Forum Announcement

Please don't panic! You are not in the Twilight Zone, you are experiencing the new CNET forums platform! Please click here to read the details. Thanks!!

Speakeasy

General discussion

Second time in history

by TONI H / January 15, 2013 / 7:07 AM UTC

Both within two years of each other.......the House of Representatives just convened and members are reading the Constitution.

I suggest they are gearing up...........and reminding everyone why they are there.

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Second time in history
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Second time in history
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) wow, so cryptic you are... (^_~)
by grimgraphix / January 15, 2013 / 9:56 AM UTC
In reply to: Second time in history
Collapse -
(NT) didn't get it, did you?
by James Denison / January 15, 2013 / 11:43 AM UTC
Collapse -
(NT) Can't speak for Grim,but I didn't want what she's shovelling
by Ziks511 / January 15, 2013 / 7:03 PM UTC
Collapse -
Yeah, one of the Republicans read the Fourteenth Amendment
by Ziks511 / January 15, 2013 / 7:02 PM UTC
In reply to: Second time in history

aloud and choked on the part where it says the US has to pay for the legislation it has already enacted, and not recently enacted, It has to suck it up and pay the Pensioners their Social Security, and Medicare, and all those other programs that people with exceptionally fortunate circumstances and a tidy nest egg or a good healthy income love to hate.

I assume you remember this same bun fight between Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton? Why is it always Republicans against a Democratic President. It's not like the Democrats dug the hole that the US is in right now, it was those fiscally responsible Republicans who put Two Wars on the Credit Card and tanked the Banking/Investment system. And significantly expanded the cost of the Defense Budget from Reagan afterwards.

Rob

Collapse -
Correction and reminder AGAIN
by TONI H / January 16, 2013 / 3:33 AM UTC

>>>it was those fiscally responsible Republicans who put Two Wars on the Credit Card and tanked the Banking/Investment system>>>>

Two wars on a credit card..........and what exactly did BO do with the expanded auto bailout and stimulus packages, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers, increased welfare roles by reducing the eligibilty requirements, took over the Student Loans from the banks, AND has been ballsy enough to declare the money 'saved' from the two wars winding down or ending as CUTS in the 'fair and balanced' approach to our deficit and debt spending? Do you realize that BO single-handedly has increased our national debt in four years by 37%? ALL on borrowed credit cards?

As for the banking/investment system..........I've given link after link after link (as recently as two days ago) that proves that the banks were forced by the Federal Government under CLINTON to make loans to unqualified people. Get over it.....

Collapse -
By the time Obama's finished with America
by James Denison / January 16, 2013 / 5:44 AM UTC

He will have doubled our national debt. Even liberal news sources are starting to sound worried, and more important, pointing directly at Obama.

March 2012 "(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President
Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years
of the George W. Bush presidency. The Debt rose $4.899
trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone
up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office."

====================

"According
to Obama, raising the debt ceiling was a sign of leadership failure

("The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit
is a sign of leadership failure"), and a clear indication that the U.S.
was simply incapable of paying what it already owes ("It is a sign that
the U.S. government can't pay its own bills") — a fact that made us
vulnerable to foreign pressures ("It is a sign that we now depend on
ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our
government's reckless fiscal policies").
The problem, according to Obama, was that there was no end to the
federal borrowing in sight, a pathology that had blinded us to what a
trillion dollars really was: ("Over the past five years, our federal
debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is 'trillion'
with a 'T.'")

"Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of
the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42
presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt.
This administration did more than that in just five years. Now, there is
nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must
remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money,
the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders
whose interests might not be aligned with ours." "


Oh wait, that's Obama talking about Bush. Shouldn't we apply the same "failure" rule to his administration now? Or maybe a massive "failure" rule?

"Not surprisingly, President Obama is
blaming the Bush administration
for the debt racked up under his own
presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to
respond to critics who point out that the debt has gone up $5.2
trillion since he took office. In response, Obama claimed:
"Over the last four years, the deficit has
gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that
weren't paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren't paid for, a
prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency
actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the
deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a
slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact,
substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald
Reagan or George Bush."
Fact checkers from the Washington Post, Factcheck.org, and Politifact.com all agreed these claims are simply false. In his claim, Obama had the 10% part right. However, that 10% was more
properly attributed to his predecessor's role in creating the deficits
from 2009-2012. The remainder is attributable to Obama's policies
(~40%), the recession (~40%), and other (~10%)."

Collapse -
Obama's been spending like a Republican!
by James Denison / January 16, 2013 / 6:31 AM UTC
Collapse -
Note how Toni completely glossed over....
by Josh K / January 16, 2013 / 6:34 AM UTC

.....the fact that Bush did put "two wars on the credit card" and that he had six years of Republican control of both Houses during which he could have reversed any of those Clinton-era policies he felt were putting the economy in danger.

Collapse -
According to all sources
by TONI H / January 16, 2013 / 6:42 AM UTC

I've checked with over time, the TOTAL of those two wars, one which has ended, comes to approximately $800 BILLION..............BO's debt has risen by $1.2+ TRILLION every year of the four he's been in office and will exceed that amount again this year. Who's glossing over what being borrowed on that foreign credit card, Josh?

Collapse -
And Bush's debt rose by 5 trillion
by Josh K / January 16, 2013 / 7:17 AM UTC

It basically doubled. You continue to either try to ignore that or blame it on his predecessor.

Collapse -
$5T in 8 yrs vs $6T in four
by TONI H / January 16, 2013 / 7:37 AM UTC

Bush's budget (and he actually one every year for 8 years) never exceeded $700B.........BO has nearly doubled that every year for four. Explain it.......and stop excusing it because he has no intention of lowering it during the next four, which means that we will have a national debt by the time he leaves (there is a God) of over $21T (even the CBO's numbers agree with that)........4 TIMES Bush's 8 year total

Collapse -
Didn't you notice that the wars were off-budget
by Diana Forum moderator / January 21, 2013 / 10:20 AM UTC

If the wars only cost 800B, where was the 4.2T spent?

Diana

Collapse -
Part of it was TARP
by TONI H / January 21, 2013 / 11:07 AM UTC

Which Paulson had a blank check for (insanity), part was for the massive unemployment benefits, and because of the unemployment and not enough taxpayers to keep putting into Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security, and good chunk was for those three programs. There was also a huge amount given to the victims' families of 9-11, if you recall. Life insurance on military personnel was also hugely upgraded and vet benefits were increased....not to mention the massive reconstruction and rebuilding that was being done in Iraq and Afghanistan (both of which I always thought was a waste of our money since they had their own money to rebuild with since we weren't getting compensation in any way, shape, or form as we were supposed to get).

Collapse -
Wasn't that part of the 800B?
by Diana Forum moderator / January 21, 2013 / 11:16 AM UTC
In reply to: Part of it was TARP
not to mention the massive reconstruction and rebuilding that was being done in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Life insurance on military personnel was also hugely upgraded and vet benefits were increased
That's a bad thing?
I am with you on TARP. There should never have been a blank check and allowing the big wigs to get their big bonuses on our dime. But like the Bay of Pigs, the new President was just continuing something that started in the previous administration. Obama did demand certain things from the car manufacturers.
Diana
Collapse -
BTW I love the people that complain of
by Diana Forum moderator / January 21, 2013 / 11:17 AM UTC
In reply to: Part of it was TARP

Obamacare and socialized medicine but don't mess with my Medicare. Wink

Diana

Collapse -
I've talked with a number
by TONI H / January 21, 2013 / 11:38 AM UTC

of seniors and as far as social security goes, we did without the COLA for two years under BO, and didn't even mind.....we re-adjusted, and could easily do without that extra $25 or so per month again IF we could be guaranteed that he would use it (or any other President after him) to reduce the National Debt and not find something else to freaking spend it on.

