U.S. debt ceiling

[Pastor Matt]

Tomorrow is Aug 2nd. What should the United States do?

[Covenanter]

I can't speak for the vote BUT there is a lot of unnecessary expenditure on keeping the rich rich, converting food into fuel, fighting & financing wars without a clear objective or end point.

If the poor are allowed home, food & clothing & a modest income, they help sustain the economy. The foreclosures create problems, poverty & resentment without benefits to the banks.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

[1John2:15-17]

I'm hearing on the radio that this is a bad deal, smoke and mirrors. The big problem is that the countries' credit rating will drop and we are headed to a situation similar to what Greece is experiencing.

[no name joe]

Not thrilled with the substance of the deal, but it was necessary. The U.S. could not afford not to raise it right now. I would have preferred the "Grand Bargain" that Boehner and Obama nearly had worked out several weeks ago that would have reduced the deficit over $4 trillion over the next decade. Unfortunately, the extremes of both parties kept that from happenning, so they had to settle on a much more modest deal. A step in the right direction, but more cuts and some revenue increases are necessary to fix the problem.

[John81]

Cutting waste, harmful regulations and eliminating unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies and programs would save more than enough money to cover expenses and pay down the debt.

A reevaluation of American defense priorities and goals, followed by implementation, would better serve America and save further money.

Some aspects could be modeled from Reagan, or if the Dems prefer, JFK, in creating a robust, growing economy in which jobs are created and people go to work.

The band-aid solution put forth now fails to serve the true needs of the present as well as neglecting the long term issues. Bad medicine will not help the severe financial disease America has.

[HappyChristian]

The debt ceiling doesn't need to be raised. Spending needs to be cut. The "deal" JB and BO were working on to cut $4trillion was laughable, based on the fact that while they would be "cutting," they would also be taxing...I can tell you quick how to cut $4 trillion: repeal Obamacare. Cut government salaries. Stop sending $480 billion/year to foreign nations. Defund Libya. Cut out non-Constitutional government departments. Stop funding things like the National Endowment for the Arts, etc. Lo and behold, there will actually be more than $4 trillion cut then!

Taxing the rich more is stupid. Claims that they need to pay their share are just smoke and mirrors, because they already pay a higher tax. The poor and the middle class are the ones who suffer when that kind of stuff happens, because it's THEIR jobs that are cut to balance higher tax rates.

Here's how the federal government can promote a job-growing economy: STAY OUT OF IT!!! Governmental interference is the quickest way to kill the economy (just look around...)

[Invicta]

The debt ceiling doesn't need to be raised. Spending needs to be cut. The "deal" JB and BO were working on to cut $4trillion was laughable, based on the fact that while they would be "cutting," they would also be taxing...I can tell you quick how to cut $4 trillion: repeal Obamacare. Cut government salaries. Stop sending $480 billion/year to foreign nations. Defund Libya. Cut out non-Constitutional government departments. Stop funding things like the National Endowment for the Arts, etc. Lo and behold, there will actually be more than $4 trillion cut then!

Taxing the rich more is stupid. Claims that they need to pay their share are just smoke and mirrors, because they already pay a higher tax. The poor and the middle class are the ones who suffer when that kind of stuff happens, because it's THEIR jobs that are cut to balance higher tax rates.

Here's how the federal government can promote a job-growing economy: STAY OUT OF IT!!! Governmental interference is the quickest way to kill the economy (just look around...)

And get rid of NASA. The German rocket program impoverished Europe at the end of WW2. The USSR's space programme impoverished their people. NASA has done the same for the USA. Edited August 2, 2011 by Invicta

[HappyChristian]

And get rid of NASA. The German rocket program impoverished Europe at the end of WW2. The USSR's space programme impoverished their people. NASA has done the same for the USA.

That's in the works...

[farouk]

And get rid of NASA. The German rocket program impoverished Europe at the end of WW2. The USSR's space programme impoverished their people. NASA has done the same for the USA.

It's 'okay'; apparently US astronauts have to hitch a lift with the cosmonauts now. (Whether this is a good idea or not, I'm not qualified to say...)

[farouk]

Cutting waste, harmful regulations and eliminating unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies and programs would save more than enough money to cover expenses and pay down the debt.

A reevaluation of American defense priorities and goals, followed by implementation, would better serve America and save further money.

Some aspects could be modeled from Reagan, or if the Dems prefer, JFK, in creating a robust, growing economy in which jobs are created and people go to work.

The band-aid solution put forth now fails to serve the true needs of the present as well as neglecting the long term issues. Bad medicine will not help the severe financial disease America has.

Reagan created a huge budget deficit (in opposition to Republican ideology). JFK cut taxes after Eisenhower's Republican Administration left office (which sits oddly with the idealized view of JFK that Democrats have).

If they wanted to, Republicans wanting to sound 'moderate' can say they are copying JFK, and Democrats wanting a 'moderation' version of their own can say they are copying Reagan.

[John81]

Reagan created a huge budget deficit (in opposition to Republican ideology). JFK cut taxes after Eisenhower's Republican Administration left office (which sits oddly with the idealized view of JFK that Democrats have).

If they wanted to, Republicans wanting to sound 'moderate' can say they are copying JFK, and Democrats wanting a 'moderation' version of their own can say they are copying Reagan.

If you check the facts you will see the increase in deficit was due to the Dem controlled congress failing to pass the budget cuts Reagan proposed. Even so, the Reagan tax cuts, just as the JFK tax cuts (and others prior to that), brought about a revived economy and job growth.

[farouk]

If you check the facts you will see the increase in deficit was due to the Dem controlled congress failing to pass the budget cuts Reagan proposed. Even so, the Reagan tax cuts, just as the JFK tax cuts (and others prior to that), brought about a revived economy and job growth.

Never mind; President Clinton kindly fixed the budget deficit.

Seems to me that budget deficits are what Republicans blame Democrats for, but don't credit them for if Dems fix them.

(Just as bail-outs are what Republicans blame Dems for if the Obama Administration did them, but congratulate the Bush Administration for.)

But what do I know? I'm politically unsophisticated.... Edited August 5, 2011 by farouk

[John81]

Never mind; President Clinton kindly fixed the budget deficit.

Seems to me that budget deficits are what Republicans blame Democrats for, but don't credit them for if Dems fix them.

(Just as bail-outs are what Republicans blame Dems for if the Obama Administration did them, but congratulate the Bush Administration for.)

But what do I know? I'm politically unsophisticated....

You really are out of touch with American government aren't you? Clinton didn't fix the budget problem. The only good thing that happened economically with regards to Clinton was that Repubs in congress didn't allow him to push his irresponsible budgets and without that the economy was left to grow.

[HappyChristian]

If a serious check on American budgetry were done, it would show that, when Dems are in the White House with a GOP controlled Congress, the deficit is "fixed." When the GOP is in the White House with a Dem controlled Congress, the deficit tanks.

Clinton, as John noted, had a GOP Congress which put controls on spending. Dubya had a Dem controlled Congress his last two years - in which BO sat (and castigated about raising the debt ceiling as a sign of lack of leadership...double-minded, anyone?). BO, Frank and a few others were the ones behind the junk that caused Fannie and Freddie to tank, leading up to the debacle called bailout.

And I don't know anyone who opposed TARP via BO who supported any kind of bailout by Dubya.

[farouk]

You really are out of touch with American government aren't you? Clinton didn't fix the budget problem. The only good thing that happened economically with regards to Clinton was that Repubs in congress didn't allow him to push his irresponsible budgets and without that the economy was left to grow.

It's interesting that President Clinton came to office because he came across as a different sort of Democrat who would be fiscally more conservative and not be identified with 'tax and spend'. In this sense, his economic ideas and reputation in 1992 resonated more deeply with Americans than those of President Bush Senior, who despite military success in the Gulf region, did not manage to connect with the electorate.