• 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!

Debt ceiling cost to taxpayers: $1.7 billion

AdamT said:
Right, he had 60 senators for a year. So what? In order to accomplish anything he has to have 100% cooperation from Democrats? For everything? Unfortunately Dems tend not to be as lemming-like as this new breed of republicans.
Click to expand...

Actually he didn't have 60 Senators for a year. Think Coleman's desperate lawsuit challenging Franken's victory so that Franken was denied his seat for over eight months. Ted Kennedy's illness that wouldn't allow him to cast a vote and his subsequent death and the time it took to name his replacement. The dems had 60 votes from late September till January, with Congress mostly on vacation during the seasonal holidays the 'supermajority' was basically useless.
 
Zyphlin said:
The congress and debt, that's a different story. Save for the 4 years at the start of my sample (77-80), whenever we have a Split or Democratic controlled congress the Debt has relatively maintained or risen. Every time we've had Republican Control (outside of 2002) we've either relatively maintained or lowered itself.
Click to expand...

As for the OP, CNN revised the 1.7 Billion down to 18 Million.

Now, per your quote above, this may be of some interest.

Presidents with control of the White House and both houses of congress (all 3 branches for at least 2 years or more of their term) from 1940 to present.

FDR=D…..Truman=D…..JFK=D…..LBJ=D…..Carter=D…..Clinton=D…..Bush II=R…..Obama=D Notice BushII the only Republican in that class.

Republican President===54 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic President===37 Debt Ceiling Changes

Republican Senate====22 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic Senate ====69 Debt Ceiling Changes

Republican House ====9 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic House====82 Debt Ceiling Changes

Over the last 71 years, Republican presidents have signed 54 changes to the nation's debt ceiling into law, while Democratic presidents have signed 37 changes into law.

Here is a breakdown by president: Dems in office 7 times to Repubs 6 times since 1940.

Pres. | Political Party=D/R | # debt limit increased | Congressional Majority

Franklin D. Roosevelt, D, 6--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Harry Truman, D, 1--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Dwight Eisenhower, R, 7--1953/54 Senate=R--House=D 1955/60 saw Democrat majority in both houses
John F. Kennedy, D, 4--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Lyndon B. Johnson, D, 7--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Richard Nixon, R, 8--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Gerald Ford, R, 5--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Jimmy Carter, D, 9--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Ronald Reagan, R, 18--1981 thru 1986--R majority in Senate and D majority in the House. 1987 thru 88--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
George H.W. Bush, R, 9--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Bill Clinton, D, 6--1993/94--Democrat majority in both congressional houses 95-thru-2000--Republican majority in both congressional houses.
George W. Bush, R, 7--01/02--D majority in Senate…R majority in House. 03-thru-06 Republican majority in both congressional houses. 07/08--Democrat majority in both congressional houses.
Barack Obama, D, 4----08/2010--Democrat majority in both congressional houses. 2010 to present--R majority in House…D majority in Senate.
 
AdamT said:
You've got to be joking, right? The Republican position in this "democratic" process was that we, the minority, must get 100% of what we want and you, the majority, must get 0% of what YOU want or we are going to destroy the fu**ing economy!

Hey look, even more deficit reduction from those teabagger deficit hawks!

"WASHINGTON -- The congressional standoff that has partially shut down the Federal Aviation Administration has some curious math.

Lawmakers risk losing more than $1 billion in revenue from uncollected airline ticket taxes in a quarrel between Senate Democrats and House Republicans who are demanding a $16.5 million cut in rural air service subsidies.

The shutdown is less than two weeks old and already the government has lost more than $250 million in revenue because airlines' authority to collect ticket taxes has expired. The entire annual budget of the rural air services program is about $200 million."

Ah, but conservatives would tell us that those taxes are just passed on to consumers, so we're really benefitting from the non-collection of taxes ... right?

Err, wrong. With one or two exceptions, the airlines are simply pocketing the money they would have paid in taxes.
Click to expand...

-chuckles- But aren't you one of the liberals, that hate those subsidies? So now you are for them? Quess the question of subsities for oil companies and other business should now be off the table as well ??
 
The Prof said:
he had sixty senators for a year

but, you're right, it's not his fault

they made me do it

LOL!

leadership, anyone?
Click to expand...


LMAO..... you know I hear this all the time, they own all 3 branches of government, and anything that does or doesn't get done, is the Republicans fault, they own two branches of government and anything that does or doesn't get done is the Republicans fault, when Republicans owned all three branches of government .. . it' Republicans fault, when Republicans own two branches of government it's Republicans fault .. .

It just the Democrats mantra …. it's not our fault .. blame someone else.

To anyone that can think, one can only assume, that Democrats are just very inept at doing their jobs, and refuse to admit so, so like all those that can't do their jobs, it's always someone else's fault
 
Gentlemen, the real crisis is inherent to the very US political system. This is what nobody is commenting in the media.

Why do lawmakers have to wait until the nation is threatened with a downgrade of its credit rating score to act accordingly?

Why wasn't a more competitve deal passed 3, 4, 5, 6 years ago when it wouldn't have been so painful for the American people?

Truth is, banks and credit companies have extended their horizon of operation. The national budget has been included under their wide umbrella of markets with a potential profit.

Lawmakers aren't acting as representatives of the American people anymore. They're serving banks and credit companies by putting them ahead of the common national popular interest.

As simple as that. There's hardly one responsible lawmaker or President left in America's modern political era, who can truly say he's been worried about this problem.

And make no mistake about it. This economic austerity demanded now, which indeed comes too late for the American people, won't be able to be sustained in the future without adding tons of pain and sacrifice for the American people.

This may well have marked the end of the United States as THE example to follow. Playing with the hard-earned wealth of citizens can never be seen as a model to imitate.

This spells catastrophe for the coming generations. If you wanted your children to grow up in a safe environment, well let me tell you, you've just done the opposite.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Apparently the executives who run the companies felt the contracts they negotiated were indeed in the best interests of the company and they could make money within them or they would not have negotiated them or singed them.

Or am I mistaken that they participated freely in that process?
Click to expand...

Sure, one could also say that hostages in a bank robbery participate freely too, because they don't want to die.

J-mac
 
Redbeard said:
As for the OP, CNN revised the 1.7 Billion down to 18 Million.

Now, per your quote above, this may be of some interest.

Presidents with control of the White House and both houses of congress (all 3 branches for at least 2 years or more of their term) from 1940 to present.

FDR=D…..Truman=D…..JFK=D…..LBJ=D…..Carter=D…..Clinton=D…..Bush II=R…..Obama=D Notice BushII the only Republican in that class.

Republican President===54 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic President===37 Debt Ceiling Changes

Republican Senate====22 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic Senate ====69 Debt Ceiling Changes

Republican House ====9 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic House====82 Debt Ceiling Changes

Over the last 71 years, Republican presidents have signed 54 changes to the nation's debt ceiling into law, while Democratic presidents have signed 37 changes into law.

Here is a breakdown by president: Dems in office 7 times to Repubs 6 times since 1940.

Pres. | Political Party=D/R | # debt limit increased | Congressional Majority

Franklin D. Roosevelt, D, 6--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Harry Truman, D, 1--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Dwight Eisenhower, R, 7--1953/54 Senate=R--House=D 1955/60 saw Democrat majority in both houses
John F. Kennedy, D, 4--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Lyndon B. Johnson, D, 7--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Richard Nixon, R, 8--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Gerald Ford, R, 5--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Jimmy Carter, D, 9--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Ronald Reagan, R, 18--1981 thru 1986--R majority in Senate and D majority in the House. 1987 thru 88--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
George H.W. Bush, R, 9--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Bill Clinton, D, 6--1993/94--Democrat majority in both congressional houses 95-thru-2000--Republican majority in both congressional houses.
George W. Bush, R, 7--01/02--D majority in Senate…R majority in House. 03-thru-06 Republican majority in both congressional houses. 07/08--Democrat majority in both congressional houses.
Barack Obama, D, 4----08/2010--Democrat majority in both congressional houses. 2010 to present--R majority in House…D majority in Senate.
Click to expand...

Please tell me which President generated these results?

U.S. Debt Reaches 100 Percent of Country's GDP - FoxNews.com
 
Redbeard said:
As for the OP, CNN revised the 1.7 Billion down to 18 Million.

Now, per your quote above, this may be of some interest.

Presidents with control of the White House and both houses of congress (all 3 branches for at least 2 years or more of their term) from 1940 to present.

FDR=D…..Truman=D…..JFK=D…..LBJ=D…..Carter=D…..Clinton=D…..Bush II=R…..Obama=D Notice BushII the only Republican in that class.

Republican President===54 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic President===37 Debt Ceiling Changes

Republican Senate====22 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic Senate ====69 Debt Ceiling Changes

Republican House ====9 Debt Ceiling Changes
Democratic House====82 Debt Ceiling Changes

Over the last 71 years, Republican presidents have signed 54 changes to the nation's debt ceiling into law, while Democratic presidents have signed 37 changes into law.

Here is a breakdown by president: Dems in office 7 times to Repubs 6 times since 1940.

Pres. | Political Party=D/R | # debt limit increased | Congressional Majority

Franklin D. Roosevelt, D, 6--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Harry Truman, D, 1--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Dwight Eisenhower, R, 7--1953/54 Senate=R--House=D 1955/60 saw Democrat majority in both houses
John F. Kennedy, D, 4--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Lyndon B. Johnson, D, 7--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Richard Nixon, R, 8--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Gerald Ford, R, 5--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Jimmy Carter, D, 9--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Ronald Reagan, R, 18--1981 thru 1986--R majority in Senate and D majority in the House. 1987 thru 88--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
George H.W. Bush, R, 9--Democrat majority in both congressional houses
Bill Clinton, D, 6--1993/94--Democrat majority in both congressional houses 95-thru-2000--Republican majority in both congressional houses.
George W. Bush, R, 7--01/02--D majority in Senate…R majority in House. 03-thru-06 Republican majority in both congressional houses. 07/08--Democrat majority in both congressional houses.
Barack Obama, D, 4----08/2010--Democrat majority in both congressional houses. 2010 to present--R majority in House…D majority in Senate.
Click to expand...

perhaps you could add the size of the increases, context?
 
washunut said:
perhaps you could add the size of the increases, context?
Click to expand...

I could very well do that going back as far as 1917. Certainly it would be more meaningful for you to do your own investigation.
 
AdamT said:
Exactly, and it was that stimulus spending that broke us out of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

Look Adam you and all other liberals can continue to look backwards but it serves no purpose. Obama's stimulus interjected billions of taxpayer dollars that did nothing to stimulate the private sector job growth or GDP growth. The 2010 numbers were a mirage in that they were generated with taxpayer dollars and were offset by the debt created by that spending thus no net benefit. Once the stimulus spending wore off you are now seeing the true effects of the Obama economic policy, .4% and 1.3% GDP growth and 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans.
 
Conservative said:
Look Adam you and all other liberals can continue to look backwards but it serves no purpose. Obama's stimulus interjected billions of taxpayer dollars that did nothing to stimulate the private sector job growth or GDP growth. The 2010 numbers were a mirage in that they were generated with taxpayer dollars and were offset by the debt created by that spending thus no net benefit. Once the stimulus spending wore off you are now seeing the true effects of the Obama economic policy, .4% and 1.3% GDP growth and 24 million unemployed or under employed Americans.
Click to expand...

As the great George Santayana said, ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 
Anyone got a link proving that tax cuts stimulate the economy? Obama cut taxes in the stimulus package (it was mostly tax credits, look it up, even Karl Rove admits it. Rove himself said it needed more infrastructure spending) and it did nothing to help us. Bush did the same thing. Look how great we are. Clinton raised taxes and we saw tremendous growth. Here's the honest to god truth: cutting spending right now will only have negative effects on the economy and on jobs. Realize that. We need to cut spending and get things under control, but not now when the economy is like this. Put together a bill at the end of this year to cut around 6 trillion with a 4:1 ratio of spending to tax increases, to go into effect starting 2013/14. That's the solution here. We need government to pour money into the economy right now in terms of infrastructure rebuilding. A massive national infrastructure rebuilding would turn this country around. Look at what Hitler did with Germany. He turned that country's economy from a gigantic steaming pile of hyper inflated **** to a massive superpower. I'm not saying he was a good guy by any means, but he spent billions on military and infrastructure and got people to work. That's what brings an economy back to life. Not cutting taxes on businesses that are ALREADY MAKING EXCELLENT PROFITS.
 
Last edited:
irviding said:
Anyone got a link proving that tax cuts stimulate the economy? Obama cut taxes in the stimulus package (it was mostly tax credits, look it up, even Karl Rove admits it. Rove himself said it needed more infrastructure spending) and it did nothing to help us. Bush did the same thing. Look how great we are. Clinton raised taxes and we saw tremendous growth. Here's the honest to god truth: cutting spending right now will only have negative effects on the economy and on jobs. Realize that. We need to cut spending and get things under control, but not now when the economy is like this. Put together a bill at the end of this year to cut around 6 trillion with a 4:1 ratio of spending to tax increases, to go into effect starting 2013/14. That's the solution here. We need government to pour money into the economy right now in terms of infrastructure rebuilding. A massive national infrastructure rebuilding would turn this country around. Look at what Hitler did with Germany. He turned that country's economy from a gigantic steaming pile of hyper inflated **** to a massive superpower. I'm not saying he was a good guy by any means, but he spent billions on military and infrastructure and got people to work. That's what brings an economy back to life. Not cutting taxes on businesses that are ALREADY MAKING EXCELLENT PROFITS.
Click to expand...

There are four components of GDP with the largest one being consumption. You tell me how you, keeping more of what you earn impacts consumption. this is a private sector economy that relies on consumer spending. More take home pay leads to more consumer spending and that stimulates and grows the economy. The Obama tax cuts were not rate cuts but instead or basically as you stated tax credits along with a simple rebate that once spent was gone. Tax rate cuts however put more money into your hands with every paycheck. I hope you can see the difference.

Both Reagan and GHW Bush compromised with liberals accepting a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. Guess what, we got the tax increases but NOT the spending cuts. Give us the spending cuts first and then talk about tax increases. Right now 24 plus million Americans are either unemployed or under employed paying very little in Federal Income Taxes. Put those people back to work and the revenue problem would be partially solved.
 
Conservative said:
There are four components of GDP with the largest one being consumption. You tell me how you, keeping more of what you earn impacts consumption. this is a private sector economy that relies on consumer spending. More take home pay leads to more consumer spending and that stimulates and grows the economy. The Obama tax cuts were not rate cuts but instead or basically as you stated tax credits along with a simple rebate that once spent was gone. Tax rate cuts however put more money into your hands with every paycheck. I hope you can see the difference.

Both Reagan and GHW Bush compromised with liberals accepting a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. Guess what, we got the tax increases but NOT the spending cuts. Give us the spending cuts first and then talk about tax increases. Right now 24 plus million Americans are either unemployed or under employed paying very little in Federal Income Taxes. Put those people back to work and the revenue problem would be partially solved.
Click to expand...

Thank you, in my opinion you hit the nail on the head, it's not that I believe the world would end, or business would go broke if the tax cuts were allowed to end. Business and individuals did pretty well with the old rates.

But what didn't happen was the spending cuts, they never do. I'm just tired of being lied to, so I'm never going to be for any type of tax hikes, until I see variable, honest spending cuts. When I can see that our government (I don't care who is in charge) is serious about fixing broken programs, making them more efficient and less costly.... when spending cuts are enacted, rather then just pushing money from one program to the other. When that happens … then come and ask for help.
 
Conservative said:
There are four components of GDP with the largest one being consumption. You tell me how you, keeping more of what you earn impacts consumption. this is a private sector economy that relies on consumer spending. More take home pay leads to more consumer spending and that stimulates and grows the economy. The Obama tax cuts were not rate cuts but instead or basically as you stated tax credits along with a simple rebate that once spent was gone. Tax rate cuts however put more money into your hands with every paycheck. I hope you can see the difference.

Both Reagan and GHW Bush compromised with liberals accepting a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. Guess what, we got the tax increases but NOT the spending cuts. Give us the spending cuts first and then talk about tax increases. Right now 24 plus million Americans are either unemployed or under employed paying very little in Federal Income Taxes. Put those people back to work and the revenue problem would be partially solved.
Click to expand...

Hey bro, sorry for the late response. I'm not so active on these forums I just got an email saying the thread was updated, lol.

Anyway here is the way I see it - yes, tax cuts on the middle class work. Like you said putting money into people's pockets is beneficial. But when you cut taxes on corporations and on the super wealthy, the money gets put into a bank and not spread into the economy. Find me a scholastic source that says otherwise. You can't. That's the thing. Tax cuts are not the answer right now. The problem is that corporations are not hiring people because there is no demand and there is a lack of confidence. That's the problem. Not taxes at a high level. Nor is spending the problem either right now.

You're right about spending cuts not happening ever though. That's why a balanced budget amendment would be nice. It would keep them in line. But again, a deal should go through ASAP and be poised to take effect in 2013 or 2014, and it should be allotted at least 8 years or so until the balanced budget amendment restrictions have to come into play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom