The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Democrats to raise national debt ceiling by 1.8 trillion
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1133
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Democrats to raise national debt ceiling by 1.8 trillion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091210/pl_politico/30417

Hooray for fiscal responsibility!

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

So, the government, under Bush's executive leadership, ran the debt up to $10.2 trillion. It's now at $12.1 trillion (the extra 2 trillion is solely the responsiblility of the democratically controlled congress, with some Bush and some Obama mixed in - can't put all of this on Democrats). The increase to 14 trillion as a result of the spending bill just passed is the responsiblity of democrats, and will hurt them in November. Still, 2 trillion is too high a price to pay to get democrats out of office.

Author:  DFK! [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
So, the government, under Bush's executive leadership, ran the debt up to $10.2 trillion. It's now at $12.1 trillion (the extra 2 trillion is solely the responsiblility of the democratically controlled congress, with some Bush and some Obama mixed in - can't put all of this on Democrats). The increase to 14 trillion as a result of the spending bill just passed is the responsiblity of democrats, and will hurt them in November. Still, 2 trillion is too high a price to pay to get democrats out of office.


You have some sort of problem with a 40% increase in debt over 3 years?

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DFK! wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
So, the government, under Bush's executive leadership, ran the debt up to $10.2 trillion. It's now at $12.1 trillion (the extra 2 trillion is solely the responsiblility of the democratically controlled congress, with some Bush and some Obama mixed in - can't put all of this on Democrats). The increase to 14 trillion as a result of the spending bill just passed is the responsiblity of democrats, and will hurt them in November. Still, 2 trillion is too high a price to pay to get democrats out of office.


You have some sort of problem with a 40% increase in debt over 3 years?

We just need 40% inflation to match it, and then it's like we didn't increase it at all!

Author:  Monte [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
So, the government, under Bush's executive leadership, ran the debt up to $10.2 trillion. It's now at $12.1 trillion (the extra 2 trillion is solely the responsiblility of the democratically controlled congress, with some Bush and some Obama mixed in - can't put all of this on Democrats).




The 2 trillion is *not* solely the responsibility of the democratically controlled congress. It has a lot to do with a significantly lowered revenue from the economic crisis.

Author:  Screeling [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
So, the government, under Bush's executive leadership, ran the debt up to $10.2 trillion. It's now at $12.1 trillion (the extra 2 trillion is solely the responsiblility of the democratically controlled congress, with some Bush and some Obama mixed in - can't put all of this on Democrats).




The 2 trillion is *not* solely the responsibility of the democratically controlled congress. It has a lot to do with a significantly lowered revenue from the economic crisis.

It really is. You act like government isn't able to cut spending.

Author:  Monte [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sure, let's start by gutting the bloated defense budget. They can hold a bake sale to pay for their new fun toys.

Author:  Ladas [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

I believe most of the posters here would concur with changes in our "defense" structure aimed at reducing cost, though most would question cutting those costs at the research level. But changes in deployment, UN commitments, foreign bases, etc would all be fair game.

Author:  Müs [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Monte wrote:
Sure, let's start by gutting the bloated defense budget. They can hold a bake sale to pay for their new fun toys.


They can go after Welfare and Social Security.

Author:  Monte [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Müs wrote:

They can go after Welfare and Social Security.


And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
Müs wrote:

They can go after Welfare and Social Security.


And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

So the poor can vote themselves money at the short-sighted expense of the nation's long-term economic and currency health?

Author:  Beryllin [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Monte wrote:
Müs wrote:

They can go after Welfare and Social Security.


And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

So the poor can vote themselves money at the short-sighted expense of the nation's long-term economic and currency health?


shhh!!!!! You'll start causing aneurysms.

Author:  Monte [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
So the poor can vote themselves money at the short-sighted expense of the nation's long-term economic and currency health?


Yes yes, blame it on the poor and their damnable right to vote. May as well attack their right to free speech while you're busily lambasting an entire class of Americans. Can't have them *talking* about things, now can we?

Author:  Ladas [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

And so ends any more discussion about gay rights... the representative republic has spoken.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Monte wrote:
Müs wrote:

They can go after Welfare and Social Security.


And now we understand why we have a representative republic.


Yes, to prevent the government from gutting national defense when we're still recovering from the last ******* to make excessive and unnecessary cuts.

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Ladas wrote:
Monte wrote:
And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

And so ends any more discussion about gay rights... the representative republic has spoken.




/thread

We have a winner!

Representative government is good when it agrees with me, horribly flawed when it does not! :)

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:18 pm ]
Post subject: 

Its a step in the right direction - he isn't calling it a democracy anymore.

Author:  Screeling [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Ladas wrote:
Monte wrote:
And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

And so ends any more discussion about gay rights... the representative republic has spoken.

pwned?

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Monte wrote:
Sure, let's start by gutting the bloated defense budget. They can hold a bake sale to pay for their new fun toys.


And yet, the democratically controlled government did no such thing. So, they are to blame.

Getting back to the point, how do you feel about the democratic party adding another nearly 2 trillion to the debt? How do you think the people will react in November?

Author:  darksiege [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Ladas wrote:
Monte wrote:
And now we understand why we have a representative republic.

And so ends any more discussion about gay rights... the representative republic has spoken.

Not so.. because then it is not about the representative republic, but about what is fair to the DailyKOS feel good cause of the week.

Author:  Monte [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Wow, we're knee deep in vitriol and anti-Montegue hate already. It must be a tuesday. Anyone have anything rational to add?

No?

Didn't think so.

(By the way, the representative republic is still speaking on gay marriage. And furthermore, if you understood what that system of government entailed, you would know that there are basic rights that the majority cannot take from the minority. In our system, that's equal protection. So while your snarky comment got a laugh out of the usual suspects, it's actually somewhat ironic)

Elmo - we can say "democracy" in the vernacular. We all know it's not a direct democracy, and for ****'s sake we don't have to spell it out every single damn time we write about it.

Author:  Screeling [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Monte wrote:
Wow, we're knee deep in vitriol and anti-Montegue hate already. It must be a tuesday. Anyone have anything rational to add?

It is, indeed, Tuesday.

Author:  Rafael [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Monte wrote:
And furthermore, if you understood what that system of government entailed, you would know that there are basic rights that the majority cannot take from the minority. In our system, that's equal protection. So while your snarky comment got a laugh out of the usual suspects, it's actually somewhat ironic.


Ya think?

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:22 am ]
Post subject: 

Pointing out your variable positions and inconsistency is now Montey bashing?

And yes it is indeed Tuesday.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Monte wrote:
Wow, we're knee deep in vitriol and anti-Montegue hate already. It must be a tuesday. Anyone have anything rational to add?

No?

Didn't think so.


Pointing out your inconsistency is not bashing you, and is completely rational.

Quote:
By the way, the representative republic is still speaking on gay marriage. And furthermore, if you understood what that system of government entailed, you would know that there are basic rights that the majority cannot take from the minority. In our system, that's equal protection. So while your snarky comment got a laugh out of the usual suspects, it's actually somewhat ironic.


We already have equal protection. Allowing the same sex to marry or not is not an equal protection problem. Just because you're in favor of something does not make it a basic right.

Quote:
Elmo - we can say "democracy" in the vernacular. We all know it's not a direct democracy, and for ****'s sake we don't have to spell it out every single damn time we write about it.


You'd have been much better of just posting this and leaving the rest out. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/