Raising the US debt ceiling

[Scotty]

Raising taxes is out of the question.

There really isn't much a choice. You can't cut spending by 40%, not unless you accept that there'll be people dying in the streets of starvation and disease every day.

[punked]

There really isn't much a choice. You can't cut spending by 40%, not unless you accept that there'll be people dying in the streets of starvation and disease every day.

45%

[Shady]

There really isn't much a choice. You can't cut spending by 40%

There's no need to cut spending by 40%. Nobody has suggested balancing the budget tomorrow. But you do have to cut some spending, reform social security and medicare, and produce an economic environment that actually produces jobs and a growing economy. The President has failed on all of those.

Again, take a page of out what Chretien and Martin did with spending back in the mid-90s.

[Shady]

And the last thing that should be done right now is raise taxes to pay for Obama's completely reckless spending.

[punked]

There's no need to cut spending by 40%. Nobody has suggested balancing the budget tomorrow. But you do have to cut some spending, reform social security and medicare, and produce an economic environment that actually produces jobs and a growing economy. The President has failed on all of those.

Again, take a page of out what Chretien and Martin did with spending back in the mid-90s.

What a Lie balancing the budget tomorrow is what the Republicans Demand a vote on. Did you miss the memo again Shady? Balanced Budget Amendment is their demand along with a cut and cap plan. Stop lying please I am tired of correcting you.

[Shady]

Obama's budget director wouldn't answer about prioritizing payments if an agreement isn't reached on August 2nd.

CNN's Candy Crowley, HOST: "More immediately, you'd have to make some spending priorities -- payment priority decisions: Social Security benefits, and federal worker pay, and defense contractors. What are your priorities should the debt ceiling not be raised on the 2nd, when you have the bills that immediately come due? Social Security checks, federal worker pay, defense contractors?"

Jacob Lew, WH Budget Director: "Our plan is for Congress to do its work and the President to sign into law legislation that will make it possible for the United States as it always has, to keep its obligations. We'll be ready to deal with whatever happens. There is no plan other than meeting our obligations."

CROWLEY: "Surely you must have discussed priorities, though, we have to pay this?"

LEW: "The truth is this is a different situation the United States has ever faced. We've never gone into a situation where we didn't have enough money to pay our bills. We borrow 40 cents on a dollar right now. And if the time comes when we lose the ability to pay our bills, there will be a cash flow issue that is very real, and that's why it's critical that Congress take action before August 2nd."

CROWLEY: "Would you allow it to happen that those the Social Security checks would not go out? Would you allow that to happen?"

LEW: "As the President has indicated, it's not a question of what we allow and what we don't allow --"

CROWLEY: "But you get to decide priorities. There will be some money --"

LEW: "There will not be enough money to pay all the bills."

CROWLEY: "Of course not, that's why I'm talking about priorities."

LEW: "I think that once someone gets into the business of trying to ask about setting priorities it misses the question. Which is that it's unacceptable for the United States to be in a place whether it's Social Security recipients, or a soldier or somebody who is just owed money by the government can't be paid because we have not done our job."

RCP

I'm not sure why he's playing stupid. Everybody knows now that come August 2nd, there's absolutely no possibility of any default, and that they can prioritize payments to meet social security, medicare, veterans and military pay. It's pathetic the way they can lie so easily on national television. :angry:

[Shady]

What a Lie balancing the budget tomorrow is what the Republicans Demand a vote on. Did you miss the memo again Shady? Balanced Budget Amendment is their demand along with a cut and cap plan. Stop lying please I am tired of correcting you.

No, I'm tired of correcting you!!!!

The balance budget amendment wouldn't kick in for 5 years!!!! They would have 5 years to balance the budget!!!!! Learn how to read!!!!

Edit. 5 years.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Shady

[Shady]

And the 5 years would start after it's ratified by the states, which would take some time. So it probably would be closer to 10 years.

[punked]

And the 5 years would start after it's ratified by the states, which would take some time. So it probably would be closer to 10 years.

It would still make it so the US could have huge cuts from budget to budget depending on what happens to revenues why if something that is a bad idea today is some how a great idea in 5 years.

The whole argument you are trying to make is "we can't have huge cuts in spending right away" even though that could happen again in the future.

[Smallc]

There's no need to cut spending by 40%. Nobody has suggested balancing the budget tomorrow.

You still have to eventually cut spending by that much (more actually, since the debt service will still be growing). You're being extremely dishonest with your idea that taxes don't need to be raised.

[Shady]

You still have to eventually cut spending by that much (more actually, since the debt service will still be growing).

Not really. Not when there's a competent government in place, creating a good economic environment that actually produces jobs and good growth, revenues will increase significantly. But I'm all for eliminating subsidies and loopholes. As are Republicans.

You're being extremely dishonest with your idea that taxes don't need to be raised.

