• 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 aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

j-mac said:
And you think those words exist, or that any President would be stupid enough to say that? (Biden aside, he is stupid enough) He (Obama) is one of the best Teleprompter readers out there, has a great shot at an MSNBC slot when he is done playing Manchurian President next year. ;)

But seriously, this is analysis, you know that right?


j-mac
Click to expand...
so here you admit that he didnt say anything about killing seniors....thanks for finally coming clean and admitting your mistake.....you go from 'he said it' to '....no president would be stupid enough...':lamo
 
buck said:
Many Democrat's actually believe that taxing the rich (and no spending cuts) will solve the problem (Illinois' Governor Quinn is a perfect example of this mentality). However, I am not aware of any republican that says that simply cutting taxes will solve the issue. Every republican that i've heard talk about it has also indicated that spending cuts will be necessary. In fact it was a giant plank of the republican agenda as put forth in the campaign.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was.

Now about specific spending cuts, neither party is saying much about that. Why might that be?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, it was.

Now about specific spending cuts, neither party is saying much about that. Why might that be?
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons, one of the big ones: They are only one chamber of congress. Any thing they try to cut also has to go through the senate and Obama's veto pen. Making promises that can't occur due to democrat objections would be a big ol liability come the next election.

It doesn't necessarily mean what you are insinuating - that republican's won't or don't want to make spending cuts.
 
buck said:
Lots of reasons, one of the big ones: They are only one chamber of congress. Any thing they try to cut also has to go through the senate and Obama's veto pen. Making promises that can't occur due to democrat objections would be a big ol liability come the next election.

It doesn't necessarily mean what you are insinuating - that republican's won't or don't want to make spending cuts.
Click to expand...

What I'm insinuating is that everyone talks about spending cuts, practically everyone is in favor of cutting spending, but when it comes down to specific cuts, people want to protect their favorite program.

Conservatives, self described, tend to want to cut "social programs", by which they mean anything but the military.
Liberals are perfectly willing to cut back the military, but aren't adverse to adding more social programs.

Both have to be cut back, along with tax increases if we're going to ever balance the budget. That's the reality that no one wants to face.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What I'm insinuating is that everyone talks about spending cuts, practically everyone is in favor of cutting spending, but when it comes down to specific cuts, people want to protect their favorite program.

Conservatives, self described, tend to want to cut "social programs", by which they mean anything but the military.
Liberals are perfectly willing to cut back the military, but aren't adverse to adding more social programs.

Both have to be cut back, along with tax increases if we're going to ever balance the budget. That's the reality that no one wants to face.
Click to expand...

There is a reason that Conservatives want to cut social spending and that reason is that the Federal Govt. has no business being involved in personal responsibility issues. The results speak for themselves. We have a 14 trillion dollar debt today because of programs like the Great Society and New Deal that is being funded by borrowed money. The fact is state and local communities are responsible for their own citizens and it is up to those entities, not the Federal Bureaucracy to solve social problems. Over 60% of the budget is entitlement spending and that is rediculous waste of money. Because of the dollar amount those entitlement programs are full of waste, fraud, and abuse just like the rest of the Federal Govt.

I have no problem with a thorough review of the military spending and budget requests. Serious discussions have to take place BUT the role of the Federal Govt. is protection, not providing welfare. This govt. needs to learn to live on less and let the American people keep more of what they earn.
 
Conservative said:
There is a reason that Conservatives want to cut social spending and that reason is that the Federal Govt. has no business being involved in personal responsibility issues. The results speak for themselves. We have a 14 trillion dollar debt today because of programs like the Great Society and New Deal that is being funded by borrowed money. The fact is state and local communities are responsible for their own citizens and it is up to those entities, not the Federal Bureaucracy to solve social problems. Over 60% of the budget is entitlement spending and that is rediculous waste of money. Because of the dollar amount those entitlement programs are full of waste, fraud, and abuse just like the rest of the Federal Govt.

I have no problem with a thorough review of the military spending and budget requests. Serious discussions have to take place BUT the role of the Federal Govt. is protection, not providing welfare. This govt. needs to learn to live on less and let the American people keep more of what they earn.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are not familiar with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
Sounds like you are not familiar with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You don't have to go that far, read the Preamble. The ability to tax never was the issue, what really is the issue is the role and responsibility of the Federal Govt. and the Preamble sets the stage.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
There is a reason that Conservatives want to cut social spending and that reason is that the Federal Govt. has no business being involved in personal responsibility issues. The results speak for themselves. We have a 14 trillion dollar debt today because of programs like the Great Society and New Deal that is being funded by borrowed money. The fact is state and local communities are responsible for their own citizens and it is up to those entities, not the Federal Bureaucracy to solve social problems. Over 60% of the budget is entitlement spending and that is rediculous waste of money. Because of the dollar amount those entitlement programs are full of waste, fraud, and abuse just like the rest of the Federal Govt.

I have no problem with a thorough review of the military spending and budget requests. Serious discussions have to take place BUT the role of the Federal Govt. is protection, not providing welfare. This govt. needs to learn to live on less and let the American people keep more of what they earn.
Click to expand...

I agree that it isn't the federal govenment's role to provide welfare, and that the welfare state has to be rethought. Some of the "social spending" is not welfare, however. Take Social security, for example. For the past 45 years or so, the SS system has taken in more than it has spent, and the federal government has spent the difference. Now that the baby boomers are coming of age, the tables have turned, and SS is no longer a cash cow, so we hear about "reforming" it, and cutting it back. No, what needs to be done is that the funds be placed in a trust outside of the general fund, (where they should have been all along), and those IOUs paid back. Moreover, SS was never supposed to have been a welfare program. We need to quit paying out funds to people who didn't pay in to the system until retirement age. That alone would keep it solvent for a good long time to come.
 
Conservative said:
You don't have to go that far, read the Preamble. The ability to tax never was the issue, what really is the issue is the role and responsibility of the Federal Govt. and the Preamble sets the stage.
Click to expand...


Article I, Section 8 - its all there.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I agree that it isn't the federal govenment's role to provide welfare, and that the welfare state has to be rethought. Some of the "social spending" is not welfare, however. Take Social security, for example. For the past 45 years or so, the SS system has taken in more than it has spent, and the federal government has spent the difference. Now that the baby boomers are coming of age, the tables have turned, and SS is no longer a cash cow, so we hear about "reforming" it, and cutting it back. No, what needs to be done is that the funds be placed in a trust outside of the general fund, (where they should have been all along), and those IOUs paid back. Moreover, SS was never supposed to have been a welfare program. We need to quit paying out funds to people who didn't pay in to the system until retirement age. That alone would keep it solvent for a good long time to come.
Click to expand...

SS was never intended to be collected. When passed the average life expectancy was 62 with retirement at 65. It has turned into quite a ponzi scheme. You are right it was a cash cow and LBJ saw that it was a way to pay for the Vietnam War and Great Society thus he with the support of Congress put SS on Budget allowing Congress to spend the excess SS receipts instead of putting those receipts aside for individual retirements. Right now IOU's populate the Intergovt. holdings and that is a travisty
 
haymarket said:
Article I, Section 8 - its all there.
Click to expand...

It is power taken by Congress that was never intended. Yes, it is all there but it is time to get back to the country's roots. I would have thought that someone who taught civics would also know American history. Our founders knew that power corrupts thus put the power at the state level closer to the people. Career politicians have chipped away at that vision to create a larger Central Govt. Although that may serve you well, it certainly doesn't serve the majority in this country that are now dependent on that govt. and have to fund a 14+ trillion dollar debt.
 
Conservative said:
It is power taken by Congress that was never intended. Yes, it is all there but it is time to get back to the country's roots. I would have thought that someone who taught civics would also know American history. Our founders knew that power corrupts thus put the power at the state level closer to the people. Career politicians have chipped away at that vision to create a larger Central Govt. Although that may serve you well, it certainly doesn't serve the majority in this country that are now dependent on that govt. and have to fund a 14+ trillion dollar debt.
Click to expand...

I know my calendar does not read 1787.

Does yours?
 
haymarket said:
I know my calendar does not read 1787.

Does yours?
Click to expand...

What does the year have to do with the vision of our Founders and the Constitution? Maybe it should read 1787 in some areas again especially when it comes to the role of the Federal Govt. What does the Preamble say about that role?

When those Congressional Representatives took their oath today they did so on the Constitution of the United States. Tomorrow it is going to be read on the floor of the House. I suggest you TVO it and watch it when you get a chance as it appears that you may have forgotten much about that Constitution.
 
danarhea said:
There are actually 2 sides to this story.

1) If we don't raise the debt ceiling, then the US defaults on all it's debt, thus causing a financial panic that would be even worse than the Great Depression.

2) If we do raise the debt ceiling, then the US is only delaying the inevitable.

Fact is, there is no way in hell we are ever going to be able to pay back what we owe. So let's just default now. Yes, it will hurt like hell, but better to bite the bullet now, than put it off to a future date, when the result will be even worse.

And, when it comes time to pay the piper, whether now, or in the future, we had better damn well hope that we have learned our lesson, and finally begin to start living within our means. There are NO money trees. The money we are spending now has to come from someplace, and when we spend recklessly, that money comes directly from the asses that we are all putting on the line, and are soon going to be handed to us. When it all hits the fan, then let's make a point of never acting so fiscally irresponsible, ever again. After all, it's OUR asses.

My opinion? Time to bite the bullet, folks.
Click to expand...

You don't have to default if you don't increase the debt limit. The spending just has to be reduced to below the revenue level.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You don't have to default if you don't increase the debt limit. The spending just has to be reduced to below the revenue level.
Click to expand...

So will they be waiving the interest payments from now on???

Thank you for revealing you understand nothing about the topic.
 
hazlnut said:
So will they be waiving the interest payments from now on???

Thank you for revealing you understand nothing about the topic.
Click to expand...

What is the yearly interest on the current debt and what percentage is that of the budget?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Heart transplants to patients with other serious health issues, maybe. Hip replacements, no, that's just routine surgery. As for taking away choices, no, that doesn't work either. If the patient wants a procedure that the rest of us aren't willing to pay for, he/she can pay for it himself. The patient is in control.
Click to expand...

It's all about money, Dittohead, and bureaucracy. If the government wants you to wait two years for a hip transplant, as happens, you will wait two years. Or you will go to a country, as Canadians have been doing, to get the job done sooner.

You can approve of Obamacare out of ideology or philosophically but it cannot be supported from either a medical or patient-care point of view. The doctor/patient relationship was eroded when big health-care insurance companies became involved and it will be eroded further when government gets involved. It's just the way it works, and we all instinctively know that
 
Conservative said:
There is a reason that Conservatives want to cut social spending and that reason is that the Federal Govt. has no business being involved in personal responsibility issues. The results speak for themselves. We have a 14 trillion dollar debt today because of programs like the Great Society and New Deal that is being funded by borrowed money. The fact is state and local communities are responsible for their own citizens and it is up to those entities, not the Federal Bureaucracy to solve social problems. Over 60% of the budget is entitlement spending and that is rediculous waste of money. Because of the dollar amount those entitlement programs are full of waste, fraud, and abuse just like the rest of the Federal Govt.

I have no problem with a thorough review of the military spending and budget requests. Serious discussions have to take place BUT the role of the Federal Govt. is protection, not providing welfare. This govt. needs to learn to live on less and let the American people keep more of what they earn.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
Sounds like you are not familiar with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Someone (Hay) is confused about this...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Click to expand...

Hay is confused about the difference between 'general welfare' as stated in Article 1, Section 8, and 'welfare' as a program.
 
Whovian said:
Someone (Hay) is confused about this...



Hay is confused about the difference between 'general welfare' as stated in Article 1, Section 8, and 'welfare' as a program.
Click to expand...

Not confused in the slightest. Actually I am 100% sure and I have Supreme Court decisions to back up my view of the language.

However, if you have a Supreme Court ruling that social welfare programs are unconstitutional, by all means present it and the argument is decided in your favor . If not, it seems that reality is in my favor. Of course, you folks on the far right rarely let a little thing like reality to get in the way of ideology and your own personal belief system.

But why be snide about it... all you have to do is present the official finding of the SC that social welfare programs are a violation of the Constitution as some believe.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Not confused in the slightest. Actually I am 100% sure and I have Supreme Court decisions to back up my view of the language.

However, if you have a Supreme Court ruling that social welfare programs are unconstitutional, by all means present it and the argument is decided in your favor . If not, it seems that reality is in my favor. Of course, you folks on the far right rarely let a little thing like reality to get in the way of ideology and your own personal belief system.

But why be snide about it... all you have to do is present the official finding of the SC that social welfare programs are a violation of the Constitution as some believe.
Click to expand...

Please... show me where I even remotely said this??? Others may have, but I seriously doubt you'll find a post where I did.
 
haymarket said:
Not confused in the slightest. Actually I am 100% sure and I have Supreme Court decisions to back up my view of the language.

However, if you have a Supreme Court ruling that social welfare programs are unconstitutional, by all means present it and the argument is decided in your favor . If not, it seems that reality is in my favor. Of course, you folks on the far right rarely let a little thing like reality to get in the way of ideology and your own personal belief system.

But why be snide about it... all you have to do is present the official finding of the SC that social welfare programs are a violation of the Constitution as some believe.
Click to expand...

You are about to see the will of the people as Congress starts repealing laws that created the massive social policies that are bankrupting the country. there is no question that Congress can make the laws including the welfare programs but that doesn't mean that was the intent of the Founders. What Congress has found out is that they can fund their own existence forever by keeping people dependent and that sets up what happened on Nov. 2. Going to be fun watching all these bleeding heart libreral leeches squealing as their power is taken away.
 
Whovian said:
Please... show me where I even remotely said this??? Others may have, but I seriously doubt you'll find a post where I did.
Click to expand...

So you do NOT have a SC decision saying that social welfare programs are not in the general welfare power of the Congress.

Case closed. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You are about to see the will of the people as Congress starts repealing laws that created the massive social policies that are bankrupting the country. there is no question that Congress can make the laws including the welfare programs but that doesn't mean that was the intent of the Founders. What Congress has found out is that they can fund their own existence forever by keeping people dependent and that sets up what happened on Nov. 2. Going to be fun watching all these bleeding heart libreral leeches squealing as their power is taken away.
Click to expand...

And you also DO NOT have a Supreme Court ruling stating that social welfare programs are NOT in the general welfare power of Congress.

Case stays closed. Thank you too.
 
haymarket said:
So you do NOT have a SC decision saying that social welfare programs are not in the general welfare power of the Congress.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

So, you did not show me where I claimed to have one, or that I said what you seem to thnk I did.

Thank you. Your apology is accepted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom