• 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'

iguanaman said:
More total poppycock. Obama has restored the US as the most popular country in the world after trailing badly under the Bush regime.
Click to expand...

Any idea why the rest of the world (and I'm assuming this wouldn't include world leaders) likes Obama so much?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
He shouldn't have to negotiate on the debt ceiling. That should be a non-issue.
Click to expand...
That's correct, I think he is learning he lesson now. You don't decide your not paying for dinner after you've eaten it.
 
Grant said:
Any idea why the rest of the world (and I'm assuming this wouldn't include world leaders) likes Obama so much?
Click to expand...

LOL You must think all world leaders are like Dick Cheney. He didn't care what the American people wanted.
The worlds leaders like the same things about Obama as the world's people do.
 
TaraAnne said:
Mow its a myth but anytime a Republican wants to talk about the budget they say we were the ones that forced Clinton to balance the budget. Bush2 could have stopped 9/11. Clinton did not have anything to do with Iraq. The reason it was voted for was faulty info produced by Bush2 and his war mongers. Please stop with the nonsence. Republicans are the wildest spenders around period. History and facts are not on your side here.
Click to expand...


It would be good to know history before trying to use it against people.

Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike - CNN
Tom Brokaw: President Clinton Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD | NewsBusters
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
iguanaman said:
Interest rates actually went down after the credit downgrade so it seems the World's investors doen't agree with Moody's or you. The childish behavior of the House Republicans is what caused the first downgrade and now it appears they are going for another. That is not only not leadership that is TREASON.
Click to expand...

S&P, not Moody's, reduced the U.S. credit rating. The others, including S&P, have the U.S. on negative outlook. The debt crisis in Europe, "safe haven" value of the U.S., and quantitative easing all coincided to help produce that benign outcome. Then, the U.S did not default.

A partial default would very likely be a different matter. It would demonstrate that a commitment to honor the nation's obligations is no longer a binding constraint on its policy makers. Once they cross the threshold of partially defaulting, they will have established a precedent that the U.S. can default. Once the U.S. is no longer viewed as "exceptional" in the area of finance, there will be a risk premium. I suspect it would be modest, but over the long-term, even a 10 or 20 basis point premium can have a large impact.

Also, it should be noted that absent a self-inflicted partial default, the U.S. does not face an imminent debt crisis. In no way am I suggesting such an outcome is likely absent a fiscal consolidation agreement. That's where the deficit hawks get things wrong. The risk is medium-term and beyond. A timely and credible fiscal consolidation agreement gives the nation a transitional period in which it can stabilize and then reduce its debt relative to GDP. The absence of such a program will, in the medium-term and beyond, reduce the nation's flexibility and reduce the transitional period in which it can act to address its fiscal imbalances.
 
donsutherland1 said:
S&P, not Moody's, reduced the U.S. credit rating. The others, including S&P, have the U.S. on negative outlook. The debt crisis in Europe, "safe haven" value of the U.S., and quantitative easing all coincided to help produce that benign outcome. Then, the U.S did not default.

A partial default would very likely be a different matter. It would demonstrate that a commitment to honor the nation's obligations is no longer a binding constraint on its policy makers. Once they cross the threshold of partially defaulting, they will have established a precedent that the U.S. can default. Once the U.S. is no longer viewed as "exceptional" in the area of finance, there will be a risk premium. I suspect it would be modest, but over the long-term, even a 10 or 20 basis point premium can have a large impact.

Also, it should be noted that absent a self-inflicted partial default, the U.S. does not face an imminent debt crisis. In no way am I suggesting such an outcome is likely absent a fiscal consolidation agreement. That's where the deficit hawks get things wrong. The risk is medium-term and beyond. A timely and credible fiscal consolidation agreement gives the nation a transitional period in which it can stabilize and then reduce its debt relative to GDP. The absence of such a program will, in the medium-term and beyond, reduce the nation's flexibility and reduce the transitional period in which it can act to address its fiscal imbalances.
Click to expand...

While all this is true there doesn't appear to be any will of either political party to get control of spending, much less pay down the debt or present a budget, and the majority of the electorate appear to feel the same way.

