What? No government shutdown threads?

[IronWing]

The $800 billion in "one time spending" consisted of two parts tax cuts and one part additional spending. Congress and the President agreed to continue the tax cuts beyond FY09. Spending wasn't re-baselined, revenue was.

 

[Engineer]

The $800 billion in "one time spending" consisted of two parts tax cuts and one part additional spending. Congress and the President agreed to continue the tax cuts beyond FY09. Spending wasn't re-baselined, revenue was.

You mean that the evil bastard Obama agreed to cut taxes beyond what they were supposed to be cut? I haven't verified this but tax cutting in this case must be very bad considering the number of people in this thread complaining about the resulting deficit.

 

[Matt1970]

You mean that the evil bastard Obama agreed to cut taxes beyond what they were supposed to be cut? I haven't verified this but tax cutting in this case must be very bad considering the number of people in this thread complaining about the resulting deficit.

Are you referring to those tax cuts initiated under Bush that the Dems called irresponsible but Obama and Dems decided to make permanent?

 

[Engineer]

Are you referring to those tax cuts initiated under Bush that the Dems called irresponsible but Obama and Dems decided to make permanent?

I said that I didn't research it but if part of the deficits beyond 2009 were because tax cuts had been extended, it must be really bad as you have said that the Obama deficits are way too high (in this very thread).

My opinion isn't taxes hikes or cuts or even deficits are the big problem, good paying jobs and the lack of them is the problem. Fix that and EVERY bit of the rest of this partisan bickering disappears (yes, really).

 

[Texashiker]

Let the government shut down, lets start with payments to military service personal.

How did Caesar rally his troops to cross the Rubicon? They were marching to Rome to claim what they were owed.

Let congress stop payments to military personal. Maybe, just maybe, another Julius Caesar will rally the troops to march across the Potomac.

 

[ivwshane]

I am trying to see things from your point of view but I just can't seem to jam my head up my own ass.

I find that hard to believe, at least we know you are trying

 

[Bowfinger]

I am trying to see things from your point of view but I just can't seem to jam my head up my own ass.

You're far too modest.

Two hints re. your failed attempt at reading comprehension:
1. I wasn't responding to you
2. I am not the one who called using 2009 "dishonest"

Once you extract your head and pass Remedial Reading, give it another try with those two hints in mind.

 

[cubby1223]

Going back to the beginning, ivwshane placed the first response, to no one, throwing out childish insults. What does anyone expect, when this thread was set off with that tone. Go back to your ego-stroking club

 

[ivwshane]

Going back to the beginning, ivwshane placed the first response, to no one, throwing out childish insults. What does anyone expect, when this thread was set off with that tone. Go back to your ego-stroking club

You are too funny! It's cool to know you are a fan though. I guess by "childish insults" you mean you have zero to counter what I stated or dispute what was written in the link I posted. I should have known using the phrase "retarded right base" you would have been offended, after all I was obviously talking about you (what ego stroking club did you say you belonged to)./s

 

[IGBT]

shut it down and limit it to Mondays only when it comes back.

 

[fskimospy]

And voting to raise the debt ceiling is saying "I cannot pay you back in any responsible way, but I'll still take your money."


I think this argument needs to get down to some basics. Who exactly is lending the United States Government money, and why? People lend to the U.S. because they believe they will make more money off of the U.S. than if they lend the money to someone else.

The reason why raising the debt limit is an option is because there are people willing to immediately lend to the U.S. government.

So in other words, people who invest money for a living think that the US will be able to pay them back just fine. Maybe they have a slightly better understanding of the issue than you do?

 

[Matt1970]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt1970
I am trying to see things from your point of view but I just can't seem to jam my head up my own ass.

I find that hard to believe, at least we know you are trying

It must just come natural to you lefties.

 

[EagleKeeper]

While raising the debt ceiling is fiscally responsible; it also then encourages the government to continue to spend beyond its means because there is no accountability.
You are rewarding bad behavior.

