Somebody had to do it. I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts. Probably a moot point, as it sounds like the Republicrats are just going to bend over and take it.
I'm all about NOT raising the debt ceiling. Bring on the credit rating drop and raise the artificially low for way too long interest rates.
If we run into our credit limit, the world does not end, we just have to manage the priorities in the budget for things that we must pay. So there is no dire need to pass it and there is no real deadline.
The same president who ignored his debt commission, who presented a budget to increase the debt over the next 10 years by 10B, and now he wants to talk about eating your peas? This is craziness.
Now, the house republicans should "take it to the American people" (as phrased by Obama) by passing a bill that reduces the expenditures without raising the debt limit. Just do it. If they get it passed it's now up to the senate and the President's veto pen to decide if those poor poor people get their social security checks by August 2nd. They're not doing that, so I doubt their sincerity as well.
That's how it's supposed to work anyway. The house passes something, hands it to the senate, etc... none of this closed door, make a deal crap.
They'd actually paid off the national debt in Jackson's day.
The Republicans are afraid of the little old ladies on SS who've just been told their checks will stop unless the ceiling is raised.
Not raising the debt limit forces a balanced budget.
z31maniac wrote: Not raising the debt limit forces a balanced budget.
At this point that would be bad... HOW, exactly?
Which of course means it will never happen.
Unless they completely overhaul our monetary system so that the dollar is not a debt-based currency, I do not see how they cannot raise the debt ceiling. All of this has been about the 2012 election and not what's best for the country. It is absurd kabuki theater. Both parties have as one of their main goals to preserve the status quo. We will get a new, higher debt ceiling, just like we always do. Somehow, the punditry will tell us how the pols saved us from falling off a cliff and now that we can borrow even more money and get even deeper in debt that we are somehow better off because of it. In reality, we will just have inched a little closer to the edge of the cliff.
Duke wrote:z31maniac wrote: Not raising the debt limit forces a balanced budget.At this point that would be bad... HOW, exactly? Which of course means it will never happen.
I'm not sure he was saying it was bad, but then again...
They don't need to raise the debt ceiling... Somewhere in washington is this document that outlines what our fed goverment should be doing.. if money is going for anything other than what it states on that document - it should be cut and used to pay off our debt.. If there is a true need for whatever departments get cut - private companies will take over it.. ahh perfect world
This wouldn't even be an issue if Obama hadn't wasted trillions on a stimulus that didn't work. But now that we are here, I hope the Republicans stick to their guns. So far I'm happy with what Boehner's been doing. This is what he promised, and it's what a lot of Republican representatives were elected to do, so I hope they don't back down.
In reply to GrantMLS:
Hey, maybe they can stop funding bridges to nowhere and every other earmark that is intended only to get politician's re-elected. Maybe then we could start paying off our debt.
GrantMLS said: Somewhere in washington is this document that outlines what our fed goverment should be doing..
If you're talking about the Constitution, I think that got left in the back seat of a government Suburban that turned in for Cash for Clunkers...
Republicans are to scared to lose votes.. country is 50/50 they gotta apeal to some on the other side so you will never see the cuts needed..
I know this would never happen, but I wish that these guys would realize that if they just do their job, then they wouldn't have to worry about getting re-elected. A president that starts his re-election campaign a year and a half from voting time, and a congressman who is playing CYA with policies regarding my personal financial future is a president or congressman who knows he's doing crummy job. I'm tired of their "we know what's better for you than you you do" attitude. If they truly loved the country, and were true public "servants" they would do the job the best they can knowing that they will get re-elected based on their legitimate performance, or get voted out and it would be for the betterment of the country either way.
It would be refreshing to see someone really stick to their guns on an important issue for once.
Both sides are hoping all hell breaks loose so they can blame the other come election day. Total B.S. and absolute politics as usual.
bravenrace wrote:Duke wrote:I'm not sure he was saying it was bad, but then again...z31maniac wrote: Not raising the debt limit forces a balanced budget.At this point that would be bad... HOW, exactly? Which of course means it will never happen.
I'm not sure if it's bad or good, just pointing out one of the ramifications.
