• 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 chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

mac said:
Like the Democrats did as you so gleefully pointed out about 10 minutes ago?
Click to expand...

Now you're distorting history. It was not "the democrats" who did that and then folded. It was "a small minority of dems"

Since you've been such a stickler for accuracy (in this thread), I'm sure you weren't trying to dishonestly claim that when a small minority of dems do something, it's the same as when an overwhelming majority of repubs do it.
 
Kushinator said:
Financially driven recessions precipitated by trillions upon trillions of dollars in wealth losses tend to be the most difficult to circumnavigate. I am not here to make excuses for a stimulus package that lacked the size and velocity (for reasons that require a different type of discussion) to deal with the loss of economic output.
Click to expand...

So Obama didn't spend enough with his failed Stimulus Package? Bwahahahaha ....

Let's have the discussion. Where did Obama get the money for his failed stimulus? Come on Economic Genius. Tell us all where Obama got that 787B where billions was given to his campaign bundlers and wasted on failed "Green Jobs" which cost in some cases as much as 10 million PER JOB.

Nope! People who lose their jobs cannot afford to support their local retailers and wholesalers at levels necessary to keep said retailers and wholesalers from reducing their labor costs. Fact: You balance the budget today and the U.S. goes into a deeper recession than in 2007-2009 as $1 trillion leaves the economy.
Click to expand...

Who claimed that? Strawman much? Where did I claim only people who are on welfare shop at retail stores? Why don't you try addressing the actual facts instead of tap dancing around the issue like a sideshow clown. People who are on welfare primarily spend money on commodities. Gas/Food/ect. There is no productivity/wealth creation associated with their income. NO NET GAIN. It's a WASH. They are not contributing any productivity to the Economy with labor. Otherwise the Government would just pay everyone infinite unemployment not to work and shop at Walmart. You're an economic illiterate.

Nonsense. Money is flowing from the capital markets into the U.S. Treasury which is used to pay for government expenditures of goods and services. Remove this money, and those who once received these payments for providing goods and services will be at a rather large shortfall. And what would the natural response be? To cut labor costs of course, thereby creating even greater loss of jobs.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a laughable and you completely missed the point and dodged the issue. You are admitting Government received it's money from Private Wealth creation and doesn't generate wealth on it's own. It's receiving more than 2 trillion annually actually. Obama is illegally spending at TARP level of expenditures going on 4 years. The Government already is taking in enough to pay the debt service. So there goes that strawman. Obama doesn't need to raise the debt ceiling to service the debt. The only reason why Obama wants to raise the debt is so he can expand the Welfare State.

Secondly you are completely ignoring the negative externalities and opportunity costs associated with removing that private capital from the hands of those who would invest it far more wisely than a Federal Government that is wasting 125B a year on "improper payments". Your entire fallacy rests on the notion that somehow the Government is a better investment banker than the Private Sector. That's radical idealism. Not Economics.

Improper Payment Progress | The White House

Now, because many of the targeted programs - such as Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid - are paying out more benefits as the economic downturn creates more demand for these benefits, the total number paid out in improper payments increased to $125 billion last fiscal year even though the overall error rate declined. This is an unfortunate result of the recession and of basic math: the more that is paid out, the more paid out in error even if the overall rate declines.
Click to expand...

You are stuck within a cult of Hope and Change. You're defending a man who just spent millions of our money on a vacation in Hawaii. It would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.
 
sangha said:
I don't remember anyone in this thread saying that this is something only repubs do
Click to expand...

Iguanaman just got done implying that very thing, homey.
 
sangha said:
Now you're distorting history. It was not "the democrats" who did that and then folded. It was "a small minority of dems"

Since you've been such a stickler for accuracy (in this thread), I'm sure you weren't trying to dishonestly claim that when a small minority of dems do something, it's the same as when an overwhelming majority of repubs do it.
Click to expand...

Small minority? Perhaps you should define how many (few) it takes to make a small minority.



That vote went 52-48 if I remember accurately.
 
mac said:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." --- Senator Barrack Obama
Click to expand...

Nice try, mac. I already called Obama a hypocrite in another thread. Keep up, please. And learn to spell the president's name ffs, that's just embarrassing.
 
iguanaman said:
What is different is the threat of default, a dangerous game that puts the entire worlds economy in jeopardy and will increase what we owe.
There was NO threat of default because Obama said that Bush's deficits were horrible, Which they were.
If you can't see that that is different, then you are blind.
Click to expand...

So basically none of the things he said before don't apply to now...the only difference is he was free to spout political rhetoric and what he believed to be true because everyone else was going to vote differently then him, and now more people agree with him and thus his stance is wrong?
 
a351 said:
Those decisions would ultimately lie with the Treasury. Ultimately, once key assets were likely auctioned off, debt obligations that exceed immediate tax revenue would go unfulfilled absent a increase in debt authority.
Click to expand...

Ah....so there wouldn't automatically be a defaulting on our debts, nor any decision by the congress to default on our debts, but rather if multiple other actions AFTER the fact occurred in a specific way THEN it may do so. In which case, those other decisions are responsible, since there were other action that could be taken AFTER not raising the debt ceiling that wouldn't cause us to not pay our debt.
 
mac said:
Actually, Democrats have threatened to hold the debt limit hostage | WashingtonExaminer.com

I'm always amazed at how partisanship seems to affect memory.
Click to expand...

Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling, and all the Democratic senators except Bayh went along. But the bottom line is, it is simply not a new thing for members of Congress to attempt to attach policy proposals to debt ceiling legislation — and even for members of the majority party to threaten to vote against it if they don’t get what they want.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that was such a non-event, it took a lot of digging to find I bet. You are not comparing that to the House T's insistance that a default would be OK with them? I didn't not hear that from ANY Democrat. Not voting for something you know will pass anyway is not like a minority in Washington holding the country hostage until they get what they want. That is totally unprecedented and unacceptable.
They will back out or suffer the consequences in 2014.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah....so there wouldn't automatically be a defaulting on our debts, nor any decision by the congress to default on our debts, but rather if multiple other actions AFTER the fact occurred in a specific way THEN it may do so. In which case, those other decisions are responsible, since there were other action that could be taken AFTER not raising the debt ceiling that wouldn't cause us to not pay our debt.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to argue? That a refusal to raise the debt ceiling would force the government to balance the budget?
 
Zyphlin said:
So basically none of the things he said before don't apply to now...the only difference is he was free to spout political rhetoric and what he believed to be true because everyone else was going to vote differently then him, and now more people agree with him and thus his stance is wrong?
Click to expand...

Did Obama threaten default if he didn't get what he wanted? NO .
Is that what a minority party in the House is doing now? Yes.
Is that a stupid thing to do? Most definitely YES.
It is dangerously stupid and may cost us dearly and increase our debt.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah....so there wouldn't automatically be a defaulting on our debts, nor any decision by the congress to default on our debts, but rather if multiple other actions AFTER the fact occurred in a specific way THEN it may do so. In which case, those other decisions are responsible, since there were other action that could be taken AFTER not raising the debt ceiling that wouldn't cause us to not pay our debt.
Click to expand...

Going into default would most surely cause another drop in our credit rating and raise interest on our debt making it more and more difficult to pay off.
Is that what you think will help us?
 
mac said:
Small minority? Perhaps you should define how many (few) it takes to make a small minority.



That vote went 52-48 if I remember accurately.
Click to expand...

According to the article you linked to, *every* dem (but one) voted to raise the debt limit.
 
sangha said:
In that case, he was wrong
Click to expand...

No person or party has threatened to default on the debt in words or deeds before Republicans in 2011.
Threatening to not vote for a debt ceiling increase is not the same as threatening default. I can't believe that is so complicated to understand.
 
iguanaman said:
Did Obama threaten default if he didn't get what he wanted? NO .
Click to expand...

Again, no one's presented a single name of a person "threatening default".

Second, Obama isn't King now nor was he King then. He was not in the position to threaten such because the rest of his party wasn't agreeing with him on that stand. So he was either pandering and outright lying about his views because he knew they'd never happen OR he honestly believed it but simply had no chance of making it come to pass.

Is that what a minority party in the House is doing now? Yes.
Click to expand...

Really? Again, quote me actual people suggesting default. I've anxiously asked for people to present that all thread long with the stated intention to decry the suggestion. So far there's been nothing but ambiguous unnamed source stories about "GOP members" without a singular name.

Is that a stupid thing to do? Most definitely YES.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to whether or not Obama's statements in 2006 are true in 2013.

It is dangerously stupid and may cost us dearly and increase our debt.
Click to expand...

Agree in terms of the notion of a default...then again, raising the debt limit is also going to increase our debt and cost us dearly.
 
iguanaman said:
Going into default would most surely cause another drop in our credit rating and raise interest on our debt making it more and more difficult to pay off.
Is that what you think will help us?
Click to expand...

Wonderful straw manning. Next time, try actually responding to what I type and state, not the figment in your head based on your bigoted prejudices against those that considered themselves conservative.
 
digsbe said:
And what about the cuts Republicans want to make? The Democrats just don't know how to say yes.

/illogical partisan thinking
Click to expand...



What specific cuts have the Republicans proposed? Link please?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
What are you trying to argue? That a refusal to raise the debt ceiling would force the government to balance the budget?
Click to expand...

That a refusal to raise the debt ceiling would result in a number of options that could potentially offset the money we'd end up needing. And, that arbitrarily choosing ONE such option and proclaiming that one party is voting for / desiring/ wanting that specific option, without any evidence what so ever of individuals supporting said option, is dishonest and factually incorrect.
 
Catawba said:
What specific cuts have the Republicans proposed? Link please?
Click to expand...

While I realize this is probably a waste of time but here goes:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
HUD Ph.D. Program.
Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
Click to expand...

House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts - US News and World Report
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/about-those-republican-cuts/
 
Last edited:
Pres Obama has repeatedly shown that he will not be fiscally responsible. Why do we think he will now? Everyone acts as though this is a shock:shock:. As I've said many times, I believe the GOP should simply vote present for the rest of his term. It's the only winning strategy it has. He won't budge therefore the lapdog aka Harry Reid won't budge and they will simply continue to collectively point the finger at the GOP. The GOP will, in turn, continue to be characterized as "the party of no" and be demonized by a liberal friendly media. The best thing to do is what Rand Paul suggested, vote present. Apparently it can get you elected President after all:2razz:
 
Oh, someone here has finally realised that there is real risk of war.
24.jpg
01.jpg
02.jpg
03.jpg
 
Obama and Moderate Republicans See Conservatives as Common Enemy - The Rush Limbaugh Show

".........He's (Obama) not proposing solutions to anything. He's not interested in solutions. As far as Obama's concerned, there isn't a problem, other than the existence of opposition to him. The biggest problem to Obama is the existence of opposition. And I'm telling you: I firmly believe everything going on in Washington today -- everything inside the Beltway, in the media, in the think tanks, in the halls of Congress, everything -- is oriented toward eliminating a viable opposition. Be it on the radio, be it on television, be it in Congress, wherever."
 
Zyphlin said:
So during this time it's NOT a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay it's own bills? This time it's NOT a sign we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries? Increasing our debt won't weaken us domestically and internationally this time? Leadership no longer means "the buck stops here"? This time it wouldn't be shifting the burden of the choice onto the backs of our children and grand children?
Click to expand...

That would be correct.

What of those things would not apply this time if you felt they applied in 2006...and specifically, why?
Click to expand...

All of them!

1.) Running a fiscal deficit of $248 billion in 2006 when unemployment averaged just north of 4.8% is nothing short fiscally irresponsible. Do i have to explain why? If so, then i will be glad to.

2.) Running a fiscal deficit of $248 billion when the yield of a 1 month T-Bill rate averaged north of 4.9% for fiscal year 2006 creates unnecessary interest expenses to tax payers, during a time when demand for Treasury market debt was undeniably high. Do i have to explain why? If so, then i will be glad to.

3.) Running a fiscal deficit of $248 billion when gross private domestic investment was at an ALL TIME high means that it was more expensive for the private sector to issue debt for the purpose of capital expansion. Do i have to explain why? If so, then i will be glad to.
 
Bronson said:
Your lame talking point has already been debunked

Go search Daily Kos for another
Click to expand...

Your analysis lacks the substance to debunk anything i have stated. I have never been to the Daily Kos website, so please try and stay relevant and not make simplistic assumptions that do not pertain to this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom