Raising the Debt Ceiling to get a balanced budget is like Whoring for Virginity.

[Google]

of course we can have a balanced budget. We've had them, in fact.

That doesn't mean that an amendment to the Constitution requiring one has any chance of passing, nor does it mean Congress would use it.


So when interest rates start to increase we'll know we've reached those limits.

So your suggestion is we should wait until then and then do something.

I didn't say that was my suggestion - I said that's how we'll know. That's how the market works.

By then it is already to late that is when everything starts to fall apart. If it is an amendment to the constitution, then congress and the president would have no choice.

First of all, an amendment to the constitution has zero chance of passing.
Second, if it is based on % of GDP it's simply unworkable - are you going to base next year's spending on a % of last year's GDP? What happens when revenues collapse during a recession?

Thirdly, a certain amount of deficit spending during a recession is wholly appropriate.

Finally, any amendment would have the same escape clause as Paygo - emergency spending - and every single bill would simply be deemed an emergency.

Do you just make things up? That is you point, just say well there's zero chance of happening like you are Miss Cleo--well I guess you both are full of shit.

Do you understand what a balanced budget is? It is only spending money in which has been collected in revenue. It isn't based on % of anything, it is based on revenue and this is really simple.

And because the economy is in a downturn and the dollar is in a free fall and gold is at record prices is not a reason to deflate to value of the dollar further and inflate the prices of goods and service even more--food prices have increased 10% since Obama took office.

You obviously haven't a damn clue.

 

[Google]

The debt ceiling isn't being raised to pay for future bills. It's being raised to pay the bills this congress has already agreed to.

and a balanced budget amendment is pure folly.

and anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly.

The debt limit is being raised because the US Federal Government spends on average $200 billion dollars a month more than it takes in revenue. Why is this so difficult for liberals to comprehend?

So we, on average, run a 2.4T deficit each year? Eh, no.

Where in the Constitution does it require that Congress not have a balanced budget or would prevent it? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a capping spending? Enlighten me!!!

Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress not to have a balanced budget. nothing in the Constitution requires the Congress to have an unbalanced budget.

Capping spending is fine - for a specific Congress. So if this Congress would like to make a rule that spending can only be 20% of GDP next year, it is free to do so - and pass a budget accordingly.

However, this Congress can not bind future Congresses to its spending limits, caps, or priorities. The next Congress has no legal responsibility to continue the practices of this one.

You are talking out of your ass.

Hey asshole you said "and anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly"

Let me repeat the question: WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION MAKES CAPPING SPENDING FOLLY AND NOT POSSIBLE? Come on Constitutional scholar tell us.

You can't because you are talking out of your ass.

 

[dilloduck]

First of all, an amendment to the constitution has zero chance of passing.
Second, if it is based on % of GDP it's simply unworkable - are you going to base next year's spending on a % of last year's GDP? What happens when revenues collapse during a recession?

Thirdly, a certain amount of deficit spending during a recession is wholly appropriate.

Finally, any amendment would have the same escape clause as Paygo - emergency spending - and every single bill would simply be deemed an emergency.

I'm sure there would be work around but I never metioned the amendment. Actaully I said raising the debt ceiling to pass an amendment would be plain dumb. I just said don't raise the debt ceiling to force a balanced budget.

People get rich just by lending America money and charging us interest and yes--we are stupid to continue to borrow money to buy snake oil.

 

[8537]

The debt limit is being raised because the US Federal Government spends on average $200 billion dollars a month more than it takes in revenue. Why is this so difficult for liberals to comprehend?

So we, on average, run a 2.4T deficit each year? Eh, no.

Where in the Constitution does it require that Congress not have a balanced budget or would prevent it? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a capping spending? Enlighten me!!!

Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress not to have a balanced budget. nothing in the Constitution requires the Congress to have an unbalanced budget.

Capping spending is fine - for a specific Congress. So if this Congress would like to make a rule that spending can only be 20% of GDP next year, it is free to do so - and pass a budget accordingly.

However, this Congress can not bind future Congresses to its spending limits, caps, or priorities. The next Congress has no legal responsibility to continue the practices of this one.

You are talking out of your ass.

Hey asshole

Such a sweetheart, you are!

you said "and anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly"

Let me repeat the question: WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION MAKES CAPPING SPENDING FOLLY AND NOT POSSIBLE? Come on Constitutional scholar tell us.

I already explained it. One congress can not bind the next one to its spending decision. A single-year spending cap is meaningless - the cap is simply the budget plus other appropriations approved by congress.

 

[Google]

of course we can have a balanced budget. We've had them, in fact.

That doesn't mean that an amendment to the Constitution requiring one has any chance of passing, nor does it mean Congress would use it.


So when interest rates start to increase we'll know we've reached those limits.

So your suggestion is we should wait until then and then do something.

I didn't say that was my suggestion - I said that's how we'll know. That's how the market works.

By then it is already to late that is when everything starts to fall apart. If it is an amendment to the constitution, then congress and the president would have no choice.

First of all, an amendment to the constitution has zero chance of passing.
Second, if it is based on % of GDP it's simply unworkable - are you going to base next year's spending on a % of last year's GDP? What happens when revenues collapse during a recession?

Thirdly, a certain amount of deficit spending during a recession is wholly appropriate.

Finally, any amendment would have the same escape clause as Paygo - emergency spending - and every single bill would simply be deemed an emergency.

Many states celebrate surpluses as Congress struggles with debt - Washington Times

Moron, want to see what happens when governments do have balanced budget requirements, like Indiana?

"As Washington stares at rising national debt and projected deficits for years to come, many states are faced with the opposite problem: whether to spend their budget surpluses and, if so, on what.

At least a dozen states ended fiscal 2011 with surpluses. Indiana reported one of the largest, with an extra $1.2 billion in its accounts. Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, on Friday authorized bonus payments of up to $1,000 for state employees."

Tell everyone how it isn't possible!! YOU ARE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS

Now here's the kicker: how many of these states that have these budget surpluses are controlled by Republicans? I can't do all the work for you. Go Google it and let me know.

 

[Google]

So we, on average, run a 2.4T deficit each year? Eh, no.


Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress not to have a balanced budget. nothing in the Constitution requires the Congress to have an unbalanced budget.

Capping spending is fine - for a specific Congress. So if this Congress would like to make a rule that spending can only be 20% of GDP next year, it is free to do so - and pass a budget accordingly.

However, this Congress can not bind future Congresses to its spending limits, caps, or priorities. The next Congress has no legal responsibility to continue the practices of this one.

You are talking out of your ass.

Such a sweetheart, you are!

you said "and anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly"

Let me repeat the question: WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION MAKES CAPPING SPENDING FOLLY AND NOT POSSIBLE? Come on Constitutional scholar tell us.

I already explained it. One congress can not bind the next one to its spending decision. A single-year spending cap is meaningless - the cap is simply the budget plus other appropriations approved by congress.

Oh I'm sugary sweet, but if your feelings are hurt forgive me I'll tone it down.

One Congress can change the rules and future Congresses do have to abide by them. The rules can be changed, but that isn't the point. A Constitutional Amendment would force all future Congresses to abide by the stipulations of that amendment.

But I forgot you looked in your crystal ball and already said that isn't going to ever happen, because amending the Constitution never happens.

Also you still haven't told everyone where in the Constitution makes balancing the budget and capping spending folly. I want to know where in the Constitution you are getting this, I suspect you are just making things up.

 

[8537]

So your suggestion is we should wait until then and then do something.

I didn't say that was my suggestion - I said that's how we'll know. That's how the market works.

By then it is already to late that is when everything starts to fall apart. If it is an amendment to the constitution, then congress and the president would have no choice.

First of all, an amendment to the constitution has zero chance of passing.
Second, if it is based on % of GDP it's simply unworkable - are you going to base next year's spending on a % of last year's GDP? What happens when revenues collapse during a recession?

Thirdly, a certain amount of deficit spending during a recession is wholly appropriate.

Finally, any amendment would have the same escape clause as Paygo - emergency spending - and every single bill would simply be deemed an emergency.

Many states celebrate surpluses as Congress struggles with debt - Washington Times

Moron,

Can you try to get through at least one post without sounding like a jackass? Thanks.

want to see what happens when governments do have balanced budget requirements, like Indiana?

"As Washington stares at rising national debt and projected deficits for years to come, many states are faced with the opposite problem: whether to spend their budget surpluses and, if so, on what.

hmm...where'd Indian get all that money? Oh, right - stimulus money from the Feds.

you were saying?

all but one or two states have balanced budget amendments. I live in the most liberal state in the nation. We have no balanced budget amendment. But we run a balanced budget every year.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The debt ceiling isn't being raised to pay for future bills. It's being raised to pay the bills this congress has already agreed to.

and a balanced budget amendment is pure folly.

and anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly.

The debt limit is being raised because the US Federal Government spends on average $200 billion dollars a month more than it takes in revenue. Why is this so difficult for liberals to comprehend?

Where in the Constitution does it require that Congress not have a balanced budget or would prevent it? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a capping spending? Enlighten me!!!

You are talking out of your ass.

OK, I have read all your posts on this page. You are not a responsible conservative when you talk stupidly like this. So, let's try this, dimwit.

What is it exactly that you want? A roll back of 2008, let me tell you now, is not negotiable.

 

[Google]

I didn't say that was my suggestion - I said that's how we'll know. That's how the market works.



First of all, an amendment to the constitution has zero chance of passing.
Second, if it is based on % of GDP it's simply unworkable - are you going to base next year's spending on a % of last year's GDP? What happens when revenues collapse during a recession?

Thirdly, a certain amount of deficit spending during a recession is wholly appropriate.

Finally, any amendment would have the same escape clause as Paygo - emergency spending - and every single bill would simply be deemed an emergency.

Many states celebrate surpluses as Congress struggles with debt - Washington Times



Can you try to get through at least one post without sounding like a jackass? Thanks.

want to see what happens when governments do have balanced budget requirements, like Indiana?

"As Washington stares at rising national debt and projected deficits for years to come, many states are faced with the opposite problem: whether to spend their budget surpluses and, if so, on what.

hmm...where'd Indian get all that money? Oh, right - stimulus money from the Feds.

you were saying?

all but one or two states have balanced budget amendments. I live in the most liberal state in the nation. We have no balanced budget amendment. But we run a balanced budget every year.

Prove it. Please, please, please show me proof that the budget surplus Indiana has is not because of tax revenue but because of the Stimulus Act. If you can't then you are once again making things up.

What state do you live in that has a balanced budget every year? Do tell.

 

[8537]

Such a sweetheart, you are!



I already explained it. One congress can not bind the next one to its spending decision. A single-year spending cap is meaningless - the cap is simply the budget plus other appropriations approved by congress.

Oh I'm sugary sweet, but if your feelings are hurt forgive me I'll tone it down.

my feelings aren't hurt - you just come off as an asshole when you start every post like that.

One Congress can change the rules and future Congresses do have to abide by them. The rules can be changed, but that isn't the point. A Constitutional Amendment would force all future Congresses to abide by the stipulations of that amendment.

But any Constitutional amendment would include an emergency clause similar to paygo - and congress would decide what defines an emergency.

Also you still haven't told everyone where in the Constitution makes balancing the budget and capping spending folly. I want to know where in the Constitution you are getting this, I suspect you are just making things up.

I never said anything in the Constitution makes a balanced budget amendment pure folly. I said it has no chance of passing, which is true.

And as regards the spending cap, please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote. Here, I'll repeat: "anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly." Read, then respond.

 

[Google]

The debt ceiling isn't being raised to pay for future bills. It's being raised to pay the bills this congress has already agreed to.

and a balanced budget amendment is pure folly.

and anyone who has a passing familiarity with the Constitution and the rules of congress would know that a spending cap is also pure folly.

The debt limit is being raised because the US Federal Government spends on average $200 billion dollars a month more than it takes in revenue. Why is this so difficult for liberals to comprehend?

Where in the Constitution does it require that Congress not have a balanced budget or would prevent it? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a capping spending? Enlighten me!!!

You are talking out of your ass.

OK, I have read all your posts on this page. You are not a responsible conservative when you talk stupidly like this. So, let's try this, dimwit.

What is it exactly that you want? A roll back of 2008, let me tell you now, is not negotiable.

Oh snap, you put me in my place by making no real point at all.

What do I want?

I want lots of things, too many to list here, but if you are talking about government spending I want an end to $200 billion/month deficit spending. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news lately but it is very negotiable

 

[8537]

The debt limit is being raised because the US Federal Government spends on average $200 billion dollars a month more than it takes in revenue. Why is this so difficult for liberals to comprehend?

Where in the Constitution does it require that Congress not have a balanced budget or would prevent it? Where in the Constitution does it prohibit a capping spending? Enlighten me!!!

You are talking out of your ass.

OK, I have read all your posts on this page. You are not a responsible conservative when you talk stupidly like this. So, let's try this, dimwit.

What is it exactly that you want? A roll back of 2008, let me tell you now, is not negotiable.

Oh snap, you put me in my place by making no real point at all.

What do I want?

I want lots of things, too many to list here, but if you are talking about government spending I want an end to $200 billion/month deficit spending. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news lately but it is very negotiable

There is not 200B per month in deficit spending. That's 2.4T per year when the largest deficit has been about 1.7. Quit making shit up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your response made my point clearly.

I agree that spending has to limited,massive cuts need to be made across the board, entitlement programs have to re-fitted, etc.

Good. That is a start. We will beat Obama next year with Mitt. Nothing the far, far right has offered as candidates will do that.

I am glad we found some common ground.

 

[Google]

I didn't say that was my suggestion - I said that's how we'll know. That's how the market works.



First of all, an amendment to the constitution has zero chance of passing.
Second, if it is based on % of GDP it's simply unworkable - are you going to base next year's spending on a % of last year's GDP? What happens when revenues collapse during a recession?

Thirdly, a certain amount of deficit spending during a recession is wholly appropriate.

Finally, any amendment would have the same escape clause as Paygo - emergency spending - and every single bill would simply be deemed an emergency.

Many states celebrate surpluses as Congress struggles with debt - Washington Times



Can you try to get through at least one post without sounding like a jackass? Thanks.

want to see what happens when governments do have balanced budget requirements, like Indiana?

"As Washington stares at rising national debt and projected deficits for years to come, many states are faced with the opposite problem: whether to spend their budget surpluses and, if so, on what.

hmm...where'd Indian get all that money? Oh, right - stimulus money from the Feds.

you were saying?

all but one or two states have balanced budget amendments. I live in the most liberal state in the nation. We have no balanced budget amendment. But we run a balanced budget every year.

Oh yeah just ignore the question. You can't show me any evidence that the budget surplus Indiana currently has is because of Stimulus money because you made that up.

Also what most liberal state has a balanced budget every year?

 

[Google]

Your response made my point clearly.

I agree that spending has to limited,massive cuts need to be made across the board, entitlement programs have to re-fitted, etc.

Good. That is a start. We will beat Obama next year with Mitt. Nothing the far, far right has offered as candidates will do that.

I am glad we found some common ground.

What F-ing point?

You said you read all my posts on the previous page, perhaps you didn't read carefully enough because I said the same damn thing before.

And good luck with Mitt. You have no idea why the Republicans retook the House last election or the ramifications of a energized Tea Party electorate means. It means Mitt has no chance in this new Republican Party.

 

[8537]

Oh yeah just ignore the question. You can't show me any evidence that the budget surplus Indiana currently has is because of Stimulus money because you made that up.

Indiana's share of the stimulus money was $1,742 per person in the state.

Also what most liberal state has a balanced budget every year?

Vermont, one of only two states that don't have a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.

 

[Google]

OK, I have read all your posts on this page. You are not a responsible conservative when you talk stupidly like this. So, let's try this, dimwit.

What is it exactly that you want? A roll back of 2008, let me tell you now, is not negotiable.

Oh snap, you put me in my place by making no real point at all.

What do I want?

I want lots of things, too many to list here, but if you are talking about government spending I want an end to $200 billion/month deficit spending. Perhaps you haven't been watching the news lately but it is very negotiable

There is not 200B per month in deficit spending. That's 2.4T per year when the largest deficit has been about 1.7. Quit making shit up.

RealClearPolitics - U.S. Sets New Record for Monthly Deficit Spending

Record deficit spending in one month was reached back in March and has continued since at over $200 billion a month there genius. I can post more than the above, but I want you to show me any evidence that when I said deficit spending is at $200 billion/month is incorrect. You are so uninformed.

You have definitively demonstrated that you haven't a clue. It is pointless to even talk to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your response made my point clearly.

I agree that spending has to limited,massive cuts need to be made across the board, entitlement programs have to re-fitted, etc.

Good. That is a start. We will beat Obama next year with Mitt. Nothing the far, far right has offered as candidates will do that.

I am glad we found some common ground.

What F-ing point?

You said you read all my posts on the previous page, perhaps you didn't read carefully enough because I said the same damn thing before.

And good luck with Mitt. You have no idea why the Republicans retook the House last election or the ramifications of a energized Tea Party electorate means. It means Mitt has no chance in this new Republican Party.

You are not the GOP, you TP extremists. You have some votes that we will take, but, no, the TP will not nominate a candidate for which the heart of the party will not approve. End of that story.

Mitt will be nominated, he will win. If he is not, BHO will be reelected. You folks will not dictate, because you do not enough votes.

 

[Google]

Your response made my point clearly.

I agree that spending has to limited,massive cuts need to be made across the board, entitlement programs have to re-fitted, etc.

Good. That is a start. We will beat Obama next year with Mitt. Nothing the far, far right has offered as candidates will do that.

I am glad we found some common ground.

What F-ing point?

You said you read all my posts on the previous page, perhaps you didn't read carefully enough because I said the same damn thing before.

And good luck with Mitt. You have no idea why the Republicans retook the House last election or the ramifications of a energized Tea Party electorate means. It means Mitt has no chance in this new Republican Party.

You are not the GOP, you TP extremists. You have some votes that we will take, but, no, the TP will not nominate a candidate for which the heart of the party will not approve. End of that story.

Mitt will be nominated, he will win. If he is not, BHO will be reelected. You folks will not dictate, because you do not enough votes.

LOL Yes call me an extremist. The GOP, YOUR GOP was voted out back in 2008 for raising government spending and the debt limit. Two years later a wave of fiscal conservatives changed the entire face of the Republican Party.

I only have recent history on my side, you can see the future. Can't argue with that.
Genius

 

[beeton3]

How come Americans in general can only see as far as they can reach their arm? the debt ceiling! you all do not even realize what the debt is for. not understanding that leaves all other points as mute without purpose. The debt is to fund services that the industry used to provide for. they no longer provide the funding to pay for these services because they have been dismantled and brought to China.
the debt is money used to allow for you to ignorantly go on with your lives not noticing the results caused by removing industry.
here is the short of it: when they finish removing all the industry they can then why would they continue lending monies that your nation cannot pay back? A:china won't and all of your services will shut down one by one.
to spell that out for you since you won't get that simple explanation that means your hospitals, schools, police, civic work departments, all government will cease operations. thus making the usa a third world country.
sound far fetched? it is the reason why they dismantled the industry and incurred the debt in the first place so "sounding far fetched" just shows your ignorance on seeing what is right in front of you