Raising the Debt Ceiling is Not For New Debt

[Night Strike]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

[isaiah40]

So if I have a $3000 debt, and I ask my creditors to raise it to $5000, and I bump into that ceiling, and they raise it to $10,000, and I bump into that, and they keep raising it, I still only have $3000 of debt right??

[Phatscotty]

There is every reason in the world not to believe a single word Obama says specifically on the issue of the debt ceiling, but you wouldn't know that if you watched the news/are supposedly informed. The media is bashing Republicans on this one even when it's crystal clear Obama is completely full of shit. Obama will keep doing this though, because it keeps working over and over again and nobody holds him accountable.

Here is Obama, saying the exact opposite of what he is saying now, and saying the exact same thing the Republicans who are trying to "extort" him are saying now.

[chang50]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

Speaks volumes for the electorate,if he truly is as stupid as you claim..

[Phatscotty]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

Speaks volumes for the electorate,if he truly is as stupid as you claim..

It does, but only to a certain extent. Sure, you have your morons and brainwashed masses...
Example



Millions of people voted for him that could care less about who is smart or dumb, they only cared about who gave them a free cell phone.
Example


Millions of other people voted for him simply because he said we would sic the Justice Department on George Zimmerman.
Example



And millions more voted for Obama because they wante free healthcare, free tuition, free housing, free food, free transportation, free energy, free money
Example



Millions more made their decision based solely on the color of his skin.
Example



If you have any opinions to the contrary, please feel free to list some of them here.

[crispybits]

Is American political debate really 99% ad hominem, 0.99% fluff and 0.01% actually discussing the issues? Or is that just american political debate on this forum?

[Metsfanmax]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

He isn't making the point that we're not steadily increasing our debt -- just that, specifically, raising the debt ceiling does not do that. What does do that is continuing to pass budgets that spend more than they earn in revenue. Those two are separate issues (even if they are politically related), and you well know it. Saying that raising the debt ceiling leads to increased debt is a pretty classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. We could increase the debt ceiling even if we were running surplus budgets, just for the hell of it, and then under the same absurd logic you could say that increasing the debt ceiling decreases debt.

But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?

We need to buy more lemons, guys!

[rishaed]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

He isn't making the point that we're not steadily increasing our debt -- just that, specifically, raising the debt ceiling does not do that. What does do that is continuing to pass budgets that spend more than they earn in revenue. Those two are separate issues (even if they are politically related), and you well know it. Saying that raising the debt ceiling leads to increased debt is a pretty classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. We could increase the debt ceiling even if we were running surplus budgets, just for the hell of it, and then under the same absurd logic you could say that increasing the debt ceiling decreases debt.

But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?

We need to buy more lemons, guys!

The problem with your picture analogy is that, one the things you are comparing don't even have any similarity.
If you would compare debt to debt ceiling then they do have a similarity DEBT and Money to be precise. It is utmost foolishness for the government not only to have the power to increase budget, but also the limit they can spend, its like the credit card that never ends. Anywho, why change budget policy if you can raise the debt ceiling instead?

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

He isn't making the point that we're not steadily increasing our debt -- just that, specifically, raising the debt ceiling does not do that. What does do that is continuing to pass budgets that spend more than they earn in revenue. Those two are separate issues (even if they are politically related), and you well know it. Saying that raising the debt ceiling leads to increased debt is a pretty classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. We could increase the debt ceiling even if we were running surplus budgets, just for the hell of it, and then under the same absurd logic you could say that increasing the debt ceiling decreases debt.

But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?

We need to buy more lemons, guys!

The problem with your picture analogy is that, one the things you are comparing don't even have any similarity.
If you would compare debt to debt ceiling then they do have a similarity DEBT and Money to be precise. It is utmost foolishness for the government not only to have the power to increase budget, but also the limit they can spend, its like the credit card that never ends. Anywho, why change budget policy if you can raise the debt ceiling instead?

Right. In short, politicians love to borrow and hate to tax.

[patches70]

Haha! Raising the debt ceiling is like giving a crackhead one of these-



Features of the American Express Black Card are-

24/7 dedicated personal concierge program
Automatic premium status for car rental/hotel reservations/airlines/restaurants
no pre set spending limits


Did you know that an American Express Black Card holder had the concierge service to track down Kevin Costner's horse from the movie "Dancing with Wolves" and the card holder purchased the animal with the card? True story.

Did you know that it is believed that the largest single purchase thus far using an American Express Black Card was the purchase of a Private Jet for Victor Shvetsky? Cost, $52 million. True story.

Did you know that the American Express Black Card is available by invitation only?
The card itself is made of titanium.


Yep, the government increasing their debt limit is the same as giving a drug addict one of these cards. Where as with the drug addict, it will be American Express who will one day be sorry, for the debt ceiling it is the American taxpayer who will be sorry.

I applaud the generous nature of those who see no problem with the government raising the limit with no strings attached. Giving to ability to allow the government to rack up more and more debt in the people's name is so very generous. A generosity that knows no bounds, apparently. And I am amazed at how much debt people think they have the ability to repay.


Actually, generosity isn't the right word. Other words come to mind. Thievery, idiocy, naiveté, ignorance.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

He isn't making the point that we're not steadily increasing our debt -- just that, specifically, raising the debt ceiling does not do that. What does do that is continuing to pass budgets that spend more than they earn in revenue. Those two are separate issues (even if they are politically related), and you well know it. Saying that raising the debt ceiling leads to increased debt is a pretty classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. We could increase the debt ceiling even if we were running surplus budgets, just for the hell of it, and then under the same absurd logic you could say that increasing the debt ceiling decreases debt.

But, isn't the fact that the U.S. has hit its debt ceiling "over a hundred times" - and, thus, has had to keep raising it - proof that raising the limit does, in fact, lead to increased debt?

[img]http://blogs.iq.harvard.edu/sss/ci700332kn00001./img]

We need to buy more lemons, guys!

Did you stop to question any of your assumptions, or were you being unscientific again?

Here's an analogy of your argument: guns don't kill people; people kill people! Therefore, guns do not lead to the death of anyone.

Would you care to change your stance on gun control?

[Metsfanmax]

The problem with your picture analogy is that, one the things you are comparing don't even have any similarity.
If you would compare debt to debt ceiling then they do have a similarity DEBT and Money to be precise.

I am not particularly swayed if the argument hinges on the premise that "debt ceiling" contains the word "debt."

It is utmost foolishness for the government not only to have the power to increase budget, but also the limit they can spend, its like the credit card that never ends. Anywho, why change budget policy if you can raise the debt ceiling instead?

Removing the credit card is the ultimate passive-aggressive strategy. I doubt the sincerity of anyone who claims they are advocating good government policy if this is their stance: "We can't get Congress to pass a responsible budget, so let's just force ourselves into default -- that'll teach them, and maybe then they'll learn to do better." (Note: I am sure that many of the people complaining about the debt ceiling increases are also people who complained about our "credit downgrade.") This is eschewing the responsibility of coming up with an actual solution yourself. If you honestly think that deficit spending cannot work in the long term, then you can surely do better than punishing the "crackhead" by making him or her face withdrawal symptoms while walking away. That strategy is more likely to end in relapse than it is a long-term solution.

[Night Strike]

He isn't making the point that we're not steadily increasing our debt -- just that, specifically, raising the debt ceiling does not do that. What does do that is continuing to pass budgets that spend more than they earn in revenue. Those two are separate issues (even if they are politically related), and you well know it. Saying that raising the debt ceiling leads to increased debt is a pretty classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. We could increase the debt ceiling even if we were running surplus budgets, just for the hell of it, and then under the same absurd logic you could say that increasing the debt ceiling decreases debt.

Of course I know that the act of raising the debt limit does not in itself raise the actual indebtedness of the country. However, if they did not raise the debt ceiling, then they could not pass "budgets" that spent more than they took in, so raising the debt ceiling directly enables failed budgets.

And by the way, Obama in the same breath also claims that the debt ceiling has to be raised in order to pay for the things already purchased. That's a completely false argument, by definition. Raising the debt ceiling is so that the government can borrow money in the future, not to pay for the things purchased in the past. It's also a completely stupid argument by him.

[Metsfanmax]

Night Strike, just out of curiosity, do you think you are smarter than President Obama?

[rishaed]

The problem with your picture analogy is that, one the things you are comparing don't even have any similarity.
If you would compare debt to debt ceiling then they do have a similarity DEBT and Money to be precise.

I am not particularly swayed if the argument hinges on the premise that "debt ceiling" contains the word "debt."

It is utmost foolishness for the government not only to have the power to increase budget, but also the limit they can spend, its like the credit card that never ends. Anywho, why change budget policy if you can raise the debt ceiling instead?

Removing the credit card is the ultimate passive-aggressive strategy. I doubt the sincerity of anyone who claims they are advocating good government policy if this is their stance: "We can't get Congress to pass a responsible budget, so let's just force ourselves into default -- that'll teach them, and maybe then they'll learn to do better." (Note: I am sure that many of the people complaining about the debt ceiling increases are also people who complained about our "credit downgrade.") This is eschewing the responsibility of coming up with an actual solution yourself. If you honestly think that deficit spending cannot work in the long term, then you can surely do better than punishing the "crackhead" by making him or her face withdrawal symptoms while walking away. That strategy is more likely to end in relapse than it is a long-term solution.

The only way you will get a "crackhead" to stop being a crackhead is to remove the source "crack". The only way to absolutely prevent overspending is to deal in cash, no loans, no credit cards. The best strategies are not the ones of I'll do a little less crack today than I did before (if you noticed it never works) its I am going to smoke no crack today, keep myself away from those who do/deal crack, and keep someone around to help me remain responsible. (Not one of which our government does with its monetary/budget policy).
1. There is no oversight. A.K.A. Someone/Group of People that are completely independent from the government that can regulate our federal budget.
2. You have one blood sucking leech after the other blood sucking leech in office/Capitol Hill/Justice Department, so there is no desire to change or remove yourself from those who do/deal. (just look up the greek def. of Politician
3. If they have no desire to change and others do not have the power to change it for them then we as a nation are absolutely screwed 10x over.

[Metsfanmax]

1. There is no oversight. A.K.A. Someone/Group of People that are completely independent from the government that can regulate our federal budget.

Who watches the watchmen? By definition, any group of people that is responsible for regulating the federal budget is part of our government. It's a fool's errand to insist that if only we had external oversight or "real" checks and balances, that this problem will be solved. It's a smokescreen to suggest that a government cannot maintain an even budget by itself. Plenty of countries do this. Talking about freezing the debt ceiling to lower our debt is like taking aspirin to cure a fever.

[Night Strike]

Night Strike, just out of curiosity, do you think you are smarter than President Obama?

Your question is too vague. And there's a difference between being smarter and being correct. It just so happens that Obama is wrong so often that even if he's the smartest person on the planet, he comes across as not.

[Dukasaur]

Night Strike, just out of curiosity, do you think you are smarter than President Obama?

He's probably not any smarter, but he's definitely more honest.

You have to remember that the primary requirement for being elected to public office is the sociopathic ability to tell blatant lies without hesitation and without remorse. No reasonable person believes that politicians actually are invested in the ludicrous ideas they spout forth. We know that those ideas are intended for the (gullible) target audience.

Unfortunately, when you hear a politician spout ludicrous nonsense, it is impossible to actually prove that he's knowingly and deliberately telling a lie. It is, however, possible to prove that the idea itself is idiotic. So, we are forced to give the politician the benefit of the doubt and pretend that he's an idiot who really does believe the crap he's saying.

[patches70]

Removing the credit card is the ultimate passive-aggressive strategy. I doubt the sincerity of anyone who claims they are advocating good government policy if this is their stance: "We can't get Congress to pass a responsible budget, so let's just force ourselves into default -- that'll teach them, and maybe then they'll learn to do better." (Note: I am sure that many of the people complaining about the debt ceiling increases are also people who complained about our "credit downgrade.") This is eschewing the responsibility of coming up with an actual solution yourself. If you honestly think that deficit spending cannot work in the long term, then you can surely do better than punishing the "crackhead" by making him or her face withdrawal symptoms while walking away. That strategy is more likely to end in relapse than it is a long-term solution.

Very compassionate of you, Mets. I don't see you addressing the key point, which I'll bold for you-

I applaud the generous nature of those who see no problem with the government raising the limit with no strings attached.

The no strings attached is what Obama wants, and handing a credit card to a crackhead without any way to stop the crackhead from abusing the credit is idiocy and the furthest thing away from compassion. It's lunacy.

So, what strings are you willing to accept with the raising of the debt limit?
What strings is Obama proposing with the raising of the debt limit?
Should there be strings attached?
If so, then how are those who are willing to add those strings somehow "holding the nation hostage" as Mr Obama claims?
If no strings should be attached, can you explain how that is wise and how that debt is going to be paid back?


Seems if the debt ceiling is raised (and it will be), then the logical and intelligent thing is to make it so that the credit can't be abused. Going into further debt like we are doing is the real hostage taker. That debt takes hostage the future earnings of everyone, including those not even born yet. How is that compassionate? How is that fair? How is that moral?

It's not. It's complete foolishness. The real hostage is the American taxpayer and the one's holding them hostage are people like Mr Obama.

The logical thing is to not spend a single penny more than is taken in. If that's the case, there is no need to raise the debt limit at all, as no more debt will be taken on.

So raising the debt limit without debating how to deal with the debt already taken on and will be taken on with the higher limit, is wrong. And that is what Mr Obama is doing in his sophistic rhetoric, and what you are doing as well. Raising the debt limit leads to more debt which is never challenged or addressed because we just keep raising the limit. No incentive at all to address the problem.
It's the classic- "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". It is intellectually dishonest and morally incorrect.

There are ways to correct the problem, but those involve pain. By ignoring the problem it will still be corrected (in about the worst possible way), eventually, but the pain is merely moved to a later date and it will hurt a lot more then.

So it is right and proper to call out Mr Obama for his misrepresentation, the deceptive nature of his comments and the sophistry involved in those comments. For the life of me I can see no reason to defend Obama on this at all. The spending addiction of the USG is harmful to society.

[chang50]

Well, at least if you're as stupid as this president apparently is.

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/obama-raising-debt-ceilingdoes-not-increase-our-debt-though-it-has-over

Speaks volumes for the electorate,if he truly is as stupid as you claim..

It does, but only to a certain extent. Sure, you have your morons and brainwashed masses...
Example



Millions of people voted for him that could care less about who is smart or dumb, they only cared about who gave them a free cell phone.
Example


Millions of other people voted for him simply because he said we would sic the Justice Department on George Zimmerman.
Example



And millions more voted for Obama because they wante free healthcare, free tuition, free housing, free food, free transportation, free energy, free money
Example



Millions more made their decision based solely on the color of his skin.
Example



If you have any opinions to the contrary, please feel free to list some of them here.

Hey you've convinced me,there are a lot of stupid Americans,across the political spectrum.not exactly newsworthy though

[isaiah40]

I thought this was interesting:

[patches70]

I thought this was interesting:

Hey, I guess as long as the family keeps making those minimum credit card payments every month, everything is hunky dory. Heh heheh.

Ahhh yes, wisdom in action, I love it.

[Metsfanmax]

The logical thing is to not spend a single penny more than is taken in. If that's the case, there is no need to raise the debt limit at all, as no more debt will be taken on.

There are plenty of sensible reasons to run a government budget deficit (e.g. if your deficit spending stimulates growth, which results in a higher tax revenue that repays the deficit). Your standard is too unsophisticated to match reality because what matters is not the absolute size of the debt but rather the debt-to-GDP ratio* (roughly). If we double our debt but also double our GDP in the same time period, then we are basically in the same situation that we were before (and as long as the ratio itself is enough to continue driving growth, then we are in a fine situation). What the actual appropriate level of that ratio is, or whether it is wise to continue this policy in perpetuity, are matters on which reasonable people can disagree. Insisting that deficit spending can inherently never work, demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic macroeconomics. It smacks of the same "logic" that isaiah's graphic illustrates: the idea that microeconomic/household fiscal policies are directly mappable to macroeconomic/government fiscal policies.

*Note: I am not necessarily defending the roughly 100% level the US is currently at; I do not know what the outcome will be. I'm only commenting on the rhetoric of those who assert that any rising of debt is an intrinsically bad thing.

Night Strike, just out of curiosity, do you think you are smarter than President Obama?

Your question is too vague.

OK, fair enough. Refined question: do you think you understand the U.S. economy better than President Obama?

[patches70]

You should apply some actual math to your view there, Mets.

It took from Dec 31, 1979 until March 31, 2013 for the US GDP to double to $13.75 trillion in real GDP.

The national debt in 1979 was just a little over $2 trillion. Today it's a little over $16 trillion. So, in the time it took for the US GDP to double, the debt increased 8X.

No, this is unfeasible-

If we double our debt but also double our GDP in the same time period, then we are basically in the same situation that we were before

The argument that we can "grow our way out of debt" is proven false, has been for a long time now. We know we can't grow our way out of debt.

But you do actually ask a question that can be answered-

What the actual appropriate level of that ratio is, or whether it is wise to continue this policy in perpetuity, are matters on which reasonable people can disagree.

The threshold where the debt to GDP ratio becomes a drag on a society's economy is well documented and example after example is available throughout history to back up this line. It's around 110% or so, once that level is crossed, there is no coming back. At least no one has yet without a complete collapse of the currency and monetary system that has to be replaced.*

Any debt that one does not have the ability to pay back is bad debt. Pretty much period. If you can't pay it back nor have a reasonable plan on how to pay back a debt, then it's best not to take on that debt in the first place, no matter how you try to justify it.

It's a nice notion, to increase one's tax revenues by taking on debt, but that only works if the increased tax revenues are earmarked specifically to repay the debt. You know as well as anyone else, that doesn't happen. Any increased tax revenue is simply spent on other things.

The only one who truly benefits from this debt are those who issue the debt. They collect month after month of interest and so long as the one paying the debt keeps paying the minimum interest, then that debt will be paid for over and over and over again and the principle never paid off.

It doesn't matter if the principle is paid in that scenario. The lender collects his principle and more through the interest.

You think that if the GDP increases enough then we can manage our debt. You can look for yourself, historically no matter what the tax rates are, the US collects around 18-20% of the GDP. You can make the tax rate 90% and the revenues collected will still only amount to around 20% of GDP.
So to pay $16 trillion in debt, assuming that 100% of revenues go to paying the debt (which can't happen for many reasons, the most important being that in our current monetary system, to pay off the debt means there is zero currency left in circulation, and the interest would still be owed), do the math and tell me what our GDP would have to be. What's that, a GDP of around $80 trillion? And that's if we don't add another penny in debt!

When do you foresee our GDP that high, Mets?

Don't answer that, hell it could be that high tomorrow if we inflate like a bat out of hell. GDP $80 trillion, DOW at 150 trillion points, NASDAQ at 20 trillion and a loaf of bread at the bargain price of a mere $700 billion.

