View Poll Results: Which do you choose

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Cut spending to match revenue and default on the debt

    3 10.71%
  • Cut spending to match revenue and pay the debt service from that revenue

    17 60.71%
  • Other (specify)

    8 28.57%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 66

Thread: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

  1. #31
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I agree that it's not ideal. But the alternative is the sudden elimination of 43% of federal spending with virtually zero advance notice
    that's not accurate - firstly, federal spending goes in bursts, not in a constant stream. secondly, much of federal spending can be delayed rather than removed. thirdly, the government has alternate ways to push funds around, and fourthly, the government has other revenue - producing possibilities open to it than taxation or borrowing (land and gold, the government has huge amounts of both). the cuts would need to be drastic, yes, but not straight up 43% of the current level of federal spending.


    and none of that would have the disruptive effect of throwing the government into constitutional chaos in the middle of all this.

    That would certainly do a lot more to destabilize markets than taking on some additional debt would (which would of course be honored once the debt ceiling is raised or eliminated). As for the President going on trial...well, when there are contradictory laws on the books, there isn't any choice but to violate one law or the other.
    violating the Constitution (which reserves for Congress the right to issue debt) > not spending money that was agreed upon in a budget. the President is not breaking the law if he does not spend money that has not been appropriated by the only branch of Government authorized to do so. The tradition of Presidents refusing to spend money allocated by Congress, in fact, goes back to Jefferson.
    Last edited by cpwill; 07-11-11 at 08:51 AM.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by BDBoop View Post
    President Regan once said
    President Obama once said

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

  3. #33
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    My personal feeling is i'd like to see the debt cieling raised along with spending cuts and to fight the battle of spending without the notion of default looming over everyones heads.

    However, sticking to the thread topic of the hypothetical that it is not raised, I'd rather significantly cut spending entire across the board...entitlements, military, infastructure services, welfare services, etc...so as to be able to pay out debt payment.

  4. #34
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Ignore the debt limit and issue more?
    I am quite far from a conservative.

    However, I don't think ignoring the debt limit is the answer. It's not a good idea to just keep borrowing money constantly to pay for things if we don't do anything to deal with what caused these financial downturns in the first place.

    Personally, I would prefer if we simplified the tax code, got rid of loopholes, and got rid of subsidies. However, Republican politicians call those "tax increases" and so are opposed to them even though dealing with those issues will help raise federal revenue and will end federal spending on some things. Why do they do this?

    Because Republicans would rather spend government money on their campaign donors with corporate interests rather than stay true to their own doctrine.

    The Republican politicians in Congress still support welfare - corporate welfare. And corporate welfare has to stop just as much as individual welfare has to stop, at least as long as the corporate welfare benefits corporate executives more than it does low- and middle-class employees.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #35
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by DemonMyst View Post
    Wow.. I have never seen a post full of such lies and misinformation.. Well.. Except the last time I read a post written b y a conservative..

    So the rich create jobs?? Really?? Are you sure?? Because the last I checked the unemployment rate sky rocketed after we gave the rich tax cuts.. So where are these jobs you speak of?? Are we not at around 9% unemployment?? We have had the tax cuts for almost 10 years now.. Where are the jobs.. With an investment of 3.2 trillion over 10 years.. We should have a lower unemployment rate shouldn't we??

    Federal revenue up 20%??? Really?? Link it or your full of it..

    What mistakes has Obama made and what does he need to take responsibility for??

    Welfare recipients won the lotto?? All live so far below the poverty level it is sickening.. Just like your ignorance.. How about an extra 320 billion a year?? Let the damn tax cuts for rich expire.. Those tax cuts are getting us nothing in return.. You would be better off giving that 320 billion to the poor.. At least they will dump it back into the economy instead of just letting sit in the bank with their other millions.. There is some demand for you.. Where are the jobs??

    There is no consumer demand moron because much of the middle class has become poor or worse.. Where are the jobs?? You can't take mony from the poor and give it to the rich and expect the poor to have money to buy stuff.. Cut the damn tax cuts..

    Now why don't you learn to accept responsibility for supporting a party that has done nothing to create jobs.. You want to know what is wrong with the economy?? Go look in the mirror..
    Surely by now you've made the realization in your head that a personal income tax obligation has nothing to do with small businesses creating jobs. That tax break "for the rich" was for their personal income, not for corporate expenditures. It's silly that people want to manipulate facts to make a point.
    Last edited by tessaesque; 07-11-11 at 10:11 AM.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  6. #36
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    My personal feeling is i'd like to see the debt cieling raised along with spending cuts and to fight the battle of spending without the notion of default looming over everyones heads.

    However, sticking to the thread topic of the hypothetical that it is not raised, I'd rather significantly cut spending entire across the board...entitlements, military, infastructure services, welfare services, etc...so as to be able to pay out debt payment.
    What is your position on subsidies?

    What is your position on cutting tax loopholes that are for the benefit for certain industries but aren't given to all businesses?

    Not trying to trap you or anything. It's just that there are Democrat politicians who agree to cut spending as well. And want to make things more "even" with regards to which businesses pay taxes. For example, oil companies receive a lot in the way of tax breaks and G.E. got so many tax breaks it didn't pay any corporate income tax last year. However, Republican Congressmen call this de facto tax increases, and so are opposed to them. This doesn't seem very fair to smaller businesses who are just as important to the American economy but aren't individually (and in many cases not collectively) large enough for Republican Congressmen to intercede on their behalf.

    So what is your opinion on making corporate income taxes fairer across the board, especially between large businesses and small businesses?
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #37
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I am quite far from a conservative.

    However, I don't think ignoring the debt limit is the answer. It's not a good idea to just keep borrowing money constantly to pay for things if we don't do anything to deal with what caused these financial downturns in the first place.

    Personally, I would prefer if we simplified the tax code, got rid of loopholes, and got rid of subsidies. However, Republican politicians call those "tax increases" and so are opposed to them even though dealing with those issues will help raise federal revenue and will end federal spending on some things. Why do they do this?

    Because Republicans would rather spend government money on their campaign donors with corporate interests rather than stay true to their own doctrine.

    The Republican politicians in Congress still support welfare - corporate welfare. And corporate welfare has to stop just as much as individual welfare has to stop, at least as long as the corporate welfare benefits corporate executives more than it does low- and middle-class employees.
    Republicans in Congress have already voted to end all of those subsidies and get rid of the Corporate Welfare. It's called the "House 2012 Budget" or "The Ryan Plan".

    the trick is, you want to do it without raising effective tax rates, which are different from your nominal rates.

    For example, you run a business making whatever (i refuse to use widgets), and your profit is $150,000 - your corporate tax rate is %35. But you rate a series of deductions and write offs, and your final tax bill is only $37,500 - your effective tax rate is 25%. The trick is, qualifying for all of those deductions and write-offs costs you extra money as well, whether it's in less-productive investment or hiring an expensive accountant / tax attorney. The Democrat argument is, we need to raise your effective tax rate, the Republican argument is, we need to keep your effective tax rate the same, but get rid of the loopholes, the credits, and your associated costs.

    So, Republicans argue for lowering the nominal rates while getting rid of deductions, credits, shelters, and loopholes at the same pace in order to keep effective tax rates the same for businesses. Businesses are now free to invest in what will be most productive rather than what will reduce their tax exposure, and take the resources they spent previously on such efforts and plow them back into their operations.

    Good for the economy. Good for the government. Just not good for class-warfare-rhetoric.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Subsidies would absolutely need to be cut in the given hypothetical. In regards to in general, I'm fine with the cutting of many types of subsidies.

    As far as the "Tax loopholes" its a horribly open ended question and are things I think are as often used as political weapons by those trying to "Close" them as keep them open. In general, I'm for closing them, but I also think this is more an issue of our tax code and that its so riddled with holes and weak parts that the "Closing" of most of these loopholes likely has a number of unexpected consequences. I think we just need a full on, complete, rework of our tax code. In general, I'm okay with tax loophole closures but these are much more on a case by case basis and I reject the commonly held notion that only those looking to keep them open are somehow play politics are seeking to do something to benefit who lines their pockets.

    As far as this notion that somehow the Republicans not taking action against large businesses or "the wealthy" is somehow a case of them not caring for small businesses or the middle class....a theme your post seems to hold and comes from others...I find it disengious and to be frank a complete crock. There is no where near the push currently to increase burden upon those groups so its reasonable to expect there will not be as much time spend attempting to actively look out for them either. When the majority of the attack is on "the wealthy" and larger businesses its reasonable to expect most of the defense is going to come towards them. If the Democratic focus was on attacking the Middle Class and small businesses I have no doubt you'd see a similar amount of defense mounted by the Republicans focused on those groups...however, that's simply not the case.

    I don't believe that closing loopholes on big businesses or making things more difficult for them directly correlates to helping out smaller businesses. Can there be a slight effect in certain circumstances where the small business is competing directly with a larger? Yes. But other than that, this ridiculous notion that "sticking it to", as others (not yourself) have suggested, big businesses or "the wealthy" somehow helps out the little guy is ridiculous. It does nothing but make them, at best, FEEL good that someone is getting "what they deserve" based off the natural human inclination to be jealous and or bitter towards those who are more successful.

    So somehow that the Republicans are not interceding on behalf of small business by not closing loopholes on large businesses is a notion I absolutely reject and think is a bit ridiculous, as is the notion that somehow Republicans aren't looking out for small businesses.

    As far as the corporate income tax rates, I'm not sure of what the actual rates are on "coprorations" compared to small businesses, so I can't make an honest comment here. I will say that basing law off of what seems "fairer" is a completely ridiculous and illogical means of building law imho as "fair" is a complete and utter abstract thing that can be manipulated and contorted to fit the world view and agenda of the individual imposing the standard of which the "fairness" will be based on.

    In our current economic situation, as a general sense, I would not be in favor of any kind of tax hikes unless it was one that is at least somewhat targeted across the board...anything less to me is nothing but an excuse to pander for votes by targetting an extreme minority that one can hold up as the great and vile enemy to rally people behind and is a behavior I find abhorent.

    Furthermore, history has shown that Tax Hikes do not result in reduced spending or extreme fiscal responsability but simply as justification for why more spending is okay because suddenly its "revenue neutral" and there's no need to cut, which then leads to the standard historical trend of spending more than what is currently revenue neutral leading to this whole ordeal again. Perhaps if the government shows that it can be anything other than the bloated gluttonous pig of waste that it is then I'd be willing to suggest we need to actually feed the beast more. Until that time it may very well be a situation similar to that with a severe addict and that by continuing to give into them all you do is feed the addition and prolong the inevitable.

  9. #39
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    President Obama once said
    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
    There is a huge difference from being a U.S. Senator and POTUS. I am willing to bet that if any member of the GOP who is against raising the limit would think differently if the were sitting in the Oval Office.

    Lets not forget that the debt limit was raised 7 times under President Bush - that's almost once per year in office. And much of the debt today is because of the lose if Income tax revenue due the downturn economy. Plus the tax rates haven't been lower in like 50 years.


  10. #40
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: If the debt ceiling is not raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    There is a huge difference from being a U.S. Senator and POTUS. I am willing to bet that if any member of the GOP who is against raising the limit would think differently if the were sitting in the Oval Office.

    Lets not forget that the debt limit was raised 7 times under President Bush - that's almost once per year in office. And much of the debt today is because of the lose if Income tax revenue due the downturn economy. Plus the tax rates haven't been lower in like 50 years.
    Have we lost more than $4 trillion in tax revenue in 2.5 years?
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •