• 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!

Republican Party unity cracks over raising $14.3 trillion debt ceiling

Why does the G.O.P. hate Americans? They would rather **** over ordinary people to pay foreign creditors? What's the message to the American people? I think we all are hearing the message loud and clear.

Yeah, their message is "We are gonna reign in this borrowing so that your hard work and money isn't wasted."

Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
Oh I see, so democrats are better then. Im sorry...who cares about the 14 trillion debt again? If that "someone else" is someone who says "Nah, **** the debt, it doesn't exist, we need more ****!" Then untill a republican proposes we spend a dollar more than democrats are spending now, then hell no im not voting for someone else!

Point is, it doesn't matter. If events were linear, you would have a point, but that's not how it works in the real world. We have a duopoly in this country, and so the only way things will change, is if we work inside the system. So far, the only ones who care enough and are realistic enough to do that to settle the debt is the few republicans in congress and that dennis kucinich. sorry if I see no hope in the democrats, they haven't proven anything to me...Nay, went OUT OF THEIR WAY to prove that they are the complete opposite of what this country needs. Dr Paul, has proven and is time-tested and his republicans can actually be shamed into doing the right thing, as the bailout vote proved 2 years ago.

so once again you're not 'holding their feet to the fire' as you said before. you're saying as long as they're slightly better than the democrats let's keep voting for them. Criticalthought's post was just saying don't vote for either of these two parties because neither of them are helping the country, only hurting it. do you see how that is ironic since you were blaiming what the republicans were doing when they were raising big deficits on the voters not 'holding their feet to the fire'?

quite voting for people that are enslaving you sheeple...
 
so once again you're not 'holding their feet to the fire' as you said before. you're saying as long as they're slightly better than the democrats let's keep voting for them. Criticalthought's post was just saying don't vote for either of these two parties because neither of them are helping the country, only hurting it. do you see how that is ironic since you were blaiming what the republicans were doing when they were raising big deficits on the voters not 'holding their feet to the fire'?

quite voting for people that are enslaving you sheeple...
Voting for someone worse is just rewarding worse habits, not holding feet to the fire. I already gave you an example of what is, change from the inside. If there is nothing else you want to say, just call me sheep for standing up for myself, and doing my part to eliminate bad eggs in the GOP, then pardon me but, i have other things to be concerned with,
 
Voting for someone worse is just rewarding worse habits, not holding feet to the fire. I already gave you an example of what is, change from the inside. If there is nothing else you want to say, just call me sheep for standing up for myself, and doing my part to eliminate bad eggs in the GOP, then pardon me but, i have other things to be concerned with,

you need to work on your reading comprehension, i didn't say vote for someone worse, i was saying how criticalthought was advocating voting for someone better, someone more likely to advocate policies that'll fix our situation. what you're doing is settling for the best of two evils. the only thing that does is result in perpetual evil. so if the democrats are absolute horror and violence and misery, and republicans are just violence and misery you'll keep pumping the republicans cause they're slightly less evil than the democrats. in your case you're not holding their feet to the fire, you're saying you'll support them as long as they're not as bad as the democrats. even you admitted that's not a very high bar. now, stop, read this post again, and think about it before you completely misconstrue everything i said again.
 
Most republicans cared about the debt...

Bull. Just like every other time, they were more concerned about being partisan twits and concerning themselves with what the democrats were doing than paying any attentoin to the people they were electing.
 
Bull. Just like every other time, they were more concerned about being partisan twits and concerning themselves with what the democrats were doing than paying any attentoin to the people they were electing.
So then, what was glenn beck back in 2006, when his show started, when he was calling george bush out for the debt?

Or when Michael Savage was calling george bush the worst president and an "evil man" millions of times for the debt, immigration, and the little issue over kosovo?

Or when Orielly said we could no longer trust the president...in 2004?

want more examples?

there have been conservatives calling him out forever man, you have just ignored it and then have the balls to go "Oh! Where were you when a republican president blah blah blah blah" and all that other ****ed up BS.
 
Last edited:
So then, what was glenn beck back in 2006, when his show started, when he was calling george bush out for the debt?

Or when Michael Savage was calling george bush the worst president and an "evil man" millions of times for the debt, immigration, and the little issue over kosovo?

Or when Orielly said we could no longer trust the president...in 2004?

want more examples?

there have been conservatives calling him out forever man, you have just ignored it and then have the balls to go "Oh! Where were you when a republican president blah blah blah blah" and all that other ****ed up BS.

Pleasae substantiate these examples.
 
I don't understand why we even have to go through these theatrics every few months or so. When I'm on a budget, I don't get to raise it whenever I want.

