GOP members who voted to raise the debt ceiling

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you have a debt ceiling without spending limits, you will either have to raise the ceiling or default. Since defaulting is not a desirable option, the debt ceiling is pointless without additional spending restraints.

But if you have spending limits, then you don't need a debt ceiling, since your spending is already limited below some value. The debt ceiling is just an amazingly retarded law that should be repealed altogether.

So you are saying that if spend money irresponsibly then you will default unless you have a credit card without limit.

Let's just hope that the Western nations that continue to spend irresponsibly have an unlimited line of credit.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that if spend money irresponsibly then you will default unless you have a credit card without limit.

Let's just hope that the Western nations that continue to spend irresponsibly have an unlimited line of credit.

A "credit card with limit" is a spending restriction. The debt ceiling is a repayment restriction.

All the debt limit does is increase the debt through adding to uncertainty in the bond markets. Most western nations don't have a "debt ceiling" and many of them have lower debts as a percentage of GDP than the US.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A "credit card with limit" is a spending restriction. The debt ceiling is a repayment restriction.

All the debt limit does is increase the debt through adding to uncertainty in the bond markets. Most western nations don't have a "debt ceiling" and many of them have lower debts as a percentage of GDP than the US.

How is a credit card without limit a spending restriction? You can always pay off one card with another. People do it all the time.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A "credit card with limit" is a spending restriction. The debt ceiling is a repayment restriction.

All the debt limit does is increase the debt through adding to uncertainty in the bond markets. Most western nations don't have a "debt ceiling" and many of them have lower debts as a percentage of GDP than the US.

The reason one implements a debt ceiling is because they know that they have no control to stop sending. The US government is classic example of this. Rather than use the restriction as a reminder to stop spending they simply raise the limit.
It is very much like if your credit card is maxed out and you get the credit card company to raise the limit. If you have no plan to ever pay back your credit card bill you would be as irresponsible as the US government.

Originally posted by quackquack
The reason one implements a debt ceiling is because they know that they have no control to stop sending. The US government is classic example of this. Rather than use the restriction as a reminder to stop spending they simply raise the limit.
It is very much like if your credit card is maxed out and you get the credit card company to raise the limit. ...[text shortened]... plan to ever pay back your credit card bill you would be as irresponsible as the US government.

There is a process called "voting", where people can "remind" politicians to reduce spending. The debt ceiling has been ineffective in reigning in spending and indeed has led to increased spending.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is a process called "voting", where people can "remind" politicians to reduce spending. The debt ceiling has been ineffective in reigning in spending and indeed has led to increased spending.

We agree that the debt ceiling has been ineffective.
I believe if we treated the debt ceiling as a real limit, we would have to stop spending money that we do not have. The fact that politicians circumvent thing that the debt ceiling which are designed to help them not spend infinitely shows how irresponsible financially they are.

Originally posted by quackquack
We agree that the debt ceiling has been ineffective.
I believe if we treated the debt ceiling as a real limit, we would have to stop spending money that we do not have. The fact that politicians circumvent thing that the debt ceiling which are designed to help them not spend infinitely shows how irresponsible financially they are.

It mainly shows how stupid the debt ceiling is. If spending is below the ceiling, you don't need it. If spending is above the ceiling, the only reasonable option is to increase the ceiling.

Originally posted by whodey
They will default if they fail to raise the debt ceiling every month.

Anyone who fails to go along with the spending will then be labeled an obstructionist and demonized.

That is why the system cannot be reformed from the inside. State need to rise up and demand the spending be decreased by amending the Constitution.

You are not factoring the congress into the procedure:

Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

Two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;

OR

By a Two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

wiki

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A "credit card with limit" is a spending restriction. The debt ceiling is a repayment restriction.

All the debt limit does is increase the debt through adding to uncertainty in the bond markets. Most western nations don't have a "debt ceiling" and many of them have lower debts as a percentage of GDP than the US.

This is poppycock. I don't care what "most western nations" do. It may be that they have greater political balance, or identity of national priorities, or other means of restraining spending.

It is pretty clear that the debt ceiling is not an effective tool to restrain spending, as one party beats the other into submission with the argument, "We'll give you what you want. The other cheapskates want you to die, and are favoring the rich." Thus starts the bidding war.

At the end of Eisenhower's administration, and beginning of JFKs, the debt was virtually zero. Nobody has the resolve to limit spending, and politics dictates increasing it. Reality isn't suspended, and this is a train wreck about to happen, with consequences to all Americans. Just a question of how far down the track it is till the wreck occurs.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It mainly shows how stupid the debt ceiling is. If spending is below the ceiling, you don't need it. If spending is above the ceiling, the only reasonable option is to increase the ceiling.

"If spending is above the ceiling, the only reasonable option is to increase the ceiling."

Not a logical conclusion, although that is the experience.
Some one has to have the courage to say "no more".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually, the "status quo" is a rapidly shrinking budget deficit:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/budget-deficit-in-u-s-shrinks-oct-jan-on-8-2-rise-in-revenue.html

Shrinking budget deficit? When? And the deficit, sorry to inform you is only a projection of how much more we spend than our revenue. Even when the Clinton administration briefly ran a surplus, the real debt increased because the budget numbers are not real, but estimates as all budgets are.

The status quo is an argument between excessive military spending and excessive social welfare spending. This phony argument is a distraction, because both excess spending are equally at fault. No matter who gets elected they wish to spend more than they can generate via taxation. And this hardly takes into consideration the specific drains of the long term obligations of Social Security and Medicare, which by themselves by 2075 could consume the entire current federal budget.

Originally posted by quackquack
The reason one implements a debt ceiling is because they know that they have no control to stop sending. The US government is classic example of this. Rather than use the restriction as a reminder to stop spending they simply raise the limit.
It is very much like if your credit card is maxed out and you get the credit card company to raise the limit. ...[text shortened]... plan to ever pay back your credit card bill you would be as irresponsible as the US government.

One of the chief fallacies of the credit card shuffle, is the cost of debt service. In the case of the US government, last time I looked the debt service (interest on the debt) was one of the top budget items more than a quarter of all revenues.

In families this is disastrous, as credit card companies walk away with funds that ought to be buying food and clothing. It really isn't any different with a national budget. Money spent on debt service is money that can't be spent on social programs, or military hardware.

Originally posted by normbenign
"If spending is above the ceiling, the only reasonable option is to increase the ceiling."

Not a logical conclusion, although that is the experience.
Some one has to have the courage to say "no more".

It doesn't take "courage" to default on debt repayments. It takes stupidity.

Originally posted by normbenign
One of the chief fallacies of the credit card shuffle, is the cost of debt service. In the case of the US government, last time I looked the debt service (interest on the debt) was one of the top budget items more than a quarter of all revenues.

In families this is disastrous, as credit card companies walk away with funds that ought to be buying food ...[text shortened]... ney spent on debt service is money that can't be spent on social programs, or military hardware.

Agreed

Originally posted by normbenign
One of the chief fallacies of the credit card shuffle, is the cost of debt service. In the case of the US government, last time I looked the debt service (interest on the debt) was one of the top budget items more than a quarter of all revenues.

In families this is disastrous, as credit card companies walk away with funds that ought to be buying food ...[text shortened]... ney spent on debt service is money that can't be spent on social programs, or military hardware.

It's not clear what your objection is. Selling bonds (debt) is not an available financing scheme for a family, but there is an analogous mechanism available. When funding an infrequent expense, like a car or house, the asset is put up as collateral and the proceeds of the loan paid back gradually. This is because most families cannot pay for these items from a given year's income, nor does it make sense to.

In like manner, governments reasonably fund major infrequent spends for capital projects like bridges by selling debt via bonds. It neither makes sense nor is it practical to collect wildly differing tax revenues from year to year to fund these expenses.

Corporations do this too.

Money spend on government debt service has to and should come mostly from tax revenues. Such funding should be limited so that selling debt is not simply a way to fund the annual operating budget, due to congressional refusal to fund the operating budgets they approve.