• 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!

Economists: Failure to raise debt limit could lead to recession

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Economists: Failure to raise debt limit could lead to recession - The Hill's On The Money

The letter is signed by 235 prominent economists, including six Nobel Laureates, and was released by the groups Wednesday.

"We, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to raise the federal debt limit immediately and without attaching drastic and potentially dangerous reductions in federal spending. Not doing so promptly could have a substantial negative impact on economic growth at a time when the economy looks a bit shaky. In a worst case, it could push the United States back into recession," the letter states.
 
Last edited:
1st line of the article: "Economists organized by the liberal Economic Policy Institute and Center for American Progress have written a letter to Congress..."

The 1st word in your title should have been "Liberal Economists: Failure to raise..."

Talk about a misleading title about a biased letter with a dash of appeal to authority.

I was under the impression that the title of the thread has to be the exact title of the article.
 
I was under the impression that the title of the thread has to be the exact title of the article.

You're right, I meant the 1st word in "The" title not "your" title. The point however remains.
 
So "liberal" cancels out "Nobel Laureate" and "prominent" as well. Yes? Not to mention the sheer numbers.

And

The International Monetary Fund also formally warned the U.S. to quickly raise the ceiling on Wednesday.
 
So "liberal" cancels out "Nobel Laureate" and "prominent" as well. Yes? Not to mention the sheer numbers.

And

No, i consider the mention of the nobeluareates and #'s to be mere appeals to authority and population, not arguments themselves for raising the debt ceiling.

EDIT: I am reading the full letter now since you didn't post any of its arguments.
 
Last edited:
Quick question. How many times was the debt ceiling raised on Bush's watch?
 
Also of interest.

 
Quick question. How many times was the debt ceiling raised on Bush's watch?

I don't know, nor do I consider it relevant because I would have been opposed to those increases as well. When you're sick the cure is not more of the poison that got you sick. When you are broke, and your credit cards are maxxed out you do not take out another card.

Also of interest.



The man has a history of blatant dishonesty and has an interest in raising the debt ceiling. Further deficits and debasement of our currency are the very purpose of his monetary policy ideals.
 
Last edited:
And nor do you raise taxes on the wealthy, I assume.
 
And nor do you raise taxes on the wealthy, I assume.

What is this a reply to? Please quote the statement or point you are addressing so that I may clearly offer a rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
What is this a reply to? Please quote the statement or point you are addressing so that I may clearly offer a rebuttal.

Oh, I didn't realize every post was supposed to be in response to a previous post. I thought we were just having a normal conversation. My bad.
 
Quick question. How many times was the debt ceiling raised on Bush's watch?

Glad you asked, Boop! Current GOP Leaders Upped Debt Limit 19 Times During Bush Presidency. Whoa, really? I'm surprised, are you surprised? I'm surprised!
 
Oh, I didn't realize every post was supposed to be in response to a previous post. I thought we were just having a normal conversation. My bad.

... this is a debate forum, a conversation is between two people who agree, and your statement began with "And nor do you..." which clearly indicates that it is a response to something.

Quick question. How many times was the debt ceiling raised on Bush's watch?
Glad you asked, Boop! Current GOP Leaders Upped Debt Limit 19 Times During Bush Presidency. Whoa, really? I'm surprised, are you surprised? I'm surprised!

So you'll respond to your own posts but not mine? Man people who talk to themselves are weird...
 
Last edited:
Glad you asked, Boop! Current GOP Leaders Upped Debt Limit 19 Times During Bush Presidency. Whoa, really? I'm surprised, are you surprised? I'm surprised!

Yes, the Republican Party has little authenticity.
 
... this is a debate forum, a conversation is between two people who agree, and your statement began with "And nor do you..." which clearly indicates that it is a response to something.



So you'll respond to your own posts but not mine? Man people who talk to themselves are weird...

Except it ends with I assume which means .... seriously? I have to explain it to you?

P.S.: I like me more.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Except it ends with I assume which means .... seriously? I have to explain it to you?

P.S.: I like me more.:2wave:

Yes please explain how such a statement can be made not in response to anything.
 
Yes please explain how such a statement can be made not in response to anything.

Nah. I'm going to go read. Have a lovely. :)
 
This is true, but heres why: the repubs and the dems (save a few on both sides) do not want to close branches of government down which is especially risky to do it all at once during a weak economy (less people with job means less capital flow means less demand means gradual loss of more jobs). If budgets followed the line somewhat more closely to say a Paul or Demint (minus the religion bias) thread then the debt limit wouldn't matter. It may have to be raised in the short run to meet short term debts, but only by a fraction of what it needs to be raised. Not only that, but SS, medicare, and Medicaid could reap the windfall "surplus" to remain solvent long enough for a equitable solution to be formulated and implemented.
 
In So California unemployment is near 15%, who said the recession is over. It's a dang depression where I live.
 
How very boring...

Reading is not boring! You're just choosing the wrong books. I recommend George R.R. Martin and Jim Butcher for starters.
 
While not researching all the "economists" on that list, I'd guess that they are in large numbers the same ones that stated that the banks were in fine shape in 2008. This list would include Bernanke. Why anyone would listen to him now when he was so very wrong on the banks always leaves me scratching my head.

Find me the opinion of those who called the banking collapse.
 
While not researching all the "economists" on that list, I'd guess that they are in large numbers the same ones that stated that the banks were in fine shape in 2008. This list would include Bernanke. Why anyone would listen to him now when he was so very wrong on the banks always leaves me scratching my head.

Find me the opinion of those who called the banking collapse.

Probably some of the same ones that said spening trillions in pork would get the economy rolling, again.
 
Back
Top Bottom