Americans DON'T want the debt ceiling raised

[Remodeling Maidiac]

False, Mr. Reading-Impaired.

Americans are idiots because they think that not raising the debt ceiling = stopping spending.

Are you dense? They are morons for not understanding something so simple but they aren't for electing an unknown on his bloviating alone?

You are a moron just stfu

Obama was vetted for over 2 years before he demolished McCain.

America liked what they saw, and rehired him.

Why do you hate democracy?

Obama beating McCain is like a jock beating a retard for prom king.

You should be proud

 

[Derideo_Te]

the debt is a problem.

but we have to solve this problem in a rational and logical way.

slowly, surely, and progressively bring down the deficit till its zero.

that means more revenue and less spending.

Much more revenue and much less spending!

We need to raise the top rates to 75% on all incomes over $1 million regardless of source (ie dividends).

No matter what the rate is, the government essentially collects the same revenues – roughly 18 percent of GDP if I am not mistaken. 3What do you think that means when you jack the rate up to 75% in relation to GDP.

Hmm, note that would be a VERY bad thing.

This tells me that you don’t really understand what the debt is or means. Here is a hint: check what would happen to the money supply should our debt go to zero. Note, this will also be a VERY bad thing.

Top income rates have been higher than 75% in the past. There is an inverse correlation between top rates and job growth. As far as eliminating the debt entirely why don't you enlighten me?

No, we certainly do not. We do NOT need another income redistribution scheme to stick it back to those evil rich people. You want to fundamentally change the purpose of SS to take from some to give to others. The problems with SS have absolutely nothing to do with a lack of taxing. They are related to the fact that the ‘insurance’ is fundamentally based on a pyramid system and that, by its very nature, is fundamentally flawed.

Social Security is one of the finest programs of it's kind in the world. One minor tweak to remove the income cap and it will be there for generations to come. There is no "ponzi scheme" because no individual is profiting from it.

The first reasonable thing that you have stated. Corporations were never meant to collect government cheese and it should be outright illegal to do so.


I could get behind something like this though I think it will be flawed by the basic fact that many retired that might be very well off still don’t actually get an ‘income’ as well as the fact that it will be very easy to hide that income.

We need to reduce defense spending by 50% to bring it back to pre-9/11 levels.

Another think I could get behind. The task would not even be that difficult if congress was willing to let go of the pet projects (not going to happen though).

We need to gradually transfer social programs like public schools and Medicaid back to the states (and return their current share of federal taxes).

Another BIG one. The states need to get back to managing and paying for the programs that belong to the. This one is easy in theory and almost impossible in practice to implement though. All we have to do is eliminate block grants entirely and let the state’s tax that income rather than the feds. Unfortunately, the feds will never go for that considering the massive loss in centralized power that would cause.

Simply because something is difficult does not mean that it cannot be done.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Much more revenue and much less spending!

We need to raise the top rates to 75% on all incomes over $1 million regardless of source (ie dividends).

No matter what the rate is, the government essentially collects the same revenues – roughly 18 percent of GDP if I am not mistaken. 3What do you think that means when you jack the rate up to 75% in relation to GDP.

Hmm, note that would be a VERY bad thing.

This tells me that you don’t really understand what the debt is or means. Here is a hint: check what would happen to the money supply should our debt go to zero. Note, this will also be a VERY bad thing.

Top income rates have been higher than 75% in the past. There is an inverse correlation between top rates and job growth. As far as eliminating the debt entirely why don't you enlighten me?

No, we certainly do not. We do NOT need another income redistribution scheme to stick it back to those evil rich people. You want to fundamentally change the purpose of SS to take from some to give to others. The problems with SS have absolutely nothing to do with a lack of taxing. They are related to the fact that the ‘insurance’ is fundamentally based on a pyramid system and that, by its very nature, is fundamentally flawed.

Social Security is one of the finest programs of it's kind in the world. One minor tweak to remove the income cap and it will be there for generations to come. There is no "ponzi scheme" because no individual is profiting from it.

The first reasonable thing that you have stated. Corporations were never meant to collect government cheese and it should be outright illegal to do so.


I could get behind something like this though I think it will be flawed by the basic fact that many retired that might be very well off still don’t actually get an ‘income’ as well as the fact that it will be very easy to hide that income.

Another think I could get behind. The task would not even be that difficult if congress was willing to let go of the pet projects (not going to happen though).

We need to gradually transfer social programs like public schools and Medicaid back to the states (and return their current share of federal taxes).

Another BIG one. The states need to get back to managing and paying for the programs that belong to the. This one is easy in theory and almost impossible in practice to implement though. All we have to do is eliminate block grants entirely and let the state’s tax that income rather than the feds. Unfortunately, the feds will never go for that considering the massive loss in centralized power that would cause.

Simply because something is difficult does not mean that it cannot be done.

Obama being the FIRST black president elected and race relations being what they are would like to have a word with you.

You see, liberals just can't allow a fully functional crutch to be eliminated.

 

[rdean]

We have two obvious paths.

One, do nothing, invest in nothing the way Republicans want.

Or

Invest in education and infrastructure and get America moving again the way Democrats want.

Republicans have ran on a message of "do nothing" for the last two elections. Not a good message.

funny how you libs use "invest" when you mean "borrow and spend". where does it end? how much debt is too much?

Even corporations know you have to invest. They even have a saying, "It takes money to make money". Look at what happened under Bush. Is that what you consider a "success"?

 

[rdean]

False, Mr. Reading-Impaired.

Americans are idiots because they think that not raising the debt ceiling = stopping spending.

Are you dense? They are morons for not understanding something so simple but they aren't for electing an unknown on his bloviating alone?

You are a moron just stfu

Obama was vetted for over 2 years before he demolished McCain.

America liked what they saw, and rehired him.

Why do you hate democracy?

Monkey Butt is pissed. He posted this:

Grampa Murked U - Where, if anywhere, does personal responsibility fit into that? I made shit wages when I started out in life. In fact my first two bosses only hired me because of the tax incentives they got for hiring an ex con.

and I made it part of my signature line. This is someone who thinks American helping American is "socialism". He says someone should only help someone when they are not "forced" to help them, whatever that means. He says he gives to "charity". Wow, big deal. I pointed out that he was helped by the government he hates. People were paid to help, not because they were so "giving". That charity sucks. I told him earning a can of corn is better than being given a can of corn. I also pointed out that the Catholic charities receive most of their money from the government and I suspect so do most of the other charities.

He seems to think I was making fun of his immoral past. I don't even know or care what it was. But I do think that, "my first two bosses only hired me because of the tax incentives" isn't something you should deny to other people.

Many of these right wingers think they deserve to be helped because they are somehow "better", but others don't deserve to be helped because they must be lazy or somehow not worthy because of their race or something.

So he's stalking me with "gas or oil prices are volatile" or something. I don't even know. I don't pay attention to his ilk unless he says something interesting, which is rare, or relevant, which is also rare. Both interesting and relevant were in this post:

Grampa Murked U - Where, if anywhere, does personal responsibility fit into that? I made shit wages when I started out in life. In fact my first two bosses only hired me because of the tax incentives they got for hiring an ex con.

 

[Darkwind]

You raise the debt ceiling to pay for what congress already spent the money on.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/312902-anti-science-gop-14.html#post7836311

You cap the debt ceiling and then you limit spending by Congress and you won't have to worry about paying for bills that the Congress had no business creating.

In addition the bills can still be paid without raising the debt ceiling. It just takes honest men making realistic priorities.

Something that you'd no nothing about.

 

[auditor0007]

Andrea Mitchell Dismisses NBC News Poll Finding Americans Don?t Want to Raise Debt Limit | NewsBusters

Very interesting situation here. Has America finally woke up? Doesn't look like dems will be able to clobber the republicans over the head with this this time.

It would be interesting to see what happened if we didn't raise the debt ceiling again. My prediction would be 20% unemployment within two years. The stock market would crash. Seniors would lose the vast majority of their life savings. We would have tens of thousands of homeless people in every state. The housing market would crash. The entire economy would crash. After all of that, we would become the USSA, the United Socialist States of America.

 

[auditor0007]

The filth in the far reactionary right and their paid bloggers here are in for a rough time on this issue.

Gosh Jake, what another cry baby far left progressive liberal reactionary comment you made. Do you ever say anything worth listening to?

