Should the Debt Ceiling be Raised?

[a777pilot]

Cool borrow more money from the comumist to run our country!!!!

Yes. I would be very happy if we could have the PRC lend us about $3 trillion more......at a minimum. That would be great.

If only they were that stupid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no Cap. There's just a meaningless number that creates a little drama every few years. After this Cap is raised and everybody vows to do something, the Cap will be reached again, more drama will be had, people will vow to do something again. Just get rid of it and stop the drama, then force them to fix the situation.

There is a certain advantage to getting rid of it. The cap brings attention to the situation. By eliminating it there won't be any notice or complaint. This will the politicians to go unfettered by public comment by merely promising to look into it.

Brilliant!

 

[catilley1092]

If Clinton could run a balanced budget for his last 7 out of 8 years in office, it can be done again. No, the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised.

The US House & Congress should work together for once, and go to the chopping block. All of these "national security agencies" that Bush created, half can go. There's a ton of waste in the federal government, start cutting it.

There's so much money owed now, that even our unborn grandchildren cannot repay it back. Something needs to be done, and now.

Cat

 

[Darwin333]

There is a certain advantage to getting rid of it. The cap brings attention to the situation. By eliminating it there won't be any notice or complaint. This will the politicians to go unfettered by public comment by merely promising to look into it.

Brilliant!

Come on, it is all trivial at this point.

I know you are an intelligent guy so I won't pretend otherwise. If you haven't already, pull out your calculator and figure out what kind of cuts would be required balance the 2011 budget, add in any increased revenue you think is politically feasible, what ya got? Do any of you honestly think that ANY politician (much less a majority of them) will go with the kind of cuts and tax hikes required to just stop the bleeding? We haven't even gotten to paying down a damn thing yet.

I have already stated why we can't simply inflate it away and if anyone thinks we are going to "grow" out of our debt, wanna buy a bridge? Real cheap, I promise.

Don't get me wrong, it is technically possible it just isn't even remotely politically feasible. Anyone that actually tried would be recalled or voted out of office so fast it isn't funny. The American people want a balanced budget..... as long as someone else pays for it. Unfortunately, there ain't no one else.

 

[bfdd]

when i can't afford to eat out, i don't. seems simple to me.

 

[NoStateofMind]

when i can't afford to eat out, i don't. seems simple to me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Come on, it is all trivial at this point.

I know you are an intelligent guy so I won't pretend otherwise. If you haven't already, pull out your calculator and figure out what kind of cuts would be required balance the 2011 budget, add in any increased revenue you think is politically feasible, what ya got? Do any of you honestly think that ANY politician (much less a majority of them) will go with the kind of cuts and tax hikes required to just stop the bleeding? We haven't even gotten to paying down a damn thing yet.

I have already stated why we can't simply inflate it away and if anyone thinks we are going to "grow" out of our debt, wanna buy a bridge? Real cheap, I promise.

Don't get me wrong, it is technically possible it just isn't even remotely politically feasible. Anyone that actually tried would be recalled or voted out of office so fast it isn't funny. The American people want a balanced budget..... as long as someone else pays for it. Unfortunately, there ain't no one else.

There won't be a balanced budget in our future for some time and I accept that. The thing that chafes me is that there are some things the government does horribly and there is no attempt to improve the quality of service, but merely expand. I've paid a premium for some things, but only when there is a reasonable expectation of an increased value of the item or service. If someone were to offer you the same thing every year but with a "new and improved" higher price, you'd laugh, but that is what we have become content to accept. Can you think of one large program which has been markedly reformed? I cannot.

There is an old fashioned concept of stewardship. I doubt the majority of people could even properly define the word today, but that is what government owes us, a wise use of the resources it take from us, yet the reality is that is a completely foreign concept to our representatives.

I find that remarkably irksome. If "we need more" is matched with demonstrated reform, increased bang for our buck if you will, then I would have some faith in the current system. As it is the reverse is true.

 

[shira]

No. Let's play a game of chicken with the debt ceiling and the world financial markets and our future. Maybe each side can use the threat of economic catastrophe to blackmail the other side into doing its bidding. Because each side knows for certain that their solution is the only right one, and no compromise is possible.

And if the blackmail fails and the U.S. economy goes down the tubes because the markets - unable to wait to see if we really will raise the debt ceiling before the deadline - "unexpectedly" (but actually totally predictably) bail from T bills before the deadline actually occurs.

And then the two sides can start pointing fingers amid the rubble.

So hell no, don't raise the debt ceiling. Because if we destroy our economy now, there won't be anything left to "burden future generations" with. And ain't that the point, after all?

 

[Darwin333]

when i can't afford to eat out, i don't. seems simple to me.

What do you do when you, or more importantly your wife and kids, can't afford to eat at all?

 

[masteryoda34]

Fuck that. I say we max out the credit cards first and THEN default. Free hookers and blow for everyone!

Ah, now everything the government has done for the last eight years is beginning to make sense. I think they're ahead of you.

 

[NoStateofMind]

No. Let's play a game of chicken with the debt ceiling and the world financial markets and our future. Maybe each side can use the threat of economic catastrophe to blackmail the other side into doing its bidding. Because each side knows for certain that their solution is the only right one, and no compromise is possible.

And if the blackmail fails and the U.S. economy goes down the tubes because the markets - unable to wait to see if we really will raise the debt ceiling before the deadline - "unexpectedly" (but actually totally predictably) bail from T bills before the deadline actually occurs.

And then the two sides can start pointing fingers amid the rubble.

So hell no, don't raise the debt ceiling. Because if we destroy our economy now, there won't be anything left to "burden future generations" with. And ain't that the point, after all?

If the sky is falling shouldn't we be cutting spending drastically to save ourselves?

 

[wuliheron]

If the sky is falling shouldn't we be cutting spending drastically to save ourselves?

Spending isn't what keeps the sky from falling. Trust me on this, its a weather phenomenon that depends on high pressure systems. The government likes to insinuate that they have some control over the weather, but so far nobody's been able to prove they do. If they do have control over the weather, then our national debt is nothing to worry about. They can just ruin the crops in other countries, cause earthquakes in Japan, and whatnot and make everyone else in the world pay for our mistakes.

 

[IGBT]

if liberals can't spend and redistribute earners and achievers confiscated (tax) money they have nothing to offer except soaring rhetoric and what they believe to be good intentions.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

No, they shouldn't raise the debt ceiling. But they will anyway.

In fact, they should reduce the debt ceiling to zero after they default on the existing debt and then once they do that they can reinstate the Subtreasury System and Jackson's specie circular.

God you're dumb. It's like you read a U.S. History book and memorized all the terms, but you didn't understand what any of them meant.

 

[nobodyknows]

The choice is to either raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes on those who can afford it, or cut programs, defense, etc..

I personally think it's ime to raise taxes on the wealthy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The choice is to either raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes on those who can afford it, or cut programs, defense, etc..

I personally think it's ime to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Won't make a difference. We're dealing with an entity which is inherently opposed and extremely able to resist change. They will simply kill whatever golden goose they find and move onto the next all the while plodding ahead in its own ponderous way.

To be sure we need to address funding but it's about damn time someone shows us some respect and use what is taken by anyone responsibility.

Yeah, that and other fiction novels

 

[dali71]

If Clinton could run a balanced budget for his last 7 out of 8 years in office, it can be done again. No, the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised.

Clinton increased the national debt every year of his presidency: The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[Darwin333]

There won't be a balanced budget in our future for some time and I accept that. The thing that chafes me is that there are some things the government does horribly and there is no attempt to improve the quality of service, but merely expand. I've paid a premium for some things, but only when there is a reasonable expectation of an increased value of the item or service. If someone were to offer you the same thing every year but with a "new and improved" higher price, you'd laugh, but that is what we have become content to accept. Can you think of one large program which has been markedly reformed? I cannot.

There is an old fashioned concept of stewardship. I doubt the majority of people could even properly define the word today, but that is what government owes us, a wise use of the resources it take from us, yet the reality is that is a completely foreign concept to our representatives.

I find that remarkably irksome. If "we need more" is matched with demonstrated reform, increased bang for our buck if you will, then I would have some faith in the current system. As it is the reverse is true.

While I agree completely with what you say, your analogy is off a bit.

The cost isn't going up for the same services, we are simply being asked to pay a larger percentage of the services that we have been enjoying (or not). I know household budgets aren't very similar to .gov budgets but it is sort of like you making $50K a year and spending another $50K with your credit cards. Then one year you can only spend $35K on your credit card, you aren't being charged more for the same services you just have to pay a larger percentage of what those services actually cost.

That is were we are at, we are used to someone else, and I don't mean some other person being taxed more, paying for whatever the hell we get from the .gov. Living within our means doesn't really mean paying more for the same it just means that WE have to actually pay for it.

Like I said, this is all trivial though. We, the American people, don't really want a balanced budget. We say we do until we learn what that really means and we are willing to ride this train until it comes off the tracks. Fuck it, full speed ahead (I really wish they would consider my free hookers and blow idea though)!

 

[dali71]

The choice is to either raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes on those who can afford it, or cut programs, defense, etc..

I personally think it's ime to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Watch this to see why raising taxes without cutting spending will never work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

 

[Darwin333]

The choice is to either raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes on those who can afford it, or cut programs, defense, etc..

I personally think it's ime to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Pull out your calculator and tell me how much you can get from those increased taxes and then tell me how much of a dent it would have made in the 2011 deficit.

 

[Darwin333]

if liberals can't spend and redistribute earners and achievers confiscated (tax) money they have nothing to offer except soaring rhetoric and what they believe to be good intentions.

Pop quiz: Which president increased entitlement spending (redistribution of wealth if you will) the most in the last 20 years?

 

[Darwin333]

Ah, now everything the government has done for the last eight years is beginning to make sense. I think they're ahead of you.

Sonofabitch! Where the hell are MY free hookers and blow?

 

[a777pilot]

Pop quiz: Which president increased entitlement spending (redistribution of wealth if you will) the most in the last 20 years?

Increase the search range and the answer is Nixon.

 

[Patranus]

How would this Balanced Budget Amendment be worded?

You do know that an Amendment would take years to pass. The last amendment took over 200 years to be approved.

And the one before that took less than 3 months.

Anyways essentially tie federal spending to a percentage GDP unless 2/3 of congress vote an emergency.

 

[a777pilot]

And the one before that took less than 3 months.

Anyways essentially tie federal spending to a percentage GDP unless 2/3 of congress vote an emergency.

Good point. So lets split the difference and then it will only take 100 years.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94–0 in favor of proposing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that the voting age could not be higher than 18. On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 in favor of the proposed amendment. Within four months after the Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the shortest time in which any proposed amendment has received the number of ratifications needed for adoption.

...just to be accurate.