PDA

View Full Version : Economics Should the debt ceiling be eliminated?


mlyonsd
12-06-2012, 06:13 PM
The Obama administration has suggested eliminating the debt ceiling which would allow the executive branch to borrow how much money they want.

Good idea or not?

FD
12-06-2012, 06:16 PM
The Obama administration has suggested eliminating the debt ceiling which would allow the executive branch to borrow how much money they want.

Good idea or not?

Yes.

One correction though, it doesn't allow the executive to borrow "how much money they want", it allows them to borrow exactly the amount of deficit spending already passed by Congress. Congress passed the deficit, requiring them to pass another bill allowing the Treasury to fund that deficit is pointless and antiquated.

No other country has a "debt ceiling" and it serves absolutely no purpose other than destabilizing markets. Eliminate it.

cosmo20002
12-06-2012, 06:19 PM
Typical misleading framing of the issue. It is not about borrowing as much as someone wants. It is about paying bills that are due.

Direckshun
12-06-2012, 06:24 PM
This is one of the few polls I can actually vote on, because the phrasing of the issue in the poll is well done, and the answer on this issue is so clear.

It should absolutely be eliminated.

BigRedChief
12-06-2012, 06:51 PM
BS poll worded to get the response of the R's. The president doesn't get to spend shit without Congressional approval.

It's paying back the money that was spent by Congress. R's control congress, correct? You don;t want to spend more money? The R's control Congress and Congress controls the money.

This debt ceiling debacle of last summer was pathetic. We already spent the money. We are only talking about paying it back. There is no way in hell that Obama will be dragged into another debacle like last year. The country won't stand for it.

BigRedChief
12-06-2012, 06:56 PM
No other country has a "debt ceiling" and it serves absolutely no purpose other than destabilizing markets. Eliminate it.It's a totally fucked up idea. We pay the money that we owe. We don't default on our loans.

R's, you want to quit spending money, your in control of Congress. GIT-R-DONE.

theelusiveeightrop
12-06-2012, 06:58 PM
Successful businesses and successful households have a debt limit.

stonedstooge
12-06-2012, 07:00 PM
Successful businesses and successful households have a debt limit.

And a fucking budget which none of these jokers in DC think is important

cosmo20002
12-06-2012, 07:04 PM
Successful businesses and successful households have a debt limit.

And a federal government is exactly the same thing. :facepalm:

And, those things really don't have a debt limit anyway.

FD
12-06-2012, 07:04 PM
Successful businesses and successful households have a debt limit.

No they dont. What the hell are you talking about?

mlyonsd
12-06-2012, 07:14 PM
No they dont. What the hell are you talking about?

Sure they do. Go try to borrow 10 million dollars.

ChiefsandO'sfan
12-06-2012, 07:15 PM
And a ****ing budget which none of these jokers in DC think is important

Well said

FD
12-06-2012, 07:16 PM
Sure they do. Go try to borrow 10 million dollars.

If you actually think thats a valid response then you have no idea what the debt ceiling is or how it works.

cosmo20002
12-06-2012, 07:19 PM
Sure they do. Go try to borrow 10 million dollars.

So, that's a law, right?

Taco John
12-06-2012, 07:23 PM
Why don't we just move to a monarchy? What's the point of checks-and-balances if people just want to eliminate them because they're inconvenient?

mlyonsd
12-06-2012, 07:26 PM
If you actually think thats a valid response then you have no idea what the debt ceiling is or how it works.

You don't think every business has a limit where no one will lend them more money?

cosmo20002
12-06-2012, 07:29 PM
Why don't we just move to a monarchy? What's the point of checks-and-balances if people just want to eliminate them because they're inconvenient?

The checks and balances are already in place for spending. Paying accrued bills should not be a matter for debate and playing politics.

mlyonsd
12-06-2012, 07:31 PM
So, that's a law, right?Yeah I'm pretty sure there's a law in there somewhere that limits a bank from how much money they can borrow to pay for debts they have achieved.

La literatura
12-06-2012, 07:42 PM
Yeah, I think it makes us grasp where we're at with things. It seems like a good idea, but I haven't done much studying on it.

cosmo20002
12-06-2012, 07:46 PM
Yeah I'm pretty sure there's a law in there somewhere that limits a bank from how much money they can borrow to pay for debts they have achieved.

You are obviously clueless (or pretending to be for some reason) about the issues relevant to the so-called "debt ceiling." As stated before, it is about paying bills for debts already owed.

dirk digler
12-06-2012, 07:49 PM
Yes it should be eliminated for many of the reasons others have stated above. It really makes no sense.

BigRedChief
12-06-2012, 08:01 PM
Yes it should be eliminated for many of the reasons others have stated above. It really makes no sense.that's why it was no big deal to raise it. Almost always a 98-1 vote. Until the tea party decided to make it a political tool to bash the Dems.

WoodDraw
12-06-2012, 08:05 PM
You don't think every business has a limit where no one will lend them more money?

You don't think governments do as well? If the lenders no longer have faith in the US as a borrower, they'll refuse to lend or make it so expensive that it becomes impractical.

BigRedChief
12-06-2012, 08:10 PM
You don't think governments do as well? If the lenders no longer have faith in the US as a borrower, they'll refuse to lend or make it so expensive that it becomes impractical.The U.S. government is the safest bet in the world.

If the USA goes down, the world will follow.

FD
12-06-2012, 08:16 PM
You don't think every business has a limit where no one will lend them more money?

They do, but other than the word "debt", that has absolutely nothing to do with a statutory debt ceiling.

WoodDraw
12-06-2012, 08:21 PM
The U.S. government is the safest bet in the world.

If the USA goes down, the world will follow.

Yeah, of course. There's just no logical replacement. That's why it's insane to be messing with default.


I'm all for a discussion/fight over the deficit. And there are ways to do it with a gun point at your head, if that's your thing (government shutdown, for one), but to use the debt limit...

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2012, 08:03 AM
We've nominated GOD out of existence, surely we can get rid of a false ceiling right? I know I want a credit card with no limit and shouldn't have to prove I can pay it back.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 08:06 AM
No, the President shouldn't be able to borrow whatever he wants.

The debt ceiling mechanism might be an unnecessary anachronism and I'm not necessarily against doing away with it, but if nothing else, it can serve as a useful reminder to people about our ever-increasing debt. Maybe we should require a super-majority in Congress to approve any deficit-expanding appropriation instead.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 08:09 AM
BS poll worded to get the response of the R's. The president doesn't get to spend shit without Congressional approval.

It's paying back the money that was spent by Congress. R's control congress, correct? You don;t want to spend more money? The R's control Congress and Congress controls the money.

This debt ceiling debacle of last summer was pathetic. We already spent the money. We are only talking about paying it back. There is no way in hell that Obama will be dragged into another debacle like last year. The country won't stand for it.

Again, debt ceiling votes are specifically about borrowing money, not about paying it back.

dirk digler
12-07-2012, 08:10 AM
Again, debt ceiling votes are specifically about borrowing money, not about paying it back.

It is for money Congress\POTUS has already approved. It is useless

patteeu
12-07-2012, 08:12 AM
You are obviously clueless (or pretending to be for some reason) about the issues relevant to the so-called "debt ceiling." As stated before, it is about paying bills for debts already owed.

It's about borrowing more money.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 08:13 AM
It is for money Congress\POTUS has already approved. It is useless

I assume you mean "spending".

Ace Gunner
12-07-2012, 08:13 AM
It's a totally ****ed up idea. We pay the money that we owe. We don't default on our loans.

R's, you want to quit spending money, your in control of Congress. GIT-R-DONE.

b-b-b-b-b-but that dem president:deevee:

patteeu
12-07-2012, 08:16 AM
Yeah, of course. There's just no logical replacement. That's why it's insane to be messing with default.


I'm all for a discussion/fight over the deficit. And there are ways to do it with a gun point at your head, if that's your thing (government shutdown, for one), but to use the debt limit...

