Christian Dems take on debt ceiling in new ads

[chaz345]

And the government had the responsibility of executing those who didn't follow the law. These weren't "do this out of the goodness of your heart but if you don't the government won't do anything to you", these were laws.

So are you advocating that we become a theocracy like ancient Israel?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Maybe because the runaway spending of non-existant money is a factor in not being able to get out of the recession.

And the GOP is just as liable for that runaway spending as the DEMS.

If your house is on fire it really isn't the time you want to worry about the waterbill.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I could not care less about the original claim. Why not address the claim I made?

I was.

 

[chaz345]

And the GOP is just as liable for that runaway spending as the DEMS.

Not true. The CBO had projected about a half trillion dollar deficit though 2011 before Bush left office. We're at three times that now. And most of the time between that original projection and now the Dems controlled the House.

Granted, I'm not suggesting that the Republicans are in any way models of fiscal responsibility, history clearly shows otherwise. But at this point, does it really matter who got us here? To put it in terms of an individual, the country is at the point where there's no more equity in the house, the value isn't going up, the credit cards are almost maxed, and no one is going to extend us any more credit. The individual when faced with that situation cuts spending. Very few have the ability to go out and significantly increase their income. Sure the government can, in theory do that, but we need real cuts first. Real as in actual spending reductions as opposed to calling a smaller that originally asked for increase a cut. Something that's virtually never happened.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Not true. The CBO had projected about a half trillion dollar deficit though 2011 before Bush left office. We're at three times that now. And most of the time between that original projection and now the Dems controlled the House.

6 out of the last 10 largest percentage increases in discretionary outlays came under GOP administrations.

I understand that Obama has really ramped it up, but give me a break! It's not like the DEms "invented" rampant spending.

Granted, I'm not suggesting that the Republicans are in any way models of fiscal responsibility, history clearly shows otherwise. But at this point, does it really matter who got us here?

Considering the amount of bile spewed at the DEMS non-stop by the republicans and conservatives, I'd say it is apparently important to THEM.

But more to the point: RIGHT NOW the GOP is not negotiating in that they have taken an intransigent stance of "no tax concessions".

The GOP is acting like Democrats and poor people are the ONLY people responsible for the USA's state right now. That is simply not true.

And the worst time to grow a spine (as if they were somehow innocent bystanders while we were getting here) is when we are trying to dig our way out of the worst recession in 70 years!

Suddenly they want to be the "responsible" party when they were never responsible in the first place!

The GOP will take a serious hit for this if this goes past the deadline. I think everyone knows that. The GOP is getting a bit desperate to make sure the blame is fixed.

To put it in terms of an individual, the country is at the point where there's no more equity in the house, the value isn't going up, the credit cards are almost maxed, and no one is going to extend us any more credit.

Again while water bills can be expensive, when the house is on fire, one doesn't usually worry about the water bill.

The individual when faced with that situation cuts spending. Very few have the ability to go out and significantly increase their income. Sure the government can, in theory do that, but we need real cuts first.

Real cuts first? Why? Because there aren't enough poor people yet?

What kind of business person says "Oh yeah, I'm going to balance the books by cutting costs ,but I will TURN UP MY NOSE to revenue increases!"???

Apparently the GOP has a very weak grasp of how businesses are run if that is how they think it works.

 

[chaz345]

Real cuts first? Why? Because there aren't enough poor people yet?

What kind of business person says "Oh yeah, I'm going to balance the books by cutting costs ,but I will TURN UP MY NOSE to revenue increases!"???

Apparently the GOP has a very weak grasp of how businesses are run if that is how they think it works.

No real cuts first because in the past every single time there's been a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases on the table, the revenue increases get enacted and the cuts get reversed.

That and just like with a business, revenue increases are not infinite. The business owner, facing a shortfall, cannot simply say "well I'll just raise prices". There comes a point where additional price increases lead to decreased revenue as people can't or won't buy anymore.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

6 out of the last 10 largest percentage increases in discretionary outlays came under GOP administrations.

I understand that Obama has really ramped it up, but give me a break! It's not like the DEms "invented" rampant spending.



Considering the amount of bile spewed at the DEMS non-stop by the republicans and conservatives, I'd say it is apparently important to THEM.

But more to the point: RIGHT NOW the GOP is not negotiating in that they have taken an intransigent stance of "no tax concessions".

The GOP is acting like Democrats and poor people are the ONLY people responsible for the USA's state right now. That is simply not true.

And the worst time to grow a spine (as if they were somehow innocent bystanders while we were getting here) is when we are trying to dig our way out of the worst recession in 70 years!

Suddenly they want to be the "responsible" party when they were never responsible in the first place!

The GOP will take a serious hit for this if this goes past the deadline. I think everyone knows that. The GOP is getting a bit desperate to make sure the blame is fixed.



Again while water bills can be expensive, when the house is on fire, one doesn't usually worry about the water bill.



Real cuts first? Why? Because there aren't enough poor people yet?

What kind of business person says "Oh yeah, I'm going to balance the books by cutting costs ,but I will TURN UP MY NOSE to revenue increases!"???

Apparently the GOP has a very weak grasp of how businesses are run if that is how they think it works.

What makes it particularly pathetic is there have been proposed plans from other side that as a concession to the Republicans didn't contain any tax loophole closures at all and still...apparently just not good enough.
The Republicans are acting like spoiled children who want to stomp their feet and huff and puff until they get their way.

 

[jgarden]

The only problem is that Christ's call to help the needy was made to the individual, not to the government. The Democratically aligned Christian leaders are off the mark in pushing the idea that caring for the poor is primarily a government function.

Preamble to the United States ConstitutionFrom Wikipedia, the free

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Why are our conservative friends so eager to "cherry pick" from the Constitution and relegate its stated intention to "promote the general Welfare" to private individuals?

The Preamble states that "We the People of the United States" should "promote the general Welfare" but "chaz345" argues that the responsibility for "help(ing) the needy" and "caring for the poor" be passed to private individuals.

If "promot(ing) the general Welfare" doesn't apply to the "poor" and "needy," just whose "general Welfare" is the government obligated to promote - the wealthy?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

- We the People of the United States

- in Order to form a more perfect Union

- promote the general Welfare

Why are our conservative friends so eager to relegate "promote the general Welfare" to the private sector while emphasizing "establish Justice," "insure domestic Tranquility," "provide for the common defence," and

The gap between early Enlightenment government ideas filtered through the early U.S. founders and the ideas on the constitution from the Republicans and "Tea Party" individuals is so wide I can't even see how they consider their position one mired in nostolgia.

 

[mpok1519]

Thirdly, what does raising the debt ceiling accomplish? The debt is still there and needs to be paid back. How about we cut spending for all of these numerous and unneeded alphabet agencies so we can actually pay off our debt instead of just passing it on to the next generation.

If the ceiling isn't raised, we default on our debt, ultimately ruining our nation's credit rating on a world stage. No more loans, borrowing, etc. The economy would collapse.

Yes, cutting the alphabet soup is a big part of it. Homeland security is a joke, the NSA does what the FBI and CIA are supposed to do, the ATF can be abolished, along with the DEA, and TSA.

 

[mpok1519]

If Republicans criticized Democrats for ignoring Biblical principles, we'd be hearing nothing but "Church and State, Church and State"

More like "1st amendment, 1st amendment".

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If the ceiling isn't raised, we default on our debt, ultimately ruining our nation's credit rating on a world stage. No more loans, borrowing, etc. The economy would collapse.

Yes, cutting the alphabet soup is a big part of it. Homeland security is a joke, the NSA does what the FBI and CIA are supposed to do, the ATF can be abolished, along with the DEA, and TSA.

I have no idea what the dollar and cents benefit would be in realistic terms but I wonder if a restructoring of many of those agencies in regards to ending the "war on drugs" and moving towards decriminization, regulation and taxation of a variety of drugs would provide in both cost cuts and revenue.

In addition isn't there a lot of bloat with Defense contracts?

 

[mpok1519]

100% agree'd

Obama agree'd to tons of cuts he even said he wouldn't mind raising the Medi-care age to 67.

Yes; Obama wants to cut even more than what the Republicans want to cut, yet the GOP is the one always crying about spending and the debt. Obama is the only one who actually is trying to get something done to eliminate this debt, and the Republicans won't even raise taxes for multi-billionaires.

Its an effort to sabotage Obama, but in turn, really just sabotages the economy.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Yes; Obama wants to cut even more than what the Republicans want to cut, yet the GOP is the one always crying about spending and the debt. Obama is the only one who actually is trying to get something done to eliminate this debt, and the Republicans won't even raise taxes for multi-billionaires.

Its an effort to sabotage Obama, but in turn, really just sabotages the economy.

Perhaps I'm displaying my age somewhat here bit it reminds me of the part in Blazing Saddles in which the sheriff holds the gun to his own head and threatens everything that he's going to shoot.

 

[mpok1519]

I have no idea what the dollar and cents benefit would be in realistic terms but I wonder if a restructoring of many of those agencies in regards to ending the "war on drugs" and moving towards decriminization, regulation and taxation of a variety of drugs would provide in both cost cuts and revenue.

Indeed; the last thing we need to be spending money on is millions to stop the flow of very low-grade marijuana across the borders; legalize the stuff, and people wouldn't be sending money for guns south of the border, and they'd be stimulating our economy while keeping people out of jail and able to work.

In addition isn't there a lot of bloat with Defense contracts?

Defense welfare is a huuuuge chunk of our budget, and we could stand to cut tons from it. We don't need bases in Europe; the cold war ended a long time ago. We don't need bases all over the world; the world wars ended a long time ago.

 

[mpok1519]

Perhaps I'm displaying my age somewhat here bit it reminds me of the part in Blazing Saddles in which the sheriff holds the gun to his own head and threatens everything that he's going to shoot.

"Lordy lord! Do as he say! Do as he say!!!!"


"Man, you are sooo talented...and they are so dumb!"

 

[mpok1519]

Um that's God saying you should do it, not God saying the Government must do it for you

Unless you live in the USA, where our govt is a democratic republic, ran by we the people.

 

[BondiHarry]

Unless you live in the USA, where our govt is a democratic republic, ran by we the people.

No, our government is a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. At least that is what the founding fathers gave us but since the Constitution is now treated as a document you can just ignore if you don't like its restrictions you're about right, ours is a mobocracy.

 

[MachZer0]

- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Why are our conservative friends so eager to "cherry pick" from the Constitution and relegate its stated intention to "promote the general Welfare" to private individuals?

The Preamble states that "We the People of the United States" should "promote the general Welfare" but "chaz345" argues that the responsibility for "help(ing) the needy" and "caring for the poor" be passed to private individuals.

If "promot(ing) the general Welfare" doesn't apply to the "poor" and "needy," just whose "general Welfare" is the government obligated to promote - the wealthy?

We don't cherry pick from the Constitution. Rather we recognize that the gov't must provide for the general welfare within the bounds of the enumerated powers. And there is no enumerated power that allows welfare payments to individuals which, by the way, would be providing specific welfare rather than for the general welfare.)

 

[chris4243]

So are you advocating that we become a theocracy like ancient Israel?

I'm reminding stubborn people who don't like the truth that God's law, provided for the care of the poor backed up with legal force. It was not that individuals volunteered to leave the edges of their field for the poor, every 7th harvest for the poor, that they all volunteered to return bought land and Israelite slaves every 50th year. No, at least some of that had to have government force.

Why would you think I want a theocracy? I just want people to face the truth, when they claim that God never intended the government to help the truth when it is obviously not true. Just like you are not interested in truth so you pretend I'm advocating a theocracy so that you don't have to face the truth while you hide behind a wall of ridicule.