OK I give up. Armageddon is coming. President makes threats, talks down to Americans, Dems plan has fake cuts and they refuse to look at Repubs offers, Repubs balking at Dems offers saying no raising the taxes. No wonder Bachmann has a migraine.
Forget politics, forget which plan you think is better than the other. Let me ask this. There are to plans, one for 6 months, one that will go until after the election.So it appears no matter which plan you back, we will be dealing with this again. So, why not balance the budget?
Even if they balance the budget now, it will not pay down the national debt but it will not add to it, therefore no reason to raise the debt ceiling. Either plan is about 2 trillion in cuts over 10 tears.. Depending on which report you believe, the national debt will go up 6 to 11 trillion over the next 10 years, so 2 trillion means nothing.
I wrote a hub on hoe easy I found 5.07 trillion in cuts over 10 years very easily. Now I am not a Harvard Grad, but if I could do it, anyone in Congress can do it
<link snipped, no self-promoting links>
I do not think we have enough comming in to balance it anyway. But Balancing it would be the tight thing to try to do. Not sure how to raise that kind of income though without sending the country into a depression.
CNN did a piece today showing if everyone paid in 100% Tax could we balance, and the figures proved we would only recoup 52% of the total debt, and leave the population without any money? so not sure they really can balance it now.
I saw that and thought how interesting. You see 2 weeks ago they did a piece that if the government cut 1 penny from every dollar they spend, in 10 years the National debt would be zero and the budget would be balanced. I wonder which story is true?
So this is a forum? Between the Housefire Project, and writting about politics, I'd probably better stay away from these damn things if I want to get anything done. (laughing)
That story has no ring of truth. The mathematics doesn't stand up to entry level scrutiny!
At this point my understanding is, if they don't raise the debt ceiling we will default on our loans of money the government has already borrowed. We can't be a country that doesn't pay our bills.
I don't think they can cut enough expenses to balance the budget and pay the debt without our country being in big trouble including a major recession or worse.
What is your opinion of people that don't pay their bills. Either they are in big financial trouble or not responsible. We don't need the rest of the world to look at us like that.
agree, we would pay the price in very high interest on any debt we have, and we would deplete the funds paying the high interest and nothing else would be paid. We would pay a dear price to default. very ire-responsable on our part I believe.
Defaulting is not the issue.Our credit rating is going to go down no matter what happens. But while its true some interest rates will go up, what we pay on our debt will go up and add to the national debt even more. Balancing the budget stops the National debt from growing, even if we pay higher interest rates, out budget will not add to the deficit
Both sides of this argument have been gullible in thinking that the raising of the debt ceiling has anything to do with future tax increases or spending cuts.
Raising the debt ceiling has to do with having enough money to pay our debts right now, today.
Mingling that truth with the issue of a balanced budget is simply politics.
Ultimately, a balanced budget will mean we won't have to have a vote regarding a debt limit increase, and that will be a great day. Clinton achieved this on his watch. But until that happens, the vote on the debt ceiling will come up again and again, and that vote is simply a decision to maintain the credit rating of our country, or not to. Nothing more. Pursuing more revenue or spending cuts is an enormously important issue to the future health of our country, but it is not the same issue as the debt ceiling vote. They are totally seperate issues that have been comingled for political reasons, not governing purposes.
Both sides of the aisle have been very effective in bamboozling the public into thinking these two things are one issue and need to be handled together. That is simply and factually not the case. It is arm twisting, from both sides, and makes everyone look foolish.
If an unencumbered debt ceiling vote is what ultimately happens, the famous one page, one sentence bill, it will be an enormous victory for the President, as it will reveal why the rest of the Washington characters are not President. He will have risen above the fray.
I strongly disagree. Not having a balanced budget is what got us here, and what will fix the future. I understand what we need to pay bills today, thats not the question. The fact is I do not care if they raise the debt ceiling so high it take 5 years to get ther. The point is without a balanced budget, we will always get there and have to raise the ceiling again. Im am not against raising the limit right now, it needs to be done and not because of the Obama scare tactics, that is politics. Raise it pay our bills, but make cuts and balance the budget so we no longer add to the National debt. Balancing the budget does not pay off the debt, but it keeps it from growing and Congress can stop wasting time over partisan politics or worrying about elections and use that time to do the peoples busuness, as they were elected to do. Maybe if they were not so involed in this, maybe they could have addressed the FAA situation and tens of thousand would not have lost their job last week. So much for Congress and the President fixing unemployment as their actions continue to add to it.
You don't realize it, but you just agreed with me.
No, I disagree with you. You think the 2 issued are seperate, they are not. They are linked. Thats where I disagree with you
" The fact is I do not care if they raise the debt ceiling so high it take(sic) 5 years to get ther(sp). The point is without a balanced budget, we will always get there and have to raise the ceiling again. Im am(sic) not against raising the limit right now, it needs to be done..."
That is one issue. Balancing the budget will ensure that this issue doesn't keep coming up. That is another issue. You are not against raising the limit right now. We agree. A balanced budget will prevent it from being necessary in the future. We agree. We don't currently have a balanced budget and need to raise the debt ceiling. We agree.
You simply want to use the gravity of the situation to apply political pressure on the issue of a balanced budget. That's where we disagree.
Raise the debt limit, then let the debate about how to balance the budget continue. It's too important to race to some kind of agreement at the risk of not getting it right, just to take advantage of the current debt ceiling issue.
No, there is no politics in numbers, say what you want, they are one. Raise the debt, the spending will continue. Balance the budget, Wow now you do not.
But when push comes to shove, if none of these competing bills is passed into law, everyone will sign the one line bill extending the debt ceiling, like they have done countless times before.
This will prove the unconnected nature of the two issues once and for all.
The rest is political posturing.
We do agree on this, whether you like it or not. I celebrate where we agree. We will fight like cats and dogs over how best to balance the budget and stimulate the economy and create jobs, and our disagreements will be profound. But like you said, you don't care if they raise the debt ceiling good enough for five years. That's because the debt ceiling itself will neither balance our budget nor increase our spending. It will cover the commitments we have already made.
Thanks for the spelling correction, wish we were all as perfect as you.
We talk about ways to reduce the budget, but what we really need is to identify ways to save money. If employees had incentives to identify places where we are wasting money or how we could do things more efficiently, we could start reducing costs $1 at a time.
When we simply reduce budets without a plan as to how, we see government cutting rediculous things as opposed to waste.
Good hub. But just like all state governments, politicians don't know how to cut - someone always gets hurt and these guys would rather have the next guy do the dirty work. They only know how to pass bills that always cost money.
Ah, but the people who are most adamant about not compromising or striking any kind of compromise (the "hold the line" tea partiers) do not believe that defaulting on our loans is a problem at all. They think it's an Obama scare tactic.
Really? Wow. Obama must be really, really powerful to scare the stock market into a downward slide five days in a row, 200 points just today.
Obama must really have the rest of the world under his thumb if he can get leaders of other countries to go on the news and declare that they are concerned (to put it mildly) to think the US would actually default.
I listened to a couple of these frosh TP congressmen on the news. The sad thing is they don't even know it's Koch Koolaid they swallowed.
Teabaggers swallow lots of things and regret it the next day.
Unfortunately, WE are the ones who regret it when they swallow the things they swallow
Really? Now I am an independent, but I understand the beliefs of each party, do you? The tea party has one goal, fiscal reform. They have no other agenda. You do not hear from them on anything else. So in reality, they swallow nothing and push one idea
That is why the Tea Party will ultimately be a failure. The country does not run on a single issue, and no single issue stands alone without being influenced by other issues.
It is a myopic outlook that is the way lobbying groups work. One issue at the expense of all others, and let the others be damned.
This country can't be governed on the back of a single issue.
"This country can't be governed on the back of a single issue."
That is very true. But the Tea Party never looked or claimed to be more than they are, the media and the Left have done that. The Tea Party will go away when the Government fixes their financial house. And when that happens, does that not mean the Tea Party was a sucess, not a failure. Seems to me a sucess is when on completes the task they set out to do.
They went beyond being an issue oriented PAC when they started declaring themselves to be a party and electing representatives. What was voted for has quickly been revealed, a myopic bunch that don't have the overall picture in mind.
They are already in precipitous decline, if the attendance at rallies can be considered any indication.
You just regurgitated one of the main things they swallow. If you are among those who have been duped into believing that the baggers are innocently trying to improve the fiscal state of our country, you really need to learn more about these supposed patriots.
Time to put up Ron. SHow me one issue that the Tea Party is involved in other than fiscal policy
Start with Michelle Bachman's hypocritical stance on government programs for needy individuals (she's firmly against it while scooping up as much as she can with both hands).
I'll preempt the weak argument you're about to offer up (that's her stance, not the official Tea Party position) by stating that the leaders of these imbeciles don't get a pass by advocating insane policies individually while not including them "officially" in the party's talking points.
Actually Ron, that is not the argument I was going to use. Bachmann was in office before the Tea Party came into existance. She has lots of stands on many different issues. She is just one of many who jumped on the Tea Party Bandwagon. So the question still stands. SHow me one issue the Tea party is involved in other than fiscal.
Maybe this will help
The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.
The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the backronym "Taxed Enough Already".
The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity
If you choose to believe this, that is your right. You should research the party and it's origins more thoroughly though before repeating their propaganda.
