Log in

View Full Version : The Party of Physcal Responsability


mburbank
Nov 18th, 2004, 12:39 PM
House Debates $800B Debt-Limit Increase

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans clashed over deficits and tax cuts Thursday as Congress moved toward sending President Bush an $800 billion boost in the government's debt limit.

The bill would increase the debt ceiling from its current $7.38 trillion, marking the third massive increase since Bush took office in 2001. The government reached the cap last month, paying its bills since with cash from a civil service retirement account, which it plans to repay.

The Senate approved the legislation Wednesday by a near party-line 52-44 vote.

Bass
Nov 18th, 2004, 02:58 PM
heh, at first I thought it read "Physical Responsibility."

I doubt the senate cares much, since they won't be paying for it. It's the responsibility of children not even born yet. We're a nation of people "living in the now," and of "screwing evereybody that isn't us."

I do think the democrats wouldn't be doing much better fiscally, but at least they'd be helping people here in America rather than using that money to make other nations suffer.

mburbank
Nov 18th, 2004, 03:34 PM
"Tax and spend Democrats" Vs. "Spend and not pay for it Republicans"

Baalzamon
Nov 18th, 2004, 06:03 PM
"Tax and spend Democrats" Vs. "Spend and not pay for it Republicans"

that proves it then, all you liberal extremist democrats want to do is raise taxes, just like George W. Bush said! >:

Thank god we kept you nutjobs out of office. Praise allah, er, I mean praise the Lord!

Preechr
Nov 19th, 2004, 10:02 AM
Just to play Devil's Advocate, even with a $10 Trillion debt, we're only one year's income in debt. That's a helluva lotta more favorable debt to income ratio than what's enjoyed by your average American.

Sure, I'm expected to be fiscally conservative as a Libertarian, Kevin, and I am. I'm also realistic. There's a damn good reason why the left hates Republican deficits like they do, just as there's a damn good reason why Republicans run up deficits that seem counter-intuitive. On the face of it, neither thing makes any sense. Things ALWAYS make sense. Democrats look funny bitching about people spending too much, just as there's something wrong with Republicans spending like they print the money.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that under the surface this thing actually does make sense in a way where we don't necessarily have to redefine the two parties. The GOP revolution was basically coming to grips with the idea that you can't fight institutionalized government give-away free-for-alls with stern and well-reasoned warnings that someday we may all regret getting all this free crap. Reagan simply spent all the money before the Dems could get their hands on it.

The average American voter gets all glassy eyed and drooly when you use big words like "redistribution." He gets it, however, when somebody gives him something for free. Try to explain to him that while it looks free, it was either his to begin with or was stolen from someone else, and you run the risk of locking his processor slap up. Republicans finally figured out that you fight your opponents strengths rather than his weaknesses. By spending the money first, they dried up the font at it's source, which made Joe-Six-Pack look the ol' reliable gift-horse in his maw.

This is what was behind Clinton backing Welfare Reform. He HAD to just to save it. I doubt we'll argue over whether he would have preferred extending benefits to dropping millions off the dole...

By running up the debt, Republicans also move the date of critical failure for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid forward to a point where we have to discuss it. We can always put off something that's not expected to happen for fifty years, but if the Baby-Boomers, which are generally better off than their parents, have to decide to increase their old-age benefits (which they WILL have the numbers to be able to decide) at the expense of their children's future stability (which WILL be exactly the case) then maybe the largest pool of SS beneficiaries EVER will be able to allow the radical restructuring offered up by the right in order to fix what's so obviously broken.

The funny part is, by maintaining a constant drone of objections to any THOUGHT of reforming SS, the left has set itself up to look stupid when the discussion is obviated by upcoming realities.

KevinTheOmnivore
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:23 PM
I'm glad you've identified the politics and the irony behind the argument. Now what about massive deficits and war and U.S. bonds being bought up by foreign powers and the decreasing value of the American dollar....? Fucking Democrats. >:

KevinTheOmnivore
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:27 PM
This (http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_22/buchanan.html) was actually a pretty good Pat Buchanan article posted by Geggy (yes, in the same sentence I am citing Pat Buchanan and "Geggy").

AChimp
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:42 PM
The decreasing American dollar is a double-edged sword for foreign countries. The Canadian dollar is nearly 84 cents US now, while a few weeks ago when we finally hit 80 cents, analysts were predicting that it would be at least 2 years before we got to 85. Now they're saying it could be by the new year.

On one hand, our own imports from you are cheaper (although there still hasn't been a price decrease in stores because merchants are greedy bastards >: ), but our exports cost more on your side.

Still, you don't have enough resources to supply yourselves, so you have no choice but to buy from us. Your trade deficit will continue to increase, our trade surplus will continue to grow, and the general consensus is that any economic hardships that we encounter from a rising dollar can be weathered without much hassle. Afterall, it's bad to base your entire economy on the fact that your dollar sucks so much compared to someone else's.

Preechr
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:43 PM
I'm glad you've identified the politics and the irony behind the argument. Now what about massive deficits and war and U.S. bonds being bought up by foreign powers and the decreasing value of the American dollar....? Fucking Democrats. >:

Hey! I was playing Devil's Advocate! That means I don't have to agree with what I say, right?

If I had my way we'd be back on a heavy metal standard and the FED would be dead altogether. Sure, our economy would revert back to something just a little less dangerous than a trip over Niagra Falls in a shiny bucket, but anyone under the wheels of our wonderful managed-debt society would be hard-pressed to tell you the fundamental economic nature of that which is squeezing the last bloody penny out of her hide.

I have too much respect, awe even, for the symbolism of cash to treat it so whimsically. A dollar is a unit of time measurement. The nature of time is both finite and infinite. For government to have replaced my time with a shallow promise that ties me into a structure over which I have no control whatsoever is just wrong.

Jeanette X
Nov 19th, 2004, 12:59 PM
I hate to be nitpicky, but it's spelled "fiscal". :/

Not that it matters, since Rog can't be bothered to FIX THE FUCKING EDIT BUTTON! >:

Preechr
Nov 19th, 2004, 02:29 PM
Max wouldn't use it.

Anonymous
Nov 19th, 2004, 02:36 PM
Not that it matters, since Rog can't be bothered to FIX THE FUCKING EDIT BUTTON! >:

http://www.desertusa.com/magjan98/jan_pap/photos/chlmule.jpg

Wild Burro (aka Wil Ass)

The Wild Burro was first introduced into the Desert Southwest by Spaniards in the 1500s. Wild Burros have long ears, a short mane and reach a height of up to 5 feet at the shoulders. They vary in color from black to brown to gray.

Originally from Africa (where they were called the Wild Ass) these pack animals were prized for their hardiness in arid country. They are sure-footed, can locate food in barren terrain and can carry heavy burdens for days through hot, dry environments.

Wild Burros can tolerate a water loss as much as 30% of their body weight, and replenish it in only 5 minutes drinking. (Humans require medical attention if 10% of body weight is lost to dehydration and require a full day of intermittent drinking to replenish this loss.)

Jeanette X
Nov 19th, 2004, 02:54 PM
Fuck you too, Dr. Boogie.

mburbank
Nov 22nd, 2004, 10:50 AM
I have used the edit button on occassion. When I noticed I'd mispelled something.

I thought about claiming I'd spelled it that way on purpose, as a jab at Bush.

I will say that the next day I did notice but couldn't do anything about it by then.

But I bet the edit problem has nothing to do with Rog.

My 9 yr old daughter spells as well as I do now, and will be better soon. It is a significant failing. I actually care a little bit. But only a little bit.

Oh and Bush is a fucking fuck, which was mostly my point.

AChimp
Nov 27th, 2004, 10:49 AM
Speak of the devil. We hit 85 cents yesterday. :rave