Really, no kidding, it doesn't raise the debt!

[Swampman]

"Because it's called raising the debt ceiling, I think a lot of Americans think it's raising our debt. It is not raising our debt. This does not add a dime to our debt."

This, from Dear Leader yesterday at a press conference. What a moron!

[skeeterss0]

But the national debt will surely rise to the debt ceiling, it always does, that's why the ceiling is always in need of a raise.

[SpanishInquisition]

Well... technically, yes... It's the stuff Barry would do with the new and longer leash that would.

They day that the devil is in the details. Are those horns on Barry's head?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

The short answer to that is that the POTUS is lying again. And it's a stupid lie, too. If raising the debt ceiling won't increase the debt and we're still under the current ceiling, then there's absolutely no need to raise it, is there? So what's your hurry, Mr. POTUS?

[dorminWS]

As many have pointed out but few have discussed in the press, the USA has revenues far in excess of what is required to service its debt. But we still hear, not only from our fatuous and incredible POTUS and his henchmen, but also from many influential people in banking, politics, and on Wall Street, that failure to raise the debt ceiling and pave the way for an even more ridiculously huge deficit could, in the words of Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher, " drive the country to the edge of defaulting on its sovereign debt".

What this acknowledges is that the people who run our government want to borrow money to pay interest on money they've already borrowed. Who among us mere taxpaying citizens would embrace that kind of folly? What banker would loan money to fund such a foolish practice? This is the kind of outrageous lunacy that is possible only in cases of a total absence of any responsibility or accountability; in other words, the system set up for itself by our federal government.

Is the House of Representatives' refusal to pass a Continuing Resolution absent real reforms in spending inconvenient, regrettable, and an embarrassment to the country. OF COURSE it is. But is it absolutely necessary? It is, sooner or later, and the sooner the better.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Fed ... z2hEJJZi19

[skeeterss0]

to us average folk, raising the debt ceiling is like getting another credit card to pay for all the credit cards you already owe on. Being so far in debt that you actually think this is a good idea, shows the trouble this country is headed for.

[zykur]

He seemed to understand it in 2008, maybe he bumped his head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CMy2M32g4k

[Swampman]

He didn't bump it hard enough.

[j1mmyd]

It does not directly "raise the debt" or the deficit. These are facts.

It *does* create a condition where it seems permissible to continually overspend (at a deficit) with the assumption that we'll keep raising this in order to avoid the possible devastation resulting from default.

We have to (and will) pay our bills. The problem is that this is the only time we can force both sides to have a discussion about the out-of-control spending that necessitated the increase in the first place.

Do we take the hit to our economy and let things fall apart or do we keep paying the ever-increasing tab "just one more time" in the hope that it'll stop?

[SHMIV]

It seems that every time the debt ceiling is raised, they bump there heads on it almost immediately. I would like to see it lowered. But, folks in hell want ice water...

I reckon the folks in hell will get their wish long before that ceiling lowers.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

It does not directly "raise the debt" or the deficit.

Semantically speaking, you are of course correct. The debt does not increase simply by raising the ceiling. However, the debt does increase as a direct result of raising the debt ceiling. When was the last time the government raised the debt ceiling and didn't immediately begin to spend more in their "race to the top?" Harry Reid wants the ceiling raised by another trillion dollars. If we're not going to increase the national debt, then why do we need another trillion dollar increase? I came to my conclusions about this a long time ago, and have formed my opinions. Disagree if you want, but make no mistake, raising the debt ceiling directly increases the national debt.

[j1mmyd]

It does not directly "raise the debt" or the deficit.

Disagree if you want, but make no mistake, raising the debt ceiling directly increases the national debt.

It's not about agreement or disagreement, friend. It's also not just semantics. How can people form an educated opinion and communicate with their elected officials on a topic they don't actually understand?

While not a perfect analogy, increasing your credit card limit does not cause debt, directly or indirectly. It merely creates a situation where an irresponsible spender can get themselves deeper in doo-doo. You are correct, that it is the irresponsible spending that has required an increased limit 13 or 14 times in the last 10 years if I'm not mistaken.

A more apt analogy might be a couple (Spender & Saver), where Spender exceeds the limit on a joint card every month. Saver, concerned about their joint credit, keeps agreeing to raise the limit hoping to prevent Spender from going over the next time. Saver makes only the minimum payment, which thrills the card company. The Spender sees the new limit as a goal and runs right past it again... The principal debt continues to grow and the cycle continues until the Saver has had enough and despite knowing that they will *both* be harmed by default, can think of no other option.

Now imagine that Spender tells the kids that Saver is the bad one for "not wanting to pay our bills". Spender accuses Saver of trying to ruin the family's credit and of being "mean spirited". "I was going to buy you kids all new Nikes and iPhones, but Saver won't pay off the credit card so I can do it..." The kids, being kids, think Saver is unreasonable and a "real meanie".

[Remek]

J1mmyd is right, of course.

What amazes me is that no one understands this stuff.

We need to not only stop the deficit, but fix the debt balance. Pay it all back, for gods sake!

I dont know if thats Boehners real goal, but i am behind him just because we have been here years ago, like way back in the Clinton era!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SpanishInquisition]

Barry,

No, you don't get more allowance.

Signed,
Joe Taxpayer

[zykur]

Check out the debt clock time machine, the numbers are eye opening.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[gunderwood]

Check out the debt clock time machine, the numbers are eye opening.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Every taxpayer owes nearly $150k, while the average income is about a third of that!

[j1mmyd]

Check out the debt clock time machine, the numbers are eye opening.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Every taxpayer owes nearly $150k, while the average income is about a third of that!

"Luckily" US corporations are "persons", too, and are on the hook for some of that. Well, those that actually pay taxes...

[Swampman]

Actually, it was a darn good analogy, and it wasn't a criticism of your position. It's a potato-potahto thing. Regardless of the way the problem is stated, we have the same result. We're on the same side.

The bottom line, as has been rightly stated, is that we have to get these idiots to stop spending and then pay it back. Running a debt is not an efficient use of scarce resources. Part of the problem, as I see it, is the near unlimited supply (for now) of other peoples wealth. At some point they will, obviously, run out of other peoples wealth. What to do then? If there is no production, there is no wealth to confiscate. The government can't create wealth, and even if it could, how long would confiscating its own wealth last? Self-cannibalization only last as long as your heart keeps beating.

And as to the claims that the US has never defaulted on it's debt . . .

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donal ... -done-that.

[tursiops]

Actually, it was a darn good analogy, and it wasn't a criticism of your position. It's a potato-potahto thing. Regardless of the way the problem is stated, we have the same result. We're on the same side.

The bottom line, as has been rightly stated, is that we have to get these idiots to stop spending and then pay it back. Running a debt is not an efficient use of scarce resources. Part of the problem, as I see it, is the near unlimited supply (for now) of other peoples wealth. At some point they will, obviously, run out of other peoples wealth. What to do then? If there is no production, there is no wealth to confiscate. The government can't create wealth, and even if it could, how long would confiscating its own wealth last? Self-cannibalization only last as long as your heart keeps beating.

And as to the claims that the US has never defaulted on it's debt . . .

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donal ... -done-that.

The CS Monitor article is interesting. it is about a tiny default on one kind of bond due not to debt ceilings so much as computer problems. And the article then says: "But it’s the only data point we have on a U.S. default. Not surprisingly it shows that even small, temporary default is a bad idea. Our leaders shouldn’t come close to risking it." In other words, you can say potato or potahto, but don't do it.

[dorminWS]

The only way failure to raise the debt ceiling can cause a default is if the Obama administration intentionally elects to have one. Current revenue of the government is many times as much as is required to fully fund all US debt service. The primary reason the markets are apprehensive about default is that Obama is making all those statements warning of the dire consequences of a default that it is entirely within his ability to prevent. I suppose that the bond market might collectively be looking at all the prior occasions on which the Obamunists who currently run our government have acted in contravention of the law and the constitution and gotten by with it and wondering if an intentional phony default might be his next step. He might as well tell China they ought to raise the interest rate because he wants to pay more. Obama is lying to the American people to scare them into pressuring the republicans (which isn't hard to do) into increasing the debt ceiling because he doesn't want to have to cut back on his vote-buying discretionary spending to pay the damn credit card bill. The really maddening thing about this is that a majority of the American public seems to be too stupid to realize what a crock of crap all this is.