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 Dec 18, 2013 15:11:01 GMT -5
dj, I don't think planning is unrealistic. I think following the plan is unrealistic unless there is some measure of enforcement. Elections must be the means of enforcement. we only care about elections when Egypt has them.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 15:12:46 GMT -5
"We need to have a balanced budget be "what plays best for the voters today". Remember, "we the people" are the voters."
Yep if you like where we are at today and what you describe is exactly what we do and how we got here. We live for today and tomorrow and our children be dammed.
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2013 15:14:44 GMT -5
dj, I think you are seriously under estimating the percentage of people who are really concerned about this debt issue and the long term affects on our country. I don't believe for one second that only a small faction of one party wants this fixed. As a matter of fact a huge majority are really pissed off at our current position and want it fixed. The small faction you speak of was elected due to the over reach of the Democrats in 2009 and if the public views their position as an over reach they will suffer the same fate. Time will tell but their position that the debt load is unsustainable and something needs done before we raise the ceiling yet again (which is the thread topic) is very popular with a large majority. you're right. i am underestimating this. i thought the numbers were a lot lower than they are. thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 15:14:50 GMT -5
"Then how did President Obama gain reelection in 2012?"
Well... he didn't exactly tell the whole truth right? and.... he was more appealing than his challenger. and...thats not saying much.)
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2013 15:16:19 GMT -5
"Then how did President Obama gain reelection in 2012?" Well... he didn't exactly tell the whole truth right? and.... he was more appealing than his challenger. and...thats not saying much.) the liar of the year in 2013 beat the liar of the year in 2012.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 18, 2013 15:21:09 GMT -5
"We need to have a balanced budget be "what plays best for the voters today". Remember, "we the people" are the voters." Yep if you like where we are at today and what you describe is exactly what we do and how we got here. We live for today and tomorrow and our children be dammed. Makes no difference what I like. We are a government of the people. If the majority choose to damn the children, it is certainly their right to do so.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Dec 18, 2013 15:33:11 GMT -5
I really thought the GOP learned their lesson during the shutdown and would keep the wingnuts quiet and let the grownups handle things this year. Looks like I overestimated them again.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 18, 2013 16:05:29 GMT -5
I'm not looking forward to shutdown part 2, but I expected it when shutdown 1 was coming to a close.
I think some politicians(&posters) mistake the support for balancing the budget includes doing so by any means necessary. It doesn't. Its a similar reason as to why the TP could have had broad support but failed. Instead of being a movement that was willing to cut anywhere in the budget to have the federal government live on what was received it became the party that was only OK with cuts if they came from what was called social spending. Having some members and conservatives being pro more government intervention if it forced, cajoled, women into carrying their babies to term - lost them more support as well.
As an example, when I read about Cruz in Wikipedia it said he often voted with Democrats. But the reasons were different. Broad support for not raising the debt ceiling does not equal in any way broad support for shutdowns that accomplish nothing but spending more money and making life challenging for some people.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 16:14:51 GMT -5
"Makes no difference what I like. We are a government of the people. If the majority choose to damn the children, it is certainly their right to do so."
Obviously sad but true! Where are all of those people who are so concerned about the welfare of others when they could actuall do something of value?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 18, 2013 16:58:00 GMT -5
"Makes no difference what I like. We are a government of the people. If the majority choose to damn the children, it is certainly their right to do so." Obviously sad but true! Where are all of those people who are so concerned about the welfare of others when they could actuall do something of value? So, the debt is damning the children. What about underfunding education? What about cuts in nutritional programs for children? What about national security? I could easily argue that all current government expenditures are necessary for the health and well-being of our nation's youth. Those who are blocking increases in taxes to pay for these necessary services are the ones damning our children.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 17:16:53 GMT -5
"I could easily argue that all current government expenditures are necessary for the health and well-being of our nation's youth. Those who are blocking increases in taxes to pay for these necessary services are the ones damning our children."
You certainly could do that and some do argue that very point. It is a very tough arguement though when close to a half of a trillion dollars is already spent to service our national debt even with interest rates at all time lows. Very hard to suggest that more revenue is required or that essential services need more funding while supporting an even higher debt limit that will result in even less available monies for education, nutritional programs or national security.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 17:27:13 GMT -5
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2013 17:51:06 GMT -5
conclusions: a) Finland kicks ass b) our post secondary education system is outrageously costly.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 18, 2013 18:20:51 GMT -5
... Very hard to suggest that more revenue is required or that essential services need more funding while supporting an even higher debt limit that will result in even less available monies for education, nutritional programs or national security. I am not suggesting we need more funding for essential services. We need to match revenue to expenditures. That can be achieved through lowering spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. The higher debt limit is only because we refuse to do any of the three adequately.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 21:28:45 GMT -5
Nicely said bills,
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 18, 2013 21:41:59 GMT -5
Thank you. So do we damn kids by cutting programs they benefit from now, by increasing taxes which will cut their parents income and thus provide a lower standard of living for them now, or a combination of the two? And which programs do we cut if we aren't going to just increase taxes to end the deficit?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 18, 2013 22:08:27 GMT -5
bills, IMO it will take an all of the above approach. This should not be done on the shoulder of any single group of people and the last thing we need is leaders who continue to divide the people against each other. We all have allowed our government to operate out of control for decades and we call afford to and we should all be expected to help pay off this load of debt. The poorest peple in this country are still the richest of the world in many ways.
|
|