Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-22-2013, 04:36 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,042,570 times
Reputation: 10270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJiveMan View Post
I'm in favor of slashing do nothing congresspersons salaries. Let's balance the budget rhetoric rears it's ugly little head again, only under a black president though. If Romoney were president, none of this budget battling and debt ceiling crap would be happening. Conservatives weren't conservatives till Tuesday, January 20, 2009.



But that was okay from 2000 to 2008.
You're right....the very lefties who are stating that increasing the debt ceiling is a good thing would be arguing like obama did in 2006 against it.

As far as conservatives.....there are very, very true conservatives in congress.

A progressive GOP didn't stop spending a dime when they had the power.

Far leftie socialists won't even consider constitutional libertarians because they would lose their stranglehold on the poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2013, 04:38 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,042,570 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Raising the debt limit allows us to pay our bills. How much we spend is a completely different matter. Saying one day that we'll do X, Y and Z, and the next day saying, "We're not going to pay our bills," damages the credit of the nation, resulting in us paying higher interest on subsequent borrowing of money (such as when one set of government bonds come to maturity, and we have to replace that portion of the already-existing debt with new issues).
So, the 2006 and 2008 obama was a dummy?

Why did/do you support him?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 04:54 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,081,664 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
By that "logic": Raising the debt ceiling doesn't incur debt. You can play with words all you want. It doesn't change the truth of the matter. Using the raising of the debt ceiling to try to undo ACA for a 41st time is a childish, antisocial, disreputable and completely meritless abortion of process. It deserves condemnation in the most uncertain terms, and support for it deserves similar repudiation. Congratulations, you're ready to join the cabal-of-four - all you have to do is post something that is rude, as well.
Um, raising the debt ceiling DOESNT incur debt, no more than taking out a credit card does..

It does however lower ones credit rating and indicate ones inability to deal with current debt..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 04:56 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,042,570 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Um, raising the debt ceiling DOESNT incur debt, no more than taking out a credit card does..

It does however lower ones credit rating and indicate ones inability to deal with current debt..
Why didn't obama know this in 2006?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 05:28 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,081,664 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Why didn't obama know this in 2006?
and more importantly, why is it 7 years later, his supporters still dont understand basic budgeting issues? Ironically, the very ones who pretend to run around schooling us on budget issues
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 05:33 PM
 
45,542 posts, read 27,152,040 times
Reputation: 23859
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Why?

Because you can't defend it?
We have plenty of partisan threads here. I just wanted people to discuss the actual issue. I have no problem defending what I believe.

The discussion w/ Bush/Obama always goes into what they did and who's lying - and the issue gets little play at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 06:44 PM
 
3,617 posts, read 3,881,652 times
Reputation: 2295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
It isn't. Defaulting on our debt is just worse. So the democrats keep spending knowing that every time they ask they'll get the credit extension they want because the alternative is worse.

This is like a family who gets another charge card so they can make the minimum payments on the other charge cards they've maxed out repeatedly. The problem is, eventually, you can't make the minimum payments and you will default. The thing to do is get spending under control and start paying down those charge cards but the government won't do that. We either need to increase revenue or decrease spending or a combination of both. I don't see either happening.

What happens when we can't even pay the interest on the bill anymore and China owns us? What will we have to give them then? Will we have to auction off pieces of America to pay the bill? We're still a ways off from this so people put blinders on and pretend that the solution to too much debt is more debt. Reality is that is just plain stupid.
Eventually if we keep going this way we will default, one way or another (directly or via inflation). Heck, at a certain point if we have enough foreign debt the consequences will be less harmful than the benefit of wiping that away.

I'm super strongly against our insane deficit spending, but if this goes on like it is much longer the best course of action won't be to stop it anymore, but instead to let it climb as high as possible before we inevitably default on it regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 06:56 PM
 
45,542 posts, read 27,152,040 times
Reputation: 23859
I have been reading through all of the posts off and on through the day. I am going to hit a few posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
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.
Now I know there was a back and forth on whether this obligation leads to a necessity to spend the money as a budget item.

Then I think about Obamacare and how much that program will be spending in the future - and with this reasoning - there will always be a reason to raise the debt - because of the obligation.

If this is the way it works, then this is bad budgeting. They can always put out obligations and then demand the money be spent? If anyone is interested in balancing their books - this is insanity.


You also say spending is not out of control and follow it with the raw number doesn't matter. So we take off a digit and go from the trillion category to the 900 billion category. 900 billion - that's Ok to you? It's unacceptable.

Please note that we have been taking in record revenue to prepare for Obamacare - so I think we will be back in the trillion dollar category next year.

The government is out of control.

Last edited by DRob4JC; 09-22-2013 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,941,962 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
Eventually if we keep going this way we will default, one way or another (directly or via inflation). Heck, at a certain point if we have enough foreign debt the consequences will be less harmful than the benefit of wiping that away.

I'm super strongly against our insane deficit spending, but if this goes on like it is much longer the best course of action won't be to stop it anymore, but instead to let it climb as high as possible before we inevitably default on it regardless.
Let's inject some facts:

Notice the runaway spending under Obama? Me neither:



This is the deficit, declining:




And the deficit as a p% of GDP:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2013, 07:32 PM
 
45,542 posts, read 27,152,040 times
Reputation: 23859
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Raising the debt limit allows us to pay our bills. How much we spend is a completely different matter. Saying one day that we'll do X, Y and Z, and the next day saying, "We're not going to pay our bills," damages the credit of the nation, resulting in us paying higher interest on subsequent borrowing of money (such as when one set of government bonds come to maturity, and we have to replace that portion of the already-existing debt with new issues).
Bills are spending.

I spend so much on electricity, water, phone, and other bills. That's spending - money that was in my pocket going out to others - whether it's to AT&T or JCPenney or Southwest Airlines.

Your logic is similar to MTATech - in that you say it's an obligation that needs to be honored.

Again - that is bad policy to plan to spend more than you make, and then ask for the money later.

Consider the home buyer who is considering a house beyond what they can afford. They get a loan from the bank - find out that the mortgage is more than they can afford - and then go back to the bank to ask for more money to cover the portion of the mortgage they can't pay. How do you think that would go? They would be laughed out of the bank.

They made an obligation to spend the money on the house, right? Doesn't mean they are entitled to more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top