ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 16, 2011 8:59:18 GMT -5
"Senator Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., on Wednesday lamented his party's having made such "a big deal" about its opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and conceded that now Republicans were struggling to walk back their statements. "Our problem is we made a big deal about this for three months," said Graham of the debt limit debate, according to Politico. "How many Republicans have been on TV saying, 'I'm not going to raise the debt limit'? You know, Mitch [McConnell] says, 'I'm not going to raise the debt limit unless we talk about Medicare.' And I've said I'm not going to raise the debt limit until we do something about spending and entitlements.'" Democrats and Republicans have for weeks been engaged in tense negotiations over an agreement to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit, but progress has been repeatedly stalled over issues like whether or not to increase tax revenues - a matter on which neither party appears willing to budge. Graham says now Republicans should have tempered their language early on. "We shouldn't have said that if we didn't mean it... We've got nobody to blame but ourselves," Graham told reporters. Graham also disputed the argument, made by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday, that Republicans couldn't vote for the debt ceiling because it would destroy the GOP "brand" and put the party at risk of being blamed "for a bad economy." www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079442-503544.html
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 7:24:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 9:20:16 GMT -5
Never say something that your not willing to back up. Without spending cuts I would keep this government shut down until the President either gave in or was not re-elected in 2 years, whichever came first. The best time to get your spending under control is always NOW.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 16, 2011 11:20:27 GMT -5
Can anybody believe that grown educated people can act so stupid on both sides of the isle. When all is said and done neither side can honestly claim victory.
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jul 16, 2011 12:59:10 GMT -5
Never say something that your not willing to back up. Without spending cuts I would keep this government shut down until the President either gave in or was not re-elected in 2 years, whichever came first. The best time to get your spending under control is always NOW. He could simply declare that the debt-ceiling law is unconstitutional and hence unenforceable. In doing so, he could cite a little-known provision of the 14th Amendment, which says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned." The Constitution requires the president to spend the money appropriated by Congress. If the amount appropriated exceeds the government's revenue, then the president has no choice but to borrow the difference, debt limit or no debt limit. It's his constitutional duty
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 16, 2011 14:34:16 GMT -5
The GOP doesn't need Lindsay Gramnesty. He should join his pal Harry Reid in the majority.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 16, 2011 14:36:36 GMT -5
Never say something that your not willing to back up. Without spending cuts I would keep this government shut down until the President either gave in or was not re-elected in 2 years, whichever came first. The best time to get your spending under control is always NOW. The fact is that NOW is the ONLY time we've got to get spending under control. If not now, then never. The GOP is standing between America and a Democrat regime that is determined to bankrupt the country and force economic and political collapse so they can begin their long dreamed of socialist revolution. They MUST be STOPPED. It's now or never.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 16, 2011 14:37:56 GMT -5
He could simply declare that the debt-ceiling law is unconstitutional and hence unenforceable. In doing so, he could cite a little-known provision of the 14th Amendment, which says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."
