Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And assuming 2006 was as well. So, why were republicans pushing for raising debt ceiling?
Because spending increased. Again, you look at half of the equation and pretending its a complete picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
If true, then the ridiculousness of trying to turn that ship around on a dime is even greater, much less in times when the focus should be on economic growth as opposed to the push for ideologies. No?
So why turn it around, lets just push the throttle forward, full foce right? You are finally seeing the light though, that it should be focused on economic growth, and tax increases NEVER result in economic growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
The reason I brought it up was because you missing the point that recession has a LOT to do with the deficit?
No **** shirlock homes, but YOU are pretending that tax revenues will increase revenues, and by your own admission its A RECESSION causing the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
and your idea of trying to balance the budget while the tax revenues are substantially lower.
So its your claim that increasing the tax rate will cure the recession?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
But then, if it were simply about balancing the budget, you won't be out here defending the republicans who didn't consider that option in 2001 and in 2006, and every other year through the $3.14 Trillion dollar spending they engaged in FY2008.
Deficits and debt is meaningless if you use that debt to GROW the economy, and thus increase the GDP which generates more revenues. Increasing debt is a very very bad idea when its used to reduce the economy, and thats whats taking place now. While the GDP is up a percentage or two due to the spending, its an artificial bump and artificial bumps dont generate tax revenues. REAL ones generate revenues and if your only concern is how much money the government has, then you should be supporting THE OPPOSITE of whats taking place because you cant drain the economy of cash and then ask people to spend..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Amusing that you're pointing at me as sticking to ONE side of the coin, when it is people like you who need to get a clue that balancing the budget can't be done with the idea of being a one-trick pony. Budget requires consideration of spending AND revenue. But then, that would require TWO aspects that you would rather see as one (spending)? No?
Actually no. Balanced budgets are not a consideration of spending, its a considering of NOT spending. As for the revenues, which you JUST said above, was low due to the recession, I have to now again ask you how taking more money out of the economy improves the economy? If that was true, then we should increase the tax rate to 100% and watch the economy boom right? hogwash!!
Because spending increased. Again, you look at half of the equation and pretending its a complete picture.
Spending increase followed. I'm asking, why didn't they push for balanced budget and opposition to raise debt ceiling in "good times" when they were in control?
Quote:
So why turn it around, lets just push the throttle forward, full foce right? You are finally seeing the light though, that it should be focused on economic growth, and tax increases NEVER result in economic growth.
Shameless, considering you've been put in place several times (and please go ahead on the subject in the other threads running on it if you haven't had your fill yet). But that doesn't matter here, since I'm focusing on the topic here... debt ceiling and balanced budget.
Quote:
No **** shirlock homes, but YOU are pretending that tax revenues will increase revenues, and by your own admission its A RECESSION causing the problem.
No Watson, Sherlock is trying to have a discussion on Debt Ceiling and Balancing the Budget, while using "good times" versus "bad times" for a perspective. Can you prepare self to join him?
Quote:
Deficits and debt is meaningless if you use that debt to GROW the economy, and thus increase the GDP which generates more revenues.
"IF". And we know how that has worked out since 2001.
Quote:
Actually no. Balanced budgets are not a consideration of spending, its a considering of NOT spending.
Why do you think I thought it was amusing for you to accuse me of pushing for only one side?
Spending increase followed. I'm asking, why didn't they push for balanced budget and opposition to raise debt ceiling in "good times" when they were in control?
Deficits were dropping and despite war spending, they would have almost been balanced. What else would you have had them to do? My preference would have been if they cut more spending, but they didnt, and we all know liberals love spending anyways. So why are you complaining about it? The CBO even said that revenues were up due to GDP growth. But you are now officially on record admitting that spending increases followed.. Right when DEMOCRATS took over. Finally getting some truth out of you, even if its by accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Shameless, considering you've been put in place several times (and please go ahead on the subject in the other threads running on it if you haven't had your fill yet). But that doesn't matter here, since I'm focusing on the topic here... debt ceiling and balanced budget.
Actually the topic isnt the debt ceiling and balanced budgets, the topic is Obamas opinion of the debt ceiling and balanced budgets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
No Watson, Sherlock is trying to have a discussion on Debt Ceiling and Balancing the Budget, while using "good times" versus "bad times" for a perspective. Can you prepare self to join him?
Anotherwords, you are trying to change the subject?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
"IF". And we know how that has worked out since 2001.
There is no IF, involved. GDP grew during most of the Bush years, as well as revenues until we reached an economic recession, which YOU admitted is responsible for financial deficits
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Why do you think I thought it was amusing for you to accuse me of pushing for only one side?
You continue to non stop push one side, proclaiming that we're in a recession and thus we need to raise taxes which increase revenues, (your claim, which is 100% wrong), but never ONCE have I seen you suggest we need to cut REAL spending.
How was the economy doing in 2006? What were the republicans doing? Asking for raising debt ceiling or hell bent on balancing the budget? I don't expect the right wingers to comprehend the need right now, but I'm sure those are simple enough questions for them to be able to answer?
I am not a partisan and would agree with you that they stunk up the place when the nearly controlled all 3 branches. You make a solid point about them raising the debt ceiling during the Bush years. Heck in 2008 they had the {D}s who were against raising the ceiling, seems that would have been a oppurtune time for them to jump on board. Considering they talk about cutting deficit and shrinking gvt.
Keep in mind that the {R}s lousy performance and acting like RINO's during those years is why they were booted in droves in 08. So far I see big time improvements and I hope they keep it up.
I would say that they are still being irresponsible.
I wouldn't disagree, but if you say they were irresponsible then because they spent too much and needed to increase the debt limit, it seems to follow that you would have to include the President and the Democrats in the group of the irresponsible given that they are spending even more.
Anotherwords, you are trying to change the subject?
No Watson, Sherlock sees this thread to be discussing debt ceiling, in 2006. Do you get it now? Next...
[quoteDeficits were dropping and despite war spending, they would have almost been balanced...[/quote]
So, the debate on debt ceiling is unnecessary, as budget can be balanced without it... Nice. Anyway, looking at deficits, if they were dropping, wouldn't it have been the perfect time to NOT raise the ceiling? Or, would keeping the debt ceiling where it was, going to have an adverse effect and they wanted none of that? And that it was a good thing they did raise the ceiling?
I wouldn't disagree, but if you say they were irresponsible then because they spent too much and needed to increase the debt limit, it seems to follow that you would have to include the President and the Democrats in the group of the irresponsible given that they are spending even more.
Good politicians! Let us ask them to "sit" and see if they obey.
I find it ironic that you ask, "How was the economy doing in 2006?". According to many posters on here the entire 8 years under Bush was a disaster. They keep repeating it over and over.
Are you saying that the 2006 economy was doing so well we didn't need to increase the debt limit?
No kidding!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No kidding!
