Should We Jack The Debt Limit ?

[Dick Tuck]

Prove it with FACTS.

B. ...due to nutball deregulation of the economy by BOTH parties.

Only a simple minded Lemming actually believes it was De-regulation that caused the Bubble to burst. It was decades of Bad Policy by Government, and bad practice by the Private sector that caused the problem.

Anyone who tries to blame it on one thing, or one party, is a fucking idiot.

You are one stupid fuck if you have no clue what deregulation had to do with the near total collapse of the economy. Are you really this dumb?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuclear arms race. Never in all that time did we have a jump in Defense spending like we saw post 9/11.

There simply is no excuse to keep raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow from China to continue that level of Defense spending.

Anyone who defends this bullshit is a profligate, irresponsible, fiscal liberal.

And yet, in other threads, the rw's are saying that Obama wants to "gut" the military. Its the right that wants to spend more on military that we do not need.

If there is one thing we really need, its to GUT the military.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

B. ...due to nutball deregulation of the economy by BOTH parties.

Only a simple minded Lemming actually believes it was De-regulation that caused the Bubble to burst. It was decades of Bad Policy by Government, and bad practice by the Private sector that caused the problem.

Anyone who tries to blame it on one thing, or one party, is a fucking idiot.

You are one stupid fuck if you have no clue what deregulation had to do with the near total collapse of the economy. Are you really this dumb?

Was watching coverage of the Russian airliner that just crashed.Someone made the point that its regulation that keeps our airliners in the air.

Just like tort reform, this is just another rw dog whistle non-issue. Big business makes ore money if they don't have to be safe or responsible and rw's like that ... right up until its their own family member who is hurt or killed.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If Obama, and Reid remains obstinate on spending cuts, should the House block a debt cieling
raise - we are on a unsustainable course ?

Cluephone. If we don't pay our debts, we're in default, and in violation of the Constitution.

Eleven pages and the rw's STILL don't know what the debt ceiling is or why it MUST be raised.

 

[Seawytch]

Morons! The full faith and credit of the United States is not a bargaining chip.

The debt ceiling is for money already spent. Not raising the debt ceiling is like refusing to pay your bills. Stupid!!!

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Prove it with FACTS.

B. ...due to nutball deregulation of the economy by BOTH parties.

Only a simple minded Lemming actually believes it was De-regulation that caused the Bubble to burst. It was decades of Bad Policy by Government, and bad practice by the Private sector that caused the problem.

Anyone who tries to blame it on one thing, or one party, is a fucking idiot.

---------------------------------------------------------

Tut, tut, my man. Do you see the word "both" in bold above? That would seem to eliminate me from your personal idiot class on one basis. Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you aware that both regulation and de-regulation are... well... uh, policy?

There is no question among rational people that Clinton's "modernization" acts circa 1999/2000 are directly responsible for the bubble because together those acts made possible the bubble of unsecured derivatives that followed. Similarly rational people can agree that most bubbles burst. FYI there were more than US$560TRILLION nominal value of derivatives in existence the day the music died. Nutball Hero, Junebug Bush wrote a blank check to AIG et al to cover about three months worth of obligations to preserve wealth earned through avarice and deception. Nice going, Junior. Mom and Dad must be real proud of you for making your ancestor Franklin Pierce look like a genius by comparison.

But I digress...

Doing relevant political calculus, we discover that no party in particular is responsible for de-regulatory policies that broke the bank. Clinton did more for ReagaNUTics than the old simpleton himself, but he did it with plenty of nutball help. The underlying cause of today's ongoing economic calamity is - as a matter of fact - that BOTH major parties function very much like wholly owned subsidiaries of the US financial services sector.

To bring it all home, how else would someone, say, an individual with your understanding of events, explain the other mental giant of our era, Junebug Bush, paying AIG et al for ripping the guts out of the economy?

 

[boedicca]

If Obama, and Reid remains obstinate on spending cuts, should the House block a debt cieling
raise - we are on a unsustainable course ?

Cluephone. If we don't pay our debts, we're in default, and in violation of the Constitution.

It's a fallacy that we need to raise the debt ceiling to service existing debt. Total interest expense for next year is estimated at less than $350B. This can easily be paid with tax receipts. The only purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to take on more debt to fund additional spending.

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[Duped]

If Obama, and Reid remains obstinate on spending cuts, should the House block a debt cieling
raise - we are on a unsustainable course ?

Cluephone. If we don't pay our debts, we're in default, and in violation of the Constitution.

Still no direct answer - the Constitution won't mean shit if we go bust.

 

[Dragonlady]

It's a fallacy that we need to raise the debt ceiling to service existing debt. Total interest expense for next year is estimated at less than $350B. This can easily be paid with tax receipts. The only purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to take on more debt to fund additional spending.

Historical Tables | The White House

You need to raise the debt ceiling in order to meet the government payroll and it's obligations to banks and other creditors.

You keep making comments on economic matters that reveals no knowledge whatsoever on business or economic policies. Read a book on basic economics and quite spouting nonsense. You only make yourself look ill-informed and naive.

 

[boedicca]

It's a fallacy that we need to raise the debt ceiling to service existing debt. Total interest expense for next year is estimated at less than $350B. This can easily be paid with tax receipts. The only purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to take on more debt to fund additional spending.

Historical Tables | The White House

You need to raise the debt ceiling in order to meet the government payroll and it's obligations to banks and other creditors.

You keep making comments on economic matters that reveals no knowledge whatsoever on business or economic policies. Read a book on basic economics and quite spouting nonsense. You only make yourself look ill-informed and naive.

You're an ignorant hack. In 2007, the government spent $2.7T. A permanent increase of $900B per year is not justified given the size of the economy. The obvious solution is to roll back spending, not to fund it with massive increases in our already unsustainable debt levels. The politicians don't want to cut spending, so they engage in this debt default fallacy in order to frighten a very gullible public.

Only morally corrupt people think that continuing our present spending binge and shoving the debt onto future generations is a proper course of action.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama offered higher cuts at the beginning of this mess and Boehner said no.

And one more time - that's not what the debt ceiling is.

Are you just talking out your Ass? Obama has offered no substantial cuts to anything other than Defense. I am sorry but making reductions in planned increases in future spending is not spending cuts. Even if Obama and the morons that worship him claim they are.

I thought Obamacare cut Medicare by 700 billion?

Has that talking point expired?

 

[Nova78]

America’s gross federal debt will reach $20.3 trillion at the end of 2016 under Obama’s budget path, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The national debt is currently $16.1 trillion.

“Nobody who looks at the numbers thinks it’s realistic for us to actually reduce our deficit in a serious way without also having some [added] revenue,” Obama said during a recent interview with the Des Moines Register.

 

[boedicca]

America’s gross federal debt will reach $20.3 trillion at the end of 2016 under Obama’s budget path, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The national debt is currently $16.1 trillion.

“Nobody who looks at the numbers thinks it’s realistic for us to actually reduce our deficit in a serious way without also having some [added] revenue,” Obama said during a recent interview with the Des Moines Register.

This debt level is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities are over 4X this amount.

 

[Dragonlady]

You're an ignorant hack. In 2007, the government spent $2.7T. A permanent increase of $900B per year is not justified given the size of the economy. The obvious solution is to roll back spending, not to fund it with massive increases in our already unsustainable debt levels. The politicians don't want to cut spending, so they engage in this debt default fallacy in order to frighten a very gullible public.

Only morally corrupt people think that continuing our present spending binge and shoving the debt onto future generations is a proper course of action.

No one has suggested that this level of spending is wise or sustainable. What IS being argued as to what to cut and when. Any move to cut entitlement RIGHT NOW, will kill the recovery. The first step is to raise taxes, and continue with stimulus spending. Government is already reducing spending and cutting payroll. Any further cuts will increase the rate of unemployment.

Exterme cuts in defense spending will thrown defence contractors out of work. Better to let the war spending expire FOR THE TIME BEING - LIKE THIS YEAR.

Cutting the deficit begins AFTER employment stabilizes. Spending is needed, both government and consumer spending, to get the economy moving.

 

[Duped]

My Last Effort : should we ever utilize the ability to refuse to pay our obligations to avoid financial collapse?

 

[boedicca]

You're an ignorant hack. In 2007, the government spent $2.7T. A permanent increase of $900B per year is not justified given the size of the economy. The obvious solution is to roll back spending, not to fund it with massive increases in our already unsustainable debt levels. The politicians don't want to cut spending, so they engage in this debt default fallacy in order to frighten a very gullible public.

Only morally corrupt people think that continuing our present spending binge and shoving the debt onto future generations is a proper course of action.

No one has suggested that this level of spending is wise or sustainable. What IS being argued as to what to cut and when. Any move to cut entitlement RIGHT NOW, will kill the recovery. The first step is to raise taxes, and continue with stimulus spending. Government is already reducing spending and cutting payroll. Any further cuts will increase the rate of unemployment.

Exterme cuts in defense spending will thrown defence contractors out of work. Better to let the war spending expire FOR THE TIME BEING - LIKE THIS YEAR.

Cutting the deficit begins AFTER employment stabilizes. Spending is needed, both government and consumer spending, to get the economy moving.

What you are suggesting is the old trick of raising taxes now for promised cuts later.

Federal spending has increased over 25% in five years - and we can't afford it. Period. Roll it back to where we were in 2007. Considering how average individual incomes have declined since that period, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to "share the sacrifice" and tighten its belt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're an ignorant hack. In 2007, the government spent $2.7T. A permanent increase of $900B per year is not justified given the size of the economy. The obvious solution is to roll back spending, not to fund it with massive increases in our already unsustainable debt levels. The politicians don't want to cut spending, so they engage in this debt default fallacy in order to frighten a very gullible public.

Only morally corrupt people think that continuing our present spending binge and shoving the debt onto future generations is a proper course of action.

No one has suggested that this level of spending is wise or sustainable. What IS being argued as to what to cut and when. Any move to cut entitlement RIGHT NOW, will kill the recovery. The first step is to raise taxes, and continue with stimulus spending. Government is already reducing spending and cutting payroll. Any further cuts will increase the rate of unemployment.

Exterme cuts in defense spending will thrown defence contractors out of work. Better to let the war spending expire FOR THE TIME BEING - LIKE THIS YEAR.

Cutting the deficit begins AFTER employment stabilizes. Spending is needed, both government and consumer spending, to get the economy moving.

Exactly.

Jobs and continued economic recovery should be our priority.

Once more Americans are on payrolls – and paying payroll taxes – deficit reduction will become more feasible.

This obsession with ‘the deficit’ is driven by rightist dogma, not facts.

 

[Duped]

 

[PaulS1950]

Actually we don't pay anything but interest on the loan. Not raising the debt ceiling does nothing to our credit (other than maybe improving our rating). The debt to income ratio for the USA economy is between 1:3 and 1:2 at the moment. That is like a family with a $50,000 annual income carrying credit card debt of $25,000 and paying minimum payments while getting another card to borrow more.
They WILL increase the debt ceiling and our debt to match that ceiling so they will have to raise it again.
Why? because they can! They cannot spend only the money that they have - they are more irresponsible than most Americans.

 

[Darkwind]

B. ...due to nutball deregulation of the economy by BOTH parties.

Only a simple minded Lemming actually believes it was De-regulation that caused the Bubble to burst. It was decades of Bad Policy by Government, and bad practice by the Private sector that caused the problem.

Anyone who tries to blame it on one thing, or one party, is a fucking idiot.

You are one stupid fuck if you have no clue what deregulation had to do with the near total collapse of the economy. Are you really this dumb?

Hey stupid fuck.

Name the regulations that were eliminated.

Because there hasn't been a regulation removed from the books in over 70 fucking years. And they add thousands every fucking year. Even Bush added thousands of regulations.

So list them, or shut the fuck up you total fucking moron.