Debt Ceiling

[Emo EMAW]

Here we go:

The national debt is the accumulation of past and current budget deficits.

The budget deficit is the annual level at which spending outpaces revenue. 

Budget deficits can be reduced year to year, while still increasing the overall national debt. 

Class dismissed.

Then explain to me how Obama has reduced the debt without running a surplus?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Here we go:

The national debt is the accumulation of past and current budget deficits.

The budget deficit is the annual level at which spending outpaces revenue. 

Budget deficits can be reduced year to year, while still increasing the overall national debt. 

Class dismissed.

This is exactly what I have been trying to convey to you for days. You have been saying the national debt has already been reduced by FUTURE DEFICIT REDUCTION. We all know that is ridiculous and won't happen.

[OregonSmock]

Here we go:

The national debt is the accumulation of past and current budget deficits.

The budget deficit is the annual level at which spending outpaces revenue. 

Budget deficits can be reduced year to year, while still increasing the overall national debt. 

Class dismissed.

Then explain to me how Obama has reduced the debt without running a surplus?

For example, Obama has reduced future spending by making compromises with Republicans on things like sequestration.  As I pointed out earlier, the budgetary savings from sequestration for the period 2013-2021 is around $1.2 trillion.  Total deficit reduction (since 2009) has been around $3.7 trillion.  The year to year budget deficit has been decreasing, but it's still a deficit, so the overall national debt still increases.   

[Emo EMAW]

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

President Obama and Congress have already reduced the national debt by about $2.5 trillion.  The sequester reduced it even more. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

Yeah wars, prescription drugs, and added bureacracy advocated and signed into law,by the right with only supply side prayers to pay for it has had no bearing on our fiscal situation at all. 

Dax you're a MIC hater, why are you ignoring the neo cons spending irresponsibility of the last decade plus?

Wait a second, when Clinton was having those "surpluses" who controlled Congress?  When the deficits exploded to record levels which party controlled Congress?

By "neo-cons" I hope you're including such people as Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who by and large have never met a war they didn't like or want.   I also hope you're also thinking of Clinton's illegal war in the Balkans (no Congressional Mandate, no UN Mandate and in violation of the NATO Charter) which was essentially the white paper for future U.S. interventionism/unilateral warfare (no to mention the outright support of entities that had strong Al Qaeda leanings/Iranian leanings).

Well then why didn't the repubs of yesteryear help continue those surpluses? As soon as they got control of both houses Dick Cheney was telling us "deficits don't matter".   The current brand of Democrats only took that mindset and put it on steroids as soon as they took control of the Congres and the White House.  Suddenly bugdge deficts didn't really matter, and the national debt was just a number, with well known Democrat leaning economists touting starting up 2 or 3 or 4 more money printing presses

Why did the party that likes to beat its chest about fiscal responsibility continue to rack up record deficits at the time, not pay for two wars, add an prescription drug entitlement, and add another bureaucracy to the federal government without figuring how to pay for it? I suspect if we went back and looked at the votes we'd see a laundry list of Dem Congressmen lined up supporting those bills, and lets not forget that it was Congress who started the generic drug fear mongering to protect their drug company croonies, on top of the administration exemptin drug companies from pricing rules in Obama Care.

I don't think any party has a foot to stand on to be honest, but to put the blame solely on Obama and the democrats is pretty asinine and ignorant.

I also have no problem with your mentions of the neo-cons above. You must also include Obama as he has been just as militaristic as his predecessor.

[OregonSmock]

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

President Obama and Congress have already reduced the national debt by about $2.5 trillion.  The sequester reduced it even more. 

How does any of that contradict what I've said?  Do you not believe in budgetary savings or spending cuts?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

President Obama and Congress have already reduced the national debt by about $2.5 trillion.  The sequester reduced it even more. 

How does any of that contradict what I've said?  Do you not believe in budgetary savings or spending cuts?

The national debt has not been reduced and is increasing daily.

[OregonSmock]

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

President Obama and Congress have already reduced the national debt by about $2.5 trillion.  The sequester reduced it even more. 

How does any of that contradict what I've said?  Do you not believe in budgetary savings or spending cuts?

The national debt has not been reduced and is increasing daily.

Future spending levels have been reduced and the current budget deficit is around $800 billion less than what it was when President Obama took office.  I guess you just don't believe in the concept of spending cuts, then?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

President Obama and Congress have already reduced the national debt by about $2.5 trillion.  The sequester reduced it even more. 

How does any of that contradict what I've said?  Do you not believe in budgetary savings or spending cuts?

The national debt has not been reduced and is increasing daily.

Future spending levels have been reduced and the current budget deficit is around $800 billion less than what it was when President Obama took office.  I guess you just don't believe in the concept of spending cuts, then?

Geez, just admit you made a mistake.

[Headinjun]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

Yeah wars, prescription drugs, and added bureacracy advocated and signed into law,by the right with only supply side prayers to pay for it has had no bearing on our fiscal situation at all. 

Dax you're a MIC hater, why are you ignoring the neo cons spending irresponsibility of the last decade plus?

