Democrats to lift US debt ceiling by $1.8 TRILLION

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Until you get it through your head that the R's were simply paving the way to runaway deficits, there is no hope for you. If the R's were in power now, they would be doing the same thing. Agree or disagree?

Reality disagrees with you. Have any PROOF to back up your accusation? Because, I've been posting chart after data to support my position, say like this one, AGAIN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

That shows in recent years the deficit didn't skyrocket until 2008, clearly AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. Did Bush and the R Congress run a $2 trillion deficit from 2001-2006? No.

Seriously, $500 billion is bad, but $2 TRILLION?! Or, do simple numbers not matter and you're just here to bash Republicans and Bush? Can you not comprehend the magnitude of difference between $500 billion and $2 trillion? Both are bad, one is a lot worse, however. Is it that difficult to see which one is far, far worse? Or do you simply not want to? I guess it is easier to bash Bush and Republicans instead of looking at what the Democrats are actually doing...

As for my initial post, I was simply pointing out the fact that our current insane deficit really took off with the Democrats in charge of the body that approves spending legislation, which is Congress, which the Democrats have controlled since 2006 (also a fact) and when they got their man in office in 2009 (another fact).

I deal with facts and logic. I have posted numerous references backing up my claims. Where are yours? Or will you bring more rhetoric?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Really, is that what you said in your first post? My screen shows the following:

Until you get it through your head that the R's were simply paving the way to runaway deficits, there is no hope for you. If the R's were in power now, they would be doing the same thing. Agree or disagree?

When the Dems gained control, did they put the brakes on.

It was business as usual.

Then with Obama; they kicked in the turbocharger.

Congress will make noises about cutting spending; but behind closed doors and under the table it is purchase the vote regardless of the cost to the voter

 

[CycloWizard]

Reality disagrees with you. Have any PROOF to back up your accusation? Because, I've been posting chart after data to support my position, say like this one, AGAIN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

That shows in recent years the deficit didn't skyrocket until 2008, clearly AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

Seriously, $500 billion is bad, but $2 TRILLION?! Or, do simple numbers not matter and you're just here to bash Republicans and Bush? Can you not comprehend the magnitude of difference between $500 billion and $2 trillion? Both are bad, one is a lot worse, however. Is it that difficult to see which one is far, far worse? Or do you simply not want to? I guess it is easier to bash Bush and Republicans instead of looking at what the Democrats are actually doing...

As for my initial post, I was simply pointing out the fact that our current insane deficit really took off with the Democrats in charge of the body that approves spending legislation, which is Congress, which the Democrats have controlled since 2006 (also a fact) and when they got their man in office in 2009 (another fact).

I deal with facts and logic. I have posted numerous references backing up my claims. Where are yours? Or will you bring more rhetoric?

So you're essentially arguing that it's ok to rob one bank per day, but robbing four is where you draw the line? A $500 billion deficit is absolutely outlandish, period. Anything over that is even worse. However, since you seem to be fine with $500 billion deficits, which the R's managed for the better part of a decade, where have you drawn the line in the sand? I'm here to bash all of these idiots who keep spending money like they have it without regard to their party affiliation. I'm a registered independent and always have been: I'm equally disgusted with both sides. Oh, and you still didn't answer the question: if the R's were still in power, do you think they would have cut spending? I'm fairly certain that Bush signed into law (indeed, he may have even proposed it IIRC) a large chunk of that 2008 spending, whether or not the D's were nominally in control of congress. There's plenty of blame to go around, so stop being a hypocrite and put it where it is due: on both sides of the aisle. Oh, and while you're at it, stop lying by saying you called out the R's in your first post, since I have already demonstrated the opposite.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Oh, and while you're at it, stop lying by saying you called out the R's in your first post, since I have already demonstrated the opposite.

I made a mistake. I meant my first big, long post.

As for the rest, again...you still have no data or proof, just rhetoric.

I've provided evidence to back up my position; you provide, "But Bush and the Repugs woulda...I JUST KNOW IT!"

 

[CycloWizard]

I made a mistake. I meant my first big, long post.

As for the rest, again...you still have no data or proof, just rhetoric.

