B-Man Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Just so we're clear: the Republicans refuse to vote on a debt ceiling increase without tying a budgetary negotiation to it outside the normal budgetary cycle...and you're blaming the Democrats for manufacturing a crisis. I would suggest that expecting representatives to "automatically" support another and another and another debt ceiling increase without some kind of "condition" to address the problem is just as (or more) reckless. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerVid Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) I think it's kind of scary that we can't pay SS out without borrowing money. Actually, the SS payments are a debt, since the general revenue fund started "borrowing" the SS trusts in the 60s. After 50 years of "borrowing" the money paid into an earned entitlement in order to support unearned entitlements, the liberals say we cannot pay the earned entitlements because it would interfere with paying the unearned ones. The whole country has been sucked down the rabbit hole. Just so we're clear: the Republicans refuse to vote on a debt ceiling increase without tying a budgetary negotiation to it outside the normal budgetary cycle... If the majority of the Republicans had an ounce more fiscal responsibility than the Democrats, they wouldn't vote for a debt ceiling increase period...regardless of whether they can make a deal to reduce the amount spending is projected to increase over the next 10 years. Edited November 8, 2011 by BadgerVid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 If the majority of the Republicans had an ounce more fiscal responsibility than the Democrats, they wouldn't vote for a debt ceiling increase period...regardless of whether they can make a deal to reduce the amount spending is projected to increase over the next 10 years. And that is utterly reckless, because of the calamity it would cause in the financial markets. There are right and wrong ways to go about tackling the budget. Pushing US government into default is absolutely the wrong way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 And that is utterly reckless, because of the calamity it would cause in the financial markets. There are right and wrong ways to go about tackling the budget. Pushing US government into default is absolutely the wrong way to go. A calamity including the reduction of tax receipts and resulting greater deficits, requiring raising the debt ceiling. And above and beyond that...not all debt is created equal. You have to be a certifiable loon to want to shut down the entire world economy because you won't approve increased borrowing to fund a roll-over of $60B of three month treasuries, which is distinctly different from floating $60B in 30-year bonds to pay for a three new aircraft carriers and a misguided HUD low-income mortgage initiative. Which is also why tying it to a budget negotation was rather questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 GOP goes back on their "No new taxes" pledge at their political detriment and offer up $300 Billion in tax increases. Kerry, says, "whatever, we have an election to worry about": Washington Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 GOP goes back on their "No new taxes" pledge at their political detriment and offer up $300 Billion in tax increases. Kerry, says, "whatever, we have an election to worry about": Washington Post In Kerry's defense, he was for the tax increase before he was against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 In Kerry's defense, he was for the tax increase before he was against it. Well that and he was in a rush when he made that comment. He was running late for an appointment to protest by throwing away medals belonging to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Can we call the dems "obstructionists" now ? Republicans offer tax deal to break debt impasse; Democrats dismiss it Washington Post . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 @ Bman cutting the top individual tax rate from 35% to 28% ain't happening. I thought these guys were finding ways to cut the federal budget not taxes for the top 1%. Not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 @ Bman cutting the top individual tax rate from 35% to 28% ain't happening. I thought these guys were finding ways to cut the federal budget not taxes for the top 1%. Not happening. Good point, actually. I thought the supercommittee's mandate is to cut spending, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 @ Bman cutting the top individual tax rate from 35% to 28% ain't happening. I thought these guys were finding ways to cut the federal budget not taxes for the top 1%. Not happening. I've read both links, and neither explains precisely where the additional revenue will come from. Do you know where it is specifically coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Good point, actually. I thought the supercommittee's mandate is to cut spending, isn't it? I agree. I posted the article to point out that ALL the discussion , from both sides, has been about revenue, when they were supposed to make the "hard" decisions on cutting spending. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Democrats have a plan to cut 2 trillion from the debt. Republicans? Crickets. Edited November 10, 2011 by Refugee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Democrats have a plan to cut 2 trillion from the debt. Republicans? Crickets. No they don't. No one's advanced any plan to reduce the debt in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 No they don't. No one's advanced any plan to reduce the debt in my lifetime. Welcome to new math. Slowing down spending growth counts as a cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Welcome to new math. Slowing down spending growth counts as a cut. To be more precise: A vague promise, that you don't intend to keep, to slow down future spending 10 years from now counts as a spending cut. Edited November 10, 2011 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 To be more precise: A vague promise, that you don't intend to keep, to slow down future spending 10 years from now counts as a spending cut. Cut spending? Seriously? As a % of GDP the US ranks near the bottom in the industrialized world spending only 3 trillion of 15 trillion GDP. We technically can't cut spending until our GDP decreases. Countries like China, India and Brazil are spending massive amounts to build new infrastructure while we spend 30% of our taxes on the military industrial complex. If you want to find savings it's simple: cut defense. We spend more money on weapons systems like Star Wars and ICBMs than necessary. As for social safety nets simply remove the Social Security cap from the first 108k of earnings to 200k. Cutting programs on benefits earned by the middle class and future beneficaries is insane policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) Cut spending? Seriously? As a % of GDP the US ranks near the bottom in the industrialized world spending only 3 trillion of 15 trillion GDP. We technically can't cut spending until our GDP decreases. Countries like China, India and Brazil are spending massive amounts to build new infrastructure while we spend 30% of our taxes on the military industrial complex. If you want to find savings it's simple: cut defense. We spend more money on weapons systems like Star Wars and ICBMs than necessary. As for social safety nets simply remove the Social Security cap from the first 108k of earnings to 200k. Cutting programs on benefits earned by the middle class and future beneficaries is insane policy. Yet we also spend close to 50% of tax money on entitlements. Not that your rant really had anything to do with my quoted post. Edited November 10, 2011 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 I take it back. The Republicans are now caving and willing to talk about revenue generation..err..taxing the rich. Nice to see the right starting to get something right. Maybe this supercomittee will finally finish the hard work the president started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Cut spending? Seriously? As a % of GDP the US ranks near the bottom in the industrialized world spending only 3 trillion of 15 trillion GDP. We technically can't cut spending until our GDP decreases. Countries like China, India and Brazil are spending massive amounts to build new infrastructure while we spend 30% of our taxes on the military industrial complex. If you want to find savings it's simple: cut defense. We spend more money on weapons systems like Star Wars and ICBMs than necessary. As for social safety nets simply remove the Social Security cap from the first 108k of earnings to 200k. Cutting programs on benefits earned by the middle class and future beneficaries is insane policy. So what? The US is the world cop, and nearly everyone is grateful for that. Yet, DoD spending has tracked below 5% GDP and will not go above that number. Even the other departments don't really account for much of total expenditures in the grand scheme of things. Yet, if you pay enough attention to the Cassandras who are looking at the country's demographic trends and see a political class that has no guts in reigning in entitlement spending, that's where the fear is. Both parties are to blame - Democrats for blatantly denying that the expenditures can go on or that somehow government can control the spending growth through "eliminating waste and inefficiency" and the Republicans for denying that the demographic crisis exists and blocking any sensible attempts to reorm immigration laws. Do the math, then post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts