"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: if it moves, tax it. if it keeps moving, regulate it. and if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

 

:thumb: That is a good one.

I'm not well versed in regards to the debt ceiling but there needs to be some form of cuts.

There was a report released by the administration's economic team on Friday, which was buried and the three leading economists essentially laid out raw numbers that essentially says that the Stimulus package was not effective. Moreso, it has cost the taxpayer roughly 280k per person.

They would have been better off just cutting 100k checks to people and would have saved money.

 

I will leave with this. Can anyone name one thing that the federal government has run efficiently?

Armed Services are pretty good.

Armed Services are pretty good.

They won't be be if Obama keeps using the defense budget to pay for his agenda.. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/07/what-obama-doesnt-know-about-defense-spending/

Our tax rates have done nothing but come down for the past 30 years. It isn't a tax and spend philosophy that is the problem. It is a reduce taxes and government will shrink philosophy that is a big part of the problem. No one in Washington will cut spending. Elections are won on pork and it doesn't matter if you are an R or a D - they bring home the pork. No one will make the tough decisions.

 

There are no statesmen... no true leaders. Everyone in Washington is either a political operative looking to give himself/herself and the party to which they are affiliated an edge, or they are zealots, who bring with them an almost religious fervor -- be it about lower taxes, environmental protection or economic regulation -- and they flatly refuse to negotiate or make deals to keep government working. But alas, such zealotry seems to be what we demand of our politicians these days and we've gotten exactly what we asked for. Just look at how primaries go... whether on the right or the left, there is permitted to be no dissent from the party line on ANY issue, so we get mindless drones who either don't think for themselves or are radicals at either end of the spectrum. We're almost 250 years old as a nation... I think it's high time we grew up.

 

Flirting with the debt ceiling is a dangerous game of chicken. But it seems that running toward the brink is the only way we can actually muster up the energy as a nation to get anything done.

Is the fact that Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling a sign of failed leadership?

Is the fact that Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling a sign of failed leadership?

 

No, the fact that we have to wait until something like this approaches to do anything about it is a sign of failed leadership. We've waited and waited and waited and now we're messing around with some pretty powerful market forces in order to actually do something. The problem is that raising the debt ceiling has become, in itself, a solution. It isn't. For now, it should be raised, and then something should be done about our government's serious problem with deficit spending. But an end to deficit spending isn't a one-way street. I want to see give and take from both sides, but the radicals on left and right seem to be controlling the agenda in Washington, leaving the American people twisting in the wind.

Is the fact that Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling a sign of failed leadership?

 

No. It's either going to be raised or the US will fail to meet its legal obligations. Even if some sort of "agreement" is arrived at between Democrats and Republicans over cutting spending and taxes, the debt ceiling will be raised.

 

I think his leadership letdown here has been his aloofness from the process. He should have been firmer.

Can anyone name one thing that the federal government has run efficiently?

 

Armed Services are pretty good.

 

Wasn't there news a few months back of the government wanting to stop production of a type of plane they no longer use (that cost billions of dollars) and the Pentagon refused? I might have the specifics wrong, but you get the gist.

 

Most people say "putting more money to it" is the problem with entitlement programs, yet are okay with "putting more money to it" for military. Why can't there be an X% cut of every single government program?

Is the fact that Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling a sign of failed leadership?

 

Knowing the basis for your post I'd say it's fair to ask.

Knowing the basis for your post I'd say it's fair to ask.

You're very studious, Clyde. For those of you that don't know, Obama had this to say about the debt ceiling in March of 2006:

“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.”

 

My, how things have changed.

Yes I would say it is failed leadership all the way around. It is up to ALL the leaders in DC to get this done. If Obama vetos a budget bill that hits his desk, he failed. If Boehner says he will not bend (compromise) and sends a bill to Obama that he knows will not be signed, he failed. It is on the shoulders of these two and all those in DC to reach a compromise and get a deal done. As I said previously, if they allow the US to default on the debt, every incumbent in DC should be run out of office in the next election. I will not vote for one incumbent. I don't care who they are, what party they represent or who their opponent is. A failure of that magnitude needs to be rectified.

Wasn't there news a few months back of the government wanting to stop production of a type of plane they no longer use (that cost billions of dollars) and the Pentagon refused? I might have the specifics wrong, but you get the gist.

 

Most people say "putting more money to it" is the problem with entitlement programs, yet are okay with "putting more money to it" for military. Why can't there be an X% cut of every single government program?

 

We spend more on defense than any other country in the world and I'm ok with that. However, when we dump 50 million dollars (arbitrary figure) into a program to design a new technology, and then decide to scrap the program half way into it. That I have a problem with and if you read the news paper it happens ALOT. It's usually not front page, or headline news but it happens far too often IMO.

Edited July 10, 201115 yr by sportsfan41

You're very studious, Clyde. For those of you that don't know, Obama had this to say about the debt ceiling in March of 2006:

 

 

My, how things have changed.

 

For the US to live up to its debt obligations is the correct and unquestionably necessary thing to do. This is so because we know what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised - not because Obama says it is or isn't. When this quote was dug up a few months ago Obama said he was wrong as a senator. I don't particularly care what his rationalization is or what caused him to change his tune - whether it be calculated politics or learning the perils of defaulting - but he's on the right side now, and frankly I don't think he's been as fierce of a leader as he should have been on it.

For the US to live up to its debt obligations is the correct and unquestionably necessary thing to do. This is so because we know what will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised - not because Obama says it is or isn't. When this quote was dug up a few months ago Obama said he was wrong as a senator. I don't particularly care what his rationalization is or what caused him to change his tune - whether it be calculated politics or learning the perils of defaulting - but he's on the right side now, and frankly I don't think he's been as fierce of a leader as he should have been on it.

Uh huh....