If cutting the deficit was a priority then Mike Lee wouldn't be talking
about creating more entitlements and handing out more money to irresponsible
people. His family tax credit only proved how much of a phony his "deficit
hawk" desires really are.
This is a really stupid idea! I can't just go to my bank and say,
"Gimme more credit." I've got to live within my means, why
can't the goobermint?
Nah, too reasonable. There's no way they'd go for that.
Absolutely right. The debt ceiling shouldn't even be a matter of political
debate. Most countries don't have anything like it, and it's not
constitutionally mandated. It's routine business, and should be routinely
Every time they raise the debt ceiling, Congress just spends until we face the
next crisis. What would make this time different? When does the circus stop?Personally I have no problem increasing the debt ceiling but I am very
skeptical it will bring Congress to serious discussions on the budget or
spending. So, a year from now, or two or five years from now, we'll be
right where we are ... only worse because the hole is deeper.My
children have borrowed money from me and I have increased their "debt
ceiling" now and then due to their changing circumstances. But we sit down
and review their financial situation before I bail them out, not after. That
doesn't make any sense at all.
Give me another drink of alcohol then we can talk about going to an AA meeting
to get help.
Congress controls spending. Congress determines where the money goes and through
what channels. Congress determines borrowing limits. Congress controls the debt
ceiling. All of these things are managed by congress. Who is in charge of
congress? John Boehner. The government cannot spend money without his signature.
If the current congress cannot manage the country's finances in a way that
inspires confidence, then they need to be replaced. Including John Boehner. But
they cannot be replaced with a group of people who just say no to everything.
They have to be replaced by a group of people willing to compromise and work
together on spending. Unlike the current congress. The problem is not national
leadership. The problem is not state leadership. The problem is congressional
Richard, stop it! You're talking common sense. You're being
reasonable. Stop it. We can't deal with this sort of talk. We prefer wild,
reckless, irrational, dangerous, partisan political rhetoric, especially if it
proves that we hate the president. That's really all that matters. If we
oppose Obama on everything, somehow this country will be a better place and all
of our problems will magically disappear. Compromise is so 1787.
Give the president more debt capability, so he run off and campaign for gun
control is more like it. Once he gets the money, he will be gone from the
Washington governing scene.No thanks. I don't want more debt,
although I know it is inevitable, but at least have a spending reduction plan
firmly placed into law, and I don't want gun control either.
joe5,The problem here is that both parties (but especially the GOP)
are half-Keynesians. They agree that deficit spending is necessary during
downturns to prevent catastrophe, but they refuse to tax sufficiently to produce
a surplus during economic expansions. Instead, they somehow think they can
simply slash their way to a balanced budget. But drastically slashing government
spending would simply produce another recession. Ideology has held both common
sense and sound economic policy hostage for some time now (since Reagan). We had
a brief reprieve during the Clinton years, but the Bush tax cuts and the
absolute refusal by the GOP to allow them to expire has left us with no way out
of this corner we've painted ourselves into. Ever wonder why Romney/Ryan
never were willing to put any numbers to their bizarre balanced-budget claims?
Nonconlib: My company has had four labor reductions this year. They had staffed
to support a certain business level, then found that they could only earn about
3/4 of their projections. The quickest way to get healthy was to reduce the
labor force and suffer the negative results.So goes the government.
Earnings will provide only a certain level of spending. They can never earn
enough to put everybody on the government payroll. The quickest path to fiscal
health is to reduce their budget to match their earnings.I disagree
with the half-Keynesians. Deficit spending offers no long term benefits. It just
kicks the problem down the road. Are we really so selfish that we will saddle
our children with the bill of our self-indulgence?We will never be
confused with the "greatest generation;" those who gave their lives in
WWII so we could be free of tyranny. We won't even sacrifice our lusts for
the next generations, much less our lives. Do we really need the latest cell
phones, big screen TVs, satellite dishes, and video games? What do you have that
you would be willing to sacrifice for the future?
@Noncomlib@joe5Noncomlib is correct, the government should act
to smooth the ups and downs of the economy. The government should spend more
than it takes in during recessions, and should make up for it by taking in more
than it spends during the good times. This will keep the economy going during
recessions and will keep it from getting superheated during good times. Even Milton Friedman, conservative economist extraordinaire, didn't
think deficit spending is bad. What is important is that the deficit spending
be on items that have value. If we do deficit spending, it should be spent on
things that will need to be done anyway, like (1) repairing/expanding
infrastructure, which benefits the economy in the long run, (2) educating our
population, which again benefits the economy in the long run, and (3)
diversifying our energy sources, so we are not so dependent on forms of energy
with hidden long-term costs. And yes, we need to run the government
with a surplus during good times, rather than cutting taxes. It's like
saving money when you're employed, so you can live off your savings when
you're laid off.
skeptical: I don't disagree. As I mentioned in my first post, I don't
have a problem with raising the debt ceiling. In my own finances, I have periods
of deficit spending when I've purchased a car or a home. But whenever
I've done that, I had a plan to satisfy the incurred debt. Where is the
plan from the government and where is the commitment to adhere to the plan?You're living in Normal Rockwell world with the paradigm you
propose. It ain't gonna happen because spending buys votes. So what
legislator is going to want to make the hard decisions when times are tough and,
even more, make the rational decisions when time are good.The
argument you make is sound. But I hope you don't consider me naive enough
to believe it will work with our current way of managing the country.
The article had merit until he included the part about the rich paying their
share. They should, but their contributions would not make a dent in the now
almost 17 trillion in debt. Just today I was reading an article about the
richest Americans and at about 70 billion sits Bill Gates. Take every penny he
has, and that 70 billion is a drop in the debt bucket. Take even 50% from the
rich and it won't come close to solving the problem. FatherOfFourYou do realize that the Republicans control only 1/3
of government don't you? Boehner signs the legislation that ultimately get
to him by Obama and Reid in the Senate. So your idea of throwing the bums out
is noble, just don't forget to throw them ALL out.
Skepitcal---We were paying down the debt during good times, when Clinton was
Pres. Then Bush and "deficits don't matter" Cheney decided that was
too responsible, let the next guy (Obama) worry about it.
mcclark: Like most liberals, you have your facts confused. The debt was not
being paid off during the Clinton administration. In fact, the national debt
increased every year Bill was in office. However, the Republican Congress
demanded a balanced budget and growth of the national debt was very low.In 93-94 (two years), under a Democratic Congress, debt increased ~$500M
($250M/yr).In 95-2000 (six years), under a Republican Congress, debt
increased ~$700M ($116M/yr).The same situation repeated itself in
reverse since Clinton.In 01-06 (six year), under a Republican
Congress, debt increased ~$2.8B ($467M/yr).In 07-12 (six years),
under a Democratic Congress, debt increased ~$7.85B ($1.31B/yr).Facts can be messy things, can't they?
Current revenues ARE sufficient to fully fund SS and medicare, pay interest on
the debt, and fund defense.“The Obama administration is
correct in refusing to play politics with the debt limit.”Eric,Absolutely right! BO’s misadministration WOULD be correct in
refusing to play politics with the debt ceiling, but that is just what he is
doing. Why do you think he went on a rant monday against the repus? he was
playing politics.Fatheroffour,Blaming it on the house when the
senate won’t even vote on the house budgets, and BO says he would veto
house budgets is disingenuous at best. Everything coming out of congress is
loaded with dem pork or the senate won’t even vote on it and BO would veto
it.mcclarknope, no debt reduction during slick’s
administration. According to the treasury dept, gross federal debt INCREASED
every year under slick. No reduction, no balanced budget. Please stop
Lost in DC and Joe5You need a lesson in modern economics.
Government debt has always been based on its ratio to the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). Relative to the GDP the debt did go down under Clinton. By the way the
biggest debt creator in recent history was Ron Reagan, he tripled the federal
debt. Obama will never come close to that.
After dealing with this idiotic issue for decades now, I think my biggest
complaint is with the corruption of our language.When this arbitrary
and seemingly meaningless amount can be raised so often and with such little
regard to rules of simple economic common sense, why do we STILL refer to it as
a debt "limit" or "ceiling"?Both of those words, in
this context, are meant to convey some sense of limitation or maximum. However,
as we've seen so many times and for so long, our national debt
"limit" is anything but!!
Joe 5 1998 99.28 B Surplus 1999 176.16 B Surplus 2000
320.76 B Surplus 2001 168.16 B Surplus Bush's first year
2002 205.2 B Deficit 2003 47.8 B Deficit 2004
511.14 B Deficit This does not count Bush putting two wars on the
country's credit card that we will be paying for the next 25 years. Facts
are facts and combining years to come up with the math you want does not change
I posted numbers from the US treasury in rebuttal to mcclark’s erroneous
assertion that slick gave us a surplus, but the DN refused to post them. I
wonder why? Is the DN afraid of the truth?From the treasurydirect
webpage: (DN, this is NOT a URL, it does NOT violate your rules, please
post!)Gross federal debt at (millions)1/19/97 -
5,309,7751/19/98 - 5,492,897 INCREASE of $183B1/19/99 - 5,619,058
INCREASE of $126B1/19/00 - 5,727,151 INCREASE of $108B1/18/01 -
5,727,777 INCREASE of $626MMNope, no surplus – cannot have one
when gross debt is increasing.I don’t know where you got your
erroneous numbers, but these come from the US treasury.Louie,we were not comparing debt or deficits to GPD, we were talking gross federal
debt, which HAS increased every year, even under slick willy.
The solution is for our government to not spend the money. Proposing NOT paying the bill for things we agreed to buy is just plain
ludicrous.@lost - wanna compare Slicks debt to GW Bushs? And
remember, GW had a gop house and senate for 6 of his years.I will be
first to admit that we have a spending problem, but it is just as likely to be
caused by the GOP as the Dems.
A couple of meta points. The analogy of personal finance to federal finance is
about as flawed as any analogy possible. First of all the government can just
print out of thin air..because that's where money comes from. It's
not dependent of how much gold, or wheat we have, we make it up (and so do banks
by extending credit). Secondly the federal govt. has always run a deficit and
as so many have pointed out it's not the absolute size that matters
it's the relative size that counts (to the world), %of gdp. Who cares if
Bill Gates borrows a million dollars, the bank certainly doesn't. Badgerbadger, "No thanks. I don't want more debt, although I
know it is inevitable, but at least have a spending reduction plan ". The
President inherited a 1.4 trillion dollar budget from Bush, proposed his own 1.4
trillion dollar deficit. 2013/973B, 2014/744B, 2015/576B, 2016/528B.
There's your plan.
LOWER the debt ceiling. Ask your bank to decrease the limit on your credit
card. Then ask the politicians to do the same with the nation.
JoeBlow,you want to compare bush's deficits to BOs? don't
forget, when slick got the deficit down, he had a repub house.BO
increased the debt more in 3-3/4 years than bush did in 8. BO's deficits
were worse when he had a dem house than when he had a repub house. yeah,
I'll draw those comparisons all day long.
The debt held by the public refers to money borrowed from investors outside of
the federal government. The total debt represents debt held by the public and
money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social
Security and Medicare.It’s accurate that Clinton delivered the
first four consecutive surplus budgets in more than 70 years.But
the total debt increased by roughly $400 billion (due to increases in Social
Security and Medicare spending).(Politifact)BTW reductions in
funding for discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs enacted 2011,
primarily in the Budget Control Act, have produced $1.5 trillion in savings in
discretionary spending for fiscal years 2013 through 2022Nothing is
going to be accomplished by this Congress because Republicans can't deal
with reality. Congressional Republicans--in control of 1/3 of govt. think they
are going to get Democrats and Obama to go along with dismantling Obamacare (or
delaying implementation until the next election).
Lost, Yes, debt has skyrocketed. But, what you seem to want to gloss over, is
that through history, the GOP is just as likely to run up the deficit as the
dems.I dont defend the Dems or BO. I just merely point out the
hypocrisy. Reagan took it to new levels, and, with the exception of
the Clinton years, it has just ballooned.And it would have Ballooned
under Romney also.And for your "GOP congress" under Slick,
what happened with that same GOP congress under Bush. They went crazy,
including Boehner, McConnell, Canter and Ryan. They never met a spending bill
under Bush that they didn't like.