What About The Debt?

H_factor · November 8, 2012, 7:47pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The thing is, and maybe I’m an idealist, but hes THE PRESIDENT. He’s supposed to be able to handle what’s thrown at him. He’s supposed to be the best America has to offer.

Obama faced circumstance out of his control when he took office. My biggest problem with him is that he didn’t address those problems, but his own agenda.

ARRA, as far as I know, was already in the works. He just had to sign it. Don’t ask don’t tell could have been a second term issue. Obamacare should have been a second term issue.

His primary concern should have been the economy and he did very little except talk. Unemployment barely moved during his 1200+ days in office.

Again, I think most rational people don’t want to blame him for everything, but for what he actually did. He actually double the debt. He actually let unemployment remain stagnant. He actually signed into law a huge unfunded obligation in Obamacare. He actually allowed U.S. citizen to die in Libya without even an explanation. He actually took millions in funds for his campaign from Wall Steet.

He did not close Gitmo. He did not balance the budget. He did not bring change to DC politics. He did not reform immigration. He did not increase transparency.

These are all just off the top of my head.
[/quote]

Obama’s biggest problem is he continued the failed policies of his predecessors. He ran as the anti-GWB and has been GWB all over again. The Republicans haven’t shown they are ready to move away from that either. We have a two party system where both parties are big government, big control, big banking, big everything. Sure one gives lip service that they aren’t, but still is and the other doesn’t hide that’s what they are.

In an election about having a choice Romney offered the same prescription as the President and the same failed policies as the R that was in before Obama. It’s a losing day for America when the choice between the two parties comes down to whichever flavor of big government medicine you prefer swallowing. Is big government medicine a little more tasteful if the guy says he’s pro-life, pro-God, anti-science, pro-war. Take the R medicine. Is big government medicine a little more tasteful if the guy says he’s pro-choice, pro-tolerance, climate change, etc. Take the D medicine.

The two party system and its cheerleaders on both sides of the aisle and treating political parties like football teams while ignoring the issues is the problem. You mention being a libertarian and the Republicans say come play for our team, your team is too tiny and never getting anywhere. No I don’t want to play for either team in the same crooked game. And it shocks me that so many do especially after we’ve seen how alike they are.

csulli · November 8, 2012, 7:57pm

[quote]H factor wrote:
Obama’s biggest problem is he continued the failed policies of his predecessors. He ran as the anti-GWB and has been GWB all over again. The Republicans haven’t shown they are ready to move away from that either. We have a two party system where both parties are big government, big control, big banking, big everything. Sure one gives lip service that they aren’t, but still is and the other doesn’t hide that’s what they are.

In an election about having a choice Romney offered the same prescription as the President and the same failed policies as the R that was in before Obama. It’s a losing day for America when the choice between the two parties comes down to whichever flavor of big government medicine you prefer swallowing. Is big government medicine a little more tasteful if the guy says he’s pro-life, pro-God, anti-science, pro-war. Take the R medicine. Is big government medicine a little more tasteful if the guy says he’s pro-choice, pro-tolerance, climate change, etc. Take the D medicine.

The two party system and its cheerleaders on both sides of the aisle and treating political parties like football teams while ignoring the issues is the problem. You mention being a libertarian and the Republicans say come play for our team, your team is too tiny and never getting anywhere. No I don’t want to play for either team in the same crooked game. And it shocks me that so many do especially after we’ve seen how alike they are. [/quote]

Exactly. That’s why I didn’t even care that Obama won. I have become so apathetic toward politicians that I probably would have felt the same whether Romney or Obama won. The same attitude of “neither of them will do what needs to be done, and the congress and the senate will never agree to do anything that needs to be done, so what the fuck does it even matter”

Sure some things will be different between parties, but ultimately, neither of them is ever going to get out of the debt, so we’re gonna end up in the same boat anyway.

ZEB · November 8, 2012, 8:10pm

[quote]H factor wrote:

This is in no way an attempt to excuse the President for his pathetic handling of growing the government.[/quote]

Yet, you are going to try to do just that. Simply admit that he’s spent far, far more than his all the past Presidnets combined and move on.

Here you go call this right here:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-added-more-national-debt-first-19-months-all-presidents-washington-through-reagan

Facts suck huh?

He’s been President now for four years. What are you liberals going to say when he’s President eight years and the debt is over 20 Trillion? “Sniff, sniff it’s George Bush’s fault”

That’s a fact, when he did have both house’s of congress democrat what did he do? Did he fix the economy? Nooooooo he spent more money by taking over 1/6th of the economy with OBAMA CARE! Ask yourself this question, what would a good President have done?

[quote] He’s continued to grow the debt bomb undoubtedly and should be called out for such.
[/quote]

You’re right so stop defending him.

H_factor · November 8, 2012, 9:01pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

This is in no way an attempt to excuse the President for his pathetic handling of growing the government.[/quote]

Yet, you are going to try to do just that. Simply admit that he’s spent far, far more than his all the past Presidnets combined and move on.

Here you go call this right here:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-added-more-national-debt-first-19-months-all-presidents-washington-through-reagan

Facts suck huh?

He’s been President now for four years. What are you liberals going to say when he’s President eight years and the debt is over 20 Trillion? “Sniff, sniff it’s George Bush’s fault”

That’s a fact, when he did have both house’s of congress democrat what did he do? Did he fix the economy? Nooooooo he spent more money by taking over 1/6th of the economy with OBAMA CARE! Ask yourself this question, what would a good President have done?

[quote] He’s continued to grow the debt bomb undoubtedly and should be called out for such.
[/quote]

You’re right so stop defending him.[/quote]

Here comes the right wing cheerleading party. We are bad but he’s been worse. He’s the problem, our spending wasn’t. We were bad, but he’s real bad, put us back in power. I’m not defending him I’m pointing out the hypocrisies of YOUR side. I don’t have a side, but yet you call me a liberal. Cause that’s the stock answer you have. It’s your defense mechanism. Ignore how bad we were and focus on this guy. We gotta let our side back in because look how bad this guy was. People can see completely through the right’s BS and that’s why they lost Tuesday. Americans didn’t want 4 more years of Obama, but they didn’t want an out of touch “moderate” who represented the same big government they rejected from the Republican party already.

What would a good President done? I have no idea, we haven’t had one in a while in my opinion. I know the side YOU cheerlead for handed this President an absolute clusterfuck and he hasn’t untangled the clusterfuck. I’ve never thought he would nor never will. You’re transparent though, you start a thread about the debt and attack attack attack those who think different from you and blame all the countries problems on them. You represent precisely what is wrong with partisan politics and our two party system. People call you on it and you can’t even stand it so you fall back on Obama bad you’re a liberal Obama real bad.

You’re right Obama has been bad. He’s been bad because he represents the exact same awful big government interests of his predecessors. Ignoring that won’t get you anywhere, but maybe you can sleep better at night painting him and the left as the only big government boogie men and the right as the true fiscal and social liberty cats they are. I’m just surprised you can do it with a straight face.

Have a good rest of the day I’ll let you get back to working on the national debt issue. You have a real good start with the Ok your guy won now what are you liberals going to do line he’s the problem. See how far that gets you.

I gotta admit calling out lefties on 2P2 is quite fun, but I almost like watching the right demonize Obama for continuing to do what they did. I’ll assume you started all sorts of what about the debt threads after Medicare Part D, Iraq War, stimulus checks, etc. came out. And I’ll bet they said our guy won what is he going to do about this debt right?

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 8:59pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I put this in another thread yesterday, but it fits here. I wouldn’t implement it until the recovery has become more robust.

Simpson-Bowles minus the military pension reductions, student loan cuts…[/quote]

Why? Really, the student loan cuts.

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 9:01pm

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

This is in no way an attempt to excuse the President for his pathetic handling of growing the government.[/quote]

Yet, you are going to try to do just that. Simply admit that he’s spent far, far more than his all the past Presidnets combined and move on.

Here you go call this right here:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-added-more-national-debt-first-19-months-all-presidents-washington-through-reagan

Facts suck huh?

He’s been President now for four years. What are you liberals going to say when he’s President eight years and the debt is over 20 Trillion? “Sniff, sniff it’s George Bush’s fault”

That’s a fact, when he did have both house’s of congress democrat what did he do? Did he fix the economy? Nooooooo he spent more money by taking over 1/6th of the economy with OBAMA CARE! Ask yourself this question, what would a good President have done?

[quote] He’s continued to grow the debt bomb undoubtedly and should be called out for such.
[/quote]

You’re right so stop defending him.[/quote]

Here comes the right wing cheerleading party. We are bad but he’s been worse. He’s the problem, our spending wasn’t. We were bad, but he’s real bad, put us back in power. I’m not defending him I’m pointing out the hypocrisies of YOUR side. I don’t have a side, but yet you call me a liberal. Cause that’s the stock answer you have. It’s your defense mechanism. Ignore how bad we were and focus on this guy. We gotta let our side back in because look how bad this guy was. People can see completely through the right’s BS and that’s why they lost Tuesday. Americans didn’t want 4 more years of Obama, but they didn’t want an out of touch “moderate” who represented the same big government they rejected from the Republican party already.

What would a good President done? I have no idea, we haven’t had one in a while in my opinion. I know the side YOU cheerlead for handed this President an absolute clusterfuck and he hasn’t untangled the clusterfuck. I’ve never thought he would nor never will. You’re transparent though, you start a thread about the debt and attack attack attack those who think different from you and blame all the countries problems on them. You represent precisely what is wrong with partisan politics and our two party system. People call you on it and you can’t even stand it so you fall back on Obama bad you’re a liberal Obama real bad.

You’re right Obama has been bad. He’s been bad because he represents the exact same awful big government interests of his predecessors. Ignoring that won’t get you anywhere, but maybe you can sleep better at night painting him and the left as the only big government boogie men and the right as the true fiscal and social liberty cats they are. I’m just surprised you can do it with a straight face.

Have a good rest of the day I’ll let you get back to working on the national debt issue. You have a real good start with the Ok your guy won now what are you liberals going to do line he’s the problem. See how far that gets you. [/quote]

Ok, but Obama is the President now…

smh23 · November 8, 2012, 9:03pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I put this in another thread yesterday, but it fits here. I wouldn’t implement it until the recovery has become more robust.

Simpson-Bowles minus the military pension reductions, student loan cuts…[/quote]

Why? Really, the student loan cuts.
[/quote]

Why not the student loan cuts?

Because of all the “handouts” our government gives, I believe these to be the most beneficial to society.

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 9:06pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I put this in another thread yesterday, but it fits here. I wouldn’t implement it until the recovery has become more robust.

Simpson-Bowles minus the military pension reductions, student loan cuts…[/quote]

Why? Really, the student loan cuts.
[/quote]

Why not the student loan cuts?

Because of all the “handouts” our government gives, I believe these to be the most beneficial to society.[/quote]

Don’t you think everyone needs a bit of skin in the game? Hell, especially the young college student. It’s a great lesson in governance.

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 9:12pm

Additionally, it just fires up everyone to make the case for their own pet cause. “Yeah, but they’ll need jobs when they graduate with all that debt and a major they’ll never actually use! Tax cuts to stimulate job expansion!” Or, something like that.

H_factor · November 8, 2012, 9:11pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:Ok, but Obama is the President now…
[/quote]

I’ve already discussed what I would do. I haven’t seen Zeb do anything yet except for talk about how bad Obama is. All I was doing was pointing out his was an awful OP that doesn’t lead us anywhere and fans of the Republican party have ZERO room to talk as if they are the party of limited government. Apparently zeb isn’t looking to discuss the national debt, he’s looking to shift all of the blame to the side he doesn’t support and act as if it was solely a problem of their creation. Intellectual dishonesty should be absolutely called out if someone ever wants to have an intelligent discussion. I don’t think he was actually looking for that though, he was looking for a place to vent his anger over his team blowing a game that the other team desperately tried to hand them.

smh23 · November 8, 2012, 9:13pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I put this in another thread yesterday, but it fits here. I wouldn’t implement it until the recovery has become more robust.

Simpson-Bowles minus the military pension reductions, student loan cuts…[/quote]

Why? Really, the student loan cuts.
[/quote]

Why not the student loan cuts?

Because of all the “handouts” our government gives, I believe these to be the most beneficial to society.[/quote]

Don’t you think everyone needs a bit of skin in the game? Hell, especially the young college student. It’s a great lesson in governance.
[/quote]

The even distribution of sacrifice should be a goal but not a dogma. I believe that the benefit of encouraging higher education in a country increasingly unable to match the attractiveness of a cheap and dexterous foreign industrial workforce outweighs the cost you’ve highlighted.

smh23 · November 8, 2012, 9:19pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Additionally, it just fires up everyone to make the case for their own pet cause. “Yeah, but they’ll need jobs when they graduate with all that debt and a major they’ll never actually use! Tax cuts to stimulate job expansion!” Or, something like that.[/quote]

That’s pretty much what this thread is: what would you like to see done about the debt. Say what should be cut and what shouldn’t and defend both. That’s what I’ve tried to do.

If your biggest problem with my proposal is that it will cheat college kids out of a civics lesson, then I consider myself to have been pretty successful.

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 9:22pm

Alright, but now Obama is on his second term, and we are seeing at least some push for entitlement reform from congressional republicans. So, it’s on Obama.

Hell, two Republicans, Romney/Ryan, just took a gamble by running openly on entitlement reform. I know you don’t like military spending, but that’s not what’s going to consume all our revenue in the not too distant future.

Secondly, as a libertarian, it seems you’d be a bit more interested in the republicans continuing to keep debt reduction from becoming tax hike heavy (if at all), instead of spending cut heavy. They’ve taken a lot of crap over it. A lot.

It’s damn near 2013, and the national debt LEAPED to $16 trillion+ under Obama. Bush isn’t the story anymore. Hey, I’ll be generous and give you the first two years of Obama’s first term. But it’s done now. This is about Obama.

countingbeans · November 8, 2012, 9:24pm

edit:

nevermind… pointless.

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 9:25pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I put this in another thread yesterday, but it fits here. I wouldn’t implement it until the recovery has become more robust.

Simpson-Bowles minus the military pension reductions, student loan cuts…[/quote]

Why? Really, the student loan cuts.
[/quote]

Why not the student loan cuts?

Because of all the “handouts” our government gives, I believe these to be the most beneficial to society.[/quote]

Don’t you think everyone needs a bit of skin in the game? Hell, especially the young college student. It’s a great lesson in governance.
[/quote]

The even distribution of sacrifice should be a goal but not a dogma. I believe that the benefit of encouraging higher education in a country increasingly unable to match the attractiveness of a cheap and dexterous foreign industrial workforce outweighs the cost you’ve highlighted.[/quote]

I don’t see how loading students down with a little less debt in pursuit of majors they won’t use and we don’t need, is going to hurt anything.

MaximusB · November 8, 2012, 9:26pm

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
edit:

nevermind… pointless.[/quote]

The next 4 years will be pointless.

H_factor · November 8, 2012, 9:32pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Alright, but now Obama is on his second term, and we are seeing at least some push for entitlement reform from congressional republicans. So, it’s on Obama.

Hell, two Republicans, Romney/Ryan, just took a gamble by running openly on entitlement reform. I know you don’t like military spending, but that’s not what’s going to consume all our revenue in the not too distant future.

Secondly, as a libertarian, it seems you’d be a bit more interested in the republicans continuing to keep debt reduction from becoming tax hike heavy (if at all), instead of spending cut heavy. They’ve taken a lot of crap over it. A lot.

It’s damn near 2013, and the national debt LEAPED to $16 trillion+ under Obama. Bush isn’t the story anymore. Hey, I’ll be generous and give you the first two years of Obama’s first term. But it’s done now. This is about Obama.[/quote]

Bush shouldn’t be the story, but the Republicans acting as if the debt problems are on the shoulders of President Obama ignores what happened under the last two Presidents with an R by their name who had 8 years. It ignores what the last President gave him to deal with.

And trust me I don’t want tax hikes to be heavy, but everything needs to be on the table if we’re going to seriously talk about debt reduction. This idea that we can’t discuss revenue increases or can only discuss the spending we don’t like HAS to stop or you’re just not serious about the problem. I’d like to start with cutting spending, but I absolutely know increased revenue has to at the very least be discussed.

That IS the problem. Everyone wants low taxes and the government to spend money on what they like. They want to cut everything they don’t like. Such is the problem with big government. For some that’s the military. For some it’s education. For some it’s whatever else. I said we need to look at the biggest pieces of the pie first, and I’ll stick by that.

If we come into the discussion with this notion that one side needs to make all the concessions nothing gets done. If revenue isn’t on the table nothing gets done. If spending isn’t on the table for this and not that, nothing gets done. We’re either serious about reducing the debt or we’re paying it the exact same lip service that we’ve paid it for tons of years.

The OP did nothing to setup a serious discussion of the national debt. It started out with the exact same crap that gets us nowhere.

Sloth · November 8, 2012, 9:33pm