Why would the government have to default? Why couldn't they just stop sending out SS checks instead? Or stop buying bullets and tanks for DoD?

dirk digler
12-07-2012, 08:39 AM
I assume you mean "spending".

sure. Still pointless.

FD
12-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Again, debt ceiling votes are specifically about borrowing money, not about paying it back.

With debt payments needing to regularly roll over, if Congress doesn't pass a bill slashing appropriations to meet revenue minus interest, and if they also don't approve a debt ceiling increase, then it is about paying it back. They are typically debating just the ceiling half, which means if they dont pass it we default on the debts we owe.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 10:00 AM
With debt payments needing to regularly roll over, if Congress doesn't pass a bill slashing appropriations to meet revenue minus interest, and if they also don't approve a debt ceiling increase, then it is about paying it back. They are typically debating just the ceiling half, which means if they dont pass it we default on the debts we owe.

In a scenario where the debt ceiling hasn't been adequately increased, the executive branch can make debt service the top priority for available funds and avoid default.

FD
12-07-2012, 10:02 AM
In a scenario where the debt ceiling hasn't been adequately increased, the executive branch can make debt service the top priority for available funds and avoid default.

I doubt that would be legal, in the long run.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 10:37 AM
I doubt that would be legal, in the long run.

I can't think of any reason for it to be illegal, unless Congress passed a law specifying spending priorities.

FishingRod
12-07-2012, 02:36 PM
With debt payments needing to regularly roll over, if Congress doesn't pass a bill slashing appropriations to meet revenue minus interest, and if they also don't approve a debt ceiling increase, then it is about paying it back. They are typically debating just the ceiling half, which means if they dont pass it we default on the debts we owe.

I think that is the point of the Grandstanding by the conservatives last time. When all we have to do is borrow and borrow and borrow no one pays attention to the bills racking up but, if something had to get cut to pay for the other expenses, people might actually notice. Obviously we need to pay our bills but at some point we are going to have to have some correlation between revenue and expenditures.

Ugly Duck
12-07-2012, 03:09 PM
Hilarious! Repubs in complete disarray.....

Sen. Mitch McConnell filibusters own bill on debt ceiling when Democrats agree to vote

WASHINGTON — In the span of hours, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday challenged Democrats to an immediate vote giving President Barack Obama unilateral power to increase the nation’s borrowing limit, then reversed course and blocked his own bill when Democrats agreed.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who was presiding over the Senate, grinned and said she had “whiplash,” an obvious reference to McConnell’s sudden course reversal.

After witnessing the exchange, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told his colleagues, “I think we have now reached a new spot in the history of the Senate we have never seen before.”

“I am going to ask the parliamentarian to look into this,” Durbin said. “I do not think this has ever happened before.”

Reid issued a statement on Friday saying he would continue to press for a vote on the debt ceiling.

“After leading 385 filibusters in recent years, Senator McConnell took obstruction to new heights by filibustering his own bill,” Reid said. “Republicans’ obstruction and intransigence turned the last debt ceiling fight into a disaster for the middle class. We should give American families the security of knowing we will never go through such a harmful ordeal again.”


http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20121207&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=312070087&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Sen-Mitch-McConnell-filibusters-own-bill-debt-ceiling-when-Democrats-agree-vote

FD
12-07-2012, 03:54 PM
Business leaders siding with Obama on debt ceiling?
By Greg Sargent , Updated: December 6, 2012

One interesting political dynamic right now is that Obama is working to enlist the support of business leaders to prevent another debt ceiling standoff next year. House Republicans are thinking about caving now on the middle class tax cuts — then coming back next year and staging another 2011 style debt ceiling battle to win the deep entitlement cuts they want. Business leaders are cool to the possibility, because such standoffs risk damaging the economy.

I’ve just learned that one of the most influential business groups in Washington, the Business Roundtable, is prepared to support a provision designed to dramatically minimize the possibility of another standoff now and in the future — one also supported by the White House. This is a step forward for White House efforts to prevent a 2011-style battle, which led to a credit downgrade for the United States, and widespread fears that the country would go into default.

Obama — who is refusing to negotiate over the debt ceiling again — supports a measure called the “McConnell provision,” a proposal pushed by Mitch McConnell last year to try to defuse the crisis. Under the provision, the president can request a debt limit hike, after which Congress can vote to deny the request by disapproving of it. The president can then veto that request, and unless Congress overrides that veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses, it is honored. The provision transfers most control over the debt ceiling to the President and makes it far harder for the opposing party in Congress to block hikes — meaning the constant threat of default, and the ability to engage in brinksmanship around it, are effectively removed.

The McConnell provision was passed as a temporarily measure as part of last year’s debt ceiling compromise but would need to be extended now. The White House has proposed extending it; if that happens, House Republicans would not be able to stage a meaningful standoff next year.

I’m told reliably that the Business Roundtable will support the McConnell provision if it’s proposed again in Congress.

This underscores the rising determination among business leaders — many of whom are aligned with the GOP — to avoid a rerun of the 2011 debacle. Obama is aggressively lobbying these business leaders, publicly and privately, to make their opposition to another standoff known. And it appears that they are doing so. As Politico’s Ben White reports today, executives are privately beginning to coalesce around the McConnell provision as a means to that end.

The prospect of another debt ceiling fight puts the House GOP in an interesting spot, pitting its Tea Party wing against more pragmatic GOP-aligned interests in the business community. While the former will be spoiling for another fight, the latter appears far less willing to see the country dragged through another deeply damaging round of debt ceiling brinksmanship — with the full faith and credit of the United States, and the economy, at stake — this time around.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/06/business-leaders-siding-with-obama-on-debt-ceiling/

alnorth
12-07-2012, 04:46 PM
Yes. I'll also note that the poll options were hilariously worded, very dishonestly.

Congress already decided to spend the money when they passed budget deficits. Congress could have instead passed budgets which are balanced or in surplus.

Prior congresses and presidents decided to spend the money. The current congress and president is unwilling or unable to balance the budget. At that point, you either borrow or default.

The very concept of the debt ceiling is stupid.

alnorth
12-07-2012, 04:52 PM
You don't think every business has a limit where no one will lend them more money?

That point, for the USA, would be when a treasury auction fails. It is not arbitrarily deciding not to borrow more money.

The proper comparison would be if the bank assures a business owner that they can borrow more money if they need it, and the business owner thinking thats too much money to owe, I'll just either stop paying a couple bills, or default on my current loan to the bank.

Stewie
12-07-2012, 05:33 PM
Of course! The end game is fiat "currency."

BigRedChief
12-07-2012, 06:11 PM
Hilarious! Repubs in complete disarray.....

Sen. Mitch McConnell filibusters own bill on debt ceiling when Democrats agree to vote

WASHINGTON — In the span of hours, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday challenged Democrats to an immediate vote giving President Barack Obama unilateral power to increase the nation’s borrowing limit, then reversed course and blocked his own bill when Democrats agreed.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who was presiding over the Senate, grinned and said she had “whiplash,” an obvious reference to McConnell’s sudden course reversal.

After witnessing the exchange, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told his colleagues, “I think we have now reached a new spot in the history of the Senate we have never seen before.”

“I am going to ask the parliamentarian to look into this,” Durbin said. “I do not think this has ever happened before.”

Reid issued a statement on Friday saying he would continue to press for a vote on the debt ceiling.

“After leading 385 filibusters in recent years, Senator McConnell took obstruction to new heights by filibustering his own bill,” Reid said. “Republicans’ obstruction and intransigence turned the last debt ceiling fight into a disaster for the middle class. We should give American families the security of knowing we will never go through such a harmful ordeal again.”


http://cmsimg.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B2&Date=20121207&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=312070087&Ref=AR&MaxW=300&Border=0&Sen-Mitch-McConnell-filibusters-own-bill-debt-ceiling-when-Democrats-agree-voteI can't believe he tried to score cheap political points and they called him on it and he has to fillibuster his own bill? WTF? ROFL

mnchiefsguy
12-07-2012, 06:21 PM
I voted no, for the simple reason that it should reasonably difficult for Congress and the President to spend money.

mlyonsd
12-07-2012, 07:35 PM
I voted no, for the simple reason that it should reasonably difficult for Congress and the President to spend money.
I don't think it should necessarily be hard for them to spend it. They should at the very least be accountable if they want to borrow it.

I laugh at anyone voting yes.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 08:02 PM
I don't think it should necessarily be hard for them to spend it. They should at the very least be accountable if they want to borrow it.

I laugh at anyone voting yes.

Yeah, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for our politicians to sweep our over-spending problems under the rug.

mlyonsd
12-07-2012, 08:19 PM
Yeah, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for our politicians to sweep our over-spending problems under the rug.Imagine the mess we'd be in if Obama and the dems didn't have to worry about facing the public in 2009 if there wasn't a debt limit.

WoodDraw
12-07-2012, 09:27 PM
Why would the government have to default? Why couldn't they just stop sending out SS checks instead? Or stop buying bullets and tanks for DoD?

Well yes I guess that is what would happen. Although you can only do that for so long. I don't see how this is anyway to run a government.

If you want the debate, have it. But this is already money that has been spent. If congress wants to fix that they can, but it shouldn't be at the risk of not paying your obligations. That's the domain of banana republics.

patteeu
12-07-2012, 10:50 PM
Well yes I guess that is what would happen. Although you can only do that for so long. I don't see how this is anyway to run a government.

If you want the debate, have it. But this is already money that has been spent. If congress wants to fix that they can, but it shouldn't be at the risk of not paying your obligations. That's the domain of banana republics.

We should certainly pay our debt obligations and we'd better be careful or we're going to get ourselves into a position where that becomes impossible.

We've probably already passed the point where we will no longer be able to pay our obligations to future entitlement recipients.

WoodDraw
12-07-2012, 10:56 PM
We should certainly pay our debt obligations and we'd better be careful or we're going to get ourselves into a position where that becomes impossible.

We've probably already passed the point where we will no longer be able to pay our obligations to future entitlement recipients.

You're combining a bunch of different issues in to one. I agree there needs to be entitlement reform and tax reform. The idea that this is something unusual annoys me. Isn't this the role of government? Not like we make policy once and forget about it. Every government around the world deals with this.

Threatening the us with a default every few months over some archaic law seems a silly, and self defeating, way to deal with it.

patteeu
12-08-2012, 06:58 AM
You're combining a bunch of different issues in to one. I agree there needs to be entitlement reform and tax reform. The idea that this is something unusual annoys me. Isn't this the role of government? Not like we make policy once and forget about it. Every government around the world deals with this.

Threatening the us with a default every few months over some archaic law seems a silly, and self defeating, way to deal with it.

I don't think we'd have to go through this if we had a more responsible person in the White House, but the people elected this guy instead.

If it was natural for governments (here and around the world) to govern in a fiscally responsible way, we wouldn't be in this mess.

BigMeatballDave
12-08-2012, 04:22 PM
Why would ANYONE want to give the POTUS this much power?

WoodDraw
12-08-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't think we'd have to go through this if we had a more responsible person in the White House, but the people elected this guy instead.

If it was natural for governments (here and around the world) to govern in a fiscally responsible way, we wouldn't be in this mess.

How many debt limit increases passed under others presidents? My first google search says 18 under Reagan, and 7 under Bush jr.

J Diddy
12-08-2012, 10:38 PM
I don't think we'd have to go through this if we had a more responsible person in the White House, but the people elected this guy instead.

If it was natural for governments (here and around the world) to govern in a fiscally responsible way, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Your first sentence brought forth a single tear drop in my beer. You've been crying for 4 years and now you get to cry for 4+ more. I'm sorry.

patteeu
12-09-2012, 08:54 AM
How many debt limit increases passed under others presidents? My first google search says 18 under Reagan, and 7 under Bush jr.

That seems to support my argument.

patteeu
12-09-2012, 08:55 AM
Your first sentence brought forth a single tear drop in my beer. You've been crying for 4 years and now you get to cry for 4+ more. I'm sorry.

Ok :thumb: