Debt Ceiling And The World Not Ending

[comsnark]

BUT... Like I said before, stop putting people on the program and gradually wind it down.

I remember that statement. At the time, you put it in the context of not raising the debt limit this week. I recognize that at the time you said it in the context of a Rant. I am not opposed to what you are suggesting.

I think as a Society, we have some decisions to make in terms of the social safety net (health care and SS) We can't rely on the Constitution for guidance per se because concepts such as "penicillin" and "X-Ray" were unheard of at the time. Letting the "free market" find an answer has its own significant issues. We can (and probably have) (and probably should) discuss this in another thread.

You keep reiterating this insult, and yet you keep overlooking the big picture. It is NOT the math that is the problem, it is the thought process that the money MUST be spent - forever. If we stop spending money like it is going out of style, the revenues will catch up and the math will work out.

And this is why Congress passes a budget each year. Congress can abolish Medicare and SS with a two votes (one in the house, one in the senate).

I think I keep re-iterating the 5th grade insult because they are indeed acting like 4th graders. You know, the *current* congress did approve a budget with a total of about $30 billion savings just a few months ago. And they have another legislative opportunity to pass a budget for 2012 in the very near future. In fact. . they could be having those debates *right now*.

Instead. . they are choosing to pick a fight over a debt ceiling bill *now*? The consequences of failure are much broader than merely shutting down the government. (which is why the fight should be done as part of the budget process, and not a debt ceiling vote)

Ok... One question.... If raising the debt ceiling is not "more debt", then what is it???? The "ceiling" IS a limit on debt. That's like saying the limit on your credit card is not the maximum amount that you can put on the card.

The debt ceiling is a totally artificial limit. We are not out of credit.

What is happening is that we have signed up for lots and lots of automatic payments via credit card, and then WE are telling the Credit Card company to drop the credit limit to something far less than the automatic payments. We have plenty of credit. We are just choosing not to use it - *to pay bills we have already authorized*.

Really. . .this is a backend budget limit. Not a front end constraint like a normal person would do.

The only reason you would have this type of limit is if you start having in huge expenses (like a war) outside the budget process. Now, Congress would never permit something that could have a large budget impact like that (like, waging a war) outside the Congressional Budget process would they?

[/snippiness]

 

[skibum]

And this is why Congress passes a budget each year. Congress can abolish Medicare and SS with a two votes (one in the house, one in the senate).

The Senate has not passed a budget. The House did.

Instead. . they are choosing to pick a fight over a debt ceiling bill *now*? The consequences of failure are much broader than merely shutting down the government. (which is why the fight should be done as part of the budget process, and not a debt ceiling vote)

The debt ceiling is a totally artificial limit. We are not out of credit.

What is happening is that we have signed up for lots and lots of automatic payments via credit card, and then WE are telling the Credit Card company to drop the credit limit to something far less than the automatic payments. We have plenty of credit. We are just choosing not to use it - *to pay bills we have already authorized*.

Really. . .this is a backend budget limit. Not a front end constraint like a normal person would do.

The only reason you would have this type of limit is if you start having in huge expenses (like a war) outside the budget process. Now, Congress would never permit something that could have a large budget impact like that (like, waging a war) outside the Congressional Budget process would they?

[/snippiness]

Got tired of messing with the quotes...

The "fight" over this is happening NOW because the current POTUS has shown that he has no regard for the amount of debt that he is willing to incurr. He is the person causing this to happen. Like it or not, new people were put in the House because the people said "stop spending", and then voted for people who promised to do so. The House Tea Party people are doing exactly what the people who voted for them asked them to do. They should hold the line, as they are supposed to "represent" the people that elected them. They were not put in office to do something different. If Obama wants more than they are willing to give, then he needs to wait until the House is controlled by people willing to send it to him. Thats what elections are for.

The debt ceiling limit in THIS case is set by the people who said "No mas", and voted Tea Party. They are regular citizens who understand that a smaller problem is easier to fix than a bigger problem.

Comparing the current situation to a bank lowering the credit limit on an overspent account. In this case, the primary issue is that the credit customer has the unique ability to manufacture currency. As they monkey with the amount of available money, they impact OUR purchasing power, not to mention directly impact my ability to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now... War... You ain't gonna like this. If we need money specifically for the purpose of winning a war, then we should borrow until the cows come home. Having money means nothing if we are dead. Second, both of these wars were fought wrong. Get the TV cameras the heck out of there, kick the living crap out of whomever we are waging the war against. Keep killing them until they offer unconditional surrender, and then LEAVE. We could have won both of these wars in 6 months, and then brought our boys (and girls) home. We just keep fighting politically correct wars where once you bloody up the other side, you have to ease up because the rest of the world takes pity on the loser. Unfortunately, defense is a necessity. If Congress has to, up the debt ceiling for ONLY defense spending to get it off the table, then cut and/or cap everything else.

Shutting down the EPA for example would not only remove the entire cost of the agency itself from the federal budget, but it would allow our country to start building and producing things again. The revenues coming into the federal coffers would increase exponentially, and the debt could be paid down. Now as to the pollution aspect of things, we need to have stiff penalties and forced cleanup of pollutants if a company or individual offends. The Natural Resources Department could handle the inspection and cleanup activities. We don't need a million regulations telling us what not to do, we need to understand that we need to be aware of what we are doing and that there will be severe conseqences associated with being caught doing the wrong thing.

 

[skibum]

Oops.... Deleted

 

[Four Suns]

I obviously don't understand this debt thing as I can't seem to make the connection how cutting back on entitlements hits the "working middle class." What entitlements are the working middle class getting?

 

[Steve S]

I obviously don't understand this debt thing as I can't seem to make the connection how cutting back on entitlements hits the "working middle class." What entitlements are the working middle class getting?

I am in the working middle class and I do not get any entitlements - please tell me what entitlements am I missing?

 

[VTSeaRay]

A slightly long, but good speech on this entire Debt distress and how we got where we are. (and a little bumbling by Kerry too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZEFkpXNf_Y

 

[comsnark]

I obviously don't understand this debt thing as I can't seem to make the connection how cutting back on entitlements hits the "working middle class." What entitlements are the working middle class getting?

Ask again when you approach 60.

 

[comsnark]

Got tired of messing with the quotes...

Painful, isn't it?

The "fight" over this is happening NOW because the current POTUS has shown that he has no regard for the amount of debt that he is willing to incurr.

.

The President does not prepare appropriations bills. The Congress does that. The President either approves (signs) or disapproves (veto)
The President can submit a budget *proposal*. This is a suggestion. An attempt at leadership?
A budget proposal is a "suggestion". Usually, it is laughed at and Congress does what they want anyway.

The only thing different in 2011 is that the previous Congress never passed a 2011 budget. Never put a budget in front of the President to sign or veto. So. .the new Republican led Congress has TWO SHOTS this year to pass budgets they like. The first shot produced. . . a net increase of the Federal budget relative to 2010.

Now... War... You ain't gonna like this. If we need money specifically for the purpose of winning a war, then we should borrow until the cows come home. Having money means nothing if we are dead. Second, both of these wars were fought wrong. Get the TV cameras the heck out of there, kick the living crap out of whomever we are waging the war against. Keep killing them until they offer unconditional surrender, and then LEAVE. We could have won both of these wars in 6 months, and then brought our boys (and girls) home. We just keep fighting politically correct wars where once you bloody up the other side, you have to ease up because the rest of the world takes pity on the loser. Unfortunately, defense is a necessity. If Congress has to, up the debt ceiling for ONLY defense spending to get it off the table, then cut and/or cap everything else.

Yeah. . . . . well. . . we can debate war strategy till the cows come home as well.
All I know is that in 2000 the Republicans campaigned on not doing Bosnia style Nation Building. In 2003, they were doing Bosnia style Nation Building in Iraq, and not much of anything in Afganistan.
And it's one thing to *rack up debt* to fight a war. It's another to *reduce revenue while racking up debt*.

We don't need a million regulations telling us what not to do, we need to understand that we need to be aware of what we are doing and that there will be severe conseqences associated with being caught doing the wrong thing.