So while that "the U.S. does not face an imminent debt crisis' that point will always get closer unless some real measures are taken. That will not happen during Obama's term, when the debt will be $20, and whether his successor can run on cutting and spending remains to be seen. At this point it would seem that only market forces can get US spending under some control. or they will repay their debt through inflationary dollars.
 
mac said:
It would be good to know history before trying to use it against people.

Transcript President Clinton explains Iraq strike - CNN
Tom Brokaw: President Clinton Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD | NewsBusters
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Hmmm maybe you should to
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | Alternet

Believe me I can go on we should have never went to Iraq. Bush and Reagan flat out wasted money money fighting War that never there.
 
TaraAnne said:
Hmmm maybe you should to
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | Alternet

Believe me I can go on we should have never went to Iraq. Bush and Reagan flat out wasted money money fighting War that never there.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You said "Clinton had nothing to do with Iraq." You were absolutely incorrect, despite your conspiracy theory source. while you're talking about wasting money, look up Clinton and the Balkans.
 
jonny5 said:
Next youll be suggesting the white house do its job of enforcing existing laws, instead of telling congress to pass new ones.
Click to expand...

Whoa, careful there now buddy. We're talking about the government here. Let's not get crazy. Makin' sense and all that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Talking about Obama "budgets" is a hard thing to do, since none actually get any votes in congress,
Click to expand...

After it was amended by the tea party in the House, I would expect not.

but I will try.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt you will try!

Total military spending is 24% of the federal budget spending, so cutting all defense spending would still leave over 1/3 of our deficit.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the other things have been proposed to address the deficit. The president said we will need to change the COLA rate, increase the retirement age over time, and increase the FICA cap. These changes make SS solvent for the long term and not a part of the federal deficit. Then of course, we will have increased revenues coming in as we continue to come out of the great recession, even more so with the increased tax rates for the wealthy. And then there is the tax reform that the Republicans wanted that will generate more income. And finally, upgrading to single payer system will reduce health care costs which is the biggest driver of national debt.
 
TaraAnne said:
Hmmm maybe you should to
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq | Alternet

Believe me I can go on we should have never went to Iraq. Bush and Reagan flat out wasted money money fighting War that never there.
Click to expand...

Which war was Reagan involved in that was never there?

He won in Granada and saw the collapse of Communism, the only successful victories the United States has seen since WWII.

Meanwhile Obama has racked up two losses, so far.
 
ernst barkmann said:
even if the debt ceiling were not raised, government would still operate, because money from taxes is still flowing into the treasury.

it would mean government would have to prioritize its spending and pay, for essentials services only.

obama will only promise to cut spending in the future, he will not be for cutting anything serious today, because he knows he or congress today cannot force a congress of tomorrow do anything.

look for promises, but no real action.
Click to expand...

No, it would have to prioritize on its PAYMENTS (as the spending has already incurred) and decide which of its already in-place obligations it wishes to default on.

You can completely shut down government and send everyone home, including the the POTUS, the SCOTUS and the COTUS, the entire military, the FBI/CIA and Border Patrol and THEN the incoming receipts would cover the obligations of the government as the discretionary spend of the US is only $1.5T

This works in the short-run, as laying off the entire government creates its own recession and revenues dwindle.
 
Bronson said:
Another attempt at Objectification/Characterization because you cannot refute facts.

Clearly you are running away from the debate with your tail tucked firmly between your legs. Consider this my last response unless you address every point made in post #163 directly and in full context. I have repeatedly and directly addressed every single point you have made thoroughly with multiple main stream sources, while you have repeatedly run away from mine, masking your lack of rebuttals with patronizing arrogance, endless strawmen, and a phony dismissive attitude.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? You see, this is the problem; it is impossible to have a discussion with someone who cannot even stay within the context of the discussion. Case in point (i will only use two examples for time sake):

When you made a comment:
Bronson said:
Obama didn't spend enough money
Click to expand...
(which was in disagreement)

I responded with support for my argument:
Kushinator said:
This is the reality. Only $114 billion in actual spending surfaced in 2009 (0.8% of GDP), $235 billion in 2010 (1.6% of GDP), and $145 billion in 2011 (0.96% of GDP).
Click to expand...