******************************************************
All well and good, but no other spending must be authorized-- nor can it be authorized. It'll be the debt and nothing else. Fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 16, 2011 15:15:12 GMT -5
The entire debt debate has raised this question: What do you do to reduce the nation's deficit? Republicans want to strictly cut government spending, while preserving all tax cuts and tax breaks. President Obama, by contrast, favors a balanced approach -- some spending cuts, plus revenue increases and tax hikes. But what about the American public? Back in February, at the very outset of this deficit/debt debate, our NBC/WSJ poll measured 26 different ways to reduce the deficit or to cut spending. The list runs from most acceptable to least acceptable. -- Placing a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning over $1 million a year: 81% acceptable -- Eliminating spending on so-called earmarks for special projects and specific areas of the country: 78% acceptable -- Eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says are not necessary: 76% acceptable -- Eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries: 74% acceptable -- Phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more per year: 68% acceptable -- Freezing annual domestic spending at its current level for the next five years: 67% acceptable -- Reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits for wealthier retirees: 62% acceptable -- Gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075: 56% acceptable -- Cutting funding for the new health-care law so that parts of it will not be put into effect or enforced: 51% acceptable -- Reducing agriculture subsidies or support to farmers and ranchers: 45% acceptable -- Eliminating funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services: 45% acceptable -- Gradually turning Medicare from a system in which the government pays for most beneficiaries' medical bills into a program in which seniors would receive government-assisted vouchers to purchase private insurance: 44% acceptable Among the budget cuts: Subsidies to build new nuclear power plants: 57% acceptable Federal assistance to state governments: 52% acceptable The Environmental Protection Agency: 51% Transportation and infrastructure projects: 51% Scientific and medical research: 48% National defense: 46% Unemployment insurance: 43% Head Start: 41% College student loans: 39% Heating assistance to low-income families: 34% Medicaid: 32% Medicare: 23% K-12 education: 22% Social Security: 22% firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/15/7090741-what-americans-support-and-dont-support-in-cutting-the-deficit
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 16:01:04 GMT -5
He could simply declare that the debt-ceiling law is unconstitutional and hence unenforceable. In doing so, he could cite a little-known provision of the 14th Amendment, which says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned." ****************************************************** All well and good, but no other spending must be authorized-- nor can it be authorized. It'll be the debt and nothing else. Fine with me. the money is already spent, so it really doesn't matter whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 16:03:17 GMT -5
The entire debt debate has raised this question: What do you do to reduce the nation's deficit? Republicans want to strictly cut government spending, while preserving all tax cuts and tax breaks. President Obama, by contrast, favors a balanced approach -- some spending cuts, plus revenue increases and tax hikes. But what about the American public? Back in February, at the very outset of this deficit/debt debate, our NBC/WSJ poll measured 26 different ways to reduce the deficit or to cut spending. The list runs from most acceptable to least acceptable. -- Placing a surtax on federal income taxes for people earning over $1 million a year: 81% acceptable -- Eliminating spending on so-called earmarks for special projects and specific areas of the country: 78% acceptable -- Eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says are not necessary: 76% acceptable -- Eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries: 74% acceptable -- Phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more per year: 68% acceptable -- Freezing annual domestic spending at its current level for the next five years: 67% acceptable -- Reducing Medicare and Social Security benefits for wealthier retirees: 62% acceptable -- Gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075: 56% acceptable -- Cutting funding for the new health-care law so that parts of it will not be put into effect or enforced: 51% acceptable -- Reducing agriculture subsidies or support to farmers and ranchers: 45% acceptable -- Eliminating funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services: 45% acceptable -- Gradually turning Medicare from a system in which the government pays for most beneficiaries' medical bills into a program in which seniors would receive government-assisted vouchers to purchase private insurance: 44% acceptable Among the budget cuts: Subsidies to build new nuclear power plants: 57% acceptable Federal assistance to state governments: 52% acceptable The Environmental Protection Agency: 51% Transportation and infrastructure projects: 51% Scientific and medical research: 48% National defense: 46% Unemployment insurance: 43% Head Start: 41% College student loans: 39% Heating assistance to low-income families: 34% Medicaid: 32% Medicare: 23% K-12 education: 22% Social Security: 22% firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/15/7090741-what-americans-support-and-dont-support-in-cutting-the-deficitthe public appears to want the same thing that Obama does: a blended approach that does not encroach on critical services.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 16, 2011 16:15:59 GMT -5
..."critical services" is a relative term...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 16:20:27 GMT -5
..."critical services" is a relative term... and we should have a debate about what that means. that is what representative government means. if you look at the list of possible cuts, the ones that less than 1/3 approve of are considered "critical". along with some of the ones they didn't even bring up.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 16, 2011 17:40:29 GMT -5
Never say something that your not willing to back up. Without spending cuts I would keep this government shut down until the President either gave in or was not re-elected in 2 years, whichever came first. The best time to get your spending under control is always NOW. The fact is that NOW is the ONLY time we've got to get spending under control. If not now, then never. The GOP is standing between America and a Democrat regime that is determined to bankrupt the country and force economic and political collapse so they can begin their long dreamed of socialist revolution. They MUST be STOPPED. It's now or never. I think it should be now! Since 2008 the deficit has gone from 10 trillion to 14 trillion, thanks to the extravagant spending of this President. He just "read" a five minute clip saying we are all in this together. No, Mr. President, we have cut back to the quick and just wanted jobs, and your Stimulus didn't help, and the worst part is you sat and laughed about it with your buddy Jeffrey Immelt Your inexperience to be a trusted leader has failed. Stop with the fake rhetoric. This is not a bump in the road anymore, it is a brick wall. Paul, k to you
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 18:29:59 GMT -5
The fact is that NOW is the ONLY time we've got to get spending under control. If not now, then never. why? and how is cutting trillions out of the economy going to help the recovery?
