Raise the Debt Limit? That's the WRONG question.

[Liability]

Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:

"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"

The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.

That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:

"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"

 

[cutter]

Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:

"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"

The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.

That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:

"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"

This administration is now and has been from day 1 all about new programs and more spending. We have to dump the bum we have for president before we can even think about paying down our debt. RON PAUL is the ONLY politician in Washington that wants to live within our budget and pay DOWN the dept.

 

[Liability]

Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:

"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"

The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.

That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:

"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"

This administration is now and has been from day 1 all about new programs and more spending. We have to dump the bum we have for president before we can even think about paying down our debt. RON PAUL is the ONLY politician in Washington that wants to live within our budget and pay DOWN the dept.

I don't think that's true. But he IS at least one of the guys who is willing to confront reality concerning our addiction to spending and debt.

 

[Google]

The leftists on this board are going to tell you that not raising the debt ceiling is going to lead to unavoidable default, and they will repeat and repeat this without offering any evidence. It is the word of their god, and it is so.

 

[Trajan]

he already raised the debt ceiling once in feb 2010...he blew thru 2 Trillion plus what we took in ( the war costs both wars cost 250B during that time) AND, he didn't need to say or do squat, for or to anyone, he had congressional majorities in both houses......

..now its time for the the crying game because whoops, there is whats called checks and balances......

no, we have to raise it BUT we need to cut and I don't mean the unicorn poopie he promises , the old checks in the mail, won't _____ in your mouth 3-4 years down the road cuts, they will NEVER happen...we need cuts now....

 

[DontBeStupid]

The leftists on this board are going to tell you that not raising the debt ceiling is going to lead to unavoidable default, and they will repeat and repeat this without offering any evidence. It is the word of their god, and it is so.

Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. Sure, we could service the debt, but then not pay the military or vice versa. Point is, we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from.

As for lowering the debt limit (idiot) do you people honestly think if the debt limit is lowered and spending is slashed that you will somehow get money back? Or get some kid of immediate benefit?

Idiots. You won't. You'll get the opposite.

 

[Liability]

What would the ******* Congress and the idiot President DO if they were obligated to LOWER the debt?

Would the Republic come to an end?

Or would even those elected jackasses do what had to be done to meet our obligations and then haggle over the rest and remainder?

 

[Liability]

The leftists on this board are going to tell you that not raising the debt ceiling is going to lead to unavoidable default, and they will repeat and repeat this without offering any evidence. It is the word of their god, and it is so.

Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. Sure, we could service the debt, but then not pay the military or vice versa. Point is, we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from.

As for lowering the debt limit (idiot) do you people honestly think if the debt limit is lowered and spending is slashed that you will somehow get money back? Or get some kid of immediate benefit?

Idiots. You won't. You'll get the opposite.

Your premise is a lie.

Not raising the debt limit means nothing more than that the fuckbars in Congress and over at the White House would have to pay the current obligations and then haggle over the rest.

Your notion of surrender before ANY effort is immature and ******* dangerous.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Your premise is a lie.

Not raising the debt limit means nothing more than that the fuckbars in Congress and over at the White House would have to pay the current obligations and then haggle over the rest.

And you assume they can pay all our obligations first? Do you have proof of this?

 

[Liability]

Your premise is a lie.

Not raising the debt limit means nothing more than that the fuckbars in Congress and over at the White House would have to pay the current obligations and then haggle over the rest.

And you assume they can pay all our obligations first? Do you have proof of this?

LOL.

Have you ever actually looked at the budget and our so-called "revenues?"

 

[DontBeStupid]

Have you ever actually looked at the budget and our so-called "revenues?"

Have you?

If so, then, you can tell us for certainty what the obligations are at the Federal level for the month of August. And, you can tell us how much tax receipts will be coming in to cover those obligations.

Please do. I'd love to know the numbers.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Majority of the herd will plow right into the lightening storm every time ie endless bailouts, stimulus', qe's, spending, raising debt limits. It's because all of this this that we're cruising down the cliff at mach speed.

 

[Ame®icano]

The leftists on this board are going to tell you that not raising the debt ceiling is going to lead to unavoidable default, and they will repeat and repeat this without offering any evidence. It is the word of their god, and it is so.

Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. Sure, we could service the debt, but then not pay the military or vice versa. Point is, we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from.

As for lowering the debt limit (idiot) do you people honestly think if the debt limit is lowered and spending is slashed that you will somehow get money back? Or get some kid of immediate benefit?

Idiots. You won't. You'll get the opposite.

Your premise is a lie.

Not raising the debt limit means nothing more than that the fuckbars in Congress and over at the White House would have to pay the current obligations and then haggle over the rest.

Your notion of surrender before ANY effort is immature and ******* dangerous.

Exactly.

So, lets not raise the debt ceiling and have POTUS and Treasury show to Americans their real priorities.

 

[oldsalt]

The leftists on this board are going to tell you that not raising the debt ceiling is going to lead to unavoidable default, and they will repeat and repeat this without offering any evidence. It is the word of their god, and it is so.

Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. Sure, we could service the debt, but then not pay the military or vice versa. Point is, we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from.

As for lowering the debt limit (idiot) do you people honestly think if the debt limit is lowered and spending is slashed that you will somehow get money back? Or get some kid of immediate benefit?

Idiots. You won't. You'll get the opposite.

Your premise is a lie.

Not raising the debt limit means nothing more than that the fuckbars in Congress and over at the White House would have to pay the current obligations and then haggle over the rest.

Your notion of surrender before ANY effort is immature and ******* dangerous.

"Means nothing more". Your stupid is showing. STFU.

 

[Liability]

Have you ever actually looked at the budget and our so-called "revenues?"

Have you?

If so, then, you can tell us for certainty what the obligations are at the Federal level for the month of August. And, you can tell us how much tax receipts will be coming in to cover those obligations.

Please do. I'd love to know the numbers.

LOL!

If you have been at this a while then even YOU know that these numbers are largely the work of creative fiction writers.

To some extent there is a need to engage in speculation. Revnue projections HAVE to be based on some assumptions. But therein lies part of the problem. Figures lie and liars figure.

There is a simpler way to go about this.

Isolate, first, the money which "we" have "borrowed." There is interest to be paid and a portion of principle to be paid. Determine that number and it gets the first priority. No defaults allowed, after all.

Wanna lower the interest payments over time? Good. Like a responsible homeowner, there's a reward for the effort. But there's also a cost. The amount you pay to cover principle must go up in the short term. Figure that number out and make it the second priority.

Next, identify the amounts that we NEED to spend to properly and Constitutionally run the government. Yes, to some extent this WILL include the military and that number is pretty big. So for purposes of discussion, we will be obliged to find ways to CUT the military budget over time. Ok. Nothing is (or should be) off the table. But until we do that, we still have to cover the costs of the military we have now. That gets the next priority.

We also have certain other commitments. Let's be honest about some of this for a change. There is no ******* "trust fund" for social security or medicate and medicaid. That money comes from the damned Treasury. So get the numbers and attend to current payments as the next priority. But don't get too comfy. We must also start to get to the difficult business of cutting those costs. Nothing is a sacred cow. Nothing is off the table.

Take a look at this (but don't take any numbers as gospel truth):

http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

As for your phony question regarding August's debt obligations veersus revenues, as you likely know, that number is not a given. For historical reference, though, you can educate yourself here:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[Liability]

Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. Sure, we could service the debt, but then not pay the military or vice versa. Point is, we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from.

As for lowering the debt limit (idiot) do you people honestly think if the debt limit is lowered and spending is slashed that you will somehow get money back? Or get some kid of immediate benefit?

Idiots. You won't. You'll get the opposite.

Your premise is a lie.

Not raising the debt limit means nothing more than that the fuckbars in Congress and over at the White House would have to pay the current obligations and then haggle over the rest.

Your notion of surrender before ANY effort is immature and ******* dangerous.

"Means nothing more". Your stupid is showing. STFU.

You urgently need to go **** yourself some more, douche bag.

Eat shit and skulk away.

You are far too stupid to contribute anything of value to this (or any) discussion.

NOT raising the limit does mean nothing more than that the Congress (and President) would have to work within our national means for the first time in a LONG motherfucking time. It doesn't mean jack shit more than that, you imbecile.

 

[Avatar4321]

The leftists on this board are going to tell you that not raising the debt ceiling is going to lead to unavoidable default, and they will repeat and repeat this without offering any evidence. It is the word of their god, and it is so.

Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. Sure, we could service the debt, but then not pay the military or vice versa. Point is, we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from.

As for lowering the debt limit (idiot) do you people honestly think if the debt limit is lowered and spending is slashed that you will somehow get money back? Or get some kid of immediate benefit?

Idiots. You won't. You'll get the opposite.

If someone is not going to get paid that's fine. Fire the unnecessary bueaucrats and stop paying the President and Congress.

Interesting how no one bothers to not pay the people causing the problems in the first place? They always go to the military first. Why is that? Oh yeah. Because they are trying to play on emotions and extort your money for their benefit. This is the problem with dishonest people.

 

[Ravi]

Have you ever actually looked at the budget and our so-called "revenues?"

Have you?

If so, then, you can tell us for certainty what the obligations are at the Federal level for the month of August. And, you can tell us how much tax receipts will be coming in to cover those obligations.

Please do. I'd love to know the numbers.

And what of the obligations on the State level? States get a lot of money from the Fed and also are in debt themselves.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Have you ever actually looked at the budget and our so-called "revenues?"

Have you?

If so, then, you can tell us for certainty what the obligations are at the Federal level for the month of August. And, you can tell us how much tax receipts will be coming in to cover those obligations.

Please do. I'd love to know the numbers.

LOL!

If you have been at this a while then even YOU know that these numbers are largely the work of creative fiction writers.

To some extent there is a need to engage in speculation. Revnue projections HAVE to be based on some assumptions. But therein lies part of the problem. Figures lie and liars figure.

There is a simpler way to go about this.

Isolate, first, the money which "we" have "borrowed." There is interest to be paid and a portion of principle to be paid. Determine that number and it gets the first priority. No defaults allowed, after all.

Wanna lower the interest payments over time? Good. Like a responsible homeowner, there's a reward for the effort. But there's also a cost. The amount you pay to cover principle must go up in the short term. Figure that number out and make it the second priority.

Next, identify the amounts that we NEED to spend to properly and Constitutionally run the government. Yes, to some extent this WILL include the military and that number is pretty big. So for purposes of discussion, we will be obliged to find ways to CUT the military budget over time. Ok. Nothing is (or should be) off the table. But until we do that, we still have to cover the costs of the military we have now. That gets the next priority.

We also have certain other commitments. Let's be honest about some of this for a change. There is no ******* "trust fund" for social security or medicate and medicaid. That money comes from the damned Treasury. So get the numbers and attend to current payments as the next priority. But don't get too comfy. We must also start to get to the difficult business of cutting those costs. Nothing is a sacred cow. Nothing is off the table.

Take a look at this (but don't take any numbers as gospel truth):

Budget Simulator | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

As for your phony question regarding August's debt obligations veersus revenues, as you likely know, that number is not a given. For historical reference, though, you can educate yourself here:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Not one number in that entire post.

You could have just said you didn't know.

 

[Liability]

Have you?

If so, then, you can tell us for certainty what the obligations are at the Federal level for the month of August. And, you can tell us how much tax receipts will be coming in to cover those obligations.

Please do. I'd love to know the numbers.

LOL!

If you have been at this a while then even YOU know that these numbers are largely the work of creative fiction writers.

To some extent there is a need to engage in speculation. Revnue projections HAVE to be based on some assumptions. But therein lies part of the problem. Figures lie and liars figure.

There is a simpler way to go about this.

Isolate, first, the money which "we" have "borrowed." There is interest to be paid and a portion of principle to be paid. Determine that number and it gets the first priority. No defaults allowed, after all.

Wanna lower the interest payments over time? Good. Like a responsible homeowner, there's a reward for the effort. But there's also a cost. The amount you pay to cover principle must go up in the short term. Figure that number out and make it the second priority.

Next, identify the amounts that we NEED to spend to properly and Constitutionally run the government. Yes, to some extent this WILL include the military and that number is pretty big. So for purposes of discussion, we will be obliged to find ways to CUT the military budget over time. Ok. Nothing is (or should be) off the table. But until we do that, we still have to cover the costs of the military we have now. That gets the next priority.

We also have certain other commitments. Let's be honest about some of this for a change. There is no ******* "trust fund" for social security or medicate and medicaid. That money comes from the damned Treasury. So get the numbers and attend to current payments as the next priority. But don't get too comfy. We must also start to get to the difficult business of cutting those costs. Nothing is a sacred cow. Nothing is off the table.

Take a look at this (but don't take any numbers as gospel truth):

Budget Simulator | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

As for your phony question regarding August's debt obligations veersus revenues, as you likely know, that number is not a given. For historical reference, though, you can educate yourself here:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Not one number in that entire post.

You could have just said you didn't know.

August 2011 figures?

LOL!

No.

I have them committed to memory.

You could admit you asked a phony question. But you won't.