• 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!

Breaking: Agreement has been reached on raising the debt limit....

Re: Obama: We have a deal

In the instance you propose - and, apparently have decided to walk away from - you have several choices under a BBA:
Not an option.
Like it or not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.

Not an option. We don't let communities struck by disaster to "pick thenselves up by their bootstraps" and "fend for themselves" in this nation when calamity strikes.
Like it or not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.
Of course, if you don't like that option, I supplied three others.

Same as the first non-option.
Like it of not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.
Of course, if you don't like that option, I supplied three others.

That is an option, it's what we do now.
Well then -- the issue you raised in a non-issue.
Problem solved.

So there's what? A Natural Disaster Reserve Fund for natural disasters
Yes. A perfectly reasonable way to deal with the issue, one that does not involve borrowing.
Did you have an -actual- argument aginast the idea?

Now that's funny coming from the Conservative party of fiscal responsibility we've seen since Reagan. :roll:
I'm sorry that your -first- reaction was to bowrrow the money, but that's on you, not me.
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I'm very curious to know what you think he SHOULD have done differently?

he shouldn't have turned the writing of the stimulus over to congress, he should've known what they would produce

he should've passed a budget the last two years instead of running on cr's

his budgets should have shown awareness of the fiscal cliff we're racing towards

he shouldn't include stimulus spending in the base line

he shouldn't have waited until the last second, lame duck in december, to extend or not to extend the bush tax cuts

that kinda uncertainty is lethal

especially in times like these

he had sixty senators for a year, 59 for another, and a plurality of 78 downstairs

successful presidents have worked wonders with far less by championing issues expressive of the american heart at the time

obama's always on the wrong side

he shouldn't have sued arizona, he shouldn't have offended every ny democrat in congress by trying to force ksm downtown

he should never have resorted to senate reconciliation to enact major social reform

he shouldn't have threatened to punish energy producers and consumers via cap and trade, which was his #2 domestic priority

and he's still using the epa to go after energy

Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

did you see what willliam daley (he's chief of staff, the brother of richard m and son of richard j) said to the donors two weeks ago?

pressed by the pockets over things like "blocking construction to protect fish," the challenged cos chattered:

"it's hard to defend the indefensible"

"bureaucratic stuff that's hard to defend"

"the number of rules and regulations that come out of agencies is overwhelming, we're trying to bring some rationality to it"

Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

i could go on

qe, chinese currency, housing...
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Are you ever going to address the Obama record and how anyone can support someone with .4% GDP growth, 1.3% GDP growth two years AFTER the end of a recession? Obviously you helped put this incompetent in the WH so instead of fessing up and admitting your error you continue to dig the hole deeper. It will be the Obama record on the ballot in 2012, not Reagan and Bush.
I've address it 100 times. I've pointed out while it's not good, in many ways it's better than every Republican you ever voted for. And most of the problems we face today stem from the Great Bush Recession, which lost 8,000,000 jobs, 5.1% of GDP, and 40% of stock market valuation.

I don't lie but you sure use that word a lot. too bad you aren't paying attention to Obama because there is the definition of a lie
Oh no? How about just yessterday when you tried passing off debt projections as deficit projections?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

I've address it 100 times. I've pointed out while it's not good, in many ways it's better than every Republican you ever voted for. And most of the problems we face today stem from the Great Bush Recession, which lost 8,000,000 jobs, 5.1% of GDP, and 40% of stock market valuation.


Oh no? How about just yessterday when you tried passing off debt projections as deficit projections?

No, there is quite a difference, both Repubicans that I voted for had an economic plan in place that was headed in the right direction when the time came for re-election. obama has no such plan and his record is worse than Reagan and Bush two years after the end of the recessions as neither had .4% or 1.3% GDP growth two years later. Both also had increased revenue to the govt. due to their tax cuts. Their policies were pro growth and pro capitalism, Obama's are pro entitlement state and growth in govt. There is quite a difference which of course you ignore. Keep trying to justify your vote in 2008, can't be done.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Very soft answer. You did not disagree with my final safety hatch nor did you explain why it could not work.
Posts #245 and #247 explains why I believe it wouldn't work and post #249 contains an alternate solution. What else do you want?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Well, good on you for at least tryng to answer the question. That's more than 90% of conservatives will do.

>Originally Posted by AdamT
>I'm very curious to know what you think he SHOULD have done differently?
>he shouldn't have turned the writing of the stimulus over to congress,
>he should've known what they would produce

>he should've passed a budget the last two years instead of running on
>cr's

How would that have improved the economy? Do you think there's a chance in hell that Republicans wouldn't have filibustered and blocked any attempt to get a full budget through?

>his budgets should have shown awareness of the fiscal cliff we're
>racing towards

You mean he should have cut spending? While the economy is still dragging arse? Do you think that's sound fiscal policy?

>he shouldn't include stimulus spending in the base line

What difference does it make?

>he shouldn't have waited until the last second, lame duck in december,
>to extend or not to extend the bush tax cuts

He shouldn't have extended them at all, and particularly the upper income extensions.

>that kinda uncertainty is lethal

You mean like the undertainty about whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised, and if so, for how long? And the uncertainty about what will be cut? These are the uncertainties that are throttling the markets now, and they are the result of republican intransigence.

>he had sixty senators for a year, 59 for another, and a plurality of 78
>downstairs

yes, and....

>successful presidents have worked wonders with far less by championing
>issues expressive of the american heart at the time

true, and.... You're supposed to be saying what he should have done (just a reminder)

>obama's always on the wrong side

meaningless drivel....

>he shouldn't have sued arizona, he shouldn't have offended every ny
>democrat in congress by trying to force ksm downtown

how would this have improved the economy?

>he should never have resorted to senate reconciliation to enact major
>social reform

He had no choice. Republicans shouldn't have resorted to filibustering ever single thing that came before them. Republicans shouldn't have opposed everything Obama wanted to do in knee-jerk fashion. But they did (and do).

>he shouldn't have threatened to punish energy producers and consumers
>via cap and trade, which was his #2 domestic priority

Yes, he should have. Not that it's ever come close to reality. Obviously it's not even on the first page of his priority list.

>and he's still using the epa to go after energy

Pollution.

>Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with
>EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

Good.

>did you see what willliam daley (he's chief of staff, the brother of
>richard m and son of richard j) said to the donors two weeks ago?

>pressed by the pockets over things like "blocking construction to
>protect fish," the challenged cos chattered:

>"it's hard to defend the indefensible"

>"bureaucratic stuff that's hard to defend"

>"the number of rules and regulations that come out of agencies is
>overwhelming, we're trying to bring some rationality to it"

>Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with
>EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

>i could go on

Hopefully you will go on because you have yet to list one single thing that Obama should have done that would have improved the economy or reduced unemployment.

Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Like it or not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.
No, that is not always an option. We're at war ... we're out of money to continue funding said war ... we can do it my way, borrow the money to pay for the war and continue fighting it ... or your way, tuck our tail between our legs and cower away in poverty and hope the enemy doesn't proverbally shoot us in the back as with slither away.

Point being, there are times you have to spend money. You don't have enough money to pay your electric bill and your car payment -- my way, you borrow the money and keep your car and your lights on; your way, you're either living in the dark, losing your car, or losing something else you're taking the money from.

I'm sorry that your -first- reaction was to bowrrow the money, but that's on you, not me.
:shrug:
Since you missed the point, lemme 'splain it to you ... Conservative presidents contributed 8 trillion of our 14 trillion dollar debt ... Conservative's never complained until a Democrat borrwoed money like a Republican. Conservatives' hands are not clean.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Glad to see this done, now lets get onto talking about what is actually important for our financial future.

Lets talk about significantly reforming and/or cutting entitlements and looking at what we can do to reduce military spending.

More than half of our spending is tied up in entitlement payouts like Social Security, SCHIP, and Unemployment benefits. Add defense spending and you get almost 75% of our spending. Even if we were to cut every single solitary piece of government spending we have, including reducing defense to $0 dollars, we'd STILL be running a $43 billion debt each year. Cutting just the DOD's budget would still have us with with $750+ billion dollars in deficit.

With our current spending we'd need to increase revenues by almost 70% just to break EVEN. Cut the DOD and you'd still need to raise revenues by more than 35% to break even.

Is raising taxes possibly a part of the solution? Yes. But its not a much bigger part of it than cutting foreign aid or useless programs or various subsidies, etc. They're small drops into a bucket full of water. Until we honestly and seriously start acting like adults and look at these entitlement programs and decide what's FEASIBLE rather than what feels good, and realize that there is no perfect solution where no one gets hurt (that includes just letting them keep going), then we're never going to fix this issue.

We're just kicking the can down the road.

Significantly reform entitlements, significantly cut military spending, and then maybe we'll get financially solvent. Cut both by 1/3rd and they'd remain a clear majority of our government spending (2/3rds). That would cut the deficit by almost 2/3rds, from $1.4 trillion to $538 Billion. It would also bring us far closer to potentially balancing the budget by looking at smaller affecting things such as increased taxes, removal of waste and redundency, and cuts to non-essential government programs.

It amazes me that people actually believe that financial solvency is possible for this country at this point.

But my question is this: should the government start cutting benefits like unemployment now or at least wait until unemployment drops? So basically I'm asking should people be tossed out on their butts or at least given the opportunity to find decent employment first?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Quite the opposite, in fact.

you mean he SHOULD have waited til december 31, 2010, to tell every american his or her exact 2011 relationship with the irs?

LOL!
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No, there is quite a difference, both Repubicans that I voted for had an economic plan in place that was headed in the right direction when the time came for re-election.
Oh really? Who'd you vote for in 1992?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No, that is not always an option. We're at war ... we're out of money to continue funding said war ... we can do it my way, borrow the money to pay for the war and continue fighting it ... or your way, tuck our tail between our legs and cower away in poverty and hope the enemy doesn't proverbally shoot us in the back as with slither away.

Point being, there are times you have to spend money. You don't have enough money to pay your electric bill and your car payment -- my way, you borrow the money and keep your car and your lights on; your way, you're either living in the dark, losing your car, or losing something else you're taking the money from.


Since you missed the point, lemme 'splain it to you ... Conservative presidents contributed 8 trillion of our 14 trillion dollar debt ... Conservative's never complained until a Democrat borrwoed money like a Republican. Conservatives' hands are not clean.

How did those President's create the debt all buy themselves without the help of a Democrat controlled Congress. Reagan never had total control of the Congress, Bush had control from 2003-2007 but Obama had total control in overwhelming numbers. Civics tells us that Congress controls the pursestrings and legislative process. Too many here don't understand that.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

No, that is not always an option.
Yes, yes it is.
What you don't understand is that there's a difference between "no option" and "no option that I like"

We're at war ... we're out of money to continue funding said war ... we can do it my way, borrow the money to pay for the war and continue fighting it...
You did notice that -I- suggested an exeption to a balanced budget during times of declared war - right?
However, we arent discussing a declared war, we're discussing your issue of a Katrina-like natural disaster.

I presneted you four options to that end, one of which you accepted and one of which you have yet to effectively argue against.
Thus far, your example has done nothing to persuade anyone capable of reasoned thought that a BBA is a bad thing, especially given that you agreed the funds for such an emergnecy could be approproated in the next FY.

Since you missed the point...
Your point was that when you want the government to spend money and it doesn't have any, your -first- thought is to borrow it.
No, I got it; among liberals, it is endemic.
 
Last edited:
peter beinert above, dailybeast, observed:

tea is running dc---the good news (from beinert's perspective) is that neocon activism abroad is dead, but the bad news is dreams of the next progressive age are equally defunct

here's a conservative's view of our expanding times:

The Ground Has Shifted Under Obama's Feet - HUMAN EVENTS

summary of human events' perspective: all saw obama trying to spend, trying to spend a lot, all saw republicans stop and turn him, all saw a disfunctional govt and naturally ask who's in charge

worse, the broad argument about govt spending, govt control, govt competence, govt solvency...

a pair of perspectives not necessarily mutually exclusive
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

How did those President's create the debt all buy themselves without the help of a Democrat controlled Congress. Reagan never had total control of the Congress, Bush had control from 2003-2007 but Obama had total control in overwhelming numbers. Civics tells us that Congress controls the pursestrings and legislative process. Too many here don't understand that.
And you don't seem to understand that except for the rare Congressional veto override, not a dime was spent without the president's approval.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Yes, and if you bothered to look at the GDP you would understand why
What was his economic plan that you voted to give 4 more years for?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

And you don't seem to understand that except for the rare Congressional veto override, not a dime was spent without the president's approval.

Thus both parties are responsible for the deficits and the debt, a foreign concept to many here. Bush spent too much money with the help of Congress but Obama put Bush spending on steroids and the results are what we see today and what we will be voting on in 2012.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

What was his economic plan that you voted to give 4 more years for?

Would love to discuss GHW Bush vs. Clinton with you but you need to start a GHW Bush vs. Clinton thread. This thread isn't about GHW Bush, GW Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. What you want to do is divert from the current President and try to justify your vote by bashing previous Presidents. None of that matters or will matter in 2012. It will be the Obama record and no one cares about your distorted data comparing percentage change.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The election will be about jobs and the economy, and most Americans understand who is responsible for the Great Recession. If they were starting to forget, this debt limit "debate" should refresh their recollections.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

Would love to discuss GHW Bush vs. Clinton with you but you need to start a GHW Bush vs. Clinton thread. This thread isn't about GHW Bush, GW Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. What you want to do is divert from the current President and try to justify your vote by bashing previous Presidents.
As seen here, it's a good bet that, when ubale to defend a point, a lberal will resort to a red herring, personal insults, or both.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The election will be about jobs and the economy, and most Americans understand who is responsible for the Great Recession. If they were starting to forget, this debt limit "debate" should refresh their recollections.

You mean the "Great Recession" that ended in June 2009? Here we are two years later and the GDP Growth is .4% and 1.3% the first two qtrs of 2011. Please tell me how Bush is responsible for those numbers?
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

The election will be about jobs and the economy, and most Americans understand who is responsible for the Great Recession.
Indeed. Say goodbye to your Secular Messiah.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

As seen here, it's a good bet that, when ubale to defend a point, a lberal will resort to a red herring, personal insults, or both.

That was pretty self-referential, wasn't it.
 
Re: Obama: We have a deal

You did notice that -I- suggested an exeption to a balanced budget during times of declared war - right?
However, we arent discussing a declared war, we're discussing your issue of a Katrina-like natural disaster.
Because ... again ... there are many different reasons for why such exceptions would need to be in there. I just don't see th point in creating an amendment that's so bad on it's own, that it requires all those loopholes; when the other option is -- don't re-elect someone you feel is abusing the budget.
 
Back
Top Bottom