I guess it depends on what you mean by raising taxes. Certainly there's agreement for ending subsidies and loopholes. But what's been proposed by Democrats is a ratio of less than 2 to 1 of spending cuts versus tax hikes. That's completely unacceptable. Like I've already said. Something like the Chretien/Martin model needs to be implemented. American debt levels are at about the same percentage as Canada's debt levels where back in the mid-1990s. Their perscription was a ratio of 6 to 1, spending cuts versus tax hikes.

In fact, John Stossel had a great piece on Canadian deficit and debt achievement. I suggest everyone watches it. It's only a few minutes long.

[Shady]

Under Chretien/Martin:

Agriculture cut 22%

Fisheries cut 27%

Natural Resources cut 50%

This is what needs to be done to the American government.

Department of Agriculture (which doesn't actually produce any agriculture), say 20%

Department of Education (which doesn't actually educate any students), say 20%

Department of Energy (which doesn't actually produce any energy), say 25%

It'd be a nice start anyways.

Btw, notice the Orwellian names given to these government agencies? All names of things they produce absolutely none of. In fact, in many cases, they actually get in the way of the production of said commodities and/or services.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Shady

[blueblood]

There's no need to cut spending by 40%. Nobody has suggested balancing the budget tomorrow. But you do have to cut some spending, reform social security and medicare, and produce an economic environment that actually produces jobs and a growing economy. The President has failed on all of those.

Again, take a page of out what Chretien and Martin did with spending back in the mid-90s.

They also had a massive gst revenue stream which mulroney made the pc's fall on their sword for. It worked, but sent the pcs into oblivion.

When kevin o'leary is advocating a gst in the usa, you know there is a debt crisis.

[Shady]

Another thing that's pretty interesting. Obama wouldn't raise taxes last year during a lame-duck session in which he had 59 votes in the senate, and total control of the house. But now he wants Republicans to raise taxes for him. What a rube.

[punked]

Another thing that's pretty interesting. Obama wouldn't raise taxes last year during a lame-duck session in which he had 59 votes in the senate, and total control of the house. But now he wants Republicans to raise taxes for him. What a rube.

You guys were the ones shouting he shouldn't do anything during Lame duck sessions, he would need 60 votes to beat the Republican filibuster.

[Sir Bandelot]

Agreed that Martin's financial reforms have put us in the favourable position we are in today. Some of this has now been undone by the current government. But more to the point, Martin also used surplus money from the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance to pay off the national debt. Some criticized him for doing this, but the results stand for themselves. I'm not sure if such an option is even available to the United States.

Also seems to me that their level of government services has always been leaner than ours, being as we come from a socialist background. Example, healthcare. Martin downloaded responsibility for health care finances to the provinces.

[Shady]

You guys were the ones shouting he shouldn't do anything during Lame duck sessions, he would need 60 votes to beat the Republican filibuster.

Wrong again. I think you're setting a record in this thread. The Bush tax cuts were set to expire. He could have just let them expire. Instead, he extended them. All of them. Even for the top bracket. Hope n change!

[bush_cheney2004]

Wrong again. I think you're setting a record in this thread. The Bush tax cuts were set to expire. He could have just let them expire. Instead, he extended them. All of them. Even for the top bracket. Hope n change!

He sure did....just to keep unemployment benefits going. All that drama over Bush tax cuts and what does Obama do....he extends them! Bush must be laughing in his beer.

[punked]

Wrong again. I think you're setting a record in this thread. The Bush tax cuts were set to expire. He could have just let them expire. Instead, he extended them. All of them. Even for the top bracket. Hope n change!

Yes Shady the Republican party who is saying they wont raise taxes by 1 dollar didn't say they would Filibuster and tax hikes. Yep Shady that is what happened. Rewrite History some more.

Edited July 18, 2011 by punked

[dre]

And the last thing that should be done right now is raise taxes to pay for Obama's completely reckless spending.

Its not "Obamas spending spree" you mindless partisan twit. Its the result of Americans living beyond their means for more than 30 years, and every single administration along the way.

The bottom line is that all you're really saying is that you dont want to pay your own bills.

[Guest American Woman]

The bottom line is that all you're really saying is that you dont want to pay your own bills.

Shady's a Canadian, so how can he be saying that?

[blueblood]

Its not "Obamas spending spree" you mindless partisan twit. Its the result of Americans living beyond their means for more than 30 years, and every single administration along the way.

The bottom line is that all you're really saying is that you dont want to pay your own bills.

Hmmm seems like obama will spend more than all 43 other presidents combined when his term is up. What's even funnier is that romney who stated this got a pass from politifact.

[Smallc]

Martin also used surplus money from the Canada Pension Plan

Nope.

[bush_cheney2004]

Shady's a Canadian, so how can he be saying that?

Yea...I was kinda wondering the same thing.

[Smallc]

Hmmm seems like obama will spend more than all 43 other presidents combined when his term is up.

What?