Take two: Which do you see as a bigger problem: that we might not raise the debt limit due to fighting (political), or that we need to raise the debt limit due to irresponsibility (fiscal)?
The first debt limit calculation was in 1791. Our debt was $75.4 million.
The US has only been debt free ONE year in its history: 1835.
Since 1962 the debt limit has been raised 74 times. 18 under Reagan, 9x each under Clinton & G. W., 3 by Obama.
Most US citizens are as confused as a baby in a topless bar on this debt limit issue.
Raising the limit does NOT give us the freedom to spend more. It only allows us to pay debts we've already incurred. The majority is money we owe to ourselves.
Spend all you want, Dems! We'll make more.
Those that think Obama has reduced the debt need to get a grip on reality.
The annual debt has been reduced, but the deficit is still growing. It's a fact without the whole story being told.
I don't like this question because I don't think the debt ceiling should be raised at all regardless if political or fiscal. Solve our spending problems.
Spending problems exist when you finance phony wars and fuck over working class people to pay off the corporations who bought your election
and now they're harping about an oil pipeline? They're acting like they're cleaner than a nun's conscience when the whole time they're sucking off the oil lobby
Which corporations are being paid off by Pres. Obama?
I'm not seeing anyone else make this point, so I will:
NOT ALL DEBT IS BAD. Government debt is NOT like household debt, despite what Ted Cruz says.
Krugman: an unbiased source indeed. Of course it's different when the debtor can print money. Debt is undoubtedly a problem when the debt:GDP ratio continues to climb and there are trillions of unfunded future liabilities.
Interest on the debt doesn't help the needy or make the country stronger or improve our lifestyle or create new products or cure cancer. It goes to rich people and countries that oppose us.
That's not a hard concept to grasp.
The political can be eliminated by not letting them back in office the fiscal is much harder to fix
The economy is always where democrats go Full Retard.
Because investing in education is a bad thing? lol. Republicans want to keep people stupid. That's why they continually win in the states with the lowest number of college-degree holders. Google that shit buddy
Investment in education has skyrocketed. Dollars per student have doubled in a generation, and performance is lower! Learn some facts before jumping in. "Waiting for Superman"!
WTF does "performance is lower" even mean? Your vague rhetoric is meaningless
If you want proof of what I observed all you have to do is research the correlation between states with the most college grads and whether they're red or blue. It's easy.
Performance is lower=Johnny can't read or pass the standardized tests.
Financial irresponsibility through the years by both parties is the problem here. More government is never the right answer.
Reagan raised it 18 times and so did Bush. Where were all you good Republicans then? Maybe if you financially responsible Republicans had funded your TWO wars we would still have that Clinton surplus. But you can't be bothered with facts.
But you noticed that regan got stuff done, Obama however has accomplished nothing, and you can not blame it in either the house or senate.
@jbear you want me to blame Obama and not Congress for nothing having been accomplished, when Congress has very clearly been refusing to so things the president has requested?
Sorry, no: the facts don't fit.
Pres. Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses of Congress when elected. Rather than pass meaningful jobs legislation, he rammed through this albatross of a HC bill that the majority of citizens opposed then and now.
He had opportunities but wasted his political capital.
Incidentally, since you're disturbed by Congress refusing to cooperate w him, I'm sure you felt just as strongly when the Dem-controlled Congress opposed everything Bush tried to do.
Remember Candidate 2007-8 Obama who promised to go thru the budgeting item by line item to reduce spending? LIAR!
Dishonest or incompetent ?
Obama has reduced the debt and spending. Silly facts.
Reduced the debt and spending? Then why is he responsible for over 6 trillion of the debt? That's more than 1/3 of the entire debt in our history by ONE president.
Can we just go back to the fundamental fact that CONGRESS makes the budget and the President just approves or rejects it?
You guys are like drunk teenagers blaming their parents for leaving the beer in the fridge. Take some ducking responsibility!
Except Harry Reid has NEVER produced a budget. You think that if CNN didn't report it, it didn't happen. Is that why you need to watch their weather report... To see if the sun rose?
They are all at fault for the past but somebody needs to take responsibility for today and tomorrow.
Give the alcoholics another trillion beers, uh hummmm....
The biggest question is, "When are we going to stop allowing these political hacks to continue to create a need to raise the debt ceiling and keep borrowing money in the first place." For once DC, live within your means and stop mortgaging our future!
Only the democrats...
This user is currently being ignored
Yup, they want to transform America into a euro-socialist state. And the old-school GOP led by Boner is clueless about it!
All debt is introduced, voted on, and confirmed by Congress. Often hidden within legitimate bills, are special favors for individual states that would never pass on their own. Stop that practice, you solve a lot of the problem. Go from there.
So the senate vote and president have nothing to do with it
The fix: defund those bad bills.
Going way back, where was I factually incorrect?
Wedaslaves we have adequate monthly income to pay our debt. Raising the debt ceiling to these crack head politicians just gives the politicians a license to spend more. These politicians ,all of them, are only concerned about themselves
Lovin' "crackheads"! You nailed it! It's seriously like they ARE on crack. Wow. Great analogy! ;-)
Some of them even believe global warming isn't happening -- fuckin crackheads for sure
Just manipulate the info until you get the "facts" you're looking for.
How can anyone ever argue with that "science," Gay?
Here's what's really going on:
The global elite are bankrupting the world on purpose to seize control and implement world banks and one world government... And I'm not a nutjob theorist as China has said this week "there needs to be a new world order and one global economy" look it up.
All these talking heads have completely lost sight of the real problem:
The US fiscal deficit.
Debt to other country's makes up only 8%. Don't know the interest rate.
Urgent vs important.
Raising the debt ceiling is a response to money already spent. If I'm maxed on credit cards and interest is driving the balance up, the solution isn't to default and really destroy my credit. I would need to have a plan to get it under control.
Arguments that involve default are short sighted political reactions, not fiscally sound or fiscally conservative decisions.
Smart person here
Explain that to my wife ;-)
Spin, not factually correct.
Casper, if we shake the confidence of the world too much, they WILL NOT invest in the dollar and we will effectively have to pay more interest for the same money we owe. Then we will be skewed with inflation, more tax and less money to make money.
It is totally financially irresponsible to play with this. If you believe the lies they tell you that they are being responsible, that is your choice. Yes, we do have to cut back. But not by making our money worthless. Watch next year.
Our money's value is in decline because of our debt, continuing deficit and the lack of wisdom or fortitude to do anything about it.
The real financial crisis will be when increasing taxes results in less revenue and nobody will loan us the money to keep paying our way. It's better to face reality now while we have revenue and the opportunity to control.
Casper, we are not disagreeing with you on this concern. However, crashing the government and defaulting on debt will at least triple or quadruple that decline.
Put it like this. When we look at the stock market or houses, our perception is that we have X dollars available to us based on the current fringe trades made by people moving assets around. We cannot all cash out and get our money. It isn't there
We currently pay about $20,000,000,000 per month in interest on our debt. That could give $1,000 to each of 20 million families. Instead we give it to the wealthy and to many foreigners that hate us.
If we cause concern and they don't keep funding us, stabilizing the global economy to the dollar, we may discover that it isn't there and if they see that... We rely on stability and edge trades, not mass disruptions.
The country is on a crash course.
We need a change in direction.
Reducing debt and eliminating deficit is the direction of lower interest rates and a stronger nation.
I'd rather have bad credit and no debt than great credit and debt I can't pay.
Casper, I am with you 1000%. Do you understand the danger of our current financial death match? They should stop all other bills and focus on debt reduction if they have the fortitude. However, this current default and shutdown will damage.
Do you think we would wage war on the world if they cut us off and shut us down for not paying debts? We would not afford products made overseas, including China. Would we accept isolation?
Weda: I wish people would quit taking sides and deal with the facts. It's easier to point fingers and throw Fbombs than to deal with the facts. I hear what you are saying about the danger of shutdown/default but the danger of continuing unchecked
One of our biggest exports is war. We sell war and military equipment. We could pay our debts off and scorch anyone who stands in our way. Right?
Casper, I am with you. I don't like it either. If you look deep, you can see some interesting games in the financial global war, cultural subversion and other things that might indicate why they play these games. Global collapse = global government
Perhaps, until somebody does it better and the chickens come home to roost.
My vision is one where free trade grows peaceful partners with a growing percentage of the world.
Good business partners are not military adversaries.
To summarize, I agree with your concerns. They are both valid and true. However, as stated up top by our friend, we will force a greater crisis if we don't handle it responsibly. Why force a crisis instead of dealing with the issue appropriately.
I enjoyed that. Thank you for sharing.
Because it is better to handle a problem when you are in control than when your creditor is in control.
Likewise. Let's start our own party. The others aren't fun.
Hehe. I think it would be fantastic if we could vote a president in from another party who is nice, respected by all but knows how to motivate... Then everyone tells you how they wasted their vote on Ross Perot trying to do this.
@Casper "Good business partners are not military adversaries"
I think your vision is unfortunately naive. Business "partners" perform corporate espionage, price fixing, & lobby with incredible amounts of money for a status quo that benefits them.
Arbo: price fixing, monopolies and fraud are illegal for good reason. In my book big business is almost as bad as big government. At least you know BB's motives.
We don't raise arms against France and we are safer because of the business with China
America needs to stop the tradition of raising the debt ceiling without regards to future consequences. there are times for it, and now is not one of them. look at Europe! gvts that have frivolous spending habits result in catastrophe. Cut spending.
Discretionary spending has remained relatively flat for 50+ years, yet automatic non-discretionary spending has increased over 700% in the same time period. What do you want to get serious about?
I worry about kicking the can down the road.
Your grandkids may have a different attitude.
I hope we don't raise the debt ceiling! If we do, all we are doing is kicking the can down the road, increasing our debt more, & eventually making America be the next Greece. I would rather defund programs now & have a chance that America might last
Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Rangel all called George W. irresponsible for trying to raise the debt ceiling. Their beliefs sure changed when a new president was elected, didn't they?
That's politics you idiot!!
Republicans switched views too.. Stop making everything so partisan
I think what I'm hearing you, Evseng, say is that nothing anybody says means anything, it's just politics.
We need a new group that is honest and knows math.
Yes and no.
I just hate partisan morons on this app.
Me too. I left SOHs for about six months and next time it will be for good.
Name calling and hateful responses are the work of the ignorant.
However, it comes from both sides and they don't see it.
Evseng, do you identify as a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.
If you're a Democrat, you need to face the facts. All four people mentioned said that trying to raise the debt ceiling under G.W. Bush was irresponsible. They quickly changed their opinions when one of their own lives in the WH.
If you're an Independent, you should be posting the same message on a majority of these comments.
If you're a Republican, then you probably wouldn't have posted what you did.
"If you're a republican.. You would have posted what you did"
How partisan and hypocritical of you to say.
FACTS ARE that EVERY republican sided with Bush when he raised the debt ceiling and condemns Obama when he does it.
Isn't that the EXACT SAME THING you posted about but different parties?
So why attack just one party when both are guilty of party loyalty instead of bipartisan
We have to every year because people want more things but want to cut nothing
Numbers don't lie. Politicians do
Obama voted NOT to raise it in 2006 when he was a Senator, oh but now he wants to raise it. Huh. That was back when the debt was half of what it is now. He also called Bush unpatriotic for spending so much his 8 years, Obama has spent more in 4 years
FUN FACT: The US Would Be the First Western Nation to Default Since 1933 Nazi Germany
Funnier fact: grammar states it's incorrect to capitalize the first letter of every word.
Funnier than what dork?
OMG, a Nazi reference that's actually true??
I don't understand how political battles could be more of a problem than financial issues
How do you fix the financial issues without fixing the politics? Clearly the political environment we see ourselves in has done wonders for the functionality of this government and its ability to accomplish the most complex of tasks...
They did raise the debt ceiling. Naturally there are going to be disagreements. I don't see that as a bad thing.
I think there is too much hatred or people seeing other people as enemies but that is a small problem compared to our financial issues.
so many excuses: they need guns, we don't. They live their personal lives within a budget, they claim the country can't. We have to use their healthcare, they won't.
When do we all say enough?
When the Democrats / liberals stop living in fantasy land or when this country actually collapses, or when states decide to take responsibility of our failed Federal Gov't & stand up together to fight the Federal Gov't.
When we all quit paying our income and property taxes. Let the property owners and workers be heard.
Used to be that you couldn't vote unless you owned land.
For those who obviously have not researched Clinton's surplus policy. Clinton used our Social Security & Medicare Funds to balance the budget. Remember those funds are what we pay in monthly. He drained a savings account to make him look good.......
We no longer have a separate SS & Medicare account, now the Democrats are saying if no deal is reached by Nov 1, then the US will not be able to issue your SS payments, payments you paid in to. Sad how it's a trickle affect. And you all want Hillary.
Um, that is just out and out untrue. The social security trust fund cannot be touched by other parts of the budget, period. The real risk to SS is due to the practice of using the fund's surplus to buy treasury bonds, which are no longer safe thx to
the GOP's readiness to play fast and loose with the full faith and credit of the US government.
If anything, it's the Reagan & Bush tax cuts that fucked us over. Instead of ensuring sufficient tax revenue to cover all government spending, they used the short-term boost from the trust fund's loans as an excuse to keep taxes artificially low.
Of course it's untrue, you support that party. Democrats don't want to believe their politicians would lie to them. YES it's true, those funds were used to balanced the budget under his administration,he took all the money & allocated it to 1 account
I don't support either party, and regardless, whom I support or don't doesn't change facts. Show me evidence that there was no separate trust fund under Clinton.
This is why social programs fail, the Gov't goes against the purpose of the programs. Socialism is bad!!!
Wait, if the problem is going against the *purpose* of the programs, that implies that the purpose is not the problem, i.e., the intent of social programs is not itself objectionable. That would make the problem something OTHER than "socialism."
Yes the Gov't created social security, for each individual to pay into, this way when you are to old to work, you have some sort of money allocated to you. But Clinton took that allocated money & balanced the budget. But it's untrue in your eyes.
Vbranger, I will believe it if you can give me evidence that Clinton disbanded the trust fund and put it into the general budget as you assert.
Do you even understand your own sources? Read them again more carefully and if you understand basic accounting and finance you'll see that they say the exact same thing that I said, namely, that the value of the trust fund (which DOES exist) depends
entirely on the US government's honoring its debt obligations, ie the full faith and credit as I mentioned. Btw, using the surplus to buy bonds is something that has been done since REAGAN. Your hyper focus on Clinton is almost cute. Your own article
doesn't support the point you made above. The author's point, rather, was that Clinton didn't actually balance the budget, because the "balance" appears only if you use an ACCOUNTING trick to add in SS numbers. Note that this is NOT the same as
commingling or "draining" SS funds as you earlier claimed. Arguing that the Clinton surplus is just an accounting trick is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from claiming he "drained" the trust fund by doing what every president since Reagan has done. If you're
going to make arguments about government accounting, educate yourself first about the basics of how it works.
Of course you won't agree to it, If you didn't support the democrats you wouldn't argue this, those sources explain but you don't want to agree. It's ok I came through with sources your ridiculed what sources they came from. Typical Obama supporter
Sorry I wasn't technical enough for you when I said he drained the funds. But basically he did. He borrowed against our social security, that has not been paid back.
What do you consider good sources of information? Enlighten me some.
If funds are available since you don't believe me, why did the White House & Reid say SS will not be able to be paid on Nov 1 if the budget is not passed. If SS are separate funds like its suppose to be, then they should not threaten to not pay.
The SS funds you pay in every month should not be held hostage. That's the same as a bank closing down with your money, but refuses to give you the money you put into. That to me is fraud. It's robbing you. Theft.
What?? I didn't question your sources. I pointed out that you don't understand them. Do you even understand what you are arguing? Do you know the difference between treasury bonds and cash money? Do you not understand that, without GOP games, US
treasury bonds used to be among the safest investments in the world? Did you not understand the part where I explained the using the SS surplus to purchase this previously-reliable asset is not party-specific? Why have you decided I am a Democrat
just because I am challenging you? Are you suggesting Democrats are usually this much better informed than you are? If so, you're the one who made that connection, not me. Instead of arguing for the sake of arguing, try UNDERSTANDING the argument.
I know what bonds and cash are. Its the same concept of gold, in order for it to be worth something you have to have the gold to back it. But that's why we borrow $.40 per $1, Politicians keep taking from other places & never pay it back
Just shows that the Democrats will never get it.
Hope you guys can get a fiscal conservative senator up there.
In New Jersey? HIGHLY doubtful!
Corey Booker baby! Don't you know he saves kittens in burning buildings and men named T-Bone die in his arms!
I wouldn't vote for Corey Booker, even if he saved MY kitten.
He never even lived in newark his neighbors said. But hell get in. Jersey sucks
Of course Dems don't think we have any issues fiscally.
Its not that I don't think there are fiscal issues, but how about adressing problems before they reach this retarded clown circus level of government. All are to blame but putting the credibility of the United States at risk to fix it is infinitly moronic and as we've seen only hurts the people.
The debt and the debt limit are both the result of legislation created by congress. It is a manufactured "crisis" orchestrated solely by them. So even though it appears the result of fiscal irresponsibility, it is driven entirely by politics.
Surprising to see the political divide in this question. Apparently Dems dont recognize our debt/spending as a real problem and the root cause for this dilemma.
They're acting like republicans in power aren't they?
They did until Obama was in office
Date republicans started caring about spending- 1/20/09
I think both parties enjoy spending; as long as it's their party doing it. Both parties, in that case, are wrong. We need to actually cut spending, eliminate the deficit, and start paying down the national debt. The sooner we start, the faster and easier it can be done.
Date democrats stopped caring about spending 1/20/2009. Which proves that neither side will stop until we hold them accountable and force them.
The only difference between Dems and Republicans is that Dems actually halfway try to ensure sufficient revenue to cover government spending. Republicans are primarily responsible for the debt, and they're the ones whining about paying it now.
The lategreat is correct. Also abolitionist you act like before the election the debt is the same as now. BTW the debt went from close to manageable to impossible to manage and that is why its getting attention, not to point fingers like u are doing
Both sides have spent, spent, spent irresponsibly but now one side doesn't acknowledge that we're finally up against the wall and spent too much. Pointing fingers as to who caused the debt doesn't make it go away.
The point is, listening to the GOP talk about fiscal responsibility is like listening to the Taliban talk about peace
Bethany, you must be joking. There isn't enough tax-capable revenues in the US to cover what Dems want to spend. And repubs are wrong thinking they can cut everyones taxes and still get by. It has to be both reduction in spending and no tax cuts.
I agree we need to stop the tax cuts, but I never hear good ideas about where to cut spending other than defense, which Repubs will never allow. SS, Medicare, and defense are the vast, VAST majority of federal spending. Most anything else is just
a drop in the bucket. What kind of spending do you think democrats want?
Abolitionist, thats not the point. Thats what your making and i get it, but it accomplishes zero. The point is we should be learning from our mistakes, both sides made them and spent away, but its time to acknowledge excess spending must stop now.
Yore right, defense and entitlement spending are the cash cows. Sequestration is crippling defense spending so lets just continue it. All entitlements need cuts- welfare (time limits) unemployment (stop extending it), food stamps, social security
Medicaid, stop all foreign spending, cut NSA spending, cut NASA, obamacare will cost a trillion $ just watch, they can get out of college education saving money. ( basically some cuts to everything util it adds up). And more efficient processes.
Let's start wars, give tax cuts to the wealthy, bail out Wall Street then ask the poor and middle class to pay it back? I don't agree with that. Austerity doesn't work
Also simplify the tax code, dint jack up rates and add clauses, just reduced deductions. Go into the tax code and just start deleting entire sections. Then the rich wont get so many deductions by having awesome tax teams
Abolitionist, that was the worst strawman argument i have ever seen in my life. I never even came close to implying those things. Also, bailing out wall street was the biggest bs blow to a free market ever. The companies shouldve failed.
I agree generally with simplifying the tax code, although more brackets would help a lot too. Also, deductions can help incentivize certain kinds of beneficial spending, which is especially important in a down economy when spending is low. So we
need to be selective about which ones we get rid of IMO. I would also enable people to itemize deductions on top of the standard deduction. Right now if you are wealthy enough you are guaranteed to exceed the standard deduction from state tax alone.
However a lot of the things you identify are largely state funded anyway. When you say cut entitlements are you including Medicare and SS? You don't specifically mention them and cutting them poses serious problems.
Then other companies would absorb their business bumping them up. Too big to fail is an awful theory. If when it was passed everyone was told you will pay $3k for everyone in your family to help wall street it would've been voted down unanimously.
Straw man? That is really what's going on, they're using the debt to justify cutting "entitlements." They bankrupt the country then ask the vulnerable to pay it back.
But thats what it cost. Also abolitionist, stop liking your own comments. If you want to counter a point i make, counter a point I made, not some wild conclusion way off topic of what i said.
Ken, I think abolitionist's point is that cutting government programs that help the poor and middle class IS forcing them to pay for tax cuts etc to the wealthy. Also, the problem with letting major financial institutions fail is that they take too
many innocents down with them. It's like refusing to fight a fire at a chemical plant because they didn't pay their taxes, even though letting the fire burn means allowing toxic waste that will kill innocent people.
Ken, I am the one "liking" abolitionist's comments. He isn't liking them himself.
Bethany, the standard deduction was given as an option to simplify tax filing bc its too tough for many to figure out. Its advantageous to low income people. If your deduction are less than $x, (would be for poorer) you get a bumped up minimum
Liking my own comments? Are you serious? You want me to like all of them to show you that you sound like a moron making stupid assumptions like that? Let me know, I'll like any comment that you THINK I liked
The rich and homeowners have to choose so they itemize but lose the standard so they don't get any bump up. I see your other points but it gets messy IMO, i hate the idea of artificial incentives beyond why you naturally chose to do something.
Ok, im wrong on the comment liking, i'll admit that. Bethany I'm blasting abolitionist bc i make a point and he totally ignores it and makes his own rebuttal to an argument i never made. So youd pay your fair share to bail out wall street then?
Let me clarify something - a tax cut isn't the same thing as a tax not raised. The rich also pay way more than most and use very little of the services.
When you mess with the natural flow of the economy you have to look at the consequences and precedents it sets. Wall St now knows it can take high risks as bc they cant lose. $900 billion is ALot They fail, someone else takes their spot.Govt stay out
Abolitionist is proof of the left mindset that will never curtail spending.
Yup, its that feeling of entitlement to other people's money I think. He's impossible to debate with. With bethany, at least its actually a discussion and back and forth debate of values. Its being realistic.
I feel entitled to other people's money? And I'm the one you can't debate with? Ok, since you're so realistic and reasonable, tell me how exactly do I feel entitled to anyone's money?
Late great, my ideal to curtail spending is stop funding warfare, stop allowing lobbyists to write economic policy and stop shipping jobs to china. It's just crazy to me how poor & middle class are being blamed for the elites bankrupting us
I do pay my fair share of taxes. I understand the reason for the standard deduction - perhaps it should simply be raised in that case. My point was more that itemizing stands to get you huge tax cuts and it is harder for poor people to take advantage
of that. I do think there is legitimacy to using the tax code to incentivize certain kinds of spending. IMO it is a good way to do it as it strikes a balance between giving people freedom to spend as they choose but also trying to encourage spending
that is overall beneficial for society while discouraging less beneficial spending (in the abstract if course - I know that deductions are often structured in a way that does not accomplish this end). As to bailouts and the like I was certainly not
Happy about it but I also understand why it was needed. Bad decisions led to its necessity, but at that point it was too late to undo them. What we need to do now is meaningfully regulate the financial industry and we are failing to do that still.
Oh last point. The reason the rich pay more in taxes is less about direct services they take advantage of (though it's more than most realize) and more about how much they benefit overall from a stable and orderly economy. More money = more benefit.
I believe you pay your fair share of taxes just as i pay mine. My only rebuttal is that the $900 billion has to come from somewhere right? if they asked us all to pay a portion, the avg person would pay $3k for themselves and for each family member..
I understand that. My point is more that we need to look at it as paying taxes for the government to protect the economy from total disaster, which benefits all of us and not just Wall St. The unfairness comes with the lack of attendant regulation.
Ok, so if i understand correctly you are advocating congress pass budgets with a slight surplus each year to account for unexpected surprises and disasters? Like wall st collapses or natural disasters? If so, id be in board with that.
I don't know that I would put it that way exactly - although I think in some ways that type of thing is generally built into the budget as is (e.g., FEMA). I just mean that I do think it is the government's job to handle problems that people can't
really do anything about on their own (and/or to correct for where combined natural incentives favor collective inaction even though inaction is overall inefficient and detrimental) - whatever form that takes.
I suppose if we all spent as much time as possible (and then some) playing golf, we might better understand the situation (or not)
I don't care who is in office, we must cut spending, that will enable us to cut taxes, put more money in the publics pocket and let them decide where money goes not DC
Democrats driving us into more debt!
