• 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!

U.S. National Debt Tops Debt Limit

Catawba said:
Stop our optional wars.
Click to expand...

Let's wait until they become necessary wars and kill a half-million Americans rather than a few thousand.

Wait, haven't we already been down that road?
 
apdst said:
Let's wait until they become necessary wars and kill a half-million Americans rather than a few thousand.

Wait, haven't we already been down that road?
Click to expand...

Fear by some in the most powerful country on the planet has always astounded me. Especially from a rag tag band of outlaws that have not planes or ships and use homemade bombs!

Our wars have accomplished nothing but increasing the numbers of terrorists worldwide. Does that make you feel more secure?
 
obvious Child said:
How is feeding a deflationary economy more deflation going to help it?



Well, they wouldn't stand for a deflationary economy. Why invest now at price x when I can invest at price Y which is $10 cheaper? Deflation is just as bad, if not worse then inflation for economic growth.
Click to expand...

What deflation, when did this occur exactly?
 
Jackboot said:
This never happened, and your links do not suggest anything of the sort. The truth is, we skipped right over deflation, and are now headed for massive inflation.
Click to expand...

Did you read them? Several of them directly cite statistics showing declines in prices. How is that not deflation?
 
obvious Child said:
Did you read them? Several of them directly cite statistics showing declines in prices. How is that not deflation?
Click to expand...

Having a sale in a time of recession, does not deflation make.

In times like these, you should be lucky to have a wal-mart in your neighborhood. ;)
 
Jackboot said:
Having a sale in a time of recession, does not deflation make.
Click to expand...

But when overall asset values are declining, that does suggest deflation.

The evidence supports Wang's interpretation. Wang's inflation analysis, by category: commodity prices (flat or declining), stock prices (flat or modest increase), asset prices (housing, commercial real estate, business assets declining), median incomes/wages (flat or declining), and business pricing power (none or very little). Wang's conclusion: a bias toward disinflation (lower inflation) or deflation (actual price declines).
Click to expand...
 
obvious Child said:
But when overall asset values are declining, that does suggest deflation.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, since this is a topic I don't know alot on, but: BBC News - US producer prices rise more than expected

The Labor Department's Producer Price Index increased 1.8% from October, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the biggest rise in three months.

The cost of petrol increased by 14% on the back of higher crude oil prices.

The data will increase inflation concerns, but US interest rates are expected to remain on hold this week.
Click to expand...

How does this figure into what you are saying?
 
Redress said:
How does this figure into what you are saying?
Click to expand...

The additional cost of gasoline is being passed on to consumers causing prices to rise. Furthermore, the deflationary scare was several months ago, I'd argue in the first six months of this year. While it still could happen now, the truly epic increase in M0 has more or less stopped it. As I've noted before, if the economy quickly picks up, we're going to be facing a rather large inflation beast.
 
BWG said:
LOL...look at the join date beneath my name. I was here. Conservatives Bush supporters on this board (and in general) were not very pissed about the spending.

Yes, if you look back you may find a few - very few - that expressed concern, but for the vast majority they were extremely apologetic.
Click to expand...

There, fixed it for you.
 
PeteEU said:
But that does not change the fact that most conservatives today blame Obama for most if not all of the debt, and that is so factually wrong. They gloss over the fact that of the 12 trillion at least 5 if not 6 trillion came during Bush's watch with a Republican (conservative) run Congress. In there lies not only the irony but the hypocrisy as well.
Click to expand...
Speaking of factual errors, irony and hypocricy:
Federal Deficit, Jan 21 2001:$5,727,776,738,304.64
Feferal Deficit, Jan 01 2007: $8,678,229,324,205.41
That's a $2.951T increase, not the 5T or 6T you claimed.

But.... lets look at whats happened since then, with Liberals running Congress:
Federal Deficit, Jan 01 2007: $8,678,229,324,205.41
Federal Deficit, Dec 18 2009:$12,097,698,782,543.93
That's a $3.419T increaase, and represents a 15% greater increase to the debt under GWB and the Republican Congress -- all in half the time.

So, the fact is that the liberals running congress have increated the debt FAR faster than GWB and the GOP Congress.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
Goobieman said:
Speaking of factual errors, irony and hypocricy:
Federal Deficit, Jan 21 2001:$5,727,776,738,304.64
Feferal Deficit, Jan 01 2007: $8,678,229,324,205.41
That's a $2.951T increase, not the 5T or 6T you claimed.

But.... lets look at whats happened since then, with Liberals running Congress:
Federal Deficit, Jan 01 2007: $8,678,229,324,205.41
Federal Deficit, Dec 18 2009:$12,097,698,782,543.93
That's a $3.419T increaase, and represents a 15% greater increase to the debt under GWB and the Republican Congress -- all in half the time.

So, the fact is that the liberals running congress have increated the debt FAR faster than GWB and the GOP Congress.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Click to expand...

So, then it's OK to bash Obama, but give Bush a free pass, because Bush's increase in Federal spending was smaller? It was still quite an increase from previous years. I think both Bush and Obama should be condemned for their recklessness, not just Obama. Just because Obama is outspending the crap out of Bush does not excuse Bush. Bush was no Conservative, not even a little. He is also guilty as hell. There should be no partisanship here, if one truly believes that massive Federal spending is wrong. It either is or it isn't, and the letter after one's name should never be a free ticket out of the blame for it. Period!!
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
So, then it's OK to bash Obama, but give Bush a free pass, because Bush's increase in Federal spending was smaller? It was still quite an increase from previous years. I think both Bush and Obama should be condemned for their recklessness, not just Obama. Just because Obama is outspending the crap out of Bush does not excuse Bush. Bush was no Conservative, not even a little. He is also guilty as hell. There should be no partisanship here, if one truly believes that massive Federal spending is wrong. It either is or it isn't, and the letter after one's name should never be a free ticket out of the blame for it. Period!!
Click to expand...

C'mon Dana, I would expect better from you. Where in Goobie's post does he excuse Bush? Unless you take criticism of Obama as an automatic excuse for Bush and the GOP.
 
EpicDude86 said:
C'mon Dana, I would expect better from you. Where in Goobie's post does he excuse Bush? Unless you take criticism of Obama as an automatic excuse for Bush and the GOP.
Click to expand...

Ya know I've actually see this type of thing happen quite a bit with those that defend Obama the most. Not saying this applies to Dana here. Just that if there is any criticism of Obama on a subject where both Obama and Bush are comparable they automatically assume that you are defending Bush. Even when your post says NOTHING about Bush.

I've also noticed that alot of Obama supporters have a tendency to blame republicans for delaying or going against something that democrats offer up..never once mentioning or admitting that thier same party did the exact same things under a republican majority....and visa versa.

I swear that both Democrats and Republicans should get the All Time Hypocrtical award. (and if there is no such thing then one should be made)
 
danarhea said:
So, then it's OK to bash Obama, but give Bush a free pass, because Bush's increase in Federal spending was smaller?
Click to expand...
The point of post was to illustrate the (rather ironic) factual errors and hypocrisy of the poster I responded to, and nothing more.

If your gripe is with GWB and the GOP congress and their raising of the debt 2001-2006, then you -must- take more than double the exception with the Liberals running Congress from 2007 to present, as said liberals have raised the debt MORE than TWICE as fast as GWB and the GOP congress.

In his case, this will -not- be the case - thus, the hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Ya know I've actually see this type of thing happen quite a bit with those that defend Obama the most. Not saying this applies to Dana here. Just that if there is any criticism of Obama on a subject where both Obama and Bush are comparable they automatically assume that you are defending Bush. Even when your post says NOTHING about Bush.

I've also noticed that alot of Obama supporters have a tendency to blame republicans for delaying or going against something that democrats offer up..never once mentioning or admitting that thier same party did the exact same things under a republican majority....and visa versa.

I swear that both Democrats and Republicans should get the All Time Hypocrtical award. (and if there is no such thing then one should be made)
Click to expand...

*sigh* Tis the Nature of the Beast.
 
Hugh_Akston said:
Lower taxes
Seriously cut government spending
Bail on the current health care reform bills
Stop printing money at the outrageous rate in which we are
Stop bailing out every company the administration wants to take over

Just to name a few...
Click to expand...

You left out the part where it will still take 100 years to recover if all this were done.
 
Councilman said:
You left out the part where it will still take 100 years to recover if all this were done.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, Bush cut taxes and look where that got us. Cutting spending and balancing the budget is key.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Not to mention, Bush cut taxes and look where that got us. Cutting spending and balancing the budget is key.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Reagan may have proved that deficits don't matter. He also proved that cutting taxes while not cutting spending is a formula for increasing those deficits. Trickle down, aka voodoo economics in fine, doesn't work.
 
You have to change the culture of Washington either through electing politicians whose primary motive is not retaining power(I have my doubts the American public has the discernment to do this) or redirect the corruption of politicians away from special interests. Do this by passing an amendment for term limits of one term for the President and Congress and have lucrative financial incentives for the politicians to balance the budget and for every percentage point lower the cost of government is to the GNP. Maybe raise the term of the Presidency to six years, Representatives to four years, and keep Senate at six. A non partisan Tea Bag movement that focuses on term limits/incentives would focus the taxpayers anger in a positive direction and be a possible vehicle for change.
 
Last edited:
The root of the U.S.'s debt problem is in our polarizing political mentality, secondarily in our two-party system. Europe went through a lot of upheavals because of competing classical liberal and socialist philosophies but because neither side had a clean win over the public consciousness, it resulted in a society where there is less ideology and more practicality in formulating economic policy. At least on economics, Europeans in general are less dedicated to their personal ideals and are more interested in results, so right and left wing parties can only hurt themselves at the polls by dogmatically opposing each other, which requires more time addressing the technics of their policies -- they speak about things of real substance, not empty talking ideological point-scoring nonsense like in U.S. politics. Furthermore, their parliamentary systems, which often result in coalition governments, require a much higher degree of coordination between different political viewpoints.

The existence of third-parties is meaningless until Americans reduce their enthusiasm for their opinions. The Republican and Democratic Parties, especially the Republicans, are the best you get until Americans achieve an 'enlightened' state of disinterest in means to economic prosperity. Government control will be less hacksawed.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Speaking of factual errors, irony and hypocricy:
Federal Deficit, Jan 21 2001:$5,727,776,738,304.64
Feferal Deficit, Jan 01 2007: $8,678,229,324,205.41
That's a $2.951T increase, not the 5T or 6T you claimed.

But.... lets look at whats happened since then, with Liberals running Congress:
Federal Deficit, Jan 01 2007: $8,678,229,324,205.41
Federal Deficit, Dec 18 2009:$12,097,698,782,543.93
That's a $3.419T increaase, and represents a 15% greater increase to the debt under GWB and the Republican Congress -- all in half the time.

So, the fact is that the liberals running congress have increated the debt FAR faster than GWB and the GOP Congress.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Click to expand...

2 weeks and no response from Pete.
Hmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom