Why can't we ABIDE BY the debt ceiling instead of always raising it?

[ScienceRocks]

The govt would not have rendered those services if they knew they were bound by the debt ceiling. THINK!!!!

I agree.
We should stop spending on our military to build and support infrastructure in other countries.
We also need to eliminate corporate subsidies as well as automate many municipal, state and federal functions as they all get our federal tax dollars.

Do you agree?

NO, the military spending is a legitimate expenditure.

And you are wrong that it is a necessity to pay for already spent money.

To increase the debt ceiling is nothing but code for , "I want to spend even more."

We haven't exactly been increasing science, infrastructure and r@d to account for this debt. What logical sense could you people have to cut our throats as a major creative power in this world?

Maybe it is the wars, nation building and welfare?

 

[Indeependent]

The govt would not have rendered those services if they knew they were bound by the debt ceiling. THINK!!!!

I agree.
We should stop spending on our military to build and support infrastructure in other countries.
We also need to eliminate corporate subsidies as well as automate many municipal, state and federal functions as they all get our federal tax dollars.

Do you agree?

NO, the military spending is a legitimate expenditure.

And you are wrong that it is a necessity to pay for already spent money.

To increase the debt ceiling is nothing but code for , "I want to spend even more."

The US Military should be in the US.
Deployed solely for Kill, Crush, Destroy assignments.
Giving Military hand-outs to the rest of the world should not be viewed as having any more validity as hand-outs to our own nation.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I agree.
We should stop spending on our military to build and support infrastructure in other countries.
We also need to eliminate corporate subsidies as well as automate many municipal, state and federal functions as they all get our federal tax dollars.

Do you agree?

NO, the military spending is a legitimate expenditure.

And you are wrong that it is a necessity to pay for already spent money.

To increase the debt ceiling is nothing but code for , "I want to spend even more."

The US Military should be in the US.
Deployed solely for Kill, Crush, Destroy assignments.
Giving Military hand-outs to the rest of the world should not be viewed as having any more validity as hand-outs to our own nation.

You got that right...

We should be focusing on more important things like education, infrastructure, science and r@d. Focusing on keeping ourselves a respectable nation.

 

[Toro]

A better question is why we even have a debt ceiling?

Get rid of it. It's stupid.

 

[Nyvin]

A better question is why we even have a debt ceiling?

Get rid of it. It's stupid.

At the very least work it out so it doesn't need an increase every fricking year. It's really stupid, I don't know of any other nations that put their financial credibility up for a vote every year.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

NO, the military spending is a legitimate expenditure.

And you are wrong that it is a necessity to pay for already spent money.

To increase the debt ceiling is nothing but code for , "I want to spend even more."

The US Military should be in the US.
Deployed solely for Kill, Crush, Destroy assignments.
Giving Military hand-outs to the rest of the world should not be viewed as having any more validity as hand-outs to our own nation.

You got that right...

We should be focusing on more important things like education, infrastructure, science and r@d. Focusing on keeping ourselves a respectable nation.

All that shit is or should be the responsibility of the private sector and local governments. No way I want my tax dollars going to shit holes like Detroit.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A better question is why we even have a debt ceiling?

Get rid of it. It's stupid.

At the very least work it out so it doesn't need an increase every fricking year. It's really stupid, I don't know of any other nations that put their financial credibility up for a vote every year.

We are not any other nation. We are America and we have laws and rules to follow.

 

[Toro]

A better question is why we even have a debt ceiling?

Get rid of it. It's stupid.

At the very least work it out so it doesn't need an increase every fricking year. It's really stupid, I don't know of any other nations that put their financial credibility up for a vote every year.

We are not any other nation. We are America and we have laws and rules to follow.

So repeal the law.

A stupid law is still a stupid law, even if Americans pass it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

At the very least work it out so it doesn't need an increase every fricking year. It's really stupid, I don't know of any other nations that put their financial credibility up for a vote every year.

We are not any other nation. We are America and we have laws and rules to follow.

So repeal the law.

A stupid law is still a stupid law, even if Americans pass it.

The only thing stupid about it is it's so easy for Congress to skirt it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The idiot RINO Boehner is again trying to help obozo by raising the debt ceiling. Hell - the point of the ceiling is to control govt spending so he should be demanding obozo cut back on spending.

John Boehner: 'Increase the Debt Ceiling'

5 Feb 2014, 9:05 AM

With just two days before America hits the debt ceiling deadline, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced on Tuesday his desire to raise it.
"The goal here is to increase the debt ceiling," said Boehner. "Nobody wants to default on our debt."
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew says the nation will hit its debt limit this Friday, February 7th.
"While we're doing this we ought to do something about the jobs and the economy," said Boehner.
Boehner said Republicans have discussed several options for receiving concessions for a debt limit increase but that "no decisions have been made."

There is no such thing as a 'debt ceiling,' it's a political contrivance having nothing to do with economic reality, and needs to be done away with.

 

[Political Junky]

Why can't we ABIDE BY the debt ceiling instead of always raising it?

Because Democrats are an unhappy lot when they can't spend money we don't have.

The Right didn't complain about spending until Obama was elected.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why can't we ABIDE BY the debt ceiling instead of always raising it?

Because Democrats are an unhappy lot when they can't spend money we don't have.

The Right didn't complain about spending until Obama was elected.

^ dishonest nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why can't we ABIDE BY the debt ceiling instead of always raising it?

Because Democrats are an unhappy lot when they can't spend money we don't have.

The Right didn't complain about spending until Obama was elected.

Many of them didn't, you're right, but some of them did.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Why can't we ABIDE BY the debt ceiling instead of always raising it?

Because Democrats are an unhappy lot when they can't spend money we don't have.

The Right didn't complain about spending until Obama was elected.

Many of them didn't, you're right, but some of them did.

Almost all did.

It has been one of the PRECEPTS of modern day American Conservatism that the government taxes too much, SPENDS too much, regulates too much and meddles too much.

Political Junky's contention is simply and totally devoid of truth value.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here's a piece from 2005.

Since Political Junky seems to be in a time-warp bubble of some kind, let's help him out.

2005 PRECEDED (that means came before) Obumbler's election.

The Impact of Government Spending on Economic Growth

 

[Little-Acorn]

Obeying the debt ceiling means no more borrowing when we hit it,
which means, instant balanced budget!

For the first time since the 1950s.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Right didn't complain about spending until Obama was elected.

Many of them didn't, you're right, but some of them did.

Almost all did.

It has been one of the PRECEPTS of modern day American Conservatism that the government taxes too much, SPENDS too much, regulates too much and meddles too much.

Political Junky's contention is simply and totally devoid of truth value.

Much like many liberals today refuse to criticize Obama for things that they would criticize Bush for, many conservatives were unwilling to criticize Bush while he was in power over his profligate spending. Now you can say those are the "precepts" of American conservatism, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush ignored those "precepts" and plenty of conservatives stayed silent while he did. It doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with his policies, simply that they didn't want to criticize him for political reasons. Of course they're all perfectly willing to criticize him now that he's out of power.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Many of them didn't, you're right, but some of them did.

Almost all did.

It has been one of the PRECEPTS of modern day American Conservatism that the government taxes too much, SPENDS too much, regulates too much and meddles too much.

Political Junky's contention is simply and totally devoid of truth value.

Much like many liberals today refuse to criticize Obama for things that they would criticize Bush for, many conservatives were unwilling to criticize Bush while he was in power over his profligate spending. Now you can say those are the "precepts" of American conservatism, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush ignored those "precepts" and plenty of conservatives stayed silent while he did. It doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with his policies, simply that they didn't want to criticize him for political reasons. Of course they're all perfectly willing to criticize him now that he's out of power.

First off: my argument was directed at the absurd contention of Political Flunky. What HE claimed IS false. LOTS of conservatives sure as shit DID complain about spending LONG before there was even an official CANDIDATE named Obama.

Spin it for all you're worth, but you can't erase what Political Flunky SAID. He was wrong. Period.

Next, there WERE indeed some folks who zipped their lips rather than criticize W. In the face of the relentless criticism of the left (including of course the biased liberal propagandist media) directed against W, it might have seemed a bit unseemly to join the chorus. That said, it is STILL true that MANY CONSERVATIVES still voiced concern about and railed AGAINST excessive Government spending. I never suggested, claimed or contended that ALL conservatives forcefully argued against W's spending at that time. I simply (and correctly) DENIED the absurd (false) claim made by Political Flunky.

The left wing radical liberals' present day failure to criticize Obumbler is not even remotely akin to any right winger's reluctance to criticize W, however. The modern day liberal would not be guilty of being disloyal to a standard bearer under attack. NOBODY in the fucking left wing main stream media goes after Obumbler and his nearly total historical record of FAIL. So there is no "chorus" to join in on.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Liberals (in both parties) often use the excuse, that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we'll just not be able to pay for the things we've already bought.

What that really means is, "Even though we knew the debt ceiling was coming, we ignored it and obligated ourselves to spend far more money that we were authorized to, because we knew you people didn't mean it, and would raise it whenever we said."

Suppose we could make a law that was (nearly) impossible to change, stating that the maximum debt was (say) $20 trillion. Such as, a Constitutional amendment. Once an amendment is enacted, it is almost never repealed or changed. And on the rare occasions when one is, it takes years (see 18th and 21st amendments).

Suppose we enacted such an amendment. And afterward, the various poll-chasers found that the American people did NOT want to repeal or amend the amendment further. Congressional overspenders would know we wouldn't hit the new ceiling for a couple more years or more... but they would also know that once we hit it, it would NOT be raised. So they would have that many years to dial back spending to where we might approach the new ceiling, but wouldn't exceed it.

What would they do?

 

[Toro]

Many of them didn't, you're right, but some of them did.

Almost all did.

It has been one of the PRECEPTS of modern day American Conservatism that the government taxes too much, SPENDS too much, regulates too much and meddles too much.

Political Junky's contention is simply and totally devoid of truth value.

Much like many liberals today refuse to criticize Obama for things that they would criticize Bush for, many conservatives were unwilling to criticize Bush while he was in power over his profligate spending. Now you can say those are the "precepts" of American conservatism, but it doesn't change the fact that Bush ignored those "precepts" and plenty of conservatives stayed silent while he did. It doesn't necessarily mean they agreed with his policies, simply that they didn't want to criticize him for political reasons. Of course they're all perfectly willing to criticize him now that he's out of power.

Yup. Exactly. Medicare Part D was the biggest expansion of government into healthcare since LBJ, at least up until Obama. You didn't see conservatives rise up en masse. They mildly took it with hardly a peep.

It's just partisan tribalism. Republicans are no better or no worse than Democrat (even though Republicans will say Democrats are worse and Democrats will say Republicans are worse). Obama's foreign policy is Bush Lite, and you don't hear many Democrats bitching about drone strikes or Gitmo like they did under Bush.