Tea Party kicks Boehner in the teeth - again

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Riot believes in the government creating jobs with more government spending. Debt is no big deal. We need rail projects, more government spending to keep the economy going. The economy will never fix itself. We need to the government to fix it. We will let someone else worry about the debt problems we create today. It is the american way or at least was up until most people woke up a few years ago. Take money from the wealthy and create more government albeit temporary jobs.

Yes, I most certainly do believe in the government creating jobs. Money is the cheapest it's been right now, the government should issue bonds and institute a massive infrastructure jobs bill. The infrastructure has to be repaired, better to do it with cheap dollars rather than expensive in the future. Oh, yeah, and that putting millions back to work would be cool, too

And there is nothing wrong with temporary jobs during a recession. It keeps money in people's pockets, keeps businesses from going out of business, etc.

I never said "debt is no big deal" - that's your silly saying. We worry about the debt problems after our economy starts booming, we have people with jobs paying taxes again, etc.

No - the economy isn't "helping itself", is it? The Bush administration oversaw massive tax cuts to business and massive job layoffs as money was not reinvested in businesses, but taken as inexpensive capital gains.

It is the american way or at least was up until most people woke up a few years ago.

Yes, "most people" woke up and discovered we were 1.4 trillion in debt due to George W. Bush and Republican reckless spending, while slashing our income by 1/4.

I suggest you read this article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-on-obama.html

[paulo537]

Originally Posted by Riot

The infrastructure has to be repaired,

Says who?

What exactly is wrong with the infrastructure?

For that matter, what exactly is "the infrastructure?" This has always made me curious.

Can you explain this to us all?

Didn't we already spent a half a billion dollars on this stuff through the stimulus package? How did that work out for jobs?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by paulo537

Says who?

What exactly is wrong with the infrastructure?

For that matter, what exactly is "the infrastructure?" This has always made me curious.

Can you explain this to us all?

Didn't we already spent a half a billion dollars on this stuff through the stimulus package? How did that work out for jobs?

Oh. My. God.

God help this country.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, I most certainly do believe in the government creating jobs. Money is the cheapest it's been right now, the government should issue bonds and institute a massive infrastructure jobs bill. The infrastructure has to be repaired, better to do it with cheap dollars rather than expensive in the future. Oh, yeah, and that putting millions back to work would be cool, too

And there is nothing wrong with temporary jobs during a recession. It keeps money in people's pockets, keeps businesses from going out of business, etc.

I never said "debt is no big deal" - that's your silly saying. We worry about the debt problems after our economy starts booming, we have people with jobs paying taxes again, etc.

No - the economy isn't "helping itself", is it? The Bush administration oversaw massive tax cuts to business and massive job layoffs as money was not reinvested in businesses, but taken as inexpensive capital gains.



Yes, "most people" woke up and discovered we were 1.4 trillion in debt due to George W. Bush and Republican reckless spending, while slashing our income by 1/4.

I suggest you read this article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-on-obama.html

We have a fundamental difference of opinion. You believe the government should create jobs. I believe in less government. I do not believe we need the government to create jobs. If the banking world wasn't so scared of the current government oversight and actually took on a slight bit of risk the economy would be just fine by itself, however that is not the case currently. People did not wake up because of the spending by Bush and the republicans people woke up when they realized that their home was no longer their piggy bank. People actually decided to save $ instead of spending more than they brought in. A lesson that washington needs to now learn. It can't change over night but we have to start somewhere...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

We have a fundamental difference of opinion. You believe the government should create jobs. I believe in less government. I do not believe we need the government to create jobs. If the banking world wasn't so scared of the current government oversight and actually took on a slight bit of risk the economy would be just fine by itself, however that is not the case currently. People did not wake up because of the spending by Bush and the republicans people woke up when they realized that their home was no longer their piggy bank. People actually decided to save $ instead of spending more than they brought in. A lesson that washington needs to now learn. It can't change over night but we have to start somewhere...

Why do you think there was not massive economic growth over the Bush administration? Let's just look at the first six years or so.

There were massive tax cuts, massive business incentives, wars (face it, wars provide economic incentives). There is no denying that the government was extremely "business friendly".

What was keeping business contracting and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in that environment?

Our income, before the Presidential election of 2008 even happened, dropped to only 15% or so of our GDP, when it always had been 18-20%.

In the late 1950's, government-sponsored education and the concept of the mortgage allowed thousands of former GI's to get education and buy a first house in the suburbs. In the late 1960's, in order to keep up, they sent the wife to work and get a second income. In the 1990's, they second-mortgaged and took money out of the house for disposable goods. You are right, a lot of the slow recession is because the middle class and lower classes are plumb out of cash to spend at this point in time. And there's hardly a middle class left. But that didn't cause our recession, although it's contributing to the slow recovery. The middle and lower class are not currently sitting on millions in savings, preventing recovery.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why do you think there was not massive economic growth over the Bush administration? Let's just look at the first six years or so.

There were massive tax cuts, massive business incentives, wars (face it, wars provide economic incentives). There is no denying that the government was extremely "business friendly".

What was keeping business contracting and losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in that environment?

Our income, before the Presidential election of 2008 even happened, dropped to only 15% or so of our GDP, when it always had been 18-20%.

In the late 1950's, government-sponsored education and the concept of the mortgage allowed thousands of former GI's to get education and buy a first house in the suburbs. In the late 1960's, in order to keep up, they sent the wife to work and get a second income. In the 1990's, they second-mortgaged and took money out of the house for disposable goods. You are right, a lot of the slow recession is because the middle class and lower classes are plumb out of cash to spend at this point in time. And there's hardly a middle class left. But that didn't cause our recession, although it's contributing to the slow recovery. The middle and lower class are not currently sitting on millions in savings, preventing recovery.

The housing bubble bursting played a big part in causing the recession. People borrowing $$ that they couldn't afford to pay back, and banks loaning $$ without checking credit history (or ignoring it). Now our benevolent Govt. who says it can't pay it's bills, wants to borrow more $$ to pay it's bills. Social Security was supposed to be solvent for years to come according to the Dems. Obama says he can't guarantee SS checks will be mailed out first week in Aug unless he's given the authority to borrow more $$. Somebody is lying. Obama is acting like a child in a toy store who is being told to put a toy back . News Flash .. our credit rating is going to be degraded even with a raise in the debt ceiling. We have to get spending under control. Would you loan $$ to someone who can't pay their bills?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

The housing bubble bursting played a big part in causing the recession. People borrowing $$ that they couldn't afford to pay back, and banks loaning $$ without checking credit history (or ignoring it). Now our benevolent Govt. who says it can't pay it's bills, wants to borrow more $$ to pay it's bills. Social Security was supposed to be solvent for years to come according to the Dems. Obama says he can't guarantee SS checks will be mailed out first week in Aug unless he's given the authority to borrow more $$. Somebody is lying. Obama is acting like a child in a toy store who is being told to put a toy back . News Flash .. our credit rating is going to be degraded even with a raise in the debt ceiling. We have to get spending under control. Would you loan $$ to someone who can't pay their bills?

Obama can't guarantee the SS checks will go out. Curious if the welfare checks will also NOT go out.

[dino]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Obama can't guarantee the SS checks will go out. Curious if the welfare checks will also NOT go out.

Riot is 100% right. The economy is great. The country is moving in the right direction and if you don't agree with him you are either a racist or just dumb.

Isn't this liberal crap getting old. Open your eyes.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dino

Riot is 100% right. The economy is great.

I've not been saying that, have I.

Geeshus, the passive-aggressive snarky victim crap is old.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dino

Riot is 100% right. The economy is great. The country is moving in the right direction and if you don't agree with him you are either a racist or just dumb.

Isn't this liberal crap getting old. Open your eyes.

Riot did not say that. I think she meant to say that anything that IS wrong with the economy is the fault of George W. Bush in the past, and any Republicans in the present.

Certainly not the fault of the Annointed One - forgive me - no sacrelege intended

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Obama can't guarantee the SS checks will go out. Curious if the welfare checks will also NOT go out.

Sorry Deb- no more free stuff

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Sorry Deb- no more free stuff

I never got any "free stuff" but I'm getting tired of paying for others to get it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Social Security was supposed to be solvent for years to come according to the Dems. Obama says he can't guarantee SS checks will be mailed out first week in Aug unless he's given the authority to borrow more $$. Somebody is lying.

No. Nobody is lying. Somebody doesn't understand Social Security, the Social Security Trust Fund, cash flow, and the Treasury.

We have something like $300 million in bills due Aug 2, and $200 mil in cash (exact amts have been in the press, but that's the rough ratio) That amount varies, of course, depending upon who pays their taxes daily, etc.

So yeah - there's no cash to pay something on that date (although there's probably a week of additional wiggling). You pick who. The Government paychecks, Social Security, tax refunds, military pay, businesses who contract with the government, etc.

We hit the debt ceiling some months back. The Treasury has been "wiggling" ever since. It is beyond absurd that a routine, one-sentence raise isn't being done, and that this country is being held hostage for future spending by refusing to pay past bills already owed.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Nobody is lying. Somebody doesn't understand Social Security, the Social Security Trust Fund, cash flow, and the Treasury.

We have something like $300 million in bills due Aug 2, and $200 mil in cash (exact amts have been in the press, but that's the rough ratio) That amount varies, of course, depending upon who pays their taxes daily, etc.

So yeah - there's no cash to pay something on that date (although there's probably a week of additional wiggling). You pick who. The Government paychecks, Social Security, tax refunds, military pay, businesses who contract with the government, etc.

We hit the debt ceiling some months back. The Treasury has been "wiggling" ever since. It is beyond absurd that a routine, one-sentence raise isn't being done, and that this country is being held hostage for future spending by refusing to pay past bills already owed.

That is nearly 3 trillion owed to the treasury by the Govt. Yes they spent it on something else. There are many trillions of $$ of national debt that are excluded from the official count. It is actually a lot worse than 14+ trillion.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

That is nearly 3 trillion owed to the treasury by the Govt. Yes they spent it on something else. There are many trillions of $$ of national debt that are excluded from the official count. It is actually a lot worse than 14+ trillion.

Yes. But none of the above has anything to do with the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is just cash flow to pay bills we already owe. It has nothing to do with calculating future spending, or in how big the deficit can become. The GOP already increased the deficit 800 billion this congress, earlier in the year. There will be 2 additional debt raises just for that in the future (calculated, based upon interest accumulated, etc)

National Debt $14 trillion

3.6 trillion - Social Security trust fund owed

4.0 trillion - Bush, W. policies (unfunded wars, unfunded Rx givaway)
3.0 trillion - Bush, W. unfunded tax cuts

2.0 trillion - taxes (income) lost due to recession and housing bust
1.4 trillion - Obama policies