Debt Ceiling

[Dr. Seuss]

I havent had much time looking into the Debt Ceiling that I normally would have because I've been studying for my Series 7 & 63 (i passed). I've been looking it up and I personally have a lot of respect for Bernanke, I think he's one of the only logically men in office, maybe its because I tend to agree with economist more than congress.

Every article I have read about Bernanke and the Debt Ceiling is that its not an option and it must be done. Then there are congressman not agreeing with it because of their party. Then you have Obama not knowing anything. Maybe I'm just young and inexperienced but I've looked up Bernanke and I really think he knows what he's talking about in comparison to congress and Obama because I think they're more worried about the upcoming election rather than the economy. When you have the nations top economist saying that this is the only option, I would think that they know more than a person about to graduate with an Economics degree.

Whats y'alls opinion?

[UNTflyer]

Bernanke is a born-again Keynesian, and by definition does not work in the best interest of taxpayers.

Bernanke's plan is to keep spending and printing money, hoping that real economic growth will start up before he runs the U.S. currency into the abyss.

[eulesseagle]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,774666,00.html

The German's agree with you.....in Der Spiegel

However, in General Von Seeckt's book (1930)"The Future of the German Empire", he would fight against Keynesian economics in favor of economic cuts across the board.

Edited July 17, 2011 by eulesseagle

[Dr. Seuss]

Bernanke is a born-again Keynesian, and by definition does not work in the best interest of taxpayers.

Bernanke's plan is to keep spending and printing money, hoping that real economic growth will start up before he runs the U.S. currency into the abyss.

A lot of people think that because of his fiscal spending approach, but Bernanke would consider himself a Monetarist. Bernanke spent most of his life studying the Great Depression and he believes that the lack of credit to the consumers prolonged the Depression. Heres an article that I think you might find interesting

http://reason.com/archives/2009/09/01/friedman-economics

[Green2012]

The only thing I completely disagree with is the hypocrisy showing from both sides. Obama voted no during bush years on budget ceiling and people like Cantor approved the ceiling without demanding any spending cuts at a time when spending was out of control. Now Cantor acts like he is dying by having to vote yes to raise the debt ceiling. I think some compromise has to occur by both sides. Republican cuts need to be made but income taxes do not need to be raised in exchange for the cuts. I would however compromise with Democrats and support closing some tax loopholes or lowering certain tax deductions in exchange for the drastic cuts that need to be made.

[Harry]

The only thing I completely disagree with is the hypocrisy showing from both sides. Obama voted no during bush years on budget ceiling and people like Cantor approved the ceiling without demanding any spending cuts at a time when spending was out of control. Now Cantor acts like he is dying by having to vote yes to raise the debt ceiling. I think some compromise has to occur by both sides. Republican cuts need to be made but income taxes do not need to be raised in exchange for the cuts. I would however compromise with Democrats and support closing some tax loopholes or lowering certain tax deductions in exchange for the drastic cuts that need to be made.

Good points!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Good points!

---Most of those "no votes" were because they wanted most of the tax cuts reinstated as well plus cut the crazy earmarks... not just the debt raised.... which went from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion after those cuts.

From 1788 to 2001 $5.5 trillion debt total.... from 2001 to 2009, another $5.5 trillion... how was that conservative???

NOW--- the GOP doesn't want the debt raised, no reinstated taxes, but cut programs that mostly were sponsored by Democrats in the past... but none of theirs.

..

Edited July 19, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Green2012]

---Most of those "no votes" were because they wanted most of the tax cuts reinstated as well plus cut the crazy earmarks... not just the debt raised.... which went from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion after those cuts.

From 1788 to 2001 $5.5 trillion debt total.... from 2001 to 2009, another $5.5 trillion... how was that conservative???

NOW--- the GOP doesn't want the debt raised, no reinstated taxes, but cut programs that mostly were sponsored by Democrats in the past... but none of theirs.

..

I can agree with you on cutting the earmarks. It was indeed reckless and clearly loaded with special interest. I was under the impression that Obama voted no to raising the debt limit "because America deserves better leadership" or something to that effect.

Can you provide us with some programs sponsored by Democrats that are proposed to be cut and Republican programs that are instead proposed to receive funding.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I can agree with you on cutting the earmarks. It was indeed reckless and clearly loaded with special interest. I was under the impression that Obama voted no to raising the debt limit "because America deserves better leadership" or something to that effect.

Can you provide us with some programs sponsored by Democrats that are proposed to be cut and Republican programs that are instead proposed to receive funding.

Wouldn't vetoing them shown better leadership???

[Green2012]

Wouldn't vetoing them shown better leadership???

Surely you are not about to advocate that only Republicans propose earmarks? Yes, vetoing them would've shown better leadership. We should ask Bush and Obama why they didn't/aren't vetoing such legislation.

I'll try again, can you provide some Democratic sponsored programs proposed to be cut where instead Republican sponsored programs are receiving funding?

[keith]

If I understand it, Washington has plenty of money coming in to service our debt and most of the other things the government spends money on (defense, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc). What we would not be able to do is cover all the discretionary spending Congress likes to do. They tell you we will default on our debt (we won't) or that Social Security checks will stop (they won't). This is a classic government tactic to raise fear and uncertainty. What it all boils down to is they simply want to keep borrowing so they can keep spending money on their pet projects.

Keith

[UNT90]

---Most of those "no votes" were because they wanted most of the tax cuts reinstated as well plus cut the crazy earmarks... not just the debt raised.... which went from $5.5 trillion to $11 trillion after those cuts.

From 1788 to 2001 $5.5 trillion debt total.... from 2001 to 2009, another $5.5 trillion... how was that conservative???

NOW--- the GOP doesn't want the debt raised, no reinstated taxes, but cut programs that mostly were sponsored by Democrats in the past... but none of theirs.

..

I would take your supposed conservatism much more seriously if you would just once criticize the democrat party.

Not holding my breath.

Edited July 20, 2011 by UNT90

[Legend500]

If I understand it, Washington has plenty of money coming in to service our debt and most of the other things the government spends money on (defense, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc). What we would not be able to do is cover all the discretionary spending Congress likes to do. They tell you we will default on our debt (we won't) or that Social Security checks will stop (they won't). This is a classic government tactic to raise fear and uncertainty. What it all boils down to is they simply want to keep borrowing so they can keep spending money on their pet projects.

Keith

It's a yes, but sorta answer. Without raising the ceiling, the US can cover 60% of expenditures, including debt service. Still, a 40% cut is huge.

A breakdown of where the money goes is helpful here:

Medicare & Medicaid (21%)

Defense & Security (20%)

Social Security (20%)

Safety net (14%) (This is a nebulous definition, but it includes SSI benefits, tax refunds, food stamps, etc...)

Veteran's Affairs and Federal benefits (7%)

Debt service (6%)

Transportation & infrastructure (3%)

Education (3%)

International Aid (1%)

Other (2%) (Including earmarks and "pork-barrel" spending)

It should quickly become obvious that running on a 60% budget will be very difficult and politically impossible. With 26% of total expenditures essentially restricted from being cut (Social Security and debt service), that leaves 34% to cover everything from defense to tax refunds. If we say that defense or Medicare can't be touched, that cuts the room for maneuver even more.

[Coffee and TV]

Socialist Obama:

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-deals-of-reagan-bush-clinton-and-obama-in-one-chart/2011/07/06/gIQA98w11H_blog.html

[UNT90]

Socialist Obama:

Source: http://www.washingto...8w11H_blog.html

Conveniently left out the 2009 and 2010 Budget?

You need to do some better research on Reagan.

Edited July 20, 2011 by UNT90

[HoustonEagle]

Conveniently left out the 2009 and 2010 Budget?

You need to do some better research on Reagan.

If you read the article the graph makes sense.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I would take your supposed conservatism much more seriously if you would just once criticize the democrat party.

Not holding my breath.

Wu is a rat. ..... you can breath deeply again.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Socialist Obama:

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-budget-deals-of-reagan-bush-clinton-and-obama-in-one-chart/2011/07/06/gIQA98w11H_blog.html

Reagan....: you must be kidding.... The article is a Grim Fairytale... the national debt almost tripled during his administration...(a larger percent than W. Bush.... if fact his successor, Bush Sr. tried to correct it and got un-elected because he tried.... despite his success in the Gulf War) Reagan spent a fortune during his administration on "Star Wars" and the "Supercollider" ..both of which were never completed ... plus a lot on upgrading the military.. some of which was really needed but some was just a waste..... Let us not forget he was handing Saddam Hussein ( W Bush's swore enemy later) weapons to fight Iran because they represented Islamic fanatics and potential terrorists to us.. Even to this day the largest one-day drop in the stock market (percent-wise) happened during his administration... being fair about it, it did recover fairly quickly but didn't go up any big amount until Bush Sr. came into ofice. ...

Edited July 28, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Green2012]

Reagan....: you must be kidding.... The article is a Grim Fairytale... the national debt almost tripled during his administration...(a larger percent than W. Bush.... if fact his successor, Bush Sr. tried to correct it and got un-elected because he tried) Reagan spent a fortune during his administration on "Star Wars" and the "Supercollider" ..both of which were never completed ... plus a lot on upgrading the military.. some of which was really needed but some was just a waste..... Let us not forget he was handing Saddam Hussein ( W Bush's swore enemy later) weapons to fight Iran because they represented Islamic fanatics and potential terrorists to us.. Even to this day the largest one-day drop in the stock market (percent-wise) happened during his administration... being fair about it, it did recover fairly quickly but didn't go up any big amount until Bush Sr. came into ofice. ...

I think I'm just going to sit back and let someone else address this. Is there a popcorn eating emoticon?

[UNTflyer]

Socialist Obama:

Source: http://www.washingto...8w11H_blog.html

I immediately dismiss this graph because... when the HELL did Obama propose anything? Ezra Klein (a 27 year old kid, BTW) is about as partisan as they come and boy is he carrying the water for the White House on this one. And he has a history of skewing the numbers to support his political leanings.

I have yet to see Obama's plan, but the claims are that he is counting "cuts" as money for two wars he has already committed to surrendering, reductions of baseline increases, and other accounting tricks. The GOP is using accounting tricks as well, but the point is that there is no way in hell Obama's cuts vs. tax increases are that far apart.

[KRAM1]

Again folks, repeat after me, we do not have a revenue and tax problem in this country we have a SPENDING problem. At current taxation levels there is more than enough revenue to fund government services, pay our debts and maintain our credit rating. It's simply that the government continues to spend more than it takes in. STOP the spending and the issue goes away. Not hard, unless, of course, you failed Economics 101, never took it or don't care as many in DC have shown these last few months during this circus event currently talking place on the Hill these days.

The takers are taking more than the givers seem to want to give! Imagine that. And, the takers want more money from those who are actually producing so they can give it to those who aren't. Nice. That will really fix things.

And, no...no one is throwing grandma off the cliff!

[untbowler]

it is definitely a spending problem. Obama has double-downed Bush, what happened to his pledge to cut the debt in half in his first term? Oh yeah forgot he is a light weight who only know community organizing and not private business.

Obama has added 40% to the debt since he came in and now wants to raise taxes which will further kill the economy. You want to blame Bush for TARP but Obama voted for it, Obama then chuckles about spending $1 trillion stimulus bill that was not quite "shovel-ready," actually only 6% was for infrastructure and what not, the rest went as political payoffs to his friends and donors.

How about Obama starts getting rid of many of his new found 6 figure employees and start cutting down many of the departments that he has allowed to explode in size (i.e. DHS and EPA).

Stop spending and pass a balanced budget amendment. Cut unemployment compensation from the ridiculous 2 years that encourages sloth and government dependence. Follow Clinton's lead and place a cap on welfare and eliminate the abuse.

Finally please someone in Houston please get the crackheads to come to their senses and get Sheila Lee Jackson out of office.

Edited July 28, 2011 by untbowler

[UNTflyer]

Obama has added 40% to the debt since he came in and now wants to raise taxes which will further kill the economy.

Cue the obligatory "Bush doubled the debt in eight years" line from SE-66.

So I will pre-empt it with "Then you must REALLY be upset about Obama's pace to more than double it in just 4 years! Right?"

The response will be a deafening silence.

[Green2012]

Cue the obligatory "Bush doubled the debt in eight years" line from SE-66.

So I will pre-empt it with "Then you must REALLY be upset about Obama's pace to more than double it in just 4 years! Right?"

The response will be a deafening silence.

Tired of hearing the Bush excuse. Bush was the most liberal spending "republican" president to date. At least we had a strong foreign policy and refrained from kinetic military action. Washington is failing us on both sides. The republicans are cowering down and I'll bet we see another set of accounting gimmicks that won't even get 1 trillion in spending cuts over a decade. How pathetic. Don't want to piss on the wrong person because its all about reelections and not fixing the problem like they were elected to do. Obama is just sitting on his ass so he doesn't have to take the fall. what a joke.

[HoustonEagle]

Again folks, repeat after me, we do not have a revenue and tax problem in this country we have a SPENDING problem. At current taxation levels there is more than enough revenue to fund government services, pay our debts and maintain our credit rating. It's simply that the government continues to spend more than it takes in. STOP the spending and the issue goes away. Not hard, unless, of course, you failed Economics 101, never took it or don't care as many in DC have shown these last few months during this circus event currently talking place on the Hill these days.

The takers are taking more than the givers seem to want to give! Imagine that. And, the takers want more money from those who are actually producing so they can give it to those who aren't. Nice. That will really fix things.

And, no...no one is throwing grandma off the cliff!

Absolutely! ........ So what specific cuts would you make to remedy our long term structural deficit?