Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Debt ceiling vote Options · View
Guest
Posted: Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:21:20 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
At some time within the next few months, Congress will have to increase the Federal debt ceiling from its current level of $14.3 trillion. If a compromise between Republicans and Democrats is not reached, the United States could very likely default on its debt, sending the world economy into a panic not seen since September '08.

Do you think the debt ceiling will be raised by then, and if so, on what terms?
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 7:35:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
Manny8 wrote:
At some time within the next few months, Congress will have to increase the Federal debt ceiling from its current level of $14.3 trillion. If a compromise between Republicans and Democrats is not reached, the United States could very likely default on its debt, sending the world economy into a panic not seen since September '08.

Do you think the debt ceiling will be raised by then, and if so, on what terms?




Proof that all politicians lie and are in it for themselves. In 2006 the Republicans wanted to raise the debt ceiling but Democrats said it was a horrible idea. Now, the Dems have done a 180 degree turn and think we should raise the debt ceiling. Then the Republicans are on board with that idea right? Wrong, now the they think it's a horrible idea. Can we stop with the Red/White, Elephant/Donkey, Right/Left crap? Ever date someone or have a family member that loves to argue just for the sake of arguing? Yea? Congress is full of that kind of asshole.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Rotsen
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:07:22 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 29
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Of course the debt ceiling will be raised. Wealthy people have far to much to loose by a governmental default. There will likely be plenty of sabre rattling, perhaps again right up to the last minute but it will be raised.
obscura
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:36:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/10/2010
Posts: 143
Location: Zef Side
This is a non-event among all the fiscal insanity. It would be nice to see the government reduce it's financial obligations, in particular Treasury debt instruments.

The US should have been allowed to fail long ago. It's the only way to remedy the situation they are in now. I'm glad I won't be living in the new Christian theocracy.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:45:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
lafayettemister wrote:
Can we stop with the Red/White, Elephant/Donkey, Right/Left crap?


It's Red/Blue but I get your point - political partisanship is detrimental to our general welfare.

But I don't really see this debate as being fueled by partisanship. The clip of Senator Reid you played was from back in 2006, when the debate was not about entitlement spending, but primarily about Iraq/Afghanistan/Department of Homeland Security (war on terror) spending, and also those persistently evil 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' that destroyed federal tax revenuesShhh. President Bush did push entitlement reform after his re-election, but seeing the ugly fight it was about to become, dropped the matter for the rest of his term. So this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It is another example of politicians being disingenuous and power-hungry, but it really isn't about partisanship in the way most think it is.

No, this debate is about ideology. It's about the level of government we're willing to tolerate, and the role a government should play in our lives.

But anyway, do you think it will be increased, and on what terms?

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:51:15 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
Rotsen wrote:
Wealthy people have far to much to loose by a governmental default


This reality isn't a crass tissue.
obscura
Posted: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:02:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/10/2010
Posts: 143
Location: Zef Side
Manny8 wrote:
lafayettemister wrote:
Can we stop with the Red/White, Elephant/Donkey, Right/Left crap?


It's Red/Blue but I get your point - political partisanship is detrimental to our general welfare.



Some of the time, I would disagree with that, unless of course you are referring to blind partisanship. The only thing worse than the republicans and democrats fighting is when they are working together. Empty legislation can be just as dangerous as ideologically polarised legislation.

It all comes out in the wash as a middle ground solution, just like the fact that the debt ceiling will be raised. The only problem is that the US needs an extreme solution this time, not just a middle-of-the-road one.

lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:41:46 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
Manny8 wrote:
lafayettemister wrote:
Can we stop with the Red/White, Elephant/Donkey, Right/Left crap?


It's Red/Blue but I get your point - political partisanship is detrimental to our general welfare.

But I don't really see this debate as being fueled by partisanship. The clip of Senator Reid you played was from back in 2006, when the debate was not about entitlement spending, but primarily about Iraq/Afghanistan/Department of Homeland Security (war on terror) spending, and also those persistently evil 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' that destroyed federal tax revenuesShhh. President Bush did push entitlement reform after his re-election, but seeing the ugly fight it was about to become, dropped the matter for the rest of his term. So this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It is another example of politicians being disingenuous and power-hungry, but it really isn't about partisanship in the way most think it is.

No, this debate is about ideology. It's about the level of government we're willing to tolerate, and the role a government should play in our lives.

But anyway, do you think it will be increased, and on what terms?



My mistake.. yes I definitely meant Red/Blue. Thanks for pointing it out. Short on time at the moment, more to come later.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:30:46 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Manny8 wrote:

But I don't really see this debate as being fueled by partisanship. The clip of Senator Reid you played was from back in 2006, when the debate was not about entitlement spending, but primarily about Iraq/Afghanistan/Department of Homeland Security (war on terror) spending, and also those persistently evil 'Bush tax cuts for the wealthy' that destroyed federal tax revenuesShhh. President Bush did push entitlement reform after his re-election, but seeing the ugly fight it was about to become, dropped the matter for the rest of his term. So this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It is another example of politicians being disingenuous and power-hungry, but it really isn't about partisanship in the way most think it is.

No, this debate is about ideology. It's about the level of government we're willing to tolerate, and the role a government should play in our lives.

But anyway, do you think it will be increased, and on what terms?



The partisanship is driven by ideology, so I think we're really talking about the same things. In general (with exceptions, of course, to save someone the need to jump in and remind us of the obvious), Democrats feel that the entitlements that are coming under fire are essential to their vision of America as a place that keeps a net under those most in danger of falling, and Republicans, well without getting into a bunch of Ayn Rand-fetish, power of the individualist rhetoric...Republican's don't include entitlements in their vision for America.*

You're right that the problem is more severe now than it was in 2006, but the severity is really the only difference here. Back then, just as now, one side used the debt ceiling issue to rail against the type of spending they opposed, and the other side used it to act like the pragmatic 'grown-ups', talking the temperamental 'children' into drop their opposition and do what must be done.

Regardless of what side one is on in politics, I don't think there's any question that the debt ceiling has to be raised. I agree it's not a class issue, but I also know that money is what ultimately runs government, and those with money stand to lose an assload of it if the government defaults and the dollar gets drastically devalued. Sure, Republicans will put up a superficial fight, and use it to beat back spending on medicare, social security, etc., but their bread gets buttered by the very people who stand to lose the most in a default scenario. It will get raised.

What should the terms be? I am eminently unqualified to even begin discussing that. Maybe we should ask the Treasury Department. I'm sure Goldman Sachs has advised them of the best action by now. If you can't trust Wall Street, and a Treasury Department lifted straight from Wall Street...who can you trust?



*Reminder to Tea Partiers: You're Republicans. Sorry, but you are. I've never heard any Democrats use the phrase 'union thugs' when mentioning Wisconsin, or go into hysterics about 'certificates of live birth', or support anyone that basically has the pro-life picket signs in their trunks for easy access. It's okay though, keep telling yourselves you're an independent group, that's cool. Hey, maybe you can all go up to New Hamphire- you know, where the first key battles of the Revolution happened? Michelle Bachman will meet you there! evil4




Guest
Posted: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:39:12 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
LadyX wrote:
The partisanship is driven by ideology.


I guess we have differences of opinion about what actually constitutes ideology and political partisanship.

A very low amount of the political back-and-forth arguments from our camera-whoring, media finger-blasted representatives is centered on the values their good-hearted souls hold dear. That's what I'm talking about when I say ideology.

Political partisanship is like rooting for a sports team: we're ultimately childish assholes for putting so much negative energy in to something, but we can't help ourselves.

LadyX wrote:
Democrats feel


HA! Feelings!

Ladyx wrote:
Democrats feel that the entitlements that are coming under fire are essential to their vision of America as a place that keeps a net under those most in danger of falling, and Republicans ...don't include entitlements in their vision for America
.

Conservatives (if I may speak for the entire group) understand the need for a safety net. It's instrumental in capital formation and risk-taking from the entrepreneurs who continuously make our lives better. The Chinese population saves something like 30 percent of their income, and that's largely because the people are more risk-adverse and frugal if they live without a social safety-net (the irony about the communist country who has the private sector resuscitate its bloated mass of failure every week).

Entitlements? The mentality that you're entitled to comfort throughout life. It didn't work well in Europe, and it won't work here with the amount of immigration in this country.

LadyX wrote:
Sure, Republicans will put up a superficial fight, and use it to beat back spending on medicare, social security, etc., but their bread gets buttered by the very people who stand to lose the most in a default scenario. It will get raised.


The Republican party doesn't get funds from who you think they do. It's the people, who over the last few months have been turning their receipts and bank statements into their CPA's, who in-turn file the 1120-S, 1065's, 1040's, etc. for our benevolent partners in Washington. That's the ugly truth of it. So please stop it with the class-warfare unless you come back with a dump truck of hard fact.


LadyX wrote:
a Treasury Department lifted straight from Wall Street


Who from Wall St. is @ the Treasury? Curious who specifically you were thinking of.


Again, I really think your limited faith in the amount of greatness in each one of us is the root of our disagreement. Republicans are not looking to get rid of social safety nets. Nobody has discussed that, but somehow it becomes the consensus anytime serious reform is brought up. Everybody knows entitlement spending will eventually fuck us in the ass with Rocco Siffredi's dick.

Back to the original question (and away from Rocco's dick); I think it will not get raised. And I'm very curious to see the results.



LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:28:23 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Manny8 wrote:

LadyX wrote:
Sure, Republicans will put up a superficial fight, and use it to beat back spending on medicare, social security, etc., but their bread gets buttered by the very people who stand to lose the most in a default scenario. It will get raised.


The Republican party doesn't get funds from who you think they do. It's the people, who over the last few months have been turning their receipts and bank statements into their CPA's, who in-turn file the 1120-S, 1065's, 1040's, etc. for our benevolent partners in Washington. That's the ugly truth of it. So please stop it with the class-warfare unless you come back with a dump truck of hard fact.




I like the metaphor of large machinery. After all, politics aims to steamroll its opposition; why not face the fact that both sides of the aisle carry their talking points and rhetoric in giant dirty hoppers?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to claim that all Republicans are funded by the Koch Brothers (that's just the Wisconsin governor...and a few hundred others, in all likelihood), but I'm also not buying the PR fairytale that the Republican Party is a grass-roots jamboree funded solely by the hard-earned savings of earnest SUV-driving family men in jorts, spending Saturdays on riding lawnmowers.

Fifty-two percent of corporate political donations go to the Republican Party. Most of the rest, of course, goes to the Democrats, so neither party is all about individual funding, and neither one simply does the purchased bidding of unions, companies, and beady-eyed lobbyists.*

All I was trying to say is that Republicans aren't truly able to make this decision free of influence, just like Democrats couldn't either when the shoe was on the other foot. Pretty much every individual and group of monetary consequence to either party depends on the strength of the dollar. That strength is in deep shit anyway, but the shit gets immediately deeper if the federal government defaults on its debt.

I do hear you on your plea to end class warfare, and I don't think it's simply the Republican Party that should be in the cross-hairs. I do think that a very righteous brand of class warfare should be waged furiously against the establishment in general. They look after themselves and their donors, excluding our earnest tax-filing party-donor dude of course, and fuck the rest of us. What the fuck do they care? By the time shit really hits the fan, those at the top of the pyramid will be somewhere offshore on a yacht. We're all pawns in their eyes, and why not? We take the abuse gladly, too addled by mass media and attention deficit to really wake up and take notice.

Manny8 wrote:

LadyX wrote:
a Treasury Department lifted straight from Wall Street


Who from Wall St. is @ the Treasury? Curious who specifically you were thinking of.


The US Treasury is full of Wall Street influence, and not just under Obama. The Treasury has been thick with Wall Street guys for a while. Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury chief, was a former Goldman Sachs CEO. He was also the architect of the TARP bailout, which funnelled billions to his former compadres on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, his predecessor at Treasury, spent almost thiry years at Goldman. When Obama got elected, he hired a guy named Michael Froman to help select his Treasury team. Froman was a high executive at Citigroup, and introduced Obama to other Treasury and Wall Street insiders, such as Rubin.

Froman remained a Citi executive while he recommended guys such as Timothy Geithner, now the head of Treasury, who turned around in record time to deliver Citi the first big bailout chunk from TARP. Wall Street loved the fact that Geithner got selected. He was, and is, their boy, having come up at Treasury under Rubin, who was Wall Street's boy for all those years under Clinton, supporting the kind of deregulation that allowed Wall Street to get us into this mess to begin with. Not than any of the power players in the big banks lost any sleep...or zeros on their bonus checks.

Geithner, of course, presided over each bailout chunk that went to the major Wall Street firms, and he filled his department with Wall Street bankers. Is there anything wrong with hiring bankers for a Treasury department? Of course not. Is it obvious, in this case, that Treasury simply does Wall Street's bidding, time after time? Hell yes, it is. Has Wall Street proven not only to fail to look after the good of the country, but to often do the opposite of that for corporate gain? Definitely, without question.

So, yes, between Geithner, Paulson, Rubin, Larry Summers, and then the staff under all four, the Treasury is undoubtedly pedigreed with, and constantly and heavily influenced by, Wall Street.

-

What we can agree on is that entitlement spending is definitely unsustainable based on how it's funded right now. I give Paul Ryan credit for actually providing a plan, versus just shooting down the plans of others, which tends to be the Washington contrarian way. I don't give him credit for the absurd kick in the nuts that his plan would give seniors, just for starters. I'm the first to say I don't have the answers, and I know we can't just plug our ears and pretend there is no impending budget disaster, but I also know there's more than one way to go about it.




*Although clearly that's more the case than not, no matter how big a percentage individual donors make up. Individuals, unless many, many zeros accompany their last name, don't mean shit. Social issues are bait to get Mr. 2.5 kids to continue sending part of that IRS refund plus his vote, year after year, just like Democratic politicians bait their supporters with hot-button stances for the same desired goal. What do the actual party players want? Self-preservation of their careers, prestige, and perks.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:08:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
Amidst that cut-and-pasting (c'mon!) you still didn't answer the question. You failed to name one person 'from Wall St.' in the current Treasury. Instead you cite old Treasury department individuals and their nefarious connections to our cephalopod overlords.

Paul Ryan's plan is not a game of roshambo involving old, droopy balls. Instead it's a plan that gives individuals more choice over how their money is spent. Giving a person the opportunity to actually make a decision for themselves with regard to how a significant amount of their money is spent on what literally is a life-and-death service should obviously be mocked and distorted.

I can't get over this contraction of yours, where you fear this perceived anonymous group of people who rule your life, yet are more than willing to actually give up control of your life to an actual council of unaccountable people. Would love to hear why you actually trust a large, bloated government instead of those around you. This world can be brutal only if we let it.



LadyX
Posted: Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:35:25 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Manny8 wrote:
Amidst that cut-and-pasting (c'mon!) you still didn't answer the question. You failed to name one person 'from Wall St.' in the current Treasury. Instead you cite old Treasury department individuals and their nefarious connections to our cephalopod overlords.


You're right, Manny, failing to rattle off a first and last name, there's no connection between Treasury and Wall Street at all now. Nothing nefarious going on at all between those two these days. Props to your mad logic skillz.

588-rolleyes


I'm interested in the last part of your message, though. I'm not sure how expound on what I've said, as you've asked me to. Do I trust government? No. Do I trust 'those around me'? Not easily. I'm not a very trusting person; I'd feel like a sucker and a mark if I was. It can be earned from me, however.

How is Ryan's plan supposed to serve seniors fairly? By giving them a check to go shop for their own health care? Has anyone with any intellectual honestly gone out on a limb to say "oh yes, that amount will be plenty for a senior citizen to buy decent healthcare on the open market" (which is what he's asking them to do)? I'll hold my laughter until somebody answers that. That's how we ended up with Medicare in the first place, because it's a joke to try to make senior care affordable in the world of private insurance. It's not magically affordable now; it's much, much worse.

What is this 'council of unaccoutable people'? Congress? What choice do we have? Or is this where we get into those dastardly 'death panels'?
Guest
Posted: Thursday, April 21, 2011 7:25:31 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
Props to your mad logic skillz.

That's a slippery slope. Let's not, ok?

Like I could say that you're hopelessly uninformed, and resort to straw-man arguments every time your google skills fail to give you a semi-coherent retort, but that is kind of lame.

And guess what? There will never be an amount that guarantees every person in this country 'decent' healthcare. The term itself is ambiguous and incalculable, so why set actuary programs by it? That actually is messed up logic!

Under the health care affordability act, there is a council of unelected people who will set Medicare prices if they are not what they deem reasonable. That is fact.

LadyX
Posted: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:41:13 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Manny8 wrote:
Props to your mad logic skillz.

That's a slippery slope. Let's not, ok?

Like I could say that you're hopelessly uninformed, and resort to straw-man arguments every time your google skills fail to give you a semi-coherent retort, but that is kind of lame.

And guess what? There will never be an amount that guarantees every person in this country 'decent' healthcare. The term itself is ambiguous and incalculable, so why set actuary programs by it? That actually is messed up logic!

Under the health care affordability act, there is a council of unelected people who will set Medicare prices if they are not what they deem reasonable. That is fact.



Well given that neither of us are experts in public policy, we're each going off of our own research and hearsay...in addition to our mad logic skillz. evil4 Which means I'll occasionally present what looks to you like a straw man (had to look that up, by the way- okay, I'll buy it for a dollar), and you'll occasionally trot out what looks to me like a combination of right-wing bullet talking points and capitalist utopian fantasy trips. Either way, we're still exchanging ideas...at least we are from my end of things.

You're right there's no way to quantify terms like decent and affordable. Maybe it's the opposite of what that Supreme Court Justice said about pornography- where we can't really say what amount or level of care is no longer decent nor affordable, but we definitely will know when we see it.

I'm sure you're familiar with private insurance companies, and the way they do business. Given this, then surely you know damn well that unless insurance companies are forced by the Government to fix rates (which makes you throw up in your mouth at the very thought- expecially since those who would decide this would not be elected!*), then the prices are going to be through the roof, far exceeding Paul Ryan's "here's your check, now get lost" monthly allowance. Sure they have "choice", but what are the choices, for those without the means to buy their own care? Giving somebody a choice between shit and shit, still leaves them with shit.

But since this thread is about the unsustainable debt, and it's quickly approaching ceiling (and not health care), I'd like to say that a sick part of me secretly roots for any compromise to fail. Part of that is an extremely dysfunctional part of me- the same part that perversely roots for hurricanes to hit population centers so that I can inundate myself in the bukakke of shock-value media coverage- that in this case would like to see how everyone would react in an actual aftermath of consequential events, not just playing in boogeymen and doom scenarios of what's possible down the road. The other part of me knows the debt is unsustainable, so what's going to make us wake up and face it?

Maybe this would be the catalyst that would force the serious discussion.





*All kinds of government officials are unelected. I realize that in your biased view, that means that these evil, evil appointed people will cackle diabolically as they make judgments with impunity, receiving kudos by their socialism-loving bureaucratic supervisors for the added hardships they cause the powerless proletariat, but I can't quite make that leap on my own. At the very least, we each have our possibly irrational fears of shadowy groups and figures- the difference seems to be that yours are mostly public sector, and mine are mostly private sector.**



**And even though I'm not a Democrat, and for all I know, you're not a card-carrying Republican either...maybe that's the real difference between the two parties. Or, at least maybe it's the difference between Liberal paranoia and Conservative paranoia.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:25:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,494
Location: Alabama, United States
Idealogy/Partisanship... same thing when we're talking about our elected officials.

The bottom line is this. We as a country cannot afford to continue down the road we're travelling. I don't have the patience to flip through page after page of google to come up with all the stats and quotes to support one position and/or devalue another. My attention span is way too short for that. But as a business man I choose to use just a little shred of common sense. Money is tight, our country doesn't have enough to pay our own bills. Everyone wants to raise the debt ceiling instead of more responsible spending. Health care, "entitlements", Defense spending, the list goes on and on. The government tells us that we need to cut back, use our credit cards more carefully, blah blah blah. But the powers that be are unwilling to do the same.

Our politicans could put a little money from their own pockets into their extravagant health care system. I also think that the families on wefare/food stamps should be asked to sacrifice a little bit too. Maybe for a short term help, families in need could each get $50-$100 less per month. Every little bit helps. It's a bit disingenuous to tell working families to spend less, make less.. yet raise their taxes and gas prices to get to and from work and then give away entitlement money at the same rates as before this crisis.

Politicians can quit travelling all over the world on our dime. Republicans can quit spending millions advertising and fighting against abortion. The Supreme Court has already decided on this. Let it go! Also, they can quit spending so much trying to save the "institution" of marriage. Dems can stop griping about guns. Both parties can stop spending money to complain about the other side. I don't know anyone Rep. or Dem who saw a commercial where one side blasts the other and thought, "You know that's right, I'm going to City Hall and change my affiliation."

When a business or person is so far in debt, the first option is to cut and/or change spending habits. The money is going to dry up. People are going to have to let go of their own dogma and do what's right for the long haul. Will people be pissed off, yes. So fucking what. Our citizenry thinks we are entitled to being happy. Entitled to more than we deserve. A safety net is a great idea, but not if it's make the finest most expensive silk wrapped with golden thread. If we don't make a change now, we will collapse. It is inevitable.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:49:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
Either way, we're still exchanging ideas...at least we are from my end of things.

Exactly. As long as I never compromise my values, I look forward to being persuaded. That was a good response, and I think you're right - we will need a huge catalyst.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:13:51 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
For anybody still following this issue, is there any reason why the Republicans should capitulate to Democrat terms on the debt ceiling vote?
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:21:01 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
No. They'll see if they can force Democrats to give up their principles completely, or let the US default, then blame the socialist in office whose wife dared to eat a hamburger. Then, hopefully, we can get a bigoted coyote-shooting dumbass from Texas to be president after that. Maybe he can repeat his fiscal performance as Governor, and sink the nation into a further hopeless pit of debt.

Yes, this appears generally to be the plan, and it seems to be working. Where's that teabagger application, I better go ahead and fill it out.
Buz
Posted: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:01:19 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 10,179
Location: Atlanta, United States
I've never seen a Democrat that had principles nor a Republican for that matter. We need a balanced budget amendment. Limit the scope of government and get those oppressive dictatorial pseudo-intellectual jerks out of our personal business and eliminate their ability to keep human beings trapped in their bureaucratic system designed to keep the masses uneducated and dependent upon government. Let liberty and freedom reign not government!


ArtMan
Posted: Friday, July 22, 2011 12:29:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 677
Location: South Florida, United States
Balanced Budget Amendment! It is just common sense and any intelligent person knows it.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Rembacher
Posted: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:12:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
ArtMan wrote:
Balanced Budget Amendment! It is just common sense and any intelligent person knows it.


It's easy to say balance the budget. Pretty much everyone will agree on that idea. The problem is when talking about how to go about balancing the budget. What do you cut? Do you increase or decrease taxes to generate revenue? How fast does the budget have to be balanced? That's where the debate comes in.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:48:43 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
ArtMan wrote:
Balanced Budget Amendment! It is just common sense and any intelligent person knows it.


Well, a constitutional purist would probably (or at least, should) have a fit over proposing such an amendment. The (at that time, provisional) federal government immediately financed the debt of the individual states for the Revolutionary War, and Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of the validity of assuming public debt on behalf of immediate interests.

Aside from that, there have been key moments in this country's history when spending more than was presently on hand was essential to success, and maybe survival.

I agree that what we've got isn't sustainable, but capping spending at an absolute cash-in-hand amount might be a terrible idea.

tender_cowboy
Posted: Saturday, July 23, 2011 11:21:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/7/2007
Posts: 52
Location: South Dakota
Both parties are to blame for this mess, and some where alone the way we need to pass a balanced budget. All I have heard from both sides is cutting domestic spending, social security benefits and our military defense spending. Where are the cuts in foreign aid and the welfare to all the illegals? Why can the cap on social security taxes not be raised so them that earn millions would pay an equal percent as the American working middle class? Big business with their powerful lobbyist have more say than the working middle class. Our politicians have lots touch with how the true working middle class of America thinks.
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 1:40:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 561
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Hi LadyX!!! It's time for a common sense compromise! Massive cuts but with some additional revenues. One without the other will not work.

A constitutional purist would probably start an armed insurrection over what has been done to the US Constitution by the courts over the last several decades. They can interpret the same word 100 different ways according to their individual political desires.
lfrancis
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 3:48:40 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 6/28/2011
Posts: 33
Location: United States
Both sides are only worried about their own Jobs, we need to shrink the Goverment!
Guest
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:12:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 779,331
Just a thought! This is a sex site..this topic is way to dirty for here!
LadyX
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:13:41 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
lfrancis wrote:
Both sides are only worried about their own Jobs, we need to shrink the Goverment!


Generally, I agree. Both sides are worried more about PR and re-election stopping this thing from going over the cliff. It's getting quite scary.

I still maintain they'll do something last-minute to avoid disaster, but the more I read, the more I'm seeing that some damage is already being done.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:14:07 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,756
Location: Cakeland, United States
It's a shame Obama couldn't have given this speech tonight...3 months ago. Taking this down to the wire is lunacy. He talks a great game and I'm not 100% happy with his own proposal, nor with Reid's...but the GOP's suggested plans are simply there to gut what they call entitlements and what I call The New Deal - which they've never liked.

The debt ceiling has never been made the political football that this occasion has been formed up to become.

These have never been used to hold a US President hostage, of either party. Until now.

And I don't know why the tea partiers are so upset. Hell, Obama is just a much more articulate George W. Bush, imo.

Kill Social Security and Medicare, gut everything put in place as a safety net for everyone not making 250k a year, in America. That's the plan.

All while spending like drunken sailors on the largest military industrial complex in the world, and never raising taxes - especially for the much more wealthy and the Fortune 1500.

Oh well, I've always wanted to know what the Great Depression was like for my folks to grow up during.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:39:36 PM

Rank: Moderator Emeritus
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 3,552
Location: The wilder parts. , United States
[quote=WellMadeMale]

And I don't know why the tea partiers are so upset. Hell, Obama is just a much more articulate George W. Bush, imo.


The country has moved so far to the right that people who used to be moderate Republicans now are considered raging liberals. There really isn't a significant difference between Obama and Bush policy wise. We're still at war in two places, the rich keep getting richer and the rest of us keep getting screwed.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.