• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Do we really need to raise the debt ceiling?

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
Do we even need a debt ceiling? Couldn't we just solve the problem by always having a balanced budget? If we spend over budget find ways to correct it. Isn't that the way we all do our business.

When the government puts borrowed money in the economy, issues IOUs, or prints paper money, doesn't that place a tax on all of us? It makes earned money and our savings buy less.

I suppose the wealthy should pay a little larger share of tax as they have more that our government secures, but isn't the tax the rich scheme mostly a desire to punish those who are successful. Jealousy? Are not those who are the better managers entitled to their well earned rewards?

We have had good times in the past. So many of of the Democrates, and the liberals have really done little by thenselves, but have lived by what those before them have produced.

Most of the tax increase imposed on the corporations, and those who invest in business is passed along to the consumer anyway.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
the personal income tax was never ratified. it is illegal.

but, to raise taxes the fairest way to do it would be via a sales tax.

the only reason we have the income tax is because we have a bunch of criminals running our treasury called the federal reserve.

we pay them interest to borrow our money from their private bank.

the system is set up to fail. there is no way around it. it will fall and fail.

thus, the ceiling must be raised or the system fails...guaranteed.

it has nothing to do with taxes etc...it has everything to do with the system.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Clarencen said:
Do we even need a debt ceiling? Couldn't we just solve the problem by always having a balanced budget? If we spend over budget find ways to correct it. Isn't that the way we all do our business.

When the government puts borrowed money in the economy, issues IOUs, or prints paper money, doesn't that place a tax on all of us? It makes earned money and our savings buy less.

I suppose the wealthy should pay a little larger share of tax as they have more that our government secures, but isn't the tax the rich scheme mostly a desire to punish those who are successful. Jealousy? Are not those who are the better managers entitled to their well earned rewards?

We have had good times in the past. So many of of the Democrats, and the liberals have really done little by themselves, but have lived by what those before them have produced.

Most of the tax increase imposed on the corporations, and those who invest in business is passed along to the consumer anyway.

by the game being played by the White House, there is little point to even having one at all,,,,

in most scenarios, the republicans will be portrayed as the culprits and the democrats will "wash their hands of the mess"

scenario One.. it passes but the final product is more taxes, less cuts..

the Democrats want this.. and the republicans will get blamed for the increase in debt..

scenario Two, the republicans hold the line, and get blamed.. again. this is what the democrats want.. to blame the republicans..

scenario three.. is there one where the republicans win,.. ? or just don't lose?

by the turn the talks have taken.. it looks as if the White house knows it is a winner, or at least not the loser.. so it wants it all... or for it to fail.. either way it comes out better for the democratic party...

so US along with the republicans.. will be the ultimate loser in this game..

and the White House knows this... but doesn't care... it just cares if it wins...



:mad:
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
The cut, cap, and a balanced budget is the only plan out there that has any reasoning behind it.

Our Community Orgainizer President is good at stirring people up with speeches but has no consept of what will succeed, or move us beyond where we are today.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Why didn't anyone ask Reagan this?

He raised it 18 times....AND raised taxes.....and still became a demi-god....with a monkey no doubt.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
Jingo, use your head. The Reagon Era has passed. Then we had a booming economy. Today our economy is staggering. Do you have any idea of what a trillion dollars really is? To believe we should raise our debt by trillions of dollars when there so little to show we are working things out is either stupid or thoughts of a blind man.
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
907
Reaction score
0
Clarencen said:
Jingo, use your head. The Reagon Era has passed. Then we had a booming economy. Today our economy is staggering. Do you have any idea of what a trillion dollars really is? To believe we should raise our debt by trillions of dollars when there so little to show we are working things out is either stupid or thoughts of a blind man.


Use your head old man...it's all relative to the time it happened.
 

lightninboy

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
0
Location
NE South Dakota
Do we really need to raise the debt ceiling?

The Federal Reserve wants to make more money off of us before it forecloses on us.
 

Clarencen

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
0
Location
South Central SD
Yep it is all relative to the times. Still you can't solve todays problems by repeating yesterdays mistakes.




There was a man in our town

Who was wonderous wise

He jumped into a bramble bush

And scratched out both his eyes


When he found his eyes were out,

With all his might and main,

He found another bramble bush

And scratched them in again.



I don't think it worked do you?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
The debt ceiling is not where this battle should be fought. It should be in the balanced budgets the House of Representatives passes.

The fact is that the House of Representatives can not pass a balanced budget so we don't have one.

Playing with the debt limit and default is just plain stupid.

I hope the first thing that is cut by the president is the salaries for the congressmen and their staff for not doing their job in passing a budget that will go through both houses and the president.

Air conditioning should also be shut off. Maybe then they will believe that man is actually having an effect on climate change and should work on these issues (I have my air conditioning license and this fact has been known for some time and the industry was able to adapt to the ozone causing man made agents).

I think that passing the debt on down to future generations is stealing from them. It has been the easiest path for Congress to take with the cheap money coming from China's strategic plan of manipulating their currency.

I don't like taxing the rich or anyone else but if you are going to spend it, then get the tax revenue for it. Presidents from both parties have decided to instead put it on the good faith and credit of the U.S. for some time until we have reached this point.

We have a double whammy of a sorry economy because of politicians pandering to special interest groups paying them off (which put us in this financial mess) which includes sorry NAFTA deals, along with a total reluctance of republicans to allow any taxes on the people who influence them most through our campaign bribery system of government.

Default on the debt will be much more of a problem than the pinheads in the House of Representatives realizes. It is probably a good thing that Greece is leading the way on all those headlines to take the heat off of our manufactured crisis here.

Defaulting on the debt is nothing more than saying "I have a lot of bills and I am not going to pay them anymore." Many of these bills were made in REPUBLICAN administrations all too ready to be passed down to the next politician instead of balancing the budget then. Tax breaks we couldn't afford along with two wars has the worst of the politicians threatening the SS system instead of raising those taxes and taking the heat for the spending the House has approved.

We are heading for some rough times unless some of these people start getting a clue. I for one think that the corruption of pandering to those bribing Congress has gone too far. The loopholes and the lower tax rates has done NOTHING to give us a better economy and in fact has given us a worse one. Short term spending to get over a recession is one thing but structural long term deficits are a problem. Same with trade deficits.

The best way to get a balanced budget now is to do all the common sense things we haven't done so far (like limiting corporate and farm welfare).

We have to put a stop on politicians voting on issues where they have received donations or payment in kind for votes. It has totally messed up our country.

Tex
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Because you have an air conditioning license you are an expert on global climatology? Come on. We all know that "global climate change" is crap and is a way of "regulating".

Oh.... Now I get it. You like regulation, therefor, "climate change" would fit your goals (even though it is total BS). Think of all the great industries you can keep regulated if everyone continues to drink the kool-aid.

You pretend to be middle of the road and just an advocate of justice, but I think you really just need to come out of the closet. At least think about it. It would help the confusion your feeling.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Default on the debt will be much more of a problem than the pinheads in the House of Representatives realizes. It is probably a good thing that Greece is leading the way on all those headlines to take the heat off of our manufactured crisis here.

so if we get a few days of Greece style rioting because checks don't get sent out.. who will it hurt?

do you think seniors are going to riot...

the disabled?


veterans?

or the military?

or even wall street... heck if they were going to riot it would have been when Obama stole GM and Chrysler' debt from them..



or will it be government workers, unions and welfare queens... ?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Contrary to the President, Social Security Checks Are Not At Risk
Michael McConnell | July 23, 2011 | 8:41 am



The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit. Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling (which I continue to think is a remote prospect, even if less remote than it seemed a week ago), this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else.


http://www.advancingafreesociety.org/2011/07/23/contrary-to-the-president-social-security-checks-are-not-at-risk/
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Many of these bills were made in REPUBLICAN administrations all too ready to be passed down to the next politician instead of balancing the budget then. Tax breaks we couldn't afford along with two wars has the worst of the politicians threatening the SS system instead of raising those taxes and taking the heat for the spending the House has approved.

Geez I love it when the Republican are blamed for all the out of control spending :roll:

Tex can you please explain why the Republicans are the ones getting all the blame for the war debt when the Democrats had to vote to support the wars for the US to be involved in them? :? The Republican did not have a filibuster proof Senate so the Republicans had to have BIPARTISAN SUPPORT for anything to pass the Senate.

For the last two years of the Bush Administration, the Dems had control of both houses, so again why are the Republicans taking blame for the war spending during that time? AGAIN there had to be BIPARTISAN SUPPORT for anything to pass the Senate.

Then you have the first two years of the Obama Administration where the Dems could have passed any bill they wanted on a very PARTISAN vote because they had a Filibuster proof Senate and a majority in the House so why are the Republicans taking blame for the war spending during that time too? Are you going to blame the Republicans for the war spending Obama is illegally doing in Lybia too? :roll:


Tex Wrote
along with a total reluctance of republicans to allow any taxes on the people who influence them most through our campaign bribery system of government.

Tex the Republicans might be reluctant to raise taxes on JOB CREATORS in a time when the US NEEDS JOBS but at least they are not awarding Government jobs/paychecks to their supporters. :wink: :roll:

More than two years after Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events, an investigation by iWatch News has found.

These “bundlers” raised at least $50,000 — and sometimes more than $500,000 — in campaign donations for Obama’s campaign. Many of those in the “Class of 2008” are now being asked to bundle contributions for Obama’s reelection, an effort that could cost $1 billion.

As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests. Kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” who had “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“We’re here today to take it back,” he said.

And I think we all know how Obama rewarded the Unions, ACORN, Black Panthers, and others that supprted him. :x

Maybe if Obama and the DEMS would stop repaying their campaign donors with tax payer funded jobs and contracts they wouldn't have to raise taxes on JOB CREATORS. :x

Gee here is an Idea maybe if GE actually paid taxes they could pay their CEO, Jeffery's government advisory paycheck. Got to wonder how he got a job in the government in charge of job creation when he shipped GE jobs and money out of the country to avoid paying US wages and US taxes. :? :roll: CHANGE you can believe in Tex CHANGE you can believe in. :roll:

BTW let's go back to this little gem
Many of these bills were made in REPUBLICAN administrations
Now let's look at the numbers
•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

Double the increase while the Dems had TOTAL CONTROL OF SPENDING and Bush was in office for 8 years with the Dems controling the Congressional purse string for the last two when a majority of the spending happened. So tell us again Tex how many of these bills were racked up by REPUBLICANS? :? :roll:

Here is another question for you Tex.

Why is Obama claiming that the Elderly may not get their SS checks come Aug 3 if a deal is not reached when about a year ago the Dems were claiming there was absolutely no reason to fix SS because it was not in trouble and it was/is taking in more money than it needed to pay out beneifits? You can not have it both ways unless you are hoping the eldery are losing their memories and can't remember the Dems talking points against fixing SS just a year ago. Can we please admit Obama is scareing the hell out of the elderly so they will back him over those that are truly trying to protect them and their Grandchildrens futures from the Dems out of control spending habits.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Obama against raising debt ceiling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLgdhvoyik

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” [Obama] said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” - Buckwheat
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Mike said:
Obama against raising debt ceiling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLgdhvoyik

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” [Obama] said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” - Buckwheat

Can we now admit Obama is a incompetent, lieing, flip flopping, liberal left, Harvard educated foreign fraud that will go down as a worst black mark in American History. Those that voted for him wanted to make history and they did, I just doubt it was the history they were thinking of. :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Mike said:
I think the debt ceiling needs to be lowered................. Much lower.

We should be paying it off in the long term.


Tex
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Tam said:
Can we now admit Obama is a incompetent, lieing, flip flopping, liberal left, Harvard educated foreign fraud that will go down as a worst black mark in American History. Those that voted for him wanted to make history and they did, I just doubt it was the history they were thinking of. :roll:

there is a little question on the Harvard education... but other then that I think your right on track..
 

Latest posts

Top