Jacob J. Lew: Honor our obligations, raise the debt limit

[Denny Crane]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/25/jack-lew-debt-limit-column/74585584/

We are a nation that pays our bills. We shouldn't let partisan brinkmanship lead us into default.

Increasing the debt limit does not authorize future spending or fund new programs — it merely enables us to pay the obligations that Congress has already incurred.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[dviss1]

Um it does though....

 

[e_blazer]

Seems like cancelling some of the spending or raising taxes to pay for it would be another way to go. But, hey, I'm sure there aren't any consequences for endlessly spending 100s of billions more than you take in.

 

[Denny Crane]

Um it does though....

Liberals don't understand economics.

 

[e_blazer]

Liberals don't understand economics.

But they hire economists who will tell them what they want to hear: "Spend, baby, spend."

 

[Denny Crane]

But they hire economists who will tell them what they want to hear: "Spend, baby, spend."

Perhaps an appropriate analogy is a national credit card.

"Increasing the credit limit and spending to the max isn't spending."

Uh huh.

 

[e_blazer]

Perhaps an appropriate analogy is a national credit card.

"Increasing the credit limit and spending to the max isn't spending."

Uh huh.

Unfortunately, what our representatives do is commit the country to spending the money first and then haggle with themselves about increasing the credit limit. Something bass-ackwards about that whole program.

 

[Denny Crane]

Unfortunately, what our representatives do is commit the country to spending the money first and then haggle with themselves about increasing the credit limit. Something bass-ackwards about that whole program.

It's not entirely true congress commits the country to spending. Obama has committed the country to spending by keeping troops in Afghanistan, for example.

 

[e_blazer]

It's not entirely true congress commits the country to spending. Obama has committed the country to spending by keeping troops in Afghanistan, for example.

Constitutionally, as I'm sure you know, it's the Congress that adopts the budget. No money for the military would mean the President would have to change his policies considerably.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

It's not entirely true congress commits the country to spending. Obama has committed the country to spending by keeping troops in Afghanistan, for example.

Troops that should never have been there in the first place.

 

[dviss1]

Liberals don't understand economics.

So FDR didn't understand them? No Libertarians don't understand economics. You all think we can cut our way to prosperity. Jesus...

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

So FDR didn't understand them? No Libertarians don't understand economics. You all think we can cut our way to prosperity. Jesus...

I agree with you all the way D, but by invoking FDR, you're waving a red flag in front of Mags and Denny. Now Mags is gonna open up another can of that fake whoopass he seems to have bought in bulk.....

 

[e_blazer]

So FDR didn't understand them? No Libertarians don't understand economics. You all think we can cut our way to prosperity. Jesus...

A small amount of deficit spending is probably a good thing for the economy. In certain times, like a major war or a global depression/recession, a large deficit is warranted. But, I would think that even an ardent liberal would have to recognize that a perpetual massive deficit and continued borrowing from other governments like China, who don't particularly have our best interests at heart, is not a recipe for building prosperity. Tie the fricking debt limit to GDP or some other reasonable financial indicator and get this thing out of DC as a political football. Once that's done, either find the money to pay for stuff, whether through efficiencies or by raising taxes, or don't spend the money in the first place. Is this really so amazingly difficult?

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

A small amount of deficit spending is probably a good thing for the economy. In certain times, like a major war or a global depression/recession, a large deficit is warranted. But, I would think that even an ardent liberal would have to recognize that a perpetual massive deficit and continued borrowing from other governments like China, who don't particularly have our best interests at heart, is not a recipe for building prosperity. Tie the fricking debt limit to GDP or some other reasonable financial indicator and get this thing out of DC as a political football. Once that's done, either find the money to pay for stuff, whether through efficiencies or by raising taxes, or don't spend the money in the first place. Is this really so amazingly difficult?

I wonder how things would work if there was a federal "kicker". Same rules as Oregon. I'd bet the house that a shitload of Americans would suddenly get on board with holding spending down to what the government takes in (or preferably less) if there was a tax rebate to be had. And they would likely hold the representatives more accountable. Money talks......

 

[e_blazer]

I wonder how things would work if there was a federal "kicker". Same rules as Oregon. I'd bet the house that a shitload of Americans would suddenly get on board with holding spending down to what the government takes in (or preferably less) if there was a tax rebate to be had. And they would likely hold the representatives more accountable. Money talks......

Hey, if you really want to get the public's interest, how about a "kick in the ass-er"? Government spends more than it takes in and everybody gets a bill. I know that would have me lighting up the lines of communication to my "representatives".

 

[magnifier661]

Seems like cancelling some of the spending or raising taxes to pay for it would be another way to go. But, hey, I'm sure there aren't any consequences for endlessly spending 100s of billions more than you take in.

This was a graphic back a few years ago that explains the socialistic way..

 

[Denny Crane]

So FDR didn't understand them? No Libertarians don't understand economics. You all think we can cut our way to prosperity. Jesus...

FDR didn't understand them. no.

Unemployment was unchanged through 1940 with him instituting all his policies.

Him getting us into WW II got us into "prosperity."

You make it too easy.

 

[Denny Crane]

A small amount of deficit spending is probably a good thing for the economy. In certain times, like a major war or a global depression/recession, a large deficit is warranted. But, I would think that even an ardent liberal would have to recognize that a perpetual massive deficit and continued borrowing from other governments like China, who don't particularly have our best interests at heart, is not a recipe for building prosperity. Tie the fricking debt limit to GDP or some other reasonable financial indicator and get this thing out of DC as a political football. Once that's done, either find the money to pay for stuff, whether through efficiencies or by raising taxes, or don't spend the money in the first place. Is this really so amazingly difficult?

Deficit spending is fine, I agree.

They issue bonds (borrow) to build a bridge. Then they pay off the bonds with taxpayer money over time.

I'm fine with that. That's capital/infrastructure improvements.

Borrowing to pay your credit card bill is insanity, but they keep on doing it.

 

[Denny Crane]

Constitutionally, as I'm sure you know, it's the Congress that adopts the budget. No money for the military would mean the President would have to change his policies considerably.

Congress can't prevent the president from sending troops wherever he wants (for up to 90 days). So the president can basically force congress to cover that cost.

I'm sure there are plenty of others. Like all sorts of Bills where government spends $0 or little but the president can order the government to spend the money through executive order.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

FDR didn't understand them. no.

Unemployment was unchanged through 1940 with him instituting all his policies.

Him getting us into WW II got us into "prosperity."

You make it too easy.

FDR is this mythical president to some people, yeah he was a good speaker and could inspire people but war bonds and becoming a nation that produced and manufactured goods is what pushed us into being a superpower.

But good on him for getting us into the largest global conflict I guess.

 

[dviss1]

This was a graphic back a few years ago that explains the socialistic way..

View attachment 6438

This doesn't take into account the 300K to 500K home loan....

 

[Denny Crane]

FDR is this mythical president to some people, yeah he was a good speaker and could inspire people but war bonds and becoming a nation that produced and manufactured goods is what pushed us into being a superpower.

But good on him for getting us into the largest global conflict I guess.

FDR's war dwarfed LBJ's which dwarfed W's. Dwarfed them combined.

 

[Denny Crane]

So FDR didn't understand them? No Libertarians don't understand economics. You all think we can cut our way to prosperity. Jesus...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013002760.html

 

[MarAzul]

FDR

I937 was a very good year, inspite of ^.