• 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!

Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation'

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
President Barack Obama ratcheted up pressure on congressional Republicans to authorize an increase in the nation’s debt limit, warning of potentially catastrophic results for many Americans and the overall economy if the U.S. were to default on its obligations.“The issue here is whether or not America pays its bills,” Obama said at a press conference on Monday, the last of his first term in office. “We are not a deadbeat nation.”
Click to expand...


Read more @: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation' - NBC Politics

While I’m willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficit, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress over how to pay the bills they’ve already racked up,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House at what aides have billed as the final news conference of his first term. “To even entertain the idea of this happening, of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It’s absurd.”
Click to expand...


Read more: Obama press conference: No ?ransom? for raising debt ceiling - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com


Obama said he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling. He also talked about gun control, and more.
 
I wouldn't give this WH what it wants if it does not put some skin in the game, but I am not the Speaker.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
He shouldn't have to negotiate on the debt ceiling. That should be a non-issue.
Click to expand...

Heavens no! He should get to spend at least as much as last year, after all this is America, we can surely afford to borrow/print another $1 trillion. America always pays its bills! Look at the last 4 years of $1 trillion deficts; you see, that is proof that America always pays its bills! That $16.4 trillion of national debt will be paid off in no time, just watch the next (first?) Obama "budget", that will surely make us all believe him. But, right now (until Obama is out of office), we just have to "bite the bullet" and borrow/print some more to spend on those bills that America has. Now is the time to "invest" since interest rates are nearly zero! ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Heavens no! He should get to spend at least as much as last year, after all this is America, we can surely afford to borrow/print another $1 trillion. America always pays its bills! Look at the last 4 years of $1 trillion deficts; you see, that is proof that America always pays its bills! That $16.4 trillion of national debt will be paid off in no time, just watch the next (first?) Obama "budget", that will surely make us all believe him. But, right now (until Obama is out of office), we just have to "bite the bullet" and borrow/print some more to spend on those bills that America has. Now is the time to "invest" since interest rates are nearly zero! ;)
Click to expand...

Payment of the national debt is not an issue unless one arbitrarily chooses not to fund the government budget which was already passed.

If you want to argue about balancing the budget, do it in budget negotiations; don't oppose raising funds for the spending you already approved. That makes you a hypocrite.
 
I think Congress will raise the debt ceiling, but "We are not a deadbeat nation.” was a poor choice of words. We might be paying the bills, but with whose money?
 
This cannot be shown enough.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” …….. Senator Barack Obama
One of the few times I might agree with Obama.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Payment of the national debt is not an issue unless one arbitrarily chooses not to fund the government budget which was already passed.

If you want to argue about balancing the budget, do it in budget negotiations; don't oppose raising funds for the spending you already approved. That makes you a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

What budget are you talking about? There hasn't been an actual budget in several years. All we've managed to accomplish is several "spending resolutions" that keep us as full-deployment, full-stimulus, full-TARP spending, despite the fact that we're not actually at full-deployment, or re-issuing stimulus or TARP funds.
 
Pilot said:
With USD that has to be paid back with interest.
Click to expand...

even if the debt ceiling were not raised, government would still operate, because money from taxes is still flowing into the treasury.

it would mean government would have to prioritize its spending and pay, for essentials services only.

obama will only promise to cut spending in the future, he will not be for cutting anything serious today, because he knows he or congress today cannot force a congress of tomorrow do anything.

look for promises, but no real action.
 
Pilot said:
With USD that has to be paid back with interest.
Click to expand...

Yes, what is your point?

tessaesque said:
What budget are you talking about? There hasn't been an actual budget in several years. All we've managed to accomplish is several "spending resolutions" that keep us as full-deployment, full-stimulus, full-TARP spending, despite the fact that we're not actually at full-deployment, or re-issuing stimulus or TARP funds.
Click to expand...

The "spending resolutions" are to what I am referring. I wrote budget in lower case.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Yes, what is your point?



The "spending resolutions" are to what I am referring. I wrote budget in lower case.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how putting "budget" in lower case in anyway negates the fact that the statement was incorrect.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Obama chides GOP on debt limit: 'We are not a deadbeat nation' - NBC Politics

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Read more: Obama press conference: No ?ransom? for raising debt ceiling - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com


Obama said he will not negotiate on the debt ceiling. He also talked about gun control, and more.
Click to expand...

Missing original comments.

II - All Opening Post threads posted in *BN* must have:

• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
• Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.
• Your own unique content to spur discussion.
Click to expand...

What do you think about what he said?
 
Bronson said:
If Obama told you snow was black you'd believe him
Click to expand...
Snow can be black

:prof
65n7yc.jpg
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Payment of the national debt is not an issue unless one arbitrarily chooses not to fund the government budget which was already passed.

If you want to argue about balancing the budget, do it in budget negotiations; don't oppose raising funds for the spending you already approved. That makes you a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

So we should shut down the gov't instead? Obama will not negotiate, as he has a "mandate" to keep right on borrowing and spending - just ask him. "Budget" negotiations require a "budget", can you show us one for any year since Obama was in office? I seem to recall that the new "budget" deal is using "continuing resolutions" to keep federal spending based upon the 20% increased level attained in 2008/9 with the "one time" TARP and ARRA (stimulus) "crisis" and "emergency" added "Bush" spending. We were told it was the "Bush wars" that made federal spending so high, yet how much did the federal deficit/spending go down after the "Bush" Iraq war ended? Hmm...
 
Personally I think its the height of hypocrasy for him to claim hes signed 1.4T in spending cuts. He referring to the sequestor which he wants to repeal, thats over ten years, and it doesnt actually cut spending. And this is all after he signed 1T in NEW spending, per year, since he took office. And then when he had the chance to rasie taxes by 400bn a year across the board, he signed away 75% of that increase. And dont forget his last budget he proposed, which suggested we INCREASE spending to 46 trillion over 10 years! And still run trillion dollar deficits during the entire time!
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Payment of the national debt is not an issue unless one arbitrarily chooses not to fund the government budget which was already passed.

If you want to argue about balancing the budget, do it in budget negotiations; don't oppose raising funds for the spending you already approved. That makes you a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

No such budget has passed. The govt has been living off arbitary continuing resolutions for years. The last such was in September appropriating spending through March, which have enough to pay for already without borrowing.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Edit: plus the Sandy relief bill
 
Last edited:
So, essentially Obama is speaking like an arrogant child and refusing to compromise on the budget as well as ensuring that he's going to increase gun control.

More of the same from :roll: Thank God I'm in school until 2016.
 
In a rational world, speculation about the U.S.--or at least some U.S. policy makers--deliberately choosing not to pay obligations to which the nation agreed would not be necessary. Unfortunately, when it comes to Washington, one cannot automatically assume rationality for all policy making cases. Not surprisingly, U.S. fiscal policy has remained firmly embarked on a bipartisan course of unsustainability for the long-term. Instead of a medium- and long-term fiscal consolidation program, one finds rhetoric where various political leaders each posture to claim a stronger commitment to fiscal responsibility. In terms of substance, the rhetoric is not matched by actions.

Despite having some fifteen months to reach a fiscal consolidation package following the creation of the fiscal cliff sequester, Washington punted. As is typical, it chose the course of accommodation in renewing tax provisions, in this case making them permanent. When it came to balancing them with spending-related reforms (discretionary savings and mandatory spending reforms), they chose to punt.

That brings us to the current situation. Now almost two weeks after the fiscal cliff legislations was adopted, not a single comprehensive fiscal consolidation proposal has been tabled. Not one. Instead, certain political leaders are talking about not raising the debt ceiling. In other words, they are refusing to pay for obligations they approved in an act of tough posturing. There is no courage in that reckless course. The courageous course would involve providing substantive legislation to reform the policies and programs driving the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances.

Should the debt ceiling not be raised in a timely fashion and should the nation wind up having to prioritize, no matter how those who refused to raise the debt ceiling posture, they will have put the nation into partial default. They, alone, will have pushed the nation across a threshold for which risk perceptions would be altered for an extended period of time. Their act of irresponsibility would elevate the nation's risk profile, as they would have demonstrated that the nation's meeting its obligations in a timely fashion is not a binding constraint. Elevated risk would lead to an increase in interest payments above what would otherwise have been the case. As a consequence, those policy makers, far from demonstrating fiscal responsibility, would be solely responsible for increasing the present value of the nation's long-term imbalances. They would have made a deliberate and conscious choice to increase the nation's spending and through a mechanism that provides no benefits to the nation's taxpayers.

If the Congress is serious about stabilizing and then reducing the nation's debt relative to GDP, they would have used the nearly 15 months available to them to design and implement a credible fiscal consolidation program. They didn't. They would immediately have engaged in developing a fiscal consolidation program in the nearly two weeks that followed the fiscal cliff deal. They haven't. If they wanted leverage in a responsible fashion, they would have suggested that they would deduct a significant portion (perhaps 10%-20%) from every appropriations funding request until a fiscal consolidation program were adopted. They have shown no such creativity.

Hopefully, reason will prevail among enough of the nation's policy makers to avert a partial default. If not, those who engineered it should be held directly accountable for their damaging the nation's credit rating and the interest rate premium that follows.
 
We are not a deadbeat nation...

We are just a massively fiscally irresponsible, wreckless, governmental equivilent to a "Shopaholic" nation.

A shop-a-holic shouldn't stop paying off their credit cards....they just shouldn't go on opening up new credit cards to purchase more and more ****.

There are few, if any, on the right pushing for the notion of defaulting on our loans or on our mandatory spending. There are simply people saying we shouldn't borrow any more money. Most Republicans I see talking about it would then want to CUT discretionary spending to make up the difference and reform entitlement spending. I see very few Republicans saying we should make up for what we can't borrow by not issuing social security checks or not paying our debts. If the President wants to go that route, fine. If he wants to say that's one option that may have to happen, and blame the Republicans for making that option have to be considered, fine. If he's stating that such a thing is what the Republicans are pushing for, that's incorrect.

The reality is our President and this Congress had 15 months to work out a deal to legitimately and reasonable address our woeful spending issues as they relate to the budget....and they've done nothing but push papers around and give pseudo campaign speeches on it. Now the time is come where the backs are up against the wall and they're both pointing to the other side for blame. They're all to blame because they've all drug their feet.
 
Fisher said:
I wouldn't give this WH what it wants if it does not put some skin in the game, but I am not the Speaker.
Click to expand...

Well, Obama has proposed about $1T in cuts over the next decade, but the GOP doesn't know how to say yes.
 
Zyphlin said:
We are not a deadbeat nation...

We are just a massively fiscally irresponsible, wreckless, governmental equivilent to a "Shopaholic" nation.

A shop-a-holic shouldn't stop paying off their credit cards....they just shouldn't go on opening up new credit cards to purchase more and more ****.

There are few, if any, on the right pushing for the notion of defaulting on our loans or on our mandatory spending. There are simply people saying we shouldn't borrow any more money. Most Republicans I see talking about it would then want to CUT discretionary spending to make up the difference and reform entitlement spending. I see very few Republicans saying we should make up for what we can't borrow by not issuing social security checks or not paying our debts. If the President wants to go that route, fine. If he wants to say that's one option that may have to happen, and blame the Republicans for making that option have to be considered, fine. If he's stating that such a thing is what the Republicans are pushing for, that's incorrect.
Click to expand...

Congress passed the budget. Now pay for it. Tea baggers only know how to pretend to govern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom