Debt ceiling

racerdave600 wrote: I don't really remember any real cuts in my lifetime, and I'm old as dirt.

There has been at least 1 cut in your lifetime, assuming you are of drinking age. We spent less in 1993 ($1.61T) than we did in 1992 ($1.62T). Going back a few more years, 1987 was $1.41T compared to $1.43T the year before. That covers all of the cuts in my lifetime.

My parents have seen 6 additional ones, 3 of which were ramping down Korean war spending, and 3 others interspersed.

The scary thing about spending under Bush II and Obama has been how fast it has accelerated. The 2011 Budget is more than double the 2001 Budget. Double, in a decade. We haven't seen such a rapid acceleration in government spending since WW2.

1950 - 1960 = 159%
1960 - 1970 = 157%
1970 - 1980 = 141%
1980 - 1990 = 135%
1990 - 2000 = 113%
2000 - 2010 = 199%

In reply to DILYSI Dave:

And I agree with that Dave. We need to cut spending. No question. But they need to do that- cut spending. Vote on bills that will cut spending. Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security is another issue- they need to make some changes, but no reason to cut benefits unless they cut what we pay. They need to stop taking that money to pay for other things. The need to cut military spending and get us out of the wars.

All those things need to happen. They're all complicated. None of them will happen by next Tuesday. I don't want them to try to throw together some kind of Medicare reform in a day or two.

Look, all this "they did nothing" cuts both ways. Medicare reform - Republicans have had a majority in the house for several months now. Not long ago they had both houses of Congress and the White House. Were are the Medicare reform plans? And when they did talk about "reform" to Medicaid, their "reform" was to completely eliminate the program. Voters made it very clear that wasn't what they wanted.

Dave, you're always pretty reasonable about this stuff, and to be fair, the Democrats haven't written these kinds of bills either. So I'll agree with you that they share responsiblilty.

But I can't agree that it's okay to now play roulette with our economy to make a political point. Even the Republicans say that their current plan doesn't change anything. And does it really make sense to waste time voting on bills that they know won't pass the Senate or be signed by the White House? Yeah, I get it. They need to make their point. But you guys keep saying "where is the Democrats plan?" Of course, there is a plan that Reid proposed and there was very nearly a plan that Obama and Boehner were putting together. No, they haven't wasted time voting on bills that are non-starters with Republicans. But where is the Republican bill that they don't already know is doomed? Wasting time taking votes so they can say "see. we had a plan!" is not getting us anywhere. It's also ignoring the majority of Americans who say they want to see some tax reform and protect entitlement programs.

Why can't anyone just propose a deal that raises the debt ceiling - cuts the spending they all agree on, but also sets some reasonable deadeline for dealing with the larger issues? Legislate a need to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Military spending. But leave it until later to hash out how that will be done. At this point, that seems more reasonable than passing something that just puts the debate off until closer to election day.

I'm laughing when I hear Republicans say "Obama wants to put this off until after the election!" Really? And it's a more reasonable position to say we'll fix this for six months then put the country though this again because we think it will benefit us in the next election? Republicans are the ones who proposed this weird, limited solution that plays with the electin calander, not Democrats. How is that good for America?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I'm laughing when I hear Republicans say "Obama wants to put this off until after the election!" Really? And it's a more reasonable position to say we'll fix this for six months then put the country though this again because we think it will benefit us in the next election? Republicans are the ones who proposed this weird, limited solution that plays with the electin calander, not Democrats. How is that good for America?

There are two sides to every story, Eddie; you have presented one. The other is that the President and his party do not want this debate to interfere with his re-election campaign.

That's not a surprise considering that out-of-control spending, the deficit and the economy are the key elements driving the current political discourse.

oldsaw wrote: The 2012 elections is a referundum for BOTH parties. The Dems want to see the debt ceiling/spending issue deferred, the Repubs want it as part of the national debate. Unless the economy shows a dramatic upward swing in the next week, the Dems know their party (and ideology) are on the weak side of the argument. Just my humble opinion....

I agree with you basically here. Call me cynical, but I am affraid the Republicans are looking at this and see an opportunity to prevent the economy from improving and make this an election issue in one move. Take politics out of this for a minute and there is no logical reason to fix this for six months.

oldsaw wrote: There are two sides to every story, Eddie; you have presented one. The other is that the President and his party do not want this debate to interfere with his re-election campaign.

Sure, there are two sides. But which side is proposing an arbitrary deadline intentionally designed to make the debate correspond with the election?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And does it really make sense to waste time voting on bills that they know won't pass the Senate or be signed by the White House?

It also doesn't make sense to say your going to veto anything that can get through the house. It takes two to tango. Obama is being every bit as rigid as the tea partyers.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Of course, there is a plan that Reid proposed and there was very nearly a plan that Obama and Boehner were putting together.

Plans that were unacceptable to a large portion of the House of Representatives.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Wasting time taking votes so they can say "see. we had a plan!" is not getting us anywhere.

Agreed.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Why can't anyone just propose a deal that raises the debt ceiling - cuts the spending they all agree on, but also sets some reasonable deadeline for dealing with the larger issues? Legislate a need to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Military spending. But leave it until later to hash out how that will be done.

"Later" is how we got to where we are. None of them are leaders enough to do anything unless they have to. Now, they have to.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I'm laughing when I hear Republicans say "Obama wants to put this off until after the election!" Really? And it's a more reasonable position to say we'll fix this for six months then put the country though this again because we think it will benefit us in the next election? Republicans are the ones who proposed this weird, limited solution that plays with the electin calander, not Democrats. How is that good for America?

They are both playing politics on this one IMO.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Take politics out of this for a minute and there is no logical reason to fix this for six months.

Sure there is. It's another deadline. If progress is only made in the face of deadlines, then that's a good thing. Also - in that 6 months we will add $3600 to the debt load of every person in this country.

DILYSI Dave wrote: "Later" is how we got to where we are. None of them are leaders enough to do anything unless they have to. Now, they have to.

I'm not explaining it well then.

What I'm proposing, and what would be an obvious solutin to any of them if they were looking for one, would be to pass legislation that raises the debt ceiling, but also legislates that they reform Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and cut Military spending by a given ammount and set a rigid deadline for doing so. Write it such that if those things are not done then the debt ceiling reverts to it's current level as a consiquence that requries them to take action.

It would be a vote that would force them to deal with the issue, but allow them to do so in a reasonable way and take the time to do it right.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Sure there is. It's another deadline. If progress is only made in the face of deadlines, then that's a good thing. Also - in that 6 months we will add $3600 to the debt load of every person in this country.

I'm with you there- we were typing at the same time. I say make a deadline to actually deal with the big issues. Not a deadline to get us right back to where we are today.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Write it such that if those things are *not* done then the debt ceiling reverts to it's current level as a consiquence that requries them to take action.

Never would happen. Ever. There is no weasel room that way, you know how nervous politicians get around legislation with no loopholes!

Edit- And it would be the same thing, the R's will go "they won't cut stuff" and the D's will go "they don't want to co-operate/tax stuff" when the new deadline comes up, putting you in the exact situation as they are now. Why would their desire to flirt with disaster change in 6 months?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: There are two sides to every story, Eddie; you have presented one. The other is that the President and his party do not want this debate to interfere with his re-election campaign.

Sure, there are two sides. But which side is proposing an arbitrary deadline intentionally designed to make the debate correspond with the election?

Which side is arbitrarily promoting a deadline to avoid the election?

Again, two sides............

HiTempguy wrote: Never would happen. Ever. There is no weasel room that way, you know how nervous politicians get around legislation with no loopholes!

Thing is, those programs are the problem, and they will not be solved by Tuesday. And simply proposing that we slash Medicare but make no cuts to Military spending or even consider allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire isn't a reasonable or balanced plan.

oldsaw wrote: Which side is arbitrarily promoting a deadline to avoid the election? Again, two sides............

I'm sorry, but no. You raise the debt ceiling, or you raise the debt ceiling and attach a politically motivated date to the deal. One is addressing the issue. One is adding politics.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Apologise all you want, but with the current state of the world/US economy, politics and the debt ceiling walk in lock-step.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: There are two sides to every story, Eddie; you have presented one. The other is that the President and his party do not want this debate to interfere with his re-election campaign.

Sure, there are two sides. But which side is proposing an arbitrary deadline intentionally designed to make the debate correspond with the election?

saying 6 months is hardly what i would call arbitrary. saying 4 months 12 days would be arbitrary. 6 months is an amount of time that would keep the bills paid and allow for a long-term solution to be hammered out. that is, if they would actually work on it during that time and not leave it until it turns into another hot-potato toss complete with poo-flinging from both sides.

Strizzo wrote: 6 months is an amount of time that would keep the bills paid and allow for a long-term solution to be hammered out. that is, if they would actually work on it during that time and not leave it until it turns into another hot-potato toss complete with poo-flinging from both sides.

Which is what will happen for as long as we continue to elect politicians instead of leaders.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Which side is arbitrarily promoting a deadline to avoid the election? Again, two sides............

I'm sorry, but no. You raise the debt ceiling, or you raise the debt ceiling and attach a politically motivated date to the deal. One is addressing the issue. One is adding politics.

Or you don't raise the debt ceiling at all, which I'm 100% in favor of. I know that politicians are going to do what politicians do, but the "Grandma's going to lose her SS check, and we won't be able to take care of the Veterans!" argument from the Democrats is really, truly, a new level of sleazy. It's as if they WANT to see people panic and the market crash.

DILYSI Dave wrote: The scary thing about spending under Bush II and Obama has been how fast it has accelerated. The 2011 Budget is more than double the 2001 Budget. Double, in a decade. We haven't seen such a rapid acceleration in government spending since WW2.

That my friend is purely a consequence of our debt-based monetary system. It has nothing to do with one party wanting big government and the other wanting to fight wars with all countries at all times and give the rich tax cuts. This is simple exponential math at play here. The doublings will come faster and faster as time goes on. The parties will do what it takes to increase the ceiling in order to keep Wall St. happy. Not average investors, or even rich hedge fund managers, but I mean the big Wall St. banks that own the Fed and have the US government working for their behalf.

The real problem here is that we have a monetary system in which our government gave away their right to produce money to the big banks. The banks get to make the money out of thin air and then our government borrows it with interest. This is silly and inherently unsustainable, like all other types of exponentially growing things in a real, constrained system. There is no reason that there is a national debt at all. The government should have been the one inventing dollars from nothing not the banks.

I agree that the current side show is all a pretense of political posturing for the 2012 election, but do not be fooled. The two sides in the debate are not Republicans and Democrats....the real two side here are the central bankers and the people of this country. Just that most of the people are too easily distracted by the kabuki theater and tend to blame either the R's or the D's and don't even realize that this is a bankster issue not a political issue at all. (Other than the fact that the Congress is the body that gave away their power of money creation to the banksters, but since that happened in 1913 I don't figure there's many of them left to blame at this point.)

I've always wondered why in the hell they did that to begin with.......

....I'm sure it was even easier to hide the kickbacks in those times.

There is no way we can cut our way out of this hole. Tax raises and budget cuts are the only way out of this and any plan that doesn't have this is stupid and useless. The economy is going to take a hurting because people are going to lose their jobs and raising taxes doesn't encourage spending.

93EXCivic wrote: There is no way we can cut our way out of this hole. Tax raises and budget cuts are the only way out of this and any plan that doesn't have this is stupid and useless. The economy is going to take a hurting because people are going to lose their jobs and raising taxes doesn't encourage spending.

The Penny Plan would have a balanced budget in 6 years with no tax increase.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: There is no way we can cut our way out of this hole. Tax raises and budget cuts are the only way out of this and any plan that doesn't have this is stupid and useless. The economy is going to take a hurting because people are going to lose their jobs and raising taxes doesn't encourage spending.

The Penny Plan would have a balanced budget in 6 years with no tax increase.

I believe that any plan that is just cutting is going to end up harming the economy more then help it. Also a balanced budget doesn't reduce the debt it keeps it the same.

1% a year is going to be catastrophic?

poopshovel wrote: Or you don't raise the debt ceiling at all, which I'm 100% in favor of. I know that politicians are going to do what politicians do, but the "Grandma's going to lose her SS check, and we won't be able to take care of the Veterans!" argument from the Democrats is really, truly, a new level of sleazy. It's as if they WANT to see people panic and the market crash.

We borrow $0.40 of every $1 we currently spend. Where do people get the idea that we can just stop borrowing the money and magically still play for everything?

Cutting spending AND raising taxes will not help. Our system requires exponential growth in our money supply to function. We either need a new monetary system or just go ahead and double the debt ceiling and let the government bloat till they can borrow even more money than they ever have before. The impossible math is what we are up against.