Ryan's Budget and the debt limit
 

So, Paul Ryan's budget raises the debt by $6Trillion over the next ten years. The GOP voted for this budget, and won't vote to raise the debt limit?:confused:

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ICE_story.html

Regards,

D-Ray

This is just the latest installment of the GOP "down is up, up is down" economic theory.

they love that "piss on" school of economics

We've increased the debt limit in the past, and each time the result is an increased appetite for Federal spending. Enough already. Don't raise it.

piss on it huh?

about what I expected

Pissing on it is what we have been doing for years. Time for plan B.

good to see you finally understand and are ready to raise taxes to start paying for George's administration

Do you really want to live with the consequences? Even if the effect of defaulting is to actually increase the debt because of increased interest payments? Sounds more like pissing in the wind to me.

Regards,

D-Ray

Default? Doubtful. Will we be forced into a position of having to prioritize our spending? Probably. Will the government crash and entitlement recipients go begging? Doubtful. I'm dubious of the predictions of doom that those who favor raising the debt ceiling seem to be peddling.

What taxes do you want to raise? The rich? You and Trump are of like minds. Maybe you should get on the Donald's bandwagon.

On what do you base you doubt>


This seems contrary to what is being said by a lot of people who know what they are talking about.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...strophic-.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_805781.html

Regards,

D-Ray

very simple

I want Bush's tax cuts retroactively repealed (and of course the taxes repaid), btw I was a recipient of these tax breaks before I became ill. I want Bush's wars ended and his prescription give away to big pharma ended.

Then I want every penny that was robbed from SS to be replaced. Make every pol who voted to rob SS responsible. Take their personal cash and or jail them

Do this and we are fine and the pols will stop screwing around for at least a generation.

And I am damned serious.

And I thought only Republicans like to scare people. :rolleyes:

This is the same crisis - mongering diatribe that accompanied the "too big to fail" and TARP talk tracks. There is a diversity of opinion on the outcome of failing to raise the debt limit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012103415.html

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/deb...lex-brill.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-debt-ceiling/

Given the evidence, particularly the times when the gov't delayed raising the debt ceiling and calamity failed to strike, I think we'll find a way to maintain government operations.

An interesting, if not terribly realistic, way forward.

Why is it that we should expect ourselves to do without, but we shouldn't expect the same of our Federal or State governments?

I don't know what you mean. Did I not say repeal the drug benefit and the wars?

BTW the elderly need a drug benefit program but itr needs to be paid for and for them, not for the drug companies.

When Warren Buffet says don't invest in the US and is looking to buy industries in South Korea and India I get concerned. PIMCO sold all its treasury bonds.:rolleyes:

Yes. You also talked about tax retro-activity, and hauling elected representatives to jail, and looting them of their personal assets. And you thought Ryan's budget plans were extreme? :rolleyes:

You also mentioned ending Bush's War. Its now Obama's war since he's expanded the Afghan mission. He's also doubled - down and is supporting military action against Libya. So, I'm assuming you want out of both those campaigns, regardless of the foreign policy impact, correct?

No doubt both are prudent strategies at this point, whether or not we raise the debt limit.

Yes I did because he wants the poor to pay for all this crap AND starve grandma. I simple wants things fixed by those that benefited and were responsible. How can you say what I suggest is not reasonable?
How can you be so concerned about fixing things on the back of the poor rather than those who benefited and caused the problems.
Your approach is immoral and a recipte for social unrest.


YES. Obie's war and Bush boy's 2 wars I want out of.

I suggest its not reasonable because it will only happen when the next ice age reaches hell.

Hmmm...we've got a Prez willing to choke off oil exploration and leave us at the mercy of other countries for our oil supplies. All the while he's pursuing a dubious energy strategy that has caused gas prices to creep upward (that's right, Bush and his Halliburton buddies are no longer in office to blame the run up in oil prices on), essentially funding his pursuit of alternative energy "on the backs of the poor."

Increasing oil prices eventually filter through the economy, and increase the price of finished goods as well as food prices. Looks like the poor are gonna get hit again.

Oh yeah, and the poor are still asked to pony up for Senators and their boondoggles: that latest finding Harry Reid and company on a joy ride paid for by the poor so Reid can go rub elbows with his casino buddies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z2

I agree of course but that does not change the morality of it. Also if the teabaggers abandon reality in politics, if they were socially conscious and educated my proposal could be their platform and I would join. Of course they would lose Fox as a sponsor.

This is your usual unrelated nonsense.


They set the template in place, now the oil companies and wall street simply plug in.


This is not what we were talking about but this is accurate. The Bush figure prints are evident.

Again, as usual off subject but to be expected. what you don't get Whell is that I don't care how my POL is labeled, if he does something not suited to the betterment of the country I don't defend him. I am not at all like you where party comes before country.


Thanks for the link but I am done with reading your links. I have wasted much too much time on that road. Speak for yourself.

thanks

It's also nice to know that the House of Representatives will spend our tax dollars to protect the sacred concept of marriage from, well, you know, those folks. Hey, what's 500 grand here and there?

Regards,

D-Ray

Right. Don't let the facts get in the way.

Actually, the response it right on point. You want to claim that conservatives cut spending on the backs of the poor or the working class. Its senseless rhetoric, as if reductions in government spending only come at the expense of a certain group of people.

How can it be that increases in government spending only benefit the poor, and reductions in tax burden or reductions in spending only benefit the rich? How can it be that (the argument is made by some on this forum) we must tax the rich because they make the heaviest use of infrastructure, but decreasing government spending then hurts the poor the most? How can it be that unemployment benefits are stimulative (as the left would have us believe), but the idea that the government returning capital to the free market so that it can be put to productive use is not stimulative? How can it be that record levels of consumer debt is "bad", but record levels of public debt should be allowed to increase unabated? How can it be that health care for a fee managed in the private managed in the private sector is too expensive largely due to overconsumption and government interference in the marketplace, but single payer unrestricted access to medical care will be less expensive and more efficient (and free of political considerations which may impact delivery of services)?

Objection. The questions assume facts not in evidence.:p

Regards,

D-Ray

you presented no facts as always, you presented an unrelated link
your game continues

get a clue, the less you have the more it hurts when you receive less

I just don't get you insistence on blind devotion to the robber barons.

Have you ever reflected on this in private or therapy? Would you like to explore it in PM? I may be able to guide you to some self awareness.

How could you of not noticed that I do not play this game with you?


I was just listening to the Rolling Stones.

this is common sense.


Who is it that advocates this? Your imaginary liberal?



That's a mouthful but I think what you are trying to say is that you don't understand that government can run healthcare more cheaply than private insurance. You should read up on it then. It's really simple enough to figure out on your own and we have a terrific model , Medicare available for you to look at.




Whell, you never learn here. Never. I believe you are the only poster here that I have learned nothing from and has learned nothing in his time here. Unless you engage in discussion you will continue to stay stagnant. That is ashame because this is clearly not an intellect problem but rather a choice.
Understanding why you have cut yourself off from reason in political regards may be of benefit to you.

I am gonna throw on some more Stones myself.

Coffees ready! WooHoo! Nothing like a good Hawaiian blend in the French Press!

Dave

i am gonna go with a little goat's head soup this morning.

The facts are that Canada's Single Payer plan has less overhead than Blue Cross/Blue Shield spends in just the state of Masachussets. It also does not have any seven figure executives and bargains prices with Big Pharma, example Florence's BP medication is $599 for a 90 day supply, in Canada it is under $250. Novartis must still be making a profit at those prices because they still supply the Canadian market. We so enjoy being screwed that we keep spreading the myth that America is paying for all the research. If you believe that line of malarkey we are having a special on the Bay Bridge next week. Does this answer your How come?

"Angie, Angie, when will those clouds all disappear?":)

Dave

Well, if that's your logic, they don't you think the government is being cruel and heartless by doling out a mere pittance, and keeping the poor in poverty? Why not just pay out $50K a year to anyone who falls below a particular income level. Or why not just raise minimum wage so that everyone can make at least $50K per year?

If Medicare is your model of a efficient and solvent system, then it no wonder you think single payer is a wonderful thing.


Projection. Very interesting. ;)

Times are changing in Canada too. The demographic changes driving consumption are just a bit behind the US.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.aspx?did=616
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/W...536/story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...h.care.system/
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/r...751/story.html

Oh, by the way, before we start pining for the Canadian system for the US, consider:

Canada's total population is 33,751,000 - while the U.S. is around 307,183,000 people. Whatever issues the Canadian system is facing now, just multiply them by a factor of about 10.

The most important and wonderful thing to me, as far as the "Single Payer" issue goes, is this;

It's one less thing an asshole employer has to hold over my head. I can tell the jerkoff to "bite me" and have one less thing to lose. I'm sure this is also an aspect of it that they hate, besides having to help pay for it. A workforce less dependent on them is a scary thing for them, to be sure. It means they have to work even harder and pay more out to maintain control. Same reason they despise "unemployment insurance", SS and Medicaid/Medicare. These things help sustain people after they've stopped working. And a slave driving butthole just can't have that, now can he? They're no longer laboring under the heavy weight of his yoke, and he's helping pay for it. Poor baby.:p

Dave

Blue - you is smokin':cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

Actually, I do realize people do have some incentive to work. Without it, no one would work. But, incentive is just the operative word to point out. Threatening someone with poverty and disenfranchisement if they don't drag the stone is NOT incentive---it's punishment for failing to obey your master. Incentive, to my mind, would be to offer someone something over and above what they already have.

And, I believe certain things are basic human necessities---like access to healthcare, a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. I pay taxes too, and I don't mind helping pay for these things. Unfortunately, that is a lonely opinion these days. I also happen to realize, that one day, we will ALL be too old to work, barring some tragic accident or illness, of course...........Some of us seem to have been brainwashed into thinking this is not so. That "True Patriots" work until they die and that SS and Medicare are nothing more than handouts for slackers. Fools. Damned fools, facing into the wind, tally-whacker in hand, ready to pee.

Dave

Good old whell ank his linkies; Single payer cost me 0.8% on my taxable income and $54 per month for the family plan - if they doubled that it is still cheaper than $10,000 a year here. As for the sad story of the lady on CNN I really am sispicious about them. My sister-in-law went to Emergency with chest pains - they made here comfortable and installed a pacemaker next morning. My nephew has has two hip joint replacements. His sister recently had back surgery aand is now walking, before she had been confined to a wheel chair. The woman in the CNN link did not say if she had gone to Emergency or not, if she did not she was a fool and so was her internist.

BTW I fail to see what he population difference makes, we are more or less looking after the population at the moment, or are you concerned that people who do without healthcare now will actually get to see a doctor? SinglePayer also covered preventative medicine, maybe that in addition to good genes accounts for why I do not use prescription drugs. On my first visit to our new internist his receptionist asked what drugs did I take. I said if I ever get a headache maybe a Bufferin.

Ah but I know if it was not invented here it can't be any good.

This is sure not universal although I do agree with you that in many many occupations where capitalism has caused a slave/slave owner environment this is indeed true.

it's ashame how adversarial a relationship generally is between workers and owners under our present system

finally we agree! However, I don't think cash or your dollar amount is well though out, it seems Whell though out.
I firmly believe each family should have a decent place to live and a bit of land, food and health insurance.


What would you submit as better? I think you don't know what you are talking about.

No not at all. I think you are a good egg with a fear of honest reasoned dialogue. You seem trapped in a cycle of partisanism that somehow gives you security that independent thought does not.
I am very serious I find it fascinating.

So how would that work, exactly? You're suggesting that each family should just "have" a decent place to live, a bit of land, food and health insurance? Is that just given to families? By whom?

Since most of the land in the US is already owned by individuals, corporations, trusts or the gov't, would the gov't then confiscate land and redistribute it? How much land should each family get, and who decides?

What about single individuals? Do they get no land because they're not part of a family, or do they get less? What if they get married and start a family later? Does they have to find someplace on their own, or does a government agency relocate them to land deemed appropriate for families?

Is food just given away then? Would farmers, grocery workers, food distributors and manufacturers become gov't workers? Do restaurants still get to be owned by private individuals? How do they stay in business when food is available for free?

Of course, none of it is free, really? Someone's going to have to pay for this somehow, right? Who might that be?

Land is not a problem, we have lots.
By birth we have a God damned right to earth and some of it's resources.

As you said nothing is free so most your questions are bogus.

We all share in both the labor and rewards, not one group labors and the other group enjoys the rewards as now. But if people cannot labor we are plenty wealth enough to alone them to live on a piece of land and not force them to live homeless.

We have a right to the earth and it's resources. WTF? My city still charges me for water. Will you please talk to them for me?

I wanna live in your world, man. I won't need to work. Just show up with one of those notes that the docs were handing out to the union folks in Wisconsin, and I can get me some land to squat on and a hunk of government cheese. :rolleyes: