Raising the Debt Ceiling

Page 9 of Originally Posted by sportsfan41 I'm not saying GW Bush should get a free pass but.... stock market, housing bubble bursts, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.... 214 comments | 7048 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #121

    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    10,951

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Good details. Interesting that receipts as a % of GDP has decreased by 25% since 2000. Spending as a % of GDP has increased by nearly 33% in that same time. Looks to me to be a two-headed problem.
    It is 2 headed for sure.

    The thing is politicians can only really direct impact the spending the side. They can only indirectly impact the revenue side. Short term, low impact changes to Tax policy really has no real impact to the revenue side. It makes for political banter but the fall in revenue in 2009 was not policy - it was the economy itself. I believe the math bears out that this issue can not be address via the revenue side. Raising or lowering marginal tax rates does very little and its actual impact on gross revenues is always dampened and less than projected.

    The problem with the spending side is that the spike of 2009 is not returning to the line of growth that was keeping a lid on the deficit before. The abnormal jumps in 2008 and 2009 have become the 'new baseline' for spending. And the forecast for the futures now reflect that new baseline. But it is a baseline that we never could afford, even if revenues were at their optimum levels. So not only does 2008/2009 spending create a hole, the hole gets bigger in the out years.

    That link shows a 9.5% jump in fiscal 2011 followed by a spending reduction of only 2.4% and then a growth of 1.1% in 2012. But then the growth rates show 5.2, 5.1, 6.2% after that. Those are year-to-year percentages. I just see no way that revenue catches up with this. The only real variable in revenue that can have a significant jump is taxes on unearned income. So without the hot stock market or real estate market needed to fuel that revenue will not rise back to previous levels and track the GDP. The abnormally high jumps of 2008, 2009 and 2011 are just not sustainable.

    Rubio seems to capture the sentiment well here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTgdX...layer_embedded
    Advertisement

  2. #122

    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,216

  3. #123
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    34,242

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    This was an interesting paragraph in the article:

    In a closed-door meeting in the Capitol, House Democrats listened to an audio of Republican President Ronald Reagan urging lawmakers in 1987 to raise the debt limit. "This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans' benefits," he said then.

    I am sure the majority of today's Reaganites would be shocked to read that. I don't think there is any modern president whose legacy is more different than the reality of his term than Reagan. Of course, the down side to this comment by Reagan is that under his term is when the US went from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation.

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Feb 05
    Location
    Pendleton, KY (home of the Wildcats)
    Posts
    2,578

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason View Post
    This was an interesting paragraph in the article:

    In a closed-door meeting in the Capitol, House Democrats listened to an audio of Republican President Ronald Reagan urging lawmakers in 1987 to raise the debt limit. "This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans' benefits," he said then.

    I am sure the majority of today's Reaganites would be shocked to read that. I don't think there is any modern president whose legacy is more different than the reality of his term than Reagan. Of course, the down side to this comment by Reagan is that under his term is when the US went from being a creditor nation to being a debtor nation.
    Reagan did his part, but the Dems failed to pass any budget cuts. A good example of why the Republicans should not allow for tax increases.
    Shouldn't raising the debt ceiling 78 times in the last 50 years be good enough reason not to give the government more money to spend?
    I recall reading a number of years ago, that in our history something like 20% of new revenue goes to debt reduction and 80% goes to new spending.

  5. #125

    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,216

    Quote Originally Posted by bballfamily View Post
    Reagan did his part, but the Dems failed to pass any budget cuts. A good example of why the Republicans should not allow for tax increases.
    President Reagan's great myth lives forever. He was even quoted once as saying he wasn't trying to cut spending. He was just trying to increase it at a lower rate than previous administrations. He did a lot of good things but he definitely was not a slasher of the budget.

  6. #126
    Habib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 06
    Location
    Buy the ticket, take the ride
    Posts
    12,180

    From reports I've read it appears that anything with a chance of passing couldn't be formally drafted into legislation and voted on before August 2. While that's not an exact date, it appears that we are beginning to pass the threshold into a situation where Treasury will be prioritizing payments. Treasury will be auctioning off medium-term debt next week. I think you would be hard pressed to find a dumber series of decisions than those made by Congress this summer.

  7. #127

    Join Date
    Dec 07
    Posts
    4,231

    Our political system is a joke. The democrats and republicans can never agree on anything. Both of them think they have the "great plan" but in reality, nothing ever gets done because of the political party wars. Neither party can agree on what is best for the American people and now look at us. These people were elected to make the necessary decisions on what is best for the US and they can't even put their differences aside and make reasonable decisions. Our political system probably looks like a joke to some other countries! How can we tell other countries how to run their country when we can't even run ours? What a joke! I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, our system is in a crisis and decisions have to be made. The American people are the one's who are going to suffer the consequences because those elected officials can't come to an agreement on what is best for our country. Forget the political party crap and make rational decisions!

  8. #128
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    34,242

    ^ I am just as disgusted as you. I stick by what I said in several threads on here - if they let the US default, I will not vote for one single incumbent from either party.

  9. #129

    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    10,951

    Quote Originally Posted by Habib View Post
    From reports I've read it appears that anything with a chance of passing couldn't be formally drafted into legislation and voted on before August 2. While that's not an exact date, it appears that we are beginning to pass the threshold into a situation where Treasury will be prioritizing payments. Treasury will be auctioning off medium-term debt next week. I think you would be hard pressed to find a dumber series of decisions than those made by Congress this summer.
    Any company of size would not be able to project its cash flow with this precision, much less the federal government. There is no master ledger to the federal government that could possibly predict when the accounts will be dry. And besides, when you are running on credit who is keeping real time tabs on the spending? No one. So the date is arbitrary.

    I believe it is the treasury (Geithner) that controls the checks. If they fail to issue social security it will likely be just due to this arbitrary date and not that any specific account has actually reached a 0 balance.

    There is legislation that is passed - by the House. That the CCB legislation. Like it or not, it is the ONLY plan in legislative form. It was not even debated in the Senate before Reid killed it. There are no other plans in legislative form to even debate. The House did its job - it created a plan and passed it. Without alternative legislation even in committee or being brought to the floor for debate in either the House or the Senate how is the House negligent? The Senate has failed completely (and Mr. McConnell's effort to duck their responsibility did not help and was shameful), but the House did it is job and lived up their responsibility in this debacle.

  10. #130
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    34,242

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard View Post
    Any company of size would not be able to project its cash flow with this precision, much less the federal government. There is no master ledger to the federal government that could possibly predict when the accounts will be dry. And besides, when you are running on credit who is keeping real time tabs on the spending? No one. So the date is arbitrary.

    I believe it is the treasury (Geithner) that controls the checks. If they fail to issue social security it will likely be just due to this arbitrary date and not that any specific account has actually reached a 0 balance.

    There is legislation that is passed - by the House. That the CCB legislation. Like it or not, it is the ONLY plan in legislative form. It was not even debated in the Senate before Reid killed it. There are no other plans in legislative form to even debate. The House did its job - it created a plan and passed it. Without alternative legislation even in committee or being brought to the floor for debate in either the House or the Senate how is the House negligent? The Senate has failed completely (and Mr. McConnell's effort to duck their responsibility did not help and was shameful), but the House did it is job and lived up their responsibility in this debacle.
    That legislation was passed for one reason - to protect the right wingers in their next election. They knew that legislation had zero chance of passing the Senate but they went ahead and passed it anyway. Now all those that voted for it can go into their next election and say, "See, I tried. It wasn't my fault." and point the finger elsewhere. That isn't working for me. If the US defaults, I will not vote for one single incumbent - period.

  11. #131

    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    10,951

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason View Post
    That legislation was passed for one reason - to protect the right wingers in their next election. They knew that legislation had zero chance of passing the Senate but they went ahead and passed it anyway. Now all those that voted for it can go into their next election and say, "See, I tried. It wasn't my fault." and point the finger elsewhere. That isn't working for me. If the US defaults, I will not vote for one single incumbent - period.
    But they did draft, create, formalize and pass an actual legislative piece of work. Nothing else is even close to this form - the gang of 6 'framwork', the WH 'wishlists', the Senate...well I know of nothing at all from the Senate. Like I said - like it or not it is the only thing in legislative form and even passed. The way this should work is that the Democrats in the House, the Senate (Democratic or Republican) and even the WH could offer up a bill (legislation) for debate in one or both houses of Congress. But there is none. Nothing. So why is the House, and specifically Boehner, the bad guy here? They have not killed debate on any alternative bills like Harry Reid did. Of course, they could not kill debate on the bills since they simply do not exist.

    Apparently, other than the House everyone else wants to do deals in the back rooms out of view of the public. That is not how the people's government is supposed to work. Debate, discussion and discourse should be on the floor of chambers, not the backrooms. If CCB is not acceptable it is up to those who find it unacceptable to come up with an alternative - and that includes Sen McConnell since it is his chamber that voted CCB down without one minute of debate. But there is no alternative being brought forward in the format of an actual bill. It seems the legislators in the Senate forget what their job is - legislate and create bills to debate, reconcile and vote on.

  12. #132
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    34,242

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard View Post
    But they did draft, create, formalize and pass an actual legislative piece of work. Nothing else is even close to this form - the gang of 6 'framwork', the WH 'wishlists', the Senate...well I know of nothing at all from the Senate. Like I said - like it or not it is the only thing in legislative form and even passed. The way this should work is that the Democrats in the House, the Senate (Democratic or Republican) and even the WH could offer up a bill (legislation) for debate in one or both houses of Congress. But there is none. Nothing. So why is the House, and specifically Boehner, the bad guy here? They have not killed debate on any alternative bills like Harry Reid did. Of course, they could not kill debate on the bills since they simply do not exist.

    Apparently, other than the House everyone else wants to do deals in the back rooms out of view of the public. That is not how the people's government is supposed to work. Debate, discussion and discourse should be on the floor of chambers, not the backrooms. If CCB is not acceptable it is up to those who find it unacceptable to come up with an alternative - and that includes Sen McConnell since it is his chamber that voted CCB down without one minute of debate. But there is no alternative being brought forward in the format of an actual bill. It seems the legislators in the Senate forget what their job is - legislate and create bills to debate, reconcile and vote on.
    OK, either you are listening to some right wing talking points and aren't open to looking at this objectively or you don't want to look at this in its real context. That legislation is a sham passed to give cover for Republicans in the next elections. The Republicans have a majority in the House and can pass whatever they want. The Dems could likely do the same in the Senate but budget bills are supposed to start in the House and then go to the Senate for approval. The Republicans knew that bill had zero chance of passing the Senate but they passed it anyway to win election votes. The only good thing about them passing that bill is it might enable them to sit down, compromise and reach a REAL bill that might pass the Senate and be signed into law.

  13. #133
    woodsrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 04
    Posts
    20,521

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason View Post
    OK, either you are listening to some right wing talking points and aren't open to looking at this objectively or you don't want to look at this in its real context. That legislation is a sham passed to give cover for Republicans in the next elections. The Republicans have a majority in the House and can pass whatever they want. The Dems could likely do the same in the Senate but budget bills are supposed to start in the House and then go to the Senate for approval. The Republicans knew that bill had zero chance of passing the Senate but they passed it anyway to win election votes. The only good thing about them passing that bill is it might enable them to sit down, compromise and reach a REAL bill that might pass the Senate and be signed into law.
    So if I come up with legislation that I believe wil fix the problem but know it will not pass the Senate I should do nothing? It's not the house's job to come up with a bill they know Reid will pass, it's their job to come up with a solution to the problem. They did that, it passed and the Senate didn't even take the time to look at it. You say it was a shame and that's your opinion but why was it a shame? Because it wasn't what Reid wanted? I'm sorry but if the Senate isn't going to at least debate what is given to them then they need to come up with an alternative. And like Bluegrass said, that goes for McConnell as well.

  14. #134

    Join Date
    Apr 07
    Location
    Bluegrass Region
    Posts
    10,951

    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason View Post
    ... The only good thing about them passing that bill is it might enable them to sit down, compromise and reach a REAL bill that might pass the Senate and be signed into law.
    And that is how it is supposed to work. Appropriation bills do have to start in the House. But again, no one has brought forward an actual bill for debate. The reason this is an issue is that the House did not pass a budget in 2010 either.

    It would be good if the functions of government would do their job. There should be alternatives to CCB. But they should have been on the floor already. And McConnell tried to ignore his (and the overall Senate's) responsibility by passing the buck to the WH. Maybe that is why nothing came out of the Senate. Both Reid and McConnell would love to tag this on Obama and walk away. A least Boehner played the game. No one else seems to be showing up to even try to play the game of politics and having honest debate. Maybe things are so polarized that even the politicians do not want to 'discuss'/debate things on the floor anymore at all.

    It seems something will get done between Boehner and Reid at this point. But it will not be the end of a serious issue.

  15. #135
    Voice of Reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 08
    Location
    N. KY.
    Posts
    34,242

    Quote Originally Posted by woodsrider View Post
    So if I come up with legislation that I believe wil fix the problem but know it will not pass the Senate I should do nothing? It's not the house's job to come up with a bill they know Reid will pass, it's their job to come up with a solution to the problem. They did that, it passed and the Senate didn't even take the time to look at it. You say it was a shame and that's your opinion but why was it a shame? Because it wasn't what Reid wanted? I'm sorry but if the Senate isn't going to at least debate what is given to them then they need to come up with an alternative. And like Bluegrass said, that goes for McConnell as well.
    I said it was a sham ... that is not a typo. By that I mean, they passed the bill knowing it had no chance to be passed nor would it even be considered in the Senate. That bill was passed to win votes on election day more than any other reason.

Top