GOP blinks on debt limit.

[GuitarDaddy]

Yea, tax cuts are why we have such high debt, nothing to do with ridiculous spending, it's the tax cuts.

I wouldn't expect a partisan hack like yourself to understand but the math is pretty simple. When you are already running deficits and you drastically cut taxes and do NOTHING to reduce spending as GWB did in 2001 and again in 2003 it creates huge and ever increasing debt.

But I understand hacks like you put on blinders and only look at one side of the equation. But the reality is cutting taxes without matching it with equal spending cuts produces the exact same bad result as increasing spending without matching tax increase.

 

[piasabird]

O'Bammah has had years to cut some fat out of the budget like he promised as one of his campaign promises. If they wanted to cut back on spending they could. The democrats just refuse to cut any programs or tax credits and then they expect the American people just to pay more and more taxes.

The real world does not work like that. Real people are forced to live within their means. It is time to cut the phoney baloney and be adults.

 

[werepossum]

During the Reagan-era SS reform, Al Gore fought valiantly but unsuccessfully for SS trust funds to be actually treated like trust funds, i.e. sequestered in seperate accounts from the general fund but he was overruled. The law and practice for decades now is that SS receipts go right into the general fund.

Blaming that on Obama is to ignore the exact same practice (a practice mandated by law) of a half dozen or so Presidents before him, most of which were GOP.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You have that exactly backward. The Republicans, led by Reagan, worked to establish the Social Security trust funds. Democrats, including Gore, wanted excess Social Security receipts kept in the general fund. The only practical difference is whether the separate Social Security trust funds' balance is kept as ledger entries only, or whether they are actual accounts with interest-bearing government securities.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/funds.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...w-the-social-security-trust-fund-really-works

The difference is largely semantics because the Social Security trust funds are different from any other trust funds. Any other trust fund must contain something of intrinsic value. However, the Social Security trust funds contain only government securities - what the Republicans call IOUs and the Democrats call "the full faith and credit of the United States government." You may remember this from the 2000 election. However, whatever you call it, 100% of the Social Security trust funds' excess receipts have already been spent as though they are in the general fund, as they were used to fund our debt. Therefore money must be taken from general fund receipts to pay back the money taken from the Social Security trust funds.

Had the federal government lived within its means, the Social Security trust funds could contain something of actual value - precious metals, real estate, stocks, bank CDs, whatever. But obviously, that didn't happen.

 

[werepossum]

I'd also be interest in hearing from liberals and/or progressives who think of course the debt limit must be raised. Is there any point at which we cannot simply borrow more money? Is the Magic Cupboard really inexhaustible? And if so, why not simply borrow another hundred trillion right now and make everything roses and fluffy rainbow-colored unicorns?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

And here's McConnell confirming once again it's party first, country somewhere after.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/mcconnell-on-his-debt-cei_n_897124.html
At least he's honest about it.

 

[First]

^ Wow, what a damning interview, McConnell is truly a political creature. What's funny is that he says he won't support his party becoming tax collectors for the welfare state and gov't healthcare....as if it's not well known by now that the American public supports both by super-majorities. SS, Medicare, et al aren't going anywhere, and any cuts to those programs are going to include tax increases (in some form or fashion, however it looks), but they're never going to stop being run by the gov't because the whole point of them is to have something the American public can rely on. Private companies go bankrupt all the time as do investment portfolios; the whole point of SS and Medicare is that they will always be there as long as the U.S. gov't is.

 

[trenchfoot]

IMO, Obama understands how much control over the economy the very rich have. That is the reality of the situation at hand. In his efforts to get us out of the hole the previous iteration of the repub majority put us in, he has to acknowledge that fact and deal with it accordingly.

The one thing that Obama and the Senate Dems still have some influence over is control of the treasury. The very rich want control over the treasury the way they had it during the Bush/Cheney corporate giveaway years. You know, when the rich via Bush/Cheney emptied out the nation's coffers and dumped all of that cash AND borrowed cash into their savings accounts which sunk us into such a deep financial hole that we're still down in. They got all of that cash in hand and are waiting for another round of full repub control of government to get a maximun return on that stash of cash of which a lot of it is borrowed cash that the government is stuck paying the interest on by the way. How nice of us taxpayers huh?

That's the very same hole they built that's so deep and slippery sloped that it would be impossible to crawl out of for years and years more. The very same hole that Obama inherited from Bush/Cheney that the repubs are now using to bury Obama in. How so very considerate of the repubs huh?

The way I see it, Obama is in a no win situation, being trapped between the strong influence the rich have over the economy and the needs of the people who actually put him in office: the common folk.

If anyone thinks that giving control of the government back to the repubs (the rich) is going to make things better, well, just remember the last time they were able to control the purse strings of the nation. They grabbed it all for themselves and managed to grab even more....on the nation's dime.

 

[woolfe9999]

O'Bammah has had years to cut some fat out of the budget like he promised as one of his campaign promises. If they wanted to cut back on spending they could. The democrats just refuse to cut any programs or tax credits and then they expect the American people just to pay more and more taxes.

The real world does not work like that. Real people are forced to live within their means. It is time to cut the phoney baloney and be adults.

A little thing called the worst recession in 80 years was present when Obama took office. Cutting trillions out of spending and laying off hundreds of thousands of federal workers, putting them on the unemployment rolls, and reducing their spending on consumer products, no, that would not have been a wise policy. Certainly not in 2009.

"Cutting spending" is not a one size fits all solution. For the life of me, I do not get why conservatives seem to understand that raising taxes during a recession can exacerbate the problem but do not understand that cutting spending will do the same thing. Both will harm the economy. That is not an ideological talking point. It is not an opinion. It is indisputable fact.

Any discussion of government spending or taxation taken out of context of economic conditions is willful blindness.

 

[Pens1566]

I wonder if all these republicans realize that the deity they swear allegiance to actually raised taxes???

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I wonder if all these republicans realize that the deity they swear allegiance to actually raised taxes???

Peace be upon him.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/257890/th...ng-on-the-ceiling-tax-cut-religion#s-p1-sr-i1

 

[theeedude]

And here's McConnell confirming once again it's party first, country somewhere after.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/mcconnell-on-his-debt-cei_n_897124.html
At least he's honest about it.

GOP doesn't want to own the economy, remember that in 2012 and don't let them own it

 

[Munky]

IMO, Obama understands how much control over the economy the very rich have. That is the reality of the situation at hand. In his efforts to get us out of the hole the previous iteration of the repub majority put us in, he has to acknowledge that fact and deal with it accordingly.

The one thing that Obama and the Senate Dems still have some influence over is control of the treasury. The very rich want control over the treasury the way they had it during the Bush/Cheney corporate giveaway years. You know, when the rich via Bush/Cheney emptied out the nation's coffers and dumped all of that cash AND borrowed cash into their savings accounts which sunk us into such a deep financial hole that we're still down in. They got all of that cash in hand and are waiting for another round of full repub control of government to get a maximun return on that stash of cash of which a lot of it is borrowed cash that the government is stuck paying the interest on by the way. How nice of us taxpayers huh?

That's the very same hole they built that's so deep and slippery sloped that it would be impossible to crawl out of for years and years more. The very same hole that Obama inherited from Bush/Cheney that the repubs are now using to bury Obama in. How so very considerate of the repubs huh?

The way I see it, Obama is in a no win situation, being trapped between the strong influence the rich have over the economy and the needs of the people who actually put him in office: the common folk.

If anyone thinks that giving control of the government back to the repubs (the rich) is going to make things better, well, just remember the last time they were able to control the purse strings of the nation. They grabbed it all for themselves and managed to grab even more....on the nation's dime.

Riiiiiight... that must be why Obama hired a bunch of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs fat cats to run his economic policy, and why he flip-flopped on practically all his campaign promises.

Despite of what your politically-correct sensitivity brainwashing camps like to preach, what got us into this mess is not Bush + the rich, and Obama + the dems have no intention of getting us out of the mess.

 

[ProfJohn]

I wouldn't expect a partisan hack like yourself to understand but the math is pretty simple. When you are already running deficits and you drastically cut taxes and do NOTHING to reduce spending as GWB did in 2001 and again in 2003 it creates huge and ever increasing debt.

Do you have any grasp of history??

Ever increasing debt? The deficit was going down before the recession. Look at the facts:
2004 $412 b
2005 $318 b
2006 $248 b
2007 $160 b
The 2007 deficit was only 1.2% of GDP which is actually the second lowest deficit since the early 70s and the 6th best overall budget since 1974.

But I understand hacks like you put on blinders and only look at one side of the equation. But the reality is cutting taxes without matching it with equal spending cuts produces the exact same bad result as increasing spending without matching tax increase.

Perhaps it is you who need to take the blinders off.

When 2011 is over Obama will own the three highest spending totals since WW 2.
Maybe our problem is that out of control spending...

 

[woolfe9999]

Do you have any grasp of history??

Ever increasing debt? The deficit was going down before the recession. Look at the facts:
2004 $412 b
2005 $318 b
2006 $248 b
2007 $160 b
The 2007 deficit was only 1.2% of GDP which is actually the second lowest deficit since the early 70s and the 6th best overall budget since 1974.

Perhaps it is you who need to take the blinders off.

When 2011 is over Obama will own the three highest spending totals since WW 2.
Maybe our problem is that out of control spending...

Where are you getting your year by year deficit numbers from? I googled "federal deficit year by year" and the first link is this:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

'03-'04: 595b
'04-'05: 553b
'05-'06: 574b
'06-'07: 500b

This in turn is based off data on the Treasury website which shows the national debt year by year:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

and simply determining how much the debt increased each year. What is your source and what is its method?

- wolf

 

[ElFenix]

Where are you getting your year by year deficit numbers from? I googled "federal deficit year by year" and the first link is this:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

'03-'04: 595b
'04-'05: 553b
'05-'06: 574b
'06-'07: 500b

This in turn is derived the Treasury website which shows the national debt year by year:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

and simply determining how much the debt increased each year. What is your source and what is its method?

- wolf

probably the same sort of source that shows that we ran a surplus under clinton, even though the debt still increased each year
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

(it's because social security runs a surplus every year, and for some reason the media only reports the number after social security's surplus is factored in)

 

[ProfJohn]

I am using the totals from the White House federal budget pages.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

I am using deficit numbers which more honest for the President since it is more in his control.

The debt totals are worse, even Clinton added to debt in every year but one?

 

[woolfe9999]

I am using the totals from the White House federal budget pages.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

I am using deficit numbers which more honest for the President since it is more in his control.

The debt totals are worse, even Clinton added to debt in every year but one?

Ah I see. Well so far as I'm concerned, the "deficit" is the amount by which the debt increases year by year, adjusting for inflation. I don't really see how anyone can disagree with that.

 

[lord_emperor]

Holy sjit, 300+ politicians conspiring to create a loophole so they can avoid doing something "unpopular" but necessary, just so they can keep their jobs.

I think they grossly overestimate the willingness of people to get up and vote them out of office.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ah I see. Well so far as I'm concerned, the "deficit" is the amount by which the debt increases year by year, adjusting for inflation. I don't really see how anyone can disagree with that.

Well you are wrong
And 100% wrong.

The technical definition of deficit is the difference between income and spending.
The increase in debt is the total amount of borrowing we have done per year.

The reason to use the deficit figures is because the president has more control over it directly.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'd also be interest in hearing from liberals and/or progressives who think of course the debt limit must be raised. Is there any point at which we cannot simply borrow more money? Is the Magic Cupboard really inexhaustible? And if so, why not simply borrow another hundred trillion right now and make everything roses and fluffy rainbow-colored unicorns?

The point where US can't borrow more money is when foreign investors stop buying it - China is already doing that.

But worry not, uncle Ben already announced a new tax on the purchasing power of US citizens, aka QE3, to buy more treasuries so the assets of the poor people of Wall Street keeps it value or even increases value.

Any increases in commodities which leads to higher living costs isn't caused by the devaluation of USD due to QE3 but simply due to speculators.

My gold coins say thank you very much, Ben.

 

[Lithium381]

As we've long ago shown, taxes and spending are not related to one another.

then why not just forget about tax increases? The dems don't care that they spend way more than we take in, they just keep spending spending spending..... so why not let everyone win, I can keep my paycheck instead of giving 40% to the government, and the dems can spend on their social programs

 

[PokerGuy]

tax cuts for the wealthy

Please show me where I advocated any tax cuts at this point?

and driving us into insane levels of debt to fund questionable wars was good policy.

Please show me where I indicated that the wars were a good idea. For bonus points, perhaps you can show me where I ever agreed with massive government spending levels -- under any president.

you believe the burden for digging us out of this hole created by these policies should be shouldered only by the working class and elderly while the wealthy continue to reap the rewards of prosperity.

Please show me where I said the burden should be borne by the working class or elderly. No new taxes means no new taxes for anyone, not one specific group or another.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well you are wrong
And 100% wrong.

The technical definition of deficit is the difference between income and spending.
The increase in debt is the total amount of borrowing we have done per year.

The reason to use the deficit figures is because the president has more control over it directly.

I don't doubt you're right about technical definitions. But if we're talking government fiscal responsibility, I don't see how anything else matters BUT "the total amount of borrowing we have done per year." It is, after all, the bottom line, isn't it?

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't doubt you're right about technical definitions. But if we're talking government fiscal responsibility, I don't see how anything else matters BUT "the total amount of borrowing we have done per year." It is, after all, the bottom line, isn't it?

In the big scheme of things yes the debt is all that matters.

But the president doesn't sign a 'debt' bill he sings a budget that produces a deficit.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Do you have any grasp of history??

Ever increasing debt? The deficit was going down before the recession. Look at the facts:
2004 $412 b
2005 $318 b
2006 $248 b
2007 $160 b
The 2007 deficit was only 1.2% of GDP which is actually the second lowest deficit since the early 70s and the 6th best overall budget since 1974.

Perhaps it is you who need to take the blinders off.

When 2011 is over Obama will own the three highest spending totals since WW 2.
Maybe our problem is that out of control spending...

What is it about the word deficit that you don't understand? Every year we run a deficit we are increasing debt. Buy your logic as long as we aren't increasing the deficit we aren't increasing the debt? Get back to me when you understand basic math.


And I will agree that spending is a problem now just as it was under 8yrs of GWB, if you will agree that GWB tax cuts added to the deficits and thus the debt we now have.