The Political Party

[splatbass]

---

mauser wrote:
Splat: And we both know that after paying our current bills Congress will turn right around and spend even more money that we on't have until we hit the new debt limit. And we do it all over again.

The only way to stop the cycle is to simply not give them the ability to overspend, which is what raising the debt ceiling does.

---

So you want us to default on our bills? Is that the way you run your household?

[splatbass]

---

mauser wrote:
Splat: What ideology might that be?

---

Right wing extremist.

[mauser]

Wanting the government to live within its means is so extreme.....

[note4note]

---

mauser wrote:
Wanting the government to live within its means is so extreme.....

---

It's rare in our history...at least in the last 100 years.

[mauser]

---

note4note wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Wanting the government to live within its means is so extreme.....

---

It's rare in our history...at least in the last 100 years.

---

It is rare.  I believe the last time we actually balanced the budget and reduced the national debt was 1960.

[mauser]

---

splatbass wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Splat: And we both know that after paying our current bills Congress will turn right around and spend even more money that we on't have until we hit the new debt limit. And we do it all over again.

The only way to stop the cycle is to simply not give them the ability to overspend, which is what raising the debt ceiling does.

---

So you want us to default on our bills? Is that the way you run your household?

---

In my household, we don't borrow money to pay the bills, and then borrow more to pay the bills plus the money we had to borrow, and then borrow more to pay the bills, plus the money we borrowed to pay the money we borrowed.....eventually paying nothing more than interest on the debt because that's all we can afford. Granted....i believe many American do precisely that....but we don't.

The federal government does, and it's why we're in the hold to the tune of $16 trillion.

If it means the government not paying its bills for a time so that we can restructure the debt and live within our means, as painful as that may be for a while...absolutely.

[splatbass]

---

mauser wrote:

---

splatbass wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Splat: And we both know that after paying our current bills Congress will turn right around and spend even more money that we on't have until we hit the new debt limit. And we do it all over again.

The only way to stop the cycle is to simply not give them the ability to overspend, which is what raising the debt ceiling does.

---

So you want us to default on our bills? Is that the way you run your household?

---

In my household, we don't borrow money to pay off existing debt, and then borrow more to pay that off, and then....etc, etc.  Granted....i believe many American do precisely that....but we don't.

The federal government does, and it's why we're in the hold to the tune of $16 trillion.

If it means the government not paying its bills for a time so that we can restructure the debt and live within our means, as painful as that may be for a while...absolutely.

---

So you are willing to have our credit rating drop yet again? I'm not. The last one caused by this very same GOP game playing hurt us badly, and will cost us billions in interest in the future.

[mauser]

---

splatbass wrote:

---

mauser wrote:

---

splatbass wrote:

---

mauser wrote:
Splat: And we both know that after paying our current bills Congress will turn right around and spend even more money that we on't have until we hit the new debt limit. And we do it all over again.

The only way to stop the cycle is to simply not give them the ability to overspend, which is what raising the debt ceiling does.

---

So you want us to default on our bills? Is that the way you run your household?

---

In my household, we don't borrow money to pay off existing debt, and then borrow more to pay that off, and then....etc, etc.  Granted....i believe many American do precisely that....but we don't.

The federal government does, and it's why we're in the hold to the tune of $16 trillion.

If it means the government not paying its bills for a time so that we can restructure the debt and live within our means, as painful as that may be for a while...absolutely.

---

So you are willing to have our credit rating drop yet again? I'm not. The last one caused by this very same GOP game playing hurt us badly, and will cost us billions in interest in the future.

---

Yes, I am.

If you want to continue the debt spiral, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

[guido61]

---

mauser wrote:

Yes, I am.

If you want to continue the debt spiral, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

---

So you're willing to ruin the credit rating of the US, cause interest rates to skyrocket and send the economy back into recession (or worse) just to not continue the debt spiral?   Isn't the entire point of not continuing the debt spiral is because you feel having so much debt is bad for the economic health of the nation?

Is your plan to kill the patient in order to save it?  

I agree we need to reduce the debt.   But defaulting on it is NOT the way to do it.  I know it sounds good and fits on a bumper-sticker nicely to talk about not allowing the government to borrow more money.   But to actually propose it as an economic solution to anything displays a SERIOUS lack of understanding fiscal and economic issues.

[Tom Hicks]

---

mauser wrote:
Tom: You're right. They played instead of agreeing to live within our means. And now we're several more trillion in debt.

---

i applaud your recognition that GOP political machinations cost the national credit rating without the reduction in spending you seek.

now, how to stop that from recurring, while at the same time reducing the funds going to the wife's sister? in considering your reply, bear in mind that funding bills originate in the GOP controlled house.

[guido61]

I wouldn't be so quick to jump all over those who don't want to raise the debt ceiling, except they are clearly either very stupid, or lying.

They claim to have reducing the debt as their #1 priority, but they don't really mean it.  They could eliminate the need to raise the debt ceiling TOMORROW by balancing the budget.  But they have no interest in balancing the budget.  Otherwise, they would have taken serious steps towards it during the "super committee" hearings.  But they refused because balancing the budget would require, as it always has in the past, increasing revenues.

So when put to the wall they change their story and claim they want to reduce spending as the means to balance the budget.   But again, they don't really mean that either.   Because they only way to get even REMOTELY close to balancing the budget by simply reducing spending would mean deep cuts to programs they have no intention of cutting.

So what they really are doing is just playing a game designed at reducing/eliminating government spending for the stuff THEY don't like.  Even though 1/2 the country does.   They are simply immature children who never learned to share.

It's OUR country.  It's OUR government.  That means that none of us are going to get our way 100% of the time regarding what we think is important.  We're going to have to let the other guys have their way part of the time too.

[mauser]

Guido: I believe I answered a similar question already.

[planteater-X]

Obviously, the limit will be raised again. The US can't function under the current debt limit.

[mauser]

Tom: They originate in the House regardless of which party is in control.

And unfortunately for the country, neither party wants to live within its means.

[Tom Hicks]

---

mauser wrote:
Tom: You're right. They played instead of agreeing to live within our means. And now we're several more trillion in debt.

---

the GOP controls the house and spending bills originate in the house. the GOP played politics with the debt ceiling last go-round, and it cost the country a downgrading of the credit rating, without cutting the spending you say you want. during the campaign, romney wanted to increase spending on the military, which already gets the lion's share on spending. i heard no objections from the GOP supporters on this forum to that spending increase proposal.

sensing a pattern yet?

Defense spending to spike $2.1 trillion under Romney

By Charles Riley May 10, 2012: 9:52 AM ET

The former Massachusetts governor wants to increase defense spending by leaps and bounds. By one estimate, additional spending would exceed $2 trillion over the next decade.

Romney's plan calls for linking the Pentagon's base budget to Gross Domestic Product, and allowing the military to spend at least $4 dollars out of every $100 the American economy produces.

With the Pentagon's base budget -- which does not include war costs -- forecast to hit 3.5% of GDP in 2013, a jump to 4% would mean an increase of around $100 billion dollars in defense spending in 2013.

The additional spending really piles up in future years.

Compared to the Pentagon's current budget, Romney's plan would lead to $2.1 trillion in additional spending over the next ten years, according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by Travis Sharp, a budget expert at the Center for a New American Security.

And that number assumes a gradual increase to 4% of GDP. The additional spending would hit $2.3 trillion over a decade if the Pentagon's budget were to immediately jump to 4% of GDP.

[RedRoadEnsemble]

What recent president took wars off the budget?

[mauser]

Tom: The pattern is that neither party is interested in spending less money.

You already know that, but you're simply too invested in the Democrat Party.

[thankyou]

---

RedRoadEnsemble wrote:

What recent president took wars off the budget?

---

Gee, that's a hard question.  It may be the same one who cut a bunch of revenue, too.  So, I guess that since I'm retired, I can just go on spending like I wasn't retired and pretend that the bills won't come.

[Tom Hicks]

---

mauser wrote:
Tom: The pattern is that neither party is interested in spending less money.

You already know that, but you're simply too invested in the Democrat Party.

---

the pattern is that the GOP controls the house, which is where spending originates. i understand you would rather speak vaguely about this specific issue than stipulate their responsibility in this matter, since it undercuts your control of spending talking point.

the further pattern is that the GOP routinely raised the debt limit when their party controlled the presidency, and only uses the issue as a political weapon against obama.

these are all facts of which i speak. but you are welcome to reply with further opinions. you are entitled to believe what you like, no matter what the facts show.

[mauser]

Tom: doesn't matter to me which party is in control, because they're both dismal failures.