While you may have to pay the CC; you should not take the new CC and use it.
And if the only way to stop that cycle is to ruin yourself so that they will not give you a new CC so be it. Those that are running the government do not care what happens as long as they have a new CC to use.

 

[Texashiker]

shut it down and limit it to Mondays only when it comes back.

One reason why Texas works so well, our state senators and representatives only work every other year.

And in the year they do meet, it is only for a few months.

This limits how much time to state has to pass junk laws. When the state works on a law, it better be something important.

While raising the debt ceiling is fiscally responsible; it also then encourages the government to continue to spend beyond its means because there is no accountability.
You are rewarding bad behavior.

Exactly.

The people nor the government can be rewarded for bad behavior.

Bad behavior is like holding a wolf by the ears, sooner or later you have to let go.

 

[K1052]

While raising the debt ceiling is fiscally responsible; it also then encourages the government to continue to spend beyond its means because there is no accountability.
You are rewarding bad behavior.

While you may have to pay the CC; you should not take the new CC and use it.
And if the only way to stop that cycle is to ruin yourself so that they will not give you a new CC so be it. Those that are running the government do not care what happens as long as they have a new CC to use.

Should that not be addressed on the appropriation side instead?

Playing chicken with the debt ceiling is damaging to the economy as a whole and needs to stop.

 

[Texashiker]

Should that not be addressed on the appropriation side instead?

Playing chicken with the debt ceiling is damaging to the economy as a whole and needs to stop.

The whole system needs to be changed.

What company or state government sets to budget without funding? It usually goes we have X amount of money to spend.

With the federal government, it is "we want to spend this amount of money, so give it to us."

Do you tell your boss how much money you need? Or does your boss give you a pay check and you have to stay within a budget? Maybe I need to tell my boss I want to buy 10 acres of land, so give me the money? How well will that work out?

 

[K1052]

The whole system needs to be changed.

What company or state government sets to budget without funding? It usually goes we have X amount of money to spend.

With the federal government, it is "we want to spend this amount of money, so give it to us."

Do you tell your boss how much money you need? Or does your boss give you a pay check and you have to stay within a budget? Maybe I need to tell my boss I want to buy 10 acres of land, so give me the money? How well will that work out?

Governments don't work like personal finance or even business finance, nor should they. If cuts need to happen they should happen on the spending side and the party pushing for them needs to coalesce around and own their specific positions (all attempts so far have failed). Tinkering with the debt ceiling for totally unrelated political ends at the behest of Republican radicals (which is what's very clearly happening) is indefensible.

 

[Texashiker]

Tinkering with the debt ceiling for totally unrelated political ends at the behest of Republican radicals (which is what's very clearly happening) is indefensible.

That is like saying tinkering with slavery, womens rights, voting rights, jim crow laws, poll taxes,,,, is indefensible. This is the way things are, leave them alone.

We have a national crisis on the horizon with this national debt. Just like everything else that divided that nation, so will the debt.

As for as working like a business, I disagree, government should work like a business. This is the budget from taxation, do not ask for a penny more. National debt fixed, debt ceiling fixed, problem solved.

 

[K1052]

That is like saying tinkering with slavery, womens rights, voting rights, jim crow laws, poll taxes,,,, is indefensible. This is the way things are, leave them alone.

We have a national crisis on the horizon with this national debt. Just like everything else that divided that nation, so will the debt.

As for as working like a business, I disagree, government should work like a business. This is the budget from taxation, do not ask for a penny more. National debt fixed, debt ceiling fixed, problem solved.

Oh look a school of red herring...

The government has never worked like a business nor should it. The government needs to have the ability to borrow unthinkably huge amounts of money on no or short notice by issuing debt. Issuing debt keeps us creditworthy. Arguments can be made about the amount of debt we should carry (it should be less than now imo) but the need to have it is irrefutable.

 

[jackstar7]

That is like saying tinkering with slavery, womens rights, voting rights, jim crow laws, poll taxes,,,, is indefensible. This is the way things are, leave them alone.

Clearly you don't want to have a reasoned discussion on the subject.

 

[fskimospy]

That is like saying tinkering with slavery, womens rights, voting rights, jim crow laws, poll taxes,,,, is indefensible. This is the way things are, leave them alone.

We have a national crisis on the horizon with this national debt. Just like everything else that divided that nation, so will the debt.

As for as working like a business, I disagree, government should work like a business. This is the budget from taxation, do not ask for a penny more. National debt fixed, debt ceiling fixed, problem solved.

The purpose of a business is to make money. The purpose of a government is to provide services. They do not have the same goals, therefore the idea that they should operate the same way is stupid.

How many people do you need piling on you before you stop and think that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

 

[Texashiker]

Oh look a school of red herring...

The government has never worked like a business nor should it. The government needs to have the ability to borrow unthinkably huge amounts of money on no or short notice by issuing debt. Issuing debt keeps us creditworthy. Arguments can be made about the amount of debt we should carry (it should be less than now imo) but the need to have it is irrefutable.

In other words, the government should be able to go into massive debt, at the cost of the people.

And there is no defense for not going into debt.

Is that right?

The purpose of a business is to make money. The purpose of a government is to provide services. They do not have the same goals, therefore the idea that they should operate the same way is stupid.

How many people do you need piling on you before you stop and think that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

It is not the purpose of government to put the people into debt.

When are you going to admit everything you think you know about government and national debt is wrong?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Should that not be addressed on the appropriation side instead?

Playing chicken with the debt ceiling is damaging to the economy as a whole and needs to stop.

As stated, it should be addressed by the appropriation side; However, that side has no concerns because if there is no $$ when the bill comes due; they know that their pet project will be covered.

Appropriation does not required funding to be in place which allows this fiscal game to be played.

So if one side of the party will not be responsible; the other must be even though it makes the marriage look bad.

Appropriations must be made to be accountable.

Oh look a school of red herring...

The government has never worked like a business nor should it. The government needs to have the ability to borrow unthinkably huge amounts of money on no or short notice by issuing debt. Issuing debt keeps us creditworthy. Arguments can be made about the amount of debt we should carry (it should be less than now imo) but the need to have it is irrefutable.

Debt can be issued; but approved in advance, not after the fact.
Because it is after the fact; there is no accountability.

 

[fskimospy]

As stated, it should be addressed by the appropriation side; However, that side has no concerns because if there is no $$ when the bill comes due; they know that their pet project will be covered.

Appropriation does not required funding to be in place which allows this fiscal game to be played.

So if one side of the party will not be responsible; the other must be even though it makes the marriage look bad.

Appropriations must be made to be accountable.

Wait, are you trying to say that the REPUBLICANS are being responsible here?

You cannot possibly be serious. If people are this delusional about what's going on, we are in deep, deep trouble.

 

[Engineer]

I'll post a graph that a conservative on this very board posted for me when I was 110% FOR having only a balanced budget (no new net borrowing):

So what does this have to do with anything (I said the same)? Walmart can borrow the amount it does because it grew to the size it did. Walmart could not have taken on todays debt level that it has 30 years ago. Same can be said for the US.

How long can the US (or WalMart in this case) borrow? Forever with one (1) constraint: Economic growth (i.e. higher revenue and ability to replay) over time can cover the payments. Our deficits are too high and are coming down. Don't know which way they will go in the future. Cutting off $600 billion 'right now' would result in a deficit (maybe of same size) as the economy collapses from the removal of the $600 billion (therefore lowering our ability to pay what's left meaning that we still will borrow). To be honest, deficits don't matter (if they are small enough and the growth is large enough to cover them).

Analogy: I need to lose 50 pounds but I'm sure the hell not going to try to do it in one day.

If we get another downgrade, the folks on Wall Street will kick the GOP in the nuts for this (as will the pollsters - but won't matter as they have time to get the public to forget - short memories and all).