Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    07 Jan '11 17:26
    I read and hear from some sources: US government MUST increase the present borrowing cap to avoid the possibility of default.

    I submit, if the cap were to be increased it simply continues ‘business as usual’ resulting in this spendthrift government continuing to spend more than it collects at the fantastic rate of 1 to 2 trillion per year until, in the very near future, global lenders refuse US debt and force the US into default.

    So: If you refuse to increase the cap now forcing the government to make budget changes necessary to bring debt under control there is the risk there MIGHT be a default ONLY if government does not make the necessary budget cuts.

    On the other hand, the US will DEFINITELY default in the very near future if government continues their reckless borrowing and spending facilitated by continuously raising the cap. The default will occur when total debt inevitably reaches the point where foreign lenders REFUSE to take more US debt.

    The choice is: Do you choose the place and time of a POSSIBLE default or do you let UNAVOIDABLE default be imposed upon you by outside sources?

    Discuss.
  2. 07 Jan '11 17:29
    I'm sure Republicans realize that not raising the cap would be extremely retarded, but they will use it to pressure Obama to cut spending.
  3. 07 Jan '11 18:08
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    I read and hear from some sources: US government MUST increase the present borrowing cap to avoid the possibility of default.

    I submit, if the cap were to be increased it simply continues ‘business as usual’ resulting in this spendthrift government continuing to spend more than it collects at the fantastic rate of 1 to 2 trillion per year until, in th ...[text shortened]... E default or do you let UNAVOIDABLE default be imposed upon you by outside sources?

    Discuss.
    The Repuklincans have already shown their hand by agreeing with Obama on stimulus #3, so don't look to them for leadership in this area. The debt cap will be raised.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Jan '11 18:30
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    I read and hear from some sources: US government MUST increase the present borrowing cap to avoid the possibility of default.

    I submit, if the cap were to be increased it simply continues ‘business as usual’ resulting in this spendthrift government continuing to spend more than it collects at the fantastic rate of 1 to 2 trillion per year until, in th ...[text shortened]... E default or do you let UNAVOIDABLE default be imposed upon you by outside sources?

    Discuss.
    As I said to whodey in another thread (he never gave an answer):

    Propose a trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or increased revenues that can go into effect by April 2011 if you really insist on not raising the debt ceiling.
  5. Standard member MacSwain
    Who is John Galt?
    07 Jan '11 19:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As I said to whodey in another thread (he never gave an answer):

    Propose a trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or increased revenues that can go into effect by April 2011 if you really insist on not raising the debt ceiling.
    The problem is other countries financing US debt will have their economies hammered once more by US failure to make necessary budgetary change.

    There has been NO visible effort to reverse the irresponsible spending by the US as has been seen in the 'grown-up' countries of Europe who are facing budget short-fall with appropriate action.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Jan '11 22:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MacSwain
    The problem is other countries financing US debt will have their economies hammered once more by US failure to make necessary budgetary change.

    There has been NO visible effort to reverse the irresponsible spending by the US as has been seen in the 'grown-up' countries of Europe who are facing budget short-fall with appropriate action.
    So it should be easy for you to do what I specifically asked you to do:

    Propose a trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or increased revenues that can go into effect by April 2011 if you really insist on not raising the debt ceiling.
  7. 07 Jan '11 22:58
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As I said to whodey in another thread (he never gave an answer):

    Propose a trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or increased revenues that can go into effect by April 2011 if you really insist on not raising the debt ceiling.
    The fix is in, eh marauder. Nice work progressives.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Jan '11 23:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    The fix is in, eh marauder. Nice work progressives.
    If you haven't any proposals to do so, then perhaps you should stop complaining about raising the debt ceiling.

    "Progressives" like Reagan and GW were the biggest contributors to the national debt and right wingers like you have no serious proposals to close the deficit.
  9. 08 Jan '11 00:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    If you haven't any proposals to do so, then perhaps you should stop complaining about raising the debt ceiling.

    "Progressives" like Reagan and GW were the biggest contributors to the national debt and right wingers like you have no serious proposals to close the deficit.
    Do you have any proposals? Of course, leaving out Obama is just ludicrous.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jan '11 00:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    Do you have any proposals? Of course, leaving out Obama is just ludicrous.
    Not by April, but then I'm not the one shaking my fist at the idea of raising the debt ceiling that month.

    You know my basic plan: huge cuts in defense and a return to reasonable tax rates on the wealthy. That would mean goodbye to the deficit in time.
  11. 08 Jan '11 00:23 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Not by April, but then I'm not the one shaking my fist at the idea of raising the debt ceiling that month.

    You know my basic plan: huge cuts in defense and a return to reasonable tax rates on the wealthy. That would mean goodbye to the deficit in time.
    Who is proposing this? Although I may not like some of your targest over others, it would be better than nothing. Is any politician offering anything remotely similar? In short, does anyone give a damn?

    Edit: What does goodbye to the deficit in time mean? How many years?
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jan '11 00:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Who is proposing this? Although I may not like some of your targest over others, it would be better than nothing. Is any politician offering anything remotely similar? In short, does anyone give a damn?

    Edit: What does goodbye to the deficit in time mean? How many years?
    I'm not going to answer your interrogation until you propose that trillion dollars in spending cuts and/or tax increases that we will make raising the debt ceiling unnecessary. Since you're opposed to raising the debt ceiling, I want YOUR proposal.

    EDIT: As for "who is proposing this" check out the Green Party platform, p. 70:

    5. To help compensate for our nation’s neglect, we
    support tax increases on mega-corporate and
    wealthy interests, defense budget reductions, and
    entitlement reductions for those who can most
    afford reductions. Entitlement spending is over
    one-half of the federal budget. One way to reduce
    entitlement costs substantially is by means
    testing, which is scaling back payments to the six
    million citizens in families with incomes over
    $50,000 annually.

    http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf
  13. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    08 Jan '11 01:17
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    ...and a return to reasonable tax rates on the wealthy.
    Whoah, never thought I'd see it D wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, that which is true and correct wins in the end.

    Encouraging stuff.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jan '11 01:40
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Whoah, never thought I'd see it D wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, that which is true and correct wins in the end.

    Encouraging stuff.
    Sure, I might even accept rates like Reagan proposed and had enacted in 1982 as long as capital gains and dividends were taxed at the same rate. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

    It would also be a good idea to tax inheritances as income (which they are).
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Jan '11 01:45
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    A drop in the bucket. Ending US participation in the wars and cutting defense spending in half would probably save close to $500 billion. Then get revenues back in line and we're all set.