Didnt they just do this?

a few months ago?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House plans to ask Congress for an increase in the debt limit before the end of the week, according to a senior Treasury Department official.

The debt limit is projected to fall within $100 billion of the current cap by December 30. President Barack Obama is expected to ask for additional borrowing authority to increase the limit by $1.2 trillion.

Under the new budget, Congress can only vote to block the debt-ceiling extension with a disapproval resolution. Lawmakers have 15 days within receiving the request to vote down the debt limit increase.

The debt limit currently stands at $15.194 trillion and would increase to $16.394 trillion with the request.

(Reporting By Margaret Chadbourn; Editing by Neil Stempleman)"



does anyone have any clue about what the hell is going on?

Post edited by Killet at 12/27/2011 11:11:51 AM

Neither Democrats nor the GOP have any interest in stopping the snowball.

For context to your question, though: I believe the debt ceiling was raised 17 times during the Reagan administration.

ahh so its ok then . . .and here I thought it was something to be somewhat concerned about, Thx!

Originally posted by: Killet
ahh so its ok then . . .and here I thought it was something to be somewhat concerned about, Thx!

I just don't remember you making any threads feigning outrage any of the numerous times the previous administration made this procedural move.

I think I pretty much criticize the government in general . . . I pretty much think they are all ego driven thieves. Voting for the lesser of the thieves is killing the country, but we are probably getting the government we deserve at this point. I just hope the collapse comes while I'm in good enough health to use up the ammunition I have

I can agree with that. I don't believe either party has any interest in fixing the system, because the system is designed to perpetuate their interests.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
I can agree with that. I don't believe either party has any interest in fixing the system, because the system is designed to perpetuate their interests.

exactly, the only ones that can change it are the ones benefiting the most from it.

Yeah, that's relevant because our [economic] situation in 2011/2012 is the same as when Reagan was President in the 80's.

"The other party did it 20-30 years ago so we should be able to do it too, regardless of whether or not it's actually a good idea".

That's one of the dumbest justifications I've ever seen.

Originally posted by: Allen
Yeah, that's relevant because our [economic] situation in 2011/2012 is the same as when Reagan was President in the 80's.

"The other party did it 20-30 years ago so we should be able to do it too, regardless of whether or not it's actually a good idea".

That's one of the dumbest justifications I've ever seen.

If you got that DF was justifying anything from his post, then you aren't as smart as some here think that you are.

No, I'm pulling on stuff he's said in the past about similar topics.

One of the key reappearing themes in his posts about taxes and the economy is something like, "Back in ___ the ___ did it so why complain about it".

The last time it was about raising taxes on the wealthy during war solely because it was done in the past.

If he wasn't justifying it, then disregard.

Originally posted by: Allen
No, I'm pulling on stuff he's said in the past about similar topics.

One of the key reappearing themes in his posts about taxes and the economy is something like, "Back in ___ the ___ did it so why complain about it".

The last time it was about raising taxes on the wealthy during war solely because it was done in the past.

If he wasn't justifying it, then disregard.

He isn't justifying anything. He is calling people on their hypocrisy. I wonder the same thing. Why do people complain now that party b is in charge, when they wouldn't complain about party a doing the same thing.

As for things he has said in the past, have you not noticed that over the years he has been changing his stance on some of those previous positions?

I very obviously from EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE THREAD THAT I TYPED, wasn't justifying a thing.

I was just wondering why now, after this has been going on for 30+ years, people are pretending to care. I mean, the debt ceiling has been raised or proposed to be raised twice by the current administration, and there has been threads about it each time. As a batting average comparison, it was raised 7 times under Dubya, and I would bet $100 there was not one thread about it.

Thank you, DRF, for pointing out what should have been obvious.

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink


As for things he has said in the past, have you not noticed that over the years he has been changing his stance on some of those previous positions?

See, I really haven't changed that much. I was always against excessive government spending, I just think that reckless foreign policy trumps bad economic policy.

Unfortunately, both parties have proven themselves to be virtually identical in just about all facets... more and more every year.

It is time for a whole new cast of characters.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink


As for things he has said in the past, have you not noticed that over the years he has been changing his stance on some of those previous positions?

See, I really haven't changed that much. I was always against excessive government spending, I just think that reckless foreign policy trumps bad economic policy.

Unfortunately, both parties have proven themselves to be virtually identical in just about all facets... more and more every year.

It is time for a whole new cast of characters.

It is entirely possible that I was to blindly partisan back in the day to understand your posts. I have changed my stance so dramatically that it may just appear to me that others have as well.

Originally posted by: Allen


The last time it was about raising taxes on the wealthy during war solely because it was done in the past.

No, I said raise taxes on EVERYBODY to traditional wartime levels until we are no longer at war, and I still believe that.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Killet
ahh so its ok then . . .and here I thought it was something to be somewhat concerned about, Thx!

I just don't remember you making any threads feigning outrage any of the numerous times the previous administration made this procedural move.

If only deficits mattered instead of the accumulated debt, then you'd have a point.

You'd also have a point is you referenced CONGRESS and not the ADMINISTRATION because congress controls the budget.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Allen


The last time it was about raising taxes on the wealthy during war solely because it was done in the past.

No, I said raise taxes on EVERYBODY to traditional wartime levels until we are no longer at war, and I still believe that.

I think your concern is misplaced. The high dollar item are social programs and programs that have essentially become social programs.
Post edited by Stryk at 12/27/2011 6:23:01 PM

Originally posted by: Stryk


You'd also have a point is you referenced CONGRESS and not the ADMINISTRATION because congress controls the budget.

Do I need to pull up the last thread where the entire thing was being laid at the feet of Obama, yet you never bothered to say the exact same thing in there that you just did to me?

Or did you intentionally come in here to further confirm my point?

Originally posted by: Stryk
I think your concern is misplaced. The high dollar item are social programs and programs that have essentially become social programs.

Besides the fact that this statement is inaccurate, I have stated over and over again on these boards my belief that SS should be dissolved.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Stryk


You'd also have a point is you referenced CONGRESS and not the ADMINISTRATION because congress controls the budget.

Do I need to pull up the last thread where the entire thing was being laid at the feet of Obama, yet you never bothered to say the exact same thing in there that you just did to me?

Or did you intentionally come in here to further confirm my point?

Please pull up the thread, and I clearly called out the Congress with emphasis on the House.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Stryk
I think your concern is misplaced. The high dollar item are social programs and programs that have essentially become social programs.

Besides the fact that this statement is inaccurate, I have stated over and over again on these boards my belief that SS should be dissolved.

The deficit is bigger than our military expenses.

If we got rid of the military, then what?

Was it this thread?

/forums/showthread.asp?forumid=551&threadid=474108

Perhaps another. In which case I may have used Obama as a proxy for the Democrats as a whole.

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Stryk
I think your concern is misplaced. The high dollar item are social programs and programs that have essentially become social programs.

Besides the fact that this statement is inaccurate, I have stated over and over again on these boards my belief that SS should be dissolved.

The deficit is bigger than our military expenses.

If we got rid of the military, then what?

First, I didn't say get rid of the military. I think it should be a fraction of the size that it is now, sure.

However, going to war and almost simultaneously lowering taxes to their lowest levels in decades is pure idiocy. You want to play world police? Be able to pay for it.

Or, better yet, don't play world police. Besides actually paying for the wars, one of the other reasons I would really like to see taxes at wartime levels is because war SHOULD hurt people in the pocketbook. if the American public was actually inconvenienced in their bank accounts when elected officials decide to play the war pig role, maybe they would stop blindly voting saber-rattling douchebags into office.

I am all for dissolving SS, repealing Obamacare, and slicing unemployment & welfare dramatically. However, I believe we should start by stopping spending billions on political military operations that have nothing to do with actual defense.

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Stryk
I think your concern is misplaced. The high dollar item are social programs and programs that have essentially become social programs.

Besides the fact that this statement is inaccurate, I have stated over and over again on these boards my belief that SS should be dissolved.

The deficit is bigger than our military expenses.

If we got rid of the military, then what?

First, I didn't say get rid of the military. I think it should be a fraction of the size that it is now, sure.

However, going to war and almost simultaneously lowering taxes to their lowest levels in decades is pure idiocy. You want to play world police? Be able to pay for it.

Or, better yet, don't play world police. Besides actually paying for the wars, one of the other reasons I would really like to see taxes at wartime levels is because war SHOULD hurt people in the pocketbook. if the American public was actually inconvenienced in their bank accounts when elected officials decide to play the war pig role, maybe they would stop blindly voting saber-rattling douchebags into office.

I am all for dissolving SS, repealing Obamacare, and slicing unemployment & welfare dramatically. However, I believe we should start by stopping spending billions on political military operations that have nothing to do with actual defense.

You know laffer curve discussion?

Well the laffer curve is a percentage point. The actual maximum revenue occurs much sooner. A good parasite doesn't kill its host or even make it too sick, or it suffers too. So there is essentially no revenue path to solving the deficit. There is only a cutting path. And cutting the military in half wouldn't even cut the deficit in half. Social programs need an axe taken to them.

End of Story.
Post edited by Stryk at 12/27/2011 6:38:43 PM

No. I don't keep up with posters' political positions or bias. There are a few obvious ones, but I don't post/read here enough to track them all. I have no idea where Killet stands for example. I just remember DF bringing up Reagan raising the debt ceiling in previous threads.

BLUF: I'm not entirely against raising the debt ceiling in certain conditions. The economic situation now though is completely different than what we've seen in the past. Comparing what happened in the 80's, 90's, 50's, etc to the present and what worked/failed then isn't all that relevant which is why I don't see the purpose of continually bringing up Reagan and him raising the debt ceiling when talking about current fiscal policy. Unless there is some specific point to be made that I missed.

Originally posted by: Allen

The economic situation now though is completely different than what we've seen in the past. Comparing what happened in the 80's, 90's, 50's, etc to the present and what worked/failed then isn't all that relevant...

Couldn't you make that argument on virtually every hot button issue?

And again, I bring it up because I am curious why, in the 8 years prior to 2008, I never once saw a thread about the debt ceiling being raised. That is a completely fair and relevant question.

Originally posted by: Stryk
Social programs need an axe taken to them.

End of Story.

I don't disagree. So does the military.

I don't think we are anywhere in the vicinity of taxation to the point of counterproductive. Tax rates are as low as they have just about ever been. Besides, there is another option: stop all of our military activity around the world that isn't not in response to a clear & imminent threat to the security of the country.

Yeah, you could. You could also point out that raising the debt ceiling has been a fairly routine occurrence since the 40's or so, and Reagan did in fact do it a lot more, but he also had a very different economic situation on his hands; the US was in a period of expansion and not fighting two wars.

So I guess the question I should ask instead of making an assumption about, is why do you bring up Reagan when the debt ceiling comes up now?

As for Bush raising it and no threads being made, no idea. Prior to this year I stayed out of the political stuff, so I can't explain that one. But, you could make the argument that during his presidency the US wasn't in a recession and was still expanding so nobody paid attention to it. Not justifying it, just speculating.

Edit: And I would ask the same question if you brought up Clinton, Johnson, Nixon, or whoever.

Post edited by Allen at 12/27/2011 7:24:48 PM

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten

Originally posted by: Allen


The last time it was about raising taxes on the wealthy during war solely because it was done in the past.

No, I said raise taxes on EVERYBODY to traditional wartime levels until we are no longer at war, and I still believe that.

That would end the wars real quick. Fortunately for the establishment, the Fed completely negates that check on government by the people.

Yay fascism!

Post edited by Nathan Bedford Forrest at 12/27/2011 10:56:01 PM

_________________
"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals."
-- Massachusetts Abolitionist, Lysander Spooner