• 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!

GAO: Debt ceiling fight cost taxpayers at least $1.3 billion

AdamT

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What's the price tag of stupidity? In the case of the foolish debt ceiling fiasco, the cost is $1.3 billion ... for one year, with the ultimate cost sure to rise. The Republican hissy fit will cost us at least three times as much as Solyndra.

Last summer’s fierce political debate over raising the federal debt limit cost taxpayers more than $1*billion in extra borrowing costs, including hundreds of hours in overtime for federal employees responsible for avoiding default, according to a new government report.

Delays in raising the debt limit forced the Treasury Department to pay an extra $1.3*billion in borrowing costs — and the final sum is expected to climb higher as multi-year obligations and other outstanding costs are added later, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...t-13-billion/2012/07/23/gJQAZdOE5W_story.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
What's the price tag of stupidity? In the case of the foolish debt ceiling fiasco, the cost is $1.3 billion ... for one year, with the ultimate cost sure to rise. The Republican hissy fit will cost us at least three times as much as Solyndra.
Click to expand...

Yet the solution is SO silly simple; do not spend more than your dare ask for in taxation. Is it not amazing that NO efforts are made to limit gov't spending or to increase taxation SUFFICIENT to pay for it, but temendous efforts are expended to increase borrowing to support it?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet the solution is SO silly simple; do not spend more than your dare ask for in taxation. Is it not amazing that NO efforts are made to limit gov't spending or to increase taxation SUFFICIENT to pay for it, but temendous efforts are expended to increase borrowing to support it?
Click to expand...

Sometimes seemingly simple solutions are simply simple minded. First, this was not a case where we had the option of not raising the debt ceiling. Do to existing obligations the options were to extend the debt ceiling or else default on our obligations -- which would have devastating consequences. This was nothing but an irresponsible and very expensive game of chicken that could have been resolved with a much better outcome if Republicans were not so uncompromising.

Long term, it also doesn't make sense to prohibit deficit spending, as it doesn't allow for dire emergencies like WWII or the Great Recession. But I can see passing an amendment that links deficit spending to GDP growth in order to enforce fiscal restraint in times of economic abundance.
 
AdamT said:
Sometimes seemingly simple solutions are simply simple minded. First, this was not a case where we had the option of not raising the debt ceiling. Do to existing obligations the options were to extend the debt ceiling or else default on our obligations -- which would have devastating consequences. This was nothing but an irresponsible and very expensive game of chicken that could have been resolved with a much better outcome if Republicans were not so uncompromising.

Long term, it also doesn't make sense to prohibit deficit spending, as it doesn't allow for dire emergencies like WWII or the Great Recession. But I can see passing an amendment that links deficit spending to GDP growth in order to enforce fiscal restraint in times of economic abundance.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. A nation NOT under attack is, none the less, in a constant state of "war". Using "war time" emergency is pure BS. During WWII we indeed spent like crazy yet repaid that debt rather quickly. Obama simply wants to play Sant Claus and spend OVER 40% more than he dares to tax.

Borrowing for 8 years is EASY if you have no care as to when, or even if, it is paid back. Obama talks endlessly of "infrastructure" spending yet does no such thing, as only 6% of his moronic "stimulus" went to those "shovel ready" things he talked about. Obama is a "crony capitalist" that seeks to spread the funds to his friends to buy votes, babbles nonsense about creating (or saving) jobs yet sees unemployment remain extremely high.

What SERIOUS proposals has Obama offered towards his campaign "promise" to cut the deficit in half? Obama talks the talk, yet NEVER walks the walk. Even the 2010 census was considered an "emergency" spending item that required no "pay go" or spending offset. Obama and his merry men in congress do not care one bit about "budgets" as they have yet to pass one. It is easy to buy votes with other people's money and blame the debt on "outside" factors, but you can not borrow and spend your way to prosperity. Get real!
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
What's the price tag of stupidity? In the case of the foolish debt ceiling fiasco, the cost is $1.3 billion ... for one year, with the ultimate cost sure to rise. The Republican hissy fit will cost us at least three times as much as Solyndra.
Click to expand...

If those silly republicans would just do as you commanded them, we could bring down America so much faster.

:roll:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. A nation NOT under attack is, none the less, in a constant state of "war". Using "war time" emergency is pure BS. During WWII we indeed spent like crazy yet repaid that debt rather quickly. Obama simply wants to play Sant Claus and spend OVER 40% more than he dares to tax.
Click to expand...

You can't simply dismiss the possibility of a major war or other national disaster that requires large-scale spending. If you passed a balanced budget amendment -- and amendment to the Constitution -- you would create a constitutional crisis every time such an emergency arose. What would the president do? Invoke martial law so he can raise enough money to address the emergency?

Borrowing for 8 years is EASY if you have no care as to when, or even if, it is paid back. Obama talks endlessly of "infrastructure" spending yet does no such thing, as only 6% of his moronic "stimulus" went to those "shovel ready" things he talked about. Obama is a "crony capitalist" that seeks to spread the funds to his friends to buy votes, babbles nonsense about creating (or saving) jobs yet sees unemployment remain extremely high.
Click to expand...

Borrowing for eight years? How about borrowing for over 80 years, which is what we've been doing? You have no support for any of your assertions. They are all partisan gibberish. GAO and most economists agree that the stimulus reduced unemployment and increased GDP. You don't reduce deficits by allowing the economy to sink into a double-dip recession, as most of Europe would tell you. The UK has implemented strict austerity measures in order to reduce their debt. Their debt is increasing.

What SERIOUS proposals has Obama offered towards his campaign "promise" to cut the deficit in half? Obama talks the talk, yet NEVER walks the walk. Even the 2010 census was considered an "emergency" spending item that required no "pay go" or spending offset. Obama and his merry men in congress do not care one bit about "budgets" as they have yet to pass one. It is easy to buy votes with other people's money and blame the debt on "outside" factors, but you can not borrow and spend your way to prosperity. Get real!
Click to expand...

One thing Obama offered was a four trillion dollar deficit reduction package that included both spending cuts and revenue hikes. That, of course, was rejected by Republicans, who cling to the insane notion that we can get our fiscal house in order by cutting spending alone. Romney is right there with them, stating recently that he would not even accept a deficit reduction package that including a 10:1 spending cuts to revenue hikes ratio.
 
AdamT said:
What's the price tag of stupidity? In the case of the foolish debt ceiling fiasco, the cost is $1.3 billion ... for one year, with the ultimate cost sure to rise. The Republican hissy fit will cost us at least three times as much as Solyndra.
Click to expand...

The stupidity is in expecting more government spending to fix anything.

I wish they would have fought harder. They gave up for $80B/year.
 
Aberration said:
The stupidity is in expecting more government spending to fix anything.

I wish they would have fought harder. They gave up for $80B/year.
Click to expand...

The stupidity is in throwing away billions of dollars as a result of an insane, grandstand threat to trash the full faith and credit of the United State.
 
They day Obama can unilaterally raise taxes, cut spending, and raise the debt limit is the day our "fiscal house" will be in order. But until that day comes, he's stuck with Congress' policies of spending 40% more than we take in. For someone who identifies as a libertarian, I assumed you would have been more acutely aware of the limits on the Presidents power.
 
AdamT said:
The stupidity is in throwing away billions of dollars as a result of an insane, grandstand threat to trash the full faith and credit of the United State.
Click to expand...

What does more harm to the nation's credit, increased borrowing or reduced spending? Obama does not care one lick about the national debt, about reducing deficits or cutting any DOMESTIC spending. Obama is about buying votes with tax money and playing class warfare games. Obama sees the nations wealth as simply a gov't resource to be distributed "fairly", let others figure out how to grow it, he seeks only to harvest it. Yes he did!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What does more harm to the nation's credit, increased borrowing or reduced spending? Obama does not care one lick about the national debt, about reducing deficits or cutting any DOMESTIC spending. Obama is about buying votes with tax money and playing class warfare games. Obama sees the nations wealth as simply a gov't resource to be distributed "fairly", let others figure out how to grow it, he seeks only to harvest it. Yes he did!
Click to expand...


Do you willfully ignore his endorsement of Bowles-Simpson, his negotiation of the Budget Control Act, and his request for consolidation power from Congress to consolidate and streamline the executive branch, or are you just so deep in your delusion that he's a free spending socialist that you just don't understand what those things actually are?
 
And those are only three of the things he's done in concern of the deficit. That doesn't include his ending the war in Iraq, trying to streamline and tighten Defense's belt, the Buffett rule, etc.

To try and pretend that he hasn't offered any deficit reduction measures, or that he doesn't care is just ignorant.
 
AdamT said:
What's the price tag of stupidity? In the case of the foolish debt ceiling fiasco, the cost is $1.3 billion ... for one year, with the ultimate cost sure to rise. The Republican hissy fit will cost us at least three times as much as Solyndra.
Click to expand...

"The Republican hissy fit" is the bi partisan ramblings and finger pointing garbage that is partially responsible for the destruction of this once great country. The democratic party has you so ***** whipped that you cannot see their failings nor any thing positive the opposite side does. All you see is hate and blame for the right and love and blindness to the left. (not that those on the right are any better). You want to know who is responsible for this? POLITICIANS. R-D-I-G doesnt matter the letter before their name. Past present doesnt matter. But you won't see that. All you see is R and that immediately closes your mind. Or D and you can see no fault. They are perfect.
 
AdamT said:
You can't simply dismiss the possibility of a major war or other national disaster that requires large-scale spending. If you passed a balanced budget amendment -- and amendment to the Constitution -- you would create a constitutional crisis every time such an emergency arose.
Click to expand...

Why does it often seem that so many on the left lack the brainpower to think of things like exceptions? Clearly an amendment can be worded in such a manner to allow for cases of actual war and actual natural disasters.
 
AdamT said:
Long term, it also doesn't make sense to prohibit deficit spending, as it doesn't allow for dire emergencies like WWII or the Great Recession. But I can see passing an amendment that links deficit spending to GDP growth in order to enforce fiscal restraint in times of economic abundance.
Click to expand...

lol...........
 
muciti said:
"The Republican hissy fit" is the bi partisan ramblings and finger pointing garbage that is partially responsible for the destruction of this once great country. The democratic party has you so ***** whipped that you cannot see their failings nor any thing positive the opposite side does. All you see is hate and blame for the right and love and blindness to the left. (not that those on the right are any better). You want to know who is responsible for this? POLITICIANS. R-D-I-G doesnt matter the letter before their name. Past present doesnt matter. But you won't see that. All you see is R and that immediately closes your mind. Or D and you can see no fault. They are perfect.
Click to expand...

And sadly the media ... or whatever ... has convinced you of this false equivalence lie. So, if someone says, "white is white," the media thinks, "oh my, we have to present BOTH sides of the controversy!" So they put on someone who says "white is black" -- as if there is actually a debate as to whether white is white. And the audience, a/k/a you, thinks, "hmmm, they both have a good point ... or, they're both full of ****!" White is really gray!!

Get over the "they're all equally bad" mantra; they aren't. This was a clear case where Republicans were manifestly unreasonable in refusing to even consider revenue enhancements and even more unreasonable in pushing the country to the brink of disaster. The dangerous and futile game will end up costing us billions of dollars ... for NOTHING.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
And sadly the media ... or whatever ... has convinced you of this false equivalence lie. So, if someone says, "white is white," the media thinks, "oh my, we have to present BOTH sides of the controversy!" So they put on someone who says "white is black" -- as if there is actually a debate as to whether white is white. And the audience, a/k/a you, thinks, "hmmm, they both have a good point ... or, they're both full of ****!" White is really gray!!
Click to expand...

Your argument is that it is wrong to try to see both sides of an argument? Seriously?.

Get over the "they're all equally bad" mantra; they aren't. This was a clear case where Republicans were manifestly unreasonable in refusing to even consider revenue enhancements and even more unreasonable in pushing the country to the brink of disaster. The dangerous and futile game will end up costing us billions of dollars ... for NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Are you really so blinded by bi partisan garbage that you don't see the role that democrats played in that? These guys screw up and screw over the American people and tell you they didnt as a bold face lie to your face that they dont even try to conceal and you just say yes sir and go along with what you are told? Think about that logic. Its pathetic.
 
muciti said:
Your argument is that it is wrong to try to see both sides of an argument? Seriously?.
Seriously, it is wrong to always throw up your hands and lament that "they're all to blame" when one side is very clearly much more to blame than the other.

Are you really so blinded by bi partisan garbage that you don't see the role that democrats played in that?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly willing to address whatever you claim their error was, if you ever grace us with an actual argument, as opposed to generalized opinion.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
muciti said:
Your argument is that it is wrong to try to see both sides of an argument? Seriously?.

I'm certainly willing to address whatever you claim their error was, if you ever grace us with an actual argument, as opposed to generalized opinion.
Click to expand...

To simplify it the Democrats expected Republicans to go along with them and do what the Dems wanted. The Repubs wanted the dems to just go along with what they said. Both sides had valid points and rather than negotiating and coming to an agreement that was best for the country they were both more worried about saving face and ensuring the other side didnt win or get any credit that they allowed it to get as far as they did.
Click to expand...
 
muciti said:
AdamT said:
To simplify it the Democrats expected Republicans to go along with them and do what the Dems wanted. The Repubs wanted the dems to just go along with what they said. Both sides had valid points and rather than negotiating and coming to an agreement that was best for the country they were both more worried about saving face and ensuring the other side didnt win or get any credit that they allowed it to get as far as they did.
Click to expand...

Well that was entirely predictable, and predictably not true. In fact the Democrats wanted the Republicans to simply pass the debt ceiling extension as it has always been done in the past -- without conditions. But because Republicans would not even consider that, Democrats accepted that they would have to agree to a significant deficit reduction measure to get the Republicans to acquiesce. That they were willing to do, but wanted something like a 3:1 spending cut to tax hike ratio. Republicans would not even consider it. Eventually Democrats came down to offering a 10:1 spending cuts to tax hike ratio and Republicans still would not budge. What Republicans said was that Democrats would have to accept THEIR priority -- no tax hikes under any circumstances, AND large spending cuts -- or they would blow up the country.

That is nothing like what you described.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
muciti said:
Well that was entirely predictable, and predictably not true. In fact the Democrats wanted the Republicans to simply pass the debt ceiling extension as it has always been done in the past -- without conditions. But because Republicans would not even consider that, Democrats accepted that they would have to agree to a significant deficit reduction measure to get the Republicans to acquiesce. That they were willing to do, but wanted something like a 3:1 spending cut to tax hike ratio. Republicans would not even consider it. Eventually Democrats came down to offering a 10:1 spending cuts to tax hike ratio and Republicans still would not budge. What Republicans said was that Democrats would have to accept THEIR priority -- no tax hikes under any circumstances, AND large spending cuts -- or they would blow up the country.

That is nothing like what you described.
Click to expand...

you are blatantly refusing to see anything other than what they tell you still. the republicans had damn good reasons for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling without measures that would help prevent further raising of the debt ceiling. just because in the past we raised the debt ceiling without concern for how we could or would manage or reduce the debt doesnt mean it should have been done that way again. that trend needs to be reversed. both sides had valid points. your blindness to politcal bs does not mean it wasnt there. the dems played that game and failed the people of this country just like the republicans did.
Click to expand...
 
muciti said:
AdamT said:
you are blatantly refusing to see anything other than what they tell you still. the republicans had damn good reasons for not wanting to raise the debt ceiling without measures that would help prevent further raising of the debt ceiling. just because in the past we raised the debt ceiling without concern for how we could or would manage or reduce the debt doesnt mean it should have been done that way again. that trend needs to be reversed. both sides had valid points. your blindness to politcal bs does not mean it wasnt there. the dems played that game and failed the people of this country just like the republicans did.
Click to expand...

Way to completely dodge the point. :lol:

The debt ceiling will ALWAYS have to be raised for the simple reason that the population and economy are growing. Can you imagine a business operating in this stupid fashion? The business is growing year after year, but they aren't allowed to increase expenditures for payroll, capital investments, inventory, or R&D without invoking an internecine proxy fight every year to keep the company from defaulting on its obligations? But Republicans claim that the government should be run more like a business....
Click to expand...
 
Going back to the great increase the debt ceiling debate, it is more obvious that our parents and grandparents did us wrong. Yes, I love my dad and pa-pa, but what they allowed the politicians to do to us is painful. If you are less than 40, there is a good chance you have put tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars into programs you will never benefit from.

I honestly do not believe I will receive a cent of social security. I happily pay my portion and go on my way, but I am pretty sure I am not going to see that money when I am in my 70’s. As for Medicare...good luck everyone on that. The agreements that our forefather's made is to pass the buck onto us.

Our current government is doing the same. By borrowing in the way we are, we are forcing our children to pay for our lifestyles. How unfair are we to the generations to come? We were fiscally irresponsible and we simply passed the buck to our children. Shame on America.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
muciti said:
Well that was entirely predictable, and predictably not true. In fact the Democrats wanted the Republicans to simply pass the debt ceiling extension as it has always been done in the past -- without conditions. But because Republicans would not even consider that, Democrats accepted that they would have to agree to a significant deficit reduction measure to get the Republicans to acquiesce. That they were willing to do, but wanted something like a 3:1 spending cut to tax hike ratio. Republicans would not even consider it. Eventually Democrats came down to offering a 10:1 spending cuts to tax hike ratio and Republicans still would not budge. What Republicans said was that Democrats would have to accept THEIR priority -- no tax hikes under any circumstances, AND large spending cuts -- or they would blow up the country.

That is nothing like what you described.
Click to expand...

In 2010, the Tea Partiers voted for controlled spending. That is what they wanted. That is what they got. They didn't want to see the debt ceiling raised or spending increased. They are voting the way of their constituents.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
muciti said:
The debt ceiling will ALWAYS have to be raised for the simple reason that the population and economy are growing.
Click to expand...

Thats the logic that has our country in the financial mess it is in. Excuses for running up debt is not going to help our debt. Think about it simply. Lets say you have a family and mom and dad take out a few loans. Then to pay on (not pay off, just pay on) they take out some loans. then to pay on those loans they take out some loans. Their debt is mounting and mom and dad are not adjusting their lifestyles or doing anything to reduce their debt. They are only increasing their debt and ignoring it. Does this seem like a good idea? Any responsible person is going to say no to that question. I assume you would too. So with that being a horrible fiscal plan and knowing these people have to do something to start trying to get themselves out of debt and reduce this trend of just borrowing without consequence their bank/family or whoever tells them that before they can take a loan they need to have a plan to start reversing their spending habits to reduce their debt. Would that be wrong of the bank to do? They are telling them we will help you get the loan you need however first you must have a plan.

Can you imagine a business operating in this stupid fashion? The business is growing year after year, but they aren't allowed to increase expenditures for payroll, capital investments, inventory, or R&D without invoking an internecine proxy fight every year to keep the company from defaulting on its obligations?
Click to expand...

This is not a stupid fashion. A business that spends far more than they earn and borrows money with no means of repaying is not a business that is going to last very long.

But Republicans claim that the government should be run more like a business....
Click to expand...

Here you go again. Needlessly blaming or taking cheap shots at Republicans or whatever you want to call it. You just can't help yourself. You can't resist playing bi partisan games which is the problem in politics. Two sides dont work together and constantly attack the other side.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom