• 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!

Would You Advocate Getting Rid of the Debt Ceiling?

would you advocate getting rid of the debt ceiling?


  • Total voters
    36

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]Raising the debt ceiling does not mean that we open up floodgates to spending it just means that it allows the gov to continue to pay its current bills. Pretty much means it allows the US gov to pay bills and continue to pay for bills [/FONT][FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]approved[/FONT][FONT=Lato, Arial, serif] by congress. [/FONT]
[FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]So i ask you, would you advocate getting rid of the debt ceiling? [/FONT]
 
[FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]Raising the debt ceiling does not mean that we open up floodgates to spending it just means that it allows the gov to continue to pay its current bills. Pretty much means it allows the US gov to pay bills and continue to pay for bills [/FONT][FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]approved[/FONT][FONT=Lato, Arial, serif] by congress. [/FONT]
[FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]So i ask you, would you advocate getting rid of the debt ceiling? [/FONT]

it's useless.... get rid of it.

it doesn't open the floodgates of spending... they are already wide open and nothing is stopping it now.
 
I would not. Deficit spending is an economic tool, not a lifestyle, and if the Congress is not willing to raise taxes to pay for the expenditures it authorizes, it shouldn't be allowed to authorize any more.
 
I would not. Deficit spending is an economic tool, not a lifestyle, and if the Congress is not willing to raise taxes to pay for the expenditures it authorizes, it shouldn't be allowed to authorize any more.

the debt ceiling doesn't authorize expenditures.. appropriation legislation does.
debt ceiling doesn't come into play in the authorization phase.. it comes in on the payment phase.
(

deficit spending is a lifestyle...it's the US lifestyle.
it shouldn't be, but it is....

the ceiling...it's a big pile of useless.
 
Do you know how money circulates throughout our economy?

while i'm no economist, I have a grasp on how money circulates, yes.... now what does my knowledge have to to with your incredible dangerous notion of debt not mattering?
 
Sure, it means one less bit of political theater threatening America's well being and recovery.
 
Sure, it means one less bit of political theater threatening America's well being and recovery.

They'd just talk about another type of political theater. I'm sure the mainstream media has a formula for how often to talk about politics, how often to talk about the latest bit of gun violence, and how often to talk about sports.
 
As our current system is set up - yes get rid of it. It serves no real purpose and as we have seen in recent years it can be used as a political tool to try and hold against opposition with great risk to the country.
 
The "debt ceiling" is a ridiculous artifact of an outdated budgeting process. It has no utility, and its very existence is a contradiction. They should've gotten rid of it years ago.
 
while i'm no economist, I have a grasp on how money circulates, yes.... now what does my knowledge have to to with your incredible dangerous notion of debt not mattering?

Then hopefully you know that the national debt is the money supply. If the entire debt was to be paid back in full, there would be no money. Money is debt.

The government can issue countless treasury bonds, print the interest on that debt (the printed money is going to the banking sector) indefinitely, and The Fed thanks to how the banking system works, can buy treasury bonds indefinitely. The system itself is expansionary because it has to be. In order for there to be adequate money in a growing economy there has to be some inflation. However, the rate at which capital is spent through the economy is what matters.

When looking at how the economy works, the playing field is not level. The government can just print its debt to The Fed, and The Fed has excessive reserves to be able to lend to the government due to fractional reserve banking. As I said earlier, what matters is the amount of money added to the economy in a certain amount of time.
 
I don't think they should get rid of the debt ceiling, but I do think that they should make the raises to the debt ceiling part of whatever spending bills need the money.
 
it's useless.... get rid of it.

it doesn't open the floodgates of spending... they are already wide open and nothing is stopping it now.
Did you ever hear of the "tea party" ?
And we even have responsible liberals....
I voted "other" , naturally.
I have no idea where the ceiling should be....but, I think there should be one..
The same as there is one for individuals....say three years times the take home pay.....there is a formula that our banks used to employ...
 
[FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]Raising the debt ceiling does not mean that we open up floodgates to spending it just means that it allows the gov to continue to pay its current bills. Pretty much means it allows the US gov to pay bills and continue to pay for bills [/FONT][FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]approved[/FONT][FONT=Lato, Arial, serif] by congress. [/FONT]
[FONT=Lato, Arial, serif]So i ask you, would you advocate getting rid of the debt ceiling? [/FONT]

Here is a novel idea, why don't we quit getting into more debt so we can pay off our debts with revenues AND don't raise the debt ceiling.
 
I would not. Deficit spending is an economic tool, not a lifestyle, and if the Congress is not willing to raise taxes to pay for the expenditures it authorizes, it shouldn't be allowed to authorize any more.

Welfare was also supposed to be a tool, not a lifestyle, hows that working out for us?

Living on credit has been a life style for Americans for a longtime now, not so strange that so many of them and the welfarist keep voting in idiots with that kind of economic mindset.
 
Did you ever hear of the "tea party" ?
And we even have responsible liberals....
I voted "other" , naturally.
I have no idea where the ceiling should be....but, I think there should be one..
The same as there is one for individuals....say three years times the take home pay.....there is a formula that our banks used to employ...

I would agree to the existence of a Ceiling if they actually used it during the appropriations phase... but they don't.

congress doesn't pay any attention to the debt ceiling while appropriating monies.. it's simply not a consideration at all.

it would be like you going ot a restaurant and ordering everything on the menu without a 2nd thought.. then enjoying your meal.
at no time during this do you consider whether you have enough room on your credit card to pay for all the food you just ordered and ate.
your debt ceiling only becomes a concern when you head to the cash register to pay... when you find out you don't have enough credit ot pay, you call up and try to increase your card limit.

that's exactly how it is used in our government... they don't give 2 ****s about the debt limit until it's time to pay the bill for what they already ordered and ate.

congress has no functional spending controls in place... not a single one.
 
Yes and no.

On the one hand, it's pointless because whenever we hit it the political types argue about it for a few months, and then raise it. It gives them an excuse not to do anything else, though, which might be a good thing.

But on the other hand, it reminds us every...6 months is it now? Reminds us that they could give a damn about something which is law when they disagree with it. Reminds us how much we're spending. Keeps the finances of the country a topic of conversation.

These are, I think, good things...
 
Nope! The House controls the purse? lol,,,,,look at what just happened!
 
i agree, eliminate the debt ceiling.
The debt ceiling was implemented in 1917, as a measure to ease governing. before that, Congress had to vote to authorize every single individual bond the government wanted to issue. That was very time consuming, and ineffective.

Eliminating the debt ceiling would mean we go back to this procedure. Or, and that would be something i'd prefer, we'd start going back to what was done back in the "good days": We actually pay for what we spend with taxes. Government asks for money, on discretionary levels / bills (outside mandatory spending), and congress approves it, while having the obligation to pass tax legislation that ensures the needed money being made available in revenue.
That way, we don't live off our credit card anymore, but instead would have to finance wars we start with tax increases (which was standard procedure at all times prior to the Bush era).
 
Back
Top Bottom