Latest crazy plan from the USA

Page 4 of 6  
"Raising the debt ceiling is not about new spending. It's about paying the existing debt."
I seldom yell at the radio, but came close with that one.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Did anyone listent to Obama today? Lie after lie.
Just some of the whoppers:
Today spending as a percent of GDP is lower than it's been in a generation.
truth: its currently at 25.5%, in 2000 it was 19% It's higher now than it was in 1945 when we paid for WWII.
We've already cut the deficit by half.
truth: The deficit in 2008 was $460 bil. This year it's $1tril.
The country is being held hostage by Republicans who have used the debt limit time and time again to get 100% of what they want.
truth: just last month the president got a $600bil increase in taxes, the Republicans nothing.
Then he says, if the Republicans want to have a conversation about deficit reduction, I'm willing.
WTF? The only reason the Republicans have to use the debt ceiling is that there has been no other way to get any spending cuts.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why, this time they were actually correct.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I really doubt that.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

Why, this time they were actually correct.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm just curious here. What do you think the right thing for the Republicans to do is? Just OK the debt ceiling increase, with no spending cuts, no concessions from Obama at all? If that's the case, what is the purpose of the debt ceiling to begin with? And how will spending ever be controlled? Doesn't it need to be? What is wrong with the Republicans putting conditions on increasing the debt?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, then what exactly was the debt limit intended for then? If not as a check on running up excessive debt, what is it there for? When spending is passed, some folks may have believed some of the optimistic forecasts. They may have believed Obama, that he was going to get the economy really growing again. If the economy was growing at 4%, instead of the pathetic 2%, one hell of a lot more revenue would be coming in to help pay for the spending that's been approved and we would not be looking at a $1tril+ deficit. We are, so what exactly is wrong with recognizing that we can't go on piling on debt like that and it's time to consider spending cuts?
Also, if you're against only raising the debt ceiling if other things are agreed to as part of it, were you against it all the other times it's been done with conditions attached? All the way back to the 80's?
And here is the biggest hypocrite weighing in on the subject in 2006, as a senator:
Obama: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
He went on to call it unpatriotic to raise the debt ceiling. Yet today, the Tea PArty are supposed to be terrorists. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Tax rates aren't what's important. How much revenue the govt is getting is. And even with a weak economy and current rates, the govt collected $2.47tril in revenue for 2012. The all time record high was just $2.5tril. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem.
And if you add ALL the taxes Americans are paying, federal, state, local, we're being bled to death like never before.

Sure it is. Just get rid of the libs who are creating MORE reckless big got spending every day and refuse to even address the issue.

As if the piling on of debt isn't a national security crisis in itself. The libs told us they were gonna fix the economy 4 years ago and all we had to do was follow their stimulus plan of massive spending. Yet here we are 4 years later and we have the weakest recover on record. Reagan inherited a real economic calamity too. By his third year in office, we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month we hit $1.2mil. Now we're lucky to see 120,000.

Reagan spending spree? When Reagan came into office, we were spending $1.4tril. When he left, we were spending $1.7tril in constant dollars. So, that "spending spree" was an increase of just 2.7% per year. Under Bush 41, it averaged 1.7% a year. Under Obama, it's averaging 4.7% a year. And whatever spending there was under Reagan, we had something to show for it. A restored, vibrant US economy, inflation cut from 11% to 5%. interest rates brought down from 21% to 10%, rapidly declining unemployment. Oh, and the defeat of the Soviet Union and a united, optimistic country. What do we have to show for Obama's 2X spending increase?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/16/2013 12:49 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
<snip>