Of course, I'd like to see a balanced budget NOW, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
z31maniac wrote: Of course, I'd like to see a balanced budget NOW, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
The sad part is that we need to do a hell of a lot better than balanced to make any headway.
Let's drop the big one, and see what happens.
tuna55 wrote:z31maniac wrote: Of course, I'd like to see a balanced budget NOW, but we all know that isn't going to happen.The sad part is that we need to do a hell of a lot better than balanced to make any headway.
Another problem is how much of the current budget is spent on interest payments on the debt... it's like credit-card buying gone hyper-haywire...
While it would be nice to just say, balance the budget NOW, folks don't seem to realize how much money we're talking about here. It's not that easy.
The big problem is none of the proposed cuts go far enough (Social Security, Medicare and Defense) and nobody is willing to raise taxes (on not just the "rich" but everybody), both of which are required if we have any hope of realistically reducing the debt and balancing the budget. Do I like the idea of paying more taxes? Hell no. But this is where we are. It has to be done.
Of course, everybody thinks somebody else should be the one who pays, so nothing will happen. Everyone likes to spout B.S. about personal responsibility, but all that goes out the window when they're asked to open the wallet. The US public are a bunch of spoiled brats.
Obviouse (to us) question: When you are having financial issues, do you spend more money or less?
Why can't this Government understand that they can't keep spending. Every month they spend 40% more than they take in. Would any of us do that? I understand that we can't just cut 40% of the budget all at once, but they can and must over a period of time. But I don't think they get it.
Maybe they haven't been paying attention to Greece.
Ian - I tend to agree, except that I think the spoiled brats are in DC. I am not willing to pay a cent more in taxes until I believe that they are spending my money responsibly. Of course I have no say in how much I pay in taxes, at least until the next election, but I think you get my meaning. They just throw money at things and expect that to fix everything, and it doesn't unless it's spent responsibly. We'd go a long way towards getting ourselves out of debt if they would just be repsonsible with our money. And personal responsibility? We could all use a little more of that...Some more than others.
I'll stoke the fire by giving both sides kindling:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304521304576446392720891616.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1
bravenrace wrote: This wouldn't even be an issue if Obama hadn't wasted trillions on a stimulus that didn't work. But now that we are here, I hope the Republicans stick to their guns. So far I'm happy with what Boehner's been doing. This is what he promised, and it's what a lot of Republican representatives were elected to do, so I hope they don't back down.
But that wouldn't be as much of an issue if we didn't have to pay trillions on an ill-advised, poorly run, war in / rebuilding of Iraq. This country's been poorly run for a long time. Reagan started this deficit spending, trickle down, B.S..
Boehner? During Bush Presidency, current GOP leaders (McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Kyl) voted 19 times to increase the debt limit by about $4 trillion without asking for any talk of reducing the deficit. I believe that their current political positions are more posturing than anything resembling actual responsibility.
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.
So since they were irresponsible in the past, that makes it okay now? I don't think so. Regardless of what happened in the past, and believe me, I'm not happy with that either, the fact remains that if Obama hadn't spent and largely wasted all that money, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling at this time. So I stand by my original statement.
Another thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that when all that money was spent all those years ago (right or wrong), we weren't in the dire situation we are right now.
This thread is bound for awesome town.
Please keep it civil, take it offline if you're compelled to rant or call names.
In reply to Tom Heath:
I hate when they destroy classic cars just to make a stupid movie. I take offense to you posting that horrid picture. 
bravenrace wrote: Obviouse (to us) question: When you are having financial issues, do you spend more money or less? Why can't this Government understand that they can't keep spending. Every month they spend 40% more than they take in. Would any of us do that? I understand that we can't just cut 40% of the budget all at once, but they can and must over a period of time. But I don't think they get it. Maybe they haven't been paying attention to Greece.
In this hypothetical scenario, do I have the ability to print money and influence interest rates? Because if I can print all the money I want, I am going to spend even more, probably get some more cars and a lot of expensive booze.
Things like this are why I don't try to apply lessons learned about personal finance to that of the economy of an entire country.
You'll need to log in to post.