Collapse -
(NT) I minded but I wasn't talking about ss.
by Diana Forum moderator / January 21, 2013 / 11:41 AM UTC
Collapse -
Very little of it was TARP, Toni
by Josh K / January 22, 2013 / 7:02 AM UTC
In reply to: Part of it was TARP

A big chunk of it was spent on those two wars, which Bush kept out of the budget and kept requesting "emergency funding" for, which is how he was able to come up with those nonsensical numbers you keep repeating.

Collapse -
You really think so?
by TONI H / January 22, 2013 / 7:47 AM UTC
Collapse -
According to your link....
by Josh K / January 22, 2013 / 12:36 PM UTC
In reply to: You really think so?

.....the total outlay for TARP was $475 billion, of which $358.2 billion had been returned at the time of writing. Add revenue on those funds of $47.6 billion and that leaves a net cost of $69.2 billion. That's actually less than I thought it was and yes, it's a drop in the bucket of the $5 trillion deficit increase the Bush administration ran up.

Collapse -
And yet, again
by TONI H / January 23, 2013 / 7:09 AM UTC

you can't explain why BO has added $6T in four years to the debt........is/has he not doing/done the following:

1. Used that 'credit card' as Bush did according to BO and you to continue both of the wars,

2. Used that 'credit card' to end at least one of those wars but turn around and instead of using that 'credit card' to pay down the national debt, used it instead to 'invest/spend' it elsewhere,

3. Plan to use the ending of the second war in the same manner that he did for Iraq's?

4. Continue to spend/invest by borrowing the money to fund Obamacare (because there won't be enough people employed to pay into it so a large group will be getting subsidies), green energy (even though most of his 'investments' have already been proven to fail badly since there is no market for any of it at this time), student loans (that are in the high billions in default), etc?

Do you not see the hypocrisy of the liberals in damning Bush for two wars that are now either ended or in the process of ending, but dump praise on an administration that has no intention of using that money saved now to pay down our debt but instead continue to rack up the borrowing in order to further failing agendas and put more and more people out of work and on the dole because the president and his democrat supporters absolutely refuse to cut anything........and please do not insult me by insisting that the money saved from ending two wars is a cut when the money is already being spent elsewhere in their minds.

Collapse -
I'm guessing by your dodging.....
by Josh K / January 23, 2013 / 7:18 AM UTC

.....that you're tacitly acknowledging that TARP did not in fact make up most of Bush's debt increase, and that there was other spending under his presidency, that he approved of, that caused it.

Good.

Collapse -
I never said that all of
by TONI H / January 23, 2013 / 1:05 PM UTC

or even most of Bush's spending and debt of $5T over an EIGHT year period of time was because of TARP......I said that it was INCLUDED in those numbers. That said,

I will also assume that you are tacitly acknowledging that BO's spending of $6T over a FOUR year period of time was done by two measures......one is that he is borrowing for the national debt ceiling on a non-existent credit card (that he campaigned against Bush for doing and called him 'unpatriotic' for) AND doubling the ANNUAL deficit EVERY YEAR for FOUR years that Bush actually held to for EIGHT years in a row. AND that you actually APPROVE of BO's methods of financial madness all the while still b.tching and moaning about Bush's far less methods.

Collapse -
You pointed out TARP and 9/11 victims' benefits
by Josh K / January 23, 2013 / 1:29 PM UTC

Both of those combined are a drop in the bucket, yet you focused on them as opposed to the real causes of that huge increase in debt. Why?

Collapse -
Josh, there's no way
by James Denison / January 23, 2013 / 4:29 PM UTC

you can distract from the huge hole in Obama's bucket by pointing to lesser leaks in Bush's. Bush is over and done with. What we have to deal with now is Obama.

Collapse -
(NT) *Debt, not deficit.
by Josh K / January 22, 2013 / 12:43 PM UTC
In reply to: You really think so?
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 45,842 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,052 discussions
icon
Tablets 1,149 discussions
icon
Security 28,606 discussions
icon
Home Audio and Video 18,995 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,743 discussions
icon
Cell Phones 11,258 discussions
icon
Windows 8 1,311 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 10,496 discussions