Why does the debt matter so much to Repubs?

[Bern80]

Uh, let's see:

There is the 3 trillion cost of Iraq and Afghanistan - check

There is the cost of taking care of the 50 thousand wounded in Iraq - unknown

There is the cost of taking care of the families of those who died in Iraq - unknown

There is the 2.4 trillion Bush/Republican tax cuts passed through reconciliation - check

There is the addition of another trillion for the Bush/Republican tax cuts the unemployed were held hostage just before Christmas to make happen - check

There is the 3 to 7 trillion from Bush/Republican Medicare Part D, again, reconciliation -check

There are the billions and billions given to corporations in subsidies - check

So the question remains, "Why does the debt matter so much to Repubs?"

If I had to guess, based on the actions of the Republicans, I would say, "The debt doesn't matter. It's just an excuse to screw the middle class one more time". But it's just a guess.

And before you wingnuts begin calling names, at least give a reason. It's not like anything here isn't true.

All but the last sentence is accurate. I really don't see how, even if they had a good idea, which they don't, addressing the debt screws the middle class.

The Republicans don't want to implement anything major either and yes many do have their own things they want to spend money on. Most politicians don't get it yet. They don't get that fixing the debt is going to take a radical redefinition of the role of government, socially, economically, taxing policy wise AND militarily. Our framers meant for government to have a limited role in ALL of these areas. They didn't mean for our military to be the world police any more than they meant for government to babysit people through ever more entitlements.

 

[Bern80]

Why I gotta be the "Thuggy for hire"? Inventions are a little slow in this economy...a guy has to keep busy.

OK enough about me...

Picking piecemeal at a debate leaves holes that eventually need filling. Of course there are limits to every financial arrangement. The problem is that the world is not physically or financially static. Shit happens. The system gets gamed.. Natural disasters cannot be predicted. War happens.

What I am saying is that we truly are the shining beacon of the world. If there is a valid American exceptional-ism then it is in the financial sector. America..AND the rest of the world are pulling are pulling ourselves back from the brink of the greatest threat to financial stability ever to threaten capitalism and probably democracy. OK.. everyone with any say in the matter had to put on their thinking caps and develop an emergency plan to avert catastrophe. OK..it was expensive..but the ship didn't sink..the train is still on the rails. Now we can work on the process of recovering the extension of the emergency tools.

The debt is not what it is because Clinton or Bush or Obama were evil. Some could argue that greed and a lack of regulatory forces caused our dilemma. Over reacting would be just as unwise as the negligence that caused the problem. We need to be intelligent and steady. The ideologues have chosen to use this situation as a political football. That IS evil.

We still need to be flexible to react to whatever comes down the pike that might disrupt our recovery. If that means temporarily accepting some substantial debt for the short or medium term then so be it.

The debt and the recession are two different events. Had we not had a recession, we would still be trillions of dollars in debt. To keep things short and to the point the very real danger of not addressing the debt in a meaningful way is that American money will become basically worthless and that WILL have a direct impact on everyone.

Wrong. They are two different symptoms of the same problem. There is no "event". Both symptoms were a long time coming. A tsunami is an "event". An earthquake is an event. But even those kinds of immediate threats can be mitigated by preparation.

One of the fragile aspects of our economy closely tied to invested wealth AKA the stock market is that it is subject to and dependent upon public confidence. It can also be looked upon as a gauge of same public confidence as to when to tackle difficult issues such as the ballooning deficit.

Obama walked head long into a financial industry shitstorm not of his own making. Much of the head of the main body of the deficit was just starting to rear its head because Bush couldn't keep EVERYTHING he was hiding off the books forever. THEN as Obama was inaugurated it was not the time to deal with the deficit. There were far more urgent fish to fry. He also got a start on his health care legislation which he recognized rightfully as one of the most dire anchors on the economy.

Bush let the boat go into serious disrepair, then ran it up on the rocks in a storm, then conveniently left the sinking ship for Obama to bail it out, assess the damage, patch the hull while it was still barely floating, then do what repairs he could with a ship full of whiny passengers...half of which were still intent on sinking the ship.

I don't know if Obama could have done a better job..Maybe..we'll never know. But the ship is upright ...the stock market has doubled in value and remains steady and up in all it's trends.

Now that we have been able to catch our collective breath it is indeed time to look at how to reduce the deficit. It is NOT time to punish the weak ..the old...the young for it's existence. Move forward on it cautiously ..deliberately ...with ALL shoulders pulling the load INCLUDING the wealthy.

You're right about the concept of confidence. So why do you insist the same does not apply to the debt? At some point our debt will grow so large that the world will no longer have any confidence in the value of our money. Certainly if confidence influence the value of stocks and the stock market so to does confidence effect the value of dollar and thus whether or not our debt is going to cause us problems or not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Avoidance. Imagine that, thanks for nothing.

Questioning you is avoidance? Damn you ARE stupid!

Your concession is duly noted.

Asking a question in response to a REAL question is avoidance. Or did you miss the fact that I asked some questions of my own??

Your concession is duly noted.

"So if medicare is so insolvent why does he address it NOW??"

Your first question is based on the premise that medicare is insolvent, which it isn't.

"How will punting the ball and passing on the baby boomers medicare costs to the next generation solve anything??"

Your second question, like the first, isn't based on any facts.

Your concession is duly noted, again.

 

[drsmith1072]

Questioning you is avoidance? Damn you ARE stupid!

Your concession is duly noted.

Asking a question in response to a REAL question is avoidance. Or did you miss the fact that I asked some questions of my own??

Your concession is duly noted.

"So if medicare is so insolvent why does he address it NOW??"

Your first question is based on the premise that medicare is insolvent, which it isn't.

Really?? So then it is in good financial shape and isn't in trouble at all therfore it doesn't need to be changed. All you hear from right wingers is how it's going bancrupt and needs to be fixed and yet you are here countering those arguments. Do you think I used the wrong terminology and if so please explain what would have been better.

insolvent
a. Unable to meet debts or discharge liabilities; bankrupt.

"How will punting the ball and passing on the baby boomers medicare costs to the next generation solve anything??"

Your second question, like the first, isn't based on any facts.

Really?? So ryan's plan addresses all of medicare right here and now and doesn't exclude any seniors for the next 10 or so years?? What does ryan's plan do to medicare in the here and now to address the costs of medicare?? Isn't the baby boomers retiring what everyone claims to be worried about?? He states that his plan doesn't affect those over 55 so what does he do to address the costs of their care in the here and now and for the next few decades??

Care to show how I am wrong or do you actually think claiming it makes it so??

Your concession is duly noted, again.

Says the hack that can't even present a valid counter argument as he pretends that merely the act of telling others they are wrong makes it so.

Thanks for showing that you have NOTHING to offer.

 

[Dot Com]

It means a lot to them ONLY when the millionaires/billionaires are left out of the equation for paying it down.

 

[HUGGY]

Questioning you is avoidance? Damn you ARE stupid!

Your concession is duly noted.

Asking a question in response to a REAL question is avoidance. Or did you miss the fact that I asked some questions of my own??

Your concession is duly noted.

"So if medicare is so insolvent why does he address it NOW??"

Your first question is based on the premise that medicare is insolvent, which it isn't.

"How will punting the ball and passing on the baby boomers medicare costs to the next generation solve anything??"

Your second question, like the first, isn't based on any facts.

Your concession is duly noted, again.

You people don't give a crap about medicare. Refusing to allow medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceuticals ...then whining about the costs...HYPOCRACY of the highest order

You just fucking hate people in general and have forgotten long ago that if you hadn't gotten a very lucky break you would probably still be in prison being one of the most useless leaches on society that there is.

 

[drsmith1072]

Hmm? I guess lonestar couldn't answer my questions.

 

[jgarden]

Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% per year. Republican presidents out-borrowed and out-spent Democratic presidents by a three-to-one ratio. Putting that in very real terms, for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.

http://bunkinthewest.wordpress.com/...rats-national-debt-and-fiscal-responsibility/

Its not that the Republicans really object to debt, they just object when somebody else isn't creating enough debt - that's when their wealthy supporters haven't had sufficient opportunity to "gorge" themselves at the govermnent "trough!"

How else does one explain why the Republican Party, the one that advertises itself as the protector of the nation's "pursestrings," has actually increased the national debt by an average of 9.7% annually since 1946, 3X that of its supposedly "tax and spend" Democratic counterparts?

 

[bripat9643]

We are adversaries because you're a Stalinist toady who does the dirty work for the Democrat criminals in the government.

So says the fascist toady who does the dirty work for the republican criminals in the government. LOL

How original!

Apparently you aren't denying you're a Stalinist toady.

 

[bripat9643]

The GOP had the presidency, the House, and the Senate you moron.

They had enough members in the Senate to filibuster any attempt to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Max.

So even though the GOP had the majority, which by the way you republicans said the minority can't do anything just like in the healthcare bill. But its all the democrats fault because they didn't have the voting power?

Boy you are an idiot.

Democrats had a veto proof majority in the Senate. Republicans never had any such thing.

It's interesting to observe the way you weasel around the essential facts.

 

[drsmith1072]

We are adversaries because you're a Stalinist toady who does the dirty work for the Democrat criminals in the government.

So says the fascist toady who does the dirty work for the republican criminals in the government. LOL

How original!

Apparently you aren't denying you're a Stalinist toady.

You spew right wing bs talking points like the good little lemming that you are and yet you actually try to comment on how my flipping of your our propaganda is unoriginal? Now that is hilarious.

 

[drsmith1072]

They had enough members in the Senate to filibuster any attempt to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Max.

So even though the GOP had the majority, which by the way you republicans said the minority can't do anything just like in the healthcare bill. But its all the democrats fault because they didn't have the voting power?

Boy you are an idiot.

Democrats had a veto proof majority in the Senate. Republicans never had any such thing.

It's interesting to observe the way you weasel around the essential facts.

uh, you do realize that a veto proof majority only really matters when opposing parties control the WH and the senate don't you?? Are you actually trying to say that bush would have vetoed his own party's attempt to do something about the "subprime mortgage debacle"??

Furthermore, how is a veto proof majority an essential fact to a discussion that is about a time when the right controlled both houses of congress and the WH??
Also, how does that address the fact that the republicans did NOTHING about it and are now trying to blame democrats for their lack of action??

FACT is that no bills were put on the floor for a vote and the republicans controlled congress and the agenda therefore there was NO filibuster by the democrats, so the republicans are the ones to blame.

 

[skookerasbil]

I nomintate this thread for the "STUPID THREAD OF THE YEAR" award!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way.........the author is the same guy who has been screaming about "Reagan deficits!!!" for years!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh............and a public service announcement.

NEVER put a liberal in charge of your personal finances!!!


Heres proof................


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


When you put mental cases in charge of your personal finances, you'll soon be standing on some soup line!!!

 

[editec]

The GOP is like an arsonist who stands by the house they just set on fire complaining about how hot it is.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just in case anybody missed this....................

THIS is classic.............the premiere example of proof of how confused liberals are.............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores[/ame]

 

[uscitizen]

Umm it is fictional satire.

 

[edthecynic]

Why does the Debt mean so little to the left? This effects everyone in our Nation not just the takers.

I love it!!

Now St Ronnie is on the Left!

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

 

[edthecynic]

So even though the GOP had the majority, which by the way you republicans said the minority can't do anything just like in the healthcare bill. But its all the democrats fault because they didn't have the voting power?

Boy you are an idiot.

Democrats had a veto proof majority in the Senate. Republicans never had any such thing.

It's interesting to observe the way you weasel around the essential facts.

This is the problem with CON$, the know-it-alls know absolutely nothing. It takes 67 Senate votes to overcome a veto.

Any time CON$ say something is a "FACT" you know it isn't!!!!

 

[chikenwing]

Excessive GPA's ??? LOL this guy has a lot to learn,collage doesn't seem to have helped.