Is it "Congress's" Constitutional Duty To Raise The Debt Ceiling?

[Independent thinker]

Said the financial neophyte. When taxes are over 10%, tax cuts always pay for themselves. Government gets the most revenue with 10% taxes because people think they are fair and avoid them. When they raise above 10%. it jacks up the economic damage and provide no more revenue.

I'd recommend some books to you, but you're a leftist ideologue and any effort to explain it to you would be wasted, though I just gave you the principle. 10% taxes are overwhelmingly considered reasonable. Above that, it's about government power

The 10% figure can fluctuate a little but, overall, you hit the nail on the head. High tax states are losing residents and revenue while people move to lower tax states, which are seeing increased tax revenues. But, the left are far too stupid to see this because they have blinders on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

LOL. Now you're back to saying that the tax cuts decreased revenue. What a flip flopper. Did you stay out too late last night? It was a Wednesday night for God's sake.

Saying that tax cuts increase debt is not the same as saying tax cuts decrease revenue.

Take $100 in taxes in the current year. In the next year taxes would be $110 based on growth. However give a $5 tax cut and revenue is less than projected ($105 v. $110), there was a $5 tax cut, and yet revenue still increased year over year ($105 v. $100).

The term is "missed opportunity cost", which in the above example is $5 in revenue not realized.

WW

 

[BlindBoo]

The law was created so that Congress must increase the debt ceiling, which means it was intended to be debated. There is nothing Congress does which is just an automatic rubber stamp. Everything is debated, which is how government works.

We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.

 

[kaz]

The 10% figure can fluctuate a little but, overall, you hit the nail on the head. High tax states are losing residents and revenue while people move to lower tax states, which are seeing increased tax revenues.

10% is burned into our brains as fair across cultures and history. Opposition to taxes grows as they go above 10%, so to your point, if rates are near 10% opposition is still small.

Spain raised very fast as a historical power with low tax rates. Then they fell as unaccountable generations of politicians got greedy. The Spanish merchants started creating alternate ports to avoid the tax collectors who met them at the main ports and plundered them.

That was the real cause of the sinking of the Spanish armada by QE1's navy. The ships were in great disrepair and basically sank by themselves

 

[Independent thinker]

Saying that tax cuts increase debt is not the same as saying tax cuts decrease revenue.

Take $100 in taxes in the current year. In the next year taxes would be $110 based on growth. However give a $5 tax cut and revenue is less than projected ($105 v. $110), there was a $5 tax cut, and yet revenue still increased year over year ($105 v. $100).

The term is "missed opportunity cost", which in the above example is $5 in revenue not realized.

WW

Under the tax cuts, revenue grew slightly while spending increased exponentially, causing higher deficits and debt. The left would have you ignore that spending went up exponentially and falsely claim that our debt went up due to tax cuts. If our spending hadn't gone up dramatically, our debt would not have skyrocketed. But the left are stuck in their ideology and fact denials.

 

[kaz]

Saying that tax cuts increase debt is not the same as saying tax cuts decrease revenue.

Take $100 in taxes in the current year. In the next year taxes would be $110 based on growth. However give a $5 tax cut and revenue is less than projected ($105 v. $110), there was a $5 tax cut, and yet revenue still increased year over year ($105 v. $100).

The term is "missed opportunity cost", which in the above example is $5 in revenue not realized.

WW

Great argument, but it's just not true according to empirical data. With tax rates as high as they are, revenue doesn't shrink with tax cuts because people work less hard to evade them

 

[kaz]

Under the tax cuts, revenue grew slightly while spending increased exponentially, causing higher deficits and debt. The left would have you ignore that spending went up exponentially and falsely claim that our debt went up due to tax cuts. If our spending hadn't gone up dramatically, our debt would not have skyrocketed. But the left are stuck in their ideology and fact denials.

And that's just the first round. Over time that cycle repeats, which means the money you left in the economy multiplies and grows further

 

[Independent thinker]

We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.

You guys are stuck in a feedback loop. Don't you think we should decrease our runaway spending? This has nothing to do with 5 years ago, 25 years ago, or 125 years ago. This is May of 2023 and our spending is out of control.

 

[kaz]

We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.

What you are calling "Russian roulette" was the frog staying in the water with slowly escalating temperature. You didn't deal with the crisis, you only put it off longer.

Since you're at 31 trillion you want to dump on your kids and growing of our debts to dump on our children, how much are you OK with dumping on them? 50 trillion? 100 trillion?

 

[BlindBoo]

You guys are stuck in a feedback loop. Don't you think we should decrease our runaway spending? This has nothing to do with 5 years ago, 25 years ago, or 125 years ago. This is May of 2023 and our spending is out of control.

I've advocated for a balanced budget amendment since I understood federal deficit spending, as well as Term limits CongressCritters

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've advocated for a balanced budget amendment since I understood federal deficit spending, as well as Term limits CongressCritters

I don't have a problem with term limits.

I have a problem with reelection.

WW

 

[Lesh]

Cost of WWII war debt in todays dollars was 4 trillion. Want to try again?

decimal error. Apologies

 

[hadit]

Yes.

They're the ones (the House specifically) who approve the spending.

It looks to me like the House has done its job and passed a bill that the Senate and White House are sitting on. Ergo, it's not the Republicans in the House that are blocking anything.

 

[Independent thinker]

I've advocated for a balanced budget amendment since I understood federal deficit spending, as well as Term limits CongressCritters

I don't think a balanced budget amendment is realistic, particularly when it comes to emergencies such as Covid or recessions. Often, the best way out of recession is to spend money.

I don't think term limits are a good idea either. First, having a constant set of rookies is not a good idea when it comes to national intelligence and security. Second, if anyone thinks it will change the makeup of Congress, I believe they are mistaken. The place will still be filled with nothing but R's and D's, just having a constant supply of new names. Their respective parties will still have full control over their flocks. Third, if anyone thinks it will have any effect on being bribed by lobbyists, etc. then I believe they would be gravely mistaken. I believe it would actually make that situation even worse. I used to work in retail and during the fourth quarter we would have to hire a bunch of questionable workers, with them knowing they would only have jobs for a month or two and then be gone, which means they would have to try stealing as much as they could during their short time there. If Congress critters knew they were only going to be there for X number of years and then be gone, it would encourage them to take as many bribes as they could during the time they had. It's not like voters could replace a bad apple with a good apple when everyone running for the new opening would be beholden to their respective crooked parties.

 

[Lesh]

We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.

And our borrowing costs to go up

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't think a balanced budget amendment is realistic, particularly when it comes to emergencies such as Covid or recessions. Often, the best way out of recession is to spend money.

I don't think term limits are a good idea either. First, having a constant set of rookies is not a good idea when it comes to national intelligence and security. Second, if anyone thinks it will change the makeup of Congress, I believe they are mistaken. The place will still be filled with nothing but R's and D's, just having a constant supply of new names. Their respective parties will still have full control over their flocks. Third, if anyone thinks it will have any effect on being bribed by lobbyists, etc. then I believe they would be gravely mistaken. I believe it would actually make that situation even worse. I used to work in retail and during the fourth quarter we would have to hire a bunch of questionable workers, with them knowing they would only have jobs for a month or two and then be gone, which means they would have to try stealing as much as they could during their short time there. If Congress critters knew they were only going to be there for X number of years and then be gone, it would encourage them to take as many bribes as they could during the time they had. It's not like voters could replace a bad apple with a good apple when everyone running for the new opening would be beholden to their respective crooked parties.

Obviously you'd need a plan for emergency spending in case of a declared war of natural catastrophe. If Congress can set term limits on the Executive, then the people should be able to do the same with Congresscritters. What we don't need is an exclusive fraternity of career legislators sucking off the public teat. Public service shouldn't be a springboard to riches.

 

[Frankenstein]

They bent over for Trump nice and easy.

This is a partisan political move, period.

Yes, by Biden Mr. independent

 

[bendog]

Further, I find it fairly amusing that some Democrats want to use the 14th amendment from 1868 to override a law from 1917.

why?

Just as a for example, Citizens United, from wiki
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed a prohibition on election spending by incorporated entities, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had upheld restricted corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The ruling effectively freed corporations (including incorporated non-profit organizations) to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government".[2]

The Courts use the const and/or BoR to overturn laws fairly commonly.

 

[Independent thinker]

Obviously you'd need a plan for emergency spending in case of a declared war of natural catastrophe. If Congress can set term limits on the Executive, then the people should be able to do the same with Congresscritters. What we don't need is an exclusive fraternity of career legislators sucking off the public teat. Public service shouldn't be a springboard to riches.

As I said, term limits don't change anything and may make things worse and I laid out the reasons. Yeah, you get a bunch of different names but R's are still R's and D's are still D's. So, no difference, other than their names. In fact, since you mentioned the executive, it's exactly what I predicted, nothing but R's and D's with different names but the same ole same ole. So what? You replace Biden with Desantis. Then you replace Desantis with Harris. Then you replace Harris with an R and the R with a D and all you get is the same old shit. Same would go for Congress. Different names, same shit.

 

[Independent thinker]

why?

Just as a for example, Citizens United, from wiki
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed a prohibition on election spending by incorporated entities, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had upheld restricted corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The ruling effectively freed corporations (including incorporated non-profit organizations) to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government".[2]

The Courts use the const and/or BoR to overturn laws fairly commonly.

Not exactly sure what you're saying. Simplified, a 1917 law usually would trump an 1868 law and set new precedent. Sure, an amendment is an amendment but the 1917 law was passed when they knew what the 14th amendment was and not one person has questioned that in over 100 years. So, to question it now would be a rather high bar.