- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
i am thinking if your goal is stable markets, that is not the path you want.
unless you think a Constitutional Showdown where nobody even knows if the new debt is legal or would therefore be honored would be beneficial. but it's hard to imagine a situation where the President of the United States going on trial would stabilize markets dependent on him and congress striking compromises.
Congress has always raised the debt ceiling when it has needed to raise the debt ceiling, and always will (although sooner or later they might push the brinkmanship too far and wait until AFTER we're in default to raise the debt ceiling). Therefore it does nothing to keep the budgets realistic; Congress routinely passes budgets that it knows will exceed the debt ceiling.
Where do you suggest we find 43% of the budget to eliminate in the next four weeks?
The demands of democracy, unfortunately enough.
Ultimately I'd like to see federal welfare and the department of education eliminated, along with federal student loans. And we should start cutting the military budget as well. I wouldn't raise the debt ceiling until we put in motion plans to do at least that.
I agree that it's not ideal. But the alternative is the sudden elimination of 43% of federal spending with virtually zero advance notice
That would certainly do a lot more to destabilize markets than taking on some additional debt would (which would of course be honored once the debt ceiling is raised or eliminated). As for the President going on trial...well, when there are contradictory laws on the books, there isn't any choice but to violate one law or the other.
President Regan once said
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Ignore the debt limit and issue more?
Wow.. I have never seen a post full of such lies and misinformation.. Well.. Except the last time I read a post written b y a conservative..
So the rich create jobs?? Really?? Are you sure?? Because the last I checked the unemployment rate sky rocketed after we gave the rich tax cuts.. So where are these jobs you speak of?? Are we not at around 9% unemployment?? We have had the tax cuts for almost 10 years now.. Where are the jobs.. With an investment of 3.2 trillion over 10 years.. We should have a lower unemployment rate shouldn't we??
Federal revenue up 20%??? Really?? Link it or your full of it..
What mistakes has Obama made and what does he need to take responsibility for??
Welfare recipients won the lotto?? All live so far below the poverty level it is sickening.. Just like your ignorance.. How about an extra 320 billion a year?? Let the damn tax cuts for rich expire.. Those tax cuts are getting us nothing in return.. You would be better off giving that 320 billion to the poor.. At least they will dump it back into the economy instead of just letting sit in the bank with their other millions.. There is some demand for you.. Where are the jobs??
There is no consumer demand moron because much of the middle class has become poor or worse.. Where are the jobs?? You can't take mony from the poor and give it to the rich and expect the poor to have money to buy stuff.. Cut the damn tax cuts..
Now why don't you learn to accept responsibility for supporting a party that has done nothing to create jobs.. You want to know what is wrong with the economy?? Go look in the mirror..
My personal feeling is i'd like to see the debt cieling raised along with spending cuts and to fight the battle of spending without the notion of default looming over everyones heads.
However, sticking to the thread topic of the hypothetical that it is not raised, I'd rather significantly cut spending entire across the board...entitlements, military, infastructure services, welfare services, etc...so as to be able to pay out debt payment.
I am quite far from a conservative.
However, I don't think ignoring the debt limit is the answer. It's not a good idea to just keep borrowing money constantly to pay for things if we don't do anything to deal with what caused these financial downturns in the first place.
Personally, I would prefer if we simplified the tax code, got rid of loopholes, and got rid of subsidies. However, Republican politicians call those "tax increases" and so are opposed to them even though dealing with those issues will help raise federal revenue and will end federal spending on some things. Why do they do this?
Because Republicans would rather spend government money on their campaign donors with corporate interests rather than stay true to their own doctrine.
The Republican politicians in Congress still support welfare - corporate welfare. And corporate welfare has to stop just as much as individual welfare has to stop, at least as long as the corporate welfare benefits corporate executives more than it does low- and middle-class employees.
President Obama once said
There is a huge difference from being a U.S. Senator and POTUS. I am willing to bet that if any member of the GOP who is against raising the limit would think differently if the were sitting in the Oval Office.“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
There is a huge difference from being a U.S. Senator and POTUS. I am willing to bet that if any member of the GOP who is against raising the limit would think differently if the were sitting in the Oval Office.
Lets not forget that the debt limit was raised 7 times under President Bush - that's almost once per year in office. And much of the debt today is because of the lose if Income tax revenue due the downturn economy. Plus the tax rates haven't been lower in like 50 years.
I didn't say it was, I don't know how much it is, but tax revenue is really down. Also, Obama's first year I office, was with Bush's budget.Have we lost more than $4 trillion in tax revenue in 2.5 years?
I didn't say it was, I don't know how much it is, but tax revenue is really down. Also, Obama's first year I office, was with Bush's budget.
My personal feeling is i'd like to see the debt cieling raised along with spending cuts and to fight the battle of spending without the notion of default looming over everyones heads.
However, sticking to the thread topic of the hypothetical that it is not raised, I'd rather significantly cut spending entire across the board...entitlements, military, infastructure services, welfare services, etc...so as to be able to pay out debt payment.
We already made the mistake by bailing those guys out. Raising capital gains taxes will not justify that misstep. In fact, it would make the recovery even worse as it would decrease investment.
We made Wall Street (investment banks) whole. We gave them billions of dollars and they are still gleefully sitting 0n those billions. We should not be taxed for that. I don't doubt that the GOP would not support this but if we are going to raise taxes there are two areas we should do it.
1. Tax Capital Gains the same as regular income
2. Impose a tax on trades.
I see TImmy saying how we need to raise taxes but yet, I don't see him suggesting we raise taxes on those he gave billions to. (his buddies)
I think we should add a national sales tax and close the tax loopholes. There shouldn't be any loopholes at all when it comes to taxes.
A national sales tax would of course hit the poorest the hardest.
Why do you lean "undisclosed"? With those comments you coulld be Bertha Lewis>
1. Clinton's budget surplus was no where near enough to pay off the debt under his adm. There was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000.
The debt increased under Clinton from 3.6 trillion in 91 to 5.6 trillion in 2000.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?