a simple analogy about the debt ceiling crisis

[gbpfan1231]

It is hardly surprising that you don't claim to be smart, you'd be lying.

 

How can you say you've paid in more and more when you haven't, unless your income has gone up?

 

Bottom line - if August 3rd rolls around without a hike in the debt ceiling, the United States of America will default on it's debts and due payments. Pick from military salaries, SS payments to people whose only source of income that is, bondholders both domestic and foreign, Medicare doctors and on and on.

 

Go on - pick.

Classy.

[Ursa Majoris]

Classy.

Pick. Pick what you, as POTUS, would pay on August 3rd and every other day after that.

 

We'll wait.

[gbpfan1231]

Pick. Pick what you, as POTUS, would pay on August 3rd and every other day after that.

 

We'll wait.

Like I said - I don't have the answers but I am sick and tired of the spending - I did go back and look and my effective tax rate has gone up. over the last few years - I am including property taxes and it has gone up.

 

I guess we should just sit back and not worry about spending (I am not confident in anything that Obama says about cutting spending - it will probably have some sort of weasely way out of it) and not care about the govt raising taxes - I am sure it is good to punish people who have worked hard and made the right decisions in life and continue to reward people who have made bad decisions in life.

 

yes I understand that we are in too big of a hole to cut enough spending enough to cover it all but I am always going to fight against raising taxes.

 

I mentioned it before - do you kick in some extra money when you file your taxes? Why not - oh because the rich can cover your part?

[gbpfan1231]

I don't want to get in a pissing match back and forth but why is this the republicans fault? Is it because Boehner walked away?

 

Is what Boehner is saying a lie? He seems to be pretty adamant that the number changed late in the game - if the number changed from 800 billion to 1200 billion that is a pretty substantial change.

 

Say there was a deal close and all of the sudden the republicans changed the spending cuts by the same % that Boehner says Obama changed the revenue number and then the Dems walked away - would you guys still be blaming the republicans? My guess is yes.

 

If the number was put back to 800 billion could we have a deal? Sounds like it was close so it sure does seem like the one thing that changed was the number that the Dems had on the table so why is this the fault of the republicans - sure seems like if the number did not change there may have been a deal????

[bushwacked]

but why is this the republicans fault?

 

There is substantial political posturing going on right now as negotiations are hopefully near a successful end. If you believe everythigng Boehner says, the recent stall was all Obama's fault. If you believe everything Obama is saying, Boehner walked out without willing to even discuss something that was open to flexibility.

 

One thing is certain and very obvious. There has, until maybe very recently, a willing to cut spending and increase revenue on one side and one side only. A willing to compromise from one party and one party only. The radicals of the Republican party are, very simply put, the primary reason this isn't a done deal yet.

 

The above can't honestly be debated by the most rose-colored right winger.

 

Why don't all you liberals that keep talking about increasing taxes put your money where your mouth is - Let's get 10 of you liberals to pony up an extra 1,000 when you pay your 2011 taxes and I will kick in an extra 100. Deal? If not then shut up unless you are willing to put up your own money.

 

Come on now - according to the liberals on this site the people on assistance are all great people - nobody abuses the system and they are all well deserving of our money.

 

 

I don't want to get in a pissing match

 

Uh-huh, sure you don't.

 

Edited July 24, 2011 by bushwacked

[Ursa Majoris]

Missing the point

 

 

Still missing the point

 

I was going to respond to your first post yesterday but couldn't bring myself to make the effort, knowing that it would be completely wasted.

 

Likewise the second one. You have so completely missed the entire point that it just isn't worth it.

[gbpfan1231]

There is substantial political posturing going on right now as negotiations are hopefully near a successful end. If you believe everythigng Boehner says, the recent stall was all Obama's fault. If you believe everything Obama is saying, Boehner walked out without willing to even discuss something that was open to flexibility.

 

One thing is certain and very obvious. There has, until maybe very recently, a willing to cut spending and increase revenue on one side and one side only. A willing to compromise from one party and one party only. The radicals of the Republican party are, very simply put, the primary reason this isn't a done deal yet.

 

The above can't honestly be debated by the most rose-colored right winger.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uh-huh, sure you don't.

 

I was basically admitting that it did get into a pissing match and I was hoping to not keep it that way but thanks for understanding.

 

And like I said before I am inclined to believe Boehner's side on this one - he has given specifics of the 800 being on the table and almost agreed on then it changing last minute - Obama is not saying much about specifics but basically saying Boehner won't cooperate.

 

So if you believe Boehner then I guess there was some compromising - my main point is that I don't think you can necessarily pin the blame on the republicans. That is all I am saying but according to a few of my posts I am missing the point. (I don't remember typing those exact words though)

[Azazello1313]

You are smart enough to know the historically low taxes and sucky economy both play a role in the huge gap in the graph.

 

are tax rates any lower than they were in 2006 and 2007? because revenues were over 18% of GDP those years.

[bushwacked]

are tax rates any lower than they were in 2006 and 2007?

 

What were they from Regean to Bush 2? What were they from 2008 to present? And what where they from 2003 to 2006? The time frame you cemented yourself as the right-wing hobgoblin telling everyone on the huddle that those cuts were going to energize an already robust economy, despite the Iraqi welfare program, which you also lent your diehard support to.

Edited July 25, 2011 by bushwacked

[muck]

Pick. Pick what you, as POTUS, would pay on August 3rd and every other day after that.

 

We'll wait.

 

I'd start with the constitution as my guide.

 

...assuming no legislation is put on my desk prior to August 2nd at 11:59pm, at one minute past midnight on August 3rd, I do the following...

 

1) Pay interest / principal on debt as it comes due.

2) Pay the military, the judiciary, elected officials (except, I would accrue my salary as POTUS and have it paid later once the budget impasse / debt ceiling impasse was addressed), and law enforcement.

3) Pay for critical infrastructure.

4) Everyone else (i.e., department of education, unemployment benefits, tax refunds, NPR, social security, medicare/medicaid, my salary as POTUS, etc.) can wait until congress figures out a spending / taxing plan that I, as POTUS, will sign.

[Brentastic]

My solution is simple; default on all the debt owed to the Federal Reserve and then lower the debt ceiling.

[Ursa Majoris]

I'd start with the constitution as my guide.

 

...assuming no legislation is put on my desk prior to August 2nd at 11:59pm, at one minute past midnight on August 3rd, I do the following...

 

1) Pay interest / principal on debt as it comes due.

2) Pay the military, the judiciary, elected officials (except, I would accrue my salary as POTUS and have it paid later once the budget impasse / debt ceiling impasse was addressed), and law enforcement.

3) Pay for critical infrastructure.

4) Everyone else (i.e., department of education, unemployment benefits, tax refunds, NPR, social security, medicare/medicaid, my salary as POTUS, etc.) can wait until congress figures out a spending / taxing plan that I, as POTUS, will sign.

 

[Duchess Jack]

Come on now - according to the liberals on this site the people on assistance are all great people - nobody abuses the system and they are all well deserving of our money.

I challange you to find where ANYBODY on this site said that. It seems like you have concluded that this is not worth having an honest discussion about. Better to stick to your hyperbole of what liberals are and what you want to think that they think

[nuke'em ttg]

 

can anything get fixed, it's gonna take a major

[Ursa Majoris]

I challange you to find where ANYBODY on this site said that. It seems like you have concluded that this is not worth having an honest discussion about. Better to stick to your hyperbole of what liberals are and what you want to think that they think

That silly response of his is why I couldn't be bothered to respond. It's just pointless, he can't see the wood for the forest. Him and his ilk still think if you stop funding LaSheena the Welfare Queen, all will be fluffy bunnies and rainbows.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Ursa Majoris

[muck]

 

?

 

What do you do if you're POTUS and no deal is on your desk at 11:59pm on August 2nd?

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I'd start with the constitution as my guide.

 

...assuming no legislation is put on my desk prior to August 2nd at 11:59pm, at one minute past midnight on August 3rd, I do the following...

 

1) Pay interest / principal on debt as it comes due.

2) Pay the military, the judiciary, elected officials (except, I would accrue my salary as POTUS and have it paid later once the budget impasse / debt ceiling impasse was addressed), and law enforcement.

3) Pay for critical infrastructure.

4) Everyone else (i.e., department of education, unemployment benefits, tax refunds, NPR, social security, medicare/medicaid, my salary as POTUS, etc.) can wait until congress figures out a spending / taxing plan that I, as POTUS, will sign.

 

 

You had me until you mentioned putting Social Security on hold. That is at the top of the list on things to pay first, IMO.

[gbpfan1231]

That silly response of his is why I couldn't be bothered to respond. It's just pointless, he can't see the wood for the forest. Him and his ilk still think if you stop funding LaSheena the Welfare Queen, all will be fluffy bunnies and rainbows.

Dude - Not a bit - it is almost the opposite. I do not think that if we stop funding LaSheena that all will be fluffy bunnies - All I want is to stop funding LaSheena if she is abusing the system - I just think that the abuse in the sytem is rampant and it is disgusting. I guess I could see it the other way and say that if we could just throw more money into most situations by raising taxes that all will be fluffy bunnies and rainbows.

 

I have said before that I never claim to be as smart as most of you who debate these topics - I am just a simple person who has made the right decisions in life to be completley debt free and own a home within my means and work hard and be paid for it. It seems more and more that the people who make these right decisions get zero reward for it but people who make wrong decisions get bailed out and "rewarded" for these bad decisions.

 

I used to not care at all about this political stuff and in hind sight I wish I still did not care - I know I come across as an idiot and a large A hole but it is just frustrating to see how crappy our govt has become and also seeing the dumbing down of peole around us all.

 

So - with that said - it will be an early xmas present for most of you and I will abstain from posting in the political type threads - it looks like I add no value and is just a way to unleash my frustrations - I will just let them build until I blow

[detlef]

Dude - Not a bit - it is almost the opposite. I do not think that if we stop funding LaSheena that all will be fluffy bunnies - All I want is to stop funding LaSheena if she is abusing the system - I just think that the abuse in the sytem is rampant and it is disgusting. I guess I could see it the other way and say that if we could just throw more money into most situations by raising taxes that all will be fluffy bunnies and rainbows.

Is it? Do we know this? I think that's the issue that most of us have with how often this is brought up. Given the stories I've heard about watching some mom with five kids pay for groceries with food stamps and then pile them into an Escalade. Why is it that I never see this? Ever. And I live in freaking Durham, so it's not like I wouldn't get my chances.

 

But, to hear you guys talk about it, it's the single biggest waste of money we have out there, apparently rewarding people for not working by bestowing lavish amounts of money. I think it's only fair to ask for a moratorium on this assertion until one of you actually points to data that supports this is not something that is either made up or completely blown out of proportion.

 

Could LaSheena be the William Wallace of welfare fraud? That it's really one person who's managed to pull it off, but because it's such a great battle cry for the right, she's become a million people strong and popping up everywhere?

 

Given some of the neighborhoods I drive through from time to time, I'm guessing I see more than a few people on welfare. And if they're living high on the hog, they're doing a damned good job of hiding it.

 

None of us are saying it never happens, we're just doubting that it happens as much as you guys are prepared to believe. Because, let's face it. Every single way people either pay their taxes or get money from the government, there's an angle to cheat the system. It would be great if we could get to the bottom of all of it, but this is the one that seems really sexy to you guys for some reason.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Dude - Not a bit - it is almost the opposite. I do not think that if we stop funding LaSheena that all will be fluffy bunnies - All I want is to stop funding LaSheena if she is abusing the system - I just think that the abuse in the sytem is rampant and it is disgusting. I guess I could see it the other way and say that if we could just throw more money into most situations by raising taxes that all will be fluffy bunnies and rainbows.

 

I have said before that I never claim to be as smart as most of you who debate these topics - I am just a simple person who has made the right decisions in life to be completley debt free and own a home within my means and work hard and be paid for it. It seems more and more that the people who make these right decisions get zero reward for it but people who make wrong decisions get bailed out and "rewarded" for these bad decisions.

 

I used to not care at all about this political stuff and in hind sight I wish I still did not care - I know I come across as an idiot and a large A hole but it is just frustrating to see how crappy our govt has become and also seeing the dumbing down of peole around us all.

 

So - with that said - it will be an early xmas present for most of you and I will abstain from posting in the political type threads - it looks like I add no value and is just a way to unleash my frustrations - I will just let them build until I blow

 

What a boring place this would be if everyone thought the same. Keep posting I say, even though you're wrong most of the time

[gbpfan1231]

What a boring place this would be if everyone thought the same. Keep posting I say, even though you're wrong most of the time

No thanks - I am sure most here will be happy if I don't but it is just as much for me - not a big fan of how angry I get - the crap going on in Wisconsin plays a large role in this.

 

I do enjoy reading the topics but choose to stay out of it.

 

Oh by the way Detlef - you are so so wrong - just kidding.

[Ursa Majoris]

No thanks - I am sure most here will be happy if I don't but it is just as much for me - not a big fan of how angry I get - the crap going on in Wisconsin plays a large role in this.

 

I do enjoy reading the topics but choose to stay out of it.

 

Oh by the way Detlef - you are so so wrong - just kidding.

Let me renege on what I said earlier and summarize why I said you are missing the point:

 

 

• We are at the point where we have to raise the debt ceiling, regardless of cuts or not.

• How we got here is irrelevant. No-one here disagrees that spending has to be cut but if your favored party think it's worth adding untold billions to the national debt by forcing a default, which is what they are doing, then I don't see how that gels with fiscal responsibility.

• Going off on a rant about how much extra you are putting in to the system due to welfare moochers both magnifies the minor issue of welfare mooching AND falls victim to the desire to rant about what is water under the bridge instead of looking forward.

 

 

The point is that in a week, the United States will default on some of it's debt. This will destroy 401ks, will add hundreds of thousands to unemployment, will certainly drive interest rates higher, will downgrade our credit rating, will make future borrowing more expensive (and, yes, there will always be future borrowing) and will add tens or hundreds of billions to the debt itself. How this prospect gels with the fiscal responsibility demanded by those that are about to precipitate this mess is beyond me.

 

Unless they are only looking to the next election, of course.

[Grimm74]

Talk Bush tax cuts all you want they are countered by Obamacare which has in it the largest tax increases in the US in over 20 years? Obama agrees that raising taxes reduces tax receipts and hurts jobs. All of this is verifiable yet the rhetoric and politics around the Debt ceiling is the opposite. Twilight Zone material.

 

Looks like the Republicans are serious about cutting spending which is something new. They along with the Dems have been cranking up the debt like crazy. It just went to a whole new level in the past couple years.

[detlef]

Let me renege on what I said earlier and summarize why I said you are missing the point:

 

 

• We are at the point where we have to raise the debt ceiling, regardless of cuts or not.

• How we got here is irrelevant. No-one here disagrees that spending has to be cut but if your favored party think it's worth adding untold billions to the national debt by forcing a default, which is what they are doing, then I don't see how that gels with fiscal responsibility.

• Going off on a rant about how much extra you are putting in to the system due to welfare moochers both magnifies the minor issue of welfare mooching AND falls victim to the desire to rant about what is water under the bridge instead of looking forward.

 

 

The point is that in a week, the United States will default on some of it's debt. This will destroy 401ks, will add hundreds of thousands to unemployment, will certainly drive interest rates higher, will downgrade our credit rating, will make future borrowing more expensive (and, yes, there will always be future borrowing) and will add tens or hundreds of billions to the debt itself. How this prospect gels with the fiscal responsibility demanded by those that are about to precipitate this mess is beyond me.

 

Unless they are only looking to the next election, of course.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no point in griping about where we're wasting money. I mean, it's a great time for that. And I'm all about making sure there's nobody getting welfare and driving around in an Escalade. Believe me.

 

It's just that, like you, I get tired of hearing about this like it's the #1 thing plaguing our economy.

[TimC]

People are finally starting to realize "backed by the full faith of the US Government" doesn't really mean that much. Took ya long enough. Let's hope the Chinese don't mind.