• 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!

Obama to ask for increase to debt ceiling in a 'matter of days'

Congress has really failed us. Every few months, we renew the debates of a crisis we just solved. We are about to witness the payroll tax redebated by congress. They are wasting time, and wasting money.
 
The last link I put in the OP was the debt clock... there's two additional views on the debt clock - both for 2015 (one on the CBO projections given our current pathway, one if we do NOTHING between today and 2015. One is showing 17 Trillion of debt, the other in the 20's.) Both show we are rapidly becoming Greece given the amount of spending vs. GDP. It's simply a matter of a few years.... and given our current President and Congress's continued spending, we will drive off the cliff sooner rather than later; no matter what rhetoric is provided.

THAT'S our reality. Spin it however you want; nothing is showing itself to diverge us from that path. :shrug:

That doesn't address my point at all. Congress is who decides how much we spend. What is the advantage of spending a lot and then refusing to pay people for what we bought instead of just spending less to start with?
 
That doesn't address my point at all. Congress is who decides how much we spend. What is the advantage of spending a lot and then refusing to pay people for what we bought instead of just spending less to start with?

I know the Liberal push to make Congress be the root of all evil - we all know already. Obviously I wasn't addressing your point but ignoring your point and making my own.
 
Raising the debt ceiling: necessary for the stability of our economy. Except when the other team is doing it.
Over...and Over...and over...

Why bother with a 4 month artificial debt ceiling extension when you know you are going to bust it before the damn thing is passed? And how many times is congress going to do this idiotic extension dance? At what point do we actually start working to reduce spending and pay down the debt?

Meh...screw it...let the grandkids pay for our continued stupidity.
 
Why not just raise it $8 bazillion, so we don't have to raise it again for a long time?
Because they would spend it by August.
 
I know the Liberal push to make Congress be the root of all evil - we all know already. Obviously I wasn't addressing your point but ignoring your point and making my own.

Well, what say you to my point... Congress has two avenues for reducing our debt. One is to actually reduce spending. Congress, after all, is the one who decides how much to spend. That would be a big win. The other option is to continue spending a lot, but then grandstand about how you don't want to pay for the stuff you spent. That is a big loss. It means further downgrades in our credit rating. Why do the later instead of the former?

You should be pushing for cuts in spending, but pushing against defaulting on what we have already spent.
 
Well, what say you to my point... Congress has two avenues for reducing our debt. One is to actually reduce spending.
Let's look at what happens when Congress addresses lower spending: We get platitudes about "eating peas", we get announcements saying that social security checks may not go out to seniors, we get advertisements showing grandma being thrown off a cliff from her wheel chair, we get statements from Democrats calling a debt reduction "satans sandwich" while the RINO poster boy McCain talks about "hobbits". Congress has two avenues? I don't think they do --- they're tax addicts. They're not going to stop spending until the country is so under water that they can make a proclimation from their congressional issue lifeboat: "We need to do something about our debt!" :lamo


Congress, after all, is the one who decides how much to spend.
Understood - you tack no responsibility on the Fed or the President, just those that approve what's asked. I would think that only applies to Democrat Presidents though. If I searched for you blaming Bush on DP for spending, I'll bet I could find a few tasty quotes...

That would be a big win. The other option is to continue spending a lot, but then grandstand about how you don't want to pay for the stuff you spent. That is a big loss. It means further downgrades in our credit rating. Why do the later instead of the former?
Common sense says, if you want to get out of a hole, you stop digging in the hole. Such common sense seems to elude you. First thing you do is stop spending - or freeze spending. That is an alien concept to our President, our Fed Chairman, and our Congress, and apparently to many Democratic minions vomiting blindly, DNC talking points and some big Government Republicans who wallow in that vomit.

You should be pushing for cuts in spending, but pushing against defaulting on what we have already spent.
What's already spent is lost - I've called for a 20% across the board cut in all Federal programs regardless of what they are or what they have planned, and I've supported here on DP a constitutional spending cap. :shrug:

The only idiots who don't see the necessity of such a thing are those who benefit by it or are too ignorant to understand the ramifications of falling off the cliff.
 
Let's look at what happens when Congress addresses lower spending: We get platitudes about "eating peas", we get announcements saying that social security checks may not go out to seniors, we get advertisements showing grandma being thrown off a cliff from her wheel chair, we get statements from Democrats calling a debt reduction "satans sandwich" while the RINO poster boy McCain talks about "hobbits". Congress has two avenues? I don't think they do --- they're tax addicts. They're not going to stop spending until the country is so under water that they can make a proclimation from their congressional issue lifeboat: "We need to do something about our debt!" :lamo

Er, most of those things happened in the debt ceiling hostage crisis, so you can't possibly be arguing that they only happen with spending reduction...

Understood - you tack no responsibility on the Fed or the President, just those that approve what's asked. I would think that only applies to Democrat Presidents though. If I searched for you blaming Bush on DP for spending, I'll bet I could find a few tasty quotes...

it's not me that tacks responsibility for spending on the Congress. That's the constitution that does that. And for very good reasons. That is supposed to be the primary check on the executive. The executive branch is naturally going to tend to want to spend more. That's sort of the nature of the branch. The executive is in the weeds trying to accomplish things and is mostly evaluated by the voters on the basis of what they do manage to accomplish. So, they are always going to lean towards wanting more money to accomplish those things. That's true of course of both Democratic and Republican presidents going all the way back. Congress's role, maybe even it's primary constitutional function, is supposed to be restraining that.

Think of it like this. In a corporation each department submits a budget request each year. No company ever just approves all of them as requested, they'd go bankrupt. Each department always shoots for the moon. They think "what would I like to have ideally" and submit that, then the management goes through and balances priorities against fiscal realities and comes out with a budget. That's how it is supposed to work with the government too, except Congress isn't fulfilling their role, they're just rubber stamping whatever request anybody makes for money.

First thing you do is stop spending

Yes. Stop SPENDING not start welching on your debts to try to save money.
 
That doesn't address my point at all. Congress is who decides how much we spend. What is the advantage of spending a lot and then refusing to pay people for what we bought instead of just spending less to start with?

The point is not to refuse payment for debts already incurred; it's to use the opportunity of a typical rubber-stamp legislation to demonstrate Ockham's point above and make efforts to reduce spending. The debt ceiling debate in August combined with the presence of the tea party has caused even Democrats to admit we need to rein in spending.
 
The point is not to refuse payment for debts already incurred; it's to use the opportunity of a typical rubber-stamp legislation to demonstrate Ockham's point above and make efforts to reduce spending. The debt ceiling debate in August combined with the presence of the tea party has caused even Democrats to admit we need to rein in spending.

Democrats certainly agree we need to reduce the deficit. In fact, they're way ahead of Republicans on that score at present. The Democrats are consistently proposing larger deficit reduction packages than the Republicans are. The reason is that deficit reduction can be accomplished on three fronts- cutting domestic spending, cutting military spending and increasing revenues. Republicans have a hard time tackling military spending or revenues, where Democrats are open to doing all three.

The difference between just reducing spending and refusing to raise the debt ceiling is that you need more votes to pass a revised budget than you need to refuse to pass a bill increasing the debt ceiling. The Republicans have the house, but not the senate, so they can't just pass their budget, but they can block an increase in the debt ceiling. So, they use it as a threat to try to coerce the senate into doing what they want. But, in my view, that isn't remotely the right way to go about it. Both sides agree that we need to reduce spending. They should just be working towards a way to do that together. The whole hostage taking tactic the GOP used last time with the debt ceiling had a devastating consequence- our credit rating was lowered even though they didn't actually go through with it. If they had failed to reach an agreement and they actually had defaulted, it would have been catastrophic. The way to address our budget issues is not to constantly threaten to destroy the economy to try to spur people to action, it is to honestly enter into budget negotiations and compromise.
 
Er, most of those things happened in the debt ceiling hostage crisis, so you can't possibly be arguing that they only happen with spending reduction...
That's the entire point that it happened in the debt ceiling crisis. I didn't even add in all the vitriol about the tea party members in the House who were behind the "no more spending" movement.



it's not me that tacks responsibility for spending on the Congress. That's the constitution that does that. And for very good reasons.
That's only half the story ... Congress must provide the yea or nay, but the request to increase the debt doesn't come from Congress and the Constitution doesn't address running up a debt against GDP. So to push it all on Congress isn't accurate.


That is supposed to be the primary check on the executive. The executive branch is naturally going to tend to want to spend more. That's sort of the nature of the branch. The executive is in the weeds trying to accomplish things and is mostly evaluated by the voters on the basis of what they do manage to accomplish. So, they are always going to lean towards wanting more money to accomplish those things. That's true of course of both Democratic and Republican presidents going all the way back. Congress's role, maybe even it's primary constitutional function, is supposed to be restraining that.
Which is probably why they are demagogued by the President and may explain partly, why the citizens have such a low opinion... especially when media constantly trumpet how the people want govenrment to work together. Nothing further from the truth could be more accurate.... a government that works together screws the people... dry... over a chair with no lubricant.

Think of it like this. In a corporation each department submits a budget request each year. No company ever just approves all of them as requested, they'd go bankrupt. Each department always shoots for the moon. They think "what would I like to have ideally" and submit that, then the management goes through and balances priorities against fiscal realities and comes out with a budget. That's how it is supposed to work with the government too, except Congress isn't fulfilling their role, they're just rubber stamping whatever request anybody makes for money.
Actually it's a bit different.... each department may shoot for the moon but there's no congress in a corporation. The executives... (read that as "Executive Branch") doles out the money because they are beholden to a higher group: The Board of Shareholders. The Executives in a corporation (at least in mine) are very stingy with money and devise ingenious ways to tell everyone they don't need the money or require it and only those that are willing to go fight tooth and nail actually get some of it and never how much they actually asked for. The Executives are motivated in that, if they bankrupt their company, they are fired and are replaced.

The problem is our Executives in Government are beholden to their own shareholders - the American people. The problem is, the American people are fed bull**** day and night, and many of them are not interested at all in anything that these executives do. Therefore, the Executives in our government do just what you say they shouldn't.... they give everyone as much money as they can, and they have their toadies in the Congress do it for them, which is basically bribery. The Congress is beholden to the people as well, but no one wants to remove them even though those people that care, think they're collectively doing a horrible job. The Executives get to shell out money like there's no tomorrow because, there's NO CHANCE of going bankrupt... they just print more money!

So your analogy doesn't quite fit with Government. Corproations can't print their own money, are fired quickly when they don't perform, and are executives are ultimately responsible and accountable. Government executives can print money, use bribes to get laws passed to get and spend more money, all framed with the best intentions and for the "people's own good". We're finally at the end though... printing more money won't work. End of the line.



Yes. Stop SPENDING not start welching on your debts to try to save money.
Exactly... time these bozo's are seen for what they really are. I see no problem with that at all.
 
That's the entire point that it happened in the debt ceiling crisis. I didn't even add in all the vitriol about the tea party members in the House who were behind the "no more spending" movement.

Then your point there doesn't make sense. You were saying trying to reduce spending doesn't work because of the vitriol, but hostage taking does, but then you gave examples of how the hostage taking led to vitriol. What am I missing?

That's only half the story ... Congress must provide the yea or nay, but the request to increase the debt doesn't come from Congress and the Constitution doesn't address running up a debt against GDP. So to push it all on Congress isn't accurate.

Not sure what you mean. The power to decide how much we SPEND is given to Congress. The constitution does address debt. It gives Congress the power to spend, and actually it forbids any person whatsoever from questioning the credit of the United States. So, really the option to refuse to pay our debts is unconstitutional for anybody to do- Congress included.

Actually it's a bit different.... each department may shoot for the moon but there's no congress in a corporation. The executives... (read that as "Executive Branch") doles out the money because they are beholden to a higher group: The Board of Shareholders. The Executives in a corporation (at least in mine) are very stingy with money and devise ingenious ways to tell everyone they don't need the money or require it and only those that are willing to go fight tooth and nail actually get some of it and never how much they actually asked for. The Executives are motivated in that, if they bankrupt their company, they are fired and are replaced.

The problem is our Executives in Government are beholden to their own shareholders - the American people. The problem is, the American people are fed bull**** day and night, and many of them are not interested at all in anything that these executives do. Therefore, the Executives in our government do just what you say they shouldn't.... they give everyone as much money as they can, and they have their toadies in the Congress do it for them, which is basically bribery. The Congress is beholden to the people as well, but no one wants to remove them even though those people that care, think they're collectively doing a horrible job. The Executives get to shell out money like there's no tomorrow because, there's NO CHANCE of going bankrupt... they just print more money!

Your lack of faith in democracy doesn't really do much for me. It just sounds like you're mad that not everybody agrees with you on everything.
 
Then your point there doesn't make sense. You were saying trying to reduce spending doesn't work because of the vitriol, but hostage taking does, but then you gave examples of how the hostage taking led to vitriol. What am I missing?
That there is no way to win - do the right thing (ie., stop spending) get punished. Do the wrong thing, continue to enable the bribery and run the country off the cliff.

Not sure what you mean. The power to decide how much we SPEND is given to Congress. The constitution does address debt. It gives Congress the power to spend, and actually it forbids any person whatsoever from questioning the credit of the United States. So, really the option to refuse to pay our debts is unconstitutional for anybody to do- Congress included.
The President and the Fed request the increase. They are left out of your description.

Your lack of faith in democracy doesn't really do much for me. It just sounds like you're mad that not everybody agrees with you on everything.
It's not a lack of faith in democracy at all. The LAST thing I want is for government to work together - in fact, I'd rather Congress only go into session once per year (the minimum according to the Constitution) and that gridlock occur each and every year such that new laws are not created. My complaint is that the way government is supposed to work, it doesn't.
 
The President and the Fed request the increase. They are left out of your description.

Not sure what significance you feel that has. The executive branch spends as directed by Congress and lets them know when they owe more.

It's not a lack of faith in democracy at all. The LAST thing I want is for government to work together - in fact, I'd rather Congress only go into session once per year (the minimum according to the Constitution) and that gridlock occur each and every year such that new laws are not created. My complaint is that the way government is supposed to work, it doesn't.

That sort of tactic just randomizes government it doesn't limit government. For example, you want spending decreased, well that requires passing a bill to reduce spending. That means it requires working together and meeting to make that agreement.
 
Not sure what significance you feel that has. The executive branch spends as directed by Congress and lets them know when they owe more
The significance is that you're only identifying half of the story as the problem.



That sort of tactic just randomizes government it doesn't limit government. For example, you want spending decreased, well that requires passing a bill to reduce spending. That means it requires working together and meeting to make that agreement.
Spending decreases can be rejected without passing a bill into law. Constitutionally, the House must approve spending... however, the House would not have to approve or deny spending if the request for a debt increase did not come from the President. Get it yet?
 
The significance is that you're only identifying half of the story as the problem.

Explain what you see as the impact of that. The executive has no choice but to inform Congress when they owe more. It's a mechanical process, nothing the executive has discretion about.

Spending decreases can be rejected without passing a bill into law. Constitutionally, the House must approve spending... however, the House would not have to approve or deny spending if the request for a debt increase did not come from the President. Get it yet?

You're getting mixed up. A request for a debt increase and spending are totally different things. If the Congress decided to spend say $3 trillion, but didn't approve a debt increase required to cover $1 trillion of it, for the executive to follow the law it would just have to default on $1 trillion each year. Although, arguably, there would actually be no legally acceptable path for the executive in that situation. Either he defies Congress's orders by cancelling programs and whatnot that they ordered him to enact or he violates the constitution by failing to honor the debts of the US. Probably his only actual choice would be to simply continue to borrow since violating a law is less illegal than violating the constitution, but either way, that'd be no good.

Anyways, to actually reduce spending does require a bill to be passed. If Congress can't pass a budget, the previous one just continues.
 
Explain what you see as the impact of that.
The impact is that you're ignoring half of the story, focusing on Congress... and either purposely or accidentally regurgitating the White House narrative.

The executive has no choice but to inform Congress when they owe more.
The executive also has no choice but to provide Congress a yearly budget... oops!

It's a mechanical process, nothing the executive has discretion about.
So you're really saying we all have no choice but to spend another 2 Trillion dollars and there's just nothing we can do about it? :lamo


You're getting mixed up. A request for a debt increase and spending are totally different things.
I don't think I'm getting them confused at all. When incoming revenue is lower than what is being spent (spent being the operative word - ie., if we continue to spend this may increase the debt) the debt must be increased to cover the additional spending.

If the Congress decided to spend say $3 trillion, but didn't approve a debt increase required to cover $1 trillion of it, for the executive to follow the law it would just have to default on $1 trillion each year. Although, arguably, there would actually be no legally acceptable path for the executive in that situation. Either he defies Congress's orders by cancelling programs and whatnot that they ordered him to enact or he violates the constitution by failing to honor the debts of the US. Probably his only actual choice would be to simply continue to borrow since violating a law is less illegal than violating the constitution, but either way, that'd be no good.
While I appreciate your attempt to state that Congress is the only mitigating factor in all of our economic woes, the Executive branch plays their part in identifying additional spending, new programs that he provides to Congress (by political party) to write and support.


Anyways, to actually reduce spending does require a bill to be passed. If Congress can't pass a budget, the previous one just continues.
Some reductions would require a bill, others would not. For example, Congress does not have to pass a bill to freeze government salary and benefits. Another way is to NOT use the Emergency Spending measures - not using this function would not require a bill.
 
So you're really saying we all have no choice but to spend another 2 Trillion dollars and there's just nothing we can do about it? :lamo

Er what? No... As I keep saying over and over, we only have one viable choice for reducing spending- by actually reducing spending. Just refusing to pay for stuff we spent just makes things worse. Owing creditors $2 trillion for bonds or whatever is much better than owing the same creditors $2 trillion that you just refuse to pay.

Some reductions would require a bill, others would not.

Yeah that's right. So just trying to handicap Congress's ability to act doesn't reduce government or reduce spending, it just randomizes it. Reductions in some places, increases in others, at random.
 
How about we get rid of the Debt Ceiling and watch Chinese heads explode. :lol:
 
Democrats certainly agree we need to reduce the deficit. In fact, they're way ahead of Republicans on that score at present. The Democrats are consistently proposing larger deficit reduction packages than the Republicans are. The reason is that deficit reduction can be accomplished on three fronts- cutting domestic spending, cutting military spending and increasing revenues. Republicans have a hard time tackling military spending or revenues, where Democrats are open to doing all three.

The difference between just reducing spending and refusing to raise the debt ceiling is that you need more votes to pass a revised budget than you need to refuse to pass a bill increasing the debt ceiling. The Republicans have the house, but not the senate, so they can't just pass their budget, but they can block an increase in the debt ceiling. So, they use it as a threat to try to coerce the senate into doing what they want. But, in my view, that isn't remotely the right way to go about it. Both sides agree that we need to reduce spending. They should just be working towards a way to do that together. The whole hostage taking tactic the GOP used last time with the debt ceiling had a devastating consequence- our credit rating was lowered even though they didn't actually go through with it. If they had failed to reach an agreement and they actually had defaulted, it would have been catastrophic. The way to address our budget issues is not to constantly threaten to destroy the economy to try to spur people to action, it is to honestly enter into budget negotiations and compromise.

The problem is that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years. It seems only recent to me that both sides have been bipartisan in reducing spending. I don't remember a lot of hooplah about runaway spending prior to the emergence of the Tea Party and the Republican takeover of the House. It's completely partisan and disingenuous to blame a disagreement on the side you disagree with. Compromise failed; that's a black mark on both sides and particularly a mark on the failure of leadership. When the only budget put forth by the President for 2011 received ONE vote by the Democrat-controlled Senate, then you realize drastic action needed to be taken by someone in government to address our runaway spending problem.

Because we all know that Congress unconditionally supporting a debt limit increase is always the correct action:

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means '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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." - Senator Obama, 2006
 
The problem is that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in three years. It seems only recent to me that both sides have been bipartisan in reducing spending. I don't remember a lot of hooplah about runaway spending prior to the emergence of the Tea Party and the Republican takeover of the House.

Neither party seemed to care about spending until recently. I'd agree that the Republicans probably drew attention to the issue first, but now the Democrats have gone further with it than the Republicans are willing to go.

That said, not passing a budget doesn't mean spending increases, it means it stays the same. Passing a budget those years could very well have meant more spending.

Because we all know that Congress unconditionally supporting a debt limit increase is always the correct action:

"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means '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. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." - Senator Obama, 2006

Maybe you misunderstand that quote. He's not saying you shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, he is saying that you shouldn't spend so much that you have to raise it. Certainly he has always opposed defaulting on the debt.
 
The last link I put in the OP was the debt clock... there's two additional views on the debt clock - both for 2015 (one on the CBO projections given our current pathway, one if we do NOTHING between today and 2015. One is showing 17 Trillion of debt, the other in the 20's.) Both show we are rapidly becoming Greece given the amount of spending vs. GDP. It's simply a matter of a few years.... and given our current President and Congress's continued spending, we will drive off the cliff sooner rather than later; no matter what rhetoric is provided.

THAT'S our reality. Spin it however you want; nothing is showing itself to diverge us from that path. :shrug:

The reality is that the last administration took a balanced budget and spent like a drunken sailor while reducing revenues with irresponsible tax cuts. The record growth of Govt. under Bush is very hard to reverse. Our only way out is to grow the economy and increase revenues to the level of Bush's spending. You do know that revenues are at 2000 levels currently, the combo of deep recession and increased spending is what has put our debt so high. When the GDP grows and revenues are at 18% again (instead of below 15%) the picture will be much different.

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

Stephen Slivinski is director of budget studies at the Cato Institute.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750
 
Last edited:
But we would have some killer health care and bridges. Just kidding.
;)

Seriously...all that 'health care' they are crowing about that they are doing 'for' the future generations...I wonder how grateful those future generations will be when they are stuck with a bill for services that they are never going to be able to benefit from.
 
;)

Seriously...all that 'health care' they are crowing about that they are doing 'for' the future generations...I wonder how grateful those future generations will be when they are stuck with a bill for services that they are never going to be able to benefit from.

I'm going to assume that you are fully aware that the health care reform package actually reduces the deficit and that you're just playing like you didn't know that for dramatic effect....
 
Back
Top Bottom