I've provided evidence to back up my position; you provide, "But Bush and the Repugs woulda...I JUST KNOW IT!"

You posted data that clearly shows your party spent money they didn't have like drunken frat boys. Your "logic" appears to be that this is ok because the D's are even worse? Really?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

You posted data that clearly shows your party spent money they didn't have like drunken frat boys. Your "logic" appears to be that this is ok because the D's are even worse? Really?

I feel like a broken record here. Are you intentionally not reading what I've been writing?

From my initial LONG post (so you don't split hairs):

Seriously, $500 billion is bad, but $2 TRILLION?!

From a post I made not too long ago:

Note - I am not giving the Republicans a free pass for the irresponsible spending from 2001-2006. I am addressing the lame excuse that this is all "necessary" because of the "mess Bush left us", even though the Democrats had to approve of everything that caused this mess!

Where have I given the Republicans a pass on anything? I've called them bad and irresponsible...good grief! You're intentionally mis-representing what I've been saying and then act like I'm slyly overlooking when in fact I've plainly addressed it a number of times.

For the last time: it's the DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE that makes the left/Democrats out to be blatantly hypocritical. They wail about Bush and the Rs being drunken, irresponsible sailors, then go out and spend worse than them!

 

[Ausm]

Informative reading especially for the right wingers in here...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/breaking_down_deficit.html

 

[CycloWizard]

I feel like a broken record here. Are you intentionally not reading what I've been writing?

From my initial LONG post (so you don't split hairs):



From a post I made not too long ago:



Where have I given the Republicans a pass on anything? I've called them bad and irresponsible...good grief! You're intentionally mis-representing what I've been saying and then act like I'm slyly overlooking when in fact I've plainly addressed it a number of times.

For the last time: it's the DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE that makes the left/Democrats out to be blatantly hypocritical. They wail about Bush and the Rs being drunken, irresponsible sailors, then go out and spend worse than them!

I'm not sure you have read what you wrote. It's clear that you really believe yourself when you say, "the Democrats had to approve of everything that caused this mess!" A lot of the foundations were laid by Republicans. The Democrats just built a house on said foundation. China will eventually foreclose on said house and the rest of us will be living out on the street.

 

[Robor]

Informative reading especially for the right wingers in here...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/breaking_down_deficit.html

Nonsense! Obama has spent more than every previous president combined!

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I'm not sure you have read what you wrote. It's clear that you really believe yourself when you say, "the Democrats had to approve of everything that caused this mess!" A lot of the foundations were laid by Republicans. The Democrats just built a house on said foundation. China will eventually foreclose on said house and the rest of us will be living out on the street.

I see...bash Bush, bash the Republicans, the Democrats are just innocent bystanders throughout all of this.

Let me guess...you are a "progressive moderate" who voted for Obama because you just hated Bush so much, are starting to realize the huge mistake you made, but you can't admit it so it's back to bashing Bush instead of manning up?

Seriously, if you want to talk about blind partisans, check yourself in a mirror. You literally just said that everything is the Republicans fault and the Democrats are just along for the ride.

No further use debating with you. I've clearly stated my position, backed up by facts and data, and you go right back to the tried-and-true "BUT BUSH...! BUT THE REPUGS...!"

 

[woolfe9999]

Reality disagrees with you. Have any PROOF to back up your accusation? Because, I've been posting chart after data to support my position, say like this one, AGAIN:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

That shows in recent years the deficit didn't skyrocket until 2008, clearly AFTER the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. Did Bush and the R Congress run a $2 trillion deficit from 2001-2006? No.

Seriously, $500 billion is bad, but $2 TRILLION?! Or, do simple numbers not matter and you're just here to bash Republicans and Bush? Can you not comprehend the magnitude of difference between $500 billion and $2 trillion? Both are bad, one is a lot worse, however. Is it that difficult to see which one is far, far worse? Or do you simply not want to? I guess it is easier to bash Bush and Republicans instead of looking at what the Democrats are actually doing...

As for my initial post, I was simply pointing out the fact that our current insane deficit really took off with the Democrats in charge of the body that approves spending legislation, which is Congress, which the Democrats have controlled since 2006 (also a fact) and when they got their man in office in 2009 (another fact).

I deal with facts and logic. I have posted numerous references backing up my claims. Where are yours? Or will you bring more rhetoric?

Your data is correct. However, your analysis is shallow, and therefore the conclusions you are drawing are incorrect. The question isn't how exactly the mushrooming deficit was timed in relation to which party controlled Congress. The question is what policies caused it and who supported those policies? This is not a trick question as the answers are well known and beyond dispute. The deficit enlarged because of:

1. Tax cuts.
2. The new Medicare entitlment.
3. Two foreign wars.
4. A shrinking economy, which was deadly when combined with #1.

The tax cuts were implemented by Bush when the repubs controlled Congress and mainly with support from the repubs. When the recession hit in 2007 and 2008, the economy shrank, which, combined with the tax cuts previously implemented by the republicans, dried up revenues and caused the deficit to mushroom. This was not the responsibilty of the democrats who had the majority at that time. They did not pass the tax cuts, and they were not principally responsible for the recession.

The Medicare entitlement was proposed by Bush, but had bipartisan support. Dems and reps were responsible for basically allowing that bill to be written by Big Pharma, which has caused it to be a fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation.

The foreign wars were started by Bush, and backed by funding from repubs and hawkish dems. The dem Congress in 2006-2008 voted to continue funding for those wars, though some of the left wing of the dems voted against it, and the repubs voted for it.

In sum, this spiraling debt is principally the responsibility of the repubs, though certain dems also bear a portion of that responsibility as well.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

Compare the Deficits: Bush Deficits were mostly directly the result of his Programs/Actions. Obama's Deficit is an attempt to recover from some of Bush's Programs/Actions and to address the Recession started under Bush. So far Obama hasn't been able to initiate any Programs that have added to his Deficit. It's all directly related to the Bush Administration.

This is not a "but Bush", it is simply Bush.

Thanks Wolfe for beating me to it and going into greater detail.

 

[CycloWizard]

I see...bash Bush, bash the Republicans, the Democrats are just innocent bystanders throughout all of this.

Let me guess...you are a "progressive moderate" who voted for Obama because you just hated Bush so much, are starting to realize the huge mistake you made, but you can't admit it so it's back to bashing Bush instead of manning up?

Seriously, if you want to talk about blind partisans, check yourself in a mirror. You literally just said that everything is the Republicans fault and the Democrats are just along for the ride.

No further use debating with you. I've clearly stated my position, backed up by facts and data, and you go right back to the tried-and-true "BUT BUSH...! BUT THE REPUGS...!"

You truly are an idiot. I have stated over and over and over again in this thread, starting with my very first post (which is now my signature), that both parties suck. There is plenty of blame for both of them. Your problem is that you are so blinded by your adherence to party lines that you have presented yourself with a false dilemma in which only one can be blamed. You're wrong: both are at fault, both suck, and so do you if you support either of them. Go read Ausm's link and cry in a corner.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Your data is correct. However, your analysis is shallow, and therefore the conclusions you are drawing are incorrect. The question isn't how exactly the mushrooming deficit was timed in relation to which party controlled Congress. The question is what policies caused it and who supported those policies? This is not a trick question as the answers are well known and beyond dispute. The deficit enlarged because of:

1. Tax cuts.
2. The new Medicare entitlment.
3. Two foreign wars.
4. A shrinking economy, which was deadly when combined with #1.

The tax cuts were implemented by Bush when the repubs controlled Congress and mainly with support from the repubs. When the recession hit in 2007 and 2008, the economy shrank, which, combined with the tax cuts previously implemented by the republicans, dried up revenues and caused the deficit to mushroom. This was not the responsibilty of the democrats who had the majority at that time. They did not pass the tax cuts, and they were not principally responsible for the recession.

The Medicare entitlement was proposed by Bush, but had bipartisan support. Dems and reps were responsible for basically allowing that bill to be written by Big Pharma, which has caused it to be a fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation.

The foreign wars were started by Bush, and backed by funding from repubs and hawkish dems. The dem Congress in 2006-2008 voted to continue funding for those wars, though some of the left wing of the dems voted against it, and the repubs voted for it.

In sum, this spiraling debt is principally the responsibility of the repubs, though certain dems also bear a portion of that responsibility as well.

- wolf

This is an argument I can respect. You actually provide an analysis. Thanks!

So, the tax cuts were a Republican thing (no argument here), but the Medicare entitlement was a bipartisan (meaning R and D) thing, and the wars kept getting funded by Congress, even when the Dems took control of both houses in 2006. Two out of three, the Democrats were equal "conspirators" with the Republicans, yet it's all the Republican's fault?

:hmm:

What about 2009? We knew we were in a recession by that point (the Dems and the media told us every day for a year now), so the smaller revenues weren't a surprise. Bush was out of office, the Republicans were three years removed from controlling Congress. What about the stimulus? Is that Bush and the Republicans' fault too? Will the second stimulus, government health care and cap and trade somehow be Bush and the Republicans' fault as well? Surely, with the Dems assailing the Republicans daily about how "irresponsible" they've been under Bush, and with the recession already being a well known fact, the Dems should have righted this ship they've so long screamed was so off course, right?

Then why hasn't it happened? Is that all the Republicans' fault as well? How many years is this silly blame game going to continue? 2010? 2012? It's ridiculous. Did Bush whine in every major speech about the mild recession he inherited from Clinton in 2001?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Go read Ausm's link and cry in a corner.

/snicker Wow...you've already said more than enough.

What's next...telling me to go read a Craig link? Gonna point me to a HuffPo piece or a DailyKos blog? And you're the one claiming I am the "blind party partisan"?

Delicious irony...

 

[CycloWizard]

This is an argument I can respect. You actually provide an analysis. Thanks!

So, the tax cuts were a Republican thing (no argument here), but the Medicare entitlement was a bipartisan (meaning R and D) thing, and the wars kept getting funded by Congress, even when the Dems took control of both houses in 2006. Two out of three, the Democrats were equal "conspirators" with the Republicans, yet it's all the Republican's fault?

:hmm:

Perhaps you can point out where anyone in this thread (besides maybe Craig) has said that this whole mess is the fault of the Republicans?

 

[sandorski]

This is an argument I can respect. You actually provide an analysis. Thanks!

So, the tax cuts were a Republican thing (no argument here), but the Medicare entitlement was a bipartisan (meaning R and D) thing, and the wars kept getting funded by Congress, even when the Dems took control of both houses in 2006. Two out of three, the Democrats were equal "conspirators" with the Republicans, yet it's all the Republican's fault?

:hmm:

What about 2009? We knew we were in a recession by that point (the Dems and the media told us every day for a year now), so the smaller revenues weren't a surprise. Bush was out of office, the Republicans were three years removed from controlling Congress. What about the stimulus? Is that Bush and the Republicans' fault too? Will the second stimulus, government health care and cap and trade somehow be Bush and the Republicans' fault as well? Surely, with the Dems assailing the Republicans daily about how "irresponsible" they've been under Bush, and with the recession already being a well known fact, the Dems should have righted this ship they've so long screamed was so off course, right?

Then why hasn't it happened? Is that all the Republicans' fault as well? How many years is this silly blame game going to continue? 2010? 2012? It's ridiculous. Did Bush whine in every major speech about the mild recession he inherited from Clinton in 2001?

Yes. There would be no Stimulus if things hadn't gone to Hell.

 

[spidey07]

Hold on to your wallets. Full of pork. People have to be delusional to think their taxes aren't going to rise.

House passes $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1932454,house-omnibus-spending-bill-passes-1210009.article

WASHINGTON -- The House Thursday passed a huge spending measure combining major spending boosts for domestic agencies and foreign aid with more than 5,000 back-home projects sought by lawmakers.

 

[woolfe9999]

The truth of the matter is that both political parties embrace policies which present ideological roadblocks to fiscal responsibility, and neither party has the political will to do what is necessary to balance the budget. The repubs are fans of getting us into expensive foreign military entanglements, and also a portion of the dems are basically in ideological lockstep with the repubs on this issue. Neither party wants to cut Medicare. Repubs always oppose tax increases, and the moderate wing of the dems usually opposes them, while the repubs always want to cut taxes no matter the revenue implications.

The deficit can only be tackled by the raising taxes (in a strong economy, meaning not now), and by cutting into medicare and defense spending. You could cut less out of medicare and/or defense, but then you'd have to raise taxes more, and vice versa. Yet there isn't any other way to do it, and it isn't even debatable. It is simple math. You want to balance the budget, you need more revenues and you need to cut down on the biggest ticket spending items.

"Tax and spend," which became such a pejorative starting in the Reagan years, at least had the virtue of incorporating the notion that new spending should be paid for on the revenue side. Unfortunately, that idea has gone out the window because the repubs seem to have no problem with spending large amount of money while opposing taxes, and the "new left" dems have been co-opted to oppose taxes as well.

The real trouble is not only these ideological roadblocks, it is that every one of these necessary measures is politically unpopular and may result in its proponents being voted out of office. The American people sqawk, whine and worry about the deficit, but most people will also sqawk and whine about cutting medicare or defense, and everyone will squawk about higher taxes. It's quite a conundrum, when you have a populace who wants its government to be fiscally responsible, but opposes, individually, every measure necessary to get it done. We are going to have to solve this conundrum before the situation spirals out of control and our economy collapses. Or we can just keep looking out for ourselves, in the here and now, and foist this problem off on our children...

Repubs claim that business is bad because people worry about future tax hikes from Obama. I say we should worry about the opposite: that the President will not have the political will, or the votes in Congress, to raise taxes once the economy has recovered.

- wolf

 

[Specop 007]

Informative reading especially for the right wingers in here...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/breaking_down_deficit.html

Well thats certainly an unbiased news source. For your next hat trick I assume we'll be linking to democrats.org?

But I guess your right. What with a Republican President and Republican House and Republican Senate all up until 09 it just MUST be the Republicans pushing this run away spending.......

 

[Craig234]

Perhaps you can point out where anyone in this thread (besides maybe Craig) has said that this whole mess is the fault of the Republicans?

I didn't say that. I would contradict him on ene thing that the Medicare part d bill was primarily republican. I don't recall how many dem votes there were, some, but it was bush's #2 domestic priority after his borrowed tax cuts, since bug pharma was the Republicans' #1 donor industry at the time, and they had a windfall for them with the 'no negotiation of prices' clause.

However, dems are respnsible now for not only not reversing that but including the same in Obamacare.

For the second time today I'll say it's somethiing I'm disgusted about the Democrats are doing.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

But I guess your right. What with a Republican President and Republican House and Republican Senate all up until 09 it just MUST be the Republicans pushing this run away spending.......

Yes it is! You are just a blind party partisan if you don't believe that!

In fact, I have a link from MoveOn.org that proves it!

 

[spidey07]

Yes it is! You are just a blind party partisan if you don't believe that!

In fact, I have a link from MoveOn.org that proves it!

From the AP article I posted. It's all bush's fault we're spending all this money. You can't make this kind of insanity up.

Democrats made no apologies for all the largess, saying that domestic programs starved under eight years of President George W. Bush.

"I see these bills as an opportunity to reverse years of neglect -- neglect to our roads and bridges, neglect to our lower income neighbors and friends, neglect to our education system, neglect to our veterans," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

 

[BoberFett]

As usual, the OP has a very short memory (as in he can't remember anything prior to 01/2009)... Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

Robor deflecting? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

So you're saying that at best, Democrats are the same as Bush and the Republicans.

Hope! Change!

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

From the AP article I posted. It's all bush's fault we're spending all this money. You can't make this kind of insanity up.

I know it...I've been trying to argue against this insanity for pages now. I guess you just can't reason with illogical people.

Watch, I can predict the future...in a few years, as we get further and further away from Bush's Republican Congress and Bush as president, and when our massive deficits further explode to astronomical proportions, it will be BushCare!, Bush's Cap and Tax!, Bush's Third Stimulus! and Bush's Afghanistan Surge!