Snow to Congress...time to raise the debt ceiling again

[judasmachine]

Conserve what? All I see being conserved is some make believe story from a couple of millenia ago.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, as we all know every state is able to pay for, say, massive road projects (like much-needed bridges) that will cost billions.

And you think they don't already? 😛

Like I said, I didn't expect you to be able to understand the fiscal sleight-of-hand involved here.

If states were at that point, I'd be driving across a new bridge over the Ohio already. As it is, that bridge isn't even planned to start construction for at least another 10 years.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, as we all know every state is able to pay for, say, massive road projects (like much-needed bridges) that will cost billions.

And you think they don't already? 😛

Like I said, I didn't expect you to be able to understand the fiscal sleight-of-hand involved here.

If states were at that point, I'd be driving across a new bridge over the Ohio already. As it is, that bridge isn't even planned to start construction for at least another 10 years.

Sigh... you mean, if your state's residents didn't pay such high federal taxes that get redistributed to projects in other states...

 

[conjur]

Yeah, that's what I mean.


:roll:

 

[GTKeeper]

Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

So what you are saying is, if we only elect a democrat president, then debt will go down, right? When did the Senate dems fillibuster the last spending bill?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, that's what I mean.


:roll:

But that's what's happening. It's a shell game.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

So what you are saying is, if we only elect a democrat president, then debt will go down, right? When did the Senate dems fillibuster the last spending bill?

<sigh>

Again putting the responsibility to save America back on the Dems' shoulders. Well, if you want the Dems to truly be able to save America, I recommend you vote them back into power in at least one House of Congress.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, that's what I mean.


:roll:

But that's what's happening. It's a shell game.

In your view. The rest of us understand that there is a greater good than just one state's interests. Sort of like how the major sports leagues engage in revenue-sharing.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

So what you are saying is, if we only elect a democrat president, then debt will go down, right? When did the Senate dems fillibuster the last spending bill?

<sigh>

Again putting the responsibility to save America back on the Dems' shoulders. Well, if you want the Dems to truly be able to save America, I recommend you vote them back into power in at least one House of Congress.

Clearly the republicans are primarily to blame for the current deficit spending. They hold the power.

Clearly the dems are secondarily to blame, they also hold the power to stop it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, that's what I mean.


:roll:

But that's what's happening. It's a shell game.

In your view. The rest of us understand that there is a greater good than just one state's interests. Sort of like how the major sports leagues engage in revenue-sharing.

Heh. "Greater good..." Heh... of lining congressmen's pockets, I suppose. Well then, suckers shouldn't complain when they get fscked.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, that's what I mean.


:roll:

But that's what's happening. It's a shell game.

In your view. The rest of us understand that there is a greater good than just one state's interests. Sort of like how the major sports leagues engage in revenue-sharing.

Heh. "Greater good..." Heh... of lining congressmen's pockets, I suppose. Well then, suckers shouldn't complain when they get fscked.

So, instead, you would cut off your nose to spite your face, eh? Instead of trying to fix the problem, you'd rather go off on a tangent? Hmm...sorta like invading Iraq after 9/11?

 

[rahvin]

Congress does what the people want. It might be tough coming to grips with that but the majority of the people want the out of control spending that's going on. Oh they may not say they want it, but they get mad when it's not done. Just try cutting spending, on anything. Or raising taxes. Both of those situations result in massive public anger. Sure, the tax cuts on the wealthy were stupid but that's the result of the president that 50+% of this country elected into office.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

So what you are saying is, if we only elect a democrat president, then debt will go down, right? When did the Senate dems fillibuster the last spending bill?

Actually, it would be better if the power were split. At least when the power is split, deficits go down.

Blaming the miniority party for the trouble.....right!!!! When did Bush last veto a spending bill? uh.......never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills at this point!!! buwhahahahah! :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Yeah, that's what I mean.


:roll:

But that's what's happening. It's a shell game.

In your view. The rest of us understand that there is a greater good than just one state's interests. Sort of like how the major sports leagues engage in revenue-sharing.

Heh. "Greater good..." Heh... of lining congressmen's pockets, I suppose. Well then, suckers shouldn't complain when they get fscked.

So, instead, you would cut off your nose to spite your face, eh? Instead of trying to fix the problem, you'd rather go off on a tangent? Hmm...sorta like invading Iraq after 9/11?

What tangent did I go off on, conjur? What fix did you present? That would be none and none. But you did bring up Iraq and 9/11 out of nowhere, and I'm sure those talking points make you feel special despite their complete lack of relevency in this discussion.
As to cutting off noses to spite faces, I'm not the one who gets all happy and overjoyed when the fed gives me back a small portion of the money that they stole from me in the first place.

 

[conjur]

Your tangent is wanting to cut funding to states. Duh!

The fix I present? Well, my bad for assuming you could actually infer something from the discussion. The fix would be to cut out the ability for Congress to add excessive and wasteful projects to spending bills.

As for Iraq and 9/11, I knew you'd jump on that for something other than what it was, an analogy.


Your Libertarian fanaticism is rearing its head again. You need to work on taming it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Congress does what the people want. It might be tough coming to grips with that but the majority of the people want the out of control spending that's going on. Oh they may not say they want it, but they get mad when it's not done. Just try cutting spending, on anything. Or raising taxes. Both of those situations result in massive public anger. Sure, the tax cuts on the wealthy were stupid but that's the result of the president that 50+% of this country elected into office.

Yep. Bread and circuses.

The basic flaws in thinking that most people have with government money is that they think that it is either free or someone else's. Either way, they're happy to take it, and more please. And when money falls short, it's always because someone else didn't pay their taxes. None of this is true. Government money is not free, it's not someone else's, and if it falls short it's because you didn't pay enough taxes (and of course, government spent too much).
Government doesn't have any problem with people having the wrong thinking about taxes and spending though. In fact, they go through a complicated shell game specifically designed to get you fighting over more of the money, thus giving them more power. I'm trying to explain this to conjur right now but he doesn't want to hear it.

 

[conjur]

You're not trying to explain anything other than your fanaticism, Vic. Wouldn't surprise me if you had a poster of Norquist on your ceiling.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: conjur
Your tangent is wanting to cut funding to states. Duh!

The fix I present? Well, my bad for assuming you could actually infer something from the discussion. The fix would be to cut out the ability for Congress to add excessive and wasteful projects to spending bills.

As for Iraq and 9/11, I knew you'd jump on that for something other than what it was, an analogy.


Your Libertarian fanaticism is rearing its head again. You need to work on taming it.

I already made a similar proposal in a thread yesterday, when I said that the solution to campaign finance reform is to "limit the power of government so that Candidate A will never be able to push through legislation to benefit Company X." Text The same reasoning would apply in this case as well. Budgetary control is the highest form of power in government. Remove that control (or re-locate it, as I propose, back to the state and local levels) and you remove the power.
We're almost in agreement here, except that you are insistent on wanting to keep the shell game (the federal collection of state monies to be redistributed). My argument there is that as long as Congress controls the state monies, then they have the budgetary control and the power, and the problem will not be fixed.

 

[Engineer]

Wow, just looked at I bonds and they are at 6.73%. I looked because people on CNBC mentioned the rising rates to attract financing of the US debt (China and Japan have either stopped buying or have started liquidating US debt). I might just have to buy a few of those bonds for educational purposes (but may not considering the tuition is rising double digit rates in the US year over year).

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: conjur
Your tangent is wanting to cut funding to states. Duh!

The fix I present? Well, my bad for assuming you could actually infer something from the discussion. The fix would be to cut out the ability for Congress to add excessive and wasteful projects to spending bills.

As for Iraq and 9/11, I knew you'd jump on that for something other than what it was, an analogy.


Your Libertarian fanaticism is rearing its head again. You need to work on taming it.

I already made a similar proposal in a thread yesterday, when I said that the solution to campaign finance reform is to "limit the power of government so that Candidate A will never be able to push through legislation to benefit Company X." Text The same reasoning would apply in this case as well. Budgetary control is the highest form of power in government. Remove that control (or re-locate it, as I propose, back to the state and local levels) and you remove the power.
We're almost in agreement here, except that you are insistent on wanting to keep the shell game (the federal collection of state monies to be redistributed). My argument there is that as long as Congress controls the state monies, then they have the budgetary control and the power, and the problem will not be fixed.

There, that wasn't so hard trying to explain your position in a non-combative way, was it?

Bringing the financial power down to the State level won't necessarily cure the ills. To be honest, I don't have the best of faith in state senates and houses of representatives.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

So what you are saying is, if we only elect a democrat president, then debt will go down, right? When did the Senate dems fillibuster the last spending bill?

Actually, it would be better if the power were split. At least when the power is split, deficits go down.

Blaming the miniority party for the trouble.....right!!!! When did Bush last veto a spending bill? uh.......never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills at this point!!! buwhahahahah! :laugh:

See my follow up post:

Clearly the republicans are primarily to blame for the current deficit spending. They hold the power.

Clearly the dems are secondarily to blame, they also hold the power to stop it.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Its always easier to spend other people's money....

I guess this whole government thing is cyclical.... right now the spending is emulting the 1980s, where the government spent a lot of money also.

Not sure about spending, but this graph shows who like to run up the debt - even more than GDP growth!

So what you are saying is, if we only elect a democrat president, then debt will go down, right? When did the Senate dems fillibuster the last spending bill?

Actually, it would be better if the power were split. At least when the power is split, deficits go down.

Blaming the miniority party for the trouble.....right!!!! When did Bush last veto a spending bill? uh.......never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell, Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills at this point!!! buwhahahahah! :laugh:

See my follow up post:

Clearly the republicans are primarily to blame for the current deficit spending. They hold the power.

Clearly the dems are secondarily to blame, they also hold the power to stop it.

Dems are known for spending...but they raise taxes to cover it. You know that! 😛

Republicans are known for cutting spending and cutting taxes.....er....at least they used to cut spending. The current administration and congress has increased spending on ALL FRONTS faster than any in decades...but you knew that too.

Blaming the Dems for failure to stop the out of control GOP....shame...shame! 😱

 

[alchemize]

Dems are known for spending...but they raise taxes to cover it. You know that!

Republicans are known for cutting spending and cutting taxes.....er....at least they used to cut spending. The current administration and congress has increased spending on ALL FRONTS faster than any in decades...but you knew that too.

Blaming the Dems for failure to stop the out of control GOP....shame...shame!

I don't disagree. But I'm also saying that neither tax cuts nor spending increases could have passed without Democratic acceptance.

Remember the old filibuster? The thing never wielded except on things where they want to make a political point? That's the Dems veto power.