Random questions on the coming debt ceiling.......

Why should it be raised? Of what benefit to the general welfare of the union is it to continue to allow the federated government to dig all of the citizens in the states further into the hole of perpetual debt?

Would we truly default on our interest obligations? What would be the consequence of forcing the general government into a situation where it must choose what to fund and what to abandon when it can spend nothing more than it receives in revenue? Do we need an amendment to our compact; or simply the unified will to say ENOUGH!

Are we as a nation willing to bear the burden of the results of such an action as a means to put an end to the obscene actions of the general government? Are we willing to make sure our retired parents are cared for? Are we willing to band together to take care of each other? Are we prepared to donate food, clothing and other necessities to those in our state, and our sister states, who are in need of our help? Are we prepared to stop telling ourselves that we pay taxes to provide this charity to our fellow citizen?

Would it tear us apart, or unite us? Is it the best, or the worst, way to force an end to the immoral practice of incurring a debt that we have absolutely no intention of even attempting to repay within the span of our lives?

I wonder.............

What is the point of a "debt ceiling"? Seems like a convenient opportunity for the opposition party to complain. Just another phony issue. Voting every year and turning it into a circus seems stupid. Bush raised it , Dems made phony whines, Repubs turn? Political B.S.

JMC:

What you say may be true, but at what point do we say, enough is enough?

The debt ceiling should be called what it really is. The spending ceiling.

jmc wrote: What is the point of a "debt ceiling"? Seems like a convenient opportunity for the opposition party to complain. Just another phony issue. Voting every year and turning it into a circus seems stupid. Bush raised it , Dems made phony whines, Repubs turn? Political B.S.

The theoretical point of having it is to prevent an unbridled ability to tax and spend on whatever the general government fancies. The theoretical point is to deny the government the ability to encumber us with a debt that has the effect of rendering us subjects instead of citizens.

The problem with the theory, of course, is that it relies on a foundation that the representatives we send to the national Congress are truly our representatives in the federated Congress instead of the representatives of the federated Congress to our state.

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote: What is the point of a "debt ceiling"? Seems like a convenient opportunity for the opposition party to complain. Just another phony issue. Voting every year and turning it into a circus seems stupid. Bush raised it , Dems made phony whines, Repubs turn? Political B.S.

The theoretical point of having it is to prevent an unbridled ability to tax and spend on whatever the general government fancies. The theoretical point is to deny the government the ability to encumber us with a debt that has the effect of rendering us subjects instead of citizens.

The problem with the theory, of course, is that it relies on a foundation that the representatives we send to the national Congress are truly our representatives in the federated Congress instead of the representatives of the federated Congress to our state.

All said you know the "debt ceiling" is political BS right?

I'd like to see you expand on why you think that is the case. In practice it has proved to be, to borrow a recent metaphor, nothing more than the shifting of goalposts, and if that is what you are saying I would agree with you.

However, it does raise the question of why should the goalpost be shifted this time around?

The problem with our debt is that it's not a very big campaign issue..not in the slightest. I would be willing to bet that at least half the country has no idea what the debt means or why they should even care about it. So if a candidate wants to run on lowering our debt, half the people instantly fall asleeep waiting form him/her to say "I'm going to lower your taxes" or " I'm going to get you free health care".

I think way too many people just 'trust' that the relatively few people in charge of our future know what they're doing. So if we keep running up our debt, why should people wake up and worry about it, especially since most of the media just seems to ignore it? After all, if the evening news doesn't call it an emergency, it must not be one...right?

This can not go on forever, and only a minority of the population is aware of it. Unless the time comes when politicians can convince the sleeping public that it is a problem, it will continue to be passed down to the next administration. And when we have idiots in high office telling the people that you have to spend money to get out of a recession, we really have little hope of ever getting back into the black (oops, was that racist?)

It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, "never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith." On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution.

Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

PrintSmith wrote: I'd like to see you expand on why you think that is the case. In practice it has proved to be, to borrow a recent metaphor, nothing more than the shifting of goalposts, and if that is what you are saying I would agree with you.

However, it does raise the question of why should the goalpost be shifted this time around?

It is political not practical. Obama voted against raising it when he was a senator, just more political nonsense with no real meaning. Power wants it raised regardless of party, the Rebubs turn, just BS. Does anyone think this a serious issue? Posturing at it's worst and both sides have done it. Playing chicken to make cheap political points is reckless. Default or play games and watch interest rates go up and stocks go down. Great idea.