Skip to comments.The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of EPIC FAIL!
Posted on 07/30/2011 1:11:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006
HOLD THE LINE!! STOP THE SPENDING!!
Definitely. UNFIT TO LEAD!
Thanks. Someone else found and posted it as a reply. I just decided to repost it front and center as a thread of its own.
That is an excellent graphic!
The beginning of the End: Jekyll Island, December 24, 1913.
It depends in the end on how severe the political backlash to this debacle will be but it certainly isn’t a leadership failure to talk about the debt. Debating a possible default along with a credit downgrade are one of the most positive outcomes that could have happened to this country if it does indeed awake a sleeping dragon.
“Get the government off our backs, out of our business and out of our faces!! Let the people get back to work and let the free economy (and the tax revenues) soar!!”
“The wicked are full of regrets,” Talmud, I forget citation.
“The wicked are full of regrets,” Talmud, I forget citation.
The debt and deficits need fixed and most importantly the trend to ever increasing debt must be reversed and not just a token reversal.
That said...I don’t see debt and deficits as the primary problem. The root cause of this is systemic and institutional. We’ve had 40 years or so of an incompetent Congress (both Parties) whose only mission should be simply improving the USA for Americans, but instead their primary mission has become about money so they get reelected.
A balanced budget Amendment would minimize wars because it would require a war tax be imposed to balance the budget...that’s good. No wars allowed off budget. Term limits and public financing of elections and allowing only constituents of politicians to donate might reduce outside influence which is a big problem.
The House members are supposed to represent their district and not those outside. The Senators are supposed to represent a state and not those outside. They shouldn’t be receiving money from outside interests and sometime outside the USA. I still oppose those outside my state or my district or my country influencing my elections.
Thanks. I just took Jim's quotation from Obama and made a graphic that depicts a factual representation of Obama's snarky, arrogant, hypocritical attitude.
Look, I’m on Medicare for dialysis, not by choice — I had perfectly good private insurance through COBRA and they reduced coverage to 20% after 30 months due to federal regulations. Medicine would be vastly better without government. That said, in the WaPo tool, you can pay Medicare and Medicaid and still be under the amount incoming in “revenue.”
There is no way, though, that you can keep borrowing at that level to pay your bills. Therefore, eventually you’ll not have the money to keep those people from dying.
If I make 60 grand and spend 100 each year, after 10 years I have a 400 thousand dollar debt that will be costing me some 48 thousand a year in payments. That then leaves me 12 thousand and borrowing 88 thousand and the next year I have no money of my own and borrow a 100 grand, and that year I can pay NOTHING back.
Will the bank let me continue this way?
Will my children end up hungry?
A cut is when you spend less next year than you spent this year.
Take a look at this page, Jim:
We can survive without big governments money, but big government can't survive without ours.
Starve that beast! Legally avoid anything with a tax (any tax) in any way you can. Make it a way of life.
"A measure of wheat for a penny! A measure of wheat for a penny! But touch not the oil and the wine!"
PS, the "poor" used oil and wine. In other words, "Touch not the government dependents free stuff."
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the freeloaders aren't being asked to sacrifice one damn thing.
Hey dip wang, ummm you are the gubment and you have been spending more than anyone else EVER in the history of the WORLD, you cannot pass the buck anymore, bend over Mr Pres here comes reality! Own it B****!
It’s not a “debt ceiling” it’s a debt hole and you can’t get out of a hole with more digging. Further digging will just get you to China, of you might meet China (who are digging their own hole) half-way, at someplace worse.
It’s not a “debt ceiling” it’s a debt hole and you can’t get out of a hole with more digging. Further digging will just get you to China, or you might meet China (who are digging their own hole) half-way, at someplace worse.
Exactly. All we hear about is the need for the “rich” to pay “their fair share” (straight line Marxist agitprop).
Well the simple facts of the matter are:
- If we were to raise the tax rate to 100% for all those earning over $250,000 per year, it would result (at least in the first year) in generating about $900 Billion in new tax payments. This is NOT even enough to cover this year's projected deficit (est. $1.5-1.65 Trillion). And how long does anyone think a confiscatory 100% tax rate would last?
- If fedgov seized ALL of the wealth of all those earning over $250,000 per year, which by its nature is a one-time proposition, it would yield roughly $1.5 Trillion--which would barely cover this year's projected deficit. Then what???
The simple fact of the matter is that the top 20% of tax payers in the US pay a larger portion of total taxes than in any other developed nation in the world (regardless of national size). And they pay it at a much higher rate as well. So who isn't paying “their fair share?”
Seems to me that it is time for the roughly 50% of the nation that is paying NO income tax to start to kick in their “fair share!”
May I ask where you got those figures? I have a couple lib friends who I would like to share it with but they will want a source.
Back then the national debt was much smaller and deficits were also much smaller. Now both are much higher which makes it even more critical to slam brakes on spending. I bet we were not borrowing 42 cents on every dollar spent back then.
Which all makes Obama, Kerry and other democrats a bunch of hypocritical politicians who care more about retaining power than care about future of country.
Always wondered if Chinese mothers yelled at their kids in the yard "What are you trying to dig to America?"
The last part (about the US top 20% paying the most of all developed nations) came from the Mark Levin show about 2 weeks ago. He was reading a study from a year or so ago. Again, he may have the study linked on his show's website. I know that isn't much help. I wish that I had written down the name of the study that Mark was reading from. If I happen across it, I'll try to remember to ping you.
Thanks. I have one lib friend running around screaming the sky is falling, SS recipients aren’t going to get their checks because rich people and evil corporations don’t pay their fair share and another who is mad at Obama because he isn’t left enough. lol She thinks he’s a closet Republican. Liberalism really must be a mental illness, how else could they believe this stuff? Listening to them is about to put me over the edge.
What are the non taxpayers willing to contribute? What's their fair share? What are they willing to do to help the country?
Thank you very much!
One of my friends is an older Eastern Germany immigrant and the other is the wife of Methodist minister. She and her husband are big into social justice.
On March 16th of 2006, Reid took the Senate floor and delivered a speech on how raising the debt ceiling was part of an “unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, “I place economy among the first and most important government virtues and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared,” when voting against raising the debt ceiling in 2006.
Obama is a fork tongued devil and Reid is a hissing serpent.
Thanks for finding and posting this, Jim. It will definitely come in handy... God bless you!
GRRRRRRRREAT post, JimRob! Thanks.
“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” 23.11 Ch23; Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
The lie is the weapon used most often by the criminal.
DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign and domestic (and WE are OUTTA THIS MESS).
GRRRRREAT thread...posts & graphics! Thanks to ALL posters.
Behind the scenes Lisa Jackson and the EPA are throwing ropes over the country one by one like Lilliputians. We will soon be immobilized, paralyzed, with no idea how it happened and no way to get out of it.
This debt fight is just smoke and mirrors to distract us from the progressive agenda which is to bring America down to size, dilute our culture with immigration, and redistribute our wealth.
We should hope they keep fighting well past the deadline. Our only hope is if they can't get their hands on any more money. Obamacare tax increases are just around the corner. No matter who is in the WH in 2012, Boehner and McConnell will still be in leadership. We're so screwed.
I agree with you, but: the one percent solution stands no chance because it is logical and uses common sense.
I agree 100%. But to dismiss it as "not hard" is silly and implies a lack of understanding of the magnitude of our financial mess, IMO.
Unless you want to withhold Social Security, or cut payments to defense contractors, Medicaid, or Medicare, or do things like outright confiscate tax returns, it's pretty difficult to just balance things out. As much as people like to think cutting the EPA or foreign aid will help, they're really quite miniscule when compared to Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid (and, of course, interest on the debt).
And remember that laws must be passed to overturn many programs required by law.
So out of proportion.
If you are referring to the upgrades to power plants, they are estimated to cost less than $1 billion. We've already spent that in Libya. Even if it's 250% overrun, the $2 billion that would be passed on to consumers is dwarfed by the size of the problem in federal spending.
The Department of Education is ten times that. Defense vendors are fifteen times it. Etc.
One of the big problems is that half the population pays no federal income tax--or is handed money! There's a lot of wasteful defense spending (having our military handing out $$$ to Iraqis and Afghans is a fun thing to do and it boosts careers, but it's costly), poorly adminstered programs (with outrageous federal salaries going to people who are less qualified than others), etc.
Besides, if I break your window, you'd expect me to pay for it. Why should a polluter not be expected to maintain a clean environment? Conservation is a conservative value.
It truly is a financial mess, but let’s say you had to do with 200 or 250 billion in revenue. This chart only allows 175 billion...less than others I’ve seen.
Let’s instead say we pick 3 tiers of payments: Priorities 1, 2, 3.
Tier 1 gets paid at 100%, tier 2, at 75%, and tier 3 shares a percentage of the remainder with some being a tier 4 that simply gets dropped because it truly isn’t necessary at the federal level. Education certainly falls into that category as do a lot of other individual expenditures.
Then, let’s say you get to cut out duplication, waste, fraud, and abuse.
I don’t think we’d go over the 200-250 billion that many say is the amount of revenue brought in each month.
One problem is that there’s no willingness to TRY to isolate and identify these areas.
JIM ROB ? this is what the MSM will say “ Our Dear leader Obama Mao saved us from the evil Republican/Tea Party’s plan of taking us into default, but, Our Wise Obama Mao saved the day, the 2012 election campaign officially starts on that note “
Other than the Defense Department, NSA, CIA, highway budgets, Social Security ( even though, Social Security was suppose to be or is under it’s own FICA tax funding system ) it’s time to cut the funding on the rest of government, or totally defund or get rid of those government agencies.