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

Don’t increase ceiling

November 2, 2013

When borrowed money is used to employ and pay people, they regress and do not follow principles of best human behavior, and they cost us more in interest payments....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(69)

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-03-13 9:44 PM

"And you two just confirmed that it was Bush's budget. Just like Bush's first budget was Clinton's last."

++

I don't know what you are looking at!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-03-13 5:41 PM

And you two just confirmed that it was Bush's budget. Just like Bush's first budget was Clinton's last.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-03-13 5:38 PM

It's your story, might as well stick with it. I absolutely love the responsibility for conservatives. If they don't act responsibly, just say they were liberal....problem solved! You people are a menace to our society with that kind of magical thinking.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-03-13 4:42 PM

Ritty, good details.

FortySixand2, remember the ~$800 B "Pay back the crony people that donated to my election campaign" bill that President Obama signed into law February, 2009.

Other common names for the bill are: "The Stimulus", the "I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren't shovel-ready" bill, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)", and my favorite "Well son I am glad that I know someone [my oldest son] that was able to take advantage of the first-time home owner deduction".

In fairness, the financial liberal GWB takes credit (blame) for increasing spending ~33% during his tenure.

These two back to back liberal spending Presidents have hurt the US. We need to keep reducing spending to get our country in order.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Nov-03-13 1:26 PM

"2009 3,772 <Bush's Budget for Obama"

Nope. Obama/Pelosi/Reid are responsible for much of the 2009 spending.

"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008. The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began." —Wikipedia

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-03-13 12:29 PM

Yes indeed, go look again at the numbers and if they increased over time or hovered and went down. You'll see under bush he went from 2,420 to 3,772. Obama started at 3,772 and went down/up/down/down to current level of 3,455. These are numbers provided by Texas.

2001 2,420 =Clinton's budget for Bush

2002 2,570 <Bush

2003 2,705 <Bush

2004 2,801 <Bush

2005 2,924 <Bush

2006 3,038 <Bush

2007 3,032 >Bush

2008 3,239 <Bush

2009 3,772 <Bush's Budget for Obama

2010 3,670 >Obama(notice it went down)

2011 3,746 <Obama(it went up)

2012 3,611 Sequester starts >Obama(went back down)

2013 3,455 <Obama(down again significantly)

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-03-13 7:25 AM

Spike2,

Look at my Nov-02-13 2:36 PM on annual spending since 2000.

Now we can't blame it all on President Obama since it also requires congressional approvals.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Nov-03-13 6:52 AM

"Obama has spent less than other predecessors."

Drink!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Nov-03-13 6:19 AM

try this tricky math. The debt has increased 3 fold under Obama or any other number you choose. There is a significant difference between spending and numerical debt. Our problem is that we are paying interest and little on principle. Obama has spent less than other predecessors. The issue is the aggregate amount. The only way to get the actual number down is to pay more than required on the loan. much like a bad credit card, the interest is the killer.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-03-13 12:25 AM

Heading off to bed...I'll be dreaming of new and inventive ways of ripping off the taxes of all you hardworking wing nuts!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-03-13 12:21 AM

Don't have a problem with any of those, USABorn, after all, you're paying for it and all the lazy and shiftless get to benefit! Well, as far as as the wing nut media describes it.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Nov-02-13 11:54 PM

FortySixand2 - 5:14 PM

"Gavin, entitlements are exactly that! Something paid for, and you're entitled to it! Pretty simple concept."

fortysix - Entitlements are not what you are ENTITLED to because you paid into them, i.e., ss, medicare. They are things you have NOT paid into and FEEL ENTITLED TO!!!! That's why they are called ENTITLEMENTS.

Here are some examples.....

529 Home Mortgage Interest Deduction Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit Student Loans Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit Earned Income Tax Credit Pell Grants Unemployment Insurance Veterans Benefits G.I. Bill Medicare Head Start Social Security Disability SSI--Supplemental Security Income Medicaid Welfare/Public Assistance Government Subsidized Housing Food Stamps

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoBB62

Nov-02-13 11:52 PM

46

You're obsession with t-baggers & wet dreams is as bad as sham's obsession with t-baggers & boners. You two ought to get together

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-02-13 11:40 PM

I responded.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-02-13 10:19 PM

FortySixand2, I posted something in "Is the Pope still Catholic?" last night. Did you see it?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-02-13 10:15 PM

"Inter-generational transfer of wealth"! That's got to make the skin crawl on a movement con! I love that stuff! Anything to get a rise out of the tea baggers!"--fortysixand2

++

This is nothing new. We learned it in history class at MHS, like 40 years ago.

Congress and the past Presidents should have been responsible to minimize fraud, stop using it to spread money to non-retirees, and change the eligibility age to better match life expectancies. My concern is that they will want to go after MY 401-K to pay for others SS.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-02-13 10:10 PM

Yeah let's raise the retirement age so more people die before ever retiring. A conservative wet dream, perhaps?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-02-13 10:08 PM

"Yeah Texas, you should've voted for Al Gore! He was advocating to put the SS "lockbox" into play....hands off to borrowing from the SS trust fund. Remember that?"--FortySixand2

++

President Clinton and the republican congress did a transfer of funds from SSI to help balance the annual budget. They just put some IOU's into SS accounts.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-02-13 10:01 PM

"unless Congress changes the benefit formulas,"--FortySixand3

++

I agree that this needs to be changed but now, not later. President Obama needs to take this up now. Retirement age needs to be changed to approx 72+-. When the SS was set up, the life expectancy was around 67 years but due to advances in medicines, nutrition, and less strenuous jobs, the life expectancy is now 78 years. Retirement age also needs to be adjusted.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-02-13 9:56 PM

Yeah Texas, you should've voted for Al Gore! He was advocating to put the SS "lockbox" into play....hands off to borrowing from the SS trust fund. Remember that?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FortySixand2

Nov-02-13 9:54 PM

"Inter-generational transfer of wealth"! That's got to make the skin crawl on a movement con! I love that stuff! Anything to get a rise out of the tea baggers!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-02-13 9:50 PM

"After that, Social Security will begin redeeming its hoard of Treasuries for cash to continue paying benefits — as was the plan all along." FortySixand2

++

The SS holdings that the article is talking about are US Treasury bonds. So the US citizens will pay increased taxes to pay off the treasuries so that retirees can get their SS check.

The tax payers will be paying two sets of taxes; one directly into SS to pay SS and the other to pay the Treasury bonds that will pay the other part of SS requirements.

Of course next is ObamaCare and the millstone that it puts around everyone's neck to pay for it. It is not a pretty picture.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-02-13 9:36 PM

"Where's the money? It's been taken and replaced with IOU's." - FortySixand2

"As of Sept. 30, the trust funds together held more than $2.8 trillion in Treasuries. (Some people characterize that as the government “borrowing from” or “raiding” Social Security, but the system is in essentially the same position as any other investor who buys Treasuries.)" - FortySixand2

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-02-13 9:34 PM

FortySixand2,

Another cut and paste, from Allvoices, maybe. Do you shop to find articles that support your beliefs?

Why don't the articles mention that the Obama/democratic congress 2009 spending was $3,772 B and the highest ever in history. The deficit was -$1,515 B, again the highest in history. In fact, it was higher than the combined 4-1/2 years proceeding it.

Go get some raw data from office of management and budget.

GWB may have been conservative concerning military gearing up and his Christian belief in God but he was a liberal in spending. In fact many Republicans have become more liberal in their spending habits over the years. You can thank the sequester (pushed by the financial conservatives that were elected in 2010) that lead to the approx $450 B reduction in the deficit.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-02-13 9:29 PM

"We pay for SS and Medicare! That's ours!" - FortySixand2

"At its root Social Security is, and always has been, an inter-generational transfer of wealth. The taxes paid by today’s workers and their employers don’t go into a dedicated individual account, nor do Social Security checks represent a return on invested capital." - FortySixand2

Bingo! We learn something new every day,eh?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 69 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