It's pretty obvious that the GOP LOVES corporate welfare. They want to continue to allow the 96% of Americans who make under 250,000 to be slaves to corporate America while the 4% of American "fat cats" live the lifestyle of the rich and famous. What would Jesus say, you "religious" Republicans?
Republicans: you won't be able to take money with you when you're sixfeet under! How hypocritical: so many Republicans claim to be "religious," yet the cardinal sin of all, greed, is part of their life.
Republicans want cuts to the elderly, seniors on Medicare, Social Security beneficiaries, YET THEY REFUSE TO RAISE TAXES on Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise & Oprah and wealthy rappers and movie stars. Republicans refuse to end the 4 billion a year Oil Subsidies even though President Obama has said they NEED to end. They also REFUSE to raise taxes on wealthy Wall Street brokers, bankers and billionaires and those making money from the middle class/ working class poor which are ALREADY worked to death.
Newsflash....Republicans approval rating is MUCH LOWER than Democrats and much much lower the President Obama. Go to Sarah Palin's page and worship your big-boobed bimbo goddess there...yes the one who QUIT 2 years into her governorship in Alaska to chase millions at FLAWED (Fox) News. OooH how presidential Sarah Palin.
The Republican Party is dying. Republicans, by in large, are ANTI-gay, ANTI-poor, ANTI-minority, and anti anything who isn't Rich, White, or Wealthy. The younger generation doesn't like that obese, balding, filthy-rich, racist buffoon: Rush Limbaugh, nor do they like the "bimbo" from Alaska who QUIT on the people of Alaska to chase millions at FLAWED NEWS (Fox News). She's intellectually deficient along with Newt, Trump, Huckabee, McCain et al.
@KidRisky except part of the Dept of Education is to supply/guarantee higher education loans for tens of thousands if not more students. The Dept of Ed. also provides some matching funds to states for education.
@uome2k7 Eliminate all of that, and education wouldn't grind to a halt. There would still be education, right? And over time, the cost of higher education would come down.
@KidRisky so how do people who cant afford classes get "educated"? I personally benefitted from government loans and government backed loans without which I would either still be in school or would have never been able to go in the first place. And yes, I got a job that has allowed me to pay back those loans with interest (making the government profit) and I hope that others have that same oppurtunity. what pays for education during that "over time" period?
@uome2k7 You pay for your education, I pay for mine, and the guy down the street pays for his. Using your reasoning, there is no government spending that cannot be justified. This entitlement mindset is what has gotten us to this state. When the country is trillions of dollars in the hole, borrowing more money to make low-interest loans to college students is irresponsible. At least you don't deny that education would continue, which was my point.
@KidRisky Yes, education would continue for those able to afford it. Yes, government spending on things that improve society as a whole is justifiable. No, borrowing money to get an education is not irresponsible or else nobody would do so to pay for college. Its an investment. The investment makes money on the loan interest AND on the increased tax revenue from that person making more money throughout their lifetime. Its short term thinking that screwed us. Think long term!
@KidRisky Going to war and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Paying for expanded subscription plans and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Doubling defense spending and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Voting for tax cuts without accompanying and equivalent spending cuts is irresponsible. Keeping war spending off the books is irresponsible. Giving no bid contracts to companies your VP previously was on the board for is irresponsible. Not paying off debt with surpluses is irresponsible.
@uome2k7 I see, this is a partisan thing for you. Switch all the Rs and Ds around and you'd be on the other side. Quick question: when you say "tax cuts," do you mean in the rates or the revenue raised? Did you know that those are different things, and that they often move in opposite directions? Does that matter to you?
@KidRisky Lowering tax rates may increase revenue but we are past that inflection point on the curve. When Reagan cut taxes, deficits increased so he raised them but not enough. When Bush Jr cut taxes, deficits increased. I couldn't care less about the letter after their name but demanding revenue neutral tax increases when you don't pass spending neutral tax cuts is hypocritical.
Oh dear. The utter absurdity of borrowing all of our money from banks and not issuing it ourselves never ceases to amaze me. Take back our money supply that they stole from us and never have an idiotic and absurd debate about debt ceilings again.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Join Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and John Boehner in cutting, capping, and balancing the U.S. Budget. Enter the website address below to sign the petition to fight government spending.
We’re raising over 10,000 petitions daily; Act now to save our country!
raising the debt ceiling only means they will be putting us further into debt.... the reason why they need to raise the debt ceiling is because they cant pay for anything without going further into debt... they're talking about cutting programs that amount to 5 trillion dollars over 10 years... that's not even paying the interest on the debt
@ToxicDreamer Raising the debt ceiling doesn't put us into further debt, it avoid default on debt already incurred. Then Congress has already spent this money, we are debating whether to pay what we presently owe and has nothing to do with NEW spending.
@more5600 if they could pay the debt they wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling, they can't even pay the interest on the debt let alone the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. and soon to be Iran and Syria. oh and there are 600 trillion dollars in toxic derivatives... it's a financial atomic bomb on the economy... :P
@evan13579b The deficit for just this year is about $1.5T and Boehner is pushing for a "deal" to cut $1.1 over 10 years. WE'RE SAVED!!!! It's time for Boehner and the rest of the old guard GOP to stop spitting on the Tea Party (which is the ONLY reason we're even having this debate or it'd be more endless spending and entitlements unto death being rubber stamped without even reading the Bill) and start living in fiscal reality or we WILL wind up like Greece.
I don't know why you are telling me this, but I am not unaware of that. In addition there is something called a "baseline" which by default raises the amount we spend each year for 10 years so we aren't actually cutting we are just lowering the baseline right now.
Still, I think that what Boehner is doing is ok. We won't likely cut the deficit much until the wars stop anyway so its good to start nibbling now me thinks.
So where do you stop? When interest becomes equal to revenue? Or do you then start borrowing to pay off the interest too? There's only three ways out of this conundrum. Spend less, tax more or a combination of both. As far as spending less goes, good luck. Raising more tax can be achieved in a couple of ways. You can promote rampant inflation to reduce the debt in real terms and raise more tax in nominal terms, or you can actually raise tax rates. Either way, the US is a spent superpower.
Raising the debt ceiling just encourages more deficits, which just hastens our default. Raising the debt ceiling is about as wise as a guy who's overloaded in debt getting more credit cards to continue his spending. It ends in default either way.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! This would be a convincing argument to the average Salon.com user.
I'll continue listening to Peter Schiff.
My question is, what will you do the next time you have to raise the debt limit? When is spending going to be under control and when will we start decreasing the debt?
Oh that's right, the whole point is to ignore runaway spending which is the root of this problem.
@nippyhippy123 Yes, runaway spending and cutting revenues (taxes). The two wars and the medicare prescription plan fit that bill pretty well. As for revenues? Well, we've had massive tax cuts at the same time, and a broken system of taxation ever since the grossly oversimplified theory of voodoo economics hit the mainstream.
Why would the mandatory spending automatically be paid first? It isn't mandatory because it's a higher priority, but because it's on autopilot. We can change the rules anytime we want.
I still wonder why we reinstated this idiotic vote on raising the debt ceiling. As the CBO recommends, there should be an automatic raising of the debt ceiling anytime congress votes to approve a deficit-funded budget. If you don't want to raise the debt ceiling, then vote for a balanced budget, but don't vote to have a deficit and act surprised when the debt ceiling has to be raised.
@lejeunesage: And when was the last time Congress voted for any budget at all? The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't proposed, much less passed, a budget in three years. This Congress has been entangled in the debt of Congresses that created vast unfunded entitlements *decades* ago.
I kept waiting for him to introduce Robocop.
nandaiyo 7 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
It's pretty obvious that the GOP LOVES corporate welfare. They want to continue to allow the 96% of Americans who make under 250,000 to be slaves to corporate America while the 4% of American "fat cats" live the lifestyle of the rich and famous. What would Jesus say, you "religious" Republicans?
Republicans: you won't be able to take money with you when you're sixfeet under! How hypocritical: so many Republicans claim to be "religious," yet the cardinal sin of all, greed, is part of their life.
insa526 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Republicans want cuts to the elderly, seniors on Medicare, Social Security beneficiaries, YET THEY REFUSE TO RAISE TAXES on Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise & Oprah and wealthy rappers and movie stars. Republicans refuse to end the 4 billion a year Oil Subsidies even though President Obama has said they NEED to end. They also REFUSE to raise taxes on wealthy Wall Street brokers, bankers and billionaires and those making money from the middle class/ working class poor which are ALREADY worked to death.
insa526 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Newsflash....Republicans approval rating is MUCH LOWER than Democrats and much much lower the President Obama. Go to Sarah Palin's page and worship your big-boobed bimbo goddess there...yes the one who QUIT 2 years into her governorship in Alaska to chase millions at FLAWED (Fox) News. OooH how presidential Sarah Palin.
insa526 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Republican Party is dying. Republicans, by in large, are ANTI-gay, ANTI-poor, ANTI-minority, and anti anything who isn't Rich, White, or Wealthy. The younger generation doesn't like that obese, balding, filthy-rich, racist buffoon: Rush Limbaugh, nor do they like the "bimbo" from Alaska who QUIT on the people of Alaska to chase millions at FLAWED NEWS (Fox News). She's intellectually deficient along with Newt, Trump, Huckabee, McCain et al.
insa526 7 months ago
Disingenuous to say "no education." What you should have said is, "no money for the Department of Education." Those are not identical statements.
KidRisky 7 months ago
@KidRisky except part of the Dept of Education is to supply/guarantee higher education loans for tens of thousands if not more students. The Dept of Ed. also provides some matching funds to states for education.
uome2k7 7 months ago
@uome2k7 Eliminate all of that, and education wouldn't grind to a halt. There would still be education, right? And over time, the cost of higher education would come down.
KidRisky 7 months ago
@KidRisky so how do people who cant afford classes get "educated"? I personally benefitted from government loans and government backed loans without which I would either still be in school or would have never been able to go in the first place. And yes, I got a job that has allowed me to pay back those loans with interest (making the government profit) and I hope that others have that same oppurtunity. what pays for education during that "over time" period?
uome2k7 7 months ago
@uome2k7 You pay for your education, I pay for mine, and the guy down the street pays for his. Using your reasoning, there is no government spending that cannot be justified. This entitlement mindset is what has gotten us to this state. When the country is trillions of dollars in the hole, borrowing more money to make low-interest loans to college students is irresponsible. At least you don't deny that education would continue, which was my point.
KidRisky 7 months ago
@KidRisky Yes, education would continue for those able to afford it. Yes, government spending on things that improve society as a whole is justifiable. No, borrowing money to get an education is not irresponsible or else nobody would do so to pay for college. Its an investment. The investment makes money on the loan interest AND on the increased tax revenue from that person making more money throughout their lifetime. Its short term thinking that screwed us. Think long term!
uome2k7 7 months ago
@KidRisky Going to war and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Paying for expanded subscription plans and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Doubling defense spending and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Voting for tax cuts without accompanying and equivalent spending cuts is irresponsible. Keeping war spending off the books is irresponsible. Giving no bid contracts to companies your VP previously was on the board for is irresponsible. Not paying off debt with surpluses is irresponsible.
uome2k7 7 months ago
@uome2k7 I see, this is a partisan thing for you. Switch all the Rs and Ds around and you'd be on the other side. Quick question: when you say "tax cuts," do you mean in the rates or the revenue raised? Did you know that those are different things, and that they often move in opposite directions? Does that matter to you?
KidRisky 7 months ago
@KidRisky Lowering tax rates may increase revenue but we are past that inflection point on the curve. When Reagan cut taxes, deficits increased so he raised them but not enough. When Bush Jr cut taxes, deficits increased. I couldn't care less about the letter after their name but demanding revenue neutral tax increases when you don't pass spending neutral tax cuts is hypocritical.
uome2k7 7 months ago
Oh dear. The utter absurdity of borrowing all of our money from banks and not issuing it ourselves never ceases to amaze me. Take back our money supply that they stole from us and never have an idiotic and absurd debate about debt ceilings again.
Spacedog79 7 months ago
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOW!
niradg 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Join Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and John Boehner in cutting, capping, and balancing the U.S. Budget. Enter the website address below to sign the petition to fight government spending.
We’re raising over 10,000 petitions daily; Act now to save our country!
To sign go to persistenceforprosperity (dot) org
cyn725 7 months ago
raising the debt ceiling only means they will be putting us further into debt.... the reason why they need to raise the debt ceiling is because they cant pay for anything without going further into debt... they're talking about cutting programs that amount to 5 trillion dollars over 10 years... that's not even paying the interest on the debt
ToxicDreamer 7 months ago
@ToxicDreamer Raising the debt ceiling doesn't put us into further debt, it avoid default on debt already incurred. Then Congress has already spent this money, we are debating whether to pay what we presently owe and has nothing to do with NEW spending.
more5600 7 months ago 2
@more5600 if they could pay the debt they wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling, they can't even pay the interest on the debt let alone the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. and soon to be Iran and Syria. oh and there are 600 trillion dollars in toxic derivatives... it's a financial atomic bomb on the economy... :P
ToxicDreamer 7 months ago
@more5600
Raising the debt ceiling is SO WE CAN TAKE ON MORE DEBT. So of course it paves the way for further debt, idiot.
evan13579b 7 months ago
@evan13579b The deficit for just this year is about $1.5T and Boehner is pushing for a "deal" to cut $1.1 over 10 years. WE'RE SAVED!!!! It's time for Boehner and the rest of the old guard GOP to stop spitting on the Tea Party (which is the ONLY reason we're even having this debate or it'd be more endless spending and entitlements unto death being rubber stamped without even reading the Bill) and start living in fiscal reality or we WILL wind up like Greece.
Yakko77 7 months ago
@Yakko77
I don't know why you are telling me this, but I am not unaware of that. In addition there is something called a "baseline" which by default raises the amount we spend each year for 10 years so we aren't actually cutting we are just lowering the baseline right now.
Still, I think that what Boehner is doing is ok. We won't likely cut the deficit much until the wars stop anyway so its good to start nibbling now me thinks.
evan13579b 7 months ago
So where do you stop? When interest becomes equal to revenue? Or do you then start borrowing to pay off the interest too? There's only three ways out of this conundrum. Spend less, tax more or a combination of both. As far as spending less goes, good luck. Raising more tax can be achieved in a couple of ways. You can promote rampant inflation to reduce the debt in real terms and raise more tax in nominal terms, or you can actually raise tax rates. Either way, the US is a spent superpower.
ahpauza 9 months ago
Raising the debt ceiling just encourages more deficits, which just hastens our default. Raising the debt ceiling is about as wise as a guy who's overloaded in debt getting more credit cards to continue his spending. It ends in default either way.
razerfish 9 months ago
@razerfish While I know it is not wise to do, how do you suggest we pay for the wars and other government programs already in place?
tapupartforpres 7 months ago
This actually illustrates balancing the budget, not raising the cap on the debt ceiling. Otherwise a nice use of a whiteboard.
sparc5 9 months ago
how the fuck is this IRON CLAD? JOKE
bajoverga 9 months ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA! This would be a convincing argument to the average Salon.com user.
I'll continue listening to Peter Schiff.
My question is, what will you do the next time you have to raise the debt limit? When is spending going to be under control and when will we start decreasing the debt?
Oh that's right, the whole point is to ignore runaway spending which is the root of this problem.
nippyhippy123 9 months ago
@nippyhippy123 Yes, runaway spending and cutting revenues (taxes). The two wars and the medicare prescription plan fit that bill pretty well. As for revenues? Well, we've had massive tax cuts at the same time, and a broken system of taxation ever since the grossly oversimplified theory of voodoo economics hit the mainstream.
Sure, spending is the root of the problem.
xxdunkalixx 9 months ago
Typo in the title.
icharus15 9 months ago
Why would the mandatory spending automatically be paid first? It isn't mandatory because it's a higher priority, but because it's on autopilot. We can change the rules anytime we want.
ajpmathwiz 9 months ago
I still wonder why we reinstated this idiotic vote on raising the debt ceiling. As the CBO recommends, there should be an automatic raising of the debt ceiling anytime congress votes to approve a deficit-funded budget. If you don't want to raise the debt ceiling, then vote for a balanced budget, but don't vote to have a deficit and act surprised when the debt ceiling has to be raised.
lejeunesage 9 months ago 12
@lejeunesage: And when was the last time Congress voted for any budget at all? The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't proposed, much less passed, a budget in three years. This Congress has been entangled in the debt of Congresses that created vast unfunded entitlements *decades* ago.
BCSWowbagger 7 months ago