This is the tea party saying "were going to ruin the economy unless you listen to the far right crazies, if you dont its youre fault we shit all over the economy" fuck that noise, just pass the debt ceiling already EVERYONE is screaming that at them
tea party: don't spend more than you take in. Shocking concept!
Tea Party: "Eliminate the National Debt - By implementing fiscally conservative policies at all levels of government, progress can be made toward eliminating the U.S. National Debt. Massive increases in the National Debt have created and...
"continue to create a huge burden for the next generation of Americans, thus imperiling the country’s short-term and long-term economic health and prosperity."
Those tea partiers sure are crazy!
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 US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from...
foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden...
...of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Tea party protest White House yesterday with confederate flags and support republican candidates that supported bush creating the biggest deficit in history. Hard to see how their agenda is spending
Abolitionist, the Tea Party did not exist when bush was president.
Exactly. And why is that?
Which side moved based on their quotes?
Are you willing to hold your side accountable?
Ab - that was ONE guy with one flag. Sounds like a plant to me. Probably from ACORN.
Chickencookie, come to a tea party rally in Kentucky. I know your in the northeast but until you come down here in the south, you'll never understand how much they love their confederate flags.
I love my confederate flag, and I'm not a tea partier. I love it for what it stands for: states' rights.
LOL@statrs rights. The same confederates that supported "states rights" supported the fugitive slave act. Besides, I've never seen a black man that supported states rights fly the stars & bars.
So I assume you think the civil war was about slavery, right? The north wanted nothing more than to see the slaves go free because they loved all people and the southerners were all a bunch of evil slave owners. Am I right?
If the south supported the fugitive slave act then it was about slavery.
What a naive thing to say. The war was only about slavery when Lincoln signed the EP, and he only did that to prevent Britain and France from intervening on the side of the South. Lincoln could have cared less about slaves, as was made clear by some
Of the things he said. The war was never TRULY about slavery, and the confederate flag does not stand for it either. You and other liberals take any opportunity to spread lies about conservatives in order to further your political agenda.
"Conservatives are racists"
"Republicans want to get rid of obamacare because they want you to die of lung cancer"
"Conservatives like it when a guy shoots up an elementary school"
Is it any wonder the Democratic Party is filled with so many
Uneducated people? They are the only ones that buy your leadership's lies.
Lincoln didn't give a shit about slaves, stop putting words in my mouth to prove a point you don't have. America was built & maintained on white supremacy. Lincoln's concerned about business. That doesn't change the fact civil war was about slavery
No, it was about the north forcing the south to sell its raw materials within the country instead of to the highest bidder. You are trying to rewrite history to look more favorable. The facts are very different than your idealist recollection of it.
We disagree. Slavery was the way if life they were trying to preserve. I'm just glad they got their asses handed to them and got knocked back into the union.
I'm glad the south lost too. We can agree on that.
Abolish the Fed, give currency creation back to the government, and go to a Social Credit setup: www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
Interest on our national debt was $416 billion in fiscal 2013. And we want to borrow more? Just think what $416 billion could buy us every year.
I'm guessing that those who want to incur more than the current $17 trillion in national debt do not have any children.
What? How does that even make sense?
The guy spends like a drunken sailor!
That's not fair. Drunken sailors stop when they run out of money.
The only thing these polls show is how uneducated democrats truly are! Our country is screwed.
We need to raise the debt limit in order to pay for legislation and programs the Congress has already passed. So they are protesting what they have already decided we need.
So, all this is a total sham. Simply political theater and a way to sidestep the democratic process in order to get what they want by other means.
Yes, exactly. But how do you prevent the same situation from happening again? By cutting spending. Its irresponsible to raise the debt limit without a plan to prevent from having todo it again. You have to do them together.
You say need, i say want. Time to get down to basics in order to save the country from debt slavery
We do NOT need to raise the debt limit!
We just need to live within our means.
We NEED to govern. And yes, need(ed) to raise debt ceiling in order to prevent default and thus even more debt. Thanks repubs for adding 24 billion to the debt faith incoherent teasoning.
"The professor of economics at the University of Montreal says the US is actually the country with the highest debt, and not Greece. But Washington will never be in line for a bailout, he adds."
Per person, yes.
the government is incredibly wasteful. It has to stop! We are floundering, do we want to sink?