Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 20:16:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 18:22:35 GMT -5
Deziloooooo, I thought that it was obvious no matter what party takes office (republican, democrat, or Tea Party) that spending needs to be cut. I mean when the lenders say no matter what happens unless the U.S. addresses this problem we will probably cut their credit rating, well that's pretty obvious to me. Waiting to cut spending is just another way of saying keep spending or building up debt. Don't forget, we are borrowing 40% of what we spend & have to pay interest on that.
If they had not raised the credit ceiling at 15 trillion, we would owe less than that now. The same is true for 16 trillion. It's time to stop the madness NOW.
|
|
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 27, 2011 18:36:23 GMT -5
Deziloooooo, I thought that it was obvious no matter what party takes office (republican, democrat, or Tea Party) that spending needs to be cut. I mean when the lenders say no matter what happens unless the U.S. addresses this problem we will probably cut their credit rating, well that's pretty obvious to me. Waiting to cut spending is just another way of saying keep spending or building up debt. Don't forget, we are borrowing 40% of what we spend & have to pay interest on that. If they had not raised the credit ceiling at 15 trillion, we would owe less than that now. The same is true for 16 trillion. It's time to stop the madness NOW. stopping the madness now will mean that we have to cut another $1T from future budgets that we would NOT have to cut if we simply raised the debt ceiling. the logic of this debate completely escapes me.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 27, 2011 18:39:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 20:16:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 19:01:24 GMT -5
stopping the madness now will mean that we have to cut another $1T from future budgets that we would NOT have to cut if we simply raised the debt ceiling.
the logic of this debate completely escapes me.
dlungrot maybe I can explain it so that you will understand. Just the other day didn't you say that you had to fire a bunch of people (like a 100 or 150 of them)? Yet you said that you felt bad about it. Well I guess the question would be WHY did you fire them. Were you trying to make yourself look good? Were they bad workers? Did you just wake up one morning & say "Heck I think I'll get rid of some workers today". NO, you fired them because you couldn't afford to keep paying them & I'm guessing that you didn't want to BORROW the money to keep paying them.
So it comes down to you run your business like a conservative but look at the business of government as a liberal (spend now pay later). Good thing you don't do the opposite.
|
|
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 27, 2011 19:24:45 GMT -5
stopping the madness now will mean that we have to cut another $1T from future budgets that we would NOT have to cut if we simply raised the debt ceiling.
the logic of this debate completely escapes me. dlungrot maybe I can explain it so that you will understand. Just the other day didn't you say that you had to fire a bunch of people (like a 100 or 150 of them)? nope. 1/3 of the staff. 7 people.Yet you said that you felt bad about it. Well I guess the question would be WHY did you fire them. Were you trying to make yourself look good? Were they bad workers? Did you just wake up one morning & say "Heck I think I'll get rid of some workers today". NO, you fired them because you couldn't afford to keep paying them & I'm guessing that you didn't want to BORROW the money to keep paying them. tex- let me ask you a question. do you think that governments should behave precisely as businesses do?So it comes down to you run your business like a conservative but look at the business of government as a liberal (spend now pay later). Good thing you don't do the opposite. i do what the situation demands. but i don't have 300M people to worry about.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 27, 2011 19:34:49 GMT -5
...I still do not see the mathematical reasons behind upping the debt ceiling to last until 2013... Get through the election, depending on the out come, sets the parameters as to what is done about the deficit..if goes the pubs way..then possible consider quicker , larger , immediate cuts to budget including the untouchable ones..goes the other way, still cuts , lesser programs but spread over a longer time frame..my thinking anyway.. with all the hub a boo about so many wanting cuts, the reality is all the cuts are going to be painful for certain groups..and if economy still slow, unemployment still just creeping down, unless one believes in bread lines, more on the street, social programs of some sort still important, even more so. With unemployment running out, no extensions , even more hurt going on..it's not good out there and no I don't beleive all these people hurting caused this themselves and are bad people , deserving of this as if it's devine punishment for past sins.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 27, 2011 19:38:57 GMT -5
I have been doing contracts with the government for 40 years. The first 20 was not so bad, but after that a new thinking took over. Many of the new breed making decisions astounds me. They seem to be poorly prepared for sound decision making. you point out that the same end can be achieved by doing it a certain way and their response is that is our decision and it will not be changed even though it may cost thousands more. keep in mind I am just one contractor out there who sees this, just think of the other many contractors who see the same issues. It quickly turns into some serious money. The point is that the government spends mucho bucks that could over time reduce the needed expenditures of our tax money. Private companies and corporations would quickly be down the tubes if they operated like the government does. They want to find places to cut it is not hard to find without hurting the little man. All they need to do is get people in place who know what they are doing and let them do it.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 27, 2011 19:42:44 GMT -5
...I still do not see the mathematical reasons behind upping the debt ceiling to last until 2013... Get through the election, depending on the out come, sets the parameters as to what is done about the deficit..if goes the pubs way..then possible consider quicker , larger , immediate cuts to budget including the untouchable ones..goes the other way, still cuts , lesser programs but spread over a longer time frame..my thinking anyway.. ...I don't understand the advantages for waiting to make improvements until 2013...
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 27, 2011 19:50:26 GMT -5
Been There: If you figure it out please let me know, I cannot figure it out either.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 27, 2011 20:06:55 GMT -5
Been There: If you figure it out please let me know, I cannot figure it out either. ...lol... I'm not going to try, I think... seems obvious to me that if me need to make improvements in the budget, then we need to make them already... but maybe I just misunderstood what dez is trying to say?