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 16, 2011 18:51:12 GMT -5
How is adding more to the deficit to cover the interest rates and keep us from going under going to create more jobs?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 16, 2011 18:59:08 GMT -5
I brought this up in another thread, but there's a moral component to this issue. The federal government is our servant and has breached trust with us. Were the federal government a business, they could not abuse their customers and then demand more money. I don't care if you call it closing loopholes, or a surtax on those earning a million or more-- the bottom line is that all money is private. It belongs to the individuals that have earned it. The government hasn't earned it. The government hasn't earned the right to ask for one single penny from anyone regardless of how much money they make.
Nevermind the stimulative effect of an immediate, massive, across-the-board cut in taxes-- I think it should be done (massive tax cuts) in conjunction with massive cuts in spending as a punitive measure.
It's not merely time to cut spending and return to fiscal sanity-- it's time for the entire federal government to take a haircut. It's time for hundreds of thousands of government functionaries to go get honest work; and it's time for us to ask government to perform all critical duties-- including defense-- with less money. It's time to get more, even-- and pay less.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 16, 2011 19:01:10 GMT -5
The fact is that NOW is the ONLY time we've got to get spending under control. If not now, then never. why? and how is cutting trillions out of the economy going to help the recovery? The private sector creates jobs, not government. All resources not consumed by government would be left in the private sector and would result in an economic expansion and the creation of jobs.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Jul 16, 2011 19:28:55 GMT -5
I brought this up in another thread, but there's a moral component to this issue. The federal government is our servant and has breached trust with us. Were the federal government a business, they could not abuse their customers and then demand more money. I don't care if you call it closing loopholes, or a surtax on those earning a million or more-- the bottom line is that all money is private. It belongs to the individuals that have earned it. The government hasn't earned it. The government hasn't earned the right to ask for one single penny from anyone regardless of how much money they make. Nevermind the stimulative effect of an immediate, massive, across-the-board cut in taxes-- I think it should be done (massive tax cuts) in conjunction with massive cuts in spending as a punitive measure. It's not merely time to cut spending and return to fiscal sanity-- it's time for the entire federal government to take a haircut. It's time for hundreds of thousands of government functionaries to go get honest work; and it's time for us to ask government to perform all critical duties-- including defense-- with less money. It's time to get more, even-- and pay less. Excellent as usual Paul....you hit all points right on the mark!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 20:35:14 GMT -5
How is adding more to the deficit to cover the interest rates and keep us from going under going to create more jobs? do you not know how borrowing creates jobs?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 20:36:16 GMT -5
why? and how is cutting trillions out of the economy going to help the recovery? The private sector creates jobs, not government. you are playing word games, Paul. the government is the single largest employer in the US.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 16, 2011 20:37:12 GMT -5
I brought this up in another thread, but there's a moral component to this issue. The federal government is our servant and has breached trust with us. how so? do you believe in the "social contract" Paul?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 17, 2011 6:59:35 GMT -5
How is adding more to the deficit to cover the interest rates and keep us from going under going to create more jobs? do you not know how borrowing creates jobs? Government borrowing doesn't create jobs. This may have been up for debate at one point, but after TARP and two big 'stimulus' bills-- we now know for a FACT borrowing DOES NOT create jobs.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 17, 2011 7:04:25 GMT -5
I brought this up in another thread, but there's a moral component to this issue. The federal government is our servant and has breached trust with us. how so? do you believe in the "social contract" Paul? I do not believe in slavery, which is what you're asking. I do not believe that any person has a claim on the productivity of another person. But more to the point- we don't have the money. Lots of people have investing their whole lives and lost it. People that trusted government are no different than people that trusted Bernie Madoff-- except that people that trusted government had a bit more of a heads up.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 17, 2011 8:53:52 GMT -5
Then why on earth did republicans turn down huge spending cuts in favor of something smaller in order to protect loopholes and subsidies,I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 17, 2011 9:17:18 GMT -5
Then why on earth did republicans turn down huge spending cuts in favor of something smaller in order to protect loopholes and subsidies,I wonder? One Spending Cut that was debated by the Liberals vs Conservatives was the Defense Budget because the Liberals/Progressives want to see Defense cut by @$100 Billion while the Conservatives on both sides of the aisle in congress want to go with @$40 Billion for Defense Budget Cuts..As far I as I know there has not been a compromise on this Spending Cut yet. And of course the Liberals/Progressives do NOT want to see Social Security or Medicare be on the table..although Obama says it is on the table...so again we have Obama vs Pelosi/Van Hollen for this issue. So I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say the least to point the finger at the Republican Party for this debt ceiling impasse because many of the liberals/progressives are not all in lock step with the conservatives in the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives.. This may explain why we still may not see any compromise by 02 August but instead Obama may have to go with the McConnell "Hail Mary"....IMHO
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 9:47:38 GMT -5
why? and how is cutting trillions out of the economy going to help the recovery? The private sector creates jobs, not government. All resources not consumed by government would be left in the private sector and would result in an economic expansion and the creation of jobs. but cutting spending doesn't create resources for the private sector- SPENDING does.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 17, 2011 9:49:25 GMT -5
how so? do you believe in the "social contract" Paul? I do not believe in slavery, which is what you're asking. no. that is NOT what i am asking. from this i am gathering you are unfamiliar with the concept of the social contract. you can read about it here when you get back from your talk with Jesus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jul 17, 2011 10:04:31 GMT -5
Then why on earth did republicans turn down huge spending cuts in favor of something smaller in order to protect loopholes and subsidies,I wonder? Silly person, because it is the Obama plan, if a tea party candidate would have suggested this, it would be like Manna from Heaven.
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jul 17, 2011 10:07:17 GMT -5
Then why on earth did republicans turn down huge spending cuts in favor of something smaller in order to protect loopholes and subsidies,I wonder? One Spending Cut that was debated by the Liberals vs Conservatives was the Defense Budget because the Liberals/Progressives want to see Defense cut by @$100 Billion while the Conservatives on both sides of the aisle in congress want to go with @$40 Billion for Defense Budget Cuts..As far I as I know there has not been a compromise on this Spending Cut yet. And of course the Liberals/Progressives do NOT want to see Social Security or Medicare be on the table..although Obama says it is on the table...so again we have Obama vs Pelosi/Van Hollen for this issue. So I think it is somewhat disingenuous to say the least to point the finger at the Republican Party for this debt ceiling impasse because many of the liberals/progressives are not all in lock step with the conservatives in the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives.. This may explain why we still may not see any compromise by 02 August but instead Obama may have to go with the McConnell "Hail Mary"....IMHO So what you are saying is the republicans just don’t want to cut spending and as usual are merely posturing.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 17, 2011 11:42:49 GMT -5
Let us not forget one of the biggest markets from office materials, and equipment, heavy industrial equipment manufacturing is the federal government. lets be careful and not cut off our nose to spite our face.
|
|