-
Eakinomics: Raising the Debt Limit
18
September 26th, 2011FinanceAmerican Motion Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin walks by way of the ramifications of not raising the financial debt limit.
Tags: Debt
Video Rating: four / 5
18 responses to “Eakinomics: Raising the Debt Limit” 
-
I kept waiting for him to introduce Robocop.
-
insa526 September 26th, 2011 at 06:16
It’s pretty obvious that the GOP LOVES corporate welfare. They want to continue to allow the 96% of Americans who make under 250,000 to be slaves to corporate America while the 4% of American “fat cats” live the lifestyle of the rich and famous. What would Jesus say, you “religious” Republicans?
Republicans: you won’t be able to take money with you when you’re sixfeet under! How hypocritical: so many Republicans claim to be “religious,” yet the cardinal sin of all, greed, is part of their life.
-
insa526 September 26th, 2011 at 06:30
Republicans want cuts to the elderly, seniors on Medicare, Social Security beneficiaries, YET THEY REFUSE TO RAISE TAXES on Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise & Oprah and wealthy rappers and movie stars. Republicans refuse to end the 4 billion a year Oil Subsidies even though President Obama has said they NEED to end. They also REFUSE to raise taxes on wealthy Wall Street brokers, bankers and billionaires and those making money from the middle class/ working class poor which are ALREADY worked to death.
-
insa526 September 26th, 2011 at 07:17
Newsflash….Republicans approval rating is MUCH LOWER than Democrats and much much lower the President Obama. Go to Sarah Palin’s page and worship your big-boobed bimbo goddess there…yes the one who QUIT 2 years into her governorship in Alaska to chase millions at FLAWED (Fox) News. OooH how presidential Sarah Palin.
-
insa526 September 26th, 2011 at 07:28
The Republican Party is dying. Republicans, by in large, are ANTI-gay, ANTI-poor, ANTI-minority, and anti anything who isn’t Rich, White, or Wealthy. The younger generation doesn’t like that obese, balding, filthy-rich, racist buffoon: Rush Limbaugh, nor do they like the “bimbo” from Alaska who QUIT on the people of Alaska to chase millions at FLAWED NEWS (Fox News). She’s intellectually deficient along with Newt, Trump, Huckabee, McCain et al.
-
uome2k7 September 26th, 2011 at 07:57
@KidRisky Lowering tax rates may increase revenue but we are past that inflection point on the curve. When Reagan cut taxes, deficits increased so he raised them but not enough. When Bush Jr cut taxes, deficits increased. I couldn’t care less about the letter after their name but demanding revenue neutral tax increases when you don’t pass spending neutral tax cuts is hypocritical.
-
evan13579b September 26th, 2011 at 08:54
@Yakko77
I don’t know why you are telling me this, but I am not unaware of that. In addition there is something called a “baseline” which by default raises the amount we spend each year for 10 years so we aren’t actually cutting we are just lowering the baseline right now.
Still, I think that what Boehner is doing is ok. We won’t likely cut the deficit much until the wars stop anyway so its good to start nibbling now me thinks.
-
KidRisky September 26th, 2011 at 09:26
@uome2k7 I see, this is a partisan thing for you. Switch all the Rs and Ds around and you’d be on the other side. Quick question: when you say “tax cuts,” do you mean in the rates or the revenue raised? Did you know that those are different things, and that they often move in opposite directions? Does that matter to you?
-
Yakko77 September 26th, 2011 at 10:05
@evan13579b The deficit for just this year is about $1.5T and Boehner is pushing for a “deal” to cut $1.1 over 10 years. WE’RE SAVED!!!! It’s time for Boehner and the rest of the old guard GOP to stop spitting on the Tea Party (which is the ONLY reason we’re even having this debate or it’d be more endless spending and entitlements unto death being rubber stamped without even reading the Bill) and start living in fiscal reality or we WILL wind up like Greece.
-
uome2k7 September 26th, 2011 at 10:35
@KidRisky Going to war and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Paying for expanded subscription plans and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Doubling defense spending and cutting taxes is irresponsible. Voting for tax cuts without accompanying and equivalent spending cuts is irresponsible. Keeping war spending off the books is irresponsible. Giving no bid contracts to companies your VP previously was on the board for is irresponsible. Not paying off debt with surpluses is irresponsible.
-
evan13579b September 26th, 2011 at 11:31
@more5600
Raising the debt ceiling is SO WE CAN TAKE ON MORE DEBT. So of course it paves the way for further debt, idiot.
-
uome2k7 September 26th, 2011 at 12:01
@KidRisky Yes, education would continue for those able to afford it. Yes, government spending on things that improve society as a whole is justifiable. No, borrowing money to get an education is not irresponsible or else nobody would do so to pay for college. Its an investment. The investment makes money on the loan interest AND on the increased tax revenue from that person making more money throughout their lifetime. Its short term thinking that screwed us. Think long term!
-
KidRisky September 26th, 2011 at 12:11
@uome2k7 You pay for your education, I pay for mine, and the guy down the street pays for his. Using your reasoning, there is no government spending that cannot be justified. This entitlement mindset is what has gotten us to this state. When the country is trillions of dollars in the hole, borrowing more money to make low-interest loans to college students is irresponsible. At least you don’t deny that education would continue, which was my point.
-
uome2k7 September 26th, 2011 at 12:26
@KidRisky so how do people who cant afford classes get “educated”? I personally benefitted from government loans and government backed loans without which I would either still be in school or would have never been able to go in the first place. And yes, I got a job that has allowed me to pay back those loans with interest (making the government profit) and I hope that others have that same oppurtunity. what pays for education during that “over time” period?
-
KidRisky September 26th, 2011 at 12:47
@uome2k7 Eliminate all of that, and education wouldn’t grind to a halt. There would still be education, right? And over time, the cost of higher education would come down.
-
BCSWowbagger September 26th, 2011 at 13:40
@lejeunesage: And when was the last time Congress voted for any budget at all? The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t proposed, much less passed, a budget in three years. This Congress has been entangled in the debt of Congresses that created vast unfunded entitlements *decades* ago.
-
uome2k7 September 26th, 2011 at 14:40
@KidRisky except part of the Dept of Education is to supply/guarantee higher education loans for tens of thousands if not more students. The Dept of Ed. also provides some matching funds to states for education.
-
KidRisky September 26th, 2011 at 14:40
Disingenuous to say “no education.” What you should have said is, “no money for the Department of Education.” Those are not identical statements.
nandaiyo September 26th, 2011 at 05:36