I did. Do you know how the tea party really started? I will give you a hint, it was not founded the way you think or the way the left talking points tell you
On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a part-time trader and a member of Ticker Forum, posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate," a tactic that had first been attempted by the Libertarian Party in 1973. The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout."
Forum moderator, Stephanie Jasky helped organize the group and worked to "get it to go viral."Jasky is also the founder and director of FedUpUSA - a fiscally conservative, non-partisan activist group whose members describe themselves as "a group of investors" who sprung out of the market-ticker.org forums.The group had previously held DC protests in 2008. On January 19, 2009, Jasky had posted a formal invitation "to a commemorative tea party."She suggested they all send tea bags on the same day (February 1, 2009) in a coordinated effort.
The founder of market-ticker.org, Karl Denninger (stock trader and former CEO), published his own write-up on the proposed protest, titled "Tea Party February 1st?," which was posted in direct response to President Obama's inauguration occurring on the same day, and railed against the bailouts, the US national debt and "the fraud and abuse in our banking and financial system" which included the predatory lending practices currently at the center of the home mortgage foreclosure crisis. Karl Denninger, who helped form FedUpUSA in the wake of the March 2008 Federal Reserve bail out of Bear Sterns, had been a guest on both Glenn Beck and CNBC Reports. By February 1, the idea had spread among conservative and libertarian-oriented blogs, forums, websites and through a viral email campaign. Karl Denninger has since been credited as one of the founders of the movement, and the organizer for the first Tea Party event
So much for keeping politics out of it. I notice you did not answer the question. Politics aside, what is wrong with balancing the budget?
Ron Paul wants to balance the budget by decreasing spending, bringing the troops home immediately from almost all bases across the 150 countries that they are in, decreasing unneeded and unconstitutional departments of government, and reducing the welfare state.
Equality doesn't mean stealing from one and giving to another, it means giving nothing to anyone.
My 5 year-old niece wants to make the world a better place by turning prisons into playgrounds.
Both positions are equally naive and have roughly the same chance of becoming reality. Ron Paul and his followers should grow up and live in the world of what is and what is possible.
Mt niece will eventually mature to the point that she understands this.
I think that's all very impressive, but I am still skeptica. Sorry, I just don't trust them because EVERYONE has an agenda.
I know we do not agree on Ron Paul, but eliminating all bases is not a good idea, but then again, most of his own ideas are not good. He does better when he jumps on everyone elses bandwagon as he has done for many years. I know you would see it better if you lived here Texas
Start with this http://endoftheamericandream.com/
This link is the GAO investigation of the Federal Reserve and no I didn't get to read it all ,,,yet.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO- … estigation
Maybe we should figure out where the money went then do the budget.
I read that the investigation was going to happen. Just goes to show there is way to much waste and mismanagement in all aspects of the budget. Just get rid of those and things will be in really good shape
The powers that be aren't done gang raping and looting this country yet.
In every agency I have been affiliated with, I have witnessed corruption and blatant waste. How can we best identify these opportunities for cost savings?
Sorry, it is really not going to all end. Worse thing is some bills will be paid slowly. It is not necessary to default. The big problem is downgrading of credit which will probably happen anyway. all this nonsense may have happened regardless of who was in office.
Well the debt ceiling deal has been made and signed into law, but it was an ugly firgt. Only 29% of the americans approved of the way the speaker, (J.B.) handeled his job, and 27% of Americans approved of the senate leader Harry Reid's leaderxhip. In other words they both got lousy reviews. On the other hand, the president ended up with 41% approval.of the way he handeled things during the ugly manufactured crisis. Unfortunately, it will all begen again in about 6 months.
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?postid=240654We need to cut trillions not billions and unless we do we should not raise the debt ceiling! Obama is spending 4 trillion dollars a year even though historically revenues don't...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Best comment I've seen to date says (paraphrased):"I think the Congress should do this every day. They've got nothing better to do. And the economy's humming along and everything's swell here on the shining city on...
by Thomas Byers4 years ago
No we didn't fall off the cliff but the Debt Ceiling Crisis is still looming out there and will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I'll bet you this is waking up many politicians including the President in...
by Judy Specht3 years ago
If the government doesn't raise the debt limit we are going into default according to the mainstream media and the Democratic Party. Default according to the dictionary: a failure to make a payment (such as a...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
From that bastion of lamestream liberalism, TIME. Mr. Klein puts it so darned well I couldn't resist posting the whole article. It's not very long. Enjoy!Oh, and as we all know, there WAS no vote today (Thursday). ...
by Eugene Hardy5 years ago
14 Trillion Dollars.That is a lot of debt.If we were a house hold with a $15,000.00 debt that the house must pay, or face bankruptcy, then the house and all it’s members must work to together to do it.It will take...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.