Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The requirement to even have a vote on the debt limit is self-imposed upon Congress. There was a time when it was automatic.
But to understand what the debt limit is we must first realize that Congress has the power to spend money and also raise revenues and can decide to spend more than the revenues received. Those are obligations. What the debt limit vote is, is a vote to borrow the money to pay for expenditures Congress already obligated itself to fund. It is therefore hypocritical to vote to spend more than you receive and then refuse to pay for those expenditures. It would be like ordering a car from a dealer and then refusing to pay the lease or loan.
The second of your points is false, spending is not out of control. The deficit is actually falling. It also isn't the raw number that matters. It's the debt compared to the size of the economy. That's how we got rid of the World War II debt, which compared to the economy, was much bigger than the $17 billion today. Stead GDP growth while maintaining a deficit within growth will make the debt irrelevant.
Bad news for budget scowls: the days of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit are over. In fact, the deficit is falling fast, according to the CBO and the fiscal outlook is stable.
Take another swig of the kool-aid.
We have RECORD SPENDING over the last five years. The deficit is "falling" (reduced from outrageous levels to now ridiculous levels- 2X the average deficits of Bush) due to RECORD REVENUES over the last two years.
Deficit = Spending - Revenues
We have a spending problem. Despite the best efforts of liberals to say otherwise, we have a spending problem that is out of control, and will eventually consume us. Libs claim
1. we can "grow ourselves" out of deficits, yet growth has been terrible under Obama
2. debt and deficits do not matter, as we are the only nation that can print money at will, as we are the world's "reserve currency". Do you think that will go on forever?
3. The Fed has kept interest rates artificially low by buying massive amounts of bonds. This, according to libs, can go on indefinately.
4. Inflation will never occur. Right
5. Discretionary spending has not increased under Obama. Right- so how do we have massive deficits with record revenues?
I just love the kool aid lines as the right has fallen in love with the nonsense pushed by their own kool aid makers. There is very little original thought being used in this discussion.
The debt commission called for spreading the tax obligations out, to get people to pay that havent been paying before. Removing the bush era tax rates was just the first step in doing so because it would also remove the earned income credits i.e. all of the rebates people get.
As you mentioned, they suggested LOWERING THE RATES
Lowering the rates while eliminating deductions is a tax increase. It's all academic now anyway though, the Republicans won't agree to raise taxes. Good, bad, or indifferent the commission didn't want to get rid of the EITC's or the child tax credits though, just the ability to itemize and less deductions to the wealthy.
Under their proposed tax plan the near bottom and very wealthy would see taxes increase the most.
Lowering the rates while eliminating deductions is a tax increase. It's all academic now anyway though, the Republicans won't agree to raise taxes. Good, bad, or indifferent the commission didn't want to get rid of the EITC's or the child tax credits though, just the ability to itemize and less deductions to the wealthy.
Under their proposed tax plan the near bottom and very wealthy would see taxes increase the most.
80-90%: 6.5%
90-95%: 6%
95-99%: 5%
Top 1%: 18%
Top .01%: 24%
Lowering rates while eliminating the deductions doesnt necessarily raise revenues. The public will simply adjust their lifestyle to reflect the changes in deductions.
You pretend people just sit back and take it..
p.s. yes, the bottom will see the increases, as I said, spreading the obligations among those that dont currently pay.
The requirement to even have a vote on the debt limit is self-imposed upon Congress. There was a time when it was automatic.
But to understand what the debt limit is we must first realize that Congress has the power to spend money and also raise revenues and can decide to spend more than the revenues received. Those are obligations. What the debt limit vote is, is a vote to borrow the money to pay for expenditures Congress already obligated itself to fund. It is therefore hypocritical to vote to spend more than you receive and then refuse to pay for those expenditures. It would be like ordering a car from a dealer and then refusing to pay the lease or loan.
The second of your points is false, spending is not out of control. The deficit is actually falling. It also isn't the raw number that matters. It's the debt compared to the size of the economy. That's how we got rid of the World War II debt, which compared to the economy, was much bigger than the $17 billion today. Stead GDP growth while maintaining a deficit within growth will make the debt irrelevant.
Bad news for budget scowls: the days of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit are over. In fact, the deficit is falling fast, according to the CBO and the fiscal outlook is stable.
" It would be like ordering a car from a dealer and then refusing to pay the lease or loan."
I disagree with your analogy.
Suppose you did order that new car and then lost your job. You still can cancel the deal if you haven't taken possession of the car.
One of these days we will understand that we CANNOT take on NEW debt that we have to borrow more in order to pay for it.
Having worked for the fed I can attest that their is ample places where we can reduce the amount of projected increases WITHOUT doing any real damage to those programs that help people or other required programs.
Lowering rates while eliminating the deductions doesnt necessarily raise revenues. The public will simply adjust their lifestyle to reflect the changes in deductions.
You pretend people just sit back and take it..
p.s. yes, the bottom will see the increases, as I said, spreading the obligations among those that dont currently pay.
I never said lowering the rates while eliminating deductions increase revenues. What I said was that lowering rates while eliminating deductions is a tax increase. Nor did I say that people don't adjust to changes in the tax code, in fact, I have argued the exact opposite in times past.
The answer is the same as your credit score, which, when good, shows people you wish to borrow from an affirmation that you pay your debts.
That is all a debt ceiling raise says, "We will pay all of our debts".
no its not...
Here, let me explain to you why you're wrong, and every other left wing kook which buys the talking point.
Road development project might be budgeted for $5,000,000
Guess what, no money available because the debt ceiling isnt raised
Road project not completed
NO DEBT CREATED.
Hence ITS A LIE to say that we need to raise the debt ceiling or we're go in default because the government has enough revenues to pay CURRENT OBLIGATIONS.. They just cant create NEW ONES..
I never said lowering the rates while eliminating deductions increase revenues. What I said was that lowering rates while eliminating deductions is a tax increase. Nor did I say that people don't adjust to changes in the tax code, in fact, I have argued the exact opposite in times past.
If it doesnt increase revenues, then how does it help reduce the deficit?
Normally you would, but I doubt the Republicans will agree to raise taxes. Sooo... That just leave cutting and the only realistic program that we can cut is Medicare which is a non starter because of baby boomers. Now we are at an impasse.
"the only realistic program that we can cut is Medicare' Absolutley FALSE. There are HUNDRES of programs that canbe cut.
I suggest you read any of the annual books Sen. Tom Coburn writes where he gives, in detail, many of the useless programs that CAN be cut.
Here is just 1 example:
"Department of Agriculture Recommendations and Actions
USDA01: End the Wool and Mohair Subsidy
Background During World War II and the Korean conflict, the United States imported half the wool required for military uniforms. Determined to reduce dependence on foreign fibers and to insulate American producers from foreign competition, Congress declared wool a strategic material and enacted the National Wool Act in 1954. The Act was designed to increase domestic production of wool by providing direct payments to farmers based on a percentage of their market sales. In other words, the more wool farmers produced, the more federal funding they received. Wool was removed from the Pentagon's strategic materials list in 1960. However, the Act remains in effect today, " Department of Agriculture
I, in all honesty would not agree with everyone but, there is NO reason these programs could NOT be looked and determine if it makes sense to borrow money to pay for them.
In your own house budget, if you should fall on hard time, you would make decisions on where to cut unessential spending.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