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would encourage you not to rely on a pre-digested diet of liberal crap. Go look at the actual numbers that are readily available on the internet. What the joker in that article is trying to pull is this. To try to make it look like Obama isn't a big spender, he's taking 2009 as a baseline for comparison. That spending year ran from Oct 2008 trough Sept 2009. It included the exceptional one time TARP bailout and a good part of Obama's $800bil stimulus. Now, unless you think those are routine yearly things, that were going on before and every year after, then using that as a baseline is totally bogus, a lie. But it's exactly what the libs are trying to do in a desperate attempt to cover their tracks.
Also, the same article in your link is apparently using current dollars, not constant dollars to get the 8% Reagan budget increase. If you were around back then you know that inflation was running at 13% a year when Reagan came into office. He got it down to 5% before he left, but inflation was a major factor that has to be accounted for. If you use current dollars instead of real dollars in periods with low inflation, like today, it's not going to make a huge difference. But, if you don't account for inflation during periods where it was high, the result is totally bogus. Yet that is what that clown is trying to do.
Federal spending in real dollars increased less than 2.7% a year under Reagan.
Those are the facts. Numbers don't lie. Find the truth here yourself:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
That should be more than enough to convince you that piece is totally bous. That is if you're willing to look at the data yourself.
As further proof that spending is out ouf control, as I said before, we are currently taking in almost as much money as the best revenue year in US history, which was 2007. In that year the federal govt took in $2.57tril. In 2012, it took in $2.47tril, almost as much. What was the deficit in 2007 with that revenue? just $161bil. What was the deficit in 2012? $1.1tril. The deficit is $940bil greater in 2012 than it was in 2007. Revenue in 2012 was only $100bil less than 2007. Simple math says that SPENDING therefore is $840bil higher today than it was in 2007. Spending has increase 25% in real dollars in that short period.
And despite Obama's big lie a couple days ago, federal revenue as a percent of GDP is not at it's lowest level in a generation. That is a lie readily refuted with data that is all over the internet too. It's currently 25.5% of GDP. As recently as 2000 it was only 19% of GDP.
And that is just fedeal spending. When you add in all the other taxes we are hit with today, state income tax, sales tax, property taxes, use taxes, local taxes, etc we are more heavily taxed than ever before in history. And then people wonder why the economy is not performing well.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Obama's spending appears higher because GDP has fallen. People need to be taxed more. Especially the one's rushing out on their gun buying spending spree. They obviously have too much money.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nonsense. At the debt ceiling, they can no longer issue new debt. The government *CAN* (and must, according to most experts) pay existing debt.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But the way things are set up we have to borrow occassionally just to service our existing debt. We can't pay all that is currently due without borrowing more. The debt ceiling means we can't pay next month's SS (sure meets my definition of existing debt), we can't pay any bills for services previously rendered (from wages to paying the next installment on a submarine purchase) but just being billed, again fits my non-DC weird accounting style definition of existing debt. WIthout a change in the debt ceiling, current cash flow won't touch what we need.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No.
No.
Maybe but no one cares what your definition of the debt it is. SS is *NOT* part of the national debt. If you insist on defining your own terms then anything is possible, in your own little world. Doesn't make it reality.

Maybe.
Under *your* definition of "need". That doesn't change the *fact* that there is no *need* for a default on the debt. It's all about choice.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I will bow to your superior knowledge over that of the OMB, CBO, and Treasury.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Cite. Show me where SS is considered part of the National Debt. It's not.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's the superior knowledge of the OMB, CBO and Treasury that's gotten us where we are now. But show us where any of those have shown why it's not possible to pay the debt by prioritizing payments. They haven't. All anyone on the left is bitching about is that being unable to raise the debt limit automatically means that the US would default on the debt.
Would it be extremely painful, requiring extreme cuts elsewhere? Sure, because we've sadly gotten to the point where we are borrowing 40% of every dollar spent. But the actual payment on the national debt is only 7% of current total spending. SS is not a debt. It's something that can be changed at any point in time by congress and the president. They can say today it was X and] tomorrow it's going to be X-5% if they want to and they have done that. A debt is outstanding US paper that has an interest rate and maturity schedule that is fixed and cannot be changed. It's like a mortgage versus money you send your mother each month and saying that because all of a sudden you can't borrow anymore that you automatically can't pay the mortgage.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm not devious enough to be a congressman, but the below statement sounds absurd.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
WIthout a change in the debt ceiling, current cash flow won't touch what we need.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Not so. The feds take in about 60% of the cash needed. This is sufficient to cover existing interest payments on outstanding debt, fund SS, Medicare, and dozens of other programs. In fact, there is a law specifying which obligations to which the government must give priority. The one's I mentioned are included in that list (although I don't know where to find the list).
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you sure that's actually an existing law? I've heard that kind of list talked about among the Republicans, but I thought it was only a list that was either proposed as a possible new law or that perhaps had passed the House only. The list also included funding the active duty military.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:00:42 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

That's how I remember it, too.

Salaries and critical safety items only, IIRC.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The stuff I have seen suggest cash flows would only be about 40% of cash needed, but that may depend on who counts it and the point they are trying to make. This is also all over the place from week to week, like every other cash flow I know of. So, it depends on what is available the week the checks are cut as to whether there is money to actually send out. Be interesting to see how the IRS putting back when it will accept 2012 tax forms (and thus start refunds) will work with this. Pretty much anything anybody says right now is speculation and will stay that way until we live through one. The GOP in the House late last week introduced a bill to prioritize who gets what when. I don't know if one isn't on the books or if this is just their attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If that's the case, then it's even more reason to make some real spending cuts now.
This is also all over the place from week to week, like

As for tilting at windmills, I just saw that fat slob Jerry Nadler on TV talking about passing a law to remove the debt ceiling all together. Which shows how out of touch the libs are. Talking about what's obviously impossible, instead of starting to make at least SOME spending cuts. Also, if I heard Obama correctly at his announcement on gun control today, he wants MORE spending for more police, school security, etc.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.