Debt Ceiling Increase or Spending Cuts First?

[LoneLaugher]

You read too much into my statements, Carbine. Yours is a false dilemma argument which implies I wish for there to be a crisis. By repeatedly raising the debt ceiling, you are merely avoiding a crisis, not negating it. That within itself will create a crisis altogether on its own.

You're the one who called it a crisis. If you are willing to make raising or not raising the debt ceiling a negotiable item, then you are saying you are willing to see the debt ceiling NOT be raised if negotiations don't go in the way you want them.

That may not mean you wish for a debt ceiling crisis, but it does mean you've put it on the table as a possible outcome you're willing to accept.

I, in contrast, don't believe it should be on the table at all. Period.

I am not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis of any kind, Carbine. I call it a crisis merely because it is the common vernacular used in this type of debate. "Crisis" is merely an objective term. Nothing more. And now you are resorting to a circumstantial ad hominem attack to substantiate your own argument.

I invite you to re-read the above post. Then ask yourself how it can be viewed as anything other than a huge pile of bullshit. Man...you are really, really bad at this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You read too much into my statements, Carbine. Yours is a false dilemma argument which implies I wish for there to be a crisis. By repeatedly raising the debt ceiling, you are merely avoiding a crisis, not negating it. That within itself will create a crisis altogether on its own.

You're the one who called it a crisis. If you are willing to make raising or not raising the debt ceiling a negotiable item, then you are saying you are willing to see the debt ceiling NOT be raised if negotiations don't go in the way you want them.

That may not mean you wish for a debt ceiling crisis, but it does mean you've put it on the table as a possible outcome you're willing to accept.

I, in contrast, don't believe it should be on the table at all. Period.

I am not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis of any kind, Carbine. I call it a crisis merely because it is the common vernacular used in this type of debate. "Crisis" is merely an objective term. Nothing more. And now you are resorting to a circumstantial ad hominem attack to substantiate your own argument.

I can only go by what you actually say; I would think you would prefer that is how I interpret what you do say.

Am I to now believe that you consider raising the debt ceiling non-negotiable?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since 2/3rds of our budget is mandatory spending, and since 1/3rd of our spending is borrowed and thus adding to the debt,

in order to stay at the current debt ceiling we would effectively have to eliminate all discretionary spending,

unless we repeal or revise the laws that mandate the mandatory spending.

I would argue (as my personal opinion) that Congress and the President are legally obligated to raise the debt ceiling because they are obligated by law to fund all mandatory spending.

Mandatory spending? Such as? Define what is "mandatory" in your mind, Carbine?

It's not a definition 'in my mind', it's a standard term, well defined.

I suggest you read this, a comparison of mandatory and discretionary spending:

Discretionary spending (vs. Mandatory spending) » Comeback America Initiative

You can click the highlighted 'mandatory spending' for its definition.

This "well defined" definition of yours states at the very end:

"Having a large and growing portion of the budget going towards mandatory spending, specifically interest, is irresponsible and unsustainable."

 

[Wildman]

what a bunch of ******* cowards.., 10 people voted, 61 read the post, and 142 lookie lou's !!

get involved people, rather than just sit on your lazy ass and whine, do something worth while.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Since 2/3rds of our budget is mandatory spending, and since 1/3rd of our spending is borrowed and thus adding to the debt,

in order to stay at the current debt ceiling we would effectively have to eliminate all discretionary spending,

unless we repeal or revise the laws that mandate the mandatory spending.

I would argue (as my personal opinion) that Congress and the President are legally obligated to raise the debt ceiling because they are obligated by law to fund all mandatory spending.

Mandatory spending? Such as? Define what is "mandatory" in your mind, Carbine?

It's not a definition 'in my mind', it's a standard term, well defined.

I suggest you read this, a comparison of mandatory and discretionary spending:

Discretionary spending (vs. Mandatory spending) » Comeback America Initiative

You can click the highlighted 'mandatory spending' for its definition.

This joker thought that question would stump you. He was counting on it.

 

[Seawytch]

What is from memory? This?

"Milton Friedman is a Misesian economist. He is responsible for singlehandedly changing governmental views on economics across the world. His protege was none other than Thomas Sowell, who himself singlehandedly countered and destroyed the Cloward-Piven strategy."

Now THAT is impressive.

By the way...your list above does not include the nation that Friedman famously helped fucked over. A Friedman scholar would know this. How can you not know it?

You keep insisting he "fucked over" someone. Name them. Or dispense with your self aggrandizement.

Hmmm. You don't know, do you?

You should google this:

"What country did Milton Friedman help ruin?"

It will pop up. Then you can ask yourself how an economics scholar such as yourself has never heard of this before.

Templar majored in economics?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You keep insisting he "fucked over" someone. Name them. Or dispense with your self aggrandizement.

Hmmm. You don't know, do you?

You should google this:

"What country did Milton Friedman help ruin?"

It will pop up. Then you can ask yourself how an economics scholar such as yourself has never heard of this before.

Templar majored in economics?

Yes. His faculty:

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're the one who called it a crisis. If you are willing to make raising or not raising the debt ceiling a negotiable item, then you are saying you are willing to see the debt ceiling NOT be raised if negotiations don't go in the way you want them.

That may not mean you wish for a debt ceiling crisis, but it does mean you've put it on the table as a possible outcome you're willing to accept.

I, in contrast, don't believe it should be on the table at all. Period.

I am not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis of any kind, Carbine. I call it a crisis merely because it is the common vernacular used in this type of debate. "Crisis" is merely an objective term. Nothing more. And now you are resorting to a circumstantial ad hominem attack to substantiate your own argument.

I can only go by what you actually say; I would think you would prefer that is how I interpret what you do say.

Am I to now believe that you consider raising the debt ceiling non-negotiable?

I consider raising the debt ceiling to be irresponsible. It is a means to allow more borrowing and thus more spending without any fiscal restraint whatsoever.

 

[Seawytch]

what a bunch of ******* cowards.., 10 people voted, 61 read the post, and 142 lookie lou's !!

get involved people, rather than just sit on your lazy ass and whine, do something worth while.

There aren't enough choices. My vote would be to:

1. Eliminate the debt ceiling altogether. Call it nuclear disarmament.
2. End the sequestration cuts. We've seen cuts with a meat cleaver, let's try surgical cuts now.
3. Revise our tax code. Too many loopholes for corporations to skate through. We need revenue as well as SMART cuts.
4. Conduct infrastructure spending. We need to get the juices really flowing.

The wars are winding down and those costs are decreasing. Time to shift some money back to OUR country where we have unemployed people and bridges falling down.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You keep insisting he "fucked over" someone. Name them. Or dispense with your self aggrandizement.

Hmmm. You don't know, do you?

You should google this:

"What country did Milton Friedman help ruin?"

It will pop up. Then you can ask yourself how an economics scholar such as yourself has never heard of this before.

Templar majored in economics?

I major in reality, not fantasy. Attacking me only speaks to the weaknesses of both your arguments.

 

[Seawytch]

Hmmm. You don't know, do you?

You should google this:

"What country did Milton Friedman help ruin?"

It will pop up. Then you can ask yourself how an economics scholar such as yourself has never heard of this before.

Templar majored in economics?

Yes. His faculty:

View attachment 27916

Coffee was not meant to come out a person's nose. You, sir, owe me a keyboard. Good thing it's a cheap piece of crap.

 

[Darkwind]

When the spending cuts have taken place, then we can talk about the debt ceiling.

 

[Seawytch]

Hmmm. You don't know, do you?

You should google this:

"What country did Milton Friedman help ruin?"

It will pop up. Then you can ask yourself how an economics scholar such as yourself has never heard of this before.

Templar majored in economics?

I major in reality, not fantasy. Attacking me only speaks to the weaknesses of both your arguments.

It was not an attack (are you whining?..and in public too ), it was a question. You're 24ish I believe (just about graduation age) and unemployed so it was a very valid question. I apologize if economics was not your course of study and if that, for some reason, offends you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Templar majored in economics?

Yes. His faculty:

View attachment 27916

Coffee was not meant to come out a person's nose. You, sir, owe me a keyboard. Good thing it's a cheap piece of crap.

You are welcome. Buy American!

 

[eagle1462010]

Federal Spending by the Numbers 2013

The Federal Budget
Washington will spend nearly $3.5 trillion in 2013 while collecting $2.8 trillion in revenues, resulting in a deficit of $642 billion.
Over the past 20 years, federal spending grew 63 percent faster than inflation.
Mandatory spending, including Social Security and means-tested entitlements, doubled after adjusting for inflation. Discretionary spending grew by 49 percent.
Despite publicly held debt surging to three-fourths the size of the economy (as measured by GDP), net interest costs have fallen as interest rates have dropped to historic lows.
In 1963, defense spending was 9 percent of GDP and mandatory spending on entitlement programs was 6.1 percent of GDP, one-third lower.
In 2013, spending on defense is at about 4 percent of GDP and falling, while mandatory spending (including net interest) is reaching 14.5 percent of GDP and growing.

Where Did All the Money Go?
31 cents of every dollar Washington spent in 2012 was borrowed, resulting in a $1.1 trillion deficit.
45 percent, or almost half of all spending ,went toward paying for Social Security and health care entitlements (primarily Medicare and Medicaid). In 2002, that was only 25 percent. Without reform of these massive and growing programs, Washington will have to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling debt onto younger generations and putting the nation on a dangerous economic course.
Social Security is the largest federal spending program and has held this position since surpassing defense in 1993.
Medicare is one of the largest and fastest-growing programs in the entire federal budget.
The U.S. Postal Service has been losing money for several years and is drawing down reserves to cover losses. Congress should allow the USPS to restructure and meet the needs of today’s marketplace. Otherwise, taxpayers will be on the hook when reserves run out.
Energy spending has exploded, yet the increases in oil and gas production have happened on state and private lands.

Chronic Deficits Continue
Budget deficits occur any year that Congress spends more than it collects in taxes.
In 2013, Congress will borrow 19 cents of every dollar it spends.
Deficits will fall in 2013 because of higher revenues from an improving economy, higher taxes passed with the fiscal cliff deal, and spending cuts from the Budget Control Act caps and sequestration.
Sequestration cuts largely keep entitlements untouched, so they do little to prevent a return to trillion-dollar deficits.
Deficits fall below a half trillion dollars once in 2015 but begin growing immediately, reaching trillion-dollar levels by 2022, as entitlement spending continues unabated.
The deficit is projected to grow from $642 billion in 2013 to $1.078 trillion by 2023, a 68 percent increase.
Despite tax revenues returning to normal levels, the federal budget will have large deficits in each year because spending will continue to grow well beyond historical levels.

COMMENT

Excellent article on where we are going. The Left will ditch it because it is from the Heritage Org., but their data is backed up by Federal Sites. Browse at it, and see where we are headed.

It's not a good scenario, and the ending is not good.

Americans KNOW THIS, which is why when asked most always say our Gov't is headed in the wrong direction. Which is why the Gov't polls show BLATANT DISRESPECT FOR OUR GOV'T.

And the will of the people is ignored. The Special Interests are served, as we head down the path of Economic Ruin.

It's time to face the facts and deal with it, instead of the tired old BS out of Washington. Most of the country knows they are full of it anyway.

 

[Wildman]

due to the FACT that S.S. pay increases have been cut, military pay has been cut, the military has been down sized, plus many other cuts and down sizing.., where the hell is is this SPENDING being done at, for and about ??

is this SPENDING being done to buy off certain elements of anti-Americanism ?

someone with good economic sense please help me here, i truly am a bit puzzled

WHERE IS THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ GOING ?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis of any kind, Carbine. I call it a crisis merely because it is the common vernacular used in this type of debate. "Crisis" is merely an objective term. Nothing more. And now you are resorting to a circumstantial ad hominem attack to substantiate your own argument.

I can only go by what you actually say; I would think you would prefer that is how I interpret what you do say.

Am I to now believe that you consider raising the debt ceiling non-negotiable?

I consider raising the debt ceiling to be irresponsible. It is a means to allow more borrowing and thus more spending without any fiscal restraint whatsoever.

When you say that there is no fiscal restraint whatsoever, do you actually know what the words mean?

 

[Redfish]

what a bunch of ******* cowards.., 10 people voted, 61 read the post, and 142 lookie lou's !!

get involved people, rather than just sit on your lazy ass and whine, do something worth while.

There aren't enough choices. My vote would be to:

1. Eliminate the debt ceiling altogether. Call it nuclear disarmament.
2. End the sequestration cuts. We've seen cuts with a meat cleaver, let's try surgical cuts now.
3. Revise our tax code. Too many loopholes for corporations to skate through. We need revenue as well as SMART cuts.
4. Conduct infrastructure spending. We need to get the juices really flowing.

The wars are winding down and those costs are decreasing. Time to shift some money back to OUR country where we have unemployed people and bridges falling down.

1. so the country should just have ever increasing debt with no limits on spending
2. we need across-the-board cuts, not tiny slices
3. who do you think actually pays corporate income taxes? consumers. elimination of the corporate tax would get the economy moving, and the stock market would take off like a rocket
4. great, but that takes money, we are already spending 40% more than we take in. Look back at the CCC and see how well that worked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis of any kind, Carbine. I call it a crisis merely because it is the common vernacular used in this type of debate. "Crisis" is merely an objective term. Nothing more. And now you are resorting to a circumstantial ad hominem attack to substantiate your own argument.

I can only go by what you actually say; I would think you would prefer that is how I interpret what you do say.

Am I to now believe that you consider raising the debt ceiling non-negotiable?

I consider raising the debt ceiling to be irresponsible. It is a means to allow more borrowing and thus more spending without any fiscal restraint whatsoever.

But you 1) called not raising the debt ceiling a crisis, and 2) that you were not willing to accept any outcome which results in a crisis.

So how can you accept not raising the debt ceiling but also not accept any outcome that results in a crisis?

 

[Geaux4it]

Cut the fluff

-Geaux