How would this go over?

[jonny5]

The debt limit does not limit spending it limits debts already incurred which something no other country has because it is stupid idea. It doesn't stop congress form making a budget with multi-trillion dollar deficits or contorting spending. Like the video points out it it is terrifying for everyone watching so please get rid of it.

The debt limits debt, by definition. And therefore limits deficit spending. I don't care what other countries think.

 

[Carjosse]

The debt limits debt, by definition. And therefore limits deficit spending. I don't care what other countries think.

It does not it limits the ability to pay back debt not accumulate it. If you go over it you take everyone down with you which is terrifying for everyone watching. There are other countries in the world believe it or not. What would limit spending would be a deficit limit and that is not scary for everyone involved as you just cut something and you don't default because of it.

 

[jonny5]

It does not it limits the ability to pay back debt not accumulate it. If you go over it you take everyone down with you which is terrifying for everyone watching. There are other countries in the world believe it or not. What would limit spending would be a deficit limit and that is not scary for everyone involved as you just cut something and you don't default because of it.

By whats written into law, it limits the total amount of debt the govt may carry.

The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than $14,294,000,000,000, outstanding at one time, subject to changes periodically made in that amount as provided by law through the congressional budget process described in Rule XLIX [1] of the Rules of the House of Representatives or as provided by section 3101A or otherwise.

Again, I don't care what other people think. The govt should not be borrowing trillions of dollars.

 

[rjay]

By whats written into law, it limits the total amount of debt the govt may carry.



Again, I don't care what other people think. The govt should not be borrowing trillions of dollars.

Perhaps they should not. The time to fight this is when the spending is proposed, not when the bill comes due.

 

[jonny5]

Perhaps they should not. The time to fight this is when the spending is proposed, not when the bill comes due.

No bills have been approved, so I guess the time is now.

 

[rjay]

No bills have been approved, so I guess the time is now.

You lost me. The government is trying to pay for costs that have already been incurred. After this current mess is settled a new budget will be worked on. When that budget passes then the government will have to pay for the costs approved in that budget.

You do not approve the spending and then say `Did you make the expenditure? - good - now we will not pay those bills unless you do ... `

If you want to cut spending - do it when the budget is being debated and negotiated. You do not just ignore your financial commitments because you did not like how the money was spent and how much.

 

[Baralis]

I feel that we go about our budget backwards. I believe we should use tax revenue from a previous year to fund the current year. Example: 2009 we have 2.6T in tax revenue so for 2010 we can only use 90% of that. The rest going toward previous debt repayment. Where the debt ceiling would come in would be to grant extra funds to a particular year but only if needed for an emergency situation. Granted to get a year ahead we would have to borrow an entire years worth of funding but at the rate we are going we will be doing close to that in a short time anyway. In the long run we would be better off.

 

[Carjosse]

By whats written into law, it limits the total amount of debt the govt may carry.

IT is a horrible idea if you want to actually limit debt limit deficit not accumulated debt. Stop the debt form being accumulated in the first place.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I feel that we go about our budget backwards. I believe we should use tax revenue from a previous year to fund the current year. Example: 2009 we have 2.6T in tax revenue so for 2010 we can only use 90% of that. The rest going toward previous debt repayment. Where the debt ceiling would come in would be to grant extra funds to a particular year but only if needed for an emergency situation. Granted to get a year ahead we would have to borrow an entire years worth of funding but at the rate we are going we will be doing close to that in a short time anyway. In the long run we would be better off.

That's an interesting idea.

What taxes would you raise, and what spending would you cut, in order to accomplish your goal?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Tea Party representitives come to Washington with the attitude that of all the people in the U.S., the only ones who count are their own electorate.

I have to comment on this.

1: You first assume that they actually care about their electorate.
2: You also assume that even if they DO care about their electorate that they care about ALL of them...and no just the ones that paid thier way into the Seat they hold and/or the ones that voted them in office.
3: You also assume that this is somehow only a tea party thing. In point of fact this is the way of ALL politicians.

4: You do not seem to realize that even IF our politicians actually DO care what their electorate thinks that their very job is to represent THEIR districts. Not a district in another part of the same state. Not a district in some other state. Their only concern is suppose to be that of the people in their district. And as such acting like the only ones that count is their electorate is exactly how they ARE suppose to act. That is why they are called "Representitives". They "represent" a group of people and no one else. This was purposefully created by the Founders because they realized that different districts have different needs and wants from other districts. IE a "one size fits all" approach does NOT work.

I could probably continue but I have to get to work. Cya! :2wave:

 

[jonny5]

You lost me. The government is trying to pay for costs that have already been incurred. After this current mess is settled a new budget will be worked on. When that budget passes then the government will have to pay for the costs approved in that budget.

You do not approve the spending and then say `Did you make the expenditure? - good - now we will not pay those bills unless you do ... `

If you want to cut spending - do it when the budget is being debated and negotiated. You do not just ignore your financial commitments because you did not like how the money was spent and how much.

Right, we are currently debating spending for FY2014. No spending has yet been approved, which is why there is a shutdown.

 

[jonny5]

IT is a horrible idea if you want to actually limit debt limit deficit not accumulated debt. Stop the debt form being accumulated in the first place.

I agree, and when they don't, force them to by forbidding them to borrow. Cant borrow, cant spend more than you have. Problem solved.

 

[rjay]

I have to comment on this.

1: You first assume that they actually care about their electorate.
2: You also assume that even if they DO care about their electorate that they care about ALL of them...and no just the ones that paid thier way into the Seat they hold and/or the ones that voted them in office.
3: You also assume that this is somehow only a tea party thing. In point of fact this is the way of ALL politicians.

4: You do not seem to realize that even IF our politicians actually DO care what their electorate thinks that their very job is to represent THEIR districts. Not a district in another part of the same state. Not a district in some other state. Their only concern is suppose to be that of the people in their district. And as such acting like the only ones that count is their electorate is exactly how they ARE suppose to act. That is why they are called "Representitives". They "represent" a group of people and no one else. This was purposefully created by the Founders because they realized that different districts have different needs and wants from other districts. IE a "one size fits all" approach does NOT work.

I could probably continue but I have to get to work. Cya! :2wave:

I agree, Representitives are there to represent there own district. Sometimes to do that you comprimise with other Representitives who represent different and disparate districts. You do not fight for your Cotton farm subsidies in an all or nothing way. You accept less for Cotton Farmers in your district so that Wheat Farmers in another district can also get a subsidy. Although you are fighting for your District, you do so knowing that others are doing the same thing.

The point of this thread is being missed though. The point is the time for the Representatives to fight for their Districts is when budgets are being worked out and allotments are being decided. You do not wait till this has been done, money has been spent and then decide you won't pay because you didn't like the way the money was spent.

Republican's are supposed to be fiscally responsible. If only they were half as responsible in deed as they are in speak.

 

[Baralis]

That's an interesting idea.

What taxes would you raise, and what spending would you cut, in order to accomplish your goal?

It would be hard to get into specifics since I am sure that I am unaware of most individual items our budget goes to but some of the things that I think we should do are.

We are taxed more than a lot of people realize or more specifically they realize they are taxed a lot but not just how often. We are taxed on the same income over and over again. I would remove all federal taxes except one and I would make it a flat progressive tax with no deductions or credits. A person would know exactly how much they actually pay in taxes in any given year. What do I think this would accomplish? People would be more in tuned on just how much they are paying. It would be much harder for our government to add nickels and dimes to our tax burden without us realizing it. In our current system they make a small raise here and a small raise there and it adds up without always being so obvious. However it would be simple if a person were to know ok my tax rate is going from 28% to 29%, it would be upfront. People would probably be much less supportive of non essential spending when they watched their % raise with each new program.

I would change the way we add laws or change spending. Any legislature that increased spending would have to be fully self funding before being passed. What I mean by this is in our current system we sometimes pass new legislature that increases spending and later worry about funding it. An example of this would be military expenditures. Our government my add an increase in military spending without adding an additional tax or a cut somewhere else before granting the increase. Later down the road we end up borrowing to cover this increase.

I know this will be very unpopular but I would also remove most of the for profit private business relations that supply the government. An example of what I mean by this, take the amount of paper products our government uses in any given year. This is all purchased from private for profit businesses. I would instead have government run production of these paper products which supplies the government and no one else. It wouldn't be socialism as these products would never be sold or given to the public. This would also go a long way to remove the influence lobbyist have on our government. Remove the financial incentive and many would wither away.

I would consolidate overlapping departments such as HLS and the FBI, the army and the marines, the air force and the navy, ect.

Everyone who earns an income would pay at least a little. As it is now nearly 50% pay no federal income taxes because they are considered low wage earners. I would tax everyone with a wage even if it were only a couple percent.

I would also limit federal departments to only those enumerated powers in the constitution. That alone would probably cut federal spending in half. States could pick up the services they felt they needed but are not directly enumerated to the federal government. If a few states could not manage their own budgets it would have a less profound influence on our national security then having our federal government on the brink of financial ruin.

 

[Carjosse]

I agree, and when they don't, force them to by forbidding them to borrow. Cant borrow, cant spend more than you have. Problem solved.

Taking down the world economy because some Americans decided to fight is not a good thing. Stop thinking America is an island and realize that debt squabbles affect every other country in the world aswell especially my own.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It would be hard to get into specifics since I am sure that I am unaware of most individual items our budget goes to but some of the things that I think we should do are.

We are taxed more than a lot of people realize or more specifically they realize they are taxed a lot but not just how often. We are taxed on the same income over and over again. I would remove all federal taxes except one and I would make it a flat progressive tax with no deductions or credits. A person would know exactly how much they actually pay in taxes in any given year. What do I think this would accomplish? People would be more in tuned on just how much they are paying. It would be much harder for our government to add nickels and dimes to our tax burden without us realizing it. In our current system they make a small raise here and a small raise there and it adds up without always being so obvious. However it would be simple if a person were to know ok my tax rate is going from 28% to 29%, it would be upfront. People would probably be much less supportive of non essential spending when they watched their % raise with each new program.

I would change the way we add laws or change spending. Any legislature that increased spending would have to be fully self funding before being passed. What I mean by this is in our current system we sometimes pass new legislature that increases spending and later worry about funding it. An example of this would be military expenditures. Our government my add an increase in military spending without adding an additional tax or a cut somewhere else before granting the increase. Later down the road we end up borrowing to cover this increase.

I know this will be very unpopular but I would also remove most of the for profit private business relations that supply the government. An example of what I mean by this, take the amount of paper products our government uses in any given year. This is all purchased from private for profit businesses. I would instead have government run production of these paper products which supplies the government and no one else. It wouldn't be socialism as these products would never be sold or given to the public. This would also go a long way to remove the influence lobbyist have on our government. Remove the financial incentive and many would wither away.

I would consolidate overlapping departments such as HLS and the FBI, the army and the marines, the air force and the navy, ect.

Everyone who earns an income would pay at least a little. As it is now nearly 50% pay no federal income taxes because they are considered low wage earners. I would tax everyone with a wage even if it were only a couple percent.

I would also limit federal departments to only those enumerated powers in the constitution. That alone would probably cut federal spending in half. States could pick up the services they felt they needed but are not directly enumerated to the federal government. If a few states could not manage their own budgets it would have a less profound influence on our national security then having our federal government on the brink of financial ruin.

What you're suggesting would be unpopular would indeed be very unpopular among government contractors, and so would be very difficult to get past their lobbies. It would save some money, if that impossible task could be accomplished.

As for the low wage earners paying a couple of percent in income taxes in exchange for there being only one tax, that would help them quite a lot. They're currently paying about 10% or so in payroll taxes. That plan would put money into the pockets of the entry level workers and give the economy quite a boost. The government would, however, have to be cut back to the "enumerated powers" as you suggest, not including the "promote the general welfare" catch all.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I agree, Representitives are there to represent there own district. Sometimes to do that you comprimise with other Representitives who represent different and disparate districts. You do not fight for your Cotton farm subsidies in an all or nothing way. You accept less for Cotton Farmers in your district so that Wheat Farmers in another district can also get a subsidy. Although you are fighting for your District, you do so knowing that others are doing the same thing.

The point of this thread is being missed though. The point is the time for the Representatives to fight for their Districts is when budgets are being worked out and allotments are being decided. You do not wait till this has been done, money has been spent and then decide you won't pay because you didn't like the way the money was spent.

Republican's are supposed to be fiscally responsible. If only they were half as responsible in deed as they are in speak.

And sometimes you stand your ground. :shrug: Just depends on what is more important to the Reps and their base.

 

[jonny5]

Taking down the world economy because some Americans decided to fight is not a good thing. Stop thinking America is an island and realize that debt squabbles affect every other country in the world aswell especially my own.

The purpose of the federal govt is not to be concerned with the global economy, so its moot. Stop acting like you live here and have any say in what we do.

 

[rjay]

And sometimes you stand your ground. :shrug: Just depends on what is more important to the Reps and their base.

Back from work I see.

If every Rep does that (stands their ground) then they might as well all stay home, the same will be accomplished. They are there to represent the interests of their district but also to help govern the country. No one said there would be no hard choices.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Back from work I see.

If every Rep does that (stands their ground) then they might as well all stay home, the same will be accomplished. They are there to represent the interests of their district but also to help govern the country. No one said there would be no hard choices.

The reps that are willing to give for a future give needn't stay home.

 

[Carjosse]

The purpose of the federal govt is not to be concerned with the global economy, so its moot. Stop acting like you live here and have any say in what we do.

America is just a country in the world it does not stand by itself what affects America affects a lot of non-Americans around the world including my own country. America exists in a global world no matter how many Americans would like it not to be. If the U.S. default sit will have negative impacts on America and the rest of the world.

 

[jonny5]

America is just a country in the world it does not stand by itself what affects America affects a lot of non-Americans around the world including my own country. America exists in a global world no matter how many Americans would like it not to be. If the U.S. default sit will have negative impacts on America and the rest of the world.

Thats your problem.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The purpose of the federal govt is not to be concerned with the global economy, so its moot. Stop acting like you live here and have any say in what we do.

The US is part of the global economy, so this is just quite the silliest little thing to say.

 

[jonny5]

The US is part of the global economy, so this is just quite the silliest little thing to say.

The US economy and the US govt are two seperate things.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The US economy and the US govt are two seperate things.

Yes, but they do have a dramatic effect on each other.