jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (42 posts)

Deb Ceiling Vote -- Do you prefer 1 vote ... or 2?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Best comment I've seen to date says (paraphrased):
    "I think the Congress should do this every day. They've got nothing better to do. And the economy's humming along and everything's swell here on the shining city on the hill."

    You'd certainly think a vote that has been routine for several administrations now -- to pay back money the US has ALREADY BORROWED -- would be routine.

    Is it just me, or is this debt ceiling vote the most ridiculous grandstanding in a long series of ridiculous grandstands during this president's term?
    I sure hope Boehner doesn't aspire to higher office. He's got the leadership skills of a spray-tanned gnat.
    My opinion. Freely given smile

    1. profile image67
      logic,commonsenseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Mighty Mom,  I have to agree with you about Boehner's leadership skills!  We'd be far better off if Marco Rubio was the Speaker!  I know he is a Senator, but he'd make a great Speaker!
      I'd think that the government should be out of the routine of borrowing money.  Live on what you take in.
      I also have to agree that Obama's grandstanding is most ridiculous!  It is so funny, out of one side of his mouth he wrings his hands and spouts doom and gloom if the debt ceiling is not raised.  Out of the other, he tells the bankers that there will be no default, no matter what.
      Both sides need to be upfront about what their bottom line is, and not change it every 5 minutes.

      Somebody needs to explain why a balanced budget is such a horrible thing.  The state I live in has a state constitutional balanced budget amendment and while there were hard choices to make, it hasn't been the end of the world that many have prophesised.  We now have a large 'rainy day' fund in case of future downturns, unemployment is way below the national average and government has been somewhat been held in check.  Why the hell is everyone scared of a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?  Afraid of being restrained from spending the future of our young people?  Afraid of losing the power to spend other people's money on whatever makes them feel good?  Doesn't make any sense.

      1. Paraglider profile image89
        Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It's not just horrible, it's impossible, for as long as the 'central' bank is a for profit private enterprise. The only way out of the present scenario is to nationalise the central banks (Fed or bank of England) and for the Government to print and issue the money at zero interest.

        Think the big bankers are about to let that happen??

        1. Mighty Mom profile image88
          Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oh yes! Most definitely! They're right behind the big insurance companies on the issue of national healthcare lol

          and to logic,commonsense: Amazing. You and I agree on a political issue. Proof positive this issue is beyond ridiculous. I would like to hear from folks on either side who feel their party is handling this well.
          As to Senator Rubio switching over to the House -- I would have to research this. My gut tells me most politicians gravitate/graduate the other way -- from the House over to the Senate. Do you know?

        2. dutchman1951 profile image60
          dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Para, Clinton in all her ediocratic thought tried to propose just that!

          1. Paraglider profile image89
            Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The funny thing is, most people who have never looked into it just assume that governments print the money. After all, why would it be any other way? The reason the private banks have got away with it for so long is that people don't know it's happening.

            1. dutchman1951 profile image60
              dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I agree, keep well hidden or disquised

      2. TTanglewood profile image61
        TTanglewoodposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        A balanced budget is a great idea.  But even if you cut spending back to 2006 levels, it wouldn't solve the problem, because even at those levels, the country still ran a deficit. 

        http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

        This country cannot lower taxes, grow the economy and balance the budget at the same time.  We have to chose two out of the three.  Even the GOP standard, Ronald Reagan, had to accept the mushrooming of the federal debt in order to accomplish the other two. 

        Bill Clinton in turn had to raise taxes to pull off his two out of three. 

        The reality is, this country has been borrowing to finance its tax cuts for the last 30 years. 

        The solution?

        1)  SSI reforms such as raising the retirement age and changing the index used to calculate COLA.

        2)  Significant cuts to the defense budget.  We no longer need to have the world's most expensive army.  Our threats are less nation states, and more rouge organizations.  Our new armed forces should be designed to better deal with the current reality. 

        3)  Close tax subsidies for profitable industries and tie any future tax incentives to job creation. 

        4)  If we return to 2006 levels of spending, we should return to 2000 tax rates, across the board.  That was the last time the budget was balanced.  It worked then. 

        5)  Amend the Constitution to stipulate that tax cuts can only be instituted upon eradicating the entire federal debt, and they will automatically be repealed whenever the federal government runs a deficit.  That should constrain both sides of the aisle in the future.

        Oh, and get rid of this debt ceiling foolishness.  At a time when industry creation should be the top focus of our government, this is a foolish and unnecessary debate to be having.

        1. dutchman1951 profile image60
          dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The deficit will keep as long as we offer not enough durable goods for sale on a world market. We do not have enough income to balance. 

          Tax an spend will not work this time, without sending us into a recession, and they may just, they are brazen enough it appears.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image74
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            The problem isn't tax and spend. It's spend and not tax. Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars, passed an unfunded Mecicare drug benefit (gift to Big Pharma), and pushed the country into a deep recession which reduced tax revenues.

            1. profile image67
              logic,commonsenseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              So the solution is quite obvious to anyone with a lick of brain, quit spending. Duh!  Taxes are plenty high.  The taxpayer can't be everything to everyone. You have the right to pay more taxes if you wish.  You do not have the right to demand more from me!

              1. Paraglider profile image89
                Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That's too simplistic. We're not talking about coins in a purse. Government has commitments to meet. They have to service existing debts and continue with existing programmes. There's a huge inertia at work here. It takes years to change course. Years that we might not have, because we've failed to address the root cause of the problem.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image74
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                While we still have nearly 10 percent unemployment isn't the time to stop or reduce spending. That would deepen and prolong the recession (Despite what the economists say it ain't over yet). Longer term we do need to balance the budget by spending cuts AND tax increases. Taxes are already lower than they've been since WWII, thanks to the GOP loopholes and tax cuts for the wealthy.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image74
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your opinion is correct. Congress is in disarray thanks to the Tea Party.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        thanks to "BOTH" parties Ralph...."BOTH"

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image74
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks to the TeaTards, there are now three parties DEM, GOP and Tea.

          1. dutchman1951 profile image60
            dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            agree, but man what  a royal mess this is now.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your arguments make sense, if you're foolish enough to think that "spending trillions of dollars that we don't have" is a good thing.

      For those who disagree, "not voting on selling out the future" is actually a fantastic thing.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image88
        Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The money's already been spent.
        It's about paying it back.

  2. Niteriter profile image76
    Niteriterposted 6 years ago

    Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that his main priority is to ensure President Obama is a one-term president. Saving the world economy is a trifle compared to such a lofty ideal.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image88
      Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      BINGO!
      Make Obama fail at any cost. Every cost!

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Its not like he has to try very hard.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You equate "giving trillions of dollars to lobbyists" with "saving the world economy". This is nonsense, and I suppose it takes a liberal mind to hate lobbyists on one side, but then demand that government spends money on lobbyists on the other.

      Also, it disgusts me to see that you think the president has the POWER to "save the world economy".

      Please re-read CLOSELY the 10th amendment, followed by Article 2 of the Constitution. Then you will realize that Obama (and countless other presidents) have flagrantly disregarded their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution.

  3. optimus grimlock profile image54
    optimus grimlockposted 6 years ago

    "He's got the leadership skills of a spray-tanned gnat." thats the quote of the month right there, way to go mom!

  4. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    The amount of ignorance in the world today is almost heartbreaking. It's utterly ridiculous to think that America could not balance it's budget.

    It's just unfortunate that politicians don't want to actually balance the budget, because then they would have no more excuses for when it is out of balance and wouldn't be able to steal any more money.

    This is a prime example that the people are not smart enough to see the atrocities(distortion and misinformation) brought on by politicians and corporate executives.

    1. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, but the way things are rigged now, if there's no debt, there's virtually no money in circulation. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's the way the private banks want it.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        And, my point is that it could be corrected. wink

        1. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Of course it could, but there are few signs of anyone having the will to try.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            True enough, due to ignorance on behalf of many individuals. lol

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image74
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        There will never be no debt. The problem is that recently the debt has been rising relative to the economy's ability to sustain it and the government's ability to tax individuals and corporations. The citizens want the services but are unwilling to pay the taxes necessary to support them--public schools are being privatized, public libraries are closing, roads are going unrepaired, other countries are outstripping the US in infrastructure improvements (rail and other forms of mass transit), etc.

        1. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Ralph, that's true in a classic way, assuming there will always be many separate economies, providing winners and losers (though no-one is rude enough to acknowledge that). But when you globalise, or unify, debt/interest based economies, you inevitably end up with what we have now: horizontal competition (country vs country) is replaced by vertical competition (class vs class) or the even more sinister temporal competition, now vs the future, or if you like, us vs our children.
          Tinkering at the edges can only massage the present. The fact remains that for-profit private banking is unsustainable.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image74
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            True. Also, our US health care non-system. The banksters and health providers (insurance companies, for profit doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies) are becoming the biggest part of the economy. Sooner or later these trends must be self-limiting?? But not before everyone else is impoverished.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Just because we have borrowing power/potential doesn't mean we have to use it.
    I don't plan to ever use my full Citicards credit limit.
    But it's nice to know it's there -- just in case.
    I'd rather be able to repay debt at AAA rating than downgraded...

  6. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    I really do enjoy reading Webster Tarpley's stuff.
    http://tarpley.net/2011/07/27/a-real-pr … itutional/

  7. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    "In other words, this country is not allowed to default. Default is unconstitutional. Default is illegal. Default is a federal crime."

    Best line of Tarpley's treatise (which is absolutely wonderful throughout). Thank you for posting link, moderndayslave.

    1. TMMason profile image64
      TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The only one who can default is Obama. We have the money to pay our debt.

      No compromise, no debt ceiling raised, no more borrowing... cut the spending, repeal Obama-Care, and cease the 99 weeks shit... then give the fed employees all the time they need off.

      We get 180 billion dollars a month in tax revenues, the interest on the debt is 29 billion, that leaves plenty for Soc. Sec. and Medi-care Medi-caid, etc.... send the unions home and cut funding for things like planned parenthood and other BS.

      Then talk to us about the debt ceiling.

      And all your tax hikes you all want are BS... you know how many taxes are in the Obama-Care bill that are going to be kikin in in the next few years... what a joke.

      Taxed Enough Already!

      1. Moderndayslave profile image59
        Moderndayslaveposted 6 years agoin reply to this
      2. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        This is BS.

        The debt isn't 29 Billion. The debt is over $14 Trillion.

        This country borrows money just to function. What are you smoking?
        Yes, certain people are taxed enough already. The ones who are unable to deflect taxes, are the ones paying the brunt of the taxes. And, that's NOT the upper 5 or 10% of the wealthiest.

        The average person knows nothing about deflecting taxes, like that of the CEOs of the largest companies of the world, based in America. The real rich pay nothing much in taxes vs the middle class, who does 90% of the work.

        There is no lower class citizens anymore, they are considered to be living in poverty. A minimum wage job isn't getting by, because people are having to work two of them, just to get by.

        Thus, creating more homeless. When are people going to wake up? roll

        1. DannyMaio profile image55
          DannyMaioposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          can you read? He stated the interest on the debt! this is your problem, you need to open your mind and stop with the nonsense. read it again and then apologize to the man.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes Danny, I can read. I managed to read right through the BS.
            I know what he said and I didn't need it to be pointed out. The interest on $14 Trillion? Don't forget the money which is borrowed to fund social security - medicare and medicaid. Do realize, there is more interest than just on the $14 Trillion.

            Try the interest on $48 Trillion or more?
            Nonsense, is what he is spewing. Not me.
            Know you stuff before you attempt to force me to apologize to someone who is obviously wrong?

      3. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        what about reforming welfare TM?   People can get it, but must undertake some kind of Job training to get off of it in 8 years, put limits on it, 8 years max, no more. Must keep advancing yourself and Training for a Job. put folks trained out there for work?   Open up tarrif free markets between countries, create a need for durable goods to be sold, and remove the corporate welfare?

  8. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    What part of America is broke, do people NOT understand?

 
working