|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 8:08:14 GMT -5
we should NOT increase the debt ceiling, and here is why.
1) we have one ('a debt ceiling') for a reason....if not, get rid of it! 2) we would force our gov't to prioritize our spending 3) we would insure america's future 4) we owe it to our children 5) and there would be no credit default risk as we have tax income of between 200 to 250 billion a month and our 200 billion a year debt service can more than be managed with that amount of income.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 3, 2011 8:10:28 GMT -5
6) because it would be reckless to become more indebted... (leverage that doesn't produce revenue kinda sux, imo)
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 8:17:35 GMT -5
the house has the power to stop the debt ceiling from being raised, without any support or help from anyone or anything.
vote it down, and it is done!
tying the raising of the debt ceiling to any spending cuts, has been done 69 times in the last 90 years.
expecting another president and another congress to abide by today's legislative 'spending cuts' over the next 10 years, is just political speak for "business as usual".
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 8:47:55 GMT -5
any house politician that votes to raise the debt ceiling, should be noted by us, and voted against in the next election, period! no excuses!
i hear the excuses now......"full faith and credit......to short to fix long term.......we need the gov't funded..........the money has already been spent......our president needs this money to fix the economy.....there will be armageddon.......we are the world currency and owe an obligation......."
all the above 'excuses' are double talk for "i want business as usual so i can get rich"......"i want to get reelected, so i can continue getting rich"......."i want someone else to make the tough decisions, so i don't lose the chance to get rich"
a vote to raise the debt ceiling should mean a vote out of office! so they can't get rich at our expense any longer.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jun 3, 2011 10:48:20 GMT -5
Math 101-you spend more than you have you are in serious trouble. We are in serious trouble. We have fattened the wallets of countries like China and Japan by irresponsible borrowing, it should not and cannot go on.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 11:07:57 GMT -5
I ultimately think we should raise the debt limit, I think it is unrealistic to think we can curb our spending so drastically in just a matter of months. But there needs to be a clear plan to get our spending under control.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 11:23:27 GMT -5
Since 2008 the national debt went up 5 trillion. 3/12 years and it basically went from 9 to 14 trillion, I would say no on raising the debt ceiling common sense if you ask me. If it hurts some, then it hurts some. Consequences happen whether or not it is by my choice or somebody else.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 11:25:34 GMT -5
How about raise the debt ceilings or go into default....or either way you are between a rock and a hard place... so you just have to deal with.....IMHO
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 11:30:13 GMT -5
How about raise the debt ceilings or go into default....or either way you are between a rock and a hard place... so you just have to deal with.....IMHO It depends on what you mean be default, there is no reason we would actually go into default, we will still have plenty of revenue to make interest payments.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 11:40:04 GMT -5
How about raise the debt ceilings or go into default....or either way you are between a rock and a hard place... so you just have to deal with.....IMHO It depends on what you mean be default, there is no reason we would actually go into default, we will still have plenty of revenue to make interest payments. Ok let me try this instead ...How about raise the debt ceilings or risk going into default...??
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 11:45:40 GMT -5
It depends on what you mean be default, there is no reason we would actually go into default, we will still have plenty of revenue to make interest payments. Ok let me try this instead ...How about raise the debt ceilings or risk going into default...?? That is better, however, in a real since they will be in 'default' of paying obligations. I think they should raise the debt ceiling enough to at least get through the fiscal year. Maybe the feds will try what some states have tried, to increase withholding to get more revenue with the hope of having enough money to pay bigger than expected refunds when the time comes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 20:04:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 11:46:28 GMT -5
It depends on what you mean be default, there is no reason we would actually go into default, we will still have plenty of revenue to make interest payments. Ok let me try this instead ...How about raise the debt ceilings or risk going into default...?? What an asinine argument you have there. Should we not drive since there is a RISK of getting into a wreck? Should we not walk because there is a RISK of getting hit by a car or mauled by an animal? Should we...... Do you get the point? Just because their may be a RISK doesn't mean we have to raise the debt ceiling. Perhaps, the Federal Government (both parties) should just start cutting things instead of talking about cutting things. Sure, there may be some hard decisions to make but unless those decisions are ACTUALLY made then nothing changes and we continue this stupid argument for decades to come. Same shit....different day.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 12:01:25 GMT -5
How about raise the debt ceilings or go into default....or either way you are between a rock and a hard place... so you just have to deal with.....IMHO It depends on what you mean be default, there is no reason we would actually go into default, we will still have plenty of revenue to make interest payments. You talking about federal tax revenue? Federal tax revenue is aprox 2.2 trillion, but between medicare, defense spending and social security aprox 2.25 trillion. Revenue is kind of nixed out and then some
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 12:05:18 GMT -5
You talking about federal tax revenue? Federal tax revenue is aprox 2.2 trillion, but between medicare, defense spending and social security aprox 2.25 trillion. Revenue is kind of nixed out and then some Yes, so cuts would have to be made, but interest on debt could be paid as agreed, this would mean we did not go into technical default.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 12:07:18 GMT -5
Ok let me try this instead ...How about raise the debt ceilings or risk going into default...?? What an asinine argument you have there. Should we not drive since there is a RISK of getting into a wreck? Should we not walk because there is a RISK of getting hit by a car or mauled by an animal? Should we...... Do you get the point? Just because their may be a RISK doesn't mean we have to raise the debt ceiling. Perhaps, the Federal Government (both parties) should just start cutting things instead of talking about cutting things. Sure, there may be some hard decisions to make but unless those decisions are ACTUALLY made then nothing changes and we continue this stupid argument for decades to come. Same shit....different day. I agree, the only problem i see is that everybody wants a piece of the pie and in turn end up lobbying politicians into giving it to them. The huge part of that problem is that there is one pie and way to many people to all have a legitimate piece. The politicians are taking pies from the future and think that it will never catch up to them.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 12:22:23 GMT -5
What an asinine argument you have there. Should we not drive since there is a RISK of getting into a wreck? Should we not walk because there is a RISK of getting hit by a car or mauled by an animal? Should we...... Do you get the point?
Just because their may be a RISK doesn't mean we have to raise the debt ceiling. Perhaps, the Federal Government (both parties) should just start cutting things instead of talking about cutting things. Sure, there may be some hard decisions to make but unless those decisions are ACTUALLY made then nothing changes and we continue this stupid argument for decades to come. Same shit....different day.[/quote]
But remember, the financial markets have a highly sensitive nose that can sniff out half-baked solutions. And they don’t like to be kept in suspense. Republicans and Democrats should not wait until the last minute to agree on a substantive plan to reduce deficits and raise the debt ceiling, which can be financed only until Aug. 2. After that, it’s default time for America.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 13:44:48 GMT -5
I ultimately think we should raise the debt limit, I think it is unrealistic to think we can curb our spending so drastically in just a matter of months. But there needs to be a clear plan to get our spending under control.
this same thing has been said 69 other times in the last 90 years. how many more times does it need to be said?
do we keep saying it until we don't have to anymore?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jun 3, 2011 13:50:37 GMT -5
Republicans and Democrats should not wait until the last minute to agree on a substantive plan to reduce deficits and raise the debt ceiling, which can be financed only until Aug. 2. After that, it’s default time for America. No. It isn't. After 8/2 it's pay the interest to avoid default and only pay a portion of what people currently feel (or have been led to believe) they're entitled to.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 13:59:55 GMT -5
after 8/2 our gov't will be forced to prioritize spending. this might be the only time we have the chance to force them to do so. wouldn't you like to see what our gov't feels is more important and what is less important.
if we see how our gov't thinks, maybe we can better react to problems.
lets not miss this chance at limiting our gov'ts spending, seeing what our gov't thinks is important, and passing on a country to our children.
don't let them raise the debt ceiling limit!
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 14:01:22 GMT -5
You talking about federal tax revenue? Federal tax revenue is aprox 2.2 trillion, but between medicare, defense spending and social security aprox 2.25 trillion. Revenue is kind of nixed out and then some Yes, so cuts would have to be made, but interest on debt could be paid as agreed, this would mean we did not go into technical default. I would say huge cuts. These are only 3 programs and they surpass our revenue, this is not including the other 10k programs we have. Either way it is going to hurt the economy huge, I say it is better to cut if off hard now and make it better for future generations to prosper. I am curious as to what you would cut. You realize that the cuts would have to be huge out of these 3 programs or you would have to end thousands of other programs welfare, food stamps, pensions, unemployment, family support, foster care, making work pay, education programs/department, earned income credits, FEMA, ect. ect.. I can see cutting smaller programs, but that won't be enough to even notice the slowing of the debt. If you raise the debt ceiling cap all you are going to do is make it more painful. The bigger they get the harder they hit the ground. Going to just have to cut a lot out of the big 3 if you ask me, then they have this health plan passed by the administration. You tell me how medicare, medicaid and SS are working out(these are all government run programs). Can we say more debt? If you said yes then more than likely your odds are that you are right.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 14:13:33 GMT -5
Medicare spending could increase our debt along with lost revenues from the Housing Markets, 9% unemployment, and that dirty little old pest called inflation and put our government into default ...Medicare alone is one example of government spending that is out of control and the savings with Obamacare are not there or expected to be there based on five year projections. What is the Democratic Plan to address this?? Rise the debt ceiling and kick the can down the road until after they re elect Obama in 2012??
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 14:21:25 GMT -5
i get a kick out of, every time we talk about real spending cuts, the 1st thing our gov't talks about is...... cutting waste as fraud.
isn't cutting waste and fraud in gov't something that should always be a number one priority, that continually happens?
why is it only important to cut waste and fraud when painful choices, other than cutting waste and fraud, need to be made, does cutting waste and fraud become a topic of discussion?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 14:24:17 GMT -5
i get a kick out of, every time we talk about real spending cuts, the 1st thing our gov't talks about is...... cutting waste as fraud. isn't cutting waste and fraud in gov't something that should always be a number one priority, that continually happens? why is it only important to cut waste and fraud when painful choices, other than cutting waste and fraud, need to be made, does cutting waste and fraud become a topic of discussion? I watched the debates in Sacramento as our legislature addressed waste and fraud..but they never talked about their perks, staff, and other waste in their own offices... And they have high priced lawyers on their staff who earn megabucks just to advise them and help with their re election campaigns...don't see much bang for the buck with this crowd in Sacramento while our state is about to default on its debt by going into bankruptcy..
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jun 3, 2011 14:52:25 GMT -5
i get a kick out of, every time we talk about real spending cuts, the 1st thing our gov't talks about is...... cutting waste as fraud. isn't cutting waste and fraud in gov't something that should always be a number one priority, that continually happens? why is it only important to cut waste and fraud when painful choices, other than cutting waste and fraud, need to be made, does cutting waste and fraud become a topic of discussion? See the issue here is that the lobbyist or special groups are the ones that are telling the politicians what is waste and fraud not their reason . It is like a vicious greed circle.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 15:03:19 GMT -5
If our government is not at risk for default then why did Moody's Credit Agency just issue a warning that if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2 our government could default on its debt....would Moody's issue this warning if it was not factual?? I doubt it..
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 15:18:11 GMT -5
I don't think moody s track record has been that good, but if the debt ceiling is not raised then cuts will have to be made and the Treasury could decide not to pay the interest and let us default, so of course there is a risk, but I don't think we have defaulted in the past when the debt limit was not raised
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 15:23:38 GMT -5
Treasury could decide not to pay the interest and let us default
why would they do this.......if all timmy has been taking about is the importance of not doing just that?
if, as he has stated........"it would be armageddon", why would he take us there..........can't you see the veiled threat?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 3, 2011 15:25:34 GMT -5
Treasury could decide not to pay the interest and let us defaultwhy would they do this.......if all timmy has been taking about is the importance of not doing just that? if, as he has stated........"it would be armageddon", why would he take us there..........can't you see the veiled threat? Of course it is a threat, and I think geithner actually said if we didn't raise it by March we would default, but some how some way by a miracle from above or something we didn't default in March
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 3, 2011 15:26:00 GMT -5
have defaulted in the past when the debt limit was not raised
it has never.....not been rasied.......it has been delayed, but so has this time time, been delayed.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jun 3, 2011 15:58:13 GMT -5
How close is congress and the White House to a resolution of the debt ceiling August 2 is just two months down the road and if Moody's rates the government debt as junk then watch the fireworks.
|
|