51 senators vote to consider 29 TRILLION dollar debt limit - Page 8

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 106 to 114 of 114
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    27,720
    Rep Power
    50

    Default 51 senators vote to consider 29 TRILLION dollar debt limit

    Yep, that's right.

    Cruz voted for it, Lee voted for it. They all did (apparently).

    A debt ceiling increase to 29.1 TRILLION dollars in 10 years time.

    “The resolution is designed for one purpose only, to serve as a vehicle to repeal Obamacare,” said Cruz.
    Essentially the Republicans pin their hopes of bamma care repeal on this debit limit increase, and it may lead to even higher national debt:

    They note that the $29 trillion debt total is simply a number assuming all current spending levels continue – and does not include the full impact of repealing the health care law.
    The 29 TRILLION does NOT include the full impact of repealling bamma care. Needs to be repeated for emphasis.

    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...125030534.html

    Here is the complete text of the resolution so you can see for yourself the numbers they are "planning" on for federal income, expenditures, and deficit each year for the next 10 years.

    http://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/med...Resolution.pdf

    And here is the letter Cruz, Lee, and Rubio sent to the rest of the senate explaining why they suddenly think deficit spending is good.

    http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/i...4-ACAB839D4AEB


    Now maybe it's just me, but if they are going to repeal a law that INCREASES the national debt significantly, they need to hold off and come up with a plan that:

    1) Is a repeal and replace. Not simply repeal and when we get to it we'll try and impliment the replacement. One bill, one package or nothing.
    2) Doesn't significantly increase the national debt. Folks we are talking 9 TRILLION in new debt spending WITHOUT counting the full repeal of bamma care!

    I'm ready for the flaming, but if this lands on Bamma's desk, or The Don's after swear in, I hope they veto veto veto!
    sigline.jpg
    DISPATCHERS SAVE SECONDS.................SECONDS SAVE LIVES

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    24,932
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilds View Post
    Seriously? Leaving out the data of the biggest economic collapses is not a factor, or doesn't skew you numbers and conclusions just a bit?

    Come on man.....that is just wrong.

    So tell me.....where has conservative economic policy (low taxes, minimal regulations,) produced a thriving economy that was beneficial for the masses, and not just the top 1%?

    Any where. In history.
    Of course it was a factor, just like 9/11 and the 2000 recession were a factor for Bush. Just like the mess handed to Reagan was a factor during his administration. That's not the entire reason for the debt piled up under Democrats. Let's not forget that we're talking $11.8 Trillion vs $6.2 Trillion. Let's not forget that the average debt added under Democrats has been $742 Billion a year vs $310 Billion a year for Republicans. Let's also not forget that I'm not suggesting Republicans have been responsible. They have been extremely IRRESPONSIBLE.. HOWEVER.. Democrats are far worse if you examine the actual facts.

    As to the thriving economies? If you honestly haven't learned that in 12 years here, there's really no help for you but let's flip this on its head. Show me where high taxes and maximum regulations have produced a thriving economy that was beneficial to anyone but the ruling elite.

    Let me give you an example. The middle class was non-existent when this nation was founded. From 1789 to the 1940's, our government spent less than 5% of the national income in most years, the exception being during periods of large wars. The middle class grew and the economy of the US grew from not being on the scale to being over 25% of the worlds income. Who benefited from that economy? The rich? How about the middle class. The 50's started the decline (Interestingly enough, social spending started to climb in the 40's.) and today, we're under 20% of the worlds GDP. How is it that we gain when the government spends less than 5% of the national income, yet we lose ground when the government is consuming over 20% of the GDP (keep in mind, this is only federal, all levels are nearly 40%)?

    Do we need some regulations? Of course. We learned a lot of lessons back in the late 1800's but do we need $2 Trillion in regulatory burden each year? Absolutely NOT. We should be learning a lesson of allowing the pendulum to swing too far one direction & I think we are. That's why Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats nationally since 2008.

    I find it ironic that we've had massive social spending and massive government for the past 70 years or so and each year, the rich keep getting richer and the middle class is suffering, yet each year, we hear about how the need for more government is greater to "Fix" the problem. The PROBLEM is too damn much GOVERNMENT. You CANNOT fix the income gap by pushing policies that give more control and more power to the RICH. How people can't seem to get that is beyond me. This nation wasn't built by government, this nation was built by FREEDOM, CAPITALISM, people making a profit off of their ideas. The black man made some decent progress from the late 1800's to the mid 1900's. When we started "helping" them, they started to suffer. Today, the black unemployment is higher than it was in the 30's and the racism is certainly much less than it was in the 30's. As a matter of fact, the last year the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was in 1930.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-thomas-sowell

    You can dispute the economy of the early years of this nation by pointing to standard of living but when you compare quality of life -vs- other nations of the same period, the US had a much better quality of life than most nations back in the days that you all despise because we didn't have minimum wages and we hadn't yet learned enough as a species to control pollution. There are certainly improvements that we've made but there are also things that are MUCH worse than they were during the first 150 years of our nations history, one of those being upward mobility.


  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    42,916
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmouse View Post
    Yes they did; but can you understand why? They had no reason whatsoever to believe that the government would responsibly hold that money until it was legitimately needed during a downturn. It is apparently just TOO tempting. Just think; if we all took the same tack nobody would ever have any savings because ignoring that money is just TOO hard.
    Huh? How about paying down the debt that you people used to be upset about during Dem administrations?
    Trump supporters have space bugs in their heads. It is the only explanation.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    42,916
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmouse View Post
    IF I thought they would use that money to cut deficits/debt then no. But I AM for business tax cuts; especially the ones which could get us some of the $$trillions being held offshore.
    How will that help the average American?
    Trump supporters have space bugs in their heads. It is the only explanation.

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #109
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    13,942
    Blog Entries
    31
    Rep Power
    8

    Default



    The free press will set us free.
    "Don't give this man the nuclear codes." -- Tony Schwartz, co-author "The Art of the Deal."

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. Likes Guilds liked this post
  12. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Home of the Tau'ri
    Posts
    47,269
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by texashusker34 View Post
    Of course it was a factor, just like 9/11 and the 2000 recession were a factor for Bush. Just like the mess handed to Reagan was a factor during his administration. That's not the entire reason for the debt piled up under Democrats. Let's not forget that we're talking $11.8 Trillion vs $6.2 Trillion. Let's not forget that the average debt added under Democrats has been $742 Billion a year vs $310 Billion a year for Republicans. Let's also not forget that I'm not suggesting Republicans have been responsible. They have been extremely IRRESPONSIBLE.. HOWEVER.. Democrats are far worse if you examine the actual facts.

    As to the thriving economies? If you honestly haven't learned that in 12 years here, there's really no help for you but let's flip this on its head. Show me where high taxes and maximum regulations have produced a thriving economy that was beneficial to anyone but the ruling elite.

    Let me give you an example. The middle class was non-existent when this nation was founded. From 1789 to the 1940's, our government spent less than 5% of the national income in most years, the exception being during periods of large wars. The middle class grew and the economy of the US grew from not being on the scale to being over 25% of the worlds income. Who benefited from that economy? The rich? How about the middle class. The 50's started the decline (Interestingly enough, social spending started to climb in the 40's.) and today, we're under 20% of the worlds GDP. How is it that we gain when the government spends less than 5% of the national income, yet we lose ground when the government is consuming over 20% of the GDP (keep in mind, this is only federal, all levels are nearly 40%)?

    Do we need some regulations? Of course. We learned a lot of lessons back in the late 1800's but do we need $2 Trillion in regulatory burden each year? Absolutely NOT. We should be learning a lesson of allowing the pendulum to swing too far one direction & I think we are. That's why Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats nationally since 2008.

    I find it ironic that we've had massive social spending and massive government for the past 70 years or so and each year, the rich keep getting richer and the middle class is suffering, yet each year, we hear about how the need for more government is greater to "Fix" the problem. The PROBLEM is too damn much GOVERNMENT. You CANNOT fix the income gap by pushing policies that give more control and more power to the RICH. How people can't seem to get that is beyond me. This nation wasn't built by government, this nation was built by FREEDOM, CAPITALISM, people making a profit off of their ideas. The black man made some decent progress from the late 1800's to the mid 1900's. When we started "helping" them, they started to suffer. Today, the black unemployment is higher than it was in the 30's and the racism is certainly much less than it was in the 30's. As a matter of fact, the last year the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was in 1930.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-thomas-sowell

    You can dispute the economy of the early years of this nation by pointing to standard of living but when you compare quality of life -vs- other nations of the same period, the US had a much better quality of life than most nations back in the days that you all despise because we didn't have minimum wages and we hadn't yet learned enough as a species to control pollution. There are certainly improvements that we've made but there are also things that are MUCH worse than they were during the first 150 years of our nations history, one of those being upward mobility.
    It is sometimes eerie to see the thoughts of the mind in an alternative reality. And the funny (or scary) part, is you believe all of this, and no matter what evidence that shows you are wrong....very wrong, you will ignore it. I will not take the time to pick apart you mini-novel, but a few points need to be made.

    * Many western European countries have a much smaller wealth gap than us, and they have more social programs. They also have better upward mobility, and a more robust, thriving middle class.

    * the UE rate for blacks in the 1930's was 50%, yet you claim it was lower then than now? And remember, Jim Crow was alive and well back then, with lynchings, and other atrocities....yet you think that was a better time for blacks than now? Un-****ing believable. The New Deal also was really only for Whites, thru clever legislation, to get the Dixiecrats to vote for it.

    * The US had a thriving middle class, (for white males) with a smaller wealth gap, and the rich were no where as rich as they are today from post WW2, til the late 1970's. Reaganomics kicked in, and the middle class has been getting screwed ever since, with the rich reaping the majority of the economic gains.
    This has continued through today, as Obama governed to the right of Eisenhower regarding economics.

    * The recession in 2000, and from 9-11, is nothing close to what happen in 2008. If not for the fed bailing out banks and countries to the tune of about 16 TRILLION dollars, the world's economy would have crashed so hard, the Great Depression would have seemed like a cake walk. That, is what conservative economic policies has brought the world (and yes, many Democrats went right along with it), and with Trump, looks like were going to go down that skank hole again.

    * 2 Trillion in regulatory burdens? Oh please, what data do you have to back that up?

    Oh, and Thomas Sowell, is a ****** bag.
    Last edited by Guilds; January 9th, 2017 at 11:56 pm.

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people are so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell

  13. Sponsored Links


  14. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Houston, Tx
    Posts
    24,932
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilds View Post
    It is sometimes eerie to see the thoughts of the mind in an alternative reality. And the funny (or scary) part, is you believe all of this, and no matter what evidence that shows you are wrong....very wrong, you will ignore it. I will not take the time to pick apart you mini-novel, but a few points need to be made.
    You mean REALITY...

    * Many western European countries have a much smaller wealth gap than us, and they have more social programs. They also have better upward mobility, and a more robust, thriving middle class.
    Actually, spending between the nations as a comparison is very similar with a few exceptions. I would argue to the definition of a "thriving middle class" which is also shrinking in most of Europe.

    The Danish middle class is shrinking

    by Fredrik Jansson on 24 August 2011
    The Danish middle class is shrinking. That can be read in a new report from The Economic Council of the Labour Movement (Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd), the Danish labour movement think-tank.

    The report shows that 31.5 percent of the Danish population belonged to the middle class in 2002. Seven years later that share had drop to 28.6 percent, a reduction of 111 000 people. This happened while the population as a whole has increased. The middle class is defined as those with an income equivalent to 85-115 percent of median income.
    Another group complaining.

    http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-...--en/index.htm


    As to the better upward mobility, didn't I just say that upward mobility has taken a severe hit in the US since 1930? Showing how other nations suck doesn't excuse us doing stupid things as well. Since 1971, our middle class has gone from about 61% of the nation to 50%. The middle class has been shrinking for a long time, since about the 50's. During that time, social programs have exploded. In the 50's, human resources took up about 17% of the budget. Today, they make up over 70% of the total budget.

    * the UE rate for blacks in the 1930's was 50%, yet you claim it was lower then than now? And remember, Jim Crow was alive and well back then, with lynchings, and other atrocities....yet you think that was a better time for blacks than now? Un-****ing believable. The New Deal also was really only for Whites, thru clever legislation, to get the Dixiecrats to vote for it.
    Hey, don't preach to me what the Democrats did in the 30's.. and 40's.. and 50's.. and 60's... let me guess, you're one of those useful idiots that thinks Democrats and Republicans switched sides because a few racist Democrats in the South decided they were now Republicans? That's a discussion for another day but it's just flat out WRONG to suggest the parties swapped sides.

    As for the unemployment rate, in 1930, the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate. Go check the 1930 census data. (You'll note I didn't say the 30's, I said 1930, as some significant pieces of legislation were passed in 31 and the Great Depression had a pretty terrible impact on blacks.

    * The US had a thriving middle class, (for white males) with a smaller wealth gap, and the rich were no where as rich as they are today from post WW2, til the late 1970's. Reaganomics kicked in, and the middle class has been getting screwed ever since, with the rich reaping the majority of the economic gains.
    This has continued through today, as Obama governed to the right of Eisenhower regarding economics.
    What a bunch of nonsense. This nation was a damn MESS when Reagan took over. That said, government spending is higher today than it was in the 70's so no surprise that the middle class is getting the shaft today. Has nothing to do with Reganomics, has to do with irresponsible morons running up national debt like it's going out of style tomorrow, which I hope is the case.


    * The recession in 2000, and from 9-11, is nothing close to what happen in 2008. If not for the fed bailing out banks and countries to the tune of about 16 TRILLION dollars, the world's economy would have crashed so hard, the Great Depression would have seemed like a cake walk. That, is what conservative economic policies has brought the world (and yes, many Democrats went right along with it), and with Trump, looks like were going to go down that skank hole again.
    First off, did I say 2000 was close to 2008? A lot of what happened in 2008 CAN be traced back to Liberal programs though, such as programs that take the risk for a private company so they can give bad loans.... Again, you can blame deficit spending on Republicans and they've certainly had a hand in it but the deficit is nearly double when you count Democrat deficits vs Republican deficits.

    * 2 Trillion in regulatory burdens? Oh please, what data do you have to back that up?
    Watch a youtube video once in a while. It's regularly discussed in Congress.
    Also HERE

    Total cost of federal regulations in 2012
    was $2.028 trillion (in 2014 dollars).

    The annual cost burden for an average
    U.S. firm is $233,182, or 21 percent of
    average payroll.

    Eighty-eight percent of those surveyed
    say that federal regulations are a top
    challenge for their firm.
    Oh, and Thomas Sowell, is a ****** bag.
    That statement is enough for me. Just cements my belief that you're clueless.

    We're done here. You believe the Liberal indoctrination if you want but understand this, you're not wise, you're not smart, you're not better educated, you're just a useful idiot to the people that pass big government programs that hurt the very people you think they're helping.

    Nite.


  15. Sponsored Links


  16. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    across your supply lines
    Posts
    41,582
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reflechissez View Post
    How will that help the average American?
    It would fund infrastructure and services from a pool of money which doesn't have to be TAKEN from the average American. Are you so obsessed with soaking the rich that you don't remember that average Americans pay taxes too?

  17. Sponsored Links


  18. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    11,076
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snow96 View Post
    For the most part I disagree.

    The part I agree with is that the first 9 months a president is in office it's off the previous presidents budget (runs October 1 through end of September).

    Now yes a budget is a goal. You know what expected revenue is going to be, the goal *should be* to live within that number.

    The budget bill gives an authorized amount to spend for each Department/Agency and specified programs.
    In that budget they *should* allow a contingency amount. If congress does supplemental spending during the year, first it should come from the contigency, then if that doesn't cover it, they should look at other places to cut the budget to pay for the supplemental.

    Here's an example.

    I've had my budget for the year set. In my budget I had money for a Birthday get away. For a hotel, gas and food. I had a ceiling fan in my home take a dump (as in the light no longer works). My Birthday get away is now a day, possibly two shorter because the money for the hotel room and food for the day went into a new light fixture.

    And yes there are emergencies that come up that you have to cover on Credit. Now tell me what war or national emergency came up each year under clinton budgets that caused supplementals to go over budget by significant amounts?
    I think we don't actually disagree on this. I never claimed Clinton had a budget surplus every year. He only actually had one the last year (into Bush's first year). Only a few previous years were budgeted as balanced even and all of those were in his second term (wherein some argue the strong Republican influence in Congress affected the composition of the budgets). I agree that discretionary spending sucks and is basically a cheat as far as budgeting is concerned. It allows them to spend whatever they want while claiming to have a sensible budget.

    In contrast, many individual states have balanced budgets as part of their Constitutions. If they want discretionary spending, they need to include a "rainy day" fund in the budget from which to draw upon. But if that's not even enough, guess who they call? That's right, federal government. Which is why discretionary spending is basically unfettered. But the mistake is then not adjusting next year's budget to compensate for the previous years' overspend.

    I don't think that's going to change anytime soon with Republicans owning the "conservative" appellation and at the same time promising to run deficit budgets (let alone what they'll do with discretionary spending).

  19. Sponsored Links


  20. #114
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Dumb**** Republicans are just being themselves - gullible dumb ****s.

  21. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •