Repeal The Debt Ceiling!!

[Guest]

I just read a point of view I hadn't even considered and hadn't read anything about until this morning. Let's repeal the Debt Ceiling. The end result of the debt ceiling is that the Democrats lead by Obama who had an unassailable majority in both Houses when Obama took office passed bills with no real opposition, like ObamaCare, with Republicans barely able to get a word in edgewise. Now after all that rampant spending and ill advised "Stimulus" spending which had little effect in ramping up the economy, the Republicans are invited to share the blame in crafting a solution to fix the "overflowing levees" of our budget.

The Republicans are now invited to come up with cuts in the spending the Democrats almost unilaterally enacted. and thus share "the blame" in the cutting of programs that might be unpopular.

Without a "Debt Ceiling", the problem would be totally Obama's and his administration's burden and people would see who was truly responsible for the mess the country is in, at this point in time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272690/debt-ceiling-chicken-thomas-sowell

http://www.stockmarkettoday.cc/moody-suggested-that-the-u-s-repeal-the-debt-ceiling-to-avoid-periodic-crises.html

[Guest]

Not a good idea, as the party in power would be just as bad as the current party in power. What good did the Repubs do when they had control. The same thing that the Dems did when they had control

Cut, Cap & Balance is the only solution that will control spending by both parties.

[Guest]

I just read a point of view I hadn't even considered and hadn't read anything about until this morning. Let's repeal the Debt Ceiling. The end result of the debt ceiling is that the Democrats lead by Obama who had an unassailable majority in both Houses when Obama took office passed bills with no real opposition, like ObamaCare, with Republicans barely able to get a word in edgewise. Now after all that rampant spending and ill advised "Stimulus" spending which had little effect in ramping up the economy, the Republicans are invited to share the blame in crafting a solution to fix the "overflowing levees" of our budget.

The Republicans are now invited to come up with cuts in the spending the Democrats almost unilaterally enacted. and thus share "the blame" in the cutting of programs that might be unpopular.

Without a "Debt Ceiling", the problem would be totally Obama's and his administration's burden and people would see who was truly responsible for the mess the country is in, at this point in time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272690/debt-ceiling-chicken-thomas-sowell

http://www.stockmarkettoday.cc/moody-suggested-that-the-u-s-repeal-the-debt-ceiling-to-avoid-periodic-crises.html

ONE question:
Would be talking seriously about cutting spending right now if there was no debt ceiling?
Answer: No

[Guest]

I have a better idea. Let's repeal the democrats.

[Guest]

ONE question:
Would be talking seriously about cutting spending right now if there was no debt ceiling?
Answer: No

Think about it. We would still be in the economic situation we are now, only without this arbitrary debt ceiling that has the Republican's drawn into the debate to stay below this "ceiling".

The country would still in the deep doldrums and people would still be suffering with no jobs and low paying jobs and high prices and high taxes, but it would all be on Obama's doorstep because the Republican's have been out of power, until they wrested control of Congress only, and only recently. The "debt ceiling" debate is having the effect of drawing the Republican's into the debate and of even having the lame-stream media depicting them as the villains in he debate.

This is clouding the "where's" and "why's" and "how's" of what happened to get us to this precipice in the minds of the public, who do not pay particular attention to the everyday minutia of beltway politics as those on this forum.

[Guest]

The end result of the debt ceiling is that the Democrats lead by Obama who had an unassailable majority in both Houses when Obama took office passed bills with no real opposition, like ObamaCare, with Republicans barely able to get a word in edgewise.

Now, the quoted part of your post is just ludicrous. "Death panels" "Pulling the Plug on Grandma". No they didn't get a word in edgewise. Yep, the health care bill just sailed right on through didn't it?

[Guest]

...Without a "Debt Ceiling", the problem would be totally Obama's and his administration's burden and people would see who was truly responsible for the mess the country is in, at this point in time....Er ahh...Richie, I agree that the stimulus program didn't work as it was expected to. Nice try Barack and Tim, but it didn't work as expected.

But as far as assigning blame, the numbers don't lie. Virtually every analysis of what has caused the deficit and the increase in the national debt identifies the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts as the single biggest causal factor. They were well-intended as well, expected to increase job growth and economic activity. Look at the statistics--those tax cuts didn't have their intended results either!

So I guess the more accurate assignment of blame for the current conundrum is to two Presidents and about 12 years worth of Congresses with both political parties exchanging control for that period. The analysis of the problem shows that George Bush's biggest contribution was cutting the revenue with the tax cuts. The Obama administration can be blamed for not controlling spending....although I've got to say that the GOP were pretty much like drunken sailors on their 10-year watch. In fact, I think it was John McCain who criticized those Congresses for "spending like drunken sailors", didn't he?

[Guest]

Villages Kahuna you are the voice of reason in this column. Why can't all the staunch Republicans & Democrats see that nothing is as black & white as they try to argue. Both parties are responsible for where we are at now, so get off continuous trashing of the OTHER party. These clowns in office who we pay very well to represent us are kowtowing to special interests, corporations, multi-millionaires, bleeding hearts, foreign governments, illegal aliens, etc. They need to find an intermediate common ground for the good of this country as a whole but we're seeing no inclination by them to do so.

[Guest]

Er ahh...Richie, I agree that the stimulus program didn't work as it was expected to. Nice try Barack and Tim, but it didn't work as expected.

But as far as assigning blame, the numbers don't lie. Virtually every analysis of what has caused the deficit and the increase in the national debt identifies the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts as the single biggest causal factor. They were well-intended as well, expected to increase job growth and economic activity. Look at the statistics--those tax cuts didn't have their intended results either!

So I guess the more accurate assignment of blame for the current conundrum is to two Presidents and about 12 years worth of Congresses with both political parties exchanging control for that period. The analysis of the problem shows that George Bush's biggest contribution was cutting the revenue with the tax cuts. The Obama administration can be blamed for not controlling spending....although I've got to say that the GOP were pretty much like drunken sailors on their 10-year watch. In fact, I think it was John McCain who criticized those Congresses for "spending like drunken sailors", didn't he?

Is the one who said to a democrat controlled congress, " Congress spends like drunken sailors, except sailors use their own money"

[Guest]

Er ahh...Richie, I agree that the stimulus program didn't work as it was expected to. Nice try Barack and Tim, but it didn't work as expected.

But as far as assigning blame, the numbers don't lie. Virtually every analysis of what has caused the deficit and the increase in the national debt identifies the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts as the single biggest causal factor. They were well-intended as well, expected to increase job growth and economic activity. Look at the statistics--those tax cuts didn't have their intended results either!

So I guess the more accurate assignment of blame for the current conundrum is to two Presidents and about 12 years worth of Congresses with both political parties exchanging control for that period. The analysis of the problem shows that George Bush's biggest contribution was cutting the revenue with the tax cuts. The Obama administration can be blamed for not controlling spending....although I've got to say that the GOP were pretty much like drunken sailors on their 10-year watch. In fact, I think it was John McCain who criticized those Congresses for "spending like drunken sailors", didn't he?

Have you read Thomas Sowell's column. Please do and get back to me. I'll take his analysis over yours at this point.

[Guest]

Now, the quoted part of your post is just ludicrous. "Death panels" "Pulling the Plug on Grandma". No they didn't get a word in edgewise. Yep, the health care bill just sailed right on through didn't it?

Didn't matter what the Republicans were able to say. Obamacare was passed in the "dark of the night" without a single Republican vote and with the Democrats thumbing their nose at the will of the American People. That's a fact Jack, and you can't spin it any other way.

[Guest]

Virtually every analysis of what has caused the deficit and the increase in the national debt identifies the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts as the single biggest causal factor.

Bull.

[Guest]

I do believe that it was Speaker of the House Nancy P who said lets pass this bill so we can find whats in it.

[Guest]

I do believe that it was Speaker of the House Nancy P who said lets pass this bill so we can find whats in it.

Bingo. Amazing that the mainstream media never quotes that.

[Guest]

Richie,it seems to me that you will take any analysis only if it already agrees with your narrowminded opinions. To place the blame only on the new healthcare law and the stimulus is simply wrong,it ignores the facts. It is this narrowmindedness that is the real threat to our system not some dreamed up liberal bias nonsense or this god is on the conservative side garbage.

[Guest]

Richie,it seems to me that you will take any analysis only if it already agrees with your narrowminded opinions. To place the blame only on the new healthcare law and the stimulus is simply wrong,it ignores the facts. It is this narrowmindedness that is the real threat to our system not some dreamed up liberal bias nonsense or this god is on the conservative side garbage.

All I can say about your statement above is that it is buffoonish. You are wrong in your analysis and you're rude on top of it. (OK, now you can call me names again in response)

[Guest]

Richie,it seems to me that you will take any analysis only if it already agrees with your narrowminded opinions. To place the blame only on the new healthcare law and the stimulus is simply wrong,it ignores the facts. It is this narrowmindedness that is the real threat to our system not some dreamed up liberal bias nonsense or this god is on the conservative side garbage.

A stimulus that did nothing but line many pockets and Obama care that will sink us is narrowmindedness? I suppose the fall of the Roman Empire was narrowmindedness, also?

Please, this Nation is sinking in debt, and all you can do is name-calling?

[Guest]

perfect.....that narrow chain of thought is consistant at least. Only the healthcare bill and the stimulus put us in debt. Nothing else was responsible. If you believe that now that's buffoonery.

[Guest]

perfect.....that narrow chain of thought is consistant at least. Only the healthcare bill and the stimulus put us in debt. Nothing else was responsible. If you believe that now that's buffoonery.

What put us in debt, Mr. Buffoon, is all the spending that did not result in any noticeable increase in revenue. Wake up and smell the Obama. He absolutely blew it, or he did it on purpose. There's no other explanation.

[Guest]

perfect.....that narrow chain of thought is consistant at least. Only the healthcare bill and the stimulus put us in debt. Nothing else was responsible. If you believe that now that's buffoonery.

Actually the policies of the following presidents contributed to our present problems and weakened our defense. FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama . FDR is the exception for defense since we were involved in WWII. They all forced legilsation that increased spending for social redistribution issues, weakened our defense and created environmental and accounting practices that are not conducive for business and economic growth and they and Democrats such as Dodd-Frank have had a devasting effect on this country's economy.

Obama now wants more taxes so he can expand our redistribution of wealth madoff schemes. An author asked an interesting question "why is it that the goverment believes it can more effectively capitalize on increase taxes for growing jobs then business leaders? Does anyone reading this post believe our government uses our taxes effectively?

[Guest]

we spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined! They have been given EVERYTHING and more. The defense establishment wastes more money than any other group. They are true pigs when it comes to over-budget spending. To even hint that they have been shortchanged is mind bogling. Our defense budget is part of the problem of out of control spending. But in your view thats OK,lets just cut everything else. I do love your choice of presidents,all Dems,what a surprise. There's that narrow minded thought process again. By the way please don't forget what REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex. You should look it up widen your range of ideas.

[Guest]

we spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined! They have been given EVERYTHING and more. The defense establishment wastes more money than any other group. They are true pigs when it comes to over-budget spending. To even hint that they have been shortchanged is mind bogling. Our defense budget is part of the problem of out of control spending. But in your view thats OK,lets just cut everything else. I do love your choice of presidents,all Dems,what a surprise. There's that narrow minded thought process again. By the way please don't forget what REPUBLICAN president Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex. You should look it up widen your range of ideas.

Well, except for the 2001 attack, there has been no fighting on American soil. Score one for defense spending. How about the war on poverty that we are still paying? How has that helped America? It has made a whole new industry of parasites feeding on our taxes. We now have about 50 million people receiving food stamps. OH. You cannot say that anymore. They have food credit cards so they can have self respect when they purchase their steaks and junk food.

The democrats have diluted the education system to the point that companies must import good employees. Department of education? What a waste of funds. How about the department of energy? Another boondoggle.

No thanks, I'll keep the defense spending.

[Guest]

Have you read Thomas Sowell's column. Please do and get back to me. I'll take his analysis over yours at this point.Yeah, I did read it, as a matter of fact. You have every right to "take Sowell's analysis". But I will certainly point out where he is wrong or has presented his assertions in a very misleading way.

First of all Thomas Sowell is a columnist, not a reporter. His job is to write controversial columns. While he is syndicated in many publications, The Villages Daily Sun included, he primary employer is The National Review. Founded by William F. Buckley, it describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

OK, so Sowell is a far right wing columnist writing in a far right wing magazine. That's OK with me. I think one needs to read the opinion of both conservatives and liberals to arrive at some personal beliefs and opinions.

Where I differ with Sowell is his assertion that the national debt is the result of runaway spending by the Obama administration. His assertion is not supported by the facts. In his column he says, "... the bill is coming due for all that (Democratic) spending and borrowing, Republicans are suddenly being invited to share the blame..." The GOP should share the blame, regardless of what Sowell says.

The facts are that when George W.Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's an increase of $4.97 trillion, almost doubling the national debt during his administration. The current national debt (at this minute according to the U.S. National Debt Clock) is $14,551,015,000, an increase of 36% since President Obama was inaugurated.

That amount of increase is nothing for President Obama and the Democratically-controlled 111th Congress to be proud of. But for Sowell to now lay the blame for the entire national debt problem on the current President's doorstep is simply incorrect. This President will have to deal with it, hopefully slowing the rate at which it increases or maybe even balancing the budget by the time he leaves office. But he certainly didn't cause the whole problem. Our deficit spending and debt had a gigantic running start when Obama took office. And during much of the Bush administration, the Congressm that did all that spending was controlled by the Republicans!

Sowell does make some very important statements in his column...
"...however much the media are focused on what is happening inside the Beltway, there is a whole country outside the Beltway — and the time is long overdue to start thinking about what is best for the rest of the country, not just for right now but for the long haul...."
"...Too many policies, programs, and institutions are judged by what they are supposed to do, rather than by what they actually do and the consequences of their actions..."
Independent analysis by the non-partisan Government Accounting Office shows that the two biggest factors contributing to the current national debt were the Bush tax cuts and the stimulus spending programs. One was passed by a Republican administration and the other by a Democratic administration. Both had honest, high-minded objectives. Neither program came close to achieving their objectives.

By the way, although many here assert that Obamacare is costing so much that it will break the country, it has yet to make even the very bottom of the list of contributors to our current national debt problem. The Bush prescription drug bill makes it all the way into the top six factors causing the dramatic increase in our debt, according to the Government Accounting Office.

So now we are where we are. Unfortunately, it appears that the members of the current Congress are playing political games rather than addressing the very real and very critical problem. It's as if winning the political game is more important than any of the effects of their failure to collectively address the problem.

As far as I'm concerned, they all ought be thrown out of office. The country can do that with the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, it'll take six years to clean out the Senate. Anyone who simply votes for a party in the next election deserves what such an action will bring.

[Guest]

OK VK if you want to discount the learned Thomas Sowell as a mere "conservative columnist", but you really should learn a little more about him before you do.

I'm guessing Mr. Sowell has written more books on economics that you have and might even have a more extensive education and life in educational settings than you have, although I could be wrong because I only know of the vast education and brilliant writings of Mr. Sowell and not really much about you, so forgive me if I'm mistaken.

http://www.hoover.org/fellows/9767

http://www.tsowell.com/

[Guest]

OK VK if you want to discount the learned Thomas Sowell as a mere "conservative columnist", but you really should learn a little more about him before you do.

I'm guessing Mr. Sowell has written more books on economics that you have and might even have a more extensive education and life in educational settings than you have, although I could be wrong because I only know of the vast education and brilliant writings of Mr. Sowell and not really much about you, so forgive me if I'm mistaken.
Richie, how does Sowell's academic reputation or how many books he's written change the record of the national debt year-by-year or the analysis of actual expenditures recently completed by the GAO?

Geez, man, Sowell's a good columnist, but for crying out loud the facts are the facts!

[Guest]

Richie, how does Sowell's academic reputation or how many books he's written change the record of the national debt year-by-year or the analysis of actual expenditures recently completed by the GAO?

Geez, man, Sowell's a good columnist, but for crying out loud the facts are the facts!

It's interesting that the "facts" aren't always what they appear to be. Numbers don't always signify what they are promoted to mean. Obviously these are correct musings because the learned Mr. Sowell and you disagree on what you consider "facts".

[Guest]

Well, the Obama administration has been very kind to the banking industry. No? Comparing this Mr, Kahuna to Sowell, surly you jest.

Back on subject:

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/07/every-democrat-senator-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-2006-because-g-w-bush-was-white/

[Guest]

It's interesting that the "facts" aren't always what they appear to be. Numbers don't always signify what they are promoted to mean. Obviously these are correct musings because the learned Mr. Sowell and you disagree on what you consider "facts".Richie...plain and simple, the official record of the United States of America shows that from 2001 until 2008 the national debt almost doubled. Then from the time President Obama took over until now, our debt increased by an additional 36%. Then the non-partisan Government Accounting Office simply added up the country's revenues and spending and listed the major items that contributed to our debt.

What in the world does your statement "facts aren't always what they appear to be" mean? Or "numbers don't always signify what they are promoted to mean".

I'm not creating new facts or numbers, nor am I trying to present or interpret them in some twisted sort of way. The numbers are the numbers. You can blame roughly one-third of the current national debt on the present administration if you wish. But about two-thirds of it was created by previous administrations and Congresses.

Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator until he was sworn into the U.S. Senate in 2005. At the end of fiscal 2005 Barack Obama had been in the U.S. Senate for five months and the national debt was already $7,932,709,661,723.50. Are you and Mr. Sowell seriously going to try to blame Obama for all the deficit spending that occurred between 2001 and 2005 when he wasn't even part of the federal government?

Please tell me, how can Thomas Sowell, you, or any other conservative partisan argue that the current President is responsible for all the current national debt? I don't care what Sowell's academic resumé shows or the number of books he has written. The facts are the facts...history is history. I know it's tough for people who have such hatred for this President to accept, but that's the way it is.

[Guest]

Well, the Obama administration has been very kind to the banking industry. No? Comparing this Mr, Kahuna to Sowell, surly you jest.

Back on subject:

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/07/every-democrat-senator-voted-against-raising-debt-ceiling-2006-because-g-w-bush-was-white/Holy Cats! What does this have to do with this thread? The link you provided from Maggie's blog is as ridiculous an allegation as the one made by someone here on this forum recently--that the reason that the Brits are prosecuting Rupert Murdoch is because he owns Fox News.

When one's hatred for something or somebody gets this intense, I guess you just start making stuff up...just like that looney tunes congresswoman shown in the video you linked. What's scary is that there are people like the one shown in the video that are actually governing this country. Scarier still, the majority of the 700,000 or so people she represents in Congress actually voted for her! In her case, for nine terms! Unbelievable!

[Guest]

Funny how all the Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling when we had a Republican President. Do you want to hear some of Obama's quotes from 2006? What a bunch of fakes.

[Guest]

Funny how all the Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling when we had a Republican President. Do you want to hear some of Obama's quotes from 2006? What a bunch of fakes.My goodness! Are you somehow suggesting that it's any different this time around? That this country has been "governed" by purely partisan politics for at least twenty years that I remember?

No, it's not funny that the Democrats all voted against Republican-sponsored legislation, any more than the opposite. What is shows is that for whatever reasons--but I think in the end it all boils down to money and power and special interests--our system of government is broken. It doesn't work. It's dysfunctional regardless of which party is in the majority.

If you're going to try to tell me that it would all be different if the GOP was in total control, I'd laugh. They were for eight years. See where that got us. Then the Democrats had control and it wasn't any better.

Now it's even more screwed up because we have the Tea Party, which appear to be a bunch of inexperienced, not too smart, my way or the highway ideologues. Maybe there are some others out there that embrace the same fiscal philosophies, but would be better at winning battle after battle instead of trying to win the war all in one shot. But it's sure not these guys.

[Guest]

Now it's even more screwed up because we have the Tea Party, which appear to be a bunch of inexperienced, not too smart, my way or the highway ideologues. Maybe there are some others out there that embrace the same fiscal philosophies, but would be better at winning battle after battle instead of trying to win the war all in one shot. But it's sure not these guys.
[/QUOTE]
Mostly agree what you say about partisan politics, but disagree with your opinion about the Tea Party. At least the Tea Party has helped focus everybody on fiscal responsibility. They may not be sophisticated in the ways of politics but they know about budgets and excess spending. We need to reduce the size of government and get them the heck OUT of our lives, not intrude further.

[Guest]

My goodness! Are you somehow suggesting that it's any different this time around? That this country has been "governed" by purely partisan politics for at least twenty years that I remember?

No, it's not funny that the Democrats all voted against Republican-sponsored legislation, any more than the opposite. What is shows is that for whatever reasons--but I think in the end it all boils down to money and power and special interests--our system of government is broken. It doesn't work. It's dysfunctional regardless of which party is in the majority.

If you're going to try to tell me that it would all be different if the GOP was in total control, I'd laugh. They were for eight years. See where that got us. Then the Democrats had control and it wasn't any better.

Now it's even more screwed up because we have the Tea Party, which appear to be a bunch of inexperienced, not too smart, my way or the highway ideologues. Maybe there are some others out there that embrace the same fiscal philosophies, but would be better at winning battle after battle instead of trying to win the war all in one shot. But it's sure not these guys.

On the surface it would appear you're correct, but I'm of the opinion that the parameters have changed in significant ways.

The Republican Party has to now deal with the Tea Party movement which is slowly and inextricably dragging the Party to it's conservative roots and demanding austerity. The last elections proved this and the next elections will confirm it if my guess is correct. The still in charge go along to get along leadership knows this and is balking, but their own election defeats will convince them that the base has awakened.

The Democrat Party is being controlled behind the scenes by the Socialist Progressives and our President is their front man. The major media is complicit and their ally. The push is on to convince the people of a "class war" even as government policies are destroying the fabric of our lives. The decaying American Dream is being portrayed as the result of the avarice of the rich, to the detriment of the working class, in the face of the new laws and regulations on major corporations, and increased taxes on small businesses that are destroying industry and job growth.

That's my basic analysis and I can hear the caterwauling now. Time is the avenger, and we'll see how it all plays out.

[Guest]

Take no actions. Just let the free market work. When government gets involved in "fixing the free market" we always get in trouble. Take away any
government sponsored financing, repeal the laws that tried to fix things by
making bigger and bulging goverment and go back to a solid free market. It worked just fine since the republic was founded and I am sure it can continue
to function very well without all the politicians (both sides) doing unconstitutional patch work to the laws of the country.:mornincoffee:

[Guest]

...The Republican Party has to now deal with the Tea Party movement which is slowly and inextricably dragging the Party to it's conservative roots and demanding austerity. The last elections proved this and the next elections will confirm it if my guess is correct....Personally, I endorse movement towards fiscal conservatism. But these Tea Party people are so idealistic and inexperienced that they're running the risk of breaking our country in an effort to achieve their ideals. I think they would have had an excellent chance of adding to their numbers had they used their power to win some battles in the Congress, add more seats to their numbers in upcoming elections and then win some more battles and ultimately the war in the future. But I think they've destroyed that opportunity by acting as they have. They were sent to Congress to govern more conservatively, not to govern with the destructive results that are happening.

If the stock market plunges several hundred more points, as is predicted. If the financial system becomes constrained because of a default or threat of a default. If the economy slows from it's already anemic recovery. If unemployment rises. If government services that no one ever thought of are suddenly withdrawn...then I think the electorate will be looking around for someone to blame. There's not much question that the Tea Party will have been the group that kept heaping on the straws that finally broke the camel's back. There's nothing wrong with the ideals they espouse. But they didn't know how to navigate the political process to their greatest advantage. That will cost them and anyone else who calls themselves fiscal conservatives.

There are some who might respond to this post today saying...it's not over 'til it's over. In my opinion, regardless of what happens in the next 48 hours...it's over.

No, Richie, I'm of a mind that the Tea Party has wasted a tremendous opportunity.

[Guest]

when it is in it's infancy. The ball is just starting to roll.