Debt Ceiling Panic

[fskimospy]

I do, it's the idiots in DC that have shown that they don't.

Dunning-Kruger effect, anyone?

I've already stated that I agree that's how it should technically work, but the system is too broken so that mechanism won't work. Neither side is interested in actually cutting spending.

Then clearly the results can't be as bad as default.... so default it is.

No, giving anything in exchange guarantees default because both sides will continually use it as a blackmail device until one takes it too far. If the choice is between default and a whole bunch of bad policies followed by default, then default it is. We owe it to our children to prevent irresponsible individuals from using the debt ceiling as blackmail.

And... gulp.. maybe even cut spending to responsible levels! Ahhhh noooooo!

You really have no long term planning ability, do you? The Democrats would end up using just such a weapon right back on you.

That's exactly what I'm doing. Long term, we need to live within our means. If the debt ceiling is the only way to achieve that, then use that mechanism, because we already know the other ones don't work.

See if you took some basic economics courses you would understand that you are attempting the exact opposite. You're advocating a position that will likely make our long term debt problems worse, not better.

Thankfully, this debate is largely academic anyway. People who understand policy and economics better than you came to the same conclusion as I have, that default is not worth getting blackmail concessions. So default it isn't; weren't you paying attention?

 

[Attic]

I think republicans lay down here.

The debt ceiling will be raised and a lot of the rancor between the parties is for show anyways. Last time the theatre didn't work out so well for republicans. The conservatives don't look so good when they pretend to care about spending when D's are holding the purse.

The debt will just need to be maintained with an increasing rate of destruction of the dollar while bureaucrats tease out low inflation models. We can repeat this dance until the minimum wage is being raised to 27.50 and isn't a livable wage while the national debt sits at >40Trillion and folks wonder whats the main factor behind the absurd rising cost of living and massive wealth inequality.

 

[rudeguy]

I think republicans lay down here.

The debt ceiling will be raised and a lot of the rancor between the parties is for show anyways. Last time the theatre didn't work out so well for republicans. The conservatives don't look so good when they pretend to care about spending when D's are holding the purse.

The debt will just need to be maintained with an increasing rate of destruction of the dollar while bureaucrats tease out low inflation models. We can repeat this dance until the minimum wage is being raised to 27.50 and isn't a livable wage while the national debt sits at >40Trillion and folks wonder whats the main factor behind the absurd rising cost of living and massive wealth inequality.

Of course they lay down.

They have already given up on 2014 elections and are focusing on 2016. The next year and a half is a write off for them.

 

[piasabird]

I just read another article about how progressives look at everything as a problem.

The way I see it is the longer the debt keeps piling up the more likely social security will go bankrupt faster.

 

[ivwshane]

I just read another article about how progressives look at everything as a problem.

The way I see it is the longer the debt keeps piling up the more likely social security will go bankrupt faster.

I'll bite...why would social security go bankrupt because of high(er) debt?

 

[PokerGuy]

Dunning-Kruger effect, anyone?

Pot, meet kettle

You really have no long term planning ability, do you? The Democrats would end up using just such a weapon right back on you.

This is a prime example of why you don't get it. It's not a question of my side or your side using it, I don't care about either side. The 'regular' mechanism is broken, and if either side is able to find a way to reduce spending, then so be it.

If congress would learn to live within their means, there would NOT BE any leverage on the debt ceiling to be used as "blackmail" because it would not matter at all. The debt ceiling is already at stratospheric levels, we we would spend more prudently we'd permanently be well below it.

You're advocating a position that will likely make our long term debt problems worse, not better.

Yes, obviously. Up is down, down is up, spending within your means puts in you debt in the long term. Obviously.

Is it any surprise then that we're trillions in debt with such "wisdom" to guide us?

People who understand policy and economics better than you came to the same conclusion as I have

Yes, the same people who got us $17 trillion in debt. Obviously, their theory that excess spending reduces debt and that spending within your means causes long term debt problems is working brilliantly.

 

[fskimospy]

Pot, meet kettle

lol. I am quite confident that I know more about economics than you do.

This is a prime example of why you don't get it. It's not a question of my side or your side using it, I don't care about either side. The 'regular' mechanism is broken, and if either side is able to find a way to reduce spending, then so be it.

If congress would learn to live within their means, there would NOT BE any leverage on the debt ceiling to be used as "blackmail" because it would not matter at all. The debt ceiling is already at stratospheric levels, we we would spend more prudently we'd permanently be well below it.

lol, all Congress needs to do is never find itself in a situation where it needs to spend more than revenues. I hope no wars ever start!

You're so clueless you don't even seem to realize how clueless you are. Again, this is the definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The truly incompetent have so little understanding of the work that they aren't even able to effectively gauge their incompetence.

Yes, obviously. Up is down, down is up, spending within your means puts in you debt in the long term. Obviously.

Is it any surprise then that we're trillions in debt with such "wisdom" to guide us?

What's funny is that you seem to genuinely not understand this. Sometimes taking out debt in the short term leads to greater growth, which reduces long term debt/GDP ratios. This is not complicated.

Yes, the same people who got us $17 trillion in debt. Obviously, their theory that excess spending reduces debt and that spending within your means causes long term debt problems is working brilliantly.

lol.

 

[berzerker60]

You guys are aware that government spending should always be growing, right? A growing population means a growing economy means more tax revenue AND more spending obligations. More government spending doesn't necessarily mean more deficit, even without raising tax rates. We should never be cutting spending, and always increasing it, as long as the country continues to grow.

Now, the percentage of spending as a proportion of GDP absolutely needs cutting sometimes, and the relative size of government SHOULD be reduced when we can do so. When the economy is decent, we should raise taxes, cut spending as a percentage of the economy, and pay down the debt. When the economy sucks, do the opposite.

But getting upset because the number of dollars spent goes up is ridiculous, and that's all the debt ceiling measures. If the debt ceiling was a ban against allowing the government debt to reach a certain percentage of GDP, then you might have a decent argument about it actually relating to financial responsibility. Right now it's just a number, and will inevitably need raising as long as the government is being at all responsible and taking care of its new citizens using the new citizens' tax dollars.

 

[BUnit1701]

...



What's funny is that you seem to genuinely not understand this. Sometimes taking out debt in the short term leads to greater growth, which reduces long term debt/GDP ratios. This is not complicated.



lol.

50 years of ever increasing deficits and ballooning debt is 'short term' to you?

 

[fskimospy]

50 years of ever increasing deficits and ballooning debt is 'short term' to you?

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The correct economic policy now is the correct economic policy. It is not dependent on any time frame.

 

[BUnit1701]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. The correct economic policy now is the correct economic policy. It is not dependent on any time frame.

So, always deficit spend, never pay it off. Gotcha.

 

[fskimospy]

So, always deficit spend, never pay it off. Gotcha.

Nope. Gotta read up on economics.

 

[sunzt]

Hmm it feels like 2012 and 2013 again....

GOP should have seen this movie by now....

 

[Texashiker]

A responsible government would abolish it altogether.

A truly responsible government would have no debt.

Instead of raising the debt limit, pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Problem solved.

 

[ElFenix]

A truly responsible government would have no debt.

Instead of raising the debt limit, pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Problem solved.

if your problem is "the economy isn't a dumpster fire" then yes.

 

[fskimospy]

A truly responsible government would have no debt.

Instead of raising the debt limit, pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Problem solved.

Nope. A truly responsible government would DELIBERATELY take out debt when times were advantageous to do so. Your position of never taking out debt would make the government a poor steward of its financial position.

Irresponsibility.

 

[Brovane]

No, abolishing it would be *irresponsible* government. A responsible government wouldn't need to have it raised because they wouldn't be deficit spending out the wazoo. But instead we have Bush followed by Obama in a race to see who can fuck over taxpayers and future generations the most.

I thought it was Congress that authorized spending not the President.

 

[Brovane]

A truly responsible government would have no debt.

Instead of raising the debt limit, pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Problem solved.

Great where are you going to start cutting?

 

[Ausm]

The only ones panicking now are the Republicans. The political downside of forcing a default or partial shutdown in an election year is all on them. We've seen this movie.

They only panic when there is not an R after the Presidents name just go back to GWB for proof of that.

 

[senseamp]

They only panic when there is not an R after the Presidents name just go back to GWB for proof of that.

They are panicked now because if they vote for clean debt ceiling increase, teabaggers will target them in the primaries. If they don't vote for it, it will trigger another shutdown, and then they will get hurt in the fall.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[berzerker60]

A truly responsible government would have no debt.

Instead of raising the debt limit, pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Problem solved.

Your town needs a new road, which will bring in $10 million over the next 30 years. The road is estimated to survive 30 years before it has crumbled enough to need rebuilding. Which is the better government policy?

A) Take out a 30-year bond (aka debt), paying it off in even installments over the next 30 years based on taxes (including the new revenue from the business that the road generated), so that someone who moves into town 20 years from now pays his share and someone who moves away tomorrow doesn't have to pay for a road he's not using, OR

B) Pay for the entire road right now, meaning big cuts to schools, firing a bunch of government employees and unrelated areas, and putting the full tax burden on today's residents regardless of how long they'll use it, OR

C) Don't build the road, forfeiting the economic benefit to the area and the needs of the community

 

[Ausm]

They are panicked now because if they vote for clean debt ceiling increase, teabaggers will target them in the primaries. If they don't vote for it, it will trigger another shutdown, and then they will get hurt in the fall.
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy!

 

[Victorian Gray]

A truly responsible government would have no debt.

Instead of raising the debt limit, pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Problem solved.

The only time that the US has had zero debt seems to have been the year 1835 under Jackson.

Damn that's a lot of irresponsible American governments!

 

[LunarRay]

Placing a ceiling on the Debt seems to be some kind of budgetary tool in Someone's mind. But, only if it actually could affect the budgeting process and the accuracy of the estimates would it be viable. It don't and, therefore, it ain't.

Eliminate the ceiling and simply focus on using the budgetary process to determined governmental needs and let the overs and unders be just that. That is where stuff matters...

To negotiate changes in order to authorize payment on our obligations is insanity, Nationally and Globally.

 

[Texashiker]

Nope. A truly responsible government would DELIBERATELY take out debt when times were advantageous to do so. Your position of never taking out debt would make the government a poor steward of its financial position.

Irresponsibility.

There are times when we may need a reasonable amount of debt, but that does not mean I have to agree with it.

Carrying $16+ trillion in debt is not what I call reasonable.

Damn that's a lot of irresponsible American governments!

That is what we get for letting banks run the nation.

When did our national debt take off? Shortly after the federal reserve and the income tax were established. Up until the early 1900s the US carried a reasonable amount of debt.

If we ever abolished the debt ceiling we would jeopardize our national security.