Thirty three

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
Thirty three is the number of times Congress raised the debt ceiling from Reagan to Bush II.


17 times under Reagan
5 times under Bush I
4 times under Clinton
7 times under Bush II
 
Is there a point here?

Are you saying we should continue to raise the debt ceiling until the roof collapses on the basis of we did it in the past therefore we can justify it in the future?

Can we raise it to 30 trillion? 100 trillion? At what point is enough, enough?
 
For many of the 'moderate' repubs- this is about F'ing over Obama so he looks bad and is hurt for 2012. For the Tea Party Repubs- this is about one viewpoint only mixed with a little anarchy.

And for both groups of Republicans- it's about ignoring the fact that the American people did not give them control of the Senate or the Executive Branch and unless they want to destroy the economy further they need to compromise irregardless of their viewpoints. Considering the Grand Compromise of $4 trillion in savings was based on 80% spending cuts- they were given what they asked for already.
 
mcbrett,
you might consider that some believe that continually raising the debt ceiling with no real limit ever, is what some in Congress believe will lead to the destruction of our economy.
I for one never want to be in the position of the Greek government. I think the best way to do that, is so raise the current debt ceiling, while at the same time making drastic cuts to end deficit spending and start to pay down our debt over time.
I agree with those who say that not raising the ceiling doesn't necessarily mean default. I think that many want it to go past Aug 2nd, so that the government has to prioritise what we spend, and in doing so, will start to get a handle on realistic spending levels. When that is done, then the ceiling will be raised in a way that forces the government to control spending in the future.
 
The debt ceiling should just be raised. It is utter ******** to use our economy as a hostage for extortion. There should not be any connection between this routine act and the budget.

If the Republicans want to play hardball on the budget, they control the House and can do it in September. This worked well in 1994.
 
mcbrett,
I don't know all the ends and outs of that 4 trillion deal. It seems reasonable on the surface to me. I would almost consider myself a tea partier on here. No doubt I have a reputation as a budget hawk on WM.
My issue with the 4 trillion dollar compromise is what I read about how the 3 trillion in 'cuts' was formulated. 1 trillion in 'savings' from drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These seem to be going to happen anyway. Then 500 billion on slowed grow projections in expenditures, not real cuts. That means that 50% of the 'cuts' were an accounting sham. I don't know if that is true, but that is what I read. That pisses me off when both sides do that. We need to really reduce our expenditures as a country.
I am pissed at both sides. Seems the GOP needs to compromise including ending subsidies across the board, and closing tax loopholes. Both sides need to propose REAL cuts. The Dems should have proposed and passed a budget 2 year ago also.
There is plenty of paint for both 'sides' to me.
 
THEU I agree- of the $4 trillion- some of that was cosmetic. But, I think we have to walk before we run- even though I'd love to run right now. And considering this has exploded since Boehner turned it down and spiraled downwards- clearly I think a compromise built upon the gang of 6 plan- rather than the inter-tribal war the GOP has now- was the answer.

Now, instead of our mediocre plan with some cosmetics- we may be left with sh*t. And instead of bi-partisanship, now both parties have internal wars and bickering. This has divided the country further when it could have instead taken a small step towards uniting it, and then building upon the progress with further cuts later.
 
mcbrett,
I believe that both parties will come around. The ONLY way anything can pass is through a bipartisan compromise. The House and Senate numbers alone demand it, much less Obama's signature. I don't mind this coming down to the 11th hour, because it means both parties are taking this seriously, which they need to be doing.
 
I don't think the tea party goes along unless the Koch brother's get to keep the advantages of the Bush tax cuts and their tax loopholes are made all but made permanent. Billionaires don't want class warfare. The system in place now is accellerating the concentration of wealth, which is pretty damned important if you have a lot but want a lot more. If we can stop paying unewmployment than the millions of jobless workers out there will be forced to take any job -- giving the investor class more leverage to lower wages and demand more productivity from those with jobs. I think to goal is to create a wealth economy instead of a consumer economy. Unfortunately, it will leave an ever larger slice of the population too poor to ever pay significant taxes.
 
Crockett,
When you say 'investor' class.. you mean people like me who make less than 50k, but who invest and save and give more than I spend? You do know, investor class is just a smarter class of people, not necessarily a wealthier one, right?
 
I may have some respect for the republicans had this fight been brought over the budget. I would also have some respect had the republicans accepted the origianl deal that Boehner negotiated with Obama, which should have been pretty good from a conservative standpoint.

Instead, the republicans in the House look petulant, foolish, and reckless. It's unfortunate, because the conservatives were pretty persuasive that spending needed to be reigned in (not so persuasive, however, that this falls entirely on Obama rather than mostly on Bush). Instead, they probably just signed their death warrant as a credible party for the next few years.
 
Buffalo is right. Those evil Tea people killed the Presidents brillian plan. Buffalo, please attach a copy of that plan so we can appreciate its brilliance.
 
By "investor class" I mean those that have enough money that if they work it's for pleasure/satisfaction. They have enough assets to generate plenty of income to live well. If you make $50K, work hard and save the system is not wired in your favor. To make it work in your favor you need to develop unique talents and skills that can't be outsourced, mechanized or handled by someone willng to work for well less than a working class standard of living.
 
i say we raise it one more time by 4 Trillion but never raise it again. I say we take drastic action to cut our spending and set as a rock solid goal that we have a balanced budget 5 years from now and start paying down the 18 Trillion we will then be in debt by.
 
Crockett,
you are speaking about me in the future then. I pay my house off extra fast, will gain some inheritance at some point, and I save much of my money now, in addition to hoping for SS, and also I have a pension that is invested for me via work.
I hope to, and should retire a multimillionaire on my 50k a year salary, not because I ever earned a great deal of money, but because over a lifetime I have the opportunity to create wealth for myself.
I want things to be fair for the 'investor' class as you call them, because I am them. I have money in all types of investments because I see my income as a vehicle to create wealth, not as a commodity to be spent.
There really is no reason that most people who work their entire lives aren't able to put away something substantial for their future, unless they just overspend.....
40% of Americans spend 110% of their annual income. That is the problem. We need something like 80% of Americans spending 75% of their income, and investing 25%. ALL people at ALL income levels should be 'investors.'
 
Simply raising the debt ceiling 33 times is part of the reason, we are having problems now. Maybe if a politician had stopped and asked questions before now, we might not be facing Death by Debt.

The only reason we are even having a discussion about this right now, is because enough people got tired of business as usual. Without that, we would have trillions more in spending and billions in cuts.

The McCain's, Boner's and McConnell's along with the rest of the GOP establishment need to realize that the only reason they have any leverage is because of the new faces that the people voted in. The people that are tired of the same old ********.

Now the establishment can go ahead, make nice and sell out the people again. But, they damn sure better prepare for another *** kicking, like they got in 2006 and 2008.

Don't even bother waiting until January, 2013, just go ahead and give Nancy and Steny back their offices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top