What good is the Debt Ceiling?

[Cancel 2016.2]

You want programs for poor and the elderly cut. you want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

Ok... Nice FEAR MONGERING line of crap. Not anywhere close to my position, even in this thread I have demonstrated to the contrary.

 

[Based Chad]

No, most politicians aren't poor.

you want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and elderly.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, you are wrong. It has everything to do with the future of the idiots in DC to continue to out spend revenue. It provides them the ability to continue outspending in the future. Congress can also CHANGE ITS MIND and decide all of that spending is not necessary. They can CUT the amount they thought they 'needed' to spend.

But they have to vote on all that future spending. Increasing the debt ceiling does not appropriate a single dollar for anything. If they want to spending in the future, they have to vote to do it. Increasing the debt ceiling just allows the Treasury to pay for the things that they've already decided to spend money on. The point is, if you want to hold politicians accountable for spending, you should do it when they decide to spend the money, not at a later date when they authorize the check to be cut after the liability has been incurred, oftentimes by prior Congresses.

Yes and AS I STATED, there is NO rationale reason why it can't have long term spending cuts and debt reduction amendments attached to the increase. you know... showing some resemblance of fiscal sanity.

The reason for not doing it is that they cannot agree to it. Pretty much everyone agrees that the debt ceiling has to be increased or else there will be dire consequences. That being the case, it should be increased. This grand debt reduction plan that you think is really important but isn't should be dealt with separately, if at all.

AND BACK to the Dem talking points your masters laid out for you.

FARGLE BARGLE. Of course, I'm 100% correct.

Exactly... not difficult at all... that is why it has been 50+ years since they last lowered our nations debt. The above is truly fucking idiotic.

It really isn't all that difficult. They just don't pass new spending. It's no more difficult to not pass new spending legislation than it is to come up with some grand bargain to attach to something that everyone thinks has to happen. Trying to do both at once is stupid, particularly where any grand bargain struck need not be honored by any future Congress.

which again is the WHOLE FUCKING REASON FOR THE DEBT CEILING. They CAN make it binding. But they WON'T, because people like you are too friggin gullible and continue to buy their lines of bullshit over and over again and so they take advantage of idiots like you.

They can't make it binding. All it takes to overturn a prior law is a new law. If the 111th Congress passes a law that says that the 112th Congress cannot spend more than $x dollars, all it takes for the 112th Congress to spend $X+1 is a law that changes the law passed by the 11th Congress.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

you want to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and elderly.

Yes, I want the poor and elderly who are paying absolutely NOTHING and being asked by NO ONE to pay ANYTHING at all... to pay for all our ENTIRE National Debt.... that is clear by what I have posted, and by what Republicans and people on the right have been consistently saying. Is that your take on it, MORON?

 

[apple0154]

Since you are giving partisan examples why don't the Democrats just eliminate it then so they can supposedly be free to spend all the money they want on what they deem worthy?

If they are unable to raise the ceiling how are they supposed to eliminate it?

 

[apple0154]

Or...why, when they controlled both houses, did they continue to fund the war they claim to be against and hate?

Because it's difficult to say, "Opps, we made a mistake. We're going home now."

That's exactly the problem with the wars. They were started with no exit plan. That's been discussed for years. Of course, the Repubs had no intention of exiting so in their twisted minds an exit plan wasn't necessary.

 

[apple0154]

How typical of a Dem. LMAO... "not raising it causes all sorts of problems"... no moron.... constantly out spending revenue to the point where you need to continue raising it is what causes the problems.

Tell us.... if you have a credit card and maxed it out, then went to the credit card company and said 'hey, just raise the limit, because if you don't it just causes all sorts of problems'.... would they:

(a) die of laughter
(b) tell you that you are out of your friggin mind
(c) make you develop a plan to pay down the debt in the event they give you one more raise in limit
(d) say... 'oh, sure, we can see how that would be a problem for you, tell you what... why don't we just take away the limit all together... just keep on out spending your revenue... no harm could ever come from that'

No, they would look at your ability to pay which is more than just ones income.

Years ago, in my "free-wheeling days", my credit card limit was equivalent to my net annual income. Did the CC company worry? No. Why not? Because I owned property and could, if necessary, obtain money to pay them by selling a property. Also, my wife worked and earned a good income.

The point being the government can get the money to pay it's bills simply by raising taxes. The government is the people so the government has access to the money the people have just as I had access to money via my wife and property.

There were times in the past when taxes were considerably higher and people had less luxuries than they have today so there is no crisis.

Just consider ObamaCare. Politicians in the richest country on the face of the earth claiming the country is too poor to look after it's ill citizens. It's beyond absurd.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Because it's difficult to say, "Opps, we made a mistake. We're going home now."

That's exactly the problem with the wars. They were started with no exit plan. That's been discussed for years. Of course, the Repubs had no intention of exiting so in their twisted minds an exit plan wasn't necessary.

You know what fuckwad, I am about tired of hearing about Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much money it cost. The "solution" has always been there, since before Obama took office, actually... stop funding the wars! If Congress voted to cut off funding, the wars are over, the troops come home... that's it... end of the cost, end of the expense. So why wasn't that done? You've had two years since Obama took over, and a few years before that where you controlled both houses of Congress. Your Democrat representatives in Congress have repeatedly voted to fund the wars, so why don't you and your idiot liberal buddies just stop it with this shit? It's getting really old and tiresome to go through this every time, as if somehow in your mind, Republicans and Republicans alone, have made the wars entirely possible, against the will of Democrats, who had FULL CONTROL over Congress and the White House!

 

[apple0154]

You know what fuckwad, I am about tired of hearing about Iraq and Afghanistan, and how much money it cost. The "solution" has always been there, since before Obama took office, actually... stop funding the wars! If Congress voted to cut off funding, the wars are over, the troops come home... that's it... end of the cost, end of the expense. So why wasn't that done? You've had two years since Obama took over, and a few years before that where you controlled both houses of Congress. Your Democrat representatives in Congress have repeatedly voted to fund the wars, so why don't you and your idiot liberal buddies just stop it with this shit? It's getting really old and tiresome to go through this every time, as if somehow in your mind, Republicans and Republicans alone, have made the wars entirely possible, against the will of Democrats, who had FULL CONTROL over Congress and the White House!

Learn to read for comprehension. One can't simply stop a war without grave repercussions. That's why reconstruction is going on. One doesn't win the hearts of people by destroying their country and then leaving and "winning the hearts" was the whole idea.

Obama is dealing with the repercussions. Got it?

 

[Based Chad]

Yes, I want the poor and elderly who are paying absolutely NOTHING and being asked by NO ONE to pay ANYTHING at all... to pay for all our ENTIRE National Debt.... that is clear by what I have posted, and by what Republicans and people on the right have been consistently saying. Is that your take on it, MORON?

That is what you want, yes. That is an accurate self-assessment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But they have to vote on all that future spending. Increasing the debt ceiling does not appropriate a single dollar for anything. If they want to spending in the future, they have to vote to do it. Increasing the debt ceiling just allows the Treasury to pay for the things that they've already decided to spend money on. The point is, if you want to hold politicians accountable for spending, you should do it when they decide to spend the money, not at a later date when they authorize the check to be cut after the liability has been incurred, oftentimes by prior Congresses.

AGAIN you brain dead moron.... the entire point of the debt ceiling is so that it becomes a national discussion when they decide to raise it. Most people do not pay attention to the day to day spending. THIS is EXACTLY the time for the public to say WTF.

As stated 100 times before... there IS NO RATIONAL REASON not to put the two together. NONE. THERE IS NO REASON they cannot come up with a long term plan to cut spending to the point it is in line with revenues. NONE. You just want them to be capable of continuing their drunken spending spree.

The reason for not doing it is that they cannot agree to it.

LMAO... you are an idiot. That is EXACTLY why it should be done now. It FORCES them to compromise. You moron.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the debt ceiling has to be increased or else there will be dire consequences. That being the case, it should be increased. This grand debt reduction plan that you think is really important but isn't should be dealt with separately, if at all.

Seriously, have they not fed you your cracker yet? Because your parroting skills are second to none. See above for response to your repeat.

It really isn't all that difficult. They just don't pass new spending. It's no more difficult to not pass new spending legislation than it is to come up with some grand bargain to attach to something that everyone thinks has to happen. Trying to do both at once is stupid, particularly where any grand bargain struck need not be honored by any future Congress.

Polly in serious need of his cracker. Saying 'just don't pass new spending' when the past 50 years has demonstrated they are incapable of doing that is fucking retarded. Doing both now puts the CURRENT Congress on record as either supporting the spending cuts put into place or not. The Current Congress would then have a much harder time justifying the insane levels of deficit spending you love so much.

They can't make it binding. All it takes to overturn a prior law is a new law. If the 111th Congress passes a law that says that the 112th Congress cannot spend more than $x dollars, all it takes for the 112th Congress to spend $X+1 is a law that changes the law passed by the 11th Congress.

They most certainly CAN make it binding.... or essentially do so if you want to be technical. An Amendment to the Constitution would effectively take care of that.

 

[Bonestorm]

AGAIN you brain dead moron.... the entire point of the debt ceiling is so that it becomes a national discussion when they decide to raise it. Most people do not pay attention to the day to day spending. THIS is EXACTLY the time for the public to say WTF.

Do you have any sort of citation for this history of the debt ceiling? I'd love to see it.

As stated 100 times before... there IS NO RATIONAL REASON not to put the two together. NONE. THERE IS NO REASON they cannot come up with a long term plan to cut spending to the point it is in line with revenues. NONE. You just want them to be capable of continuing their drunken spending spree.

The rational reason not to do it is that there is no reason to do it in the first instance. Everyone agrees that the debt ceiling should be increased. So increase it.

LMAO... you are an idiot. That is EXACTLY why it should be done now. It FORCES them to compromise. You moron.

OK. So you think that it makes sense not to do something that everyone agrees should be done, which if not done will cause global economic turmoil, unless and until the Democrats and Republicans can reach a grand bargain that is not binding on any future Congress on issues of taxation and spending that are the most basic issues dividing the parties? That's insane.

Seriously, have they not fed you your cracker yet? Because your parroting skills are second to none. See above for response to your repeat.

FARGLE BARGLE.

This stuff cracks me up though. You seem to have this idea of yourself as an independent thinker when you're really just a dime a dozen Republican.

Polly in serious need of his cracker. Saying 'just don't pass new spending' when the past 50 years has demonstrated they are incapable of doing that is fucking retarded. Doing both now puts the CURRENT Congress on record as either supporting the spending cuts put into place or not. The Current Congress would then have a much harder time justifying the insane levels of deficit spending you love so much.

How is it retarded? It's really easy to cut spending if Congress wants to do it. They just don't pass new spending. That Congress hasn't really done that ever doesn't mean it is hard, it just means that Congress doesn't really want to cut spending.

By the way, what about the revenue side of the equation? Shouldn't that be addressed in conjunction with the debt ceiling too? You are awfully quiet about that part. And, naturally, you ignore that if I had my way, we wouldn't be in this predicament in the first instance. Unlike you, I was against the Bush tax cuts, which is the biggest contributor to our current predicament.

They most certainly CAN make it binding.... or essentially do so if you want to be technical. An Amendment to the Constitution would effectively take care of that.

A statute cannot be binding on future Congresses. And I'm not "being technical," I am dealing in the real world.

And the Amendment thing is hilarious. "Oh, they can just pass an amendment to the Constitution." By August. Yeah, it's just that easy.

 

[Based Chad]

It amazes me that republicans would rather destroy the nation than let poor and old people live.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is what you want, yes. That is an accurate self-assessment.

Unfortunately it's not based on the reality of anything I have ever articulated, or anything ever articulated by anyone on the right that I am aware of. It's typical dishonest liberal pinhead rhetoric, from a typical pinheaded idiot who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and is seriously split from reality on a host of issues. So I can live with that... keep yapping!

 

[Based Chad]

Unfortunately it's not based on the reality of anything I have ever articulated, or anything ever articulated by anyone on the right that I am aware of. It's typical dishonest liberal pinhead rhetoric, from a typical pinheaded idiot who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and is seriously split from reality on a host of issues. So I can live with that... keep yapping!

Actually, it epitomizes the reality of everything you articulate. Im not a liberal either.

Tell us more about how god is energy, or the laws of physics, or patterns in the sand, and then we'll see who's in touch with reality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Learn to read for comprehension. One can't simply stop a war without grave repercussions. That's why reconstruction is going on. One doesn't win the hearts of people by destroying their country and then leaving and "winning the hearts" was the whole idea.

Obama is dealing with the repercussions. Got it?

What repercussions? Abandoning the War on Terror and bringing our troops home from abroad, is going to have major repercussions, but it's what the Democrats have whined and moaned about for the past decade. You're too stupid to understand the threat from Islamic Jihad, and you have a simplistic and naive world view in general. The only repercussion from not funding a war that we aren't determined to win, is that we save a lot of money not fighting a war we can't win. But this is just like everything else the Liberals touch... Gitmo, Rendition, the Patriot Act... It's a totally unacceptable travesty, until you get into power... then suddenly, it's all justified! You are about the biggest two-faced bastards that ever roamed the face of the Earth, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You bitched for 8 years about the war in Iraq, but now you want to DEFEND the war effort, on the basis there would be "repercussions" if we up and left... well, do you not think there were "repercussions" from 8 years of Liberals tearing down Bush and the war? Do you not think there would have been repercussions if we had allowed Saddam to give alQaeda chemical and biological weapons? Do you not think there will be repercussions when we withdraw our military presence from the middle east entirely? You didn't believe in the war, you don't believe in the War on Terror, you don't believe alQaeda is that much of a threat, you don't think radical Islam is a problem for us.... but you are afraid of repercussions if we leave... does that even make rational sense?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Actually, it epitomizes the reality of everything you articulate. Im not a liberal either.

Tell us more about how god is energy, or the laws of physics, or patterns in the sand, and then we'll see who's in touch with reality.

Actually, it does no such thing. I challenge you to post one single solitary quote from me, which implies I want the poor or elderly to pay down the national debt, or suffer in any way. You can't do that because such a quote doesn't exist. This is all in your sick little twisted head, and nowhere else. In reality, it is the people out there like you, who want to fight and argue against any kind of reforms to Medicare to keep it from completely collapsing in 10 years, who apparently don't care about old people or the poor, because we won't have a Medicare system anymore, once it collapses. But you don't give a shit, you're too caught up in fear-mongering and LYING your ass off, as you ruminate in some obscure fantasy world far removed from reality.

 

[apple0154]

What repercussions? Abandoning the War on Terror and bringing our troops home from abroad, is going to have major repercussions, but it's what the Democrats have whined and moaned about for the past decade. You're too stupid to understand the threat from Islamic Jihad, and you have a simplistic and naive world view in general. The only repercussion from not funding a war that we aren't determined to win, is that we save a lot of money not fighting a war we can't win. But this is just like everything else the Liberals touch... Gitmo, Rendition, the Patriot Act... It's a totally unacceptable travesty, until you get into power... then suddenly, it's all justified! You are about the biggest two-faced bastards that ever roamed the face of the Earth, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You bitched for 8 years about the war in Iraq, but now you want to DEFEND the war effort, on the basis there would be "repercussions" if we up and left... well, do you not think there were "repercussions" from 8 years of Liberals tearing down Bush and the war? Do you not think there would have been repercussions if we had allowed Saddam to give alQaeda chemical and biological weapons? Do you not think there will be repercussions when we withdraw our military presence from the middle east entirely? You didn't believe in the war, you don't believe in the War on Terror, you don't believe alQaeda is that much of a threat, you don't think radical Islam is a problem for us.... but you are afraid of repercussions if we leave... does that even make rational sense?

Yes, you dippy-dope. Try and follow along.

There is no evidence Saddam was going to give al Qaeda chemical and biological weapons just as there was no evidence he had any to give other than left-overs from the Gulf war and those biological entities were inert due to poor storage. Ten years later and some folks still can't grasp the fact Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, Al Qaeda or 9/11. He was a despot in his little corner of the world.

Have you heard the expression "Big fish in a small pond"? That was Saddam. Happy and content playing King like a kid who builds a tree house or someone who declares themselves Grand Poobah

No one is saying to withdraw entirely from the Middle East. However, being a little more discreet would help as in not bombing the entire country and destroying all the infrastructure.

Th eight years of tearing down Bush was due to people realizing the damage he was causing would result in the necessity of staying there a long time to rebuild which was the Repub covert plan from the very beginning.

Have you noticed Obama's approach to Syria? While people bitch about the UN running the show it alleviates the hassles when withdrawing participation. A similar approach should have been taken with Saddam and Iraq. That's why people were bitching. They, just like Phil, knew the danger that results from "getting in too deep".

The Repub approach has resulted in making more Muslim enemies. "Getting the terrorists" was a cover story for changing the culture and the majority of Muslims know that. That's why Obama is keeping his involvement in Syria through the UN.

As for being naive how long do you think the US can keep up involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria and Egypt and Israel and with the Palestinians, not to mention taking an interest in Yemen and Tunisia?

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ApplesauceBrains, I am not going to RE-argue the Iraq War with you... sorry... just not going to do that. Our nation collectively decided, when we elected Obama, that it's not in our interest to fight terrorism abroad with our military forces. Repercussions or not, that's the road that was chosen. Now you want to try and do a Dick Cheney impersonation or something, in order to avoid the criticism for the cost of the war. It's typical left wing hypocrisy, as I said, it knows no bounds. It's just like Obama and Bill Clinton standing up there telling us how great and wonderful the Bush Tax Cuts are, and how we can't eliminate them because it would hurt the economy to do so... a complete and absolute contradiction of what Obama and his supporters were saying just a year or so before!

Now... let's go over what is going to happen... We are going to keep pulling troops out of the middle east, and we are going to keep assing around with these idiots in charge, like Hilary Clinton, and eventually, we are going to get hit again with a major terrorist attack. Thousands will die, and ultimately, we will be forced to send our military off to some foreign country, to defend our way of life in America. Thousands of soldiers will die in a bloody and hard-fought war, because simple-minded retards like you, wouldn't allow us to go after them early on... you buried your heads in the sand and refused to see the danger until it was too late. There will be a HUGE price to pay for Liberal Complacency, mark my words.... and when that price has to be paid, we can count on liberal retards like you to find some way to blame our problems on republicans.

 

[Based Chad]

Actually, it does no such thing. I challenge you to post one single solitary quote from me, which implies I want the poor or elderly to pay down the national debt, or suffer in any way. You can't do that because such a quote doesn't exist. This is all in your sick little twisted head, and nowhere else. In reality, it is the people out there like you, who want to fight and argue against any kind of reforms to Medicare to keep it from completely collapsing in 10 years, who apparently don't care about old people or the poor, because we won't have a Medicare system anymore, once it collapses. But you don't give a shit, you're too caught up in fear-mongering and LYING your ass off, as you ruminate in some obscure fantasy world far removed from reality.

Do you want to cut medicaire, medicaid, welfare, wic, food stamps etc? So called 'entitlements'?