• 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"

Boo Radley said:
That hasn't been true since shortly after inception of this country. We, the people, who are the government, have used the government as a tool to do many things other than defense from nearly day one.
Click to expand...

And of course, everything was A-Ok until Obama came on the scene (according to Conservative anyway) :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
That hasn't been true since shortly after inception of this country. We, the people, who are the government, have used the government as a tool to do many things other than defense from nearly day one.
Click to expand...

Yes we have and that is why we have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt and a 3.6 trillion dollar govt. That was never the intent of our Founders.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't you know. ;)
Click to expand...

You want to make this about Obama, so be it. Since Obama has taken control of the Economy he has added 3.5 trillion to the debt and added 4 million to the unemployment roles. That means prior to Obama all other administrations added 11 trillion to the debt. Obama is on track to add another 1 trillion plus this year. Guess debt doesn't bother you
 
Conservative said:
Yes we have and that is why we have a 14.5 trillion dollar debt and a 3.6 trillion dollar govt. That was never the intent of our Founders.
Click to expand...

No, we have debt because we've always borrowed instead of finding ways to pay for it. And we've done that from the beginning as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, we have debt because we've always borrowed instead of finding ways to pay for it. And we've done that from the beginning as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly, on this we agree, that is why we are sitting on 2. 5trillion in SS IOU's that have to be paid for and added to the debt. Now you want to expand that with National Healthcare. let the states handle it.
 
Conservative said:
Exactly, on this we agree, that is why we are sitting on 2. 5trillion in SS IOU's that have to be paid for and added to the debt. Now you want to expand that with National Healthcare. let the states handle it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to add to the debt. That's why I prefer a single payer. While I doubt either party will actually address the debt, it is not true that we can't tackle problems and still not add to the debt. Doing things half assed won't likely do the job, but being chicken **** to even tackle a problem won't either.
 
Boo Radley said:
It doesn't have to add to the debt. That's why I prefer a single payer. While I doubt either party will actually address the debt, it is not true that we can't tackle problems and still not add to the debt. Doing things half assed won't likely do the job, but being chicken **** to even tackle a problem won't either.
Click to expand...

Single payer sounds great, but the results are hardly great. Waste, fraud, and abuse exist in the current single payer system. If they exist in the private sector the taxpayer doesn't pay it. The American people don't support a single payer system and the majority don't support Obamacare
 
Conservative said:
Single payer sounds great, but the results are hardly great. Waste, fraud, and abuse exist in the current single payer system. If they exist in the private sector the taxpayer doesn't pay it. The American people don't support a single payer system and the majority don't support Obamacare
Click to expand...

Who says they haven't been great? In most countries with them, the people are not asking for them to be done away with. Put the propaganda down and look at it with unbiased eyes.
 
Boo Radley said:
Who says they haven't been great? In most countries with them, the people are not asking for them to be done away with. Put the propaganda down and look at it with unbiased eyes.
Click to expand...

Please cite your experience in what other countries are doing and whether or not they are successful? You seem to like other countries so much better than what you have here so tell us what makes you an expert on foreign operations?
 
Conservative said:
How are healthcare costs affecting you, your family, or the economy? I keep hearing about the drain on the economy, what drain? Where are healthcare costs measured in GDP calculations? Right now healthcare costs are where they belong, with the individual. My entire point is that healthcare is personal and is best handled by the individual with the help of the state, local communities, and charities if necessary. The Federal Govt. does nothing well and all this focus on expansion of that govt. is a huge mistake and ignores history. there is nothing in Obamacare that reduces public sector costs therefore why do it?
Click to expand...

Health care costs are not with the individual. Most of us either are working for an employer who provides coverage, are old enough to qualify for Medicare, are young enough to still be on our parents' policies, or don't have health care coverage at all.

It shouldn't be difficult to see how having to shell out an extra grand a month per employee is a drag on employers, or how having to lose coverage, or else shell out that same grand a month for partial coverage should one opt to start a small business, is a drag on the economy. It's not hard to see how medical bankruptcies are a drag on the economy. Paying for the uninsured at the emergency room is a drag on the economy. How could paying 30 or 40% more than anybody else for health care not be a drag on the economy? It is an extremely inefficient system.

The employment rate in Canada has recovered much more quickly than it has in the US. One big reason has to be that employers in Canada don't have to pay for employee health coverage. Can you come up with another explanation for the difference?

Unemployment in Canada

Employment edged up for the second consecutive month in December, with an increase of 22,000. The unemployment rate held steady at 7.6%. Compared with December 2009, employment increased by 2.2% (+369,000), following a decline of 1.1% the previous year.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
Health care costs are not with the individual. Most of us either are working for an employer who provides coverage, are old enough to qualify for Medicare, are young enough to still be on our parents' policies, or don't have health care coverage at all.

It shouldn't be difficult to see how having to shell out an extra grand a month per employee is a drag on employers, or how having to lose coverage, or else shell out that same grand a month for partial coverage should one opt to start a small business, is a drag on the economy. It's not hard to see how medical bankruptcies are a drag on the economy. Paying for the uninsured at the emergency room is a drag on the economy. How could paying 30 or 40% more than anybody else for health care not be a drag on the economy? It is an extremely inefficient system.

The employment rate in Canada has recovered much more quickly than it has in the US. One big reason has to be that employers in Canada don't have to pay for employee health coverage. Can you come up with another explanation for the difference?

Unemployment in Canada
Click to expand...

Yet all is not rosy in Canada nor anywhere else with Universal Healthcare. seems that proponents here cannot seem to acknowledge what would happen if they are wrong or the added bureacracy involved in implementing and maintaining a universal healthcare program. Here are some articles and some concerns. IMO the answer is identifying what is driving up the costs then addressing those costs first. To my knowledge that has never really been done.

I wonder why it is that liberals believe that the answer to everything is massive growth in the size and scope of the Federal govt. That utopia that they are looking for really never exists.

Sweden
Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations

Vermont Study
Single payer would create multiple problems | Vermont Business Magazine

Canada problems
CBC News - Edmonton - Hundreds protest health cuts at premier's office
 
Conservative said:
Yet all is not rosy in Canada nor anywhere else with Universal Healthcare. seems that proponents here cannot seem to acknowledge what would happen if they are wrong or the added bureacracy involved in implementing and maintaining a universal healthcare program. Here are some articles and some concerns. IMO the answer is identifying what is driving up the costs then addressing those costs first. To my knowledge that has never really been done.

I wonder why it is that liberals believe that the answer to everything is massive growth in the size and scope of the Federal govt. That utopia that they are looking for really never exists.

Sweden
Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations

Vermont Study
Single payer would create multiple problems | Vermont Business Magazine

Canada problems
CBC News - Edmonton - Hundreds protest health cuts at premier's office
Click to expand...

It's not all that rosy here, either. Sure, by all means, let's try to identify why costs are so much higher here than they are in the rest of the world, then try to bring them down. If our patchwork system of private insurers and government programs is not a factor, then I'd be surprised, but, by all means, if it isn't, let's keep it.

What explanation do you have for unemployment having recovered so much more quickly in Canada than in the USA? Is it their lower taxes and more conservative government?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's not all that rosy here, either. Sure, by all means, let's try to identify why costs are so much higher here than they are in the rest of the world, then try to bring them down. If our patchwork system of private insurers and government programs is not a factor, then I'd be surprised, but, by all means, if it isn't, let's keep it.

What explanation do you have for unemployment having recovered so much more quickly in Canada than in the USA? Is it their lower taxes and more conservative government?
Click to expand...

Here is a pretty good analysis of Canada vs. the U.S. I believe economic policies in Canada far exceeded U.S. economic policy and in particular the stimulus plans passed in both countries. Note the amount in Canada vs. the U.S. Obama's focus was on Democrat constituent groups i.e. unions with our stimulus plan and Canada focused on actually stimulating the economy. We have a private sector economy that didn't respond well to Obama's stimulus whereas Canada did a better job.

Canada's bright economic prospects
 
Boo Radley said:
Who says they haven't been great? In most countries with them, the people are not asking for them to be done away with. Put the propaganda down and look at it with unbiased eyes.
Click to expand...

Examples of it not being so great

Sweden
Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations

Vermont Study
Single payer would create multiple problems | Vermont Business Magazine

Canada problems
CBC News - Edmonton - Hundreds protest health cuts at premier's office
 
Conservative said:
Here is a pretty good analysis of Canada vs. the U.S. I believe economic policies in Canada far exceeded U.S. economic policy and in particular the stimulus plans passed in both countries. Note the amount in Canada vs. the U.S. Obama's focus was on Democrat constituent groups i.e. unions with our stimulus plan and Canada focused on actually stimulating the economy. We have a private sector economy that didn't respond well to Obama's stimulus whereas Canada did a better job.

Canada's bright economic prospects
Click to expand...

It does appear that Canada's stimulus was a lot more effective, and only half as big on a per capita basis, even discounting the 700 Billion spent on TARP before Obama was elected. I wonder how many Goldman Sachs and General Motors sized industries they had to bail out?

Much of our stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. I'm not sure how much of Canada's stimulus was the same.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It does appear that Canada's stimulus was a lot more effective, and only half as big on a per capita basis, even discounting the 700 Billion spent on TARP before Obama was elected. I wonder how many Goldman Sachs and General Motors sized industries they had to bail out?

Much of our stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. I'm not sure how much of Canada's stimulus was the same.
Click to expand...

GM we did

Our banks were given some "assistance" but nothing compared to the US. Generally because we have not had a massive level of foreclosures like the US

Last but not least

Canada benifitied greatly by the stimulus packages in the US in helping to maintain a certain level of demand, and mostly Canada has been helped by the strong growth in China. China's demand for raw materials has kept prices for them high, allowing for the resource sector to do very well in Canada (while the manufacturing sector slowly dies).

Everyone should notice that countries that are heavily involved in the resource sectors has done relatively well during this economic crisis and those that do export other goods to China (Korea for instance). If China collapsed, Canada would be in the toilet (it used to be if the US collapsed Canada would be in the toilet)


One reason the US tanked is that too many people in the US were and are part of the financial sector. It is not a wealth creator but a cost centre for any economy.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
GM we did

Our banks were given some "assistance" but nothing compared to the US. Generally because we have not had a massive level of foreclosures like the US
Click to expand...
You also didn't have the government creating law to force banks to loan money for houses to people that could not afford to pay back said loans. ACORN activists and their agenda behind the devastating welfare program... including Barack Hussein Obama.

As noted in the vid below... it was a race-centric, social justice program forced on banks, with devastating results. Another illustration of the destructive nature of the socialists schemes.

In Kanuckistan isn't it the law you MUST put up 10% of the house price, or a specific percentage first? I'm not saying this should be law... but illustrates the Kanuckistani's are discriminating about who they loan money for housing. Rightly so... as the banks are not social programs.

Cuomo explaining how they were going to force banks as an Affirmative Action program. An affirmative action that undermined the economic pillars of the country. And now the idiot is the Gov. of NY?! Phew...


.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
It does appear that Canada's stimulus was a lot more effective, and only half as big on a per capita basis, even discounting the 700 Billion spent on TARP before Obama was elected. I wonder how many Goldman Sachs and General Motors sized industries they had to bail out?

Much of our stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. I'm not sure how much of Canada's stimulus was the same.
Click to expand...

There is quite a bit of difference between TARP and the Stimulus plan. TARP was 700 billion of which Bush spent 350 billion and left 350 billion to Obama. Obama still hasn't spent it all and most of TARP has been paid back.

The Stimulus was a different story. It was designed for "shovel ready" job which of course we now learn didn't exist so most of it went to bailout Democrat contituent groups. You claim most of it went to tax cuts so I ask you to compare the so called Obama tax cuts to real tax cuts under Bush. When you give a rebate you don't get the real advantage that you get with rate cuts. Once the rebate check is spent it is gone. Those still working here are benefiting from the Bush tax cuts.

Over all the stimulus program was a true waste of taxpayer dollars as the results show.

Obama Tax cuts

Total: $288 billion

Tax cuts for individuals
Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.

Bush Tax cuts

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[3] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passes legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they will expire in 2011.
 
Ok....Here's what I want to know. We all know this game, we are in it every day in real life. As I sit down and look at the family budget we have a certain number in net, spendable income coming into the house. We then look at what the home needs, and what we need as a family for basic survival, ie; shelter, electric, food, gas. Then we look at the intermediate expenses, phone, cable, clothing. Then we have the luxury expenses, upgrades to phone (cells), cable (internet, DVR, etc.), vacations, etc.

Now, if my income as a household won't sustain the luxuries, then we don't put them on the credit card, and max that out, we cut. How is this a hard equation?

Now Boo, and others look at our systems like health care, which I will agree to an extent needs some real reorganization, especially in the area of tort. But, take for a minute Congresswoman Giffords. It is amazing what our system did to not only save her life, but now looks like she will make a full recovery. Think about that, A FULL RECOVERY after a bullet to the head! Amazing. Now contrast that with that actress that was in a bad accident in Canada not too far back that died. Could they have saved Giffords?

Part of the reason that we are in the position we are in is because we have a culture of instant gratification. Something our parents didn't have being raised around people from the Depression that knew what real austerity was. We don't.

We have to do the things that are really going to hurt. It was built to that point over a long period of time, and all we are doing now is put it off, making it worse when there is no choice anymore. Rip it off in one pull like a band aid.

So my question is to liberals that go on endlessly in what we need, and what we don't, and how conservatives must see it their way in order to even have a discussion, (which is BS but I digress),

What Cuts specifically are you talking about?

What taxes would have to be raised, and how much?

What are your thoughts on a Balanced Budget Amendment?

And what are your models to show that your proposals have actually worked and are sound?


j-mac
 
zimmer said:
it was a race-centric, social justice program forced on banks, with devastating results. Another illustration of the destructive nature of the socialists schemes.
Click to expand...

wasn't exactly forced on banks, since they were allowed to wrap up the loans in cdo's sell them off to gse's and pensions, then make money again by betting against them. not excusing the idea of forcing bad loans on people, but the banks aren't quites as innocent as you'd have us think.
 
Zyroh said:
wasn't exactly forced on banks, since they were allowed to wrap up the loans in cdo's sell them off to gse's and pensions, then make money again by betting against them. not excusing the idea of forcing bad loans on people, but the banks aren't quites as innocent as you'd have us think.
Click to expand...

Are you in business Zyroh?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Are you in business Zyroh?


j-mac
Click to expand...

This is rather frustrating as once again the individual has no responsibility in this problem. I have owned a number of homes in my lifetime and never did I have a lending institution hold a gun to my head and force me to sign paperwork that had an escalating interest rate. Personal responsibility doesn't seem to exist in the liberal world these days. Banks and lending institutions supported by our elected officials put together a sub prime lending program and individuals that couldn't afford the payments took advantage of the program. Banks then took the hit and requested the bailout. On one hand Barney Frank and his "crew" put pressure on the banks to make these loans but on the other banks made the loans and should have suffered the consequences for their mistake.

I did not support TARP but understood it. IMO the banks should have been allowed to fail and if they had we wouldn't be in this mess today.
 
Last November, as the economic recovery appeared to falter, the Fed said it would buy a new round of $600 billion in Treasury securities through June of this year. That's on top of the $1.7 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities it had purchased in response to the financial crisis.

Still, the pitfalls of the Fed's approach are almost as numerous as the lending facilities it undertook to stem the crisis. Perhaps most daunting, the Fed's purchases of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities have effectively turned it into a mammoth investor -- a thoroughly undiversified one.
Click to expand...

Could the U.S. central bank go broke? | Reuters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom