Like it or not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.Not an option.In the instance you propose - and, apparently have decided to walk away from - you have several choices under a BBA:
Like it or not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.Not an option. We don't let communities struck by disaster to "pick thenselves up by their bootstraps" and "fend for themselves" in this nation when calamity strikes.
Like it of not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.Same as the first non-option.
Well then -- the issue you raised in a non-issue.That is an option, it's what we do now.
Yes. A perfectly reasonable way to deal with the issue, one that does not involve borrowing.So there's what? A Natural Disaster Reserve Fund for natural disasters
I'm sorry that your -first- reaction was to bowrrow the money, but that's on you, not me.Now that's funny coming from the Conservative party of fiscal responsibility we've seen since Reagan. :roll:
I'm very curious to know what you think he SHOULD have done differently?
I've address it 100 times. I've pointed out while it's not good, in many ways it's better than every Republican you ever voted for. And most of the problems we face today stem from the Great Bush Recession, which lost 8,000,000 jobs, 5.1% of GDP, and 40% of stock market valuation.Are you ever going to address the Obama record and how anyone can support someone with .4% GDP growth, 1.3% GDP growth two years AFTER the end of a recession? Obviously you helped put this incompetent in the WH so instead of fessing up and admitting your error you continue to dig the hole deeper. It will be the Obama record on the ballot in 2012, not Reagan and Bush.
Oh no? How about just yessterday when you tried passing off debt projections as deficit projections?I don't lie but you sure use that word a lot. too bad you aren't paying attention to Obama because there is the definition of a lie
I've address it 100 times. I've pointed out while it's not good, in many ways it's better than every Republican you ever voted for. And most of the problems we face today stem from the Great Bush Recession, which lost 8,000,000 jobs, 5.1% of GDP, and 40% of stock market valuation.
Oh no? How about just yessterday when you tried passing off debt projections as deficit projections?
It's easier for a state to pass such legislation, knowing that in a real emergency, they can turn to the federal government to bail them out.
Posts #245 and #247 explains why I believe it wouldn't work and post #249 contains an alternate solution. What else do you want?Very soft answer. You did not disagree with my final safety hatch nor did you explain why it could not work.
No, that is not always an option. We're at war ... we're out of money to continue funding said war ... we can do it my way, borrow the money to pay for the war and continue fighting it ... or your way, tuck our tail between our legs and cower away in poverty and hope the enemy doesn't proverbally shoot us in the back as with slither away.Like it or not, NOT spending money is -always- an option.
Since you missed the point, lemme 'splain it to you ... Conservative presidents contributed 8 trillion of our 14 trillion dollar debt ... Conservative's never complained until a Democrat borrwoed money like a Republican. Conservatives' hands are not clean.I'm sorry that your -first- reaction was to bowrrow the money, but that's on you, not me.
:shrug:
Glad to see this done, now lets get onto talking about what is actually important for our financial future.
Lets talk about significantly reforming and/or cutting entitlements and looking at what we can do to reduce military spending.
More than half of our spending is tied up in entitlement payouts like Social Security, SCHIP, and Unemployment benefits. Add defense spending and you get almost 75% of our spending. Even if we were to cut every single solitary piece of government spending we have, including reducing defense to $0 dollars, we'd STILL be running a $43 billion debt each year. Cutting just the DOD's budget would still have us with with $750+ billion dollars in deficit.
With our current spending we'd need to increase revenues by almost 70% just to break EVEN. Cut the DOD and you'd still need to raise revenues by more than 35% to break even.
Is raising taxes possibly a part of the solution? Yes. But its not a much bigger part of it than cutting foreign aid or useless programs or various subsidies, etc. They're small drops into a bucket full of water. Until we honestly and seriously start acting like adults and look at these entitlement programs and decide what's FEASIBLE rather than what feels good, and realize that there is no perfect solution where no one gets hurt (that includes just letting them keep going), then we're never going to fix this issue.
We're just kicking the can down the road.
Significantly reform entitlements, significantly cut military spending, and then maybe we'll get financially solvent. Cut both by 1/3rd and they'd remain a clear majority of our government spending (2/3rds). That would cut the deficit by almost 2/3rds, from $1.4 trillion to $538 Billion. It would also bring us far closer to potentially balancing the budget by looking at smaller affecting things such as increased taxes, removal of waste and redundency, and cuts to non-essential government programs.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
Oh really? Who'd you vote for in 1992?No, there is quite a difference, both Repubicans that I voted for had an economic plan in place that was headed in the right direction when the time came for re-election.
No, that is not always an option. We're at war ... we're out of money to continue funding said war ... we can do it my way, borrow the money to pay for the war and continue fighting it ... or your way, tuck our tail between our legs and cower away in poverty and hope the enemy doesn't proverbally shoot us in the back as with slither away.
Point being, there are times you have to spend money. You don't have enough money to pay your electric bill and your car payment -- my way, you borrow the money and keep your car and your lights on; your way, you're either living in the dark, losing your car, or losing something else you're taking the money from.
Since you missed the point, lemme 'splain it to you ... Conservative presidents contributed 8 trillion of our 14 trillion dollar debt ... Conservative's never complained until a Democrat borrwoed money like a Republican. Conservatives' hands are not clean.
Oh really? Did you vote for GHW Bush in 1992? What was his economic plan that you supported?
Yes, yes it is.No, that is not always an option.
You did notice that -I- suggested an exeption to a balanced budget during times of declared war - right?We're at war ... we're out of money to continue funding said war ... we can do it my way, borrow the money to pay for the war and continue fighting it...
Your point was that when you want the government to spend money and it doesn't have any, your -first- thought is to borrow it.Since you missed the point...
And you don't seem to understand that except for the rare Congressional veto override, not a dime was spent without the president's approval.How did those President's create the debt all buy themselves without the help of a Democrat controlled Congress. Reagan never had total control of the Congress, Bush had control from 2003-2007 but Obama had total control in overwhelming numbers. Civics tells us that Congress controls the pursestrings and legislative process. Too many here don't understand that.
What was his economic plan that you voted to give 4 more years for?Yes, and if you bothered to look at the GDP you would understand why
And you don't seem to understand that except for the rare Congressional veto override, not a dime was spent without the president's approval.
What was his economic plan that you voted to give 4 more years for?
As seen here, it's a good bet that, when ubale to defend a point, a lberal will resort to a red herring, personal insults, or both.Would love to discuss GHW Bush vs. Clinton with you but you need to start a GHW Bush vs. Clinton thread. This thread isn't about GHW Bush, GW Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton. What you want to do is divert from the current President and try to justify your vote by bashing previous Presidents.
The election will be about jobs and the economy, and most Americans understand who is responsible for the Great Recession. If they were starting to forget, this debt limit "debate" should refresh their recollections.
Indeed. Say goodbye to your Secular Messiah.The election will be about jobs and the economy, and most Americans understand who is responsible for the Great Recession.
As seen here, it's a good bet that, when ubale to defend a point, a lberal will resort to a red herring, personal insults, or both.
Because ... again ... there are many different reasons for why such exceptions would need to be in there. I just don't see th point in creating an amendment that's so bad on it's own, that it requires all those loopholes; when the other option is -- don't re-elect someone you feel is abusing the budget.You did notice that -I- suggested an exeption to a balanced budget during times of declared war - right?
However, we arent discussing a declared war, we're discussing your issue of a Katrina-like natural disaster.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?