• 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!

Reverand Paul gives a sermon on the Book of Fiscal Conservatism

Vern said:
Sorry Beau, “as bad as the dems” is just a narrative you use to ignore reality. As Chomsky points out republicans are worse. They not only cause higher deficits but they do it as they rail against deficits. And during the Obama administration they fought to keep the deficit higher. an example would be they fought with President Obama to keep the Bush tax cuts from expiring as scheduled and expiring as re-scheduled for the top 2 %. It was “about” the deficit when they attacked the stimulus, auto bailout, jobs bill (things that did or would help the economy) but not the Bush tax cuts.

Continue to vote republican but just do it knowing that their “concern” for deficits is just another lying narrative and they make it worse.
Click to expand...

Good thing this event hasn't happened very long ago as I easily remember the Dems and the Obama admin wanted to spend so much more than what we did. The Republicans fought over spending which resulted in sequestration, which ultimately kept the deficit down a little bit. Regardless, the debt still doubled during his time. In a sense, you could even say that the Obama admin was twice as bad as Bush because he added almost 10 trillion vs Bush's 5 trillion.
 
Fishking said:
Good thing this event hasn't happened very long ago as I easily remember the Dems and the Obama admin wanted to spend so much more than what we did. The Republicans fought over spending which resulted in sequestration, which ultimately kept the deficit down a little bit. Regardless, the debt still doubled during his time. In a sense, you could even say that the Obama admin was twice as bad as Bush because he added almost 10 trillion vs Bush's 5 trillion.
Click to expand...

Sequestration reduced spending by just $85B. The deficit was reduced by far more than that thanks to the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts on the top 1%. Furthermore, the entire premise behind Sequestration was that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". Yeah, that turned out to be a pack of lies. So Sequestration was based on lies and debt hysteria. I still don't understand why debt matters to you people so much when it didn't matter when Bush was President?

The federal debt only really affects borrowing rates for the government. But even with debt at its current levels, borrowing rates are still low. So if you wanted to make an investment in, say, our infrastructure or a single payer health care system, now would be the time to do it while borrowing rates are so low. Just like how you would wait to buy a home once the rates are lower. Same principle.
 
Fishking said:
Good thing this event hasn't happened very long ago as I easily remember the Dems and the Obama admin wanted to spend so much more than what we did. The Republicans fought over spending which resulted in sequestration, which ultimately kept the deficit down a little bit. Regardless, the debt still doubled during his time. In a sense, you could even say that the Obama admin was twice as bad as Bush because he added almost 10 trillion vs Bush's 5 trillion.
Click to expand...

Or, you could say they were about the same because they both just about doubled the debt during their tenure.

It boggles my mind that the right applauds themselves for cutting spending during the worst economic downturn in a century, after having fought tooth and nail for the reduction in revenue that toppled the first domino of its cause.
 
Fishking said:
Good thing this event hasn't happened very long ago as I easily remember the Dems and the Obama admin wanted to spend so much more than what we did. The Republicans fought over spending which resulted in sequestration, which ultimately kept the deficit down a little bit. Regardless, the debt still doubled during his time. In a sense, you could even say that the Obama admin was twice as bad as Bush because he added almost 10 trillion vs Bush's 5 trillion.
Click to expand...

You could say that if you pretend not to know the facts and use the made up "debt by inauguration day' metric. But first lets dispense with your delusions/spin about sequestration. Republicans refused to compromise on a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases so they forced the cuts. So they fought over tax increases not spending cuts. And the sequester is what proved they were flaming lying hypocrites about deficits. The fact that they couldn't back peddle and finger point fast enough in blaming President Obama about the sequester cuts proves they were worried about the spending cuts effect on the economy. that proves they were lying in their attacks on the stimulus.

Bush added 6 trillion to the deficit and he was handed a surplus.
President Obama will add less than 9 trillion and he was handed the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits (yea, they have a name).
 
Master PO said:
my question has been simple if debt does not matter, why do we have taxation and overhead of such a system, why are we sending people to jail over something which is not needed.
Click to expand...


My opinion: to help maintain confidence in our currency by presenting a means in which the government can repay debts. Fiat currency only holds value as long as the currency has confidence since it has no tangible exchange as a backing. This is where I disagree with "debt does not matter" be it private or public. The perception of to much debt hurts currency confidence and when that confidence is lost the currency no longer holds value. This is the greatest threat to the US dollar imo and why we must keep debt in check.
 
Critter7r said:
Or, you could say they were about the same because they both just about doubled the debt during their tenure.
Click to expand...

You could say that, and it would be true, but you could also say that Obama added twice as much to the debt and it would also be true.
 
Vern said:
You could say that if you pretend not to know the facts and use the made up "debt by inauguration day' metric. But first lets dispense with your delusions/spin about sequestration. Republicans refused to compromise on a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases so they forced the cuts. So they fought over tax increases not spending cuts. And the sequester is what proved they were flaming lying hypocrites about deficits. The fact that they couldn't back peddle and finger point fast enough in blaming President Obama about the sequester cuts proves they were worried about the spending cuts effect on the economy. that proves they were lying in their attacks on the stimulus.
Click to expand...

That didn't refute anything I said. Fact: Democrats and Obama wanted to spend more. Fact: Republicans fought it. Fact: Sequestration was the result.

Bush added 6 trillion to the deficit and he was handed a surplus.
President Obama will add less than 9 trillion and he was handed the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits (yea, they have a name).
Click to expand...

That's not factually true. I mean, you're not even getting the difference between deficit and debt correct.
 
Critter7r said:
Or, you could say they were about the same because they both just about doubled the debt during their tenure.
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
You could say that, and it would be true, but you could also say that Obama added twice as much to the debt and it would also be true.
Click to expand...

And that, is why context is important.
 
Baralis said:
My opinion: to help maintain confidence in our currency by presenting a means in which the government can repay debts. Fiat currency only holds value as long as the currency has confidence since it has no tangible exchange as a backing. This is where I disagree with "debt does not matter" be it private or public. The perception of to much debt hurts currency confidence and when that confidence is lost the currency no longer holds value. This is the greatest threat to the US dollar imo and why we must keep debt in check.
Click to expand...

i agree in that respect.

when debt continues to rise and government seeks avoid the argument and preach it does not matter, over time people l will lose confidence in the government, its currency and then comes its downfall.

the idea of debt does not matter is a tactic to fool people into believing government can spend money on what it wants, that it can continually shell out cash to Citizens, economic entities, as well as foreign entities and call it investments.
 
Absentglare said:
... you don't think education facilitates future productivity...? Lol... that IS hilarious, but not because of why you seem to think.
Click to expand...

i know thats not a federal power and the dept of education should be closed.

please point to the part of the constitution where government has delegated powers for education

but no...i know you not going to do that because you cant, its not possible, government was never to be involved in the lives liberty or property of the people

and education by the federal government should end now!
 
Fishking said:
That didn't refute anything I said. Fact: Democrats and Obama wanted to spend more. Fact: Republicans fought it. Fact: Sequestration was the result.
Click to expand...

Yes, because Conservatives wouldn't agree to revenue increases. Hard to see how cutting spending in any regard helps the economy.



That's not factually true. I mean, you're not even getting the difference between deficit and debt correct.
Click to expand...

I think it's obvious he meant that Bush added $6T to the debt. And yes, he was handed trillion-dollar deficits and an economy that was falling apart. He recovered the economy without one single Republican vote. Why? Because Conservatives are party-before-country. Always.
 
Master PO said:
please point to the part of the constitution where government has delegated powers for education
Click to expand...

General welfare clause. Can you point to the part of the Constitution where government does not have those delegated powers?


i know thats not a federal power and the dept of education should be closed.
Click to expand...

What you know and what is reality seem to be in contradiction to one another. So if the DoE is to be shuttered, what's to be done about student loans and Pell Grants?


ut no...i know you not going to do that because you cant, its not possible, government was never to be involved in the lives liberty or property of the people
Click to expand...

That's awfully presumptuous and arrogant. How is government involved in your life that it's causing you so much heartache?


and education by the federal government should end now!
Click to expand...

It never started. The DoE doesn't employ a single teacher. The DoE doesn't run a single school. Apart from student loans, standardized testing, and grants, the DoE does very little else.
 
Master PO said:
i know thats not a federal power and the dept of education should be closed.

please point to the part of the constitution where government has delegated powers for education

but no...i know you not going to do that because you cant, its not possible, government was never to be involved in the lives liberty or property of the people

and education by the federal government should end now!
Click to expand...

General welfare clause.

Boy, you made that easy!!!
 
Incisor said:
General welfare clause. Can you point to the part of the Constitution where government does not have those delegated powers?

:lamo..if you had ever read the founders, they clearly contradict you.. Madison and Hamilton both state the welfare does not mean the government can give people money.

if the federal government could give money to the people then it would have powers concerning the people and they don't, federalist 45 and 84




What you know and what is reality seem to be in contradiction to one another. So if the DoE is to be shuttered, what's to be done about student loans and Pell Grants?

its time to end the dept and save money, by stoping the federal government from being involved in state powers.




That's awfully presumptuous and arrogant. How is government involved in your life that it's causing you so much heartache?


you need to read... here you go.

federalist 45- The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

federalist 84 - But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State.


It never started. The DoE doesn't employ a single teacher. The DoE doesn't run a single school. Apart from student loans, standardized testing, and grants, the DoE does very little else.
Click to expand...

education is a state power, the founders at the convention on sept 5 1787, made it clear the federal government will not be involved in education.
 
Master PO said:
if you had ever read the founders, they clearly contradict you.. Madison and Hamilton both state the welfare does not mean the government can give people money..[/B]
Click to expand...

So you're referring to the Federalist Papers, which are not law but rather editorials (some written under pseudonyms) and opinions. I find it very hard to apply 18th Century opinions to 21st Century issues. There is a lot the Founders presumed to know that they didn't. They didn't envision a time where there's instantaneous communication, commerce happening routinely across state borders, and globalization. So you can keep going back to dusty, old opinion pieces but it's hard to see how they're relevant today, given the age we live in and the progress we as a nation have made. If you're standing on principle on their behalf, then it seems to me that you really don't have a clear, thoughtful position on the matter or how we can go about modernizing 18th-Century thought.


f the federal government could give money to the people then it would have powers concerning the people and they don't, federalist 45 and 84
Click to expand...

The federal government has the power to levy and collect taxes and tariffs. It is to use those taxes and tariffs to provide for the general welfare and common defense. Not sure why you continue to rely on the Federalist Papers...do you apply 18th Century logic to other aspects of your life, or just government?


ts time to end the dept and save money, by stoping the federal government from being involved in state powers.
Click to expand...

So you didn't answer the question. You were very Trumpian in your response. So I'll ask again, if you shutter the DoE, what is to be done about the student loans and Pell Grants? Have you even thought about that?


education is a state power, the founders at the convention on sept 5 1787, made it clear the federal government will not be involved in education.
Click to expand...

Today is 2016, not 1787. America's needs are different now than they were back then. Furthermore, clinging to opinion pieces written by just one half of the debate seems a bit of a stretch. You know why they wrote the Federalist Papers in the first place? Because they could not agree to put what's in those papers in the Constitution.
 
Absentglare said:
General welfare clause.

Boy, you made that easy!!!
Click to expand...

BOY YOU MADE YOURSELF LOOK SILLY!


POINT 1, in article 1 section 8 clause 1, it states commerce taxes shall be the power of the federal government and they shall be used to pay the debts of the u.s....welfare is not a debt, because the government did not receive any goods or services.

POINT 2 in article 1 section 8 clause 1 it states the federal can provide the common defense and the general welfare

article 1 section 8 clauses 1 -10 -17 -18 are the general welfare

article 1 section 8 clauses 11-16 are the common defense

it time you start reading our constitution instead of not knowing about it and making false claims.

Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content.
https://academic.oup.com/publius/ar...son-on-the-Meaning-of-the-General-Welfare-the
 
Last edited:
Incisor said:
So you're referring to the Federalist Papers, which are not law but rather editorials (some written under pseudonyms) and opinions. I find it very hard to apply 18th Century opinions to 21st Century issues. There is a lot the Founders presumed to know that they didn't. They didn't envision a time where there's instantaneous communication, commerce happening routinely across state borders, and globalization. So you can keep going back to dusty, old opinion pieces but it's hard to see how they're relevant today, given the age we live in and the progress we as a nation have made. If you're standing on principle on their behalf, then it seems to me that you really don't have a clear, thoughtful position on the matter or how we can go about modernizing 18th-Century thought.

this is a deflection.!




The federal government has the power to levy and collect taxes and tariffs. It is to use those taxes and tariffs to provide for the general welfare and common defense. Not sure why you continue to rely on the Federalist Papers...do you apply 18th Century logic to other aspects of your life, or just government?

it sure does, and those powers do not include being involved in the peoples lives liberty or property




So you didn't answer the question. You were very Trumpian in your response. So I'll ask again, if you shutter the DoE, what is to be done about the student loans and Pell Grants? Have you even thought about that?

what does trump have to do with this...nothing!...is this you idea of a red herring?


Today is 2016, not 1787. America's needs are different now than they were back then. Furthermore, clinging to opinion pieces written by just one half of the debate seems a bit of a stretch. You know why they wrote the Federalist Papers in the first place? Because they could not agree to put what's in those papers in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

another deflection becuase you cant answer
 
Master PO said:
this is a deflection.!
Click to expand...

How so? Relying on the Federalist Papers is like relying on an Op-Ed. They're also only one half of the debate. They wrote those papers (some under pseudonyms) specifically because the Founders couldn't agree on putting that stuff in the Constitution. Relying on the Federalist Papers is deflection.


it sure does, and those powers do not include being involved in the peoples lives liberty or property
Click to expand...

To what degree? And do you apply 18th Century logic to your daily life? Do you treat cancer with leeches or get around in a horse and buggy?


what does trump have to do with this...nothing!...is this you idea of a red herring?
Click to expand...

I called your response "Trumpian" because you avoided the question. So I'll ask again; if you shutter the DoE, what is to be done about student loans, Pell Grants, and standardized testing?


another deflection becuase you cant answer
Click to expand...

LOL! I think you've been stymied here. Did it burst your bubble to learn the Federalist Papers aren't, in fact, the law?
 
Master PO said:
BOY YOU MADE YOURSELF LOOK SILLY!


POINT 1, in article 1 section 8 clause 1, it states commerce taxes shall be the power of the federal government and they shall be used to pay the debts of the u.s....welfare is not a debt, because the government did not receive any goods or services.

POINT 2 in article 1 section 8 clause 1 it states the federal can provide the common defense and the general welfare

article 1 section 8 clauses 1 -10 -17 -18 are the general welfare

article 1 section 8 clauses 11-16 are the common defense

it time you start reading our constitution instead of not knowing about it and making false claims.

Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content.
https://academic.oup.com/publius/ar...son-on-the-Meaning-of-the-General-Welfare-the
Click to expand...

We're talking about the constitution, not Madison's opinion.
 
Baralis said:
My opinion: to help maintain confidence in our currency by presenting a means in which the government can repay debts. Fiat currency only holds value as long as the currency has confidence since it has no tangible exchange as a backing. This is where I disagree with "debt does not matter" be it private or public. The perception of to much debt hurts currency confidence and when that confidence is lost the currency no longer holds value. This is the greatest threat to the US dollar imo and why we must keep debt in check.
Click to expand...

Currency holds value when it can buy stuff. Any other explanation is just a derivative of "being able to buy stuff." Production is the "tangible exchange." And if you like gold better, feel free to buy gold with your dollars. It's not difficult.

Why would people lose confidence? Because there is nothing on the shelves to buy with their dollars. And bonds are just a temporary way to store dollars. Bonds hold their value because the dollars they are storing can still buy stuff. Bonds hold their value because dollars hold their value, and dollars hold their value because our economy produces a lot of stuff to buy.
 
Fishking said:
You could say that, and it would be true, but you could also say that Obama added twice as much to the debt and it would also be true.
Click to expand...

You could also say that Obama left an economy on the upswing, while Bush left an economy ablaze. That would be true, and far more important than the amount of bonds outstanding.
 
Incisor said:
The debt has grown significantly since Andrew Jackson paid it off.
Click to expand...

So?

The debt still gets paid. The fact that we pay our debts is WHY we have been able to borrow and still have a strong currency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom