• 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!

What should Obama do if debt ceiling is not raised?

What should Obama do if debt ceiling is not raised?

  • Ask all that voted against raising the debt ceiling to tell him what to not pay.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Do nothing; wait for congress to do something when things are more obvious.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059652750 said:
You mean Joe Biden? ":eek:

Stand up for Joe! He's a real stand up kinda guy!



Hey... I know how stupid he is but...... it's impossible that he can be more stupid than Obama, nobody can be more stupid than him. Look what he has done to this country.

He is forgetting that he is not the president of Kenya.
 
No...this time it really is just the Republicans' fault.
You Say that as if you had any knowledge. It is Obama's Fault he has tripled spending since he has taken office. he has increased the deficit more than previous presidents combined so tell me again how its not his fault.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

• 2008-2009, at $879 billion (transition from G. W. Bush to B. H. Obama)
• 2009-2010, at $758 billion (B. H. Obama)
• 2007-2008, at $472 billion (G. W. Bush)
• 1942-1943, at $372 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
• 1943-1944, at $365 billion (F. D. Roosevelt)
• 1944-1945, at $320 billion (transition from F. D. Roosevelt to H. S. Truman)
• 1990-1991, at $317 billion (G. H. W. Bush)
• 2003-2004, at $315 billion (G. W. Bush)
• 2002-2003, at $302 billion (G. W. Bush)
• 1989-1990, at $287 billion (G. H. W. Bush)
These are the true deficits: Bush $800B, Obama $1.4T
 
Last edited:
You Say that as if you had any knowledge. It is Obama's Fault he has tripled spending since he has taken office. he has increased the deficit more than his previous 4 presidents combined so tell me again how its not his fault.

This looks like a new thread. Do it. Support it with some verifiable facts. It's amazing that in 2 1/2 years he has in net tripled spending over just the previous 8. I’m looking forward to it.
 
The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. Patrick Henry.

Yes! First you have to identify who the rulers are, e.g. the Koch Brothers. Then what motivates them, e.g. saving our Christian nation for some leaders. Then what is next? Keep us warned.
 
I posted the Charts
Beleive or dont thats your perogative.
 
The koch Brothers do not rule anything but a midwestern co. again your Obvious lean is showing quite true by parroting the leftist liberal talking points.
 
You Say that as if you had any knowledge. It is Obama's Fault he has tripled spending since he has taken office. he has increased the deficit more than previous presidents combined so tell me again how its not his fault.

Let's be realistic here. Most of the increased deficit since January 2009 was not directly Obama's fault...it was more a result of a severe recession. For example, even if no new laws are passed at all, the deficit will automatically increase during a recession because the tax base will shrink and the number of people claiming unemployment and social security will grow. Furthermore, whereas Bush pushed through two unfunded laws that greatly added to the deficit (the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D), Obama's signature legislation (the Affordable Care Act) actually reduces the deficit according to the CBO. It's true that Obama has increased routine discretionary spending as well...but that's at historically normal levels, with the exception of defense spending. I point this out not to attack Bush (although he does deserve criticism for not even attempting to pay for these things), but merely to dispute your point that Obama is some sort of spendaholic. Obama is temperamentally far more fiscally conservative than many of the right-wing ideologues in Congress today.

Now, that's not to say that spending can't or shouldn't be cut. Of course it can. But the debt ceiling debate is a political crisis, not an economic crisis...and it's being engineered entirely by Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Add in Welfare, Medicaid, Unemployment, and the other mandatory entitlement programs that we have on the books and that number shoots up to 52.7%.

Actually your graph is the one that is skewed.. Social Security and medicare are both paid with a seperate tax.. See your pay stub if you want proof and shouldn't be counted on the budget.. Unemplopyment?? Well.. If republicans would do more to create jobs in stead of bending over and spreading their cheecks for rich people.. You wouldn't have to worry about unemployment that much.. Bush made it an issue because he drove up unemployment..

Welfare and medicaid are for the most part state issues.. Yes they get federal funding.. But it is the state that decides how the money is spent and who gets it..
 
You Say that as if you had any knowledge. It is Obama's Fault he has tripled spending since he has taken office. he has increased the deficit more than previous presidents combined so tell me again how its not his fault.

Because you are ignoring facts and believing false info.. 2009 was a Bush budget and therefor a Bush year.. I also notice that you completely left off Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.. Clinton left Bush a surplus.. So who turned a surplus into a deficit?? A 200 billion dollar surplus because a deficit with a $320 billion dollar tax cut to the rich.. Then add two wars.. Your information is just bias and screwed.. Let us know when you want to come back to reality.. Obama has barely done anything to add to the deficit.. Tarp was also Bush and Obama got most of that paid back..

Thems the facts.. Sorry..
 
I posted the Charts
Beleive or dont thats your perogative.
I believe them, but it’s your mistake this time. Your post “It is Obama's Fault he has tripled spending since he has taken office.” Is not supported by Stephen Bloch lists the deficit, not spending. And, no they are not the same thing. Bush for example increased spending on a war in Iraq (To find nuke bombs buried in the desert that are still there according to my father-in-law.) and reduced taxes. Obama hasn’t been able to spend very much since. He’s stuck doing thinks like rescuing Ford factories and jobs at Ford.
 
The koch Brothers do not rule anything but a midwestern co. again your Obvious lean is showing quite true by parroting the leftist liberal talking points.

Nope, I'm Oh I see. Then... You've got me mis-identified. I was the same way in engineering discussions where others were going with beliefs and not engineering.

With great wealth I could make things happen. Almost anything I want. But, I guess that isn’t really ruling because it’s not official. So, you could say Obama rules, as he can do anything he wants; and the Koch Brothers can’t do anything but run their business. So do you really think that or do you just believe that?
 
I believe them, but it’s your mistake this time. Your post “It is Obama's Fault he has tripled spending since he has taken office.” Is not supported by Stephen Bloch lists the deficit, not spending. And, no they are not the same thing. Bush for example increased spending on a war in Iraq (To find nuke bombs buried in the desert that are still there according to my father-in-law.) and reduced taxes. Obama hasn’t been able to spend very much since. He’s stuck doing thinks like rescuing Ford factories and jobs at Ford.
Obama, Spending Three Times as Fast as Bush, Blames Bush - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online
2. There is a lot of blaming Bush in this speech. Quick perspective: Using numbers from the U.S. Treasury, we see that the debt during Bush’s eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That’s bad; that’s basically $610 billion per year. But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush.
More if you google, the information is out there if you choose to beleive it thats another thing. What is clear Obama is spending at rates much higher than his predecessors..
 
Nope, I'm Oh I see. Then... You've got me mis-identified. I was the same way in engineering discussions where others were going with beliefs and not engineering.

With great wealth I could make things happen. Almost anything I want. But, I guess that isn’t really ruling because it’s not official. So, you could say Obama rules, as he can do anything he wants; and the Koch Brothers can’t do anything but run their business. So do you really think that or do you just believe that?
It seems you cannot or have not shown where the Koch brothers rule anything. The fact that they may or may not be wealthy does not prove that they are manipulating or engineering anything. Bill gates is rich is he ruling anything. obama does not rule in fact he cant even lead. obama is an elected puppet for George Sorros and the rabid left. We have no rulers in this country. There was your mistake, my quote was pertaining to an actual king that was a ruler, not these jack wagons we have now. If my quote pertains to anything it is the encumbered body of the whole bloated government, that is as near a ruler as we have right now and it needs to be starved.
 
It seems you cannot or have not shown where the Koch brothers rule anything. The fact that they may or may not be wealthy does not prove that they are manipulating or engineering anything. ... obama does not rule in fact he cant even lead. obama is an elected puppet for George Sorros and the rabid left. We have no rulers in this country. There was your mistake, my quote was pertaining to an actual king that was a ruler, not these jack wagons we have now. If my quote pertains to anything it is the encumbered body of the whole bloated government, that is as near a ruler as we have right now and it needs to be starved.
Oh, I see that you found another that does ‘concealed transactions’, George Soros. You claim he’s a ruler, “obama is an elected puppet for George Sorros”. George Soros and the Koch Brothers both have been ‘leading’. Excellent. Next, follow your own advice from Patrick Henry: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” So investigate why they are using their money to, as you say, buy puppets. You may find differences between Soros and Koch Brothers desire.
Also, who else is using the description 'jack wagons'?
 
I have always used the term jack Wagon.....I haven't a clue who else is using it.
The difference between Soros and the Koch Brothers soros has manipulated a countries Currency in order to collapse them, The Koch brothers gave a donations to a Wisconsin Governors race you really trying to compare them! Seriously?
 
Publicly blame the republicans.. It is there fault anyways.. While he is at it.. He can also blame them on not initiating a jobs bill since they took the house.. Talk about their war on medicare or Social Security.. Talk about how they want to destroy the economy in hopes of electing a republican..

Whatever he does he should clearly and bluntly lay the blame on the republican party.. They voted for an increase 9 times for Bush.. It is totally rediculous to not want to do it now.. The only reason they have is that he is black and a democrat..
 
Publicly blame the republicans.. It is there fault anyways.. While he is at it.. He can also blame them on not initiating a jobs bill since they took the house.. Talk about their war on medicare or Social Security.. Talk about how they want to destroy the economy in hopes of electing a republican..

Whatever he does he should clearly and bluntly lay the blame on the republican party.. They voted for an increase 9 times for Bush.. It is totally rediculous to not want to do it now.. The only reason they have is that he is black and a democrat..

And every single Democrat voted against it in 2006 Including Obama...what they hated a white president. Lame argument at best. I can promise you no matter who's fault it is, its Obama's problem cause everyone knows in politics the economy when its bad hurts the incumbent president. ITs the econmy stupid and if this sucker stays bad, Buh Bye Barack:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I have always used the term jack Wagon.....I haven't a clue who else is using it.
The difference between Soros and the Koch Brothers soros has manipulated a countries Currency in order to collapse them, The Koch brothers gave a donations to a Wisconsin Governors race you really trying to compare them! Seriously?

You have got to look deeper in both. The Koch brothers do a lot more than make donations to a Wisconsin Governors race and so does Soros. They both are using their money to change things, i.e. to lead things to change. They fit what Patrick Henry warns about. Note Patrick Henry is not saying watch one political leaning, rather watch all. And I'm not saying they are all bad or good.
I've heard Jack Wagon used on TV, but I don't recall who used it.
 
You have got to look deeper in both. The Koch brothers do a lot more than make donations to a Wisconsin Governors race and so does Soros. They both are using their money to change things, i.e. to lead things to change. They fit what Patrick Henry warns about. Note Patrick Henry is not saying watch one political leaning, rather watch all. And I'm not saying they are all bad or good.
I've heard Jack Wagon used on TV, but I don't recall who used it.
First of all I dont lean either way, I think the Republicans are equally FUBAR, but I know Obama will do more damage than any republican out there so They have my centrist support. Secondly, I have used that term since my DI used it on me in 1980 Boot Camp. It kinda stuck. R.Lee Ermey (sp) uses it all the time it must be a Drill Seargeant thing.
 
You have got to look deeper in both. The Koch brothers do a lot more than make donations to a Wisconsin Governors race and so does Soros. They both are using their money to change things, i.e. to lead things to change. They fit what Patrick Henry warns about. Note Patrick Henry is not saying watch one political leaning, rather watch all. And I'm not saying they are all bad or good.
I've heard Jack Wagon used on TV, but I don't recall who used it.

I dont need to look any further The Koch Brothers are small Potatoes compared to Sorros.
Individual donations to 527 organizations (2001 to 2010)
George Soros: $32.5 million
Koch Brothers: $1.5 million


So-called 527 groups are non-profit, tax-exempt organizations that are allowed to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy and other actions. They are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions. Until earlier this year, they could not use these unlimited contributions to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Federal court rulings -- including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission -- have broken down that restriction. For more information go here, here and here.

As mentioned previously, Soros spent $24 million in under two years and did so in his determination to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. He told the Washington Post in November 2003, "America under Bush, is a danger to the world. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is." Since December 2008, Soros has only donated $4,000 to these types of groups. On June 30th of this year, David Koch made a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association, his largest one-time donation to date.
 
I dont need to look any further The Koch Brothers are small Potatoes compared to Sorros.

You are not following your own advice to others. “I dont need to look any further…” I got this response many times as a design engineer and systems architect counter my advice. Then let’s look at one example of leadership in the very political Global Warming issue. If you believe that Global Warming science and engineering are belief driven and not based on truth you might want to verify the data that is being used. Especially if you think it’s a lie. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, a scientific effort to compile an open database of the Earth's surface temperature records. More accurately, an effort to challenge Global Warming data because Koch and others think that the scientists and engineers are feathering their own nests by developing scare tactics. The Berkeley project's biggest private backer of the $620,000 project, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. What is interesting about the conclusion of this effort is that it ended up supporting the previous data and that Global Warming is real. This is just one of very many efforts, with political direction and goals, of the Koch Brothers. I like this one because of my personal experiences.
 
"Oh then I see", your a global alarmist, beleiving in all the junk science that has become the Anthropogenic Global warming scam led by Al Gore, Now I see why your having such issues with comparing apples to peanuts.....That explains alot. Global warming and the hulabaloo about it are completely based in total data mining and manipulation by its proponents. When all the data is used, icluding the medeviel warming period, and the Ice core samples that indicate we are merely in a 1500 year cycle that has repeated itself often since the oceans turned blue due to oxygen getting rid of the space debris iraon from the oceans water around what 4.1 billion years ago, Then maybe we can get serious, but until then its Junk. back to the Koch brothers, Their donations are not politcal in that arena they are buisness men and The Global warming scam threatens their profits. Any good buisness man would use some assets to protect larger assets. Again Sorros equals apples, Koch Equals= Peanuts. Actually based on agenda and size of politcal interference its more like water mellons to peanuts.
 
... back to the Koch brothers, Their donations are not politcal in that arena they are buisness men and The Global warming scam threatens their profits. Any good buisness man would use some assets to protect larger assets.

You wrote “Their donations are not political in that arena they are business men… Any good business man would use some assets to protect larger assets.” And in earlier posts you were arguing the opposite. Now you list the motivation that I agree with, protect assets. Now we agree, using the Koch Brothers as an example, almost everything government leadership does can affect their business, so the Koch Brothers use their leadership capability. They even have separate organizations to do leading, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation is an example.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom