• 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!

With Eye to 2010 Election, Dems Prepare to Raise U.S. Borrowing Limit by Nearly $2T

Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

American said:
Pete doesn't give a **** about the US, "Yeah let's raise the debt ceiling, wth I'm in Spain."
Click to expand...

Now you are resulting to personal attacks because I dare debunk a right wing talking point yet again? Pathetic.

How about for once trying to debunk my comments? You cant, because you know I am right.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

PeteEU said:
And? How much of that deficit is from bailing out Wall Street? How much of that deficit is from programs started under the Bush administration?

Funny how you and your cohorts totally ignore the fact that the debt ceiling was raised 7 times by your dear Bush in his 8 years and 4 of those was when the Republicans were in full and total control of congress lol. Talk about being hypocritical now... It is soo ironic that when Bush was setting new spending record after record, the right fell in behind him and backed him regardless. Cut taxes, no problem! Start a war.. hey start 2 wars, No problem, lets just raise the debt ceiling!

But now that they are not in power these same people have gone all "fiscal conservative" and are demanding cuts in a recession......the only thing you should not be doing..

pathetic partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

What's funny is how "centrists, :lol:" jump immediately to claim that Obama's record deficits in his first year are due to the economic downturn, but Bush's was due to poor management. They always seem to forget about 9/11 and how much extra money was spent righting the nation and the economy following it.

  1. Wall Street was devasted.
  2. The airline industry was devasted.
  3. The entire US economy came to a standstill.
  4. A massive new department was added, Homeland Security.
  5. Billions of dollars were spent increasing our security technology.

At the rate Obama is going, he'll have to raise the debt limit 10 times in the four years he'll be in office.

You are right about the pathetic and partisan attacks. Got a mirror handy?
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

What the....? I could have swore that I just saw Pete's light on when I started this reply.....Oh well, I guess when you deal in disingenuous tactics as Gill so rightfully pointed out about Pete's postings, then it only makes sense to run when replied to.....:rofl


j-mac
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

PeteEU said:
And? How much of that deficit is from bailing out Wall Street? How much of that deficit is from programs started under the Bush administration?
Click to expand...

(Billions of dollars)
...............................Actual
................................2008.....2009..... 2010.....2011
On-Budget Deficit......-642....-1,720..-1,485..-1,029

If you are going to blame it all on Bush, you should at least acknowledge that Obama's spending is completely out of control and is PROJECTED to be out of control. This is not just carry over expenses from Bush's Tarp program, which is the only program started under Bush that carried over. Obama is a tax and spend Democrat, without the tax so far. It will be close behind.

You are a damn partisan hack. Pathetic. Worry about Spain's nationalists. We'll worry about our social democrats.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

PeteEU said:
Now you are resulting to personal attacks because I dare debunk a right wing talking point yet again? Pathetic.

How about for once trying to debunk my comments? You cant, because you know I am right.
Click to expand...
You debunk yourself. You don't have a dog in this fight, so your personal opinions about our financial system are irrelevant. I didn't attack you either, it's a fact that you don't give a **** about the US.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

Well they have to pay off their facist interest groups. :shrug: Just sayin.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

PeteEU said:
Now you are resulting to personal attacks because I dare debunk a right wing talking point yet again? Pathetic.

How about for once trying to debunk my comments? You cant, because you know I am right.
Click to expand...

who's debunking

i was in complete agreement with you, petey

bush was a loser

and you are 100% APT in comparing obama to w-stands-for-what's-his-name

keep it up
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

The Prof said:
i woulda thought you might perhaps aspire instead for obama to be a SUCCESSFUL president
Click to expand...

But...yer thinking without having a clue as to what a successful President really is. Don't you see that?
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

The Prof said:
who's debunking

i was in complete agreement with you, petey

bush was a loser

and you are 100% APT in comparing obama to w-stands-for-what's-his-name

keep it up
Click to expand...

W now stands for wtf were you smoking on election day 2008?
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

Orius said:
You have to understand that both parties in congress are just the face of industry at this point, on many levels. If it wasn't the Dems doing this it would be the GOP and the entire debate would be coming from the opposite angle. The bankers control the economy and in turn control a great deal of congress.

If you want to be angry, you should be angry at the secrecy surrounding the Federal Reserve and its undemocratic opaqueness in a time of financial crisis. It's absorbing YOUR money and telling you nothing about it.

I'm almost fully convinced at this time that bipartisan forces in congress are mutually engaged in the deliberate self-destruction of the current U.S. financial system. It's just a shame that most people are too busy towing partisan lines to take a hard look at what's going on.
Click to expand...

Well then you should show examples of the Republicans raising the debt ceiling. Then we can consider what was driving any such moves. Otherwise, we need to deal with the Congress we have.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

Telecaster said:
Otherwise, we need to deal with the Congress we have.
Click to expand...

a not trivial, indeed, fundamental correction:

EITHER WAY, we have to deal with the congress we have

and THAT's the point

well, it's not really THE point

THE point is---

1. ONE POINT EIGHT TRILLION!

2. MORE!
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

Gill said:
What's funny is how "centrists, :lol:" jump immediately to claim that Obama's record deficits in his first year are due to the economic downturn, but Bush's was due to poor management. They always seem to forget about 9/11 and how much extra money was spent righting the nation and the economy following it.

  1. Wall Street was devasted.
  2. The airline industry was devasted.
  3. The entire US economy came to a standstill.
  4. A massive new department was added, Homeland Security.
  5. Billions of dollars were spent increasing our security technology.

At the rate Obama is going, he'll have to raise the debt limit 10 times in the four years he'll be in office.

You are right about the pathetic and partisan attacks. Got a mirror handy?
Click to expand...

Except that you ignore most of that was done in one or two years. Bush's deficits occurred every year including boom years. I realize you have a problem with simple facts, but this is pretty ridiculous. Bush stimulus spending during a recession is acceptable as it's a recession. Bush deficit spending during expansionary years is completely unacceptable. If you can't cut down your spending when the economy is booming, how the hell are you going to get ever pay down the debt?

Where is Ireimon. You need a good financial clock cleaning.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

obvious Child said:
Except that you ignore most of that was done in one or two years. Bush's deficits occurred every year including boom years. I realize you have a problem with simple facts, but this is pretty ridiculous. Bush stimulus spending during a recession is acceptable as it's a recession. Bush deficit spending during expansionary years is completely unacceptable. If you can't cut down your spending when the economy is booming, how the hell are you going to get ever pay down the debt?

Where is Ireimon. You need a good financial clock cleaning.
Click to expand...

The only time there was a surplus, was when the deficit included funds stolen from Social Security, and for only a year, maybe two at the end of Clinton's watch. To get there, he couldn't cut down spending on entitlements so he had to cut intelligence and military. When 9/11 happened, Bush needed money to fight the wars, and he needed money to rebuild intelligence and the military. He still kept the deficit numbers (still including funds stolen from Social Security - I hate how they do that) to less that $300 billion except his last year when dealing with the economy.

That kind of deficit is in line with deficit's run by Reagan, Bush Sr. etc. That is the kind of deficit you can grow your way out of.

Somehow Obama has taken it to a $1.7 trillion deficit!! The projections are above a trillion for the rest of his presidency as well. It doesn't even include the health care bill, which doesn't generate deficit for 5 years or so.

Obama's spending in a recession is totally unacceptable.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

reefedjib said:
The only time there was a surplus, was when the deficit included funds stolen from Social Security, and for only a year, maybe two at the end of Clinton's watch.
Click to expand...

Sorta of. There was never a surplus because off balanced sheet financing like transfer payments to the postal service were never booked. Government accounting at the federal level is in some ways, very Enron like.

What Clinton did do well with the deficit, aside from cutting it down to negligible levels was retire expensive Reagan era debt with cheap Clinton era debt. Essentially refinancing. That alone likely saved us hundreds of billions in debt servicing. What Bush should have done is continued that, replacing expensive 30 year and 15 year securities with really low paying securities.

To get there, he couldn't cut down spending on entitlements so he had to cut intelligence and military
Click to expand...

Which made sense at the time as the US military was geared towards fighting an enemy that no longer existed. Why maintain a massive force built around destroying a Soviet-Warsaw pact force that no longer existed?

When 9/11 happened, Bush needed money to fight the wars, and he needed money to rebuild intelligence and the military. He still kept the deficit numbers (still including funds stolen from Social Security - I hate how they do that) to less that $300 billion except his last year when dealing with the economy.
Click to expand...

Iraq was unnecessary war that made up the bulk of the additional costs. Take that out and we would have been in a far better financial picture.

That kind of deficit is in line with deficit's run by Reagan, Bush Sr. etc. That is the kind of deficit you can grow your way out of.
Click to expand...

Except we've never been able to do that. The only time we got close to getting a balanced budget was with significant cuts. You can't just grow yourself out of a deficit. Furthermore, Congress will constantly spend money as the economy grows. We saw domestic spending explode as well under the all GOP years during boom years. Congress will feed itself and continue deficits.

Somehow Obama has taken it to a $1.7 trillion deficit!!
Click to expand...

Significant amounts which came over from the past fiscal year. People tend to ignore this.

The projections are above a trillion for the rest of his presidency as well. It doesn't even include the health care bill, which doesn't generate deficit for 5 years or so.
Click to expand...

Eh. If there's one thing I agree with TD on, CBO projections are total crap. The same people said Clinton would have a trillion dollar surplus holding all things constant in 10 years. Yeah. Hello? CBO? Heard of something called "REALITY?"

Obama's spending in a recession is totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Not really. What is unacceptable is the timeliness of spending.

Deficit spending during recessions is acceptable.
Deficit spending during expansions is never.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

obvious Child said:
To get there, [Clinton] couldn't cut down spending on entitlements so he had to cut intelligence and military
Click to expand...
Which made sense at the time as the US military was geared towards fighting an enemy that no longer existed. Why maintain a massive force built around destroying a Soviet-Warsaw pact force that no longer existed?
Click to expand...

Because we still had a 2 theater requirement at the QDR level. He cut us to the bone just to be able to say he (almost) balanced the budget. Intelligence was also cut off at the knees. All of our HUMINT resources gone.

They both had to be rebuilt.



Iraq was unnecessary war that made up the bulk of the additional costs. Take that out and we would have been in a far better financial picture.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a justified war. We need the available funds to pursue such courses of action. What non-interventionists would like to do is increase entitlements to the point where we can't go to war.

That kind of deficit is in line with deficit's run by Reagan, Bush Sr. etc. That is the kind of deficit you can grow your way out of.
Click to expand...
Except we've never been able to do that. The only time we got close to getting a balanced budget was with significant cuts. You can't just grow yourself out of a deficit. Furthermore, Congress will constantly spend money as the economy grows. We saw domestic spending explode as well under the all GOP years during boom years. Congress will feed itself and continue deficits.
Click to expand...

I am not expert but the way I think this works is that as the economy grows, the percentage of GDP owed as debt decreases. There is probably some optimal percentage of GDP that debt should be so as the economy grows, you can maintain deficit spending.

Somehow Obama has taken it to a $1.7 trillion deficit!!
Click to expand...
Significant amounts which came over from the past fiscal year. People tend to ignore this.
Click to expand...

Significant amounts? You have evidence to back that up?


Obama's spending in a recession is totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Not really. What is unacceptable is the timeliness of spending.

Deficit spending during recessions is acceptable.
Deficit spending during expansions is never.
Click to expand...

$1.7 trillion is a ridiculous amount of deficit.

Deficit spending is ok during expansions.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

carlkay58 said:
What's to worry - the rich will pay for it all! No one with incomes less than $250,000 will have to pay anything for any of this spending. So sit back, relax, and be comforted that you are benefiting from the grand and benign governing of the Democratic elite who knows what is best for you.

I can't believe I just typed that shrek! Gotta go wash my hands off with some whiskey and disinfect them!
Click to expand...
Hehehehehe, hahahahaha :rofl
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

reefedjib said:
Because we still had a 2 theater requirement at the QDR level. He cut us to the bone just to be able to say he (almost) balanced the budget. Intelligence was also cut off at the knees. All of our HUMINT resources gone.

They both had to be rebuilt.





Iraq was a justified war. We need the available funds to pursue such courses of action. What non-interventionists would like to do is increase entitlements to the point where we can't go to war.



I am not expert but the way I think this works is that as the economy grows, the percentage of GDP owed as debt decreases. There is probably some optimal percentage of GDP that debt should be so as the economy grows, you can maintain deficit spending.



Significant amounts? You have evidence to back that up?




$1.7 trillion is a ridiculous amount of deficit.

Deficit spending is ok as long as you're buying Democratic votes.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

Jackboot said:
This is insanity....no, this is a crime, this is the reason we have a constitution, this country has gone off the rails!:shock:
Click to expand...

The REPS&DEMS have hijack our country! But the Sheeple keep putting them
back in power !!!! So it looks like we are getting what were deserve!
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

NoMoreDems-Reps said:
The REPS&DEMS have hijack our country! But the Sheeple keep putting them
back in power !!!! So it looks like we are getting what were deserve!
Click to expand...
That sounds real nice, but it's total bull****. Other parties have existed over the past 200 years, but their followings have dwindled or never grown enough. There is likely a reason for that probably because there are only two real fundamental sides to politics in the US, with only minor other differences.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

American said:
That sounds real nice, but it's total bull****. Other parties have existed over the past 200 years, but their followings have dwindled or never grown enough. There is likely a reason for that probably because there are only two real fundamental sides to politics in the US, with only minor other differences.
Click to expand...

I'll differ with this on a few of levels.

The first is that many issues, not all but many, are not black and white issues. That parties try to take extreme positions and turn it into a black and white issue. I am trying to think of a good example...how about civil rights erosion due to the Patriot Act. The Dems would have you believe that none of the provisions are good, while the GOP would say that more are needed. What is needed is the right mixture. Some of our civil liberties are going to be strained out of a very real need for security.

The second is that most Americans are in the middle and the Parties are on the extremes.

The third is that parties represent many extreme positions on black and white issues they have characterized. A person of that party adopts all of those positions. Likewise for the other major party. The middle adopts some from each side. I think there are more independents than there are either Dems or GOP.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

reefedjib said:
Because we still had a 2 theater requirement at the QDR level. He cut us to the bone just to be able to say he (almost) balanced the budget. Intelligence was also cut off at the knees. All of our HUMINT resources gone.

They both had to be rebuilt.
Click to expand...

But when you consider just how the military and intelligence was focused, they would have had to be rebuilt regardless. Moving from operations focused around stopping massive conventional tank heavy armies to fighting elusive, asymmetrical, nation-less opponents is in many ways a huge paradigm shift. Most people don't realize just how different our military is now compared to 10 years ago. It made no sense to maintain an army designed to fight a non-existent army.

Iraq was a justified war.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone but itself, has extremely weak ties to terrorism (compared to our Saudi "friends"). Nor did it have any WMD.

I am not expert but the way I think this works is that as the economy grows, the percentage of GDP owed as debt decreases. There is probably some optimal percentage of GDP that debt should be so as the economy grows, you can maintain deficit spending.
Click to expand...

In theory as the economy grows increased tax revenues would reduce the debt. However, in reality, Congress just keeps taking bigger pieces of the pie. We haven't run a surplus in decades. You can't grow yourself out of deficits when your people in charge, and this goes for both parties, see no reason to stop helping themselves to the pie.

Significant amounts? You have evidence to back that up?
Click to expand...

Look at what makes up that deficit. How much of that is purely Obama? Good luck with that.

$1.7 trillion is a ridiculous amount of deficit.
Click to expand...

True, but so is deficit spending during expansions.

Deficit spending is ok during expansions.
Click to expand...

Only in a dream world where Congress is fiscally conservative. We don't have a fiscally conservative party other then the Constitutionalists and Libertarians. The GOP is just as fiscally liberal as the Democrats. They just lie about being fiscally conservative until they get into power.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

obvious Child said:
But when you consider just how the military and intelligence was focused, they would have had to be rebuilt regardless. Moving from operations focused around stopping massive conventional tank heavy armies to fighting elusive, asymmetrical, nation-less opponents is in many ways a huge paradigm shift. Most people don't realize just how different our military is now compared to 10 years ago. It made no sense to maintain an army designed to fight a non-existent army.
Click to expand...

I agree, but we could have seen it coming in the 90s with the embassy bombings and the the USS Cole. The institution of the Military has been very opposed to giving up its tank heavy model and considering asymmetrical threats. Witness how long it took to switch to a COIN strategy in Iraq.

Iraq was a justified war.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone but itself, has extremely weak ties to terrorism (compared to our Saudi "friends"). Nor did it have any WMD.
Click to expand...

It is precisely because Iraq was a threat to itself that the war was justified. It was correctly a humanitarian intervention. We did not know it had no WMD, at the time.

In theory as the economy grows increased tax revenues would reduce the debt. However, in reality, Congress just keeps taking bigger pieces of the pie. We haven't run a surplus in decades. You can't grow yourself out of deficits when your people in charge, and this goes for both parties, see no reason to stop helping themselves to the pie.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You can't grow out of the deficit but you can sustain it.

Look at what makes up that deficit. How much of that is purely Obama? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

As far as the $1.7 trillion, I would say 75% of it is Obama's spending. Maybe $450 is TARP from Bush.

Deficit spending is ok during expansions.
Click to expand...
Only in a dream world where Congress is fiscally conservative. We don't have a fiscally conservative party other then the Constitutionalists and Libertarians. The GOP is just as fiscally liberal as the Democrats. They just lie about being fiscally conservative until they get into power.
Click to expand...

You'll have to start adding the Whigs as another fiscally conservative party.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

reefedjib said:
I agree, but we could have seen it coming in the 90s with the embassy bombings and the the USS Cole. The institution of the Military has been very opposed to giving up its tank heavy model and considering asymmetrical threats.
Click to expand...

Which in many ways is better after the Clinton cuts. With fewer assets and troops to refocus, it's cheaper and faster. When you have massive equipment and training issues, it's much harder to refocus. Generally it's easier to rebuild a smaller force specifically geared towards a new purpose and build upon that then to turn a huge force towards something very alien to it. Ironically, Clinton's cuts would, had Iraq not occurred, made Rummy's RMA much easier.

It is precisely because Iraq was a threat to itself that the war was justified.
Click to expand...

Say what? We are not the world's police. Under that argument, China and Russia are threats to themselves. Do you want to invade then?

It was correctly a humanitarian intervention.
Click to expand...

Not in 2003. The massacre of the Shiites would have been a correct humanitarian intervention.

We did not know it had no WMD, at the time.
Click to expand...

But we did know the Intel was very shaky and came from unreliable sources. The Chezks flagged curveball as a lying drunk. Chalabi was known to be unreliable. Furthermore, many inspectors did say that Iraq didn't have. The Intel was crap and we knew it.

Agreed. You can't grow out of the deficit but you can sustain it.
Click to expand...

But there's no need to sustain it.

As far as the $1.7 trillion, I would say 75% of it is Obama's spending. Maybe $450 is TARP from Bush.
Click to expand...

Are you including other Bush era programs that are being funded under Obama? Granted that does make Obama partially responsible.

CBO Projected Deficit, by Source | The Big Picture

Not entirely sure what that extra $300 billion is from.

You'll have to start adding the Whigs as another fiscally conservative party.
Click to expand...

Sadly, none of them have a chance.
 
Re: Dems To Raise Debt Ceiling by 1.8 Trillion

obvious Child said:
But when you consider just how the military and intelligence was focused, they would have had to be rebuilt regardless. Moving from operations focused around stopping massive conventional tank heavy armies to fighting elusive, asymmetrical, nation-less opponents is in many ways a huge paradigm shift. Most people don't realize just how different our military is now compared to 10 years ago. It made no sense to maintain an army designed to fight a non-existent army.
Click to expand...

Mission transitioning doesn't require rebuilding of the military. We didn't get rid of any tanks, or artillery. We only re-trained those soldiers to perform an infantry mission. Bascially, it was fine tuning, because everyone receives fundemental infantry training in BCT (Basic Combat Training).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom