This Whole Debt Limit Thing

[BobTheDonkey]

It actually wasn't the exact same situation. But never mind that. Please continue ignoring the specifics of this current crisis in order to make your partisan jibes.

Sure, if you ignore the off-the-books funding of two wars and tax breaks for the wealthy being the basis for the desired debt limit increase in 2006 (all of which Bush was responsible for) and ignore that the Gov't is as far in debt as it is now because of those wars and the need for stimulus for the economy and lower tax revenue due to the down economy (none of which Obama is responsible for), sure, it's exactly the same to compare Obama asking for the debt increase to Bush asking for the debt increase...

 

[Neally]

It actually wasn't the exact same situation. But never mind that. Please continue ignoring the specifics of this current crisis in order to make your partisan jibes.

We are talking about raising the debt limit, not how it was created, who caused the economic crisis, etc. Trying to deflect the clear reversal of Obama's position by obfuscating it with these other things isn't working. Not even a little. Raising the debt limit IS what Obama called a leadership failure and he voted against it. We are in the same situation now, and you continue to whine about it being different. At least Obama manned up and admitted he was wrong before.

 

[mhaze]

We are talking about raising the debt limit, not how it was created, who caused the economic crisis, etc. Trying to deflect the clear reversal of Obama's position by obfuscating it with these other things isn't working. Not even a little. Raising the debt limit IS what Obama called a leadership failure and he voted against it. We are in the same situation now, and you continue to whine about it being different. At least Obama manned up and admitted he was wrong before.

I like the idea of just not raising it. Then we've got a balanced budget, without much if any discussion and without all this horseplay.

Addicts call this "cold turkey".

Washington could use a bit of that.

 

[johnny karate]

We are talking about raising the debt limit, not how it was created, who caused the economic crisis, etc.

Right, because none of that matters. Clearly, this happened in a vacuum and any mitigating circumstances that might diminish the ability to take potshots at Obama should be steadfastly ignored.

Trying to deflect the clear reversal of Obama's position by obfuscating it with these other things isn't working. Not even a little.

Yeah, I'm the one who's deflecting. Not you for responding to my post about the Republicans' refusal to compromise with "Oh yeah, well Obama is hypocrite! Neener, neener, neener!".

Raising the debt limit IS what Obama called a leadership failure and he voted against it.

Five years ago. Under different circumstances.

We are in the same situation now...

No, we're not.

At least Obama manned up and admitted he was wrong before.

Well then. Case closed, I guess.

 

[Neally]

Right, because none of that matters. Clearly, this happened in a vacuum and any mitigating circumstances that might diminish the ability to take potshots at Obama should be steadfastly ignored.

No one claimed it doesn't matter. Separate topic. Separate thread if you want to debate it.

Five years ago. Under different circumstances.

Reading his rant from back then, his opposition to it wasn't about it being conditional based on what caused it or lead up to it. It was the simple fact of raising the debt limit on principle alone. So again, the same principle we are faced with today. Sorry again, deflection fail.

 

[johnny karate]

No one claimed it doesn't matter. Separate topic. Separate thread if you want to debate it.

My bad. I didn't realize there were such strict guidelines to follow when someone else hijacks a conversation with their partisan shenanigans.

Reading his rant from back then, his opposition to it wasn't about it being conditional based on what caused it or lead up to it. It was the simple fact of raising the debt limit on principle alone. So again, the same principle we are faced with today.

Since Obama didn't actually say any of that, I guess we'll just have to trust your objective, totally unbiased interpretation of what he did say.

Sorry again, deflection fail.

Since this whole tangent started with you trying to deflect attention from the Republicans holding the debt ceiling negotiations hostage with their childish antics, you'll forgive me if my only response to such an accusation is to laugh.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I like the idea of just not raising it. Then we've got a balanced budget, without much if any discussion and without all this horseplay.

Addicts call this "cold turkey".

Washington could use a bit of that.

Exactly.

If you are living beyond your means, charging stuff to credit cards beyond what your income will support, eventually, you'll run up to the limit of your credit cards, and you'll have no choice but to bring your spending down to what your income will support.

In 2008, we handed the credit cards over to the most recklessly irresponsible gang that has ever held them; who then proceeded to max them out an a rate we've never seen before, on the biggest binge of the most wasteful, fraudulent, irresponsible spending that we've ever seen.

And now they want us to raise their credit limit, so that they can continue to do likewise.

No.

 

[tyr_13]

Exactly.

If you are living beyond your means, charging stuff to credit cards beyond what your income will support, eventually, you'll run up to the limit of your credit cards, and you'll have no choice but to bring your spending down to what your income will support.

In 2008, 2000 we handed the credit cards over to the most recklessly irresponsible gang that has ever held them; who then proceeded to max them out an a rate we've never seen before, on the biggest binge of the most wasteful, fraudulent, irresponsible spending that we've ever seen.

And now they want us to raise their credit limit, so that they can continue to do likewise.

No.

ftfy

But I know you don't agree. You know what does agree? Math.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

ftfy

But I know you don't agree. You know what does agree? Math.

I was going to go with "reality"...but "math" is close enough

 

[Nosi]

These nonstop, proliferating wars have drained this country dry of resources and will continue to do so until there's nothing left. No cuts will ever be enough because the wars will gobble every cent of savings. No tax increase will ever be enough because the wars will gobble every cent of revenue. We can no longer afford to be the Globe's policeman. We need to look after our own for once.

 

[johnny karate]

And now they want us to raise their credit limit, so that they can continue to do likewise.

The debt ceiling needs to be raised to make good on existing obligations (Like Bush's wars, for instance), not for new spending. Also, Obama is proposing $4 trillion in deficit cuts.

Other than that, your analysis was spot on.

 

[mhaze]

ftfy

But I know you don't agree. You know what does agree? Math.

Wtf???

I'm not clear on why it matters where someone tries to place the blame. The point is the checkbook needs to be yanked out of the guys hands. In this current situation this means the Republicans taking it out of the hands of the Democrats.

Unless you've got some whacknuttery concept that because Bush overspent, Obama can too.

Just to be fair?

That kind of logic leads to the failure of a nation. I can't say I particularly care what the political fallout is (and I'm really not sure what it will be).

 

[tyr_13]

Wtf???

I'm not clear on why it matters where someone tries to place the blame. The point is the checkbook needs to be yanked out of the guys hands. In this current situation this means the Republicans taking it out of the hands of the Democrats.

Unless you've got some whacknuttery concept that because Bush overspent, Obama can too.

Just to be fair?

That kind of logic leads to the failure of a nation. I can't say I particularly care what the political fallout is (and I'm really not sure what it will be).

That would have been an excellent thing to point out to Bob, but you addressed it at me for some unknown reason.

But I'm not making the argument that because Bush overspent unwisely, it's alright for Obama to do the same. The argument is that because Bush overspent unwisely we are still paying for it and paying to get out of it. Of course it isn't 'all Bush's fault', but acting like Obama is on the hook for the war spending, the economic crash, and a broken tax system where loopholes aren't closed as a matter of course but are some sort of chip to be bargained, is wrong.

Bush's added spending was mostly unnecessary, the same cannot be said of much of Obama's. To reduce the equation down to 'spending is spending' is silly. Trillions spent on a useless war isn't the same as trillions spent on infrastructure repair for example.

 

[USEagle13]

WTH!

This shard is so Lib it's not even funny!

 

[mhaze]

That would have been an excellent thing to point out to Bob, but you addressed it at me for some unknown reason.

But I'm not making the argument that because Bush overspent unwisely, it's alright for Obama to do the same. The argument is that because Bush overspent unwisely we are still paying for it and paying to get out of it. Of course it isn't 'all Bush's fault', but acting like Obama is on the hook for the war spending, the economic crash, and a broken tax system where loopholes aren't closed as a matter of course but are some sort of chip to be bargained, is wrong.

Bush's added spending was mostly unnecessary, the same cannot be said of much of Obama's. To reduce the equation down to 'spending is spending' is silly. Trillions spent on a useless war isn't the same as trillions spent on infrastructure repair for example.

I think the problem is that your argument (bolded) is completely irrelevant, because it is nothing but a derail of the forward looking problem. You've derailed to the past, with some spin about the past.

That's not new, a lot of conservatives started laughing about the "blame Bush" meme about a year into ObamaFolly.

Namely the joke was "how long these saps going to keep the "blame Bush" derail going. And you've produced nothing NEW, just more of the same meme.

It's the "forward looking" approach that matters here. Within this approach (which does actually lead to solutions instead of silly bickering, which leads to NO solution) there are requirements to cut spending quite unpleasantly.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I like the idea of just not raising it. Then we've got a balanced budget, without much if any discussion and without all this horseplay.

Addicts call this "cold turkey".

Washington could use a bit of that.

That's not how it works. The debt limit has to be raised. We have existing obligations that cannot be fulfilled with the currently available pool of bonds. If we do not raise the debt limit, we will not be able to meet our existing obligations. We either raise it to be able to pay for our existing obligations or we don't raise it and fail to meet our existing obligations. The latter is much worse than the former.

The debt limit is independent of the debt we actually accumulate. Our debt is going to go up no matter what. If you want to argue that budgets should be such that we never need to raise the debt limit again in the future (i.e. a balanced budget amendment), then that's one thing I could agree with. But that doesn't address the immediate issue at hand.

 

[lomiller]

I think the problem is that your argument (bolded) is completely irrelevant, because it is nothing but a derail of the forward looking problem. You've derailed to the past, with some spin about the past.

That's not new, a lot of conservatives started laughing about the "blame Bush" meme about a year into ObamaFolly.

Namely the joke was "how long these saps going to keep the "blame Bush" derail going. And you've produced nothing NEW, just more of the same meme.

It's the "forward looking" approach that matters here. Within this approach (which does actually lead to solutions instead of silly bickering, which leads to NO solution) there are requirements to cut spending quite unpleasantly.

Goalpost move. He was addressing the claim that “In 2008, we handed the credit cards over to the most recklessly irresponsible gang that has ever held them” when the facts clearly show this not to be the case and that the current problem is a combination of structural debt created from 2001 – 2007 a banking crisis that was allowed to explode out of control in 2008 and a normal cyclical downturn that was mismanaged and turned into a major economic crisis.

Most of the current problem can be fixed simply by undoing what Republicans did from 2001-2007, and some small tweaks to retirement age and a modest increase in premiums to pay for Medicare part D is probably sufficient for the rest.

 

[johnny karate]

That's not new, a lot of conservatives started laughing about the "blame Bush" meme about a year into ObamaFolly.

A lot of conservatives also laugh at evolution and gay rights. Perhaps what a conservative considers to be silly or untrue isn't actually the best metric for determining either.

 

[Drysdale]

Goalpost move. He was addressing the claim that “In 2008, we handed the credit cards over to the most recklessly irresponsible gang that has ever held them” when the facts clearly show this not to be the case and that the current problem is a combination of structural debt created from 2001 – 2007 a banking crisis that was allowed to explode out of control in 2008 and a normal cyclical downturn that was mismanaged and turned into a major economic crisis.

Most of the current problem can be fixed simply by undoing what Republicans did from 2001-2007, and some small tweaks to retirement age and a modest increase in premiums to pay for Medicare part D is probably sufficient for the rest.

Maybe my memory isn't so good, but didn't the Dems win the house and senate in 2004? So why is this all GOP mismanagement?

 

[daredelvis]

Maybe my memory isn't so good, but didn't the Dems win the house and senate in 2004? So why is this all GOP mismanagement?

Your memory is wrong. They lost the 2004 election and won the 2006 election, getting a one seat advantage in the senate.

Daredelvis