True, but there's always your credit card for emergencies. and that's what raising the National Debt is all about... Emergencies.

ricksfolly
 
it will, as always, be up to the electorate to decide whom they deem the more fiscally responsible, their approval or reproach for the various players involved
/QUOTE]

True, but as usual it's too complicated for voters to grasp, and they don't have the time to catch up, so they'll just have to rely on their old habits... Voting against, not for...

ricksfolly
 
You can cut in plenty of places. Our spending used to be a lot lower, and the Proletariat was not raising the barricades. Of course these cuts need to be done in a well thought out manner, and simply cutting to cut won't solve much. However, we have to face up to the reality that our fiscal course is not sustainable.

It really doesn't matter how high the deficit goes, Fed Reserve funds will make up the difference as they've been doing for all deficits since 1913.

Evidence of this is no deficit carry-over in the next year's budget. Makes sense too, because Government bills must be paid when due.

Can you imagine what would happen if we defaulted on our debts just once, how it would effect our world credit?

ricksfolly
 
obama is betraying the liberals here with senseless paying off corporations and power grabbing for the sake of grabbing power,

Recheck your dates. All that happened before Obama was President.

As for Obama's economic power, it's only the veto pen and the bully pulpit, the same as it's always been for all presidents.

ricksfolly
 
am i talking to a wall here? you even a person or just programed to spit out lew rockwell talking points. i support cuts in spending, spending needs to be cut, cortar el gasto. i'm pointing out the fact that this legislation proposed by the conservative wing of the republicans stipulates that the richest people, including other countries, get paid first and in full then you can cut spending. and you doing this with a libertarian tag shows that you're bastardizing the ideology as much as william f buckley screwed up conservatism.

Wait, what? When did I ever voice support for what the GOP was doing?
 
It really doesn't matter how high the deficit goes, Fed Reserve funds will make up the difference as they've been doing for all deficits since 1913.

Evidence of this is no deficit carry-over in the next year's budget. Makes sense too, because Government bills must be paid when due.

Can you imagine what would happen if we defaulted on our debts just once, how it would effect our world credit?

ricksfolly

At some point the gravy train is going to end. At some point the deficit and debt are going to go too high.

True, but there's always your credit card for emergencies. and that's what raising the National Debt is all about... Emergencies.

ricksfolly

The national debt is raised every few months. These are not emergencies, but a refusal by Congress to be fiscally responsible.
 
Last edited:
we have $1.5 Trillion in projected deficit this year,

It was $1.4 deficit in 2009, and a $1.5 trillion in 2010, a $100 billion increase, but really no big deal. The Fed Reserve funds will for pay for it in 2010 the same way they did in 2009.

ricksfolly
 
Where was all this Republican bitching about debt when Bush was President? Where was all the doom and gloom about bankruptcy then? Does everyone think all this debt suddenly materialized in 2009 when the markets went under?

Nah, lets be realistic. Not everyone of the new conservatives was a conservative then, not everyone was worried about bancruptcy then, not everyone was worried about the debt then. If Barack Obama did any one thing, he has unified the conservative movement in this country as no one else has. In the short term he has destroyed millions of peoples dreams of prosperity, in the long term,he has brought our nation together like no other in 50 years.
 
Why does the G.O.P. hate Americans? They would rather **** over ordinary people to pay foreign creditors? What's the message to the American people? I think we all are hearing the message loud and clear.

Just where exacty did you get this? I have read this thread to this point and I don't see where anyone has said or implied that the GOP hates people. Do you have some kind of special post filter that other people don't have? Where can we get one? How much do they cost?
 
True, but there's always your credit card for emergencies. and that's what raising the National Debt is all about... Emergencies.

ricksfolly

Just because I have a credit card with a limit of , say, 14 dollars, does not mean that I I have to spend 14 dollars. But, look back at what the govt spending has been. When we raise the limit, then they spend to the limit, raise it again, and spend to it again.
This is not emergency spending, this is not justifiable spending, this is not even necessary spending, it is out of control spending. If this was your wife spending your paycheck this way, how long would you let it go on before you put your foot down?
 
It was $1.4 deficit in 2009, and a $1.5 trillion in 2010, a $100 billion increase, but really no big deal. The Fed Reserve funds will for pay for it in 2010 the same way they did in 2009.

ricksfolly

Are you really saying that the national deficit does not matter because next year, we will start over again? What kind of math did you learn in school?
 
It was $1.4 deficit in 2009, and a $1.5 trillion in 2010, a $100 billion increase, but really no big deal

astonishing

elmendorf (cbo) testified TODAY before senate budget chaired by kent conrad who announced a couple weeks ago he's not running for reelection:

CBO Director: Trillion-Dollar Deficits Risk 'Fiscal Crisis' in U.S. - FoxNews.com.

conrad, meanwhile, bemoaned the lack of leadership coming from the white house:

Dem, GOP suggest at hearing that Obama is failing to lead in budget crisis - The Hill's On The Money

for solutions, the top anti-public-option progressive in the nation suggested, we're gonna have to look to the senate

all TODAY

how out of the loop can a voter, after all, be?
 
Why does the G.O.P. hate Americans? They would rather **** over ordinary people to pay foreign creditors? What's the message to the American people? I think we all are hearing the message loud and clear.

Just where exacty did you get this? I have read this thread to this point and I don't see where anyone has said or implied that the GOP hates people. Do you have some kind of special post filter that other people don't have? Where can we get one? How much do they cost?

Here are the consequences of the Republican Study Committee's proposal.

What they are saying is, ‘Pay the Chinese first.’ — Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND)

[T]he full faith and credit extends to a lot of foreign countries but not to Americans. — House Budget Committee Ranking Member Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)

Excerpted from “Treasury: Proposals to “Prioritize” Payments on U.S. Debt Not Workable; Would Not Prevent Default” By Neal Wolin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, “Treasury Notes” (blog), 1/21/2011, with my added emphasis
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]hile well-intentioned, this idea is unworkable. It would not actually prevent default, since it would seek to protect only principal and interest payments, and not other legal obligations of the U.S., from non-payment. Adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be default by another name, since the world would recognize it as a failure by the U.S. to stand behind its commitments. It would therefore bring about the same catastrophic economic consequences Secretary Geithner has warned against, including sharp rises in mortgage interest rates and other borrowing costs for families; reductions in the value of homes, 401(k)s and other retirement savings; and negative effects on the dollar and the safe haven status of Treasury bonds and other Treasury securities. Such a policy would also be unacceptable to American servicemen and women, retirees, and all other Americans, who would rightly reject the notion that their payment has been deemed a lower priority by their government. For these reasons, the Department of Treasury has always emphasized – regardless of which party has held the White House or either house of Congress – that the only way to prevent default and protect America’s creditworthiness is to enact a timely increase in the debt limit.

The consequences are horrific for Americans. While the Republican proposal would pay off the foreign interests, they would deprioritize domestic obligations; i.e., pay Americans last. Worse, it would fool no one; it would be “default by another name,” with all the deleterious consequences for us Americans. I interpret that as the G.O.P. despising the people, despising us and punishing us.

We have excellent credit and while we have significant deficit issues, rational, reasonable solutions are readily available to us. They involve controlling spending and increasing some taxes. But, not according to the Republican radicals who think apparently the only good solution is to destroy our good standing in the world and bring about the impoverishment of America.
 
It's funny. When the GOP says the the democrats are fractured, the dems brag that they're inclusive to many ideas. When the GOP has differences of opinion in their party, the dems say that their unity has cracked. Interesting.
 
Just where exacty did you get this? I have read this thread to this point and I don't see where anyone has said or implied that the GOP hates people. Do you have some kind of special post filter that other people don't have? Where can we get one? How much do they cost?

he got this from the story at the beginning of this thread. for months the tea party has been telling us how we need to cut spending, and cut it at whatever cost to the country. now they come up with a plan that makes sure we pay bond holders in full 100%. people with treasury bonds haven't been out of a job for 2+ years, people with treasury bonds aren't relying on food stamps. if they really wanted to cut the spending they'd say even the creditors of the US government need a hair cut.
 
did somone bring up united states responsibilities to holders of t bills?

on the day after tsunami tuesday (most telling is the timing), on nov 3, 2010, fed bernanke announced his ultra aggressive further buying up of 600 billion dollars of treasuries, on top of the one point five TRILLION he's already pumped...

Fed to Buy $600 Billion of Treasurys - WSJ.com

3 days later, obama left the country, off for india, then indonesia, ending up in seoul for the g20 (an obligation, it's true, he woulda had to do regardless of political considerations), where his prime mission was to rally world leaders to pressure china to concede to currency revaluation...

his g20 was thereby wrecked by bernanke's big bid...

who are you to talk to us about currency, was the consensus reaction of the international community...

the nyt described the trip thus---obama's economic views REJECTED on world stage

the national journal called it his RODNEY DANGERFIELD moment

Obama's economic view is rejected on world stage - San Jose Mercury News

NationalJournal.com - America?s Rodney Dangerfield Moment - Friday, November 12, 2010

do you know michael hirsh?

is the journal spinning, is the lady (nyt)?

just what exactly is reid/pelosi/obama/schumer's desperate rationale fiercely urging the necessity of once more raising the ceiling?

get real
 
Back
Top Bottom