Seriously? You do realize that you argued AGAINST then FOR the EPA in the same sentence?

 

[skibum]

It has been proven time and time again that reducing taxes increases revenue. Bush's tax cuts increased federal revenues. It did not decrease them.

Seriously... You skipped the sentence before in which I stated that a different agency could handle the enforcement. I use Natural Resources as an example only.

The Natural Resources Department could handle the inspection and cleanup activities. We don't need a million regulations telling us what not to do, we need to understand that we need to be aware of what we are doing and that there will be severe conseqences associated with being caught doing the wrong thing.

 

[skibum]

deleted

 

[comsnark]

It has been proven time and time again that reducing taxes increases revenue. Bush's tax cuts increased federal revenues. It did not decrease them.

Seriously... You skipped the sentence before in which I stated that a different agency could handle the enforcement. I use Natural Resources as an example only.

Really? I thought revenue went up because of increased spending -> despite tax reductions.

EDIT: Hey! Are you *SURE* federal revenues went up? I am having trouble verifying this.

EDIT #2: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html Apparently, statements like "The sky is blue" can be controversial. I would not have thought so. Subject to data cherry picking -> just like climate data apparently.

Regarding the agency: So. . .all we need is an agency name change? Or merging of agencies? It's not the EPA targets that are the problem?

 

[VTSeaRay]

It's sad to see the early results I've heard about on this debt bill, and the desire to reduce military (wait, now let's call it security) spending and increase social program spending. The primary reason of our government is to protect it's people, not support it. Argh.

 

[Woody]

All the while they brag about saving 2.5T over the next 10yrs while they know they are actually going to spend 8-10T more than they take in. Unfortunately I think they fool a lot of folks that don't have a clue what it is they are being told.

 

[Pseudomind]

I obviously don't understand this debt thing as I can't seem to make the connection how cutting back on entitlements hits the "working middle class." What entitlements are the working middle class getting?

Ask again when you approach 60.

Well I for one would like to know what these entitlements are? And don't say social security. Most of what has been posted here is just unadulterated pigeon droppings. The media is so quick to point a finger from on side to the other to avoid the actual issue. I for one could care less if one is democrap or repubocrap. Lets just look at the overall issue and find a solution to it.

Or are others here so far into the PC crap to not know the difference between legal and illegal/ When a nation loses it sovereignty it ceases to exist

As far as social security goes, I knew it was not a retirement fund per se, but don't lie to me. I had no choice regarding paying into it, and remember there have been a few groups who are exempt from social secuirty so lets pull their money also.

Just give me the money back I had to pay in and then they can do os they please. lets also cut congresses retirement to match what social security would be.

In closing I would just like to say if one chooses to to be republican, it does not make them UN-American which has been stated in this thread.

From my time here on this planet, I can only say we are becoming a nation of lazy, (both physically and mentally) fat whiners.

And yes I did my my time, so I have a right to state what I will, as I have defended that right.

Puke!

 

[floriduramax1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cd-SLRyuRq0

 

[Woody]

Well I for one would like to know what these entitlements are? And don't say social security. Most of what has been posted here is just unadulterated pigeon droppings. The media is so quick to point a finger from on side to the other to avoid the actual issue. I for one could care less if one is democrap or repubocrap. Lets just look at the overall issue and find a solution to it.

Or are others here so far into the PC crap to not know the difference between legal and illegal/ When a nation loses it sovereignty it ceases to exist

As far as social security goes, I knew it was not a retirement fund per se, but don't lie to me. I had no choice regarding paying into it, and remember there have been a few groups who are exempt from social secuirty so lets pull their money also.

Just give me the money back I had to pay in and then they can do os they please. lets also cut congresses retirement to match what social security would be.

In closing I would just like to say if one chooses to to be republican, it does not make them UN-American which has been stated in this thread.

From my time here on this planet, I can only say we are becoming a nation of lazy, (both physically and mentally) fat whiners.

And yes I did my my time, so I have a right to state what I will, as I have defended that right.

Puke!

What do mean by "lets pull their money"? What do you dislike about a congressmens retirement?