To which you respond in a manner that does not AT ALL pertain to my argument:
Bronson said:
Your link is a year old and the premise is misleading. The money you claim "wasn't spent" was still already tied up in projects, contracts, obligations, and subsidies. Even the AP reported in early 2011 that only 7billion of the 800B stimulus hadn't been accounted for. The CBO has also said by the end of Q4 2013, only 400K jobs will be sustained by the Stimulus. That's a cost of more than 2 million per job.
Click to expand...

I never claimed anything was not spent; not one time! My point was that the stimulus package was small, which can be reflected in its representation of U.S. output for each particular year. You continue with your rant by stating NOTHING that can be even considered a minor refutation of my point; the stimulus was far too small. How can it be possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who refuses to respond with even minimal relevance?

I go on to explain why the negative externalities/opportunity cost of large fiscal deficits are minor at best:

Kushinator said:
Again, government spending is not likely to crowd out private investment when there are idle resources in the form of both labor and capital.
Click to expand...

To which you repsond:
Bronson said:
Government Spending is taking money out of the hands of private investors who would have otherwise invested that Capital more wisely than Government. It's called Risk. Nobody claimed private investment is being "crowded out". It's being taken away. Clearly you don't understand what Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities even are.
Click to expand...

??? Crowding out is the instance where government spending takes money out of capital markets to the tune where private investment is stiffeled! It is not called risk, it is called crowding out private investment. Again, how is it possible to have a coherent discussion with someone who cannot even comprehend the vocabulary associated with their own arguments?!?!?! Crowding out is THE negative externality/opportunity cost of large budgetary deficits. :doh

When you discover the ability to have an adult discussion, then by all means.... But what you have put forth so far is... well, rather embarrassing.
 
Dickieboy said:
Well technically it was written up but the various parts were referred to the various subcommittees...and apparently has died. To be sure collectively there is little chance the bill would pass the House and certainly not the Senate. Some are actually not bad ideas.
Click to expand...

So when you called it the "list of spending cuts the repubs have proposed", you really meant "the list of spending cut the repubs wouldnt vote for"
 
MMC said:
Wrong again.....you missed the part where he explained the example of what he could do. At least he did give some insight as to how he was looking at it.

Did you need it explained in Jive?
rolleyes.png
Click to expand...

Nothing he proposed was unconstitutional (except in the minds of the 2nd amend bet-wetters)
 
jonny5 said:
Thats what I said. However, a budget does put limits on what congress can appropriate procedurely. My point, though, was that an appropriation has nothing to do with the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what you said, and a budget doesn't put any limit on congress.

IOW, you have no point. You don't even have the facts
 
mac said:
Irrelevant. You said "Clinton had nothing to do with Iraq." You were absolutely incorrect, despite your conspiracy theory source. while you're talking about wasting money, look up Clinton and the Balkans.
Click to expand...

even a fool would recognize that she meant he had nothing to do with invading Iraq. That was all on bush*
 
sangha said:
Everyone knows history well enough to know that it was bush*, not Clinton, who invaded Iraq.

Well, everybody but one
Click to expand...

What really embarrasses conservatives now is that while a majority of Congressional Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq, almost every single Republican in Congress voted for it!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation' - NBC Politics

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Read more: Obama press conference: No ?ransom? for raising debt ceiling - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com


Obama said he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling. He also talked about gun control, and more.
Click to expand...

The hubris of this man is amazing. He is going to lecture others about financial responsibility?


I can only respond:


"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… America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

- Senator Barack Obama
 
cpwill said:
The hubris of this man is amazing. He is going to lecture others about financial responsibility?


I can only respond:


"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… America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

- Senator Barack Obama
Click to expand...

Because everyone knows that the President *has* to negotiate.
 
sangha said:
Because everyone knows that the President *has* to negotiate.
Click to expand...

That is what Presidents have historically done. Democrats, for example, forced Bush to pass PAYGO with a debt ceiling raise, and debt ceiling hikes have been attached to spending cuts regularly since the 1980's, and periodically before that.


But, of course, he's the President. He can veto what he likes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom