• 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!

As Debt Limit Reached, Agreement Still Far Off .

can you reply with numbers from a source that you would claim is more credible, demonstrating the actual total direct revenue?
 
CriticalThought said:
Bush started expensive wars and Obama kept our troops on the ground. Bush was standing guard when the economy tanked and started the bail outs and Obama has simply continued the same economic policies.
Click to expand...

bush is history, obama is the president

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress contributed in their own ways to our current economic situation.
Click to expand...

boehner passed hr1 and ryan

the us senate has failed to produce a budget in two years and won't be able to commit to one this year either

Senate Dems' budget in limbo - The Hill's On The Money

it is what it is

seeya at the polls, pals
 
CriticalThought said:
Look in the mirror Kiddo. Both Republicans and Democrats, Bush and Obama, are all responsible for out current debt situation. Bush started expensive wars and Obama kept our troops on the ground.
Click to expand...

All because of defensive, gotcha politics. The president who isn't tough is an appeaser, a wimp and will automatically lose all the Hawks, and closet Hawks, votes.

Clinton said it best.

"It's far better to be strong and wrong than weak and right."

ricksfolly
 
cpwill said:
can you reply with numbers from a source that you would claim is more credible, demonstrating the actual total direct revenue?
Click to expand...

You could figure that much out yourself. I already demonstrated at least one area where their numbers differ from the official estimates. I'm not going to go through every chart they disseminate just to please a conservative who wants to defend a conservative site.

Total Debt.

Let me google that for you
 
CriticalThought said:
From what I understand, the US borrows 40% of the current budget. That would be the equivalent of eradicating Medicare and the military. Does that sound fiscally smart to you?
Click to expand...

All of it...no. Eradicate large targeted cuts to pay down the budget debt over 10 years? yes. Hell yes. Across the board.
 
The Prof said:
bush is history, obama is the president
Click to expand...

Retarded. The effects of one president do not end the moment the next takes office and the present president is not completely powerless to invoke change as a result of the last president. The fact that you wish to play partisan rather than engage in common sense makes any discussion with you utterly worthless.
 
VanceMack said:
All of it...no. Eradicate large targeted cuts to pay down the budget debt over 10 years? yes. Hell yes. Across the board.
Click to expand...

What would 40% across the board look like? We could pay down the debt in 10 years without having to resort to such drastic measures.
 
CriticalThought said:
No party has "owned" the Congress. There is so much difference within each party that the moment one party takes over it becomes divided. It happened when the Democrats had a super majority and it is happening now with the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Horse ****. Bush and the republicans passed virtually anything they wanted to. Democrats had damn near a super-majority with a willing rubber stamp executive. they were so completely inept and impotent they couldnt even propose a simple budget. Reid was and is still a joke as a leader. The senate is an afterthought. Pathetic.

there BETTER start being some real leadership in congress and they better actually get a grip on the debt or we should brush up on how to handle a governmental collapse.
 
CriticalThought said:
What would 40% across the board look like? We could pay down the debt in 10 years without having to resort to such drastic measures.
Click to expand...

They cant do a thing if they just keep talking about it. Status quo has to end. Cuts have to occur. No on is suggesting it has to or can be fixed by next year, but we damn sure ought to be on a path to fiscal recovery.
 
VanceMack said:
They cant do a thing if they just keep talking about it. Status quo has to end. Cuts have to occur. No on is suggesting it has to or can be fixed by next year, but we damn sure ought to be on a path to fiscal recovery.
Click to expand...

What the hell? Nobody is arguing that cuts don't have to occur. The president has proposed significant cuts over the next 12 years. The debate is not over whether or not there needs to be cuts, but to what extent.
 
CriticalThought said:
We could pay down the debt in 10 years without having to resort to such drastic measures.
Click to expand...

great!

tell harry to tell conrad to write it up

and hurry

we're waiting, which, in times like these, y'know, we really can't afford to do
 
CriticalThought said:
What the hell? Nobody is arguing that cuts don't have to occur. The president has proposed significant cuts over the next 12 years. The debate is not over whether or not there needs to be cuts, but to what extent.
Click to expand...

You threw out the 40% figure suggesting radical cuts in eradicating military and medicare (where you pulled it from...I have no idea) and I responded and now you want to act all "What the hell"? Dood...I dont control the budget but congress does and there needs to be a change in thinking which includes targeted across the board cuts. We seem to agree...so I'll leave it at that.
 
The Prof said:
great!

tell harry to tell conrad to write it up

and hurry

we're waiting, which, in times like these, y'know, we really can't afford to do
Click to expand...

I doubt that you understand the meaning of it, but "political posturing" is holding up the process, not legitimate discussion.
 
VanceMack said:
You threw out the 40% figure suggesting radical cuts in eradicating military and medicare (where you pulled it from...I have no idea) and I responded and now you want to act all "What the hell"? Dood...I dont control the budget but congress does and there needs to be a change in thinking which includes targeted across the board cuts. We seem to agree...so I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

This is a debate about raising the debt ceiling, not spending cuts.

Yes, there needs to be spending cuts. But taxes also need to be raised and earmarked specifically for debt repayment. It is common sense that we need to start paying off the debt and the only way we can do so in a period when we are significantly cutting spending is with additional revenue. In an ideal world, tax cuts would lead to greater revenues which in turn would lead to more taxes, but our system will not work that way in a slow recovery. We need to raise taxes in order to generate the revenue so that we can begin paying down debt. Cutting from essentials like defense in order to pay down debt in addition to the cuts we need to keep from accruing more debt is simply not an option.
 
CriticalThought said:
Retarded. The effects of one president do not end the moment the next takes office and the present president is not completely powerless to invoke change as a result of the last president. The fact that you wish to play partisan rather than engage in common sense makes any discussion with you utterly worthless.
Click to expand...

With Democrats, the effects of a Republican president don't end until the end of the Democrat president's 2nd term.
 
American said:
With Democrats, the effects of a Republican president don't end until the end of the Democrat president's 2nd term.
Click to expand...

Yeah well dude, if a republican wins next year, and things don't improve we'll never hear the end of "obamas mess"

So don't be too spiteful of that stuff. You're going to do it as well.
 
American said:
With Democrats, the effects of a Republican president don't end until the end of the Democrat president's 2nd term.
Click to expand...

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Yes, I know, the rhetoric of the other side is clearly more reprehensible than the rhetoric of your side. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
at this point it absolutely would. we have a dearth of willing investors at current rates. The Fed is papering over the difference - but that is a very temporary solution. We have until June to convince many people who are currently not willing to invest in Bonds at current prices that it is a wise decision for them to do so. Even with sharp spending cuts in the Debt Ceiling Raise we may not succeed. Too much depends upon the unpredictable reaction of the Bond Market to such cuts - but that is the position we have put ourselves in.



no, instead we saw the smart money flee, China and the other sovereign debt funds shift to short paper and move to reduce their holdings, and the Fed move to cover the difference. But the Fed isn't going to be there post-June. 70% of Bonds at current rates suddenly have no willing buyer. Price is a function of Supply and Demand. You are basically arguing that we can keep Supply, collapse Demand, and hope that the Price remains the same.

We have to find a way to boost demand for the bond. Because what we have now is insufficient to keep our rates where they are, or anything even close.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. QE2 has already been priced into the bond markets. We have known about a fed exit for a long time. Everyone knows it is coming. There is no reason for a spike. If history is a lesson, after the previous QE yields fell after the program ended. This corresponds with the overall goal of QE, which is to lower longer term yields. Also, the fed purchasing longer term treasuries (relative to before) has increased the average maturity of the debt held by the public, which means more people are buying/the treasury is selling more longer term treasuries than before.

interesting - you claim simultaneously that there is massive uncertainty in the market, and then you argue that the bond most susceptible to uncertainty isn't demonstrating any such thing. Perhaps you should reexamine your arguments?
Click to expand...

Fine, even though I think it is ridiculous to say that this is not creating any uncertainty, I'll just say we need to raise the debt limit because not doing so would be dumb, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
This is a debate about raising the debt ceiling, not spending cuts.

Yes, there needs to be spending cuts. But taxes also need to be raised and earmarked specifically for debt repayment. It is common sense that we need to start paying off the debt and the only way we can do so in a period when we are significantly cutting spending is with additional revenue. In an ideal world, tax cuts would lead to greater revenues which in turn would lead to more taxes, but our system will not work that way in a slow recovery. We need to raise taxes in order to generate the revenue so that we can begin paying down debt. Cutting from essentials like defense in order to pay down debt in addition to the cuts we need to keep from accruing more debt is simply not an option.
Click to expand...

And yet in your post about raising the debt ceiling you said absolutely nothing about the debt ceiling.

We agree...massive cuts in spending. I agree with raising taxes as well. But they should absolutely NOT raise the debt ceiling. No reason...no value. It would have zero impact on our credit rating because we would still have to pay our debts. Congress should maintain their own self imposed ceiling. Period. There is plenty of room to cut right now, including the defense budget. if people knew how much got spent just on conventions and seminars they would vomit.
 
VanceMack said:
And yet in your post about raising the debt ceiling you said absolutely nothing about the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...

Go back and read it. I was responding to a post about not raising the debt ceiling and potentially defaulting.

But they should absolutely NOT raise the debt ceiling. No reason...no value. It would have zero impact on our credit rating because we would still have to pay our debts. Congress should maintain their own self imposed ceiling. Period. There is plenty of room to cut right now, including the defense budget. if people knew how much got spent just on conventions and seminars they would vomit.
Click to expand...

I estimated that we would be short about 22% if we didn't raise the debt ceiling.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...greement-still-far-off-12.html#post1059493492

Why would you choose to drastically cut things like Medicare and the Military when it isn't needed? That would simply mean hundreds of thousands of government workers and health care workers would be laid off. The result of that would be less money that could be taxed and less money being spent, That of course would hurt business, and that of course would further reduce revenues.

People like you really have a poor grasp of macroeconomics. The government is one of the largest employers in the country and suddenly eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs would not benefit the economy.

The other option is that we would default. That would be catastrophic.
 
Last edited:
drz-400 said:
I disagree with you. QE2 has already been priced into the bond markets. We have known about a fed exit for a long time. Everyone knows it is coming. There is no reason for a spike. If history is a lesson, after the previous QE yields fell after the program ended. This corresponds with the overall goal of QE, which is to lower longer term yields. Also, the fed purchasing longer term treasuries (relative to before) has increased the average maturity of the debt held by the public, which means more people are buying/the treasury is selling more longer term treasuries than before.
Click to expand...

well it's a moot debate until June, but we'll see how the current debate plays with those. I just don't see where you are getting someone to buy up 70% of our debt all of a sudden without a rate climb.

Fine, even though I think it is ridiculous to say that this is not creating any uncertainty
Click to expand...

given that both parties are in agreement that they intend to increase the debt ceiling, i have no idea where the uncertainty on that issue is coming from.

I'll just say we need to raise the debt limit because not doing so would be dumb, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

no one is saying we shouldn't. we are only saying that we should do so in a way that will convince people we are moving dramatically towards long-term stability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom