To raise the debt ceiling or not...
-
derek bomarPtown will come on here and tell you that all the bases are needed. Which is bs.
-
ptown_trojans_1derek bomar;628039 wrote:Ptown will come on here and tell you that all the bases are needed. Which is bs.
LoL.
Not all.
Just the ones in strategic areas: Japan, Korea, Diego Garcia, Germany, Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey and Germany.
Interesting enough, today Gates is going to announce his cuts in major programs for the defense budget . -
BGFalcons82I'm going to agree with ptown and there are many defense items that are in need of the scrap heap. Although, I would add one budget item that has been sorely disregarded and ignored as far as defense goes....border security. If they want to cut involvement in Europe, then they better apply some of these savings to securing our borders. I don't think states, such as Arizona, should be financing border security with Mexico, as it is the federal government's sworn duty to do so. However, if the feds take a pass, then states such as Arizona have to do what they can to protect themselves. It isn't right to just surrender land and security to illegals without trying to protect your citizenry any way you can.
-
ptown_trojans_1BGFalcons82;628088 wrote:I'm going to agree with ptown and there are many defense items that are in need of the scrap heap. Although, I would add one budget item that has been sorely disregarded and ignored as far as defense goes....border security. If they want to cut involvement in Europe, then they better apply some of these savings to securing our borders. I don't think states, such as Arizona, should be financing border security with Mexico, as it is the federal government's sworn duty to do so. However, if the feds take a pass, then states such as Arizona have to do what they can to protect themselves. It isn't right to just surrender land and security to illegals without trying to protect your citizenry any way you can.
I would support that, but what would be the rules of engagement, who would oversee the border? DoD, DHS, the states? Considering there has never been troops deployed in the U.S. except during wartime, the rules of engagement and how the troops or guards will act is an important process that needs very deep examination and discourse. -
Con_AlmaIt couldn't be the States. The level on State my consider appropriate may subject another State to vunerability.
It should be a combination of DHS and DoD. -
BGFalcons82I heard a 3rd option over the weekend in regards to raising the debt ceiling. The only 2 discussed to date:
1. Don't raise it and have the feds "default" on spending. Go bankrupt. Pay the piper time.
2. Raise the debt ceiling and "promise" to make spending cuts and become more fiscally responsible. hahahahahahahaaaaa....that was HARD to type.
Or the new one...
3. Raise the debt ceiling and create legislation that legally binds us to only spend what we take in. In these times, that's about $200,000,000,000 per month...or maybe a skoosh more. Unfortunately, we're spending about $300,000,000,000 per month, so we'll have to get a quick grip in reality.
I'm really inclined to go with #3 now. It solves the dilemma of what to do right now and also solves what to do in the future. It's a win-win in my book. -
I Wear PantsOption 1 isn't an option.
-
majorsparkI Wear Pants;640909 wrote:Option 1 isn't an option.
It will never be an option. It will come by force. The threat of default will always cause us to find a way to raise the debt ceiling. At some point down the line the laws of economics will catch up with us and their will be no choice. -
gutmajorspark;640991 wrote:It will never be an option. It will come by force. The threat of default will always cause us to find a way to raise the debt ceiling. At some point down the line the laws of economics will catch up with us and their will be no choice.
Default will never happen unless we start electing even dumber politciians. What will happen, sooner rather than later, is interest rates will start going up and they'll have no choice but to trim spending and/or raise taxes. We'll start inflating our way out (already have) before we default. As long as they can sell long-term treasuries for 5% inflation/depreciation is essentially creating free money - they'll borrow $1M today, pay $500k in interest over 10 years, and then pay out $1M 10 years from now that has a present value of only about $500k, and the whole outlay has a present value of less than $1M.
Here's another way of looking at it....How much debt can you as a consumer safely handle? If you make $100k a year, can you afford a $300k mortgage and maybe another $40k in school loans? Absolutely, that is debt service (interest + principle) in the neighborhood of 30% (the upper limit of what is considered manageable). That's 3.4X your yearly income. The debt approaching 12 trillion is about 4X treasury income. Corporations typically have debt loads of 30-50%, sometimes more, but usually better growth prospects (treasury income will only grow approximately with GDP, which on average has been 3-4%).
So you can make an argument that the national debt is actually around manageable limits. The main difference, however, vs. the two examples I provided is the home owner or corporation doesn't have increasing liabilities in the pipeline. We know SS is going into the red eventually, and then you have healthcare. I haven't done the math to know if growing tax receipts (with increasing GDP) can cover those increased liabilities, but it would seem to point to freezing other spending, at a minimum.
It's good there is a sense of urgency but I don't think the situation is really as dire as being portrayed. I would argue that there is a certain amount of govt debt that is optimal - you are effectively leveraging your economy - and while the US economy has been cyclical there's no reason to think it won't continue to grow longer-term. The argument is we are stealing from our children's future. Not necessariy - you are leveraging an investment that, if it has a positive ROI, is entirely rational and good business (done responsibly). Sure, the private sector would get a higher ROI on that money. However, a good portion of the budget is for social programs, and to the extent socialism creates positive externalities (modest wealth redistribution) it CAN make sense. -
Footwedge
This.Cleveland Buck;623643 wrote: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.
I've heard the same shit from "conservatives" before. Nothing will change. It's been the same since LBJ took office. It makes no difference who's in power.