Posted on 01/10/2011 6:52:00 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The huge annual budget deficits Congress has been running are pushing Washington close to the debt limit again. With the debt near $14 trillion, the federal government is expected to hit the current limit of $14.3 trillion within the next few months. That leaves lawmakers no choice but to raise the statutory cap on borrowing; to do otherwise would eventually render the federal government unable to perform crucial functions, such as writing Social Security checks or paying off maturing bonds. The consequences would be devastating — just imagine how high an interest rate the United States would have to pay on its debts in the future, and how many tax dollars that would drain from useful programs and services.
Some members of Congress, however, consider the debt ceiling vote a chance to prove their bona fides as penny-pinchers. In 2006, then- Sen. Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling and bemoaned the "leadership failure" that had left the U.S. "unable to pay its own bills." Similarly, a growing number of Republicans now say they'll oppose lifting the ceiling unless discretionary spending is cut sharply and Social Security's fiscal problems are solved.
No matter who's doing it, it's dangerous and irresponsible to refuse to raise the debt limit.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
which is more irresponsible...
spending money we don’t have or giving permission to continue unquestioned....
out with them now.
teeman
Living above your means, as the Federal Government consistently does, and consistently funding things that are un-constitutional is Dishonor.
Once again the left attempts to change the real meaning of words.
It is the height of foolishness to raise the debt ceiling..the Fact is we should cut drastically right now and change the conversation from more debt, to reaching our goals by cutting the federal government.. I do not accept the need for more debt to keep us from default..shut down the federal government if need be and go bare bones..spend no more..!!!!
Somebody please 'splain to me what the word "limit" means.
If we can raise the debt limit at will by a majority vote—
—we don’t have a debt limit.
It would be more honest to pass a “law” that says the US can borrow as much as the rest of the world is willing to lend.
If they keep raising the ceiling, then what’s the point of having a ceiling in the first place?
Private sector lenders don’t raise the credit limit for someone who has maxed out their credit cards, they cut them off and raise their interest rate.
Guess what’s coming when China has had enough.
Well that settles things... cut the spending and do not raise the debt level.
LLS
Did someone pull spending cuts off the table?
Imagine:
A Federal Government that can’t run up the debt higher.
A Federal Government that can’t hire more “employees” that are simply padding the welfare rolls as Obama redistributes wealth through Federal payrolls.
A government that will be forced to allow drilling for oil IN THE US instead of sending $billions to the Middle Eastern terrorist countries.
A Government that will be forced to be fiscally responsible.
It sounds like a good idea to me, FREEZE the debt ceiling just like I have, AT ZERO.
Yep, we need to sell off federal assets and stop the spending of stimulus not used and send it back to our lenders..starve the beast!!!
Some thoughts:
1) There are a number of leading conservatives who are dead set against raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances, even if it means forcing a government shutdown similar to the one orchestrated by former speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, or risking default. Familiar faces such as those of Reps. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.) and Ron Paul (R., Texas) have been joined by a chorus of freshman members, many of whom explicitly campaigned against raising the debt limit.
I’m Not sure how another government shutdown will be taken by the public today. When it happened in 1995, most blamed the Republicans, not Clinton. And a government shