Obama says do the debt ceiling now, or else.

[Incorruptible]

So what do you propose to do about collateral damage to civilians during "war"? It's happened in every "war".

Answer the question first and then I will answer yours

 

[Mandres]

It seems to me that beneath all the normal partisan chest beating there is actually an issue of fact that is unclear here:

Does raising the debt ceiling mean paying for current obligations, or does it mean opening the door for new, not-current-law, spending?

and consequently, does failing to raise the debt ceiling automatically result in a default on existing obligations?

What's the truth here?

 

[fskimospy]

It seems to me that beneath all the normal partisan chest beating there is actually an issue of fact that is unclear here:

Does raising the debt ceiling mean paying for current obligations, or does it mean opening the door for new, not-current-law, spending?

and consequently, does failing to raise the debt ceiling automatically result in a default on existing obligations?

What's the truth here?

It does not open any new obligations. It allows the government to pay for obligations it has already made.

 

[Mandres]

Then why is it even up for discussion? No, the US can not default on previously signed obligations. Period.

Maybe they should call it the Interesting-and-Sinking-Fund-payments-for-last-year's-budget ceiling instead? The name is misleading, of course the small government types are going to be opposed to an increase in the "debt ceiling".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then why is it even up for discussion? No, the US can not default on previously signed obligations. Period.

Maybe they should call it the Interesting-and-Sinking-Fund-payments-for-last-year's-budget ceiling instead? The name is misleading, of course the small government types are going to be opposed to an increase in the "debt ceiling".

I don't think that's what he said. He never really answered your 2nd question in regard to "default".

 

[Throckmorton]

If you come home after a trip, and your sewer backed up, and your house is full of sewage to the ceiling, do you clean out the sewage, or raise the ceiling?

This is depressing because it shows how little people understand what the debt ceiling is.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think that's what he said. He never really answered your 2nd question in regard to "default".

It also causes contractual defaults on a number of our future obligations, almost certainly will cause a large, permanent increase in borrowing costs, and attacks the underpinnings of the global economy.

He was right, there is no rational reason this is even under discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

Then why is it even up for discussion? No, the US can not default on previously signed obligations. Period.

Maybe they should call it the Interesting-and-Sinking-Fund-payments-for-last-year's-budget ceiling instead? The name is misleading, of course the small government types are going to be opposed to an increase in the "debt ceiling".

The argument is that because we could keep servicing debt payments we can hit the debt ceiling without default. This of course ignores the fact that the US has other statutory obligations that it cannot legally not pay. Additionally, people making it ignore the fact that even without default such action would likely lead to serious consequences.

Would you view a company favorably that, in order to save money, stopped paying its employees and suppliers? Of course not. Therefore this will likely lead to increased debt service costs. Ironically, the fools who think this tactic is a good way to reduce the deficit might make it even worse.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It also causes contractual defaults on a number of our future obligations, almost certainly will cause a large, permanent increase in borrowing costs, and attacks the underpinnings of the global economy.

He was right, there is no rational reason this is even under discussion.

My point was that it would not cause immediate defaults and that you didn't address his 2nd question where he wanted to know if failing to raise the debt ceiling automatically results in a default on existing obligations.

Anyway...for the record...I agree with you.

 

[werepossum]

This whole absurdity that if we don't raise our debt ceiling we will default on our obligations is complete Bullshit.

The only way we will ever default is if the President of the United States and his Treasury Sec say fuck the debtors. Our tax revenues far far exceed our interest payments monthly.

THIS and

We need to throw more money at the problem. We need to throw today's money at the problem instead of borrowing against tomorrow. Raise taxes to cover spending and spending will come down. Why would any politician get serious about cutting spending when spending costs them nothing politically?

Cutting taxes in the absence of a balanced budget requirement as a method of driving down spending has a three decade record of utter failure. To get anywhere with spending cuts we have to make spending hurt at the time the spending is done. To do that we have to raise taxes to cover spending at the time the spending is proposed.

Force the voters to think about costs. You want America to have the most advanced fighter plane in the world? Okay, that fighter costs $8,000 per household. Your taxes will go up to pay for it. You want grandpa to have "free" drugs? Here's the bill, payable today. Deficits and debt numbers don't excite the voters like actual, immediate tax hikes.

THIS TOO.

Right now we can't possibly cover the 40% of our federal spending that is borrowed, but we can certainly work toward that end. The huge problem is that far too many of us want our goodies at someone else's expense. Cut my taxes and cut those welfare people's benefits to offset the revenue. Give me free college tuition and health care and make those rich bastards fund it. We're no longer looking at the cost of government, we're looking at transfer payments. Even things that are undeniably legitimate costs of government such as defense spending are often decided on which districts stand to benefit. When only half of all adults fund the federal government and half of all households get some sort of federal check, how can we responsibly make those decisions? I'm with you in spirit, but the details are killers.

That's why I liked sequestration. (And apparently I am a cult of one in that.) Cut everything equally until we are at a balanced budget, then add back based on household tax cost. Even that only works if everyone pays something and all income is treated identically. (That's one reason I so love the FairTax - even if your money comes from the taxpayers via government, at least you see the true cost of government every time you buy something new.) And considering that we are still in a recession in all but name, doing it now would make things worse for the short term.

 

[michal1980]

It does not open any new obligations. It allows the government to pay for obligations it has already made.

But we could use it to clamp down on future obligations so as to not increase the debt more in the future.

But no liberal wants to cut anything, as proven by this thread. They only want more and more spending.

except the military they hate the military

 

[Ausm]

Tell ya what, next time Bush is in charge of the budgets we can criticize him just like Obama and I used to do. Now we can criticize those currently adding to the debt.

OK, so then we can criticize a Republicon in the WH in charge of a budget but we all know this most likely won't occur for at least 2 to 3 generations.

 

[werepossum]

Blaming both sides equally is no less lazy than choosing one side or another. If you want to have an enlightened view of this, I think you need to examine what is driving the defecits/debt, and what leadership is to blame for those drivers. I admit that I haven't done that myself, but here's my perception:

1. The great recession. Millions of people out of work are millions of people that aren't paying income taxes, and usually are claiming unemployment insurance. I think Bush deserves some blame for it, but not as much as most liberals do. The recession was exacerbated by the collapsing housing market which was propped up by policies in place before GWB took office.

2. Low tax receipts. I saw a graphic that as a percentage of GDP, our tax receipts have been historically low for some time now. I think both sides can share blame on this, but probably the Republican party is a little more to blame. The Democrats are equally to blame on certain policies like mortgage interest exemptions and carried interest.

3. Health Care spending. I don't think Obama Care made it worse, but I don't think it really helped either. We spend far too much on health care, and the fat pigs that benefit have tons of influence in Washington.

4. Expensive wars. Democrats get some blame here, certainly, but I think you have to give more blame to Republicans on this. They pushed us to war in Iraq, and Afghanistan should have been far more limited than it was.

Well said, and well balanced. Obamacare certainly raised health care costs, but at some benefit. Some people who were not insurable are now able to get health insurance, and while I'm not a fan of Obamacare that's a good thing even though it hit me personally quite hard.

Obama escalated Afghanistan, and I think he made the right decision. Iraq is going to turn out to be the better investment, but Afghanistan is the war we HAD to fight even if we cannot get a sane government there.

One thing we can and should do is to fund wars with separate taxes. If we're to deploy troops into combat zones (or even expensive to maintain foreign bases) and use up ordnance and equipment, that money needs to come from a surtax on everyone with income, NOT from re-purposing money earmarked for updating equipment. We waste shit tons of money in cancelling programs and for every program cancelled for technical factors there are probably a dozen cancelled because we had to spend that money invading Iraq or bombing Libya. If every American and resident alien born that expense as a surcharge then politicians wouldn't be nearly so eager to intervene with military force, Americans would pay more attention to the actual arguments for and against going to war, and our troops wouldn't be struggling with equipment older than they themselves.

 

[zinfamous]

1) Congress shouldn't have approved more debt to begin with.
2) We already raised the ceiling recently and here we are going for it again.

What part of STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE do those retards in Washington not understand?

so the government should STOP SPENDING MONEY?

:hmm:

well, I guess regressing to 3rd world status would be rather eye-opening...

 

[Ausm]

Well said, and well balanced. Obamacare certainly raised health care costs, but at some benefit. Some people who were not insurable are now able to get health insurance, and while I'm not a fan of Obamacare that's a good thing even though it hit me personally quite hard.

Obama escalated Afghanistan, and I think he made the right decision. Iraq is going to turn out to be the better investment, but Afghanistan is the war we HAD to fight even if we cannot get a sane government there.

One thing we can and should do is to fund wars with separate taxes. If we're to deploy troops into combat zones (or even expensive to maintain foreign bases) and use up ordnance and equipment, that money needs to come from a surtax on everyone with income, NOT from re-purposing money earmarked for updating equipment. We waste shit tons of money in cancelling programs and for every program cancelled for technical factors there are probably a dozen cancelled because we had to spend that money invading Iraq or bombing Libya. If every American and resident alien born that expense as a surcharge then politicians wouldn't be nearly so eager to intervene with military force, Americans would pay more attention to the actual arguments for and against going to war, and our troops wouldn't be struggling with equipment older than they themselves.

I am trying to remember when my premiums have dropped while getting more benefits in the last 30 years but I am not having any luck.

 

[Moonbeam]

You guys are ridiculous.

They have brain defects that can be measured. Right now the NSA is gearing up machines that will identify and tag them at airport scanners for later disposal. A glorious President requires a purified electorate.

 

[Silver Prime]

Invest in solar power and wind power, states that get alot of light=solar states that get alot of hurracanes=Wind panels.