Debt Ceiling Predictions?

it will be voted to increase as always, after all we already spent that money (Congress appropriated) with no debt reduction agreement

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote: never mind - post removed, when you get like this viking, nothing will penetrate your prejudice against all things liberal.

To quote your exact (now hypocritical) quote just two hours ago. "oh get a life archer....it was meant as a joke. You take everything much too seriously....."

Can dish it out but can't take a joke. Figures......

only a conservative with his head "you know where" would find your pics funny. I know.....and you know.....that your posts were not intended to be funny, but to ridicule. Nice spin though.....are you dizzy yet?

I predict that we will try and whitewash ourselves again, most people here too.

I hate taxes, but I think it is time to own up, screw whatever party you are from or even mentioning it.

THE NATIONAL DEBT DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF INCOME TAX PAYERS IS......

$500,000 per person. This is how much you owe on behalf of your govt. Now if you are married and both working, call it an even million. At a reasonable, soon to be nonexistent residential mortgage interest rate, that would be about $7000 a month for each person working for 30 years to just pay for the past, nothing for now or the future.

How about we need to raise taxes and cut programs for a long time and MAYBE, it will make a difference. And to those supposed conservative republicans, is it not supposed to be cool to pay your own way...the longer we put off taxing, the longer we wait till we pay for the stuff that we all (pre 2011 USA) wanted and put in place with our govt. I hate taxes, but even worse is not paying my own way, I have been voting and vocal for many years, I own this war, this economy and our whole system, even if I don't like it personally, I built it and allowed it to continue, as did all of you. Don't put this off, let's each find a way to tax every taxpayer an additional $500,000 and pay this off.

The action plan is actually very clear...simply open up your family budget and add a $7000 mortgage payment for each wage earner per month and decide how you will deal with it...we need to the that very same thing as a nation.

Seem crazy, well that is why we need to slash programs, and then slash some more. There is no choice, there is little need for debate. We have been debating for dozens of years only to allow one group to spend more money that the other, it does not make more money appear. This is your labor, your land and your children that have been leveraged.

So I ask, in 3 sentences, can you describe how you would deal with an additional $7000 per month obligation in your household? Really, in so many ways this is not a test, esp for those of you with kids?

LadyJazzer wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Viking, I don't know how to break this to you, but job growth under your old pal G.W. SUCKED. It didn't even cover enough jobs to meet population growth. And when it comes to jobs that actually PAY A LIVING WAGE.....

Ah, never mind. You don't get it and you never will.

You actually think if only "your guy" (or gal) gets elected to the White House all will be well. And if it isn't, then you just rewrite history, ignore huge problems, and blame it on the other guy.

In 8 years, Bush created 3 million jobs with his tax-cuts; In the 8 previous years, Clinton created 23.1 million jobs...with the pre-Bush tax rates--and handed off a surplus to Bush, which he promptly killed and ran up a 4.7 TRILLION deficit.

Some of these guys still live in Looney-Tunes Land...

This is just one example, but it concerns me when people talk about the pres like they are a king. We have many branches of govt and none of them actually make any jobs really ever in the long run. Jobs are made by people realizing an opportunity, adding value or harvesting resources. I know the pres has influence, but not as much as most people seem to give him in their minds. Let's respect them, but keep them in a position of "they are just the pres" one step below the citizen, like any other public employee or servant (ie BOCC, cops, FD), these are all "support staff" for our enterprises in freedom...or the one's that will just fade off into govt funded retirement as we all are left holding our 1/2 million pp in debt to pay for it and everything else we allowed to get out of proportion.

posteryoyo wrote: I predict that we will try and whitewash ourselves again, most people here too.

I hate taxes, but I think it is time to own up, screw whatever party you are from or even mentioning it.

THE NATIONAL DEBT DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF INCOME TAX PAYERS IS......

$500,000 per person. This is how much you owe on behalf of your govt. Now if you are married and both working, call it an even million. At a reasonable, soon to be nonexistent residential mortgage interest rate, that would be about $7000 a month for each person working for 30 years to just pay for the past, nothing for now or the future.

How about we need to raise taxes and cut programs for a long time and MAYBE, it will make a difference. And to those supposed conservative republicans, is it not supposed to be cool to pay your own way...the longer we put off taxing, the longer we wait till we pay for the stuff that we all (pre 2011 USA) wanted and put in place with our govt. I hate taxes, but even worse is not paying my own way, I have been voting and vocal for many years, I own this war, this economy and our whole system, even if I don't like it personally, I built it and allowed it to continue, as did all of you. Don't put this off, let's each find a way to tax every taxpayer an additional $500,000 and pay this off.

The action plan is actually very clear...simply open up your family budget and add a $7000 mortgage payment for each wage earner per month and decide how you will deal with it...we need to the that very same thing as a nation.

Seem crazy, well that is why we need to slash programs, and then slash some more. There is no choice, there is little need for debate. We have been debating for dozens of years only to allow one group to spend more money that the other, it does not make more money appear. This is your labor, your land and your children that have been leveraged.

So I ask, in 3 sentences, can you describe how you would deal with an additional $7000 per month obligation in your household? Really, in so many ways this is not a test, esp for those of you with kids?

Many Conservatives in the House are fighting for an Amendment to the constitution that we MUST live within a balanced budget. Are you for that? As I agree, they can pass something now and then just raise it again next year and the year after. It has to be manditory or they will keep spending like drunken sailors! Spending is a drug to them and they won't stop on their own. They use the money to buy votes every two years through favors and pork. They CAN'T do that anymore. Run on your record! Not on how much waste you can give your state!

And we HAVE to lower corporate taxes to make the United States more business friendly to produce MORE exports and thus bring in revenue quicker!

I agree on a balanced budget, that is the first step towards the annual surpluses that must somehow add up to $500,000 per wage earner in the long run (plus interest). So, then maybe no, I don't want a balanced budget, I want one that takes in more than it spends in order to pay our debt, which exists regardless of debate.

I also agree to move all taxes to the simplest form and apply them to the individual. I am in business. Tax me $1.00 and I charge you $1.20 to make up for it (and the forms I have to fill out and the accountant I need to hire). Why pay a premium on our our tax obligations by running them through companies. If all taxes are focused, people will see how much they are actually taxed....but we still need to tax more, because that is the only way we pay for crap and we owe a lot. I think we are past the point of schemes to screw the the economy to hope that the future will have so much extra taxes. Tax revenue to the fed has been pretty flat (per person) regardless of rates and who pays for 50 years or more, through many cycles and systems.

But I also say that you need to apply for any assistance program and only get payouts relative to need...THAT INCLUDES ALL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS!!!! You need to apply and qualify and accept your welfare for what it is, leave it for the most needy and the rest can pay down our debt.

posteryoyo wrote: I agree on a balanced budget, that is the first step towards the annual surpluses that must somehow add up to $500,000 per wage earner in the long run (plus interest). So, then maybe no, I don't want a balanced budget, I want one that takes in more than it spends in order to pay our debt, which exists regardless of debate.

I also agree to move all taxes to the simplest form and apply them to the individual. I am in business. Tax me $1.00 and I charge you $1.20 to make up for it (and the forms I have to fill out and the accountant I need to hire). Why pay a premium on our our tax obligations by running them through companies. If all taxes are focused, people will see how much they are actually taxed....but we still need to tax more, because that is the only way we pay for crap and we owe a lot. I think we are past the point of schemes to screw the the economy to hope that the future will have so much extra taxes. Tax revenue to the fed has been pretty flat (per person) regardless of rates and who pays for 50 years or more, through many cycles and systems.

But I also say that you need to apply for any assistance program and only get payouts relative to need...THAT INCLUDES ALL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS!!!! You need to apply and qualify and accept your welfare for what it is, leave it for the most needy and the rest can pay down our debt.

Very well put! Still not sure on raising any taxes though. Revenue grows when capital gains taxes are decreased. That has been proven time and time again. Love this video of Obama being called out on it. He said he wants to raise it out of principal. He isn't using logic or common econmic sense. He wants it fair even if revenue goes down and the debt goes up!

[youtube:349dqdri][/youtube:349dqdri]

I suspect many would approve of tax increases (sounds like they are coming anyway) if they thought the money would go towards ACTUALLY paying down the national debt. As for $500,000 a person.......HOLY CRAP!!!!!!! I'm gonna need a second or third job. :faint:

Instead, most folks realize that increasing taxes just gives the drunks in Washington another drink...or are they gamblers with a gambling problem? Why would I buy an alcoholic another drink or give a gambler more money to piss away? That's the rub here. Folks know the money will be spent in a flash and we will be no better off for our effort.

An inability on the part of both sides of the aisle to find transparent compromise and an inability on the part of the President to bring the parties to the table and find that compromise is a strong indicator of just how bad off we really are. They are very smart people for the most part....but they can't get it done.

I will be very interested to see what transpires in the next month because if the US falters, the rest of the world is going to get a really good lesson on the concept of a "world economy". We aren't talking Greece or Italy or Iceland. We are talking the Big Kahuna here.

"Scotty, prepare for impact."

National Review Online:

“Here are Barack Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. 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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. 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 problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” —Sen. Barack Obama

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

The Viking wrote: National Review Online:

“Here are Barack Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. 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. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. 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 problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” —Sen. Barack Obama

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

So in his own words, Obama admits that he is a total failure of leadership and Americans deserve better!

I think that is his next campaign slogan!