Cut spending then lower the debt ceiling!!!

[immto]

Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".


Vote in the poll.

 

[Truthmatters]

The crash of our economy doesnt bother you?

 

[waltky]

Plenty of pain to go around...

Debt ceiling: Perils of a 'grand bargain'
July 8, 2011: "There's going to be pain involved politically on all sides" with any debt deal, President Obama said after meeting Thursday with congressional leaders

With less than a month to go before debt ceiling D-Day, President Obama says he's gunning for the big deal -- the comprehensive, balanced plan that would take a big knife to the country's debt. That so-called "grand bargain" would be worth up to $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade. But getting that grand bargain will be very hard and not just because time is short. "This is a really heavy lift," said longtime political observer Norm Ornstein, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

So heavy, in fact, that Ornstein is not convinced lawmakers will get past their partisan furies before markets go nuts and jolt them into action if only to raise the debt ceiling. That's because the key issues under discussion are political rats' nests.

Tax increases: Republicans have said repeatedly that they're happy to put everything on the table except tax increases. Democrats, meanwhile, have said they can't agree to a spending-cuts only deal. But Republicans are not budging publicly, and especially not after Friday's disappointing jobs report. "It just does not make sense for Americans to suffer under higher taxes in an economy like this. And, as the Speaker [of the House John Boehner] said, there is no way that the House of Representatives will support a tax increase," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said.

Earlier this week, Cantor said if President Obama wants to talk about closing tax loopholes, he'd be happy to if the revenue produced from doing so is offset by tax cuts elsewhere. In other words, no new revenue could be used for debt reduction. So that doesn't move the two sides much closer. Other Republicans, like Sen. Orrin Hatch, only want to discuss closing loopholes in the context of fundamental tax reform. And tax reform, they believe, should not be part of any debt-reduction discussion.

Fiscal experts from the left and right have said repeatedly that any credible plan to reduce the country's debt load -- which is to say a plan the country can stick to -- will have to involve changes to spending and taxes. Their reason: Curing budget shortfalls with spending cuts alone would require draconian cutbacks in government programs. Many Republican lawmakers, however, have frequently and loudly demonized tax increases of any kind at any time. So it will be hard for them to vote for a grand bargain that includes increases in revenue.

Social Security:

See also:

Obama: Uncertainty over debt limit impacts hiring
Fri Jul 8,`11 WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says the uncertainty over whether lawmakers will raise the nation's debt limit is keeping businesses from hiring.

Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama says that once Congress reaches an agreement on the debt ceiling, businesses will have the confidence they need to add workers to their payrolls.

The report out Friday morning showed employers added the fewest jobs in nine months and the unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent. Congressional Republicans and GOP presidential hopefuls used the dismal report to slam Obama's economic agenda.

The reports come as Democrats and Republicans near an urgent deadline to increase the nation's borrowing power and prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its obligations.

Source

 

[Avatar4321]

The crash of our economy doesnt bother you?

It's already in the toilet.

An economic crash is inevitable unless we stop lying to ourselves. If we continue to live beyond our means, if we continue to lie and cheat, if we continue to make every excuse in the book to avoid work and support people who refuse to work, if we continue to blame everyone else except ourselves, then this economy will not recover and will crash further.

The pride of this nation is destroying it. If we want to prosper again we need to be humble. That humility is going to come one of two ways. We either choose to be humble or the economy crashes and we are forced to be humble.

Personally, Id like to choose to be humble.

 

[kyzr]

When interest rates rise the shit hits the fan...

Balance the budget now
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com
its not that tough. Toss in the Bush tax cuts, end two wars, cut defense, extend SS & put "Maximum Lifetime Benefit" on Medicare (like for private insurance) problem solved.

 

[immto]

It needs to happen at some point. Besides it's crashing already because they can't spend enought to keep it artificially inflated.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We must cut spending back to what the constitution says is within the federal governments power, period. Then it will balance all by its self...We would be able to lower taxes too!

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

When interest rates rise the shit hits the fan...

Balance the budget now

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

its not that tough. Toss in the Bush tax cuts, end two wars, cut defense, extend SS & put "Maximum Lifetime Benefit" on Medicare (like for private insurance) problem solved.

Considering the shit hole we will be starting from this time, I can’t agree more that the shit will really hit the fan when interest rates finally do go up. Big time.

Also, It took me around ten minutes of finagling with the different options to solve the Budget Puzzle using only the options I can live with. In my case, it came out to 25% taxes and 75% spending cuts.

However, I don’t see where the puzzle takes into account that our government will not just spend any increase in revenue on new (even bigger) stuff rather than use it to pay for the things we are already committed to buy. So, needless to say, I really don’t want to give them one more red fucking cent.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".

....And, direct all U.S. Citizens to start shittin' Gold-bullion!!!

Sounds like a (Teabagger) PLAN!!!

 

[editec]

Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".


Vote in the poll.

Bad idea.

Increase spending and increase the debt ceiling.

 

[yidnar]

wait to gold maxes out !!the sell off will be massive!! that is if you can sell it!!

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says we gotta stay strong `cause o' dat 200 million man army over there in China...

US Army fears major budget cuts
Wed, Oct 12, 2011 - LIVING IN FANTASY: The US Army secretary said those calling for major cuts to ground troops see a future that looks more like ‘Transformers’ than ‘Saving Private Ryan’

The US fiscal crisis risks ensnaring the military with drastic cuts and strategic changes that the US Army fears will leave it the main victim of the country’s debt crunch, analysts said. Having almost doubled since 2001, the Pentagon budget request to the US Congress will amount to US$553 billion next year, on top of US$118 billion allocated by the White House for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan eight months ago. However, a deficit reduction plan passed since those monies were allocated will strip about US$450 billion from military coffers during the next decade.

General Ray Odierno, the army’s chief of staff, said in Washington on Monday that the savings can be achieved, but not without serious implications. “Those are difficult, difficult cuts that have an impact on all the services, but particularly, in my mind, on the army,” he said. The sticking point is that budget planners and strategists at the Pentagon cannot yet determine what programs or weapons will be cut or how many personnel will be declared redundant. Further cost savings of up to US$600 billion could come as a result of a bipartisan commission in Congress tasked with finding additional ways to reduce federal spending by the end of next month.

William Lynn, who was deputy defense secretary, said when he left office last week that such large cuts would require “difficult choices” and a combination of drastic measures. “We can do this by bringing overall force levels down as we draw down in Afghanistan. We can reduce our presence in some parts of the world, while maintaining or expanding it in others,” he said. “And we can leverage technology to make a smaller force more effective and agile than the force we have today, but we will have to modify our strategy and prioritize our key missions.”

Having risen from 480,000 active soldiers in 2001 to 570,000 currently, US Army numbers will probably fall below 520,000 after withdrawals from Iraq at the end of this year and from Afghanistan in 2014, Odierno has said. Retired Lieutenant-General David Barno, now an analyst at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington, said the army could be the big loser, as it is easier to cut soldiers than end naval or air programs. “Cutting the number of ground forces may incur less risk than canceling naval and air modernization programs because the US military can build up additional ground forces more quickly than it can acquire additional naval and air forces once production lines have closed,” he said.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "You watch - dey gonna kick the can down the road - again...

Hopes dim for amendment to balance budget
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - Congress is ready to try again, but bipartisanship of ‘95 is lost

Fifteen years ago, the budget deficit stood at $107 billion, government debt totaled about $5 trillion and a balanced-budget constitutional amendment came within one senator’s vote of passing Congress, buoyed by the likes of then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden, who made an impassioned plea on the floor for its adoption. Fast-forward to 2011, when the deficit has topped $1 trillion for a third year in a row, the debt has tripled to hit $15 trillion, and Congress once again will vote on a balanced-budget amendment. But Mr. Biden, now the vice president, has gone silent and others who supported the amendment in the 1990s say they have soured on it.

“What I said in 1995, I absolutely agree with today. Unfortunately, I did not contemplate the irresponsibility that I have seen fiscally over the last eight years of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the House and the Senate, and this last few months, where Republicans took America to the brink of default and placed the confidence of the world in America’s fiscal judgment at question,” Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking House Democrat, told reporters this week, explaining his high-profile shift from supporter to opponent.

That has left what was once a largely bipartisan effort now in tatters. Liberal Democrats say the amendment goes too far, conservative Republicans say it doesn’t go far enough, and a tenuous political center still defends the middle ground. “I’m for it. I was for it before it was cool,” said one of those centrists, Rep. Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota Democrat. He said Congress has shown it cannot help itself when it comes to controlling spending. “Obviously, we do not have the discipline to do this, no matter who the hell’s in charge. We’ve got to get the balanced-budget amendment.”

On Wednesday, the Blue Dogs, the more conservative members of the House Democratic Caucus, endorsed the amendment, going against Mr. Hoyer and the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership ahead of the debate, scheduled to begin Thursday. A House vote is slated for Friday, and the Senate will vote later this year. The last time the balanced-budget amendment was seriously considered was in 1995 and 1996, just after Republicans won control of both chambers in the 1994 elections. The amendment garnered 300 votes in the House in 1995, which was well more than the two-thirds needed, but fell one vote shy in the Senate a year later.

MORE

 

[editec]

Why are we arguing over whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling? Cut spending then LOWER THE DEBT CEILING!!! I propose a new plan, "Cut and Lower".


Vote in the poll.

Exactly the wrong thing to do in THIS economy.

 

[immto]

Only if you believe in Keynesian economics, which has been proven to fail time and time again. I suppose you also believe that more spending and debt is good....

 

[francoHFW]

Let Obama cut his 4 trillion and raise taxes on the bloated millionnaires ferchrissake 4%!!!...gd pubs...

 

[Jebril]

Gold has only been going up in value since 9/11, imagine people who were smart and bought gold then when the demand for it hit the roof. How much money they made off that.

Gold will always have value, it's shiny and is a great commodity to base a currency off because of many properties it has. I could go into that, but basically what I'm saying is, I'd much rather have gold in my safe than a fiat currency.

Let Obama cut his 4 trillion and raise taxes on the bloated millionnaires ferchrissake 4%!!!...gd pubs...

Ok let Obama do that, he's not gonna cut spending though, he only has one more year to do so, and I doubt he will somehow balance the budget in a year after all this. Even if he came out with a surplus in his last year it wouldn't make up for his record deficits he posted for the last three years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where your income tax money really goes:

yes, there's an explanation, here...

The Federal Pie Chart

 

[Jebril]

I would look at this

The Grace Commission Report

“With two thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government."

The borrowed money has interest what the actual income tax goes to is to support these things yes, because without any type of ability to pay interest our debt would explode. But all of it goes solely to paying interest, we borrow most of the money we spend, I'm not sure of the quote but I believe it is for every 4 dollars only 1 is not borrowed.

 

[editec]

Only if you believe in Keynesian economics,

I do, depending on the state of the economy at the time.

I ALSO believe in imposing austerity and reducing debt in other economic cicumstances.

which has been proven to fail time and time again.

The above is called BEGGING THE ARGUMENT. You'd have to prove that that supposition, and I doubt you really can.

I suppose you also believe that more spending and debt is good....

Depends on the macroeconomic circumstance one is in.

Let's see if these metaphors help you to get it.

Immto, why do cars have accelerators AND brakes?

Why do the steering wheels go both clockwise and counterclockwise?