Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debt ceiling

headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2011 2:15:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So geithner wants to Suspend investments in federal retirement funds so gov't can keep borrowing money So the question is what would you do to fix this problem and what are your thoughts on raising it.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2011 2:17:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/3/2011 2:15:41 PM, headphonegut wrote:
So geithner wants to Suspend investments in federal retirement funds so gov't can keep borrowing money So the question is what would you do to fix this problem and what are your thoughts on raising it.

inb4 my anarchist buddies suggest abolishing the state
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2011 2:23:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But they owe us money are you seriously suggesting we annihilate them and clear their debt towards us (14.2 trillion) I guess your buddies could be right though fresh start
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2011 2:24:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Btw can your anarchist buddies explain their plan it would help a lot
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
reynalynB
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 11:52:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The debt ceiling is the maximum limit the government is allowed to borrow to pay its current debts. In the past, Congress has always voted to raise the limit.

If the issue is not settled by August, military employees and dependents may see severe income losses. Those dependent on Social Security may be left out in the cold. The loss of Medicare could drive healthcare expenses to levels beyond the reach of most people. Interest and credit rates could drastically increase, as well as taxes.
reynalynB
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2011 11:54:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The debt ceiling affects us all, personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog. If Congress fails to vote for a limit increase, it could lead to much higher taxes, a reduction of expected services or both.

Jobs could be at stake not only for those on the government payroll, but for those in the private sector as
well. But if the debt ceiling isn't raised and the government runs out of cash, at some point the president may decide he has to stop doing certain things, like paying government contractors, for example. That may not sound like such a big deal, but it is if someone in your family, or someone you know, is working for that contractor, or for the supplier of that contractor, or if that contractor is a big employer in your neighborhood or your state.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 12:28:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can just sell of government assets. Almost everything the government owns can be run by private companies, except more efficiently.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 12:53:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 12:28:28 AM, darkkermit wrote:
You can just sell of government assets. Almost everything the government owns can be run by private companies, except more efficiently.

I seriously doubt the govt has 14 trillion or anywhere close in assets.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 12:57:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/9/2011 12:53:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/9/2011 12:28:28 AM, darkkermit wrote:
You can just sell of government assets. Almost everything the government owns can be run by private companies, except more efficiently.

I seriously doubt the govt has 14 trillion or anywhere close in assets.

It's a way to reduce the debt. I never said it would eliminate it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2011 1:12:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/8/2011 11:54:29 PM, reynalynB wrote:
The debt ceiling affects us all, personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog. If Congress fails to vote for a limit increase, it could lead to much higher taxes, a reduction of expected services or both.

Jobs could be at stake not only for those on the government payroll, but for those in the private sector as
well. But if the debt ceiling isn't raised and the government runs out of cash, ...blah blah...

You got that all all wrong.
1)wrong
2)wrong
3)...

The only way for the government to run out of cash (with any value assuming it won't print up massive inflation)... is for them to RAISE the debt ceiling.
and really they will run out of credit, then the value of the dollar will be less than toilet paper.
just think about it.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 3:07:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This thread is a month old and nothing at all has changed.

Things are a bit extreme in terms of rhetoric, but what are the thoughts of the current political dynamics of this situation at this moment in time?

I'm beginning to bend my position on increasing taxes, but not without massive cuts first. The math just doesn't work even if you retain our essentials in terms of military paychecks, debt payments, and minimal social support, we still don't have enough income, and making fundamental changes won't happen in time before the deadline.

However, i have also heard that there is just so much fear being infused into the debate that we have no clear understanding of what would happen if we don't raise the ceiling.
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 3:00:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 3:07:26 AM, innomen wrote:
This thread is a month old and nothing at all has changed.

Things are a bit extreme in terms of rhetoric, but what are the thoughts of the current political dynamics of this situation at this moment in time?

I'm beginning to bend my position on increasing taxes, but not without massive cuts first. The math just doesn't work even if you retain our essentials in terms of military paychecks, debt payments, and minimal social support, we still don't have enough income, and making fundamental changes won't happen in time before the deadline.

However, i have also heard that there is just so much fear being infused into the debate that we have no clear understanding of what would happen if we don't raise the ceiling.

The gov't has been shut down before, Life will go on, the fiscal idiots will be proven wrong, and everyone we owe money to will wait for their money. What other options do they have.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:57:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 3:00:03 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 7/15/2011 3:07:26 AM, innomen wrote:
This thread is a month old and nothing at all has changed.

Things are a bit extreme in terms of rhetoric, but what are the thoughts of the current political dynamics of this situation at this moment in time?

I'm beginning to bend my position on increasing taxes, but not without massive cuts first. The math just doesn't work even if you retain our essentials in terms of military paychecks, debt payments, and minimal social support, we still don't have enough income, and making fundamental changes won't happen in time before the deadline.

However, i have also heard that there is just so much fear being infused into the debate that we have no clear understanding of what would happen if we don't raise the ceiling.

The gov't has been shut down before, Life will go on, the fiscal idiots will be proven wrong, and everyone we owe money to will wait for their money. What other options do they have.

That's a bit like saying it won't effect your credit score if you delay paying bills since the debtors have no option but to wait for the money.

We do plan to do business with these people (i.e. the world) again.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:02:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If California can't pass a tax-hike, then it sure aint happening in Washington either.

Too bad there is not an infinite supply of investors for America... too bad.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:05:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:02:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If California can't pass a tax-hike, then it sure aint happening in Washington either.

Too bad there is not an infinite supply of investors for America... too bad.

God help us if California becomes the harbringer of how national politics works.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:09:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The debt problem is EXTREMELY simple and easy to fix but nobody wants to. If we cut the military budget we would be able to increase welfare and cut taxes at the same time and still reduce the debt.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:35:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:09:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The debt problem is EXTREMELY simple and easy to fix but nobody wants to. If we cut the military budget we would be able to increase welfare and cut taxes at the same time and still reduce the debt.

I don't see any specification as to degree of cut, degree of welfare increase, and degree of tax cut, which means you just said basically nothing at all.

Of course, at some unknown level of military cut it's not "We" who are increasing welfare and reducing taxes, it's China. :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:43:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:35:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/19/2011 1:09:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The debt problem is EXTREMELY simple and easy to fix but nobody wants to. If we cut the military budget we would be able to increase welfare and cut taxes at the same time and still reduce the debt.

I don't see any specification as to degree of cut, degree of welfare increase, and degree of tax cut, which means you just said basically nothing at all.

Of course, at some unknown level of military cut it's not "We" who are increasing welfare and reducing taxes, it's China. :P.

I can imply that there is there is a degree where it is possible without specifying which.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 5:39:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:09:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The debt problem is EXTREMELY simple and easy to fix but nobody wants to. If we cut the military budget we would be able to increase welfare and cut taxes at the same time and still reduce the debt.

The military budget, including the wars, is $707 billion. The deficit is $1650 billion. Does anyone think the military budget can be reduced to zero? If you think so, you might want to start learning Arabic or Chinese.

Entitlement alone are set to grow to many times the entire GDP.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 9:56:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:43:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/19/2011 1:35:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/19/2011 1:09:29 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The debt problem is EXTREMELY simple and easy to fix but nobody wants to. If we cut the military budget we would be able to increase welfare and cut taxes at the same time and still reduce the debt.

I don't see any specification as to degree of cut, degree of welfare increase, and degree of tax cut, which means you just said basically nothing at all.

Of course, at some unknown level of military cut it's not "We" who are increasing welfare and reducing taxes, it's China. :P.

I can imply that there is there is a degree where it is possible without specifying which.
Not if you're going to assert the matter is simple.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 5:51:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd like to hear a really good argument against the balance budget amendment. Actually, I'd like to see someone debate it, one of our better debaters.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 2:31:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 5:51:54 AM, innomen wrote:
I'd like to hear a really good argument against the balance budget amendment. Actually, I'd like to see someone debate it, one of our better debaters.

I'd be up for debating against the BBA.

Would it be specifically against the BBA or against the BBA as a solution to the 2011 debt crisis?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 2:49:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 5:51:54 AM, innomen wrote:
I'd like to hear a really good argument against the balance budget amendment. Actually, I'd like to see someone debate it, one of our better debaters.

I'd be against it, since it wouldn't allow for Keynesian economics. While I think that balancing the budget and getting our debt under control is vital to the well being of this country, I can see plenty of senerios where a budget deficit would be ideal.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:00:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 2:49:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/26/2011 5:51:54 AM, innomen wrote:
I'd like to hear a really good argument against the balance budget amendment. Actually, I'd like to see someone debate it, one of our better debaters.

I'd be against it, since it wouldn't allow for Keynesian economics. While I think that balancing the budget and getting our debt under control is vital to the well being of this country, I can see plenty of senerios where a budget deficit would be ideal.

Well, that's just the tip of the barrel for how crappy the BBA is. I mean, for starters, it's a freaking CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Not even the line item veto was considered to be implemented via amendment.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:09:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyone that thinks that a balanced budget amendment (as a constitutional requirement) is a good idea, should try living it for themselves. Every month they are not allowed to spend more than they make (or whatever your pay periods are).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:21:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 3:09:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Anyone that thinks that a balanced budget amendment (as a constitutional requirement) is a good idea, should try living it for themselves. Every month they are not allowed to spend more than they make (or whatever your pay periods are).

That's actually not a great analogy. A Federal BBA would not be the same as if you applied it to states or individual families.

Having a balanced budget at home is not necessarily a horrible idea. It means lots of belt-tightening, and may not be very fun, but it won't lead to the sorts of hell on earth a federal BBA would bring.

For one small example, consider that FDIC payouts to banks are counted in the federal budget as debt/spending. Now imagine the results of a bank run.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 3:21:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/26/2011 3:09:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Anyone that thinks that a balanced budget amendment (as a constitutional requirement) is a good idea, should try living it for themselves. Every month they are not allowed to spend more than they make (or whatever your pay periods are).

That's actually not a great analogy. A Federal BBA would not be the same as if you applied it to states or individual families.

Having a balanced budget at home is not necessarily a horrible idea. It means lots of belt-tightening, and may not be very fun, but it won't lead to the sorts of hell on earth a federal BBA would bring.

Actually it is a bad idea. It would force people to live paycheck to paycheck (which is never how one should live). It defeats the purpose of savings.

If you lose your job and your income becomes $0, then you get no food. When the real ideal is to save money asside (build up a surplus) that you can tap into in times of need (rather than going into debt in the times of need).

However, even in those cases, it can be better to go into debt than to cut the spending. An expensive car repair that you don't have the money for on hand? Well, if you decide to wait until payday to fix it, you could miss out on a week of work (apart from potentially losing your job, or at least points with the boss that can affect potential promotions or raises) which could cost more than the interest of the debt to pay for the repair now.

Both are real world, and fairly common, cases of how spending more than you make can be needed.


For one small example, consider that FDIC payouts to banks are counted in the federal budget as debt/spending. Now imagine the results of a bank run.

Which we fairly common back in the day.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:51:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well debt isn't necessarily a bad thing, If you use it to finance projects that would increase GDP: for example infrastructure projects.

I'm still skeptical on whether Keynesian economics works for stimulating the economy during recessions. I'm thinking no, although I have not read too much in depth of Keynesian economics. To me, it just seems as if the theory lacks any foundation in capital theory, which is quite important. Even If Keynesian economics proves to increase GDP, that does not mean that GDP increase is always good If one engages in capital or natural resource consumption. Or that the increase in GDP is products that people demand (Ex: War might increase GDP, but money is spent on materials that do not increase life satisfaction or expectancy).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 3:29:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/26/2011 3:21:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/26/2011 3:09:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Anyone that thinks that a balanced budget amendment (as a constitutional requirement) is a good idea, should try living it for themselves. Every month they are not allowed to spend more than they make (or whatever your pay periods are).

That's actually not a great analogy. A Federal BBA would not be the same as if you applied it to states or individual families.

Having a balanced budget at home is not necessarily a horrible idea. It means lots of belt-tightening, and may not be very fun, but it won't lead to the sorts of hell on earth a federal BBA would bring.

Actually it is a bad idea. It would force people to live paycheck to paycheck (which is never how one should live). It defeats the purpose of savings.

If you lose your job and your income becomes $0, then you get no food. When the real ideal is to save money asside (build up a surplus) that you can tap into in times of need (rather than going into debt in the times of need).

However, even in those cases, it can be better to go into debt than to cut the spending. An expensive car repair that you don't have the money for on hand? Well, if you decide to wait until payday to fix it, you could miss out on a week of work (apart from potentially losing your job, or at least points with the boss that can affect potential promotions or raises) which could cost more than the interest of the debt to pay for the repair now.

Modern BBAs allow for a surplus, just no deficit. I agree that in many cases applying BBA to a family is a bad idea. However, if you use the family analogy you are giving ground to BBA proponents that they do not deserve to be holding.

Same goes for comparisons of federal to state BBAs. States that passed a BBA have to balance their operating budgets but can borrow to finance capital. A federal BBA wouldn't allow for that.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2011 4:18:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/26/2011 3:54:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/26/2011 3:29:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/26/2011 3:21:45 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/26/2011 3:09:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Anyone that thinks that a balanced budget amendment (as a constitutional requirement) is a good idea, should try living it for themselves. Every month they are not allowed to spend more than they make (or whatever your pay periods are).

That's actually not a great analogy. A Federal BBA would not be the same as if you applied it to states or individual families.

Having a balanced budget at home is not necessarily a horrible idea. It means lots of belt-tightening, and may not be very fun, but it won't lead to the sorts of hell on earth a federal BBA would bring.

Actually it is a bad idea. It would force people to live paycheck to paycheck (which is never how one should live). It defeats the purpose of savings.

If you lose your job and your income becomes $0, then you get no food. When the real ideal is to save money asside (build up a surplus) that you can tap into in times of need (rather than going into debt in the times of need).

However, even in those cases, it can be better to go into debt than to cut the spending. An expensive car repair that you don't have the money for on hand? Well, if you decide to wait until payday to fix it, you could miss out on a week of work (apart from potentially losing your job, or at least points with the boss that can affect potential promotions or raises) which could cost more than the interest of the debt to pay for the repair now.

Modern BBAs allow for a surplus, just no deficit. I agree that in many cases applying BBA to a family is a bad idea. However, if you use the family analogy you are giving ground to BBA proponents that they do not deserve to be holding.

Of course you can "have" a surplus (in the budget), but (like with Oregon), that surplus has to be given back to the tax payer (meaning no usable surplus). We are still trying to pass a rainy day fund that would allow us to put part of the surplus (and on years there is no surplus we wouldn't be putting anything in, so it does not take from other funds) into a "savings account" that we can accutally use.


Same goes for comparisons of federal to state BBAs. States that passed a BBA have to balance their operating budgets but can borrow to finance capital. A federal BBA wouldn't allow for that.

I suppose those, it all depends on how it was worded, since there is always a degree of wiggle room when working on just a name rather than a set policy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"