Debt Ceiling Cancel The title field is required!

1. Wahlin Scott B

   
   7/20/2011 4:07 PM

   [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW-SUpZfq00[/youtube">

   
   
   
   
2. Sean Hoolehan

   

   0 posts
   
   7/20/2011 7:07 PM

   "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
   
   Sen. Obama, March 2006

   
   
   
   
3. Wahlin Scott B

   
   7/20/2011 8:07 PM

   Hoolehan said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
   
   Sen. Obama, March 2006

   
   
   Is your point that there are uninformed congressman saying things that don't make sense?

   
   
   
   
4. Keith Pegg

   

   0 posts
   
   7/20/2011 8:07 PM

   He (OB) did not understand the debt at that time and I know I don't understand it at all now except that it is a lot of money that means almost nothing if they vote to raise it. So tell the dead beats in Wa.DC to get off their hind-ends and vote to raise it then if they do not start reduce it we need to vote them out in 2012. Dem and Reb both.
   
   Keith
   (the other keith)
   
   

   Hoolehan said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
   
   Sen. Obama, March 2006

   
   
   
   
5. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   7/21/2011 6:07 AM

   keith8 said: He (OB) did not understand the debt at that time and I know I don't understand it at all now except that it is a lot of money that means almost nothing if they vote to raise it. So tell the dead beats in Wa.DC to get off their hind-ends and vote to raise it then if they do not start reduce it we need to vote them out in 2012. Dem and Reb both.
   
   Keith
   (the other keith)
   
   

   Hoolehan said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure," he said. "It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
   
   Sen. Obama, March 2006

   
   
   Isn't that just the cutest thing you've ever seen?

   
   
   
   
6. McCallum David K

   
   7/22/2011 11:07 AM

   If he was uninformed in 2006 and spent all of 2 years as a senator plus his golden resume of working as a community organizer and his wife in a Chicago law firm briefly.........is he still just as uninformed. Inquiring minds want to know where and when he gained all of this knowledge.

   
   
   
   
7. Wahlin Scott B

   
   7/22/2011 2:07 PM

   There must be a pretty good learning curve when it comes to being a new president. Bush preached a "humble" foreign policy and spoke against "nation building" in debates with Al Gore. (Well, maybe in his case it was lying.) The nauseating thing about the situation with the debt ceiling is that Obama is totally giving in to the tea party types and they are STILL not satisfied. The only thing that matters to them, including the welfare of Americans is getting Obama out of office. Why don't you righties just cut the **** and put crowns on the Koch Bros!

   
   
   
   
8. Homme David R

   
   7/22/2011 10:07 PM

   I think the "debt ceiling" on my first ever VISA card years ago was 500 bucks. When I went over this limit one time, man did they throw a fit and cut me off in a HURRY.
   
   Is it OK to say, WTF ? Obama et al. How much debt must you get into? The only reason a businessman would do this on a smaller scale, is to purposely run a company into the ground, declare bankruptcy and move on with a fresh start. Is this what's happening down there?
   
   Dave Homme
   Falls Resort

   
   
   
   
9. Wahlin Scott B

   
   7/23/2011 1:07 AM

   dhomme said: I think the "debt ceiling" on my first ever VISA card years ago was 500 bucks. When I went over this limit one time, man did they throw a fit and cut me off in a HURRY.
   
   Is it OK to say, WTF ? Obama et al. How much debt must you get into? The only reason a businessman would do this on a smaller scale, is to purposely run a company into the ground, declare bankruptcy and move on with a fresh start. Is this what's happening down there?
   
   Dave Homme
   Falls Resort

   
   
   Economists look at debt in terms of a percentage of GDP. This percentage is still very manageable as proposed by the Obama Administration. The Republics' concerns are strictly political.

   
   
   
   
10. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    7/23/2011 7:07 AM

    wahlins said: and put crowns on the Koch Bros!

    
    
    Who are the Koch Brothers?

    
    
    
    
11. Wahlin Scott B

    
    7/23/2011 8:07 AM

    Hoolehan said:

    wahlins said: and put crowns on the Koch Bros!

    
    
    Who are the Koch Brothers?

    
    
    http://www.google.com/

    
    
    
    
12. Peter Bowman

    

    11 posts
    
    7/23/2011 9:07 AM

    wahlins said:

    Hoolehan said:

    wahlins said: and put crowns on the Koch Bros!

    
    
    Who are the Koch Brothers?

    
    
    http://www.google.com/

    
    
    
    The Koch Brothers are this election season's Haliburton.

    
    
    
    
13. Sean Hoolehan

    

    0 posts
    
    7/23/2011 11:07 AM

    wahlins said:

    Hoolehan said:

    wahlins said: and put crowns on the Koch Bros!

    
    
    Who are the Koch Brothers?

    
    
    http://www.google.com/

    
    [size=150">Just making a point not really that interested.[/size">

    
    
    
    
14. McCallum David K

    
    7/25/2011 9:07 AM

    Yea I think the % of GPD is rapidly reaching the dangerous level, something else economists agree on. Just turn and look east to see what has happened in the state of PIGS.........Portugal, Ireland, Greece & Spain. Their debit is nearly 100%. Just wondering Scott do you run your person finances as Obama does? Do you purposely overspend each month and keep asking whomever provides you credit to keep raising your limit? If its good for the country why not you?
    
    Since few (actually none) can fathom a trillion dollars I will put a billion into prespective..........1 billion seconds ago was 1959 (many viewing this forum was not even a glim in their daddy's eye yet).......1 billion minutes Jesus Christ was walking this earth (some may dispute this)............1 billion hours we were still in the Stone Age.............and our federal governement spends over $ 1,000,000,000,000 every 8 hours. Now we have a billion in prespective............none of us can put our arms around the trillions they are spending............I guess the last post that stated it would take 390 years to repay at $100,000,000,000 per day interest to pay off our CURRENT debit didn't make much of an impression.
    
    You keep mentioning being nauseated............you might want to get that checked out. It could be an ulcer or something more serious.

    
    
    
    
15. Wahlin Scott B

    
    7/25/2011 12:07 PM

    [quote">

    McCallum said: Just wondering Scott do you run your person finances as Obama does? Do you purposely overspend each month and keep asking whomever provides you credit to keep raising your limit? If its good for the country why not you?[quote">

    
    That is how they have all done it since WWI. Reagan raised it 120 times. I imagine that the economics of running a world power is a little more sophisticated than my personal finances.

    
    
    
    
16. Kauffman John M

    
    7/26/2011 10:07 AM

    wahlins said:

    dhomme said: I think the "debt ceiling" on my first ever VISA card years ago was 500 bucks. When I went over this limit one time, man did they throw a fit and cut me off in a HURRY.
    
    Is it OK to say, WTF ? Obama et al. How much debt must you get into? The only reason a businessman would do this on a smaller scale, is to purposely run a company into the ground, declare bankruptcy and move on with a fresh start. Is this what's happening down there?
    
    Dave Homme
    Falls Resort

    
    
    Economists look at debt in terms of a percentage of GDP. This percentage is still very manageable as proposed by the Obama Administration. The Republics' concerns are strictly political.

    
    
    You are correct, Scott, that one important measure (but by far not the only measure) of debt is a percentage of GDP. Currently, the gross public debt (social security, medicare, other gov't programs, and investor debt) stands at about 93% of GDP ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/08/usa-treasury-debt-idUSN088462520100608 ). A recent paper by two well-known economists, Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Keneth Rogoff of Harvard, found economies to grow quite slowly when gross public debt exceeded 90% of GDP ( http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/01/04/reinhart-and-rogoff-higher-debt-may-stunt-economic-growth/ ). They also found inflation rise much faster for those nations over 90% debt:GDP.
    
    So, I, and other economists, don't agree that the current debt situation is manageable.
    
    ~JMK

    
    
    
    
17. Wahlin Scott B

    
    7/26/2011 10:07 AM

    jkauffm1 said:

    wahlins said:

    dhomme said:
    
    So, I, and other economists, don't agree that the current debt situation is manageable.
    
    ~JMK

    
    
    Anyone who has studied Economics formally knows that if you ever see a True/False question that starts out, "Economists agree" the answer is FALSE. It is not an exact science and there will always be those who disagree with the obvious.

    
    
    
    
18. McCallum David K

    
    7/26/2011 10:07 AM

    Damn you John.......there you go again ruining a perfectly good argument with the left with facts.....but I think the left tends to side with the Professor of Feminist Economics..........a simple keystroke will eradicate the debit.

    
    
    
    
19. Wahlin Scott B

    
    7/26/2011 10:07 AM

    McCallum said: Damn you John.......there you go again ruining a perfectly good arguement with the left with facts.....but I think the left tends to side with the Professor of Feminist Economics..........a simply keystroke will eradicate the debit.

    
    
    No David. It is the right that does not deal with facts. Just ask Sarah Palin. You will get an answer, but facts will have nothing to do with it.

    
    
    
    
20. Kauffman John M

    
    7/26/2011 10:07 PM

    wahlins said:

    jkauffm1 said:

    wahlins said:

    dhomme said:
    
    So, I, and other economists, don't agree that the current debt situation is manageable.
    
    ~JMK

    
    
    Anyone who has studied Economics formally knows that if you ever see a True/False question that starts out, "Economists agree" the answer is FALSE. It is not an exact science and there will always be those who disagree with the obvious.

    
    
    I didn't say that ALL economists agree with my position -- I only said that other economists do. Among them are Carmen Reinhart and Keneth Rogoff (although we could name more, if you like).
    
    If you disagree with their findings, I invite you to present that information here.
    
    I agree with Reinhart and Rogoff's assessment, in part because they conducted a historical study, which is objective and difficult to disagree with (how can you disagree with the humbers of what actually happened?). But, I also agree with the principles of debt limitations, considering their impact on investment. I don't think that balancing the federal budget every year is necessarily a good thing (it removes too many fiscal policy tools), but I do think we must assess the wisdom of what we spend and what we borrow.
    
    One thing I find striking is the lack of economic information in the current debate. The media are certainly trying to keep us in the dark and the politicians are leading a strong campaign of misinfirmation and obfuscation. Perhaps the worst of which is this whole 'default' talk. During the month of August alone, our governmetn will take in no less than 3 times the amount required to service our debt. That doesn't soudn like 'default' to me.

    
    
    
    
21. McCallum David K

    
    7/27/2011 6:07 AM

    How did Sarah Palin get injected in the debt ceiling talk. I guess if you can't blame Bush, blame Palin. The left always has a fall guy.

    
    
    
    
22. Wahlin Scott B

    
    7/27/2011 7:07 AM

    McCallum said: How did Sarah Palin get injected in the debit ceiling talk. I guess if you can't blame Bush, blame Palin. The left always has a fall guy.

    
    
    No, I blame anyone who thinks it is a good idea to start two wars and lower tax rates.
    
    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE[/youtube">

    
    
    
    
23. Wahlin Scott B

    
    7/27/2011 8:07 AM

    [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/reps.jpg[/img">
    
    [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/reps2.jpg[/img">

    
    
    
    
24. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    7/27/2011 9:07 AM

    I don't care which president raised anything in the past. We have finally reached the point of no return and the entire mess needs to be cleaned up. You can lay blame all the way back to FDR. What good does it do. Our current spending is not sustainable. We need to turn years of mistakes around now, not later. Unless the goal is to turn America into a European Social Democracy, drastic changes are required immediately to save our great country from eating itself up internally due to gross fiscal mismanagement.

    
    
    
    
25. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    7/27/2011 11:07 AM

    I just want to throw my two cents in, (of course) I say we need to be cautious with the reigning in spending. If the government cuts all the infrastructure spending, and the private sector doesn't want to create jobs, in my opinion that is just going to make unemployment even worse. Infrastructure projects whether it be roads, bridges, fiber optic cable, communication satellites, helps businesses that use the infrastructure be more productive. As business people will say, "It takes money to make money"
    
    I would say 90-95% of the money gets paid to private contractors who hire workers to do the project. These workers pay income and payroll taxes, and with their jobs they have money to spend, which creates demand for more products and services, which in-turn, puts more people back to work.
    
    For the debt problem, yes it needs to be fixed and projects funded by the government need to be prioritized. That can address the spending issue. But by getting people back to work that will produce revenue for the government. Let's look at the tax codes, either let the Bush tax cuts expire, (this was the one thing I am most disappointed with the president about) or rework the tax codes. If I hear one more Republican say job killing taxes, or we can't raise taxes on the job producers, I'll just run against that ba#%$ myself. Because the last 10 years of the Bush tax cuts haven't proven that it has produced jobs. Before we went to war (unfunded) the tax cuts could have made since with the budget surplus that Bush was given. (Or he could have just invested in the infrastructure) but if you are going to spend money on wars, it's got to be paid for.
    
    This has to be a balanced approach like the president has said. The president needs to just stick to his guns, if he has to use the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling this time go ahead. He has given into the republican more then I would have. If they don't want to want to come along forget them. They will then have proven their only interest was to not work with the president and could give a rats a@#$ about the country.
    
    That's my opinion built on simple observation and common sense. Of course the issues are not that simple but it is a good place to start.

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
26. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    7/27/2011 11:07 AM

    Mel, we were at statistical full employment for 7 of the 8 Bush years. We saw large job creation. Did we spend way too much? Absolutely. Between the wars, the prescription drug plan and a number of other areas we spent big money on, it became an accident waiting to happen. Currently, companies that can stock pile money are doing it due to the scary economy. Health care has scared them to death and most will continue to tighten up due to uncertainty. These job creators won't budge due to fear of higher taxes, higher costs and excessive government meddling and regulation. Adding taxes to the few percent that pay 80+% of taxes now will further hurt growth.

    
    
    
    
27. Spotts David A

    
    7/27/2011 1:07 PM

    THIS FORUMN IS SCREWED UP. ONLY WANTED TO POST ONCE. SORRY

    
    
    
    
28. Spotts David A

    
    7/27/2011 1:07 PM

    yeah Melvin I'm with you. If the rich need tax cuts to create jobs then why have they been holding on to every cent instead of making jobs? Their tax cuts haven't produced anything. They don't hire more people they just make fewer people do more, and the rich get richer. On our backs.

    
    
    
    
29. Spotts David A

    
    7/27/2011 1:07 PM

    yeah Melvin I'm with you. If the rich need tax cuts to create jobs then why have they been holding on to every cent instead of making jobs? Their tax cuts haven't produced anything. They don't hire more people they just make fewer people do more, and the rich get richer. On our backs.

    
    
    
    
30. Spotts David A

    
    7/27/2011 1:07 PM

    yeah Melvin I'm with you. If the rich need tax cuts to create jobs then why have they been holding on to every cent instead of making jobs? Their tax cuts haven't produced anything. They don't hire more people they just make fewer people do more, and the rich get richer. On our backs.