The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

The debt ceiling

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4
El_Tino On October 12, 2023
booyaka!





Albuquerque, New Mexico
#46New Post! Jan 06, 2011 @ 20:33:10
@ThePainefulTruth Said

(C'mon, 3. is hyperbole.)


Is it? The 2009 budget was 3.5T, revenue was 2.1T. So, in order to not borrow any money you'd have to cut 1.4 Trillion from the budget. How do you propose to do that? The alternative is to default on the debt.

Quote:

4. Cut back on spending, (starting with Obamacare).


How much exactly is "Obamacare" costing the federal government this year?

Quote:
It isn't a question of intelligence with the CBO, it's a matter of politics. Hell, Medicare is going bankrupt and that's a drop in the bucket compared to Obamacare--which cuts Medicare btw.


If Medicare is going bankrupt, and Obamacare cuts Medicare, then Obamacare is a step away from bankruptcy.
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#47New Post! Jan 06, 2011 @ 20:43:11
I don't think this question is answerable. Or if you do answer...it really means absolutely nothing.

The calculation of U.S debt isn't just this whole pretty little number that can answer questions about the financial market as a whole.

There is long term debt, short term debt.

Debt held by the public vs debt held by intergovernmental holdings vs federal government holdings vs state government holdings.

There is debt due to financial tools. Interest Debt, Capital debt, and the list goes on.

It's a silly question, that unless you break down the components means absolutely nothing.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#48New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 00:25:38
@Leon Said

I know you didn't post an ideology, and I apologize for the misunderstanding there. I was responding to your suggestion I try and come up with a debt-free budget that is in line with the ideologies of the parties in power in the past several decades.

And, in response to your challenge, I don't necessarily have the ideological answers either, but am saying that if there is one ideology, or a system that encourages changing ideologies every several years, that creates, and continues to feed, the enlarging black hole that is now our national debt, which will probably lead to the collapse of our current government then, by definition, it just isn't practical.

Does that mean we need to cut out programs? Does it mean we need to raise taxes? Or does it mean we need a different form of government altogether? I don't know. But we obviously need something that fiscally works for it to simply remain viable.

My suggestion is to merely attempt to do this. But, who knows, it may be too late for us.


I know that and apologize if this comes across as condesending, but saying that there may be a solution, and then blaming the government for not finding it when the people lodging complaints can't find a solution either seems rather unfair, don't you think?

I just really dislike the people who are all like "there might be a solution out there, but until its found I have license to criticize the steps already taken without offering any solution whatsoever, and without thinking the consequences through".

I'm in no way implying that that is what you believe, but that was how it sounded like from this end.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#49New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 00:31:57
@white_swan53 Said

You may be correct about 'assigning blame where blame is due' won't help find a solution , but until we can stop the government spending spree , assigning blame where blame is due is about all we have.
If we could somehow get our politicians to understand that spending our tax dollars is not one of the job 'perks or fringe benefits ' but instead it's of one of the responsibilities , we may be would have a chance at finding a real and workable solution.


But is that correct to do now of all times?

I agree that the deficit has to be taken care of. I understand that. What I don't understand is why alot of people seem to want to takew economically constrictive action towards the market now.

Later, taxes can be raised, and spending can be cut to take care of the hole, but right now, during an economic downturn does not seem to be the right time to do a massive scale back of money in the economy.

And notice that the phrase "where blame is due" is highly subjective to personal interpretation.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#50New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 00:38:30
@raditz Said

Raise it then next year we're back here arguing whether or not it should be raised again. Bite the bullet now an cut spending before we're looking at a $20 trillion debt.


We don't know that for sure. The reason of debt is just as important as how we approach it.

The reason may be collectively, government spending, but parsing between government spending, government waste, and needed government economic input must all be considered and worked on here.

Quote:

Who said anything about raising taxes?


That wasn't actually directed at you. It was just another option out there that has negative connotations for the economy as a whole.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#51New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 01:12:11
@Leon Said

I know you didn't post an ideology, and I apologize for the misunderstanding there. I was responding to your suggestion I try and come up with a debt-free budget that is in line with the ideologies of the parties in power in the past several decades.

And, in response to your challenge, I don't necessarily have the ideological answers either, but am saying that if there is one ideology, or a system that encourages changing ideologies every several years, that creates, and continues to feed, the enlarging black hole that is now our national debt, which will probably lead to the collapse of our current government then, by definition, it just isn't practical.

Does that mean we need to cut out programs? Does it mean we need to raise taxes? Or does it mean we need a different form of government altogether? I don't know. But we obviously need something that fiscally works for it to simply remain viable.

My suggestion is to merely attempt to do this. But, who knows, it may be too late for us.



I am not going to outline a budget FOR the government, because, simply put, I don't know all of what is spent on or needs to, by law, be spent on. But one can certainly see when something horrible is going wrong as a result and challenge the guys who's job it is to do so, to fix it, if it can. It is not our job, in a representative democracy, to know all the details of how, in my opinion.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#52New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:15:20
@El_Tino Said

Is it? The 2009 budget was 3.5T, revenue was 2.1T. So, in order to not borrow any money you'd have to cut 1.4 Trillion from the budget. How do you propose to do that? The alternative is to default on the debt.


You said "Not spend any money at all". = Hyperbole

We need to do away with whole cabinet positions and their attendant, wasteful, massively expensive, intrusive bureaucracies, which are doing what the states should be doing or should not be done at all.



Quote:
How much exactly is "Obamacare" costing the federal government this year?


Now you're quibbling. I'm talking about when the bulk of it kicks in. But it is doing damage already. People and business are working and planning under uncertainty, which is stifling the economy.



Quote:
If Medicare is going bankrupt, and Obamacare cuts Medicare, then Obamacare is a step away from bankruptcy.


The point is the government can't even run Medicare, Medicare is and they are cutting Obamacare benefits to help finance the deficit creating, management nightmare, Obamacare. And he's already started passing out Obamacare waivers to his friends.

The double standard is piling up in heaps.

"By early December, HHS had granted 222 such waivers to provide mini-med policies for companies including AMF Bowling and Universal Forest Product, as well as 43 union organizations. According to the department's website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third (525,898) are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies.

"On Dec. 21, Ms. Sebelius announced that insurance companies seeking rate increases of 10% or more in the individual or small group market must publicly justify the hikes under standards set by her department.

"Insurance regulation has traditionally been a state responsibility, and 43 states must already approve proposed insurance-rate increases. ObamaCare does not authorize HHS to deny rate increases, but the agency said that if a state "lacks the resources or authority" to conduct the kind of review the agency wants, it will conduct its own.

"This proposed regulation will erode the states' dominant role in insurance regulation, centralizing more power in Washington. The HHS announcement also mentioned that it will set different thresholds of what constitutes an "unreasonable" increase for every state by 2012."--WSJ
boxerdc On December 18, 2012

Deleted



,
#53New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:18:54
@ThePainefulTruth Said

Now you're quibbling. I'm talking about when the bulk of it kicks in. But it is doing damage already. People and business are working and planning under uncertainty, which is stifling the economy.



Unemployment falls to 9.4%
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#54New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:21:59


Yeah, because there's a ray of hope. A kick a** and take names House.
boxerdc On December 18, 2012

Deleted



,
#55New Post! Jan 07, 2011 @ 15:25:17
@ThePainefulTruth Said

Yeah, because there's a ray of hope. A kick a** and take names House.



That's the report for December.. before the new crop of liars started grandstanding.

Speaking of taking names... two of them "forgot" to show up to be sworn in, yet they still voted on bills.. even though they weren't representatives.
white_swan53 On October 07, 2020




n/a, New Mexico
#57New Post! Jan 11, 2011 @ 20:30:53
@boxerdc Said

You have gotten very cranky in the last couple of weeks.. Something going on IRL that's making you this way, or is it just winter blues?


Cranky ? I try to leave real life 'at the door' (so to speak) when I come on here , I guess I haven't done that very well lately.
My apologies. real life sucks big green ones sometimes .


@boxerdc Said

How about we go after the biggies? Defense spending, and Medicare/Medicade?

Just cutting the waste from those two programs would save us TENS of billions of dollars at a minimum every year. And the only thing we would lose by having a watchdog to cut the waste is wasteful spending.

Those two items make up more than 50% of government spending.. Imagine what would happen if we could just cut the waste there.




I totally agree, if we could somehow put a stop to government waste we would be debt free in no time, BUT it's like I said earlier, every one wants someone to do something but no one wants it to effect them . It seems Americans want some quick, easy painless, effective fix , but no one wants to have it 'cut' into their life style. Defence spending cuts would get jumped on by all those companies that make billions by selling uncle Sam $4.99 wrenches and $2.99 screw drivers for $50.99 each . Medicare/Medicaid cuts ,well now your talking about doctors , pharmaceutical companies and welfare recipients .
Pharmaceutical companies can sell uncle Sam ( Medicare/Medicaid )a bottle of pills for 3 or 4 times more than what they get from someone that walks into that pharmacy with cash instead of one of those gov. funded cards.
I know this from personal experience. One of my kids had to take heart meds from the age of 2 months till the age of 15 years . There was a couple of times during those years I had to have Medicaid in order to keep his prescription medicines . The main one costs me less then $8.00 when I would pay cash for it . The exact Same bottle cost $28.00 when uncle Sam paid for it.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#58New Post! Jan 11, 2011 @ 20:53:18
@Leon Said

I am not going to outline a budget FOR the government, because, simply put, I don't know all of what is spent on or needs to, by law, be spent on. But one can certainly see when something horrible is going wrong as a result and challenge the guys who's job it is to do so, to fix it, if it can. It is not our job, in a representative democracy, to know all the details of how, in my opinion.


Like I said before, complaining about something doesn't help anyone. Except maybe yourself feel better.

I used to be like that several years ago, but I realized rather quickly that pointing stuff out from just one perspective doesn't really help. You need to approach something from as many angles as possible to find a good solution.

Alot of things in governments, corporations, and society in general seems superfluous to me, personally, but I know very well that unless I can offer a competing solution, then all I'm doing is complaining to make myself feel better.

Whats the point in that? I'd much rather figure out WHY the problem came to this and what can be done about it now, then moan and complain about the things I have no understanding of, and can offer no solution for.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Sun May 27, 2012 @ 00:44
4 539
New posts   Politics
Sat Jan 14, 2012 @ 16:17
221 11985
New posts   Politics
Wed Jul 20, 2011 @ 18:23
21 1553
New posts   Politics
Wed Jul 06, 2011 @ 12:34
47 2484
New posts   Politics
Mon Jul 04, 2005 @ 15:36
15 850