The post was obviously a sarcastic shot at another stupid post made previously. Pay attention.

 

[auditor0007]

the debt is a problem.

but we have to solve this problem in a rational and logical way.

slowly, surely, and progressively bring down the deficit till its zero.

that means more revenue and less spending.

Much more revenue and much less spending!

We need to raise the top rates to 75% on all incomes over $1 million regardless of source (ie dividends). This rate will drop back to 50% once the national debt is back to zero. It will automatically kick back in as soon as the national debt grows again.

We need to eliminate the income cap on social security.

We need to phase out all corporate subsidies across the board.

We need to impose a means test for Medicare.

We need to reduce defense spending by 50% to bring it back to pre-9/11 levels.

We need to gradually transfer social programs like public schools and Medicaid back to the states (and return their current share of federal taxes).

Sorry, but even I cannot support a tax rate that high on anyone. What we need is an honest discussion about what we truly are willing to pay for and how much. Then we can discuss how we go about collecting enough revenue to cover everything we need to pay for. The bottom line is that we need more revenue, and we need to reduce spending. The thing is that both revenue increases and spending decreases will happen automatically if we can get the economy growing at a rate of three to four or five percent per year. Then the real tax increases and spending cuts we need to make are reduced dramatically.

Currently, we are running about $1 trillion in yearly deficits. With the economy growing at a rate of four percent, that rate would drop on its own to about $500 billion. Then we could discuss how to drop that $500 billion to $100 or $200 billion. We don't even have to have a balanced budget. We just need to be close. So long as the economy is growing by more than what we are borrowing, eventually the debt would be reduced to a very small percentage of GDP. The problem is that it is now over 100% of GDP. We need it down around 50% of GDP. Based on some simple calculations, we could run a yearly deficit of $400 billion for the next 25 years. If our growth rate was 4.5% per year, then after 25 years, the deficit would be $25 trillion, and GDP would be $45 trillion, so our debt would only be 55% of GDP. Now, both the yearly deficit and the growth rate I used are numbers we are unlikely to see, although I do expect a very strong growth rate beginning somewhere between 2016 and 2020, which may well top 6% for a number of years.

 

[billyerock1991]

Andrea Mitchell Dismisses NBC News Poll Finding Americans Don?t Want to Raise Debt Limit | NewsBusters

Very interesting situation here. Has America finally woke up? Doesn't look like dems will be able to clobber the republicans over the head with this this time.

here's the problem with your poll ... its not anomalous ... its a poll where people come to a web site and give their opinion ... to say people don't want the debt ceiling raised is inaccurate ... to get and accurate polling a polling organizations needs to call people and get their opinion ... not the other way around ... that way the poll isn't biased ... so your opinion on it is moot at best ... more then likely you're one of these moronic republicans who hasn't any Idea what thew debt ceiling is or how it works ...

P.S.
so far none of the polling organizations have even considered getting a poll on the debt ceiling

 

[Politico]

You would think that by now, everyone here would understand what the debt ceiling is and why it must be raised.

For someone here.....a group of people who supposedly have a keen interest in the goings on in Washington.....to think that raising the debt ceiling signals borrowing more money....freaks normal people out a bit.

People are morons and you are wondering why they don't understand what it is?

 

[billyerock1991]

the debt is a problem.

but we have to solve this problem in a rational and logical way.

slowly, surely, and progressively bring down the deficit till its zero.

that means more revenue and less spending.

Much more revenue and much less spending!

We need to raise the top rates to 75% on all incomes over $1 million regardless of source (ie dividends). This rate will drop back to 50% once the national debt is back to zero. It will automatically kick back in as soon as the national debt grows again.

We need to eliminate the income cap on social security.

We need to phase out all corporate subsidies across the board.

We need to impose a means test for Medicare.

We need to reduce defense spending by 50% to bring it back to pre-9/11 levels.

We need to gradually transfer social programs like public schools and Medicaid back to the states (and return their current share of federal taxes).

Sorry, but even I cannot support a tax rate that high on anyone. What we need is an honest discussion about what we truly are willing to pay for and how much. Then we can discuss how we go about collecting enough revenue to cover everything we need to pay for. The bottom line is that we need more revenue, and we need to reduce spending. The thing is that both revenue increases and spending decreases will happen automatically if we can get the economy growing at a rate of three to four or five percent per year. Then the real tax increases and spending cuts we need to make are reduced dramatically.

Currently, we are running about $1 trillion in yearly deficits. With the economy growing at a rate of four percent, that rate would drop on its own to about $500 billion. Then we could discuss how to drop that $500 billion to $100 or $200 billion. We don't even have to have a balanced budget. We just need to be close. So long as the economy is growing by more than what we are borrowing, eventually the debt would be reduced to a very small percentage of GDP. The problem is that it is now over 100% of GDP. We need it down around 50% of GDP. Based on some simple calculations, we could run a yearly deficit of $400 billion for the next 25 years. If our growth rate was 4.5% per year, then after 25 years, the deficit would be $25 trillion, and GDP would be $45 trillion, so our debt would only be 55% of GDP. Now, both the yearly deficit and the growth rate I used are numbers we are unlikely to see, although I do expect a very strong growth rate beginning somewhere between 2016 and 2020, which may well top 6% for a number of years.

what we really need is a understanding what the debt ceiling is ... Hoffstra say we have to bering dow the debt to O ... that the logical way ... here's another person who doesn't know what the debt ceiling is ...

then we have the rest talking about the national debt ... Folks the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the national debt ... all the debt ceiling does is to set a figure for the next years budget and it caps that budget for the next year ... it has nothing to do with medicare welfare or any of the programs you right wing nut cases love to rant about ... so you're saying lets cut taxes until the get to zero in the nation debt ... that's just plain stupid ...

 

[billyerock1991]

How do you mean 'volatile'? Explain.
Are you rderp? It's a carry over fr9m anothwr thread cause the coward ran from the discussion just like you ignored my response to you in this thread.


Or does volatile to you mean 'high'?

Americans are idiots cause they want the debt under control according to you. But for some reason the same logic doesn't apply to the election of the inept one. Go figure

False, Mr. Reading-Impaired.

Americans are idiots because they think that not raising the debt ceiling = stopping spending.

you nailed it ... these ass clown repub-lie-tards here think by raising the debt ceiling means more spending it has noting to do with spending it has to do with setting the budget for the next year

 

[Mac1958]

44% don't want it raised
22% do

Doesn't matter Grampa.

If the only way to prevent the Debt Ceiling from being raised is to shut down the government (and it is), we get killed.

I didn't read the Poll but if it asked the simple question, "Do you want the Debt Ceiling raised" then yeah, I'd expect that kind of response. Minimum.

But if the Poll asked the proper question of, "If the government has to be shut down to keep the Debt Ceiling from being raised, do you favor that..."

Then, no way.

That's like asking people if they want Ice Cream without telling them that it costs $10 a scoop.

Bingo.

The Democrats' argument, "we have already committed to paying these bills", is compelling and absolutely right. If the GOP doesn't want the debt ceiling raised, then they have to win some elections and stop the spending. They can't just turn this around by snapping their fingers, by refusing to pay bills to which we are committed.

All the GOP is doing is feeding the Democrats the ammunition for scaring people and pointing the finger. Not exactly a way to win the elections they need to get their way.

.

 

[Geaux4it]

44% don't want it raised
22% do

Doesn't matter Grampa.

If the only way to prevent the Debt Ceiling from being raised is to shut down the government (and it is), we get killed.

I didn't read the Poll but if it asked the simple question, "Do you want the Debt Ceiling raised" then yeah, I'd expect that kind of response. Minimum.

But if the Poll asked the proper question of, "If the government has to be shut down to keep the Debt Ceiling from being raised, do you favor that..."

Then, no way.

That's like asking people if they want Ice Cream without telling them that it costs $10 a scoop.

So you are assuming Americans who were polled are Moron's who do not consider consequences when answering a question.

Doubt that

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

You raise the debt ceiling to pay for what congress already spent the money on.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/312902-anti-science-gop-14.html#post7836311

Why should congress be any different than the deadbeats who have walked away from their obligations then blame it on the economy?

-Geaux

 

[Mac1958]

You raise the debt ceiling to pay for what congress already spent the money on.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/312902-anti-science-gop-14.html#post7836311

Why should congress be any different than the deadbeats who have walked away from their obligations then blame it on the economy?

-Geaux

Do you think this is a winning electoral message?

Would you put this on a bumper sticker? Would this get votes from people who pay their bills? Really?

.

 

[Geaux4it]

You raise the debt ceiling to pay for what congress already spent the money on.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/312902-anti-science-gop-14.html#post7836311

Why should congress be any different than the deadbeats who have walked away from their obligations then blame it on the economy?

-Geaux

Do you think this is a winning electoral message?

Would you put this on a bumper sticker? Would this get votes from people who pay their bills? Really?

.

Your question has many answers. However, let's assume that the 51% who voted Mr Ineptness Obummer into office have jobs. I would garner that said majority also supports the homeowner who walked away from their obligations because of the evil banks who made them take out ill-advised loans. Obligations be dammed

We need to shut this cluster down and rebuild

-Geaux

 

[Derideo_Te]

the debt is a problem.

but we have to solve this problem in a rational and logical way.

slowly, surely, and progressively bring down the deficit till its zero.

that means more revenue and less spending.

Much more revenue and much less spending!

We need to raise the top rates to 75% on all incomes over $1 million regardless of source (ie dividends). This rate will drop back to 50% once the national debt is back to zero. It will automatically kick back in as soon as the national debt grows again.

We need to eliminate the income cap on social security.

We need to phase out all corporate subsidies across the board.

We need to impose a means test for Medicare.

We need to reduce defense spending by 50% to bring it back to pre-9/11 levels.

We need to gradually transfer social programs like public schools and Medicaid back to the states (and return their current share of federal taxes).

Sorry, but even I cannot support a tax rate that high on anyone. What we need is an honest discussion about what we truly are willing to pay for and how much. Then we can discuss how we go about collecting enough revenue to cover everything we need to pay for. The bottom line is that we need more revenue, and we need to reduce spending. The thing is that both revenue increases and spending decreases will happen automatically if we can get the economy growing at a rate of three to four or five percent per year. Then the real tax increases and spending cuts we need to make are reduced dramatically.

Currently, we are running about $1 trillion in yearly deficits. With the economy growing at a rate of four percent, that rate would drop on its own to about $500 billion. Then we could discuss how to drop that $500 billion to $100 or $200 billion. We don't even have to have a balanced budget. We just need to be close. So long as the economy is growing by more than what we are borrowing, eventually the debt would be reduced to a very small percentage of GDP. The problem is that it is now over 100% of GDP. We need it down around 50% of GDP. Based on some simple calculations, we could run a yearly deficit of $400 billion for the next 25 years. If our growth rate was 4.5% per year, then after 25 years, the deficit would be $25 trillion, and GDP would be $45 trillion, so our debt would only be 55% of GDP. Now, both the yearly deficit and the growth rate I used are numbers we are unlikely to see, although I do expect a very strong growth rate beginning somewhere between 2016 and 2020, which may well top 6% for a number of years.

As you noted your math makes assumptions about growth that are probably unrealistic. We are in the current situation because we overspent/overspend on wars/defense/corporate welfare/healthcare and grossly under tax the highest incomes. Both problems need to be addressed before we will ever see the kinds of growth levels you are projecting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Andrea Mitchell Dismisses NBC News Poll Finding Americans Don?t Want to Raise Debt Limit | NewsBusters

Very interesting situation here. Has America finally woke up? Doesn't look like dems will be able to clobber the republicans over the head with this this time.

It would be interesting to see what happened if we didn't raise the debt ceiling again. My prediction would be 20% unemployment within two years. The stock market would crash. Seniors would lose the vast majority of their life savings. We would have tens of thousands of homeless people in every state. The housing market would crash. The entire economy would crash. After all of that, we would become the USSA, the United Socialist States of America.

That is certainly the doomsday scenario. An alternative and more realistic one would be that the Treasury simply prints the money that it needs instead. The debt ceiling becomes irrelevant but the value of the dollar drops and interest rates take off as inflation ramps up. Seniors on fixed incomes are given increases that keep up with inflation. Businesses adjust their prices and salaries. The national debt shrinks in real terms even as the interest grows. After a decade or so everything calms back down again.