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 27, 2011 20:11:43 GMT -5
dj, I believe either you or I are on the wrong foot. I was referring to the question in the context of an earlier post in this thread which suggested kicking the can down the road until after the election.
I was only referring to the poster's possible motives, not the President's.
Actually, the President's primary job seems to me to be dealing with absolute bullshit.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 27, 2011 20:27:30 GMT -5
Been There: If you figure it out please let me know, I cannot figure it out either. You didn't like my possible reasoning in post # 35? Ok, best I could do, thought it was a pretty good possible explanation, makes sense to me. I'm not here to diss with you in a back and forth, your own feelings on the man are your feelings, I was just trying to give you a possible rational , see possible, explanation. I am semi guessing here. To me it makes sense, sorry it doesn't to you. Not asking you to agree with his possible reasoning, of wanting the cealing raised through the upcoming election..to me, if he wins , means the populace likes his approach over the other side, he loses, then they are saying they care for the other sides feelings on it over his. Sounds simple to me.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 27, 2011 20:58:54 GMT -5
Been There: If you figure it out please let me know, I cannot figure it out either. You didn't like my possible reasoning in post # 35? Ok, best I could do, thought it was a pretty good possible explanation, makes sense to me. I'm not here to diss with you in a back and forth, your own feelings on the man are your feelings, I was just trying to give you a possible rational , see possible, explanation. I am semi guessing here. To me it makes sense, sorry it doesn't to you. Not asking you to agree with his possible reasoning, of wanting the cealing raised through the upcoming election..to me, if he wins , means the populace likes his approach over the other side, he loses, then they are saying they care for the other sides feelings on it over his. Sounds simple to me. ...I don't know about handyman2, but maybe the misunderstanding for me is in that I'm not talking about my feelings on the POTUS, but on the budget... ...my logic tells me that if the budget needs work, it needs work now, not in 2013... ...and the budget is, imo, a bigger variable to influence the downgrading of our credit rating... and not who's POTUS at any given time... at least, up to this point, that is... ...maybe that's why I've not followed your posts?
|
|
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 27, 2011 21:05:14 GMT -5
dj, I believe either you or I are on the wrong foot. I was referring to the question in the context of an earlier post in this thread which suggested kicking the can down the road until after the election. I was only referring to the poster's possible motives, not the President's. Actually, the President's primary job seems to me to be dealing with absolute bullshit. ok, sorry, verrip.
|
|
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 27, 2011 21:17:31 GMT -5
The brunt will be felt at the place the buck stops. Harry Truman never would have let this happen. What we have here is abject lack of leadership. And when that happens, it all falls on the main leader, and that would be Barack Obama. So far, he has miserably failed to find common ground with the opposition Party, and he's getting even less cooperation from his own Party. Lack of leadership won't be ignored by those who elect the President, independents. Obama's got a few days left to act. His teleprompter won't get him out of this one; neither will his 'senior advisors' who are telling him not to back down. I'm still confident in an 11th hour reprieve, but unfortunately it looks more and more that the reprieve will be to kick the can down the road again. That's going to hurt Obama the Ineffectual and hurt him badly. I bet Hillary is laughing her ass off ... So right you are, verrip. I agree with your comment regarding Hillary...lol. When the liberal late night commentators and comedians turn on Obama with disdain and ability to compromise, he will be the "biggest loser"! At crunch time, he is MIA. k to you....
|
|
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 27, 2011 21:32:58 GMT -5
I have always been a Conservative, but did not vote in the last election as I felt the choices that were made did not appeal to me. If Hillary would have been the nomination, I would have voted. I tend to go with someone with a strong background on all issues and not stubborn without compromise or stongly biased. I don't see anyone I really like on the GOP side, but this guy does not have the strong leadership or committment to be pliable to work for the good of the nation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 20:16:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 21:35:40 GMT -5
i do what the situation demands. but i don't have 300M people to worry about.
Of course you do. You do what's practical in your business life & I bet that you do the same in your personal life. Tell the truth, do you normally borrow 40% of every dollar you spend? I'm betting that you don't. As for the comment about not having 3000M people to worry about, I can only say that if 40% of the people didn't contribute to your company, you would let them go too.
Now I don't know how liberals justify (& you are a liberal no matter what you say you are) their stance on social programs & spending. Maybe they just are unable to do the math (but djlungrot you should be able to). Maybe they focus so much on things in society that they want to see that they are unable to see beyond that to the ramifications of their actions. What I do know is that they like you don't live the way they think & talk. They couldn't because it's not possible.
|
|
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 27, 2011 21:50:21 GMT -5
i do what the situation demands. but i don't have 300M people to worry about. Of course you do. You do what's practical in your business life & I bet that you do the same in your personal life. Tell the truth, do you normally borrow 40% of every dollar you spend? I'm betting that you don't. no. but the job of government is not to go into survival mode during a downturn, imo. government is needed far more during downturns than during boom times. in fact, i think that government should behave exactly the opposite of business- SPENDING during a downturn. but i know there are a lot of people here who will violently disagree.
|
|
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 27, 2011 21:51:40 GMT -5
i do what the situation demands. but i don't have 300M people to worry about. Now I don't know how liberals justify (& you are a liberal no matter what you say you are) their stance on social programs & spending. Maybe they just are unable to do the math (but djlungrot you should be able to). Maybe they focus so much on things in society that they want to see that they are unable to see beyond that to the ramifications of their actions. What I do know is that they like you don't live the way they think & talk. They couldn't because it's not possible. i think what governments should do is sock away money during the boom times and spend like mad during bad times. the problem is, of course, that they never get into the positive cash flow position. and i really have no clue what most liberals would do. i spend the vast majority of my time with conservatives in my profession.
|
|