesn't really do much for me. It just sounds like you're mad that not everybody agrees with you on everything.
    It's not a lack of faith in democracy at all. The LAST thing I want is for government to work together - in fact, I'd rather Congress only go into session once per year (the minimum according to the Constitution) and that gridlock occur each and every year such that new laws are not created. My complaint is that the way government is supposed to work, it doesn't.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #39
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    The President and the Fed request the increase. They are left out of your description.
    Not sure what significance you feel that has. The executive branch spends as directed by Congress and lets them know when they owe more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    It's not a lack of faith in democracy at all. The LAST thing I want is for government to work together - in fact, I'd rather Congress only go into session once per year (the minimum according to the Constitution) and that gridlock occur each and every year such that new laws are not created. My complaint is that the way government is supposed to work, it doesn't.
    That sort of tactic just randomizes government it doesn't limit government. For example, you want spending decreased, well that requires passing a bill to reduce spending. That means it requires working together and meeting to make that agreement.

  10. #40
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not sure what significance you feel that has. The executive branch spends as directed by Congress and lets them know when they owe more
    The significance is that you're only identifying half of the story as the problem.



    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    That sort of tactic just randomizes government it doesn't limit government. For example, you want spending decreased, well that requires passing a bill to reduce spending. That means it requires working together and meeting to make that agreement.
    Spending decreases can be rejected without passing a bill into law. Constitutionally, the House must approve spending... however, the House would not have to approve or deny spending if the request for a debt increase did not come from the President. Get it yet?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •