Since the Congress already spent the money that is over-running the debt limit, it would behoove them to pass legislation to pay for what they spent.The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
In wine there is wisdom. In beer there is strength. In water there is bacteria.
I just read that if they only raise it 1 trillion that will only last for 6 months
Obama wants it raised 2 an 1/2 Trill er something close to that. Yea I can see that, Kick that can on down the road and deal with it again AFTER the elections.
We're Hosed.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Indeed.Originally Posted by olevetonahill
In wine there is wisdom. In beer there is strength. In water there is bacteria.
pride,
an appropriation is not an encumbrance nor is it an expenditure.
congress has not spent anything.....they have approved a limit so that agencies CAN encumber.
It is hard to argue that point.I just read that if they only raise it 1 trillion that will only last for 6 months
Obama wants it raised 2 an 1/2 Trill er something close to that. Yea I can see that, Kick that can on down the road and deal with it again AFTER the elections.
We're Hosed.
Obama keeps stressing that he doesn't want a short term deal, and you are right, that is purely political. At one point Obama's spokesman refused to answer a question on if default or a short term deal was worse... Seriously. He wouldn't answer.
Looking at the recent history of debt increases, Obama is out of line asking for a long term deal that is so big..
Debt limit increases should be uncomfortable and they should be discussed.
We need to cap spendig at a rate lower than inflation and raise taxes.I just read that if they only raise it 1 trillion that will only last for 6 months
Obama wants it raised 2 an 1/2 Trill er something close to that. Yea I can see that, Kick that can on down the road and deal with it again AFTER the elections.
We're Hosed.
Simply said...DD comes through!
Agreed , this **** is like those folks who live off of Credit cards and just try to pay the minimum every month, when they cant Just get another ****in card
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Obviously we have been on an unsustainable trajectory for at least 30 years if not much longer.I just read that if they only raise it 1 trillion that will only last for 6 months
Obama wants it raised 2 an 1/2 Trill er something close to that. Yea I can see that, Kick that can on down the road and deal with it again AFTER the elections.
We're Hosed.
As I understand it, the extreme nature of our current cash flow problem is somewhat temporary. It includes additional recession spending and is encumbered by a drop in revenue do to this recession. These are temporary issues that almost all western countries are facing at the moment. Once this gets resolved we will be closer to what we were in the mid 2000's.
Given, we have the baby boomers coming on board with SS and Medicare as well...
Here's my question. I keep hearing Repubs complaining that in a recession increasing taxes would be horrible. I agree that increasing taxes in a recession is generally a bad idea but Bush 2 left little wiggle room when he never rolled back the tax cuts that were meant to get us out of the previous recession. By rolling back these tax cuts he could have improved our fiscal situation (here comes the crazy supply side guys...) and as a side effect this might have slowed down the out of control economy that put us in this mess in the first place.
Anyway, the Repubs never address the impact decreased spending will have on the economic recovery. Which will have a more immediate impact, decreased spending or some minor tax hikes? I think the answer is obvious.
Don't get me wrong. I agree we need severe spending cuts but it's disengenuous for the Republicans to play the "we can't do this now because of the fragile economy" on one side while ignoring this argument on the other.
No matter how we do it, righting our financial ship is going to have a negative impact on our short term economic situation. To imply that one approach has a negative consequence while the other does not is an outright lie.
Last edited by jkjsooner; 7/26/2011 at 09:38 AM.
If we don't get the economy moving forward the tax rate won't matter....
So what you are saying is that we do not need to increase taxes, we need to increase revenue to the federal government.
Raise rates and a lot of folks will either continue to ‘go galt’, absorb more expenses in their P/L (sole proprietors), or just decide to make less and live a more simple life. Why work 10 more hours per week when the FSA will confiscate 5 of those hours? I'd rather take some family time.
Either way….the assumption that you can raise rates and plan for a straight line increase in revenue is rather ignorant. Human behavior will change when the rates change.
Gonna have to get out of the Middle East as fast as possible if we want to balance anything. War drains an economy, and we definitely do not have the economy to sustain any of the military actions we are running right now.
Agreed! Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The notion that "if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here" is illogical. Not to mention that fighting them "here" would be a hell of a lot less cheaper.
You want to create jobs? End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hire private companies secure our borders. All companies would adhere to Geneva Conventions, and war crimes (looking at you, Blackwater), would be punishable to the fullest extent.
And what was your proposal to do that? Let Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Morgan Stanley, etc. all fail? Really think we would be in better shape then?
It's not about the strategy or the ideals of the actions over there, it's that they are just not maintainable. We need to figure out what we can afford and do that. If we need more than we can afford then we need to raise taxes or think smarter so we spend less...
We will never get out of the Middle East(although hopefully out of Iraq and Afghanistan). We certainly cannot when Obama has shutdown domestic oil production. Like it or not we are there for the long haul.
Besides, you can round up every figure you can find on Iraq and Afghanistan, add it all up over 10 years and it will be less than Obama's deficit.... FOR ONE YEAR!!
Obama's own rosy projections never had the deficit decreasing in the next decade...
I believe we can cut military spending by 10-15%.. Anything past that, and you will really cause trouble. I have laid out how much the Navy has already cut down from the Cold War days.. There really isn't much more cutting to do without sacrificing true capability. I can never get a response when I lay out numbers. It becomes scary, pretty quickly.
Most of our budget goes into Medicare and the Military. Both have to be cut, and I don't believe any Democrat or Republican bull**** about how it's "not possible".
Like I said, military spending can be cut by 10-15% off the top. After that, you start making hard decisions about our place in the world and the ability to respond to it. You could cut a lot more more by stopping all future development. We tried that before and it didn't work out so well in the long run.
Then we need to make those hard decisions. Why is this hard for you to grasp? We cannot maintain our current military.
Posting Permissions
