Vote on Debt Limit increase?

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/id/2293892/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.slate.com/id/2293892/

Aya, yup

[dellinger63]

Oh I know it will pass, freddie, fannie and the PO will be bailed out once again, Pakistan will get its aid etc etc etc. and the 60% of households who pay taxes will again argue who will pick up the tab!

Sickening

[Nascar1966]

If the debt ceiling is raised then the Dems will spend more money that this country doesn't have. How could the debt be cut? Send the troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and quit this so-called fued with Libya. Ever time Nato or the UN cries for this country's help like they do all the time, help out a little bit but this county shouldn't be the country that is paying the most of the time for t
their causes.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

If the debt ceiling is raised then the Dems will spend more money that this country doesn't have. How could the debt be cut? Send the troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and quit this so-called fued with Libya. Ever time Nato or the UN cries for this country's help like they do all the time, help out a little bit but this county shouldn't be the country that is paying the most of the time for t
their causes.

While you're at it, bring home the troops from South Korea and Eastern Europe also. The Korean War and World War II, respectively, were a looong time ago.

Remember a couple of years ago when we had to bear the Democratic talking point "America's addiction to oil", as if an engine is addicted to the fuel it is designed to use? In this case it's more along the lines of "Congress' addiction to your tax dollars." They just can't stop themselves from spending, like the crack addict mentioned a couple of posts previous to this.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by joeydb

While you're at it, bring home the troops from South Korea and Eastern Europe also. The Korean War and World War II, respectively, were a looong time ago.

Remember a couple of years ago when we had to bear the Democratic talking point "America's addiction to oil", as if an engine is addicted to the fuel it is designed to use? In this case it's more along the lines of "Congress' addiction to your tax dollars." They just can't stop themselves from spending, like the crack addict mentioned a couple of posts previous to this.

Very well spoken.

[Danzig]

please, read this article. i'm for lowered spending, but not cutting ones nose off to spite ones face. the debt ceiling must be raised.

http://www.slate.com/id/2294209/


some excerpts:


The ceiling relates only to the total amount of debt the Treasury is allowed to issue. In and of itself, it does nothing to constrain spending, raise taxes, or otherwise improve the country's fiscal situation.



The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office may have explained the dangerous pointlessness of the debt ceiling best: "By itself, setting a limit on the debt is an ineffective means of controlling deficits because the decisions that necessitate borrowing are made through other legislative actions," it writes. "By the time an increase in the debt ceiling comes up for approval, it is too late to avoid paying the government's pending bills without incurring serious negative consequences."

Yet, in the past decade or two, the ceiling has transformed from useless political relic to handy political football: Whenever the country comes close to hitting the limit, the opposition party—whether Republican or Democratic—seizes the opportunity to thwack the other side and refuses to vote to lift it.

At some point, Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling. Until it does, Treasury is moving money around to continue meeting the country's obligations. But it can only do so until Aug. 2. Then, the country will start to default. That might mean not sending out Social Security checks. Eventually, it might even mean failing to make scheduled coupon payments on bonds—raising the possibility of throwing the world markets into turmoil and causing a worse economic crisis than the recession itself.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

While you're at it, bring home the troops from South Korea and Eastern Europe also. The Korean War and World War II, respectively, were a looong time ago.

Remember a couple of years ago when we had to bear the Democratic talking point "America's addiction to oil", as if an engine is addicted to the fuel it is designed to use? In this case it's more along the lines of "Congress' addiction to your tax dollars." They just can't stop themselves from spending, like the crack addict mentioned a couple of posts previous to this.

yeah, we're going to leave korea, thus inviting the north and perhaps china to try to expand their influence...then there's japan, who thru treaties after ww2 is severely limited to ship size, numbers, overal military strength, etc. let's leave there too. i'm sure they'd be safe from the above mentioned...

as for europe, absolutely. let's get out of there as well. nato doesn't need us. after all, it's not like we want bases in foreign countries to have jump-off points if they were needed. it's purely to waste money. and supply lines? bah, who needs 'em?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, we're going to leave korea, thus inviting the north and perhaps china to try to expand their influence...then there's japan, who thru treaties after ww2 is severely limited to ship size, numbers, overal military strength, etc. let's leave there too. i'm sure they'd be safe from the above mentioned...

as for europe, absolutely. let's get out of there as well. nato doesn't need us. after all, it's not like we want bases in foreign countries to have jump-off points if they were needed. it's purely to waste money. and supply lines? bah, who needs 'em?

Nobody said that the South Koreans can't get armed and defend themselves. They've had about 60 years to do that, and unlike when we defended them the first time, they make all the steel, not us.

NATO's original purpose was to counteract the Warsaw Pact alliance backed by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no more. Modern day Russia is not expansionistic. The Warsaw Pact is dissolved. Some of the original members of the Pact have actually joined NATO. So why are we still supporting (and spending on) it?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, we're going to leave korea, thus inviting the north and perhaps china to try to expand their influence...then there's japan, who thru treaties after ww2 is severely limited to ship size, numbers, overal military strength, etc. let's leave there too. i'm sure they'd be safe from the above mentioned...

as for europe, absolutely. let's get out of there as well. nato doesn't need us. after all, it's not like we want bases in foreign countries to have jump-off points if they were needed. it's purely to waste money. and supply lines? bah, who needs 'em?

Stop it Zig. The lightbulb might go off in some of these heads and that truly would be a waste of energy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

[regarding Democrats] They just can't stop themselves from spending, like the crack addict mentioned a couple of posts previous to this.

Let's have a dose of reality with this silly meme, and put it to rest once and for all with the truth. What have the Democrats spent? Historically (since 1950's) we can compare them to Republicans, and it's not very pretty, nor very favorable.

What have the Dems spent in the past two years, Joey? Look that up, and get back to me on if our regular spending has increased or decreased, and what our budget has done.

Most people believe that Democrats are big spenders and that Republicans are tight-fisted. The evidence leads to a very different conclusion.

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

* In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

* During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)

* When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.

* The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.

* During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

The results are quite clear – not only do Republican presidents spend far more money, but they often spend it on such “necessities” as creating wars. Sadly, the American people are extremely unlikely to let the use of any for of facts, figures, or statistics inform their decisions. So, it looks like the Republican Party can continue with it’s campaign of FUD, and people will listen.
http://atypicalguy.wordpress.com/200...-vs-democrats/

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrank...tchMIR-rSS.pdf
"Republicans and Democratic Presidents have switched economic policies" [the fiscal extravagance of the first three Bush years

And, let's look at where our national debt has increased, and what has had a great influence on the fiscal problems we now find our selves within:

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What have the Dems spent in the past two years, Joey? Look that up, and get back to me on if our regular spending has increased or decreased, and what our budget has done.

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)


Since the 2012 budget is out I posted it. So comparing the last 3 years of Bush to the first 3 of Obama we have a difference of $2.3 trillion. Only it's the current president who is leading. No doubt we need to raise the debt ceiling. I suppose some on the Titanic drank and partied as they went down.