• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The scam that is the debt ceiling as an issue

ArlingtonDeac said:
Whether it's a symptom or not, emergency debt exists, and for a purpose. Without taking on this current emergency debt we'd all be eating out of soup cans on the street right now. Those bailouts were imperative, as was most of stimulus.

And I agree that we should have penalized on Wall Street more stringently, and we should break up the 10 big banks now, but I also damn well agree that we had to take on the emergency debt to save our economy from ruin.[/QUOTE]

I do not agree.
Click to expand...
 
jhmd2000 said:
ArlingtonDeac said:
Whether it's a symptom or not, emergency debt exists, and for a purpose. Without taking on this current emergency debt we'd all be eating out of soup cans on the street right now. Those bailouts were imperative, as was most of stimulus.

And I agree that we should have penalized on Wall Street more stringently, and we should break up the 10 big banks now, but I also damn well agree that we had to take on the emergency debt to save our economy from ruin.[/QUOTE]

I do not agree.
Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly fair enough. But if AIG had collapsed, we might be employing a barter system for rabbit pelts right now. Sounds crazy, I know, but if there's ever a global run on banks, the results won't be pretty. And having 10 banks possess 77% of the market can't be good, because it means that every one of those banks is now AIG.

Thanks to the bailouts we had a rough recession that is leading to a recovery in fits and starts. Not to bad, all things considered.
Click to expand...
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
jhmd2000 said:
Well, that's certainly fair enough. But if AIG had collapsed, we might be employing a barter system for rabbit pelts right now. Sounds crazy, I know, but if there's ever a global run on banks, the results won't be pretty. And having 10 banks possess 77% of the market can't be good, because it means that every one of those banks is now AIG.

Thanks to the bailouts we had a rough recession that is leading to a recovery in fits and starts. Not to bad, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Our country, at almost every level, needs more discipline. The debt and obesity epidemics are symptoms of the same problem. No one wants to tackle the bull by the horns and just say "Enough already." Everyone would rather look to someone else to solve their problems for them: government health care, government bailouts, government disaster relief, government unemployment subsidies for sustained unemployment, etc., etc., etc.

We're living on borrowed money and, I fear, time. We're trillions of dollars in the hole, and there's no plan to pay it back. Somehow getting farther in the hole doesn't seem like the smartest idea to me.

If it hurts a little (or even a lot), let it hurt. Better to sweat on the treadmill than die suddenly (and prematurely) in a massive heart attack. If we borrow more and more money so that it never has to hurt at all, why would anyone ever change?
Click to expand...
 
There's sense to your argument, but I think the more apt analogy for 2008 is that it's better to use adrenaline and a crash cart to save the heart attack patient rather than withhold your medical resources and watch him die for good.

Cutting spending and increases taxes to sustainable levels could be considered "rehab." Something you begin slowly, but increase over time as the patient is more sturdy and can take the stress.
 
I don't know that I would go as far as you did, RJ, in calling it a scam, but I completely agree that the ceiling has 100% got to be raised no matter what measures have to be taken to accomodate this.

We need a mix of spending cuts and perhaps some gradual tax increases down the road, but taxes right now, especially after unemployment numbers started to go the other direction, will remain a non-starter for republicans.

This whole analogy of Maxing out one credit card and moving on to another is completely wrong for this discussion. YES we are spending too much, but the debt ceiling vote is NOT a vote on whether to keep borrowing, it is a vote on whether or not we are going to bother paying off our debts that we already incurred and obligations that have been on the books for months and years. If we dont raise it, we have to make cuts immediately that will be life altering for some and would most likely send whatever kind of recovery we are hoping for into a tailspin.
 
Also in response to a previous post, the idea of locking one side out of discussion, regardless of whether they are offering up ideas that are workable, is looney. We saw what happened when the republicans got bullied on obamacare and now they control the house. As long as boehner is speaker, and the senate doesnt have the democratic votes to run the show, locking republicans out of the process would be a fruitless idea.
 
Does anyone out there have a compelling reason why we can't get a balanced budget amendment passed?
 
I do not believe that governments have been good stewards of public money. Therefore, they are in dereliction of their duties. This is true for the last several administrations (frankly, since the last time we had a Pub house and Dem Presidency; which affords a shred of optimism).

I think to re-gain the public's trust, governments need to move first. I'm not opposed to raising taxes; I'm opposed to that being the first step in the plan. Since we all have a stake in the government's performance ("E plurbus unum"), we should all pay, rather than ritualistically slaughtering of each other's cattle as the balance of power shifts. "Cut defense!" "No, cut hand-outs!" is no way to run an organization.

If the government passed tax cuts that would kick in on the completion of a plan to cut discretionary spending by a meaningful amount (e.g. 5%) and that resulted in an actual diminution in the amount of money spent, I'd be in with both feet.
 
Last edited:
Liquid Karma said:
Does anyone out there have a compelling reason why we can't get a balanced budget amendment passed?
Click to expand...

Because debt on a national basis is necessary. what happens if there is a Katrina? Or a war?

to have a blaanced budget amendment we'd also have to create a "social Security lock box".

There would have to be an automatic tax increasing clause in it for times when unemployment spikes or other events.
 
RJKarl said:
Because debt on a national basis is necessary. what happens if there is a Katrina? Or a war?

to have a blaanced budget amendment we'd also have to create a "social Security lock box".

There would have to be an automatic tax increasing clause in it for times when unemployment spikes or other events.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with all of that.

And in times of surplus there would need to be some kind of tax concession.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Does anyone out there have a compelling reason why we can't get a balanced budget amendment passed?
Click to expand...

Because an honest and smart government could use the budget as a counter-cyclical tool. I'm probably an idiot for ever hoping for honest and smart representatives.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Because an honest and smart government could use the budget as a counter-cyclical tool. I'm probably an idiot for ever hoping for honest and smart representatives.
Click to expand...

The first step is taking money out of elections. If campaigns were publickly funded, Members of Congress could be much mroe honest.
 
RJKarl said:
The first step is taking money out of elections. If campaigns were publickly funded, Members of Congress could be much mroe honest.
Click to expand...

I more or less agree with you on federally funding elections but I don't know if ANYTHING would make representatives more honest. Or smart.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
I more or less agree with you on federally funding elections but I don't know if ANYTHING would make representatives more honest. Or smart.
Click to expand...

If yo udon't have to sell your votes, you'll at least be marginally more honest.

You'll also be at least marginally brighter if have to get by on less election spending.

One thing for sure, we'd see who can budget their money before they are elected.
 
Campaign finance laws won't make dishonest politicians more honest. They'd make it possible for honest people to become politicians.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Campaign finance laws won't make dishonest politicians more honest. They'd make it possible for honest people to become politicians.
Click to expand...

Prison sentences make dishonest politicians more honest.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Does anyone out there have a compelling reason why we can't get a balanced budget amendment passed?
Click to expand...

Because anyone seeking re-election is not heading back to their constituents and saying you all get pay cuts and tax increases.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
There's sense to your argument, but I think the more apt analogy for 2008 is that it's better to use adrenaline and a crash cart to save the heart attack patient rather than withhold your medical resources and watch him die for good.

Cutting spending and increases taxes to sustainable levels could be considered "rehab." Something you begin slowly, but increase over time as the patient is more sturdy and can take the stress.
Click to expand...

What level of taxation is sustainable exactly? Give me a ballpark figure if you like. Is there some reason the federal government can't function on my 33%? That's just not enough? Would 40% due? Or how 'bout I just work Jan-Jun for the government and the other six months for myself? Could you live with that or is 50% not enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top