• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should The U.S. Have A Debt Ceiling?

Should the U.S. have a debt ceiling?


  • Total voters
    23
The obvious (and I use that term loosely since I have to take account of who I'm speaking with here) then way to control spending is to not authorize it. Rubio was 100% correct on the Senate floor when he said history has proven, give government the ability to spend beyond their means and they will.

That's not always true. From 1945 to 1980, our debt-to-GDP ratio fell dramatically.
 
That's not always true. From 1945 to 1980, our debt-to-GDP ratio fell dramatically.

because deficits were smaller then than they are now does not negate their existence. And it's worth noting that much of that fall was the result of a protracted debt-ceiling fight.
 
because deficits were smaller then than they are now does not negate their existence.

No, but let's not lose sight of what's important. The deficit itself isn't very relevant...even the dollar amount of the national debt isn't too important. What's really important is the debt-to-GDP ratio. THAT is what can cause us economic headaches if it gets too high. So it's possible to consistently run deficits and still reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, as long as the economy is growing faster than the debt. This was more or less the situation that prevailed for 35 years following WWII.

What I'd like to see is balanced budgets (or surpluses) during boom times, and deficit spending during recessions. Ideally, we shouldn't have a deficit of more than about 1% over the course of the business cycle IMO.

And it's worth noting that much of that fall was the result of a protracted debt-ceiling fight.

Do you have an example of this? It was my understanding that threatening default to extract concessions and/or embarrass the opposition only dates back to the period AFTER the debt-to-GDP ratio started rising again.
 
Last edited:
No, but let's not lose sight of what's important. The deficit itself isn't very relevant...even the dollar amount of the national debt isn't too important. What's really important is the debt-to-GDP ratio

I think you are forgetting the snowballing effect of interest - continuously going deeper into debt will cause you later to go increasingly deeper into debt. And Interest competes with our entitlements as the major driver of our unsustainable debt:

slide-91.jpg


THAT is what can cause us economic headaches if it gets too high.

truth; which is why the Presidents' 2012 budget would have been a pathetic joke if it wasn't so serious. Once you have debt high enough to consistently drag your growth below 3%, it becomes incredibly hard to avoid a spiral.

So it's possible to consistently run deficits and still reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, as long as the economy is growing faster than the debt. This was more or less the situation that prevailed for 35 years following WWII.

What I'd like to see is balanced budgets (or surpluses) during boom times, and deficit spending during recessions. Ideally, we shouldn't have a deficit of more than about 1% over the course of the business cycle IMO.

there again we are going to disagree; but that is a different debate.

Do you have an example of this? It was my understanding that threatening default to extract concessions and/or embarrass the opposition only dates back to the period AFTER the debt-to-GDP ratio started rising again.

:)

A sanctimonious president refuses lawmakers the cuts they demand. The federalists in Congress grow cocky. They'd rather force a bond-market crisis than raise the debt ceiling or erode states' rights.

“I'm not worrying,” the firebrand Virginian leading the opposition to the president says, and charts his own version of the budget. “I'm sticking to my guns. We've got a prairie fire started among the people in favor of cutting the budget.” The president disapproves. The Virginian is downright gleeful. The debt-ceiling fight is giving new life to his already lengthy career.

This sounds like the story of the very Democratic President Barack Obama and the very Republican House Majority leader Eric Cantor battling in 2011. But it's actually a description of the very Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the very Democratic finance committee chairman, Harry F. Byrd, in 1957. The details of that quarrel are worth remembering, if only to remind us that the meaning and impact of such contests may be different from what politicians, or the public, assume at the time...

Ike determined that the government must raise the debt limit to $290 billion from $275 billion before he could finish his budgetary cleanup.

“Despite our joint vigorous efforts to reduce expenditures,” Eisenhower told lawmakers, “it is inevitable that the public debt will undergo some further increase.”

His second-in-command, Treasury Secretary George Humphrey, played the heavy. If the debt-ceiling increase didn't become law, “it would just cause a near panic,” Humphrey said. Daunting words to children of the Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was only then, after a quarter century, returning to its 1929 level. A panic would jeopardize the last stage of that long- awaited stock recovery.

But legislators were more alarmed about debt. War spending was becoming forever spending. U.S. debt as a share of the economy was declining, and was lower than it is today, but was still nowhere near as low as in the 1920s or 1930s. The rebels charged that Eisenhower was trying to turn debt levels higher than the New Deal into a new normal...

Harry Byrd marshalled opposition to Eisenhower's request. The government could scrape by without additional borrowing authority, he insisted. The Treasury had some $9 billion in ready cash. The president had the power to curtail federal expenditures and create even more wiggle room.

For a while, Byrd prevailed. The apocalypse didn't materialize. The government made it through the first half of the next year using a mixture of ready cash, spending reductions and various financial manoeuvres.

In August 1954, the Senate finally agreed to raise the limit by $6 billion, but only temporarily. That fall, the Dow finally crossed its 1929 high of 381.

Still, Byrd tangled with Eisenhower all decade. In 1957, Eisenhower proposed a $72 billion budget; Byrd countered with a “Byrd Budget” that would cut federal spending by $6.5 billion. And so on. The debt ceiling stayed below $290 billion, Ike's original goal, until 1959. Meanwhile, the economy gained ground, which eased the debt burden....
 
Last edited:
you know that "real debt ceiling" you talk about? we're going to hit it. and we are going to find out very quickly that you can't get tax revenue above 20% of GDP with any kind of consistency, and you can only get there when you are willing to have low flat rates.

we're going to have to balance, and that is going to first force us to cut, and then to cap our spending.

we will be going backwards, and it will be very painful.... but that's the alternative to doing it now.
President Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus, but we still had a debt. If it were not for Bush's tax cuts, Bush's unfunded war in Iraq and his unfunded Medicare Part D legislation our debt wouldn't be as much of a problem today.

How the Deficit Got This Big
 
The place to fix our problems is with the budget.
 
Yes, though it should actually mean something and it should be non-negotiable unless there is a war.
 
I honestly don't understand the issues involved well enough to have an informed opinion.

I'm mostly with you, but voted no because something that has been raised 103 times really has little purpose. Perhaps a name change is in order
 
Should the U.S. have a debt ceiling?

Yes
No
Onion Bagel

Yes the US should have a debt ceiling and they should not be allowed be allowed to increase it. Because not having a debt ceiling just means they can keep borrowing and borrowing nonstop and raising the debt ceiling means that they can just keep borrowing more and more money thus ****ing future generations in the ass with a very splintery 2x4.
 
Yes the US should have a debt ceiling and they should not be allowed be allowed to increase it. Because not having a debt ceiling just means they can keep borrowing and borrowing nonstop and raising the debt ceiling means that they can just keep borrowing more and more money thus ****ing future generations in the ass with a very splintery 2x4.

Well, having a debt ceiling sure hasn't changed that. Nor do I think it will anytime soon. Instead, we as a people have to get beyond our disconnect. If we want a service we have to pay for it. And if we don't want it enough to pay for it, we can't have it.
 
Well, having a debt ceiling sure hasn't changed that. Nor do I think it will anytime soon. Instead, we as a people have to get beyond our disconnect. If we want a service we have to pay for it. And if we don't want it enough to pay for it, we can't have it.

That sounds good in theory. However elected officials do not listen to us when we say we do not want something or there is not enough politician who actually do listen.
 
That sounds good in theory. However elected officials do not listen to us when we say we do not want something or there is not enough politician who actually do listen.

We don't say that. We speak with our vote, and when a congress critter cuts a valued program, that congress critter is gone. And when they raise taxes to pay for that program, they are likely gone then as well. We're the problem James. We ahve to fix our disconect before we can move on to congress.
 
Fine, how do you propose to stop them from spending too much?
I think I already addressed that.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/105727-should-u-s-have-debt-ceiling.html#post1059698987


The debt ceiling tactic is a colossal failure.
It's been a colossal success! The conservatives in the House of Reps have successfully pushed the President and the Senate towards their requirements AND redefined the debate in Washington on their terms, to the point where Progressives and conservatives both agree the Tea Party is the big winner.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...republicans-screwed-pooch.html#post1059702856



According to the Constitution, the House has the purse strings and unless a veto is overridden by Congress the spending becomes law.

Are second guessing the Founding Fathers? :roll:

Answer hasn't changed from the 1st time you asked.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/105727-should-u-s-have-debt-ceiling.html#post1059699124
 
what exactly does this mean??

He means that the printing presses will be destroyed and the market will determine how much the US can borrow. We'll have to borrow based on our collateral (gold).
 
President Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus, but we still had a debt. If it were not for Bush's tax cuts, Bush's unfunded war in Iraq and his unfunded Medicare Part D legislation our debt wouldn't be as much of a problem today.

How the Deficit Got This Big

Medicare D required higher fees for wealthy seniors, something you should be please with. Clinton did not give anything more than a projected surplus.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom