Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Caving in on the debt ceiling won't solve the problems

October 9, 2013

As the partial shutdown of the government collides with an alleged deadline for raising the debt limit, the tap dance goes something like this: The Republican-controlled House of Representatives......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

USABorn

Oct-11-13 11:09 AM

I have read comments by the hundreds all over the internet where Obama is now being called Pres. Stompy-foot!! LOL

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 11:26 PM

Gavin, That was an interesting read. But if this a new concept to someone, they are either dishonest to themselves, easily lead around, or extremely stupid. This being said, it was articulated well. Thanks-Scott

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 8:34 PM

The debt ceiling isn't there to limit spending, it's there to limit borrowing.

It's the budget that is supposed to limit spending, and when the spending exceeds the budget it is up to our elected officials to either increase revenue, decrease spending, or a combination of both. That had always worked pretty well until the last 13 years.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 7:21 PM

Gavin, I will look that up, & get back to you. Thanks-Scott

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 7:19 PM

When will the default the Rats predict occur?-bobbie2

I do know, what is JB & co. saying?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 6:30 PM

Saying that Democrats are partly to blame for the credit downgrade isn't the same as saying that Republicans are blame free.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 4:12 PM

I think this needs posted again, you might want to read it Scott;

Google "False Purists and Their False Equivalence Dodge" by Ron Fournier

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 4:00 PM

Just telling it like it is.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 3:33 PM

One was over rather quickly and before the downgrade, the other was not addressed and the downgrade followed.-Gavin56

So I guess that that silly little statement about default does not count. LOL Can't even take responsibility for the action taken. Well at least you're not accusing Obama of forcing the S&P to print that.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Oct-10-13 1:52 PM

FortySixand2 - 12:37 PM

"This was your Presidential candidate in 2008!"

JUAN McSHAME! Hand picked by idiots/RINOs like Karl Rove and the RNC. Of the 59,948,240 votes the McShame ticket got in 2008, 59,948,199 were people who actually voted for Palin!

Hey libs....remember the day Palin came to Wmspt? Over 10,000 people showed up to root for her at the ball park? Remember that same day Biden came to Wmspt and only 700 showed up for him!!!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 12:04 PM

"Yet they tune in religiously and parrot the likes of college dropout Gush Limpjaw, Glen Beck, and Sean "Baby Jesus" Hannity" - FortySixand2

Put up or shut up time. Please reference where I have parroted any of those individuals.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 12:02 PM

Yep Scott, and I also seen where it said "long term fiscal stability".

One was over rather quickly and before the downgrade, the other was not addressed and the downgrade followed.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 11:42 AM

Your argument is true for SS, not Medicare.-Gavinf56

Why not Medicare?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 11:38 AM

The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy-S&P Aug.5th.2011

Gavin, Notice where it says "Threat of default"?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Oct-10-13 11:22 AM

Drink!-Gavinf56

Drink= I do not have an intelligent response.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-10-13 11:08 AM

Isn't it amusing that the anti-intellectual right mocks and laughs with derision at Rachel Maddow, a Rhodes Scholar. Yet they tune in religiously and parrot the likes of college dropout Gush Limpjaw, Glen Beck, and Sean "Baby Jesus" Hannity. What a hoot!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 8:58 AM

Ahhhh, now we have "absolutes" do we.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-10-13 8:22 AM

"Lol, this from a guy who references Rachel Maddow on You Tube." - gavinf56

*

That's your excuse for being so current-event challenged, huh?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 7:29 AM

Lol, this from a guy who references Rachel Maddow on You Tube.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-10-13 5:34 AM

"United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered to 'AA+' on Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative". Standard & Poor's. August 5, 2011." - gavinf56

*

oooooooooooooo...geeeeeeeeeeee...whatta "great" lil' reference!!!!

*

See:

New Jersey sues Standard & Poor's for fraud

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-10-13 5:31 AM

Yep MrShaman, I don't have a problem with that.

Next.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Oct-10-13 5:28 AM

"Once an entitlement becomes law, it never gets repealed. It only grows in scope no matter how much money we have to borrow to pay for it." - gavinf56

*

So...you're suggesting what...that we need to start means-testing all "bennies" that the 1%ers/high-roller$ are receiving???

I believe that has a LOT o' merit!!

Well said!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-09-13 9:41 PM

Your argument is true for SS, not Medicare.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Oct-09-13 9:25 PM

We're "entitled" to SS and Medicare because WE PAY FOR IT! Why do you cons insist we shouldn't get what we pay for? The only reason there is a problem with either, is because politicians of both stripes have borrowed from them and replaced the funds with IOU's. That is not indicative of a problem with those programs. It's ineteresting that cons would do away with programs that have been indispensable for generations of Americans. I can't help but react with bemused horror at tea baggers with their signs reading "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Oct-09-13 6:48 PM

"....the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability." - "United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered to 'AA+' on Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative". Standard & Poor's. August 5, 2011.

Nowhere does it say JB or Republicans, but it does specifically state the inability of our Government, ie both sides, to reign in long term fiscal debt.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web