Back then they talked of billions, now they talk of trillions, so do the math, on an extra half percent on outstanding debts, and tell me its not more rather than less than what it was. In other words, it adds to the debt.

Then just imagine who gets put at the end of the list when they decide who to pay, and who not to pay until they borrow more to pay them at whatever interest they charge. In addition its no longer "the checks in the mail" it becomes "the check might be in the mail". How's that for waiting to go get groceries, meds, or anything else.

In addition doesn't it make sense to do what is agreed on while the debate rages on about the things we don't. Why is it conditional on what side is right when both sides can be wrong. Or is that unreasonable?

tal ; the Fed has kept interest rates artificially low for most of a decade now . A half percent is nowhere's where they should be right now . It has contributed in the devaluation of the currency (the loonie is a better currency for God's sake !) and the unreported inflation in the US ,and is negatively impacting the world financial stability.
Let the dollar and the interest rate go to where they should go .
Much of the instability in the ME is due to inflationary prices of basics like bread and that can be directly linked to a devalued US currency .

That's assuming that a half a percent is the rise in interests rates after this default. It also assumes that a deal is reached quickly, as the last one was never given a chance to develop to its full potential disaster. Run that out for a week, a month or a year, and the effects on interest rates, as well as credit ratings and borrowing power undermines your assumption of only a half a percent interest rise.

Its also a misconception that the President has a blank check for more spending, since this is already a debt that's incurred already, and its Congress that has to approve of any additional or future spending. So going forward, we will see what the repubs do. That should be interesting. Got popcorn?? Maybe now we can get a jobs bill since that's what the last election was about. And that's what the nation needs more than anything else.

Just for kicks, how do you think the unemployed will vote in 2012?

Hello again:

Well, waddya know? The Republicans thought they held a winning hand... They thought Obama would cave.. But, he didn't. He surprised everybody and raised instead.

The Republicans looked him in the eye, and folded like a cheap suit.


excon

Anything to not go on record with a straight, clean yes, or no vote.

McConnell is not running this show. The Senate does not control the budgetary process. It has to originate in the House . If Speaker Bonehead goes along with this there will be a revolt.

If this McConnell plan goes through,it means the President alone will thrice be responsible for debt increases in an election year. I can see his thinking . But I don't agree with it . To sum it up;McConnell wants to give the President the ability to raise the debt limit so everyone will blame the President for raising it and not blame McConnell for giving Obama the authority in the first place? That is 'stuck on stupid' thinking . McConnell must not want a Republican party anymore.

This will be viewed as a cave in by the TP who are already steamed over the CR cave earlier this year.When the establishment RINOs wonder why the TP bolts to form a 3rd party ,they will point to this moment if the plan is implemented.

I'm worse than bent out of shape here. Now Obammy wants to attack Social Security benefits and threatens that next money the old farts won't get their monthly checks! Since when is SSR tied into the budget when it is a worker funded FUND. The govt keeps SSR as a piggy bank to rob at the slightest whim. It's been 2 years and NO cost of living increase. It looks like Bammy is going to NOT give the cost of living increase again in 2012. But last year it was tauted that 2011 would get no raise but 2012 WOULD get the raise. Make up my mind as you talk out your behind too much Bammy. Would someone please redo his teleprompter messages?

If the debt ceiling is not raised the ENTIRE world will collapse financially! Think of what the US Dollar does around the world in aid to other countries alone! The entire civilization will collapse and everyone will be holding worthless paper money while driving around in their soon to be repoed fancy cars eating bread that costs $1K a loaf (if you can even find it to buy that is).

The wackos in Washington are really pushing the limit on this debt stuff. They need to concentrate more on less important stuff like paving roads to nowhere and leave the really important stuff alone and let the crooked Fed print more worthless paper.

Quote:

---

Since when is SSR tied into the budget when it is a worker funded FUND.

---

Bingo! I spoke of this on an email exchange earlier today.If he does that he will expose the lie that says SS is a trust fund put aside for retirees . The AARPees may finally learn that the giverment treats their SS contribution as just another source of "revenue " .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

If the debt ceiling is not raised the ENTIRE world will collapse financially!! Think of what the US Dollar does around the world in aid to other countries alone!! The entire civilization will collapse and everyone will be holding worthless paper money while driving around in their soon to be repoed fancy cars eating bread that costs $1K a loaf (if you can even find it to buy that is).

The wackos in Washington are really pushing the limit on this debt stuff. They need to concentrate more on less important stuff like paving roads to nowhere and leave the really important stuff alone and let the crooked Fed print more worthless paper.

---

Or they can finally draw the line in the sand on uncontrolled spending .

Raise the darn thing and lets wait for the jobs bill. Then we see what the deficit looks like after we get out of the recession. 30 million jobs should give us all a fresh perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

30 million jobs should give us all a fresh perspective.

---

No doubt. You should think about what you expect these 30 million people to be doing after all that's many more than are unemployeed so back to the problem of illegal migration

Same old playbook by the Dems. Raise taxes now... vague promises unfulfilled for spending cuts in the future .They did it to Reagan (now one of their biggest talking points is about Reagan's tax increases ) and they did it to GHW Bush after he promised to not raise taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

same old playbook by the Dems. Raise taxes now ....vague promises unfulfilled for spending cuts in the future .They did it to Reagan (now one of their biggest talking points is about Reagan's tax increases ) and they did it to GHW Bush after he promised to not raise taxes.

---

You know Tom when you are spending twice what you earn, something has to give and governments have very limited options. If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse, but if they ask the people to share the pain through taxes that isn't irresponsible, unless of course they ask the people to share the pain through entitlement cuts. The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves, this in fact is a very stupid attitude.

Because I live in a place where governments make responsible decisions about taxation without the anquish which is apparent there I find it hard to understand why the hard decisions are so unpalitable.

Quote:

---

If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse

---

Yeah some giverment workers lose their jobs.

Quote:

---

The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves,

---

This of course is demagogery and nonsense. The "rich" already pay taxes. There is not enough wealth in the possession of the wealthy to balance our insane budget. Only cutting down the size of the central government will solve this . Many pet projects can be cut out or privatized without reducing essential services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

you know Tom when you are spending twice what you earn, something has to give and governments have very limited options. If they gut spending programs unemployment gets worse

---

Funny you should say that, Obama is actually trying to tell us that layoffs are proof that the stimulus worked instead of only delaying the inevitable. That porkulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent, "saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs."

Whatever.

Quote:

---

but if they ask the people to share the pain through taxes that isn't irresponsible, unless of course they ask the people to share the pain through entitlement cuts.

---

How about they just spend less of our money? Our money should not be going to fund offensive art, bribe the media, baseball stadiums, water taxis, swine odor research (it stinks), wood utilization research (every year since 1985) and wool research.

No one is even talking about cutting spending, they're talking about increasing spending less.

Quote:

---

The rich want the poor to share more of the pain without taking any themselves, this in fact is a very stupid attitude.

---

There is in fact a group of billionaires asking to be taxed more. OK, tax them more and if you don't there's nothing stopping them from giving all they want to the feds. Meanwhile, people like Sen. Lurch and Rep Rangel can stop being hypocrites on taxes and lead by example.

Quote:

---

Because I live in a place where governments make responsible decisions about taxation without the anquish which is apparent there I find it hard to understand why the hard decisions are so unpalitable.

---

I find it unpalatable because they're wasting money by the trillions and talking nonsense about "shared sacrifice" and "fair share" while nearly half the country pays NO federal income tax. None, zero, nada.

And by the way, Obama has raised $47 million for reelection in the first quarter, part of it by begging from the same Wall Street he's vilified for the past several years. This is a guy who raised around a billion to get elected in the first place. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to be using that much of other people's money for his own benefit with so many people out of work? Think of all the jobs that money could provide, how much arugula that could buy for the children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah some giverment workers lose their jobs.

---

Hello again, tom:

What if the COP side of government started losing their jobs? I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier about it then.. You LOVE the cop side of government... What if Obama said let's crash the DEA?? Are you fine with losing those "giverment" jobs?? What if they decided to shut down the NSA?? I'M fine with THAT, which tells me that you wouldn't be.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

What if the COP side of government started losing their jobs?? I'll bet you wouldn't be so cavalier about it then.. You LOVE the cop side of government... What if Obama said let's crash the DEA???? Are you fine with losing those "giverment" jobs??? What if they decided to shut down the NSA??? I'M fine with THAT, which tells me that you wouldn't be.

excon

---

Of course this is not true. Even the cop side and the military side can sustain cuts and still be effective. EVERY dept of giverment is bloated .