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

[Contumacious]

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."

Here's a simple analogy.

Why can't we abide by the debt ceiling instead of raising it? Why can't criminals with guns obey gun laws instead of shooting up schools and malls?

Neither law has any power or effect over those they are supposed to govern.

Exactly.

Demagogue , socialist politicians found out in 1935 that using the US Treasury as an ATM helped scumbag FDR get elected four times.

.

 

[Sallow]

The reason is, in my opinion, is quantitative Easing. They are artificially keeping the stock market at a high rate and NO ONE, no one, wants to see another crash. But it is going to happen they can't keep printing money. As we see the stock market is already reacting to the tapering off of easy money.

Mr. Free Market, Milton Friedman, was very much in favor of QE.
The problem with the current QE is that the lenders are NOT lending.

BULLSHIT


Milton Friedman Thought There Shouldn't be a Federal Reserve at All


Reason: But it would be preferable to abolish the Fed entirely and just have government stick to a monetary growth rule?

Friedman: Yes, it's preferable. And there's no chance at all of it happening


.

Well no it's not.

Friedman had no problem whatsoever with bailing out rich folks when they got into trouble.

He just didn't say where the government should get the money from.

Hence the term.. "Voodoo Economics".

 

[Contumacious]

Mr. Free Market, Milton Friedman, was very much in favor of QE.
The problem with the current QE is that the lenders are NOT lending.

BULLSHIT


Milton Friedman Thought There Shouldn't be a Federal Reserve at All


Reason: But it would be preferable to abolish the Fed entirely and just have government stick to a monetary growth rule?

Friedman: Yes, it's preferable. And there's no chance at all of it happening


.

Well no it's not.

Friedman had no problem whatsoever with bailing out rich folks when they got into trouble.

He just didn't say where the government should get the money from.

Hence the term.. "Voodoo Economics".

.

 

[TooTall]

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.

It has been a bipartisan exercise. By the Treasury Department’s count, Congress has acted 78 times since 1960 to raise, extend or alter the definition of the debt limit — 49 times under Republican presidents, and 29 times under Democratic presidents. The Obama administration has taken pains to note that President Ronald Reagan, a hero to many Republicans in Congress, raised the debt limit. In a letter on the debt ceiling last month to Republicans in the Senate, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner quoted a letter Mr. Reagan wrote a generation ago, urging Congress to increase the debt limit. “The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate,” he quoted Mr. Reagan as writing. “Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.”

Q. How has the debt risen this high, and how much are we paying in interest as a nation?

A. The United States has not always operated with such a large debt. After financing World War II with substantial borrowing, the outstanding debt held pretty stable for the next 25 years, going up to $283 billion in 1970 from $242 billion in 1946. But over the last 30 years, the overall debt has increased under every president — with the biggest increase under President George W. Bush, who cut taxes, added a drug benefit to Medicare and fought two wars. As the debt has grown, so have the country’s interest payments. In 2003, for instance, the government paid about $150 billion in interest costs; this year it is estimated to be upward of $200 billion. These interest payments are taking up more federal spending now than federal outlays on education, transportation and housing and urban development combined.

Bush ran the national debt up about 5 Trillion to about 10 Trillion. It now stands at 17+ Trillion. 7 is a larger number than 5.

 

[bendog]

Friedman thought a Federal Reserve could be rendered unnecessary IF another mechanism existed to increase the supply of money in our economy, and others, sufficiently to allow growth, but growth w/o inflation.

Milton Friedman on the creation of money and the great depression, or HOW BEN BERNAKE SAVED THE WORLD

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V5OP-VmXgE]Milton Friedman: The Purpose of the Federal Reserve - YouTube[/ame]

Milton Friedman on how neither the gold standard nor Keynes operated to solve the great depression

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8]Milton Friedman explains role of gold in Great Depression. - YouTube[/ame]

Caveat: I believe Friedman would be ok with a gold standard is there was a mechanism to prevent it operating to decrease the supply of money. However, he was at a loss to force govts to do so. Moreover, while Friedman's work on monetarism is probably still "the gold standard" the Chicago Schools reliance of "the invisible hand" and "rational actions of private actors" has been roundly rebuked.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

BULLSHIT


Milton Friedman Thought There Shouldn't be a Federal Reserve at All


Reason: But it would be preferable to abolish the Fed entirely and just have government stick to a monetary growth rule?

Friedman: Yes, it's preferable. And there's no chance at all of it happening


.

Absent his idea of the money supply growing annually at a static rate, however, he did not support the abolition of the Fed.

WUT?


this book’s 1984 essay “Freezing High-Powered Money” shows, the later Friedman was as radical as Ron Paul in his opposition to the Fed. Friedman called for elimination of the Federal Reserve’s role in “determining the quantity of money” and says its regulatory and service role to the banking system “could, if desired, be continued, preferably by combining it with the similar roles of the FDIC.” In other words, End the Fed!

.

That's not an accurate summation of his position at all. Simply giving the Fed's powers to the FDIC is nothing like Ron Paul's position, and hardly qualifies as calling for the end of central banking.

 

[Toro]

Friedman supported QE

From the 1960s through his death in 2006, the dominant intellectual figure in Republican economic policy was University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. He thought that the gold standard was nuts and that the Fed’s greatest failure was that it didn’t provide enough money to the economy during the Great Depression. While we don’t know what Friedman would be saying today, there is reason to believe that his views would be the opposite of Paul, Perry and many other Republicans.

We know this because Friedman commented often on Japan’s stagnation in the 1990s, that was very similar to the U.S. situation now. In a December 17, 1997, article in the Wall Street Journal, he gave this prescription for Japan’s problem:

“The surest road to a healthy economic recovery is to increase the rate of monetary growth, to shift from tight money to easier money…. Defenders of the Bank of Japan will say, ‘How? The Bank has already cut its discount rate to 0.5 percent. What more can it do to increase the quantity of money?’ The answer is straightforward: The Bank of Japan can buy government bonds on the open market, paying for them with either currency or deposits at the Bank of Japan, what economists call high-powered money.”​

With the Federal Reserve’s discount rate at zero, monetary conditions in the U.S. are parallel to those in Japan. Unfortunately, the low level of interest rates has blinded many economists to the necessity of further Fed action. As Friedman explained in his article, it is “misleading” to judge monetary policy by interest rates. “Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight…high interest rates, that money has been easy,” he wrote.

I believe that if Friedman were still alive, he would be among the sharpest critics of Republicans’ attacks on the Fed. Perhaps his great stature would have been enough to keep them from going off in the wrong direction.

Fed Bashers: Take A Lesson from Milton Friedman

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/186604-milton-friedman-supported-quantitative-easing.html

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Friedman supported QE

From the 1960s through his death in 2006, the dominant intellectual figure in Republican economic policy was University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. He thought that the gold standard was nuts and that the Fed’s greatest failure was that it didn’t provide enough money to the economy during the Great Depression. While we don’t know what Friedman would be saying today, there is reason to believe that his views would be the opposite of Paul, Perry and many other Republicans.

We know this because Friedman commented often on Japan’s stagnation in the 1990s, that was very similar to the U.S. situation now. In a December 17, 1997, article in the Wall Street Journal, he gave this prescription for Japan’s problem:

“The surest road to a healthy economic recovery is to increase the rate of monetary growth, to shift from tight money to easier money…. Defenders of the Bank of Japan will say, ‘How? The Bank has already cut its discount rate to 0.5 percent. What more can it do to increase the quantity of money?’ The answer is straightforward: The Bank of Japan can buy government bonds on the open market, paying for them with either currency or deposits at the Bank of Japan, what economists call high-powered money.”​

With the Federal Reserve’s discount rate at zero, monetary conditions in the U.S. are parallel to those in Japan. Unfortunately, the low level of interest rates has blinded many economists to the necessity of further Fed action. As Friedman explained in his article, it is “misleading” to judge monetary policy by interest rates. “Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight…high interest rates, that money has been easy,” he wrote.

I believe that if Friedman were still alive, he would be among the sharpest critics of Republicans’ attacks on the Fed. Perhaps his great stature would have been enough to keep them from going off in the wrong direction.

Fed Bashers: Take A Lesson from Milton Friedman

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/186604-milton-friedman-supported-quantitative-easing.html

Friedman has no cred. Another jewish banker whose allegiance was to israel.

 

[Erand7899]

The tea party hates that every child can get a education.
The tea party hates that America can land things on other worlds like no other nation on earth.
The tea party hates that America has the best science and tech industry on earth...

I am a supporter of the private sector as it allows the common joe to become something great. ON the other hand it isn't everything.

The Tea party is all for children getting an education, and that includes you. The difference is that the Tea party believes that public schools should serve the purpose of educating children and not the purpose of providing employment for liberal/socialist teachers.

Currently, America's space program is converting to private industry. Our government cannot even land things on the space station.

The United States had the best science and tech industry before government ever became involved with it.

 

[Contumacious]

The tea party hates that every child can get a education.
The tea party hates that America can land things on other worlds like no other nation on earth.
The tea party hates that America has the best science and tech industry on earth...

I am a supporter of the private sector as it allows the common joe to become something great. ON the other hand it isn't everything.

The Tea party is all for children getting an education, and that includes you. The difference is that the Tea party believes that public schools should serve the purpose of educating children and not the purpose of providing employment for liberal/socialist teachers.

Currently, America's space program is converting to private industry. Our government cannot even land things on the space station.

The United States had the best science and tech industry before government ever became involved with it.

Familiarize yourself with the history of public "education" in the USA. It was adopted to benefit the NEA not the children.

.

.

 

[velvtacheeze]

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

I don't remember conservatives always asking this between 2001-2007, when the GOP held unified power in DC.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

It's pretty clear to me the Democrats have created an Achilles' heel for the founder's republic. I am sad.

 

[Toro]

Friedman has no cred. Another jewish banker whose allegiance was to israel.

Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics and is widely considered as one of the greatest minds in economics of all time.

You're an ignorant odious racist who thinks Obama sets the price of stamps.

I'll side with Friedman.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Friedman has no cred. Another jewish banker whose allegiance was to israel.

Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics and is widely considered as one of the greatest minds in economics of all time.

You're an ignorant odious racist who thinks Obama sets the price of stamps.

I'll side with Friedman.

Friedman was an israel-firster and traitor to america. He had zero knowledge of economics since he didn't need any. He took his orders from tel aviv.

And how dare you call me a racist when i oppose affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white people. You support it and YOU are the dastardly wacist!!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Dude...you are a gross ignoranus. Just stop babbling, it's embarrassing.

 

[longknife]

Friedman has no cred. Another jewish banker whose allegiance was to israel.

Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics and is widely considered as one of the greatest minds in economics of all time.

You're an ignorant odious racist who thinks Obama sets the price of stamps.

I'll side with Friedman.

Have you ever looked into the composition of the Nobel Prize selection committee?
What gives them the expertise in economics to select anyone for the prize?
And, according to this, the prize for economics wasn't even one of Nobel's original prizes.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Dude...you are a gross ignoranus. Just stop babbling, it's embarrassing.

You're wasting your time. Toro loves babbling. He's made it into an art form.

 

[Toro]

Friedman has no cred. Another jewish banker whose allegiance was to israel.

Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics and is widely considered as one of the greatest minds in economics of all time.

You're an ignorant odious racist who thinks Obama sets the price of stamps.

I'll side with Friedman.

Have you ever looked into the composition of the Nobel Prize selection committee?
What gives them the expertise in economics to select anyone for the prize?
And, according to this, the prize for economics wasn't even one of Nobel's original prizes.

What gives you the expertise of selecting who is and who is not credible in economics? Given that you find it mildly surprising that it's not an original prize makes one think not a lot, eh?

Friedman is loathed on the Left worldwide, and for good reason. The opinions of a handful of John Birch nutters and racists matters to no one else but themselves.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Dude...you are a gross ignoranus. Just stop babbling, it's embarrassing.

You're wasting your time. Toro loves babbling. He's made it into an art form.

No, dimbulb. The babbling ignoranus is YOU!

 

[Contumacious]

Absent his idea of the money supply growing annually at a static rate, however, he did not support the abolition of the Fed.

WUT?


this book’s 1984 essay “Freezing High-Powered Money” shows, the later Friedman was as radical as Ron Paul in his opposition to the Fed. Friedman called for elimination of the Federal Reserve’s role in “determining the quantity of money” and says its regulatory and service role to the banking system “could, if desired, be continued, preferably by combining it with the similar roles of the FDIC.” In other words, End the Fed!

.

That's not an accurate summation of his position at all. Simply giving the Fed's powers to the FDIC is nothing like Ron Paul's position, and hardly qualifies as calling for the end of central banking.

Milton Friedman:

END THE FED

Friedman was opposed to the very existence of the Fed:

“Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes ‑‑ excusable or not ‑‑ can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic ‑‑ this is the key political argument against an independent central bank. . .To paraphrase Clemenceau: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.”

Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with a mathematical model that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate, issued directly by the government (Treasury) and ending fractional reserve banking powers for the banks, which is why he supported our Monetary Reform Act. He said he actually would “like to abolish the Fed“, and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists."

.