• 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!

Tea party to GOP: We could make 'examples' of you over debt ceiling

mertex said:
Good grief, I thought you were talking about the Democrats in Congress now.

Who cares what was done years ago - we're talking about now, and if the Reps don't agree on raising the debt ceiling, we're all in trouble.


Excuse me, the Republicans won't accept anything that even suggests at raising taxes on the wealthy, who can afford it, but insist in cutting benefits from the middle class and below, who can least afford it. What ingnoramus that is not wealthy supports that action? Why would Democrats go against what the majority of Americans want, and that is to leave Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone?




The President's bill, as well as the Democrat's bill is not accepted by the Reps because they suggest ending the tax cuts for the wealthy, and the Reps are afraid of Nordquist. I don't know what Nordquist has done to get them all in line with his wishes, but talk about Sheeple.
Click to expand...

Democrats lied about balancing the budget in the 1980s and in the 1990s. There is absolutely no reason to believe them now. Where is the budget proposal by the Dems that has details?
 
Hicup said:
Doing balance transfers, and or paying off your household finances by increasing your credit is not a sound plan is it? Is that what you do YS? Nope, what sane people do is prioritize. They do without, not more of.
Click to expand...

The problem with most righties is that they try to equate the government's finances with their own household finances. It doesn't work that way. It is plain idiocy to try and compare the government's finances to one's own household finances.

We know that we cannot run up our household debt forever and that we have to tighten our belts when our credit cards are maxed out. We can borrow to enhance current spending, but eventually we have to sacrifice spending to pay the debts back. We intuitively understand that we cannot indefinitely live beyond our means. Neoliberals draw an analogy between the two, because they know we will judge government deficits as reckless. But the government is not a big household. It can consistently spend more than its revenue because it creates the currency. Whereas households have to save (spend less than they earn) to spend more in the future, governments can purchase whatever they like whenever there are goods and services for sale in the currency they issue. Budget surpluses provide no greater capacity to governments to meet future needs, nor do budget deficits erode that capacity. Governments always have the capacity to spend in their own currencies.

Why, then, do governments borrow? Under the gold standard governments had to borrow to spend more than their tax revenue. But since 1971 that necessity has lapsed. Now governments issue debt to match their deficits only as a result of pressure placed on them by neoliberals to restrict their spending. Conservatives know that rising public debt can be politically manipulated and demonized, and they do this to put a brake on government spending. But there is no operational necessity to issue debt in a fiat monetary system. Interestingly, conservatives are schizoid on the question of public debt: public borrowing provides corporate welfare in the form of risk-free income flows to the rich because it allows them to safely park funds in bonds during uncertain times and provides a risk-free benchmark on which to price other, riskier financial products. The fact that bond yields have remained low throughout the latest economic crisis (reflecting strong demand for public debt) tells you that the parasitic bond markets do not buy the neoliberal rhetoric. They know that national governments (outside the Eurozone) have no solvency risk.
Beyond Austerity | The Nation




Ya know, I wonder how we can quantify 40 years of liberal's teaching our students, and not knowing the simple axiom above, is proof positive that we're doomed...
Click to expand...

We're doomed mostly because of conservative ideology - you're assumptions are wrong, so no wonder you think you are doomed.
Unfreaking believeable the level of insane attitudes coming from the left these days?? Stay away from the NYT, and the alphabet networks.. You're not getting the straight dope.. All your getting is dope!
Click to expand...
The only ones getting duped are the righties that watch Faux News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. The insane attitudes are the ones provided by looneys such as Michelle Bachmann and that idiot Palin, who know little about the economy and how it works and try to apply their bandaid solutions. I guess they have most righties duped, it sure appears that way.
 
LesGovt said:
Democrats lied about balancing the budget in the 1980s and in the 1990s. There is absolutely no reason to believe them now.
Click to expand...
Bush and Republicans lied for 8 years - there is no reason to believe Republicans now.


Where is the budget proposal by the Dems that has details?
Click to expand...
Why should the Democrats spend time and energy coming up with a proposal they know will go nowhere? The Dems do not have a big enough majority in the Senate to even get a bill on the floor, and we know the GOP will not allow it to, they all vote lock-step. The Republicans will not agree on anything that slightly suggests eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy (that can afford it) or doesn't take away programs that the middle-class and below rely on - we've seen them in action.

What I don't understand is why Republicans wasted time and effort on a proposal they know is not going anywhere? Unless they finally come to realize that most Americans opt for eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy and leaving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security alone, Republicans are only working to benefit their supporters, the wealthy. When are the middle-class Republicans going to catch on?
 
mertex said:
Bush and Republicans lied for 8 years - there is no reason to believe Republicans now.

Why should the Democrats spend time and energy coming up with a proposal they know will go nowhere? The Dems do not have a big enough majority in the Senate to even get a bill on the floor, and we know the GOP will not allow it to, they all vote lock-step. The Republicans will not agree on anything that slightly suggests eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy (that can afford it) or doesn't take away programs that the middle-class and below rely on - we've seen them in action.

What I don't understand is why Republicans wasted time and effort on a proposal they know is not going anywhere? Unless they finally come to realize that most Americans opt for eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy and leaving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security alone, Republicans are only working to benefit their supporters, the wealthy. When are the middle-class Republicans going to catch on?
Click to expand...

Fine, we had lies in the 1980s, 1990s by Dems and in the 21st Century by Bush. I'll lt you tell us what the Bush lies were.

Boehner has just told the press that the President reneged on an agreement for tax revenues. They had agreed on cutting the # of tax brackets and lowering the rates for the brackets and doing away with at least some deductions. Then yesterday, President Obama began to seek over $400 billion in new taxes. The lies continue.
 
mertex said:
The problem with most righties is that they try to equate the government's finances with their own household finances. It doesn't work that way. It is plain idiocy to try and compare the government's finances to one's own household finances.

We know that we cannot run up our household debt forever and that we have to tighten our belts when our credit cards are maxed out. We can borrow to enhance current spending, but eventually we have to sacrifice spending to pay the debts back. We intuitively understand that we cannot indefinitely live beyond our means. Neoliberals draw an analogy between the two, because they know we will judge government deficits as reckless. But the government is not a big household. It can consistently spend more than its revenue because it creates the currency. Whereas households have to save (spend less than they earn) to spend more in the future, governments can purchase whatever they like whenever there are goods and services for sale in the currency they issue. Budget surpluses provide no greater capacity to governments to meet future needs, nor do budget deficits erode that capacity. Governments always have the capacity to spend in their own currencies.

Why, then, do governments borrow? Under the gold standard governments had to borrow to spend more than their tax revenue. But since 1971 that necessity has lapsed. Now governments issue debt to match their deficits only as a result of pressure placed on them by neoliberals to restrict their spending. Conservatives know that rising public debt can be politically manipulated and demonized, and they do this to put a brake on government spending. But there is no operational necessity to issue debt in a fiat monetary system. Interestingly, conservatives are schizoid on the question of public debt: public borrowing provides corporate welfare in the form of risk-free income flows to the rich because it allows them to safely park funds in bonds during uncertain times and provides a risk-free benchmark on which to price other, riskier financial products. The fact that bond yields have remained low throughout the latest economic crisis (reflecting strong demand for public debt) tells you that the parasitic bond markets do not buy the neoliberal rhetoric. They know that national governments (outside the Eurozone) have no solvency risk.
Beyond Austerity | The Nation
Click to expand...


yeah...... so.....

we have a 1.5 ish trillion dollar deficit. how about you go ask your average zimbabwean how life is under this idiot's proposal.
 
mertex said:
Bush and Republicans lied for 8 years - there is no reason to believe Republicans now.
Click to expand...

:yawn: :bs:

Why should the Democrats spend time and energy coming up with a proposal they know will go nowhere? The Dems do not have a big enough majority in the Senate to even get a bill on the floor, and we know the GOP will not allow it to, they all vote lock-step. The Republicans will not agree on anything that slightly suggests eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy (that can afford it) or doesn't take away programs that the middle-class and below rely on - we've seen them in action.

What I don't understand is why Republicans wasted time and effort on a proposal they know is not going anywhere?
Click to expand...

1. it's called "leadership". you have to provide direction.
2. it's the friggin law.
 
cpwill said:
yeah...... so.....

we have a 1.5 ish trillion dollar deficit. how about you go ask your average zimbabwean how life is under this idiot's proposal.
Click to expand...

You will probably find out on your own if the idiot Republicans aren't able to agree to end the tax cuts for the rich and raise the debt ceiling.
 
cpwill said:
:yawn: :bs:
Click to expand...
Back at ya!



1. it's called "leadership". you have to provide direction.
Click to expand...
It's called common sense. The Republicans have wasted valuable time and effort on a bill they knew would not pass. Brilliant leadership?


2. it's the friggin law.
Click to expand...
It's the law for Congress to pass a budget - it doesn't have to be a Democrat submitted budget, or a Republican submitted budget. It doesn't even have to be the President's budget. It has to be one that is agreed by the majority in Congress, and so far all we are getting from the Republican side is cut all the programs that help the middle class but don't touch the tax cuts to the wealthy. It's plain to see which side they are on.
 
BDBoop said:
How could they get as far as they got, and remain SO freakin clueless?
Click to expand...

I believe the first bunch of Patriots who called themselves the Tea Party have been co-opted by a dew radicals and freaks and the Obamedia flock to quote the weirdos.

There is no longer a Tea Party in my mind.

We as Americans need to return to the basics set down for us 235 years ago, and put the Nation before party of any kind.

We need leadership that can convey the message that it's about "We the People" not us the party.
 
LesGovt said:
Fine, we had lies in the 1980s, 1990s by Dems and in the 21st Century by Bush.
Click to expand...
Your point? Bush lies caused over 4000 American lives, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraquis.

I'll lt you tell us what the Bush lies were.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Boehner has just told the press that the President reneged on an agreement for tax revenues. They had agreed on cutting the # of tax brackets and lowering the rates for the brackets and doing away with at least some deductions. Then yesterday, President Obama began to seek over $400 billion in new taxes. The lies continue.
Click to expand...
Obama did not renege. The President had wanted more revenues from the getgo - it's right there in his Budget proposal. He wanted 3T to begin with. He upped the ante on Boehner (on the figure they were discussing) because he found out that the "the gang of six" which includes 3 Republicans, was willing to vote on the higher figure. Obama should have realized that Boeher (Republican and controlled by the Tea Party) will rather the country go into default than to tax his cronies. Tsk, tsk.
 
mertex said:
Your point? Bush lies caused over 4000 American lives, not to mention thousands of innocent Iraquis.
Click to expand...

Really. News to me.

mertex said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

I thought I expressed myself clearly.

mertex said:
Obama did not renege. The President had wanted more revenues from the getgo - it's right there in his Budget proposal. He wanted 3T to begin with. He upped the ante on Boehner (on the figure they were discussing) because he found out that the "the gang of six" which includes 3 Republicans, was willing to vote on the higher figure. Obama should have realized that Boeher (Republican and controlled by the Tea Party) will rather the country go into default than to tax his cronies. Tsk, tsk.
Click to expand...

Tsk! Tsk! You admit that he upped the ante.
 
LesGovt said:
Really. News to me.
Click to expand...
Doesn't surprise me, most Faux News viewers don't have all the facts.

I thought I expressed myself clearly.
Click to expand...

It isn't even a proper sentence - "I'll lt you tell us what the Bush lies were."

"I'll it" - yep that's very clear.


Tsk! Tsk! You admit that he upped the ante.
Click to expand...
Yeah,from what Boehner was asking, but not from what Obama had originally asked for. Why should Obama agree on Boehner's amount, when Boehner is not concerned about what the majority of Americans want.
 
LesGovt said:
Democrats lied about balancing the budget in the 1980s and in the 1990s. There is absolutely no reason to believe them now. Where is the budget proposal by the Dems that has details?
Click to expand...

No, Democrats didn't lie. That's just a line blurted out by ignorant people who don't understand the difference between the Debt Held by the Public and the Total Public Debt Outstanding.
 
mertex said:
Doesn't surprise me, most Faux News viewers don't have all the facts.
Click to expand...

LOL! You know what news I watch? LOL!

mertex said:
It isn't even a proper sentence - "I'll lt you tell us what the Bush lies were."

"I'll it" - yep that's very clear.{/quote]

Unlike some people, I am not a perfect typist. I inadvertently left out the letter "e" in the word, "let." I take it you are a perfect typist. Cool! Don't worry, if you follow my postings, I am sure you will find plenty of reasons to be snarky over my typing. If that makes you feel like a big person, that's fine by me.

mertex said:
Yeah,from what Boehner was asking, but not from what Obama had originally asked for. Why should Obama agree on Boehner's amount, when Boehner is not concerned about what the majority of Americans want.
Click to expand...

I believe that both Obama nd Boehner had been negortiating the figure of $800 billion in tax revenues. Then, per Boehner, the President demanded another $400 billion. He reneged on the agreement.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
No, Democrats didn't lie. That's just a line blurted out by ignorant people who don't understand the difference between the Debt Held by the Public and the Total Public Debt Outstanding.
Click to expand...

I am not going to post yet again the lies. If you don't believe them, that is your problem.
 
LesGovt said:
The bills should be paid and we should never have to raise a debt ceiling ever again. The former may not happen if the Dems insist on not addressing the real problems that confront our nation.
Click to expand...

The GOP's goal is to increase the debt ceiling, in spite of its rhetoric, because if it did not, it could not pay for its ongoing military and foreign aid/terrorism sponsorship ejaculations (which amount to billions of dollars per year in wasteful spending), unless it advocated raising taxes on the middle class, which would make conservatives sour on the GOP.

That's what would happen if the debt ceiling were frozen--the GOP would become the Party of High Taxes, while the Dems would play the opposite role--advocating low taxes for the middle class, paid for by corporations and PACs who ordered their boners and mcconells to increase the US debt on their behalf to get rich.

The GOP cannot survive without debt.
 
The Tea Party is certainly making an example of the GOP...but not in a good way. I love watching the political damage that the teabaggers are inflicting on the GOP every day. They are getting killed in the arena of public opinion and its fun watching the masacre.
 
solletica said:
The GOP's goal is to increase the debt ceiling, in spite of its rhetoric, because if it did not, it could not pay for its ongoing military and foreign aid/terrorism sponsorship ejaculations (which amount to billions of dollars per year in wasteful spending), unless it advocated raising taxes on the middle class, which would make conservatives sour on the GOP.

That's what would happen if the debt ceiling were frozen--the GOP would become the Party of High Taxes, while the Dems would play the opposite role--advocating low taxes for the middle class, paid for by corporations and PACs who ordered their boners and mcconells to increase the US debt on their behalf to get rich.

The GOP cannot survive without debt.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's quite an opinion.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Sadly, the Republican party is the worst thing that could happen to the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

That and poor education.

House Republicans delay vote on Boehner debt plan - The Washington Post

House members have just seven days to raise the debt ceiling before next Tuesday’s deadline, and the latest move came after budget analysts said the plan endorsed by Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) would only create $850 billion in government savings, rather than the sought-after $1.2 trillion.
Click to expand...

The Republicans have gone from the party of fiscal conservatives with a nack for economics to the party of childish religious zealots that cant add and dont understand the basics of economics. Just love how the Boehner plan gets exposed for not cutting enough...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
who on this site still believes that the solution that Obama/Geithner called for earlier in the year. An increase in the debt ceiling with no cuts in spending would have been the best path for the country. What would have happened to our credit rating if congress did what the administration called for.
 
LesGovt said:
Wow! That's quite an opinion.
Click to expand...

It's the truth, backed up by historical data--the largest increases in the US debt occurred during GOP administrations, caused by military spending (arms race, Iraq War). . .

450px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png


National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

. . .look at the graph. Note the biggest spikes occurred during the Reagan-GHWB years and the dumbya years.

The Reagan-GHWB debt can be excused as a result of the need to compete with Soviet Union in the Cold War.

But the dumbya deficits cannot be excused.

I know this comes as a surprise to you considering FoxNEWS and Sean Hannity never mentioned it.
 
washunut said:
who on this site still believes that the solution that Obama/Geithner called for earlier in the year. An increase in the debt ceiling with no cuts in spending would have been the best path for the country. What would have happened to our credit rating if congress did what the administration called for.
Click to expand...

The solution is very obviously to simply raise the debt ceiling without preconditions, just as it's been done over a 100 times before. Everyone on both sides understands that spending has to be curtailed in the mid-to-long term, but the smart way to approach that is not to try to patch together some kind of Frankenstein's monster under a false deadline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom