| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the debt limit isn't raised, the government has to live within its means.
Because you say so, right? I mean, your personal interpretation of a particular amendment (that runs counter to the accepted understanding of that amendment) is what the country runs on, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since Congress has not passed a budget or a CR then the only way this could happen is if Obama assumes the power of the purse. (I am sure he can come up with a speech explaining why Congress has left him no choice in matter) So the Obama administration will by and large be allowed to unilaterally write the federal budget until such time has Congress actually passes a spending bill or a CR. Do you really want that amount of power in one set of hands?
It won't happen, but let's be honest: it would be way better than trying to deal with the pricks in the House of Representatives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This country is like an addict -addicted to spending money it doesn't have to pay for more people's stuff. Sooner or later, we will come to the point where the country OD's into bankruptcy -which will finally force us to go cold turkey and live within our means. The downside is that this may usher in a period of social disorganization and chaos from which we can't recover. Just look to the Soviet Union, a mighty empire which splintered due to economic causes. Nations often fall from within. Our politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, can't compromise, nor can they bring excessive government spending under control. The national debt has almost doubled since Obama took office, and only shows signs of a greater increase. And so, like lemmings, the nation marches to its fate.
You don't actually understand how the United States national debt works or what it represents, do you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be interested in a government that requires you to represent yourself now?
No. I'd love to see a government made up of people who don't hate government, though.
Seriously, what other job can you think of where the people in charge of hiring new employees view hating their own company as a plus on the resume?
Why not cross into Canada legally?It's not as much fun... Canada is just cold Australia with strange animals and Hockey instead of Rugby/Aussie Rules.
Wait... animals in Canada are strange versus animals in Australia?
What could be stranger than a kangaroo? It's a giant mutant man-rat tall enough to stare a large man in the eye. Who knows what those freakish things are thinking?
Why not cross into Canada legally?It's not as much fun... Canada is just cold Australia with strange animals and Hockey instead of Rugby/Aussie Rules.Wait... animals in Canada are strange versus animals in Australia?
What could be stranger than a kangaroo? It's a giant mutant man-rat tall enough to stare a large man in the eye. Who knows what those freakish things are thinking?
Why not cross into Canada legally?It's not as much fun... Canada is just cold Australia with strange animals and Hockey instead of Rugby/Aussie Rules.Wait... animals in Canada are strange versus animals in Australia?
What could be stranger than a kangaroo? It's a giant mutant man-rat tall enough to stare a large man in the eye. Who knows what those freakish things are thinking?
Bears and Moose and gophers are strange our animals are normal.
|
Could someone explasin the debt ceiling to me? I mean, Congress approves a budget, Congress approves the revenue measures to meet that budget an dknowingly sets revenue collection below the cost of the budget, how does that not count as implicit authority to raise the debt given Congress decided to spend more money than they get. Where else did they think it would come from? The magic money fairy?
|
It's a petty political device used to blame the President for reckless spending, despite the boundaries of that spending being assigned by Congress. That's really all it is. It's a pointless relic of a time when the US President had more control over the purse strings, but now that's no longer the case, so the debt ceiling is meaningless.
Unless you want to crash the world economy through insane bickering, that is.
Times like this make me glad we have the Westminster system. It has it's faults, but nonsense like this couldn't occur.
|
They think they can apply for a job at QANTASWhy not cross into Canada legally?It's not as much fun... Canada is just cold Australia with strange animals and Hockey instead of Rugby/Aussie Rules.Wait... animals in Canada are strange versus animals in Australia?
What could be stranger than a kangaroo? It's a giant mutant man-rat tall enough to stare a large man in the eye. Who knows what those freakish things are thinking?
They are thinking...I am going to balance on my tail and rake your belly open with the talons on my hind paws...then eat your intestines.
Imho I believe this is actually good right now with it being shut down. The government is still making revenue from our taxes and it jas cut a lot of its spending right now. A lot lol. Meaning this is actually what I think both parties intended was to shut down and shutdown a lot of its spending services and gather taxes and if it goes on long enough, they can lower the debt this way. Less spending but still bringing in the same amount of revenue? I mean with them shutdown, I'd imagine they brought their spending down a lot.
So I am actually seeing this as a good thing. I would love to see what our debt is when the government actually gets back up and running. It better be a lot lower.
Would you be interested in a government that requires you to represent yourself now?No. I'd love to see a government made up of people who don't hate government, though.
Seriously, what other job can you think of where the people in charge of hiring new employees view hating their own company as a plus on the resume?
I know that everyone at GE is convinced the HR department works for Siemens.
Could someone explasin the debt ceiling to me? I mean, Congress approves a budget, Congress approves the revenue measures to meet that budget an dknowingly sets revenue collection below the cost of the budget, how does that not count as implicit authority to raise the debt given Congress decided to spend more money than they get. Where else did they think it would come from? The magic money fairy?
Well, it was a system put into place during WWI because congress asked Wilson to come up with a number that they would not spend beyond as part of military appropriations. The number then was $1 Billion.
Since then, congress has upped it many times. The reason it isn't directly tied to budget legislation in the last several years is because we haven't passed budget legislation in the last several years. All we have done is pass continuing resolutions which congress agrees to kick the budget down the road for a few months at a time.
But for a short answer, when we decide to buy something it is within the debt limit. But then we decide to buy other stuff instead of pay for it, so we whip out the charge card. Problem is that we have to pay the interest on the charge card and that interest counts against the card's limit. So we have to up our limit to get that pesky interest out of the way. Since we a clearly NOT going to stop spending, if we don't increase the limit we will default on the interest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
President Obama has said that raising the debt limit doesn't raise our debt. I suppose he's correct, technicly, if none of that money in the margin between where it is now and the new limit is will be borrowed...
but then again, if you're not intending to borrow more, why raise the debt limit?
Not being an economic major, can someone explain this to me?
|
|
Could someone explasin the debt ceiling to me? I mean, Congress approves a budget, Congress approves the revenue measures to meet that budget an dknowingly sets revenue collection below the cost of the budget, how does that not count as implicit authority to raise the debt given Congress decided to spend more money than they get. Where else did they think it would come from? The magic money fairy?Well, it was a system put into place during WWI because congress asked Wilson to come up with a number that they would not spend beyond as part of military appropriations. The number then was $1 Billion.
Since then, congress has upped it many times. The reason it isn't directly tied to budget legislation in the last several years is because we haven't passed budget legislation in the last several years. All we have done is pass continuing resolutions which congress agrees to kick the budget down the road for a few months at a time.
But for a short answer, when we decide to buy something it is within the debt limit. But then we decide to buy other stuff instead of pay for it, so we whip out the charge card. Problem is that we have to pay the interest on the charge card and that interest counts against the card's limit. So we have to up our limit to get that pesky interest out of the way. Since we a clearly NOT going to stop spending, if we don't increase the limit we will default on the interest.
No, I understand financing the government by borrowing and understand what the debt ceiling is, it's just I'm confused as to why it's a thing you vote on when the budget and tax structures have alerady been decided, the debt seems to fall nicely out of the defeceit between those two, so I don't see why a vote on raising the debt ceiling makes sense given that.
|
So I am actually seeing this as a good thing. I would love to see what our debt is when the government actually gets back up and running. It better be a lot lower.
I've already been told that the days we could not drill this month will be added to the schedule later in the year. I imagine most everything else that was not paid for now will be paid for later.
It's much like the 'gas strikes' people try to organize. You don't actually reduce any spending, just change when it occurs.
No, I understand financing the government by borrowing and understand what the debt ceiling is, it's just I'm confused as to why it's a thing you vote on when the budget and tax structures have alerady been decided, the debt seems to fall nicely out of the defeceit between those two, so I don't see why a vote on raising the debt ceiling makes sense given that.Could someone explasin the debt ceiling to me? I mean, Congress approves a budget, Congress approves the revenue measures to meet that budget an dknowingly sets revenue collection below the cost of the budget, how does that not count as implicit authority to raise the debt given Congress decided to spend more money than they get. Where else did they think it would come from? The magic money fairy?Well, it was a system put into place during WWI because congress asked Wilson to come up with a number that they would not spend beyond as part of military appropriations. The number then was $1 Billion.
Since then, congress has upped it many times. The reason it isn't directly tied to budget legislation in the last several years is because we haven't passed budget legislation in the last several years. All we have done is pass continuing resolutions which congress agrees to kick the budget down the road for a few months at a time.
But for a short answer, when we decide to buy something it is within the debt limit. But then we decide to buy other stuff instead of pay for it, so we whip out the charge card. Problem is that we have to pay the interest on the charge card and that interest counts against the card's limit. So we have to up our limit to get that pesky interest out of the way. Since we a clearly NOT going to stop spending, if we don't increase the limit we will default on the interest.
We haven't passed a budget a real budget since 1997. Appropriations bills and continuing resolutions don't account for the debt ceiling.
So I am actually seeing this as a good thing. I would love to see what our debt is when the government actually gets back up and running. It better be a lot lower.I've already been told that the days we could not drill this month will be added to the schedule later in the year. I imagine most everything else that was not paid for now will be paid for later.
It's much like the 'gas strikes' people try to organize. You don't actually reduce any spending, just change when it occurs.
Wic, food stamps, employment that they let go, atractions and activities that are not currently active, there's a lot of things that are no longer going on that they don't have to spend money on in the future. The people they aren't letting working is something they don't have to pay back and the parks and such that they are not paying to employ and clean etc isn't something they have to pay back. Theres a lot of things thatvare usually going on that aren't right now that won't have to be paid back in the future. Wic (this really needed to be kept up instead of foodstamps) doesn't have to be paid back, once foodstamps run out they won't have to pay back or double up on peoples foodstamps cards when they get back up and running.
I'd say they need to stay shut down for a bit longer so somethings can die down and run thru their amount. That way quite a bit of these things don't have to be brought back up as big as they were.For instance foodstamps. The govt needs to stay out for foodstamps to run out for at least a couple of months. Yes there's a lot of people who need foodstamps, but honestly of we look around and what we see is that a majority of people who have it don't need it. Take it away and make people depend on themselves and not the govt. Right now we got so many people who are solely relying on the govt for their needs to be met that and good bit maybe even the majority of them don't even need foodstamps but are using them so that they can spend their money on luxury items.
In a way I see this as a good thing for a chance for people to break their habits and start standing solely on their own feet again. We do that and I'm willing to bet if we only gave the services out to people who needed them (not because they won't work more or 2 or more jobs to get things covered) we woukd reduce a vast amount of our debt.
I'm thinking that's the reason why they want us all to have our own insurances because of how much money they are burning thru with medicaid and other services like that.
Okay my rant is over, I'm grabbing my flame resist poncho and done shacking my fists at the neighbor kids from my porch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance foodstamps. The govt needs to stay out for foodstamps to run out for at least a couple of months. Yes there's a lot of people who need foodstamps, but honestly of we look around and what we see is that a majority of people who have it don't need it. Take it away and make people depend on themselves and not the govt. Right now we got so many people who are solely relying on the govt for their needs to be met that and good bit maybe even the majority of them don't even need foodstamps but are using them so that they can spend their money on luxury items.
In a way I see this as a good thing for a chance for people to break their habits and start standing solely on their own feet again. We do that and I'm willing to bet if we only gave the services out to people who needed them (not because they won't work more or 2 or more jobs to get things covered) we woukd reduce a vast amount of our debt.
Eliminating SNAP entirely wouldn't "reduce a vast amount of our debt." But even if it would, are you actually advocating making the poorest among us solely bear the cost of balancing the budget? Because it sounds like you think people working only one full-time job aren't working hard enough.
so that they can spend their money on luxury items
Like gasoline and toilet paper.
There is no doubt the welfare system gets abused, and that should be stopped.
But this abuse is in no way singlehandedly destroying our economy or our nation, etc...
It would be interesting to look at how much Welfare abuse accounts for, vs. how much daily drone strikes are costing us. As a ratio, I mean.
Indeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Redneckdevil:
According to wikipedia (I'd go straight to the source, but you know -- government shutdown):
In the 2012 fiscal year, $74.6 billion in food assistance was distributed.
In the same period, total federal outlays were $3795.547 billion.
We spent less than 2% of the budget on SNAP. It isn't breaking us.
Edit: According to feedingamerica.org, 76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. Clearly those people should be working multiple full time jobs.
There is no doubt the welfare system gets abused, and that should be stopped.
How?
I mean are folks under the impression that we're not trying to stop the abuse as it is? That we don't already have a system in place to do this? That if only they were running things it would somehow magically be different?
Its an enormous government system. Abuse will happen. The sun will rise in the east, it will rain. There will be draughts. Winter will be cold. Move on.
But this abuse is in no way singlehandedly destroying our economy or our nation, etc...
No, whats doing that is the refusal to transition from the high of post WW2 where half the nations on the planet hadn't industrialized and the other half had just bombed each other back a few decades. We have this idea in our heads that america on top is how its supposed to be, the right and natural order of things, how it always has been and thus how it always will be unless we sin and fall from the true american way.
We've only been top dog for a few generations, why should that last?
The government has about 10% of its budget going to pay debt payments. All bills will be paid (unless the administration goes to court to say "No, we don't have to," which I really don't see happening (late night television would have a field day, and even the low information voter would start to question the administrations policies). All entitlements would be paid. Discretionary spending would be cut dramatically.
If the debt limit isn't raised, the government has to live within its means. Outgo = income, just like the rest of us lowly citizens, businesses, and nonprofits.
Would it hurt? Sure, there would be some pain. And every government program has its defenders.
The pain isn't going to come from government cuts - which, by the way, are more along the lines of "sorry about your grandma, Jimmy, but the subsidy for her meds doesn't exist anymore..." - the real problem will be the damage to the markets.
Just *talking* about not raising the debt ceiling does damage to the international markets, and we already know this from the *last* time these same lunatics pulled this. Actually going through with it will be catastrophic.
We've only been top dog for a few generations, why should that last?
Why do you hate America? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wic, food stamps, employment that they let go, atractions and activities that are not currently active, there's a lot of things that are no longer going on that they don't have to spend money on in the future. The people they aren't letting working is something they don't have to pay back and the parks and such that they are not paying to employ and clean etc isn't something they have to pay back. Theres a lot of things thatvare usually going on that aren't right now that won't have to be paid back in the future. Wic (this really needed to be kept up instead of foodstamps) doesn't have to be paid back, once foodstamps run out they won't have to pay back or double up on peoples foodstamps cards when they get back up and running.
I'd say they need to stay shut down for a bit longer so somethings can die down and run thru their amount. That way quite a bit of these things don't have to be brought back up as big as they were.
For instance foodstamps. The govt needs to stay out for foodstamps to run out for at least a couple of months. Yes there's a lot of people who need foodstamps, but honestly of we look around and what we see is that a majority of people who have it don't need it. Take it away and make people depend on themselves and not the govt. Right now we got so many people who are solely relying on the govt for their needs to be met that and good bit maybe even the majority of them don't even need foodstamps but are using them so that they can spend their money on luxury items.
In a way I see this as a good thing for a chance for people to break their habits and start standing solely on their own feet again. We do that and I'm willing to bet if we only gave the services out to people who needed them (not because they won't work more or 2 or more jobs to get things covered) we woukd reduce a vast amount of our debt.
I'm thinking that's the reason why they want us all to have our own insurances because of how much money they are burning thru with medicaid and other services like that.Okay my rant is over, I'm grabbing my flame resist poncho and done shacking my fists at the neighbor kids from my porch.
Wow, wrong and disgusting.
My favorite part is where you make a number of claims that are demonstrably the opposite of true, and then use those claims to justify a plan where you deprive aid to millions of people who legitimately need it.
There is no doubt the welfare system gets abused, and that should be stopped.How?
I mean are folks under the impression that we're not trying to stop the abuse as it is? That we don't already have a system in place to do this? That if only they were running things it would somehow magically be different?
Its an enormous government system. Abuse will happen. The sun will rise in the east, it will rain. There will be draughts. Winter will be cold. Move on.
But this abuse is in no way singlehandedly destroying our economy or our nation, etc...No, whats doing that is the refusal to transition from the high of post WW2 where half the nations on the planet hadn't industrialized and the other half had just bombed each other back a few decades. We have this idea in our heads that america on top is how its supposed to be, the right and natural order of things, how it always has been and thus how it always will be unless we sin and fall from the true american way.
We've only been top dog for a few generations, why should that last?
I'm not under the impression that there aren't efforts to stop it. I dunno how to stop it for sure either. I don't want more regulation, so...yeah.
Those things aren't mutually exclusive...
Wow, wrong and disgusting.
My favorite part is where you make a number of claims that are demonstrably the opposite of true, and then use those claims to justify a plan where you deprive aid to millions of people who legitimately need it.
But Michelle Bachman says they can all get jobs at McDonalds and eat for free. That's true, right?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Michelle Bachman says they can all get jobs at McDonalds and eat for free. That's true, right?Wow, wrong and disgusting.
My favorite part is where you make a number of claims that are demonstrably the opposite of true, and then use those claims to justify a plan where you deprive aid to millions of people who legitimately need it.
Now you're trying to poison them! A new low! ;-P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be interesting to look at how much Welfare abuse accounts for, vs. how much daily drone strikes are costing us. As a ratio, I mean.
Or rich people who can afford good tax lawyers and accountants that avoid paying any tax... They are cheats and people who abuse the system most.
Or rich people who can afford good tax lawyers and accountants that avoid paying any tax... They are cheats and people who abuse the system most.
I agree, and that would be interesting -- but also less productive overall, in the current context. If we want to be serious about reducing the debt, we need to have a hard-headed look at dollars in terms of order of magnitude, and worry less for the time being about who "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" what. So, if legal tax evasion by the rich is equivalent in value to continuing overseas wars (a really big-ticket item), then by all means let's address it. If not, let's put it on the back burner for now, even if it makes us personally really annoyed.
I can get behind that.
Okay, so some very rough (and very debatable) numbers, for the sake of comparison:
Roughly Estimated Annual Cost Of...
As of 4/2/13, the U.S. national debt was ~$12 trillion.
Are the second and third points tied together? Seems they would be...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are the second and third points tied together? Seems they would be...
Yeah; the point there is that obesity alone is costing more than all of the added Obamacare costs put together.
Looking briefly at the CBO's own figures, it would appear that the Bush era tax cuts added a total of $1.6 Trillion to the national debt. Interesting..
Another way of looking at that is that, when compared with the total, simply re-instating them cannot pay off the national debt by itself -- not even close. EDIT: $1.6 trillion/12 years = $133 billion/year.
More germane numbers:
---
Annual debt growth: $901 billion and climbing.
So, to reduce the debt, you need to cut expenditures and/or raise revenue by a total > $901 billion + the annual interest on that (+ any spending increases). The remainder is applied towards the $12 trillion total debt.
All the things on the list so far total a lot less than $901 billion.
|
|
Looking briefly at the CBO's own figures, it would appear that the Bush era tax cuts added a total of $1.6 Trillion to the national debt. Interesting..Another way of looking at that is that, when compared with the total, simply re-instating them cannot pay off the national debt by itself -- not even close.
Of course. It would be folly to think that. (It would have more of an effect than simply combating fraud though!)
But it is equally folly to think that you can balance a budget by simply cutting expenditure. Revenue has to be increased as well.
More:
Throw the max in, and we're still nowhere close. We need a number of very, very big-ticket items to add to the list, or there's no way to do this -- but I'm currently out of suggestions.
* I think the Democrats need to get serious about entitlement reform.
* I think the Republicans need to get serious about extra revenue.
...and I think either is politically toxic to their respective bases, meaning there is a ton of incentive to kick the can.