\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Has anyone asked Scarlett Johansson yet to get her opinion on this important issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 You are arguing that a family today can live off of a credit limit that was established say back in 1960, or 1970? No, credit limits of families and governments go up as inflation rises. How can't you understand that? Yes, the government will ALWAYS spend more than it takes in, so what??? You are arguing for a balanced budget, can I ask why? What benefits will that provide? You two should talk to each other more, I don't think anyone else pays much attention to your posts. Why are you so afraid to answer whether or not you feel the Constitution is meaningful? Your little inartful dodges just show that you are a coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Has anyone asked Scarlett Johansson yet to get her opinion on this important issue? Hamana hamana hamana... What was the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Has anyone asked Scarlett Johansson yet to get her opinion on this important issue? What important issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Has anyone asked Scarlett Johansson yet to get her opinion on this important issue? Was never a fan until her initial fight scene in "The Avengers." The brief bit with Coulson waiting on hold was terrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 You are arguing that a family today can live off of a credit limit that was established say back in 1960, or 1970? No, credit limits of families and governments go up as inflation rises. How can't you understand that? Yes, the government will ALWAYS spend more than it takes in, so what??? You are arguing for a balanced budget, can I ask why? What benefits will that provide? What is this family credit limit you're talking about?? A family's credit limit is based on one thing and one thing only, how much credit they can afford based on the family's balance sheet. The government's credit limit is based on an ever increasing number that is based on how much money the government says they need which is based on who the hell knows what. What are the benefits of the government operating on a balanced budget? Really? Do you know how much we pay just on interest payments alone for the debt in this country? And that with historically low interest rates on that debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Has anyone asked Scarlett Johansson yet to get her opinion on this important issue? http://www.sadanduseless.com/2013/10/scarlett-johansson-meme/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 7, 2013 Author Share Posted October 7, 2013 1)What is this family credit limit you're talking about?? A family's credit limit is based on one thing and one thing only, how much credit they can afford based on the family's balance sheet. The government's credit limit is based on an ever increasing number that is based on how much money the government says they need which is based on who the hell knows what. 2) What are the benefits of the government operating on a balanced budget? Really? Do you know how much we pay just on interest payments alone for the debt in this country? And that with historically low interest rates on that debt. 1) banks decide what families can afford and bond holders decide what government can aford. The bond market is super cheap npw, there is a reason for that. 2) yes really! What does government get for the investment of borrowing money, more employment, more research and technology, more investment in human capital , higher standards of living. We are basically paying the money back to ourselves anyway. If we followed your ways, the government would have to lay off hundrreds of ousands if not millions of people, the multiplier effect on the economy would be pretty bad, all to save a little on interest payments, yippie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 You are arguing that a family today can live off of a credit limit that was established say back in 1960, or 1970? More like limit that was set 10 months ago, after having been raised in 2011, etc... Kind of like a few years ago when people kept refinancing their mortgages to pay for new toys. How'd that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 1) banks decide what families can afford and bond holders decide what government can aford. The bond market is super cheap npw, there is a reason for that. 2) yes really! What does government get for the investment of borrowing money, more employment, more research and technology, more investment in human capital , higher standards of living. We are basically paying the money back to ourselves anyway. If we followed your ways, the government would have to lay off hundrreds of ousands if not millions of people, the multiplier effect on the economy would be pretty bad, all to save a little on interest payments, yippie! I don't know what you mean when you say the bond market is cheap. If you mean it's cheap for the government to borrow money you're right because of low interest rates. Imagine what the debt service amount will be when interest rates eventually go back to historical norms. In my mind is why the Fed hasn't raised rates too much. To your second point. The fact that the government has gone deeply in debt to employ millions of people is why many of us have been screaming for a smaller government and idiots such as yourself have been screaming for a larger government. Which of those two will have the better end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 7, 2013 Author Share Posted October 7, 2013 I don't know what you mean when you say the bond market is cheap. If you mean it's cheap for the government to borrow money you're right because of low interest rates. Imagine what the debt service amount will be when interest rates eventually go back to historical norms. In my mind is why the Fed hasn't raised rates too much. To your second point. The fact that the government has gone deeply in debt to employ millions of people is why many of us have been screaming for a smaller government and idiots such as yourself have been screaming for a larger government. Which of those two will have the better end? Yes ding dong, when interest rates rise it will because private business is borrowing more of it and the economy will be better, tax receipts will increase and the government will borrow less and can handle the higher rates. Economics 101? So allowing for massive unemployment just to save interest payments is a good thing to you? I'll take my world view over your dyspotian social wreckage any day. There's a reason the days of the small central government have come and gone, it's called learning a lesson. Some people learn and some us us don't, and you want to take us back to the miserable 1890's, no thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) Vote on what? All the house amendments get voted on in the Senate. They all lost. The important part being -- the vote actually took place. You are incorrect Conner. I will wait a minute while the shockwave of amazement goes thru PPP............lol Not one of the (so far) 24 individualized house funding bills have been brought up for a vote in the sena Harry Reid has blocked any votes.. . . . . including the FEMA Funding and the NIH Child Cancer Funding trials. . Edited October 8, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Harry Reid still being an ahole. Tom Smothers played him in Casino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 You are incorrect Conner. I will wait a minute while the shockwave of amazement goes thru PPP............lol Not one of the (so far) 24 individualized house funding bills have been brought up for a vote in the sena Harry Reid has blocked any votes.. . . . . including the FEMA Funding and the NIH Child Cancer Funding trials. They vote on the amendments.. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00211 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00210 Why won't the House vote on this? - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00209 Just hold a vote is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 In March 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found the notion of raising the debt ceiling quite distasteful. "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government ca''t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ''he buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." He did. It passed narrowly – by a vote of 52-48. http://abcnews.go.co...e-debt-ceiling/ Wait, he actually didn't vote "present" on something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 You are arguing that a family today can live off of a credit limit that was established say back in 1960, or 1970? No, credit limits of families and governments go up as inflation rises. How can't you understand that? Yes, the government will ALWAYS spend more than it takes in, so what??? You are arguing for a balanced budget, can I ask why? What benefits will that provide? You two should talk to each other more, I don't think anyone else pays much attention to your posts. No one should" live off" a credit limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 1) banks decide what families can afford and bond holders decide what government can aford. The bond market is super cheap npw, there is a reason for that. 2) yes really! What does government get for the investment of borrowing money, more employment, more research and technology, more investment in human capital , higher standards of living. We are basically paying the money back to ourselves anyway. If we followed your ways, the government would have to lay off hundrreds of ousands if not millions of people, the multiplier effect on the economy would be pretty bad, all to save a little on interest payments, yippie! You bring up a very interesting point regarding the highlighted bit above. Can you explain this please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 You bring up a very interesting point regarding the highlighted bit above. Can you explain this please? Thanks for killing this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Thanks for killing this thread I'm just interested in hearing how he feels we are just paying ourselves back and what the benefits of doing that are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I'm just interested in hearing how he feels we are just paying ourselves back and what the benefits of doing that are. Good luck getting an answer out of him. He still won't commit to whether he believes in the Constitution or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts