The great debt limit debate ...

[PrincessFiona]

So, in 2006, then Senator Barack Obama voted against increasing the debt ceiling. As an added bonus, he said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

For the record, Obama chose not to even vote on this issue in 2007 and 2008 when the issue came to a vote.

Fast forward to today. I personally think that the democrats and republicans have behaved irresponsibly and I don't know what the answer out of this mess is. Lost in the muck about whose fault it is that we got here and that the debt ceiling hasn't been increased already is the little tidbit that Moody's and S & P will possibly downgrade even if a deal is made ... even if one of the deals had already been accepted.

The reason for this is our completely out of control spending policiy.

I believe that we really need to be focusing on reining in spending. I'm sure that there are programs besides medicare to focus on ... though I would be looking at not paying for 90 year old grandpa with widespread metastatic disease to have expensive chemo that might extend his life a week or two (but I guess that screams death squad to some).

What I do know is that there is no way I could talk my bank into increasing my credit line so that I could buy a boat if I was already helplessly overextended. If I still really wanted the boat, I can't imagine going to only my wealthy neighbors and taking up a mandatory collection for it either.

What about the idea of an additional federal sales tax? I could see us adding a 3% tax to all non-food purchases for a certain period of time. Or. I could see not allowing corporations to have offshore tax shelters .... or passing a tax increase on ALL americans that would also mean that the 47% who currently pay no taxes pitch in (even if it is just a symbolic $5/month).

In any case, I stand by Obama's initial sense about increasing the debt limit (and not the position he holds now).

What say you?

Kris

[diggitydot]

Small nitpick -- everyone pays taxes. Not everyone makes enough to pay federal taxes, but everyone who rents or owns a home, has a driver's license, purchases gas for their car, has hunting and/or fishing licenses, buys marriage certificates, etc. pays taxes. As a matter of fact, many people in that oft-quoted 47% pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes than those in higher income brackets.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf

[PrincessFiona]

Personally, I pay federal taxes, own a home, have a driver's license, purchase gas for my car etc ... and I live in a state that collects State income taxes that are progressive.
I think it's a little deceptive to add sales tax, etc into this. Of course these items are a flat percentage tax and aren't based on your income. We could debate all day whether someone who earns less should pay less for their iphone or not, or whether home ownership is a right in this country. At the end of the day though, many people end up paying NO personal income tax at all...and that is what I was referring to. My brother, for example, earns 30k/yr. He gets pretty much every dime back at the end of the year that he paid in.

Should everyone be required to pitch in the same amount? yes. That means that the wealthy that aren't paying their fair share should have to ... and that yes, even the poor should be required to toss in a dollar or two.

But ... that's my tough love stance.

[diggitydot]

While not everyone pays federal personal income tax, many people in lower income groups pay a significantly higher proportion of their income to some form of tax, even if it isn't federal.

Taxes are taxes, regardless to which part of government they're paid.

[PrincessFiona]

That might be a separate argument though. Do we make sales tax etc progressive too in order to meet different income brackets? I don't know. At the end of the day, what I DO feel is that an increase in the debt ceiling should only be granted on the back of a plan to now drastically reduce spending. If that means an increase in revenues, we should be able to have that conversation too.

I wonder how we actually got to July 26th with this debate still raging on by our politicians. It isn't as if this situation was unknown to them until recently. I frankly don't understand why they weren't on this much sooner and why both sides haven't moved closer to a deal that will benefit future generations of Americans. To top it off, how did we pass through the health care bill as it was if the debt issue (and how to pay for things) was this substantial?

I'm personally not interested in paying more income taxes. It will without a doubt reduce what I will put into our economy in other ways. If that is the only way to bring in more revenue, then so be it though. I will pony up. ... Everything should be on the table (and should have been for some time). This has been turned into a circus of partisan politics. I am willing to increase my income tax burden over the short term to help steer us in the right direction, but only with significant cuts to certain benefit programs, military and all unnecessary (deemed by me ... mwahahahah) govt. programs and departments.

It sounds like our politicians are going to play 'chicken' though right up until the bitter end. How sad for this country. They all deserve to be tossed out on their ears.

Kris

[ladymoreta]

I agree that this has become a circus. At this point, the debt ceiling just needs to be raised, now, since defaulting on our debt is stupid and will hurt the economy much faster than spending out of control (which I definitely think we're doing).

I disagree with President Obama on more things than not, but I think he's on the right track with saying we need to both cut spending and raise taxes. We differ in the idea that taxes should only be raised on the upper incomes. I think they should be raised across the board, and I agree with Kris that there should be a minimum, token amount for every citizen. Middle class, upper class, and businesses should also have taxes raised. We've all benefitted from tax cuts and federal programs that our nation can't afford. Now we have to start paying them back, and I don't think any one income group should have to shoulder the whole burden.

It will be difficult deciding which programs to cut, and unfortunately, "death panels" would really help contain medical costs and would probably result in better care than cutting reimbursement to doctors across the board. Lots of education programs should be evaluated to figure out which actually do any good, but any cuts to education will get a lot of backlash. It's going to hurt. A lot.

[SoonerTexan]

I DO feel is that an increase in the debt ceiling should only be granted on the back of a plan to now drastically reduce spending.

Yup. The extreme liberals who scream at the slightest cuts and the ultra conservatives who refuse to raise taxes AT ALL are driving me nuts...they don't represent the majority of Americans.

To top it off, how did we pass through the health care bill as it was if the debt issue (and how to pay for things) was this substantial?

The media. The hype and selective focus is ridiculous.

[GrayMatterWife]

I despise Obama's sanctimony and condescension so much that I cannot bear to even discuss this. He is really the wrong person to be leading what should be a bipartisan effort. The only time he ever gets anything done is when he jams it down our throats--whether it's late night votes for ObamaCare or " teachable moments" of "racial understanding" when he calls cops stupid... I just resent him. Deeply and abidingly. I know what he thinks of people like me: conservative, gun-owning, and church-going. He thinks he needs to enlighten me.

I cannot even discuss politics anymore. I used to really enjoy talking politics.

[PrincessFiona]

I don't understand why there is such acrimony. Our debt is too high in relation to our GDP. We need to cut, increase revenues and figure out how to move forward in the future. If we can't talk civilly here how can we expect our politicians to do it?

I'm not a fan of FB politics btw. Lol

Kris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pollyanna]

Boehner's suggestion of 1.2 trillion of cuts from the budget is a joke considering TARP and Obama's spending increases are near 10 trillion (and that does not include the insanity known as ObamaCare). Obama has no plan that calls for cuts to spending and currently the republicans have no plan that even comes close to what needs to be done. The cuts need to be deep and we cannot just continue to expect to increase the tax burden on big business and the top wage earners (which under current tax law is really middle class) Right now there is a whole lot of hysteria to justify actions on both sides of the debate. If you are interested in reading a good solid plan down load this: http://www.savingthedream.org/about-.../plan-details/ Not that it will ever happen :-/

[PrincessFiona]

I read part of that earlier Tara. The problem I have is that the heritage foundation is a partisan organization. I'm hesitant to trust one party over another.

As much as you might dislike Obama and his spending spree (I'm no fan either), we can't forget that Bush attacking Iraq wasn't figured into his debt equation. That unprovoked attack on Iraq that cost us a cool couple of trillion was really wasted money too. I don't think we can blame Obama without equally blaming Bush. I'm a fan if neither ... just to come clean.

We need an even-handed approach now. No one in DC seems to be able to deliver that.

The cuts suggested by both parties aren't enough. I also agree that we can't keep spending on the backs of tax payers.

Why can't we figure out how to balance the national budget? How dies this relate to
Our economy in general and lack of producing quality exports? I have more questions than answers.

Kris

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrayMatterWife]

Kris: my resentment or my inability to discuss politics anymore has nothing to do with this forum. Just wanted to be clear in that. I have pretty much withdrawn from discussing politics in any place. But I hope this thread is productive for those whose hope and confidence has not been completely sucked down the drain.

[Pollyanna]

I read part of that earlier Tara. The problem I have is that the heritage foundation is a partisan organization. I'm hesitant to trust one party over another.

As much as you might dislike Obama and his spending spree (I'm no fan either), we can't forget that Bush attacking Iraq wasn't figured into his debt equation. That unprovoked attack on Iraq that cost us a cool couple of trillion was really wasted money too. I don't think we can blame Obama without equally blaming Bush. I'm a fan if neither ... just to come clean.

Kris, I have ALWAYS been very vocal about my dislike of Bush's spending. I have no patience for it.

Simply because the Heritage foundation is considered partisan does not mean the ideas are not solid and make a lot of sense.

[BonBon]

Rapunzel, you would really enjoy Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. I love his books, and they're a much easier read than the textbooks your DH is buying. I feel it's given me a much clearer understanding on the basic principles.

I'm not one to engage in debate because I have difficulty articulating myself and ALWAYS get my feelings hurt. That said, I have very grave concerns about where our country is headed. I hope we can all agree that right now we're on a runaway train financially. I think some of the entitlement programs are out of control; we have a community of third generation welfare recipients here and we just cannot sustain it. I wholeheartedly agree that we should provide safety nets, but not support for life. We REALLY need to take a look at...I don't even know what category you would call it. Let's just say our city is a mess and two bridges aren't being repaired because of lack of funds, yet 2mil is being spent on a short strech of walkway to make it *pretty*. 60K was spent a few years ago to plant some trees. DH's hospital recently received 850K to help people lose weight. Really? The bridge nearest me would have cost 900K to fix. I see the gov't job is to fix the bridge, not tell me how to lose weight. (I'm not even going to get into their advice on that...) But my point is, how many dollars are being spent on stupid crap that is not/should not be in the sphere of government responsibility?

[SoonerTexan]

The bridge nearest me would have cost 900K to fix. I see the gov't job is to fix the bridge, not tell me how to lose weight.

No, it would be 5 million, because the "only" bids that would come in would be from construction firms that supported the election campaigns of local politicians....