Wait a second, when Clinton was having those "surpluses" who controlled Congress?  When the deficits exploded to record levels which party controlled Congress?

By "neo-cons" I hope you're including such people as Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who by and large have never met a war they didn't like or want.   I also hope you're also thinking of Clinton's illegal war in the Balkans (no Congressional Mandate, no UN Mandate and in violation of the NATO Charter) which was essentially the white paper for future U.S. interventionism/unilateral warfare (no to mention the outright support of entities that had strong Al Qaeda leanings/Iranian leanings).

Well then why didn't the repubs of yesteryear help continue those surpluses? As soon as they got control of both houses Dick Cheney was telling us "deficits don't matter".   The current brand of Democrats only took that mindset and put it on steroids as soon as they took control of the Congres and the White House.  Suddenly bugdge deficts didn't really matter, and the national debt was just a number, with well known Democrat leaning economists touting starting up 2 or 3 or 4 more money printing presses

Why did the party that likes to beat its chest about fiscal responsibility continue to rack up record deficits at the time, not pay for two wars, add an prescription drug entitlement, and add another bureaucracy to the federal government without figuring how to pay for it? I suspect if we went back and looked at the votes we'd see a laundry list of Dem Congressmen lined up supporting those bills, and lets not forget that it was Congress who started the generic drug fear mongering to protect their drug company croonies, on top of the administration exemptin drug companies from pricing rules in Obama Care.

I don't think any party has a foot to stand on to be honest, but to put the blame solely on Obama and the democrats is pretty asinine and ignorant.

I also have no problem with your mentions of the neo-cons above. You must also include Obama as he has been just as militaristic as his predecessor.

I have no problem with the Democrats being looked as a bunch of buttsniffers in the 2000s, what I do have a problem is with this whole notion that all of our spending woes are because of democrats who took ideas from repubs and ran with it further bullshit.

The dems have never made a serious attempt to attack the budget, and the pubs never found revenues to pay for the things they wanted..

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

Yeah wars, prescription drugs, and added bureacracy advocated and signed into law,by the right with only supply side prayers to pay for it has had no bearing on our fiscal situation at all. 

Dax you're a MIC hater, why are you ignoring the neo cons spending irresponsibility of the last decade plus?

Wait a second, when Clinton was having those "surpluses" who controlled Congress?  When the deficits exploded to record levels which party controlled Congress?

By "neo-cons" I hope you're including such people as Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who by and large have never met a war they didn't like or want.   I also hope you're also thinking of Clinton's illegal war in the Balkans (no Congressional Mandate, no UN Mandate and in violation of the NATO Charter) which was essentially the white paper for future U.S. interventionism/unilateral warfare (no to mention the outright support of entities that had strong Al Qaeda leanings/Iranian leanings).

Well then why didn't the repubs of yesteryear help continue those surpluses? As soon as they got control of both houses Dick Cheney was telling us "deficits don't matter".   The current brand of Democrats only took that mindset and put it on steroids as soon as they took control of the Congres and the White House.  Suddenly bugdge deficts didn't really matter, and the national debt was just a number, with well known Democrat leaning economists touting starting up 2 or 3 or 4 more money printing presses

Why did the party that likes to beat its chest about fiscal responsibility continue to rack up record deficits at the time, not pay for two wars, add an prescription drug entitlement, and add another bureaucracy to the federal government without figuring how to pay for it? I suspect if we went back and looked at the votes we'd see a laundry list of Dem Congressmen lined up supporting those bills, and lets not forget that it was Congress who started the generic drug fear mongering to protect their drug company croonies, on top of the administration exemptin drug companies from pricing rules in Obama Care.

I don't think any party has a foot to stand on to be honest, but to put the blame solely on Obama and the democrats is pretty asinine and ignorant.

I also have no problem with your mentions of the neo-cons above. You must also include Obama as he has been just as militaristic as his predecessor.

I have no problem with the Democrats being looked as a bunch of buttsniffers in the 2000s, what I do have a problem is with this whole notion that all of our spending woes are because of democrats who took ideas from repubs and ran with it further bullshit.

The dems have never made a serious attempt to attack the budget, and the pubs never found revenues to pay for the things they wanted..

Interesting take. You're upset that the dems can't stop spending and upset that the pubs won't take more of your money.

[Headinjun]

I'm just upset that they can't balance the budget and work on paying off the debt.

[sonofdaxjones]

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

President Obama and Congress have already reduced the national debt by about $2.5 trillion.  The sequester reduced it even more. 

How does any of that contradict what I've said?  Do you not believe in budgetary savings or spending cuts?

The national debt has not been reduced and is increasing daily.

Future spending levels have been reduced and the current budget deficit is around $800 billion less than what it was when President Obama took office.  I guess you just don't believe in the concept of spending cuts, then?

You mean decreases in the asked for increase right?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

BMW isn't just a mouthpiece for the delusional left, he's also [fill in blank]


I'll go with "huge tool"

[sys]

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/druckenmiller-i-like-winning-more-than-being-rich-z_Md_yn8QESqlLLeX3ZGRA.html