To raise the debt ceiling or not...

• Apple

  

  Here in the coming weeks in Congress, ripe with newly elected Tea Party conservatives, our representatives will be forced to vote on raising the debt ceiling and once again decide if we should spend more money than have.
  
  An interesting article, albeit from a conservative leaning site, suggest that one way to raise the ceiling is to lower the floor. Link
  
  The newly elected Tea Party conservatives now in Congress consider it irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling and I agree with them. To quote the article:

  When you can’t pay the heat bill, you empty the pool. When you can’t buy groceries, you stop going to restaurants. When you can’t afford the gas, you sell the yacht. You don’t pay off your credit card by taking out another credit card. Here in Tea Party America, we get it.

  An interesting conversation was held on CBS Meet the Press on Sunday with Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) and Rep.-elect Mike Kelly (PA) giving their conservative point of view while Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL) give the socialist democrat point of view. Link
  
  This should be an interesting couple of weeks where the votes of both parties could have major ramifications on the 2012 election. It should be a fun time for political junkies sitting on the sidelines!
• BGFalcons82

  

  I am torn as to which side to join.
  
  My logic and reasoning side is telling me that this is the wrong mountain to die on. Severe economic complications will arise and innocent middle class/lower economic class citizens will feel the brunt of it. This side is also telling me that a stink can be made about spending reductions and maybe...just maybe, we'll begin the thousand mile journey to only spending what we make. Raise hell, go to the edge, rattle a sabre or two, then agree to raise it. Kind of the Kim Jong Il negotiating approach, if you will.
  
  My Tea roots are telling me that this is business as usual. Nothing will change unless we make it change. We'll never turn our fiscal house around if we don't make an abrupt and monumental leap to stop spending money we have to borrow. When faced by Hitler and Hirohito, we didn't pass...we took them on and paid dearly for it in the short term. Long term...a murdering terrorist and an annointed ruler were removed from the planet's list of the living. This unfettered spending has to end, or we will end...sooner rather than later. For those that post that the R's tried this before and got tossed out, so be it if it's the right thing to do.
  
  I'm still deciding. Maybe some intellingent posts will provide the impetus for the right decision. Intelligence and the internetz? Say it isn't so!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Costs outweigh the benefits right now.
  Economy is too fragile and the U.S. does not want to default.
• Devils Advocate

  

  They will raise it...Short term and 60 days worth. enough time for the R's to circle the wagons and use repealing Obama care as a battle cry.
  
  BG, the Kim Jong II comparison was classic!
• BoatShoes

  It just seems crazy to me that the time we're talking about going to war over the debt ceiling is during a fragile economy when deficit spending, if ever, may be justified. IMO we should have done this in the last strong economic expansion and ought to hold off. But again, we know the real reason those on the right have suddenly put on their austerity badges is because they find religion when they don't have the white house.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Severe economic complications will arise and innocent middle class/lower economic class citizens will feel the brunt of it. "
  
  Likely correct, but it will even happen either now or later, and later might be much worse. We're living in an economic time-bomb. 2011-2012 politically will perhaps bring in an era of recognition, which may lead to a wider chasm between the private and public sector. If people haven't figured out the following by now:
  
  1) The U.S. has promised too many entitlements to its citizens that it can't deliver.
  
  2) The public pension crisis could dwarf the housing crisis in economic pain (as well as sociological discontent).
  
  3) We might not be able to tax ourselves out of this mess.
  
  then they won't ever realize it.
  
  That doesn't mean it may be reality.
• Apple

  

  Just as the D's were swept into office in '08 with the idea of getting the taste of GWB out of our mouths, so too, were the R's swept into Congress in '10 in an effort to reign in the big government that both political parties have equally created.
  
  At the risk of sounding cliche', it's time to wake up and smell the roses, (or in this case the stench of our debts); its the time where the rubber meets the pavement; its time to quit kicking the can down the road.
  
  I tend to agree with DA and that there will be a short term extension on the debt with the ultimate goal being to make major cuts in spending before any further agreement to raise the debt. R's will excentuate the fallacies of ObamaKare and other pork-laden government programs that are sapping the treasury, and ultimate liberty, of the American people.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah, lets default. That seems like a great plan.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  They're obviously going to raise it again. Ideally I would prefer they raise it one more time, and then pass a law making it illegal to ever raise it again. That buys them some time to start slashing the fat. It will never happen though. We either default now or we default 20 years from now. Those are the options.
• tk421

  

  They need to pass a law requiring the budget to be balanced. Without something like that, you know they aren't going to balance a budget, let alone pay off the debt. I agree with the others. We are going to default. It will happen. Better to get it over with than stretch the pain out for another couple decades.
• 2quik4u

  

  http://mobile.twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/21933150540140545
• tk421

  

  2quik4u;624005 wrote:http://mobile.twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/21933150540140545

  
  If that actually happens, they need to make it with no loopholes. No getting around the amendment to have a balanced budget at all. If you declare war and need more money, must find it with cuts somewhere else.
• Apple

  

  Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard isn't buying Michelle Bachmann's cold turkey... Link
  
  This debate is getting fun and Congress isn't even in session yet!
• tk421

  

  Despite all this, I of course expect Congress will raise the debt ceiling and business in D.C. will go on as usual. Nothing will change and the debt ceiling will continue to get raised.
• IggyPride00

  

  The Chamber of Commerce will put a gun to the head of every Republican and promise to give them the Obama treatment come re-election time in 2012 if they even dare consider allowing the U.S to default.
  
  As someone else said, this is not a hill worth dying on. I know it makes great red meat for the base, but politically it would be an unmitigated disaster to bring about the collapse of the world economy and our very way of life because you're trying to prove a point about spending.
  
  The general public won't give 2 shits about spending disiciple when they discover the real-world consequences of the U.S defaulting on our debt, and there will be a backlash against anyone who allowed it to happen the likes of which we haven't seen before.
  
  I have no doubt Conservatives will try and extract a pound of flesh in order to pass the increase, but at the end of the day they have no leverage in the sense that they will pass it whether they get their cuts or not because they don't want to be the party responsible for causing the global economy to collapse because they didn't get a spending cut package they liked. That message won't play to a public that will have seen their personal finances/lives decimated by the failure to extend the ceiling.
• dwccrew

  

  Default now or default later.....it's all about which you'd prefer.
• believer

  

  tk421;624032 wrote:Despite all this, I of course expect Congress will raise the debt ceiling and business in D.C. will go on as usual. Nothing will change and the debt ceiling will continue to get raised.

  The clowns in DC may vote to raise the magical debt ceiling yet again, but sooner or later things will change. There will come a time when things MUST change. Unfortunately when that happens it won't be because our "leaders" had the testicular fortitude to make tough decisions. It'll be because the owners of our nation's debt will call in the loans.
  
  Unfortunately it will be our children and our children's children who will painfully pick up the tab. Then they will look back upon the past few generations and wonder what the hell we were thinking.
  

  BoatShoes;623277 wrote:It just seems crazy to me that the time we're talking about going to war over the debt ceiling is during a fragile economy when deficit spending, if ever, may be justified. IMO we should have done this in the last strong economic expansion and ought to hold off. But again, we know the real reason those on the right have suddenly put on their austerity badges is because they find religion when they don't have the white house.

  Deficit spending is never "justified."
  
  While I agree that we should have taken measures to lower the deficit during the last economic expansion, our career politicians regardless of political persuasion salivate when they see those healthy tax revenues and behave like kids in a candy store. Now that the revenue streams are drying up, they're now suddenly "interested" in tightening the belt but for political expediency.
  
  The right's involvement in that "interest" has always been there in principle, but like the left 's inexplicable impulse to spend like there's no tomorrow as we have all quite clearly witnessed the past couple of years, they too cannot resist the cookies in the cookie jar.
  
  Prediction: The Tea Party Republicans will succumb to the same temptations. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Change we can believe in...right?
• derek bomar

  

  so...where exactly is everyone cool with the cuts coming from (outside of waste and abuse)? I mean, are you guys cool with raising the age on SS? Cutting defense spending? I know I am, it just seems like a lot of the people are up in arms about it, but when told that a service or program they benefit from may be cut to help get the debt/deficit in order, they raise hell.
• fan_from_texas

  derek bomar;624308 wrote:so...where exactly is everyone cool with the cuts coming from (outside of waste and abuse)? I mean, are you guys cool with raising the age on SS? Cutting defense spending? I know I am, it just seems like a lot of the people are up in arms about it, but when told that a service or program they benefit from may be cut to help get the debt/deficit in order, they raise hell.

  
  I think the debt ceiling should be raised for the reasons others have pointed out. Re cuts, I'm fine with raising the age on SS and cutting defense spending. I'm also fine with raising taxes, as long as it's done in a socially responsible way that requires everyone to share the pain and doesn't just shift the burden to the "rich" (who are constantly being redefined to be a larger part of the population).
  
  An unforced default strikes me as a terrible idea that will raise borrowing costs and make it very difficult to dig out of the recession. I'm not an economist, though, so I'm generally okay with deferring to their wisdom on how best to balance long-term and short-term interests.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  derek bomar;624308 wrote:so...where exactly is everyone cool with the cuts coming from (outside of waste and abuse)? I mean, are you guys cool with raising the age on SS? Cutting defense spending? I know I am, it just seems like a lot of the people are up in arms about it, but when told that a service or program they benefit from may be cut to help get the debt/deficit in order, they raise hell.

  
  We need to increase the SS age and cut current benefits. Granted, the latter is politically impossible. The Baby Boomer generation is now starting to collect and God knows they won't touch their own benefits. You raise a good point, people want cuts until it affects them personally. This is the entitlement society that has been stewing for about 8 decades. It is unsustainable.
• IggyPride00

  

  Spending a trillion dollars a year to play world police and maintain an empire (we have bases in some 140 different countries) while imposing benefit cuts on our citizens here at home is unsustainable. Supplementing the world's healthcare costs (which has made Medicare spending spiral completely out of control) by paying exhorbitantly high prices to make up for the profits companies aren't making in the rest of the world because of government controls is unsustainable.
  
  Social Security is the least of our problems as long as we continue to insist on having governmental policy that supplements the defense and healthcare spending of the rest of the world because we are the only market available for the healthcare and defense industry to charge what they want and we pay it no questions asked.
  
  This arrangement works great for the rest of the world, and the bought and paid for politicians who perpetuate it at the behest of their corporate masters all the while our own citizenry is too stupid to see the bigger picture of how we are bankrupting ourselves in the process.
• HitsRus

  

  Refusing to raise the ceiling so as to cause default is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Actually, it is at least as irresponsible as the brazen spending spree necessitating it. Massive spending cuts will crash the economy decreasing tax revenue further and actually increasing the deficit. The only solution is tofreeze discretionary spending at current levels(including the military), eliminate all new entitlements, and pass a balanced budget amendment effective at a future date that can be worked towards...say, 2014. The balanced budget amendment should be flexible to allow short periods of small deficits, and/or have a provision for a temporary override with the approval of 2/3 of congress.
  
  What is necessary, is that #1...stop the bleeding by eliminating new spending and entitlements.
  #2... restore confidence by showing that the U.S. is willing to get it's financial house in order.
  #3...articulate and pass clear, long term, business friendly tax policy.
  
  Once spending is frozen, an economy that is growing and chugging along will provide increasing tax revenues to make it easier to further reduce the deficit.
• gut

  ^^^pretty much spot on. Even trimming govt payrolls and pulling the military out or Iraq and Afghanistan is going to create hardship - that would be A LOT of jobs to absorb, which the economy can't, and so unemployment lines get longer.
  
  They need to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Or I'm not sure of all the specifics, but something that I believe would require at least 2/3 vote to overturn. It's a start at least.
  
  Only matter of time before they do go after the piggy banks of the wealthy - I'm talking a consumption tax. Probably some form of VAT, but maybe even as simple as a federal sales tax. They'll exclude food and energy and slowly start bleeding us a second time when we buy stuff with after-tax dollars. It's going to be seen as the best alternative that doesn't unduly punish the poor and doesn't punish savings (at least until you finally spend what you've worked so hard to save).
  
  Granted, the states already are bleeding us with sales tax. Forget the normal 6-7% or whatever you pay....we've talked about state & federal taxes on gas before, but take a look at your cell bill or your hotel bill sometime and calculate the tax %. No greater example of gouging than state taxes on hotel rooms.
• majorspark

  

  IggyPride00;624643 wrote:Spending a trillion dollars a year to play world police and maintain an empire (we have bases in some 140 different countries) while imposing benefit cuts on our citizens here at home is unsustainable. Supplementing the world's healthcare costs (which has made Medicare spending spiral completely out of control) by paying exhorbitantly high prices to make up for the profits companies aren't making in the rest of the world because of government controls is unsustainable.
  
  Social Security is the least of our problems as long as we continue to insist on having governmental policy that supplements the defense and healthcare spending of the rest of the world because we are the only market available for the healthcare and defense industry to charge what they want and we pay it no questions asked.
  
  This arrangement works great for the rest of the world, and the bought and paid for politicians who perpetuate it at the behest of their corporate masters all the while our own citizenry is too stupid to see the bigger picture of how we are bankrupting ourselves in the process.

  
  I do not agree that social security is the least of our problems. Its a big problem. One we will have to deal with. Quite frankly it is a government sponsored ponzi scheme. I do agree with you however that a larger problem exists when is comes to the spending of our tax dollars. I have on many previous posts pointed out that we are subsidizing the defense of most of the nations in Europe, some Middle East nations, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. Many of these nations enjoy socialized health care benefits and socialized pensions. If these nations were forced to pony up for their defense not a one could sustain any of the social benefits they enjoy today.
  
  With today's technology the USA has the ability to within an hour to totally wipe out multiple cities on the other side of the earth. The need for the USA to maintain a presence in many of these nations and continue to guarantee their defense no longer make sense.
• believer

  

  majorspark;625369 wrote:I do not agree that social security is the least of our problems. Its a big problem. One we will have to deal with. Quite frankly it is a government sponsored ponzi scheme.

  I agree but we need to tread lightly and thoughtfully. That government ponzi scheme has been around for a long time and like it or not many if not most Americans are counting on that as their primary source of retirement income. To make draconian cuts or hefty tax increases or to raise age qualifications outside of reason will create more problems than it will resolve. Our government by federal mandate directed our financial participation in the SS system with a promise to pay benefits upon maturity. To default on that promise will create profoundly negative social, economic, and political consequences.
  

  majorspark;625369 wrote:I do agree with you however that a larger problem exists when is comes to the spending of our tax dollars. I have on many previous posts pointed out that we are subsidizing the defense of most of the nations in Europe, some Middle East nations, Japan, South Korea, and Canada. Many of these nations enjoy socialized health care benefits and socialized pensions. If these nations were forced to pony up for their defense not a one could sustain any of the social benefits they enjoy today.

  I wholeheartedly agree with this as well. Maybe if we stopped playing security cop and nanny to every other industrialized "ally" Social Security will no longer be an issue.
  

  majorspark;625369 wrote:With today's technology the USA has the ability to within an hour to totally wipe out multiple cities on the other side of the earth. The need for the USA to maintain a presence in many of these nations and continue to guarantee their defense no longer make sense.

  Again I agree. The problem is we need to be willing to use that power without hesitation if the need may arise. I'm sure Ptown will disagree!