Should we have a debt ceiling?

myp · Dec 5, 2012

We are just over $85 billion over the debt ceiling so once the fiscal cliff debate wraps up, you can probably expect that one to be back shortly after.

If we keep raising the ceiling, is there any point to even having it? I think with the uncertainty it creates, especially during recovery, it is probably hurting more than helping- at least in the short term. But even in the longer term, if it keeps being raised, it is of no use. Either way, I think setting a debt cap that is not tied to Treasury rates, etc. is pretty silly.

clax · Dec 8, 2012

myp said:
We are just over $85 billion over the debt ceiling so once the fiscal cliff debate wraps up, you can probably expect that one to be back shortly after.

If we keep raising the ceiling, is there any point to even having it? I think with the uncertainty it creates, especially during recovery, it is probably hurting more than helping- at least in the short term. But even in the longer term, if it keeps being raised, it is of no use. Either way, I think setting a debt cap that is not tied to Treasury rates, etc. is pretty silly.

I think the debt ceiling is only there to attempt to curtail endless spending, it is only useful because some people just like having a limit. But to continue to increase it with no reality to its existence is purely an exercise in futility.

There should always be a limit to debt, there comes a time when you are spending more than you are earning. Just like a person who doesn't make more than 18,000 a year should not be given a loan on a five million dollar house.

Its exactly the same concept weather its a thousand dollar limit on a credit card or a trillion dollar limit on a nation. Its just a different decimal place.

Robbing the hard working people to fund laziness and forign conflicts is not at all the best use for or money. reinvest it into infrastructure, instead of failure "green" energy and cars nobody wants. Seems like somebody is funding mentality over reality.

Instead of picking the most obscure thing that nobody wants to spend money on, why not use it to support what the people want verses what demigods in ivory towers think we should do.

Serve the public instead of being served by the public

myp · Dec 9, 2012

What people want is different things

Either way, considering the time value of money, sometimes higher borrowing might be a good thing (like right now even- at record low Treasury rates, it might be a good time to borrow more, use it towards infrastructure, education, and other investments that in the long run pay off more than they cost now). In other words, it is cheaper to borrow now than it has been in the past or might be in the future.

clax · Dec 9, 2012

myp said:
What people want is different things

Well when your stealing the majority's money, you should go with what the majority wants. Nobody ever even heard of Lybia until politicians decided to entangle our economy in that mess. Nobody wants fake wind energy that is a complete flop. Nobody wanted the fed ordering us to buy insurance aside from the margins living off the fat of the land. We do want better education, but the fed has blown money messing around picking off dictators of despot nations for God knows what reason.
The insisting on force feeding a lie has me at a very understandable distrust of the current Whitehouse representation.

myp said:
Either way, considering the time value of money, sometimes higher borrowing might be a good thing (like right now even- at record low Treasury rates, it might be a good time to borrow more, use it towards infrastructure, education, and other investments that in the long run pay off more than they cost now). In other words, it is cheaper to borrow now than it has been in the past or might be in the future.

I just think spending on things that benefit the people is more realistic. Verses wars in obscure lands with people who are not our enemy.

The debt ceiling is simply the line in the sand, a check to balance things I sure hope the republicans stick to their guns this time, I am really starting to hate that party for its spineless ness. All the other side has to do is compromise, they refuse. No spending= no bloated debt for political pet projects, lets roll over that fiscal cliff, I am ready.

myp · Dec 9, 2012

clax said:
Well when your stealing the majority's money, you should go with what the majority wants. Nobody ever even heard of Lybia until politicians decided to entangle our economy in that mess. Nobody wants fake wind energy that is a complete flop. Nobody wanted the fed ordering us to buy insurance aside from the margins living off the fat of the land. We do want better education, but the fed has blown money messing around picking off dictators of despot nations for God knows what reason.
The insisting on force feeding a lie has me at a very understandable distrust of the current Whitehouse representation.

This country was never meant to have everything go the majority's way. That is why we are a Republic. That aside, there are plenty of people that want wind energy. There are some people that want some things, others that want others. That is why there are debates and political opposition

clax said:
I just think spending on things that benefit the people is more realistic.

And what that spending is is arguable.

clax said:
The debt ceiling is simply the line in the sand, a check to balance things I sure hope the republicans stick to their guns this time, I am really starting to hate that party for its spineless ness. All the other side has to do is compromise, they refuse. No spending= no bloated debt for political pet projects, lets roll over that fiscal cliff, I am ready.

And if it means another recession?

And what if by not going over it it means we avoid recession and in the longer run end up with less debt and a stronger economy?

clax · Dec 9, 2012

myp said:
This country was never meant to have everything go the majority's way. That is why we are a Republic. That aside, there are plenty of people that want wind energy. There are some people that want some things, others that want others. That is why there are debates and political opposition

Perhaps some spending should go to majority, verses the lions share only benefiting the emperors.

Republic indeed

myp said:
And what that spending is is arguable.

Somebody forgot to tell the fed.

myp said:
And if it means another recession?

And what if by not going over it it means we avoid recession and in the longer run end up with less debt and a stronger economy?

I will take recession over mutually assured financial distraction.

myp · Dec 9, 2012

clax said:
Somebody forgot to tell the fed.

I think you mean the Federal government (the Fed refers to the central bank). Either way, what do you mean?

clax said:
I will take recession over mutually assured financial distraction.

What do you mean by financial distraction?

clax · Dec 9, 2012

myp said:
I think you mean the Federal government (the Fed refers to the central bank). Either way, what do you mean?

by fed I mean the entirety of the federal government. The spending is arguable but nobody seems to argue they just turn their backs and say lets fall of the cliff. Because democrats can't compromise, mainly because republicans are spineless.

What do you mean by financial distraction?[/QUOTE]

Spending into oblivion just because we can.

myp · Dec 9, 2012

clax said:
by fed I mean the entirety of the federal government. The spending is arguable but nobody seems to argue they just turn their backs and say lets fall of the cliff. Because democrats can't compromise, mainly because republicans are spineless.

My point is are you willing to go into another recession by going off the cliff? The cliff debate isn't just for the sake of having a debate- both parties want to solve it so that we can avoid another recession.

clax said:
Spending into oblivion just because we can.

Well who said we are doing that? No one in the history of the world has been able to borrow institutionally as the US currently can.

clax · Dec 9, 2012

myp said:
My point is are you willing to go into another recession by going off the cliff? The cliff debate isn't just for the sake of having a debate- both parties want to solve it so that we can avoid another recession.

Well who said we are doing that? No one in the history of the world has been able to borrow institutionally as the US currently can.

nether party is willing to solve it, if they were, there would be a solution.

I said we are doing that.

myp · Dec 10, 2012

clax said:
nether party is willing to solve it, if they were, there would be a solution.

I said we are doing that.

They haven't solved it because they don't like the current terms not because they don't want to.

clax · Dec 10, 2012

myp said:
They haven't solved it because they don't like the current terms not because they don't want to.

They don't want to because they don't like the current terms. Get out of public service if you can't serve, they are pushing us over the fiscal cliff.

myp · Dec 10, 2012

clax said:
They don't want to because they don't like the current terms. Get out of public service if you can't serve, they are pushing us over the fiscal cliff.

The deadline is Dec 31st. What do you mean by get out of public service if you can't serve? Do you think you could do better? There are differences in opinion so there is debate, discussion, and negotiation- that is how things have always gotten done and will always get done with this form of government.

myp · Dec 10, 2012

Anyway we are way off-topic once again?

I don't think there is really a point to the debt ceiling considering the Treasury has its revenue and its expenses which are passed. Once those two are passed, a debt ceiling doesn't matter- the other two dictate the fiscal direction, not the arbitrary ceiling.

clax · Dec 10, 2012

myp said:
The deadline is Dec 31st. What do you mean by get out of public service if you can't serve? Do you think you could do better? There are differences in opinion so there is debate, discussion, and negotiation- that is how things have always gotten done and will always get done with this form of government.

Debate discussion and negotiation, not stale mate.

If you only wish to be stagnant, you are not serving the public you are serving yourself

myp · Dec 10, 2012

clax said:
Debate discussion and negotiation, not stale mate.

If you only wish to be stagnant, you are not serving the public you are serving yourself

Who wishes to be stagnant?

clax · Dec 10, 2012

myp said:
Anyway we are way off-topic once again?

I don't think there is really a point to the debt ceiling considering the Treasury has its revenue and its expenses which are passed. Once those two are passed, a debt ceiling doesn't matter- the other two dictate the fiscal direction, not the arbitrary ceiling.

So no limit to debt, meanwhile we are forced to carry their burden. No, absolutely need a debt limit. It just needs to be firm. If you can't afford your bs projects by the money that has already been pilfered, than its time to rethink your projects

myp · Dec 10, 2012

clax said:
So no limit to debt, meanwhile we are forced to carry their burden. No, absolutely need a debt limit. It just needs to be firm. If you can't afford your bs projects by the money that has already been pilfered, than its time to rethink your projects

The debt ceiling is just a label. It doesn't serve a purpose.

Think of it like this: you make $40000 a year. You make a budget that will cost you $60000 for the year. Now it doesn't matter what you say you won't let your debt be for that year because if you stick to your budget you will be $20000 short regardless of the ceiling you set.

clax · Dec 10, 2012

myp said:
The debt ceiling is just a label. It doesn't serve a purpose.

Think of it like this: you make $40000 a year. You make a budget that will cost you $60000 for the year. Now it doesn't matter what you say you won't let your debt be for that year because if you stick to your budget you will be $20000 short regardless of the ceiling you set.

Do the debt ceiling is to high. I agree

clax · Dec 10, 2012

myp said:
Who wishes to be stagnant?

Congress apparently, not budging = stale mate which = stagnation.

Congress both sides are being ridiculous. Comprimise for the sake of or nation.

Should we have a debt ceiling?

Similar threads