No, Mets, it's getting to the point where any debt is bad for the US.

I'm certainly not happy about some of the latest cost cutting measures being moved on now, something I'm surprised no one has mentioned anywhere in CC.
Did you know that the USG just slashed the budget for food stamps? I should probably go ahead and get the links to inform everyone, but meh, people can look it up themselves.
The deal is, currently some $78 billion is the budget for food stamps. Interesting to note is that 85% of food stamp recipients are children, old people and the disabled. Something to keep in mind for these next parts.

That $78 billion yearly budget is going to be slashed by as much as half. Now I'm all for cutting money, don't get me wrong, but taking the food from old people, children and the disabled is pretty craven. Especially considering that The Fed is pumping $85 billion a month into the stock market.
Yeah, The Fed pumps in a single month into the stock market more than the entire yearly budget of the food stamp program, which helps mostly children, old people and the disabled.

This is what debt does, so, what's this about some debt being good, Mets? Taking on debt that can't be paid back, no matter what the reasons, causes harm and has no benefit. The US is at that point now. But as you noted correctly, there are solutions, except you have zero clue as to what those solutions are to be. I have a few ideas**.


*Japan has been limping along at the most insane levels of debt to GDP ratios ever. Some 225% or more! But Japan is dying as a nation, a society and a people. And this was happening before Fukashima. Japan for decades has been shrinking in population, their economy coughing death rattles. The future looks grim for Japan, and I have nothing but respect for the Japanese as a people. But they are in deep trouble and have been for a while now. But they somehow keep kicking along, this little bit of life left in them won't last forever, sad to say. I wish them the best of luck anyway.


**My ideas wouldn't float though, as my first concern would be sticking it to the lenders. Yeah, that's right, The Fed being the primary recipient of my debt cutting wrath. There is no reason why we should have to pay interest on money the Fed creates out of thin air on the credit that Uncle Sam so generously extended to The Fed in the first place. The problem is a debt based currency system. That, above all else has to be dealt with first. After that, the debt problems will be much easier to deal with.

But ending the debt based monetary system is not even on the table, and thus, there is no way out of this debt spiral that the ill effects will always strike first those who can least afford it.

[patches70]

In fact, Mets, I can't remember when the US actually paid a single dime toward the principle of the national debt. Probably way way back in Andrew Jackson's day, but I may be wrong. Certainly not a dime has been paid to the principle in the last two decades. Every year we simply pay the interest. Any principle payments due, we simply take out a new loan to pay off the old one, and increase our interest.

You should look at the budgets yourself, Mets. Some $400 billion will be paid this year for the interest on the debt, but not a dime earmarked for the principle. That is, if you can find an actual budget as no formal budget has been put out going on three years at least now.

But it is what it is. Intentionally confusing and frustratingly difficult to get any real numbers all hidden away in "extraordinary financial measures" and new "financial instruments" and various other schemes that few have the ability or time to decipher.
It's a sad state of affairs to be sure.
Which is why BS like Obama spouting is so disgustingly dishonest. It is indefensible, but many will still try to defend that which cannot be defended.

And of that $400 billion payment on interest, I'd have zero problem what so ever if a mere $78 billion were with held to pay for some food for children, old people and the disabled. I think that might be something even you could agree with....



EDIT: I went and looked it up, it's a $39 billion cut to the $78 billion food stamp budget. It's worse than I thought, I thought it was only being cut in half. Yeah, that is a pretty bad thing considering that 85% of those receiving food stamp help are children, old people and the disabled.


Though this example is horrible, it's what comes eventually when debt gets out of control. At some point the cuts come and we as a society will have zero choice in those cuts. If we act before that moment arrives we at least have greater control on what gets cut and what gets saved. I advocate taking action before action is taken without our ability to control said action. By simply raising the debt ceiling without bothering to enact some sort of line against taking on more debt, we are merely delaying taking action that will be taken eventually anyway, but without any degree of control.