House OK's Debt Bill; Senate Rejects It.

[Críostóir]

^ Interesting that you both have also been getting these types of comments as well from the Laika. I've had a number of them recently.

Laika apparently doesn't even want to bother debating issues in the threads anymore....he just leaves snide comments about the posts.

Hmm. Tempting to call that a win overall, though what I actually wish Laika would do is debate things with his own words, instead of words ganked from other sites; and cite sources other than Fox News. He's not quite in the "I just wish he'd go away" category for me.

It is a fundamental principle that content from post comments or private messages is not to be re-posted in the open forum. If you receive an inappropriate private message or comment, promptly report it to the moderators. (See the section titled “Personal Conflicts” in the Problem Resolution thread.)

I did not know that. I'll keep it in mind going forward.

 

[JayHawk]

So back to the topic at hand.

I am fairly certain something will be signed by Tuesday. I think it will be a slightly tweaked Boehner bill just so the Senate and POTUS can say it has their blessing.

Do any of you have a alternative ending for Tuesday?

I like the idea that it would be required henceforth to balance the books. Just like every other govt entity in America. Then going forward we can actually make choices on what we should spend on.

 

[Críostóir]

So back to the topic at hand.

I am fairly certain something will be signed by Tuesday. I think it will be a slightly tweaked Boehner bill just so the Senate and POTUS can say it has their blessing.

Do any of you have a alternative ending for Tuesday?

I like the idea that it would be required henceforth to balance the books. Just like every other govt entity in America. Then going forward we can actually make choices on what we should spend on.

No way will it be a slightly tweaked Boner bill. There's NO WAY a balanced-budget amendment is going to get a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate by Tuesday. No way in the world.

I actually don't think it would be a good idea, but that's another thread. Note, however, that if such an amendment simply requires a balanced budget, two things will happen: 1. Surplus budgets, like the ones Clinton submitted, will also not be permitted. 2. There will simply be massive spending OUTSIDE the budget, as Bush did for the Iraq war. His budgets had massive deficits in real terms, but he just didn't count the war spending, and that made them look a lot better.

There aren't simple solutions to complex problems, almost ever. When there are, it's a rare miracle and not usually something you'd expect, like handing out lollipops outside bars to reduce crime (which actually worked in Vancouver; effectiveness south of the border of civilization on this continent untested so far). To believe otherwise is to live in a fool's paradise.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh I dont think it would be a simple rule. It would by necessity be a complex Amendment. However i also don't believe we have ever actually had a surplus. We had a surplus in accounting data projected for the future. It was never a reality.

Prior to that taxes were levied to pay for specific things and then slowly increased as government grew.

No we should never have a surplus. that means the Government is taxing too much. They are not a business and should not make a profit. They should also not spend more than they take in. That is obviously a recipe for failure.

 

[Críostóir]

Oh I dont think it would be a simple rule. It would by necessity be a complex Amendment. However i also don't believe we have ever actually had a surplus. We had a surplus in accounting data projected for the future. It was never a reality.

Prior to that taxes were levied to pay for specific things and then slowly increased as government grew.

No we should never have a surplus. that means the Government is taxing too much. They are not a business and should not make a profit. They should also not spend more than they take in. That is obviously a recipe for failure.

I think you need to study the matter more. You realize that there's a massive ongoing debt, right? Taking in more than we spend (that is, running a surplus) is the only way to EVER pay that down.

Btw, by far most of that debt was run up by Reagan and Bush Jr.

 

[JayHawk]

That is not the only way. You can cut out things that cost money. Then you have less spending and therefore more revenue to spend on debt. The argument is on which parties base projects get cut and how they get cut. Not on raising taxes. The tax raise issue was lost months ago by lack of selling it to the people. Although they tried hard.

Taxes may get raised to pay for programs if people get what they are asking for and realize they dont want it because it hurts too much. Until then there will be no change in taxes.

 

[Críostóir]

That is not the only way. You can cut out things that cost money. Then you have less spending and therefore more revenue to spend on debt.

That's a surplus.

If you take in more money than you spend, even if you got there by cutting, you still have a surplus. This question is independent of whether you should cut spending or increase revenue. Either raising revenues above spending OR cutting spending below revenues results in a surplus.

ONLY by running a surplus can the government reduce the debt...unless you count paying down the debt as spending, which isn't how these things are done.

I think we should spend a lot more money on educational programs to combat innumeracy.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I'm still predicting one of two outcomes I stated two or three weeks ago; either Republicans will sail the US off a cliff, or just a clean bill with no concrete spending cuts or tax increases will be passed at the 11 15/16th hour.

 

[BostonPirate]

No version of the Boehner bill will pass.

You cant make part of legislation a requirement by simple vote that an ammendment HAS to pass by supermajority vote and state ratification in the future.

as McCain said... it is pure fantasy

Boehner also does not call for the end of the wars. Instead he calls for the end of medicare as we know it, and we all know Obama wont sign that. He also will not accept a short term sollution, so this six month crap is nonsense as well.

no

It will be the 14th amendment, and to be honest, it may be the ONLY way for Obama to save his re election.

He would show that he is the only living poliician in office willing to do what the people want.

The DOJ would support it and the congress would have to sue in courts to stop the signing order, the senate would not participate, and by the time it was heard in a court, the plaintiff will be out of office.

Obama has more to win at this point by signing the republicans into irelevance

 

[JayHawk]

That's a surplus.

If you take in more money than you spend, even if you got there by cutting, you still have a surplus. This question is independent of whether you should cut spending or increase revenue. Either raising revenues above spending OR cutting spending below revenues results in a surplus.

ONLY by running a surplus can the government reduce the debt...unless you count paying down the debt as spending, which isn't how these things are done.

I think we should spend a lot more money on educational programs to combat innumeracy.

I understand thoroughly your logic. But allow me an example.

My monthly expenses are 1200 for renewing expenses or consumables. I owe for a auto loan also or have debt. That is 800 per month. I still owe that debt and paying for it is no shit spending. So if I make 2000 a month then I am balanced. In your definition I have a 800 dollar surplus. That is an errant way of thinking. The revenue means (taxes) should also be designed to decrease proportionally when the debt is paid.

However you would like to phrase it. that is where we need to be.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh I doubt BP that it will be tweaked to that degree but they can pass a resolution to do such a amendment. That doesn't mean they adhere to that resolution. They have violated their own rules many times in the past. No A bill will pass and it will not be the 14th amendment bullshit because if it is the economy will continue to sputter as no resolution has passed. No resolution means people wont spend for lack of confidence. No spending means no economy to speak of plus a media storm case made that Obama is illegally taking more power than he is entitled. The SCOTUS will eventually rule just prior to the election however the circus would ruin Obama's chances at a new term.

SO the Dems will cave at this point they have to and they know it.

 

[Críostóir]

I understand thoroughly your logic. But allow me an example.

My monthly expenses are 1200 for renewing expenses or consumables. I owe for a auto loan also or have debt. That is 800 per month. I still owe that debt and paying for it is no shit spending. So if I make 2000 a month then I am balanced. In your definition I have a 800 dollar surplus. That is an errant way of thinking. The revenue means (taxes) should also be designed to decrease proportionally when the debt is paid.

However you would like to phrase it. that is where we need to be.

It's not how they count things in US budgets.

 

[Críostóir]

I agree, Pirate.

I've been thinking this for the last two weeks.

Indeed, that's the reason the Tea Potty are putting out all this bullshit anyway. They care about winning the 2012 election, and nothing else matters to them. They're willing to utterly ruin the entire economy if they can get power over what's left.

 

[JayHawk]

I wonder why the democratic party was railing against illegal wiretaps, GTMO, war execution, the patriot act and many other items that were kept intact in every sense of the word. Yet they have fallen silent all of sudden. No constant blaring about GTMO on the news from every partisan hack. I wonder if that is the political game? To say and do whatever to win for your side?

Hmmmm

 

[Críostóir]

*downgrades JayHawk to "not worth arguing with"*

 

[JayHawk]

JayHawk, we've got something just a little bit more important to deal with right now! Economic catastrophe.

No i get it. The end of the world as we know it. Just weird that when politics is played by the other side you complain about it.

*downgrades JayHawk to "not worth arguing with"*

As if I care dude.

 

[Críostóir]

As if I care dude.

The fact that you don't care IS your tragedy. Up until that post I was treating you as a reasonable person with whom I disagree. You're obviously not interested in civility, however, so, with some regret, I gave up on you.

That's what's wrong with these childish whiners in the Tea Party, as well.

 

[BostonPirate]

do YOU think these things are wrong, Jayhawk? Or are you just complaining that you agree with the president? Did you complain the same way when Bush was president too?

OR... what?

Seems no one is really getting your point.

All of america walked down a primrose path fueled by fear and anger, and here we are, over militarized and broke, with an inability to supply the basic needs to our elderly and sick.

Its really sounding more and more that the USA is going down in the exact same way the USSR did.

The FUCKED up thing about it is that it is entirely unescesary just like the debt ceiling debate is. If Bush had taken the advice of the cia and took action on OBL intelligence, we MAY not have been attacked. Even if that all wasn't a reality, we responded by invading a quagmire, taking our eyes off the ball, started a war in Iraq, and throughout the military spending binge, Bush bought off people with Further spending through rebate checks and tax cuts.

You want to whine about people's consistency as our nation lay in a state of utter political and economic disarray, and I wonder if you ought to look in the mirror listen to yourself. You seem to have a hard time hearing what others are saying, and Maybe since you think so highly of your opinion, that would work.

 

[JayHawk]

The fact that you don't care IS your tragedy. Up until that post I was treating you as a reasonable person with whom I disagree. You're obviously not interested in civility, however, so, with some regret, I gave up on you.

That's what's wrong with these childish whiners in the Tea Party, as well.

When you say ...your ex'ed off my list of caring I am supposed to respond how?



There is that better should I cry. I really don't give a shit if you feel like discussing something. The republicans are playing their hand to get the office back just as the Democrats did previously.

do YOU think these things are wrong, Jayhawk? Or are you just complaining that you agree with the president? Did you complain the same way when Bush was president too?

OR... what?

Seems no one is really getting your point.

All of america walked down a primrose path fueled by fear and anger, and here we are, over militarized and broke, with an inability to supply the basic needs to our elderly and sick.

Its really sounding more and more that the USA is going down in the exact same way the USSR did.

The FUCKED up thing about it is that it is entirely unescesary just like the debt ceiling debate is. If Bush had taken the advice of the cia and took action on OBL intelligence, we MAY not have been attacked. Even if that all wasn't a reality, we responded by invading a quagmire, taking our eyes off the ball, started a war in Iraq, and throughout the military spending binge, Bush bought off people with Further spending through rebate checks and tax cuts.

You want to whine about people's consistency as our nation lay in a state of utter political and economic disarray, and I wonder if you ought to look in the mirror listen to yourself. You seem to have a hard time hearing what others are saying, and Maybe since you think so highly of your opinion, that would work.

No actually I do not believe wiretaps, GTMO or the patriot act are bad. I said so prior to the election. I said whoever took the office would keep those policies and guess what happened?

I did not argue with Bush's leadership style because he accomplished whatever he set out to do. You may disagree vehemently about those things he did. However you can not argue that he got them done. He even got things passed while the last few years of Democratic controlled congress hamstrung his efforts.

SO no I did not complain. What is your point?

 

[BostonPirate]

When you say ...your ex'ed off my list of caring I am supposed to respond how?



There is that better should I cry. I really don't give a shit if you feel like discussing something. The republicans are playing their hand to get the office back just as the Democrats did previously.



No actually I do not believe wiretaps, GTMO or the patriot act are bad. I said so prior to the election. I said whoever took the office would keep those policies and guess what happened?

I did not argue with Bush's leadership style because he accomplished whatever he set out to do. You may disagree vehemently about those things he did. However you can not argue that he got them done. He even got things passed while the last few years of Democratic controlled congress hamstrung his efforts.

SO no I did not complain. What is your point?

well there you go

Bush ditched america's economy with spending and all you can do is complain that Obama isn't good enough to fix it.

THAT is LEADERSHIP?

what a joke.

have fun with that logic loop. It is a trap that most GOPpers never shake free of.