z31maniac wrote: 1% a year is going to be catastrophic?
I never said catastrophic I just said it would hurt a lot and like I said a balanced budget isn't going to reduce the debt just keep it the same. We need to be at a surplus. Basically I am saying it could be a good start but it isn't going to be enough without tax raises.
93EXCivic wrote: There is no way we can cut our way out of this hole. Tax raises and budget cuts are the only way out of this and any plan that doesn't have this is stupid and useless. The economy is going to take a hurting because people are going to lose their jobs and raising taxes doesn't encourage spending.
We need to ALL (not just the rich) give up on the Bush tax cuts. They were based on projected budget surpluses that didn't exist. (i.e. our economic growth during the tech bubble was not sustainable, and we made budget plans as if things would continue that way forever.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1
fast_eddie_72 wrote:poopshovel wrote: Or you don't raise the debt ceiling at all, which I'm 100% in favor of. I know that politicians are going to do what politicians do, but the "Grandma's going to lose her SS check, and we won't be able to take care of the Veterans!" argument from the Democrats is really, truly, a new level of sleazy. It's as if they WANT to see people panic and the market crash.We borrow $0.40 of every $1 we currently spend. Where do people get the idea that we can just stop borrowing the money and magically still play for everything?
Where did I say I still want to pay for "everything?"
Boenher isn't worthy of sucking a turd out of my poorly wiped ass. berkeley that guy. He tried to sabotage the Boeing move to South Carolina in order to strong arm the South Carolina house members into a vote for his piece of E36 M3 bill.
Fun facts…
Here’s how much the last three presidents ran up the national debt for each day they were in office:
Clinton = 547 Million
Bush = 1.6 Billion
Obama = 4.1 Billion
So, Bush trashed our futures 293% worse than Clinton did and Obama trashed our futures 256% worse than Bush did. Of course, the increases are exponential and Obama has only had a third as much time as the last two guys so even if he only gets one term, he’s certain to become the reigning king of carnage.
Bottom line…most presidents will redefine the term reckless spending simply due to scale effect but Obama certainly has “accelerated the acceleration”.
In reply to RX Reven':
You forgot the requisite "It's all Bush's fault" mantra.......
oldsaw wrote: In reply to RX Reven': You forgot the requisite "It's all Bush's fault" mantra.......
I am so sorry about that…Obama did after all run on a campaign of “we’re all hosed regardless of who gets elected because Bush was such a horrible guy” so it is only fair.
“IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT”
Oh my gosh Odlsaw, seedlings are sprouting & children are emerging from orphanages.
This really works everybody…keep saying it, keep saying it!!!
Who knew this song would still be relevant in 2011? 
1988RedT2 wrote: Who knew this song would still be relevant in 2011?
Gee, I was expecting this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE
And here I thought it would be an R.E.M. track...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-has-more-cash-on-hand-than-the-us-government-2011-7
Apple might have more cash than the government, but they refuse to produce a device that will let me watch the linked songs. Ipad = frustration. I do not recommend it to anyone.
I'm OK with laying a great deal of blame at the feet of Mr. Bush and other Republicans. There was a time when there was a clear distinction between the approaches and spending patterns of the two political parties. The voters had a choice. The last administration changed that.
There is now no distinction whatsoever as to who is the spending junky.
The fact that Mr Obama (and his party) advocates a governing policy that includes gross amounts of spending and expansion of government is no surprise whatsoever. We knew that when we elected him.
The issue for me is no longer who to blame. The issue is who is going to have the huevos to act and receive some credit for impacting the situation positively.
I really don't care to try to quantify who is being an idiot, nor point the finger. I don't have anywhere near that many fingers.
SVreX wrote: The issue for me is no longer who to blame. The issue is who is going to have the huevos to act and receive some credit for impacting the situation positively. I really don't care to try to quantify who is being an idiot, nor point the finger. I don't have anywhere near that many fingers.
^This.......
Both parties are to blame, but only one is making a valid attempt to address the spending. The one offering specific plans is the one that has co-opted the much maligned Tea Party movement.
Say what you will, but the TP has a tremendous influence over the debt debate. Without it, we'd have an uncontested increase in the debt ceiling and the country would sail down the road to fiscal oblivion with ignorant bliss.
Actually, OS has a point.
The Tea Party seems to be doing exactly what they were elected to do. I don't think they've got the experience or ability to pull it off, but I will give them some credit for attempting to do what they were elected to do.
A nice link that helps explain the inner workings of our DC denizens:
http://havoconthehill.com/
I just can't believe the pathetic deal they agreed to.
Nothing was cut, just a freeze for 3 years, then slowing the rate of growth. What a joke. 
With all of the differences of opinion at least they came up with something. Of course the president, whom ever, gets the blame. Nobody blames congress.
In reply to iceracer:
Congress has an approval rating below 20%; that's a lot of nobody............
“This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda,” - Ron Paul
As I posted on page 1 of this thread, the debt ceiling was going to be raised. The only alternative was to overhaul our monetary system and take away monopolized control of our money supply from Wall St. and let the Treasury Department run things, but Wall St. would not stand for that.
DILYSI Dave wrote: Boenher isn't worthy of sucking a turd out of my poorly wiped ass. berkeley that guy. He tried to sabotage the Boeing move to South Carolina in order to strong arm the South Carolina house members into a vote for his piece of E36 M3 bill.
regardless of wether the bill is garbage, yeah, that was a pretty dick move there.
RX Reven' wrote: Clinton = 547 Million Bush = 1.6 Billion Obama = 4.1 Billion So, Bush trashed our futures 293% worse than Clinton did and Obama trashed our futures 256% worse than Bush did. Of course, the increases are exponential and Obama has only had a third as much time as the last two guys so even if he only gets one term, he’s certain to become the reigning king of carnage.
yet there are still people who insist that our problems are not disproportionately on spending; insist that we just need more revenue from taxes.
T.J. wrote: “This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda,” - Ron Paul As I posted on page 1 of this thread, the debt ceiling was going to be raised. The only alternative was to overhaul our monetary system and take away monopolized control of our money supply from Wall St. and let the Treasury Department run things, but Wall St. would not stand for that.
madmallard wrote:RX Reven' wrote: Clinton = 547 Million Bush = 1.6 Billion Obama = 4.1 Billion So, Bush trashed our futures 293% worse than Clinton did and Obama trashed our futures 256% worse than Bush did. Of course, the increases are exponential and Obama has only had a third as much time as the last two guys so even if he only gets one term, he’s certain to become the reigning king of carnage.yet there are still people who insist that our problems are not disproportionately on spending; insist that we just need more revenue from taxes.
Unless we change our monetary system the next President will rack up an even larger debt. No matter who gets elected. It is simple exponential math at work here. Blame the Wall St. bankers who own the Fed and not one of the two political parties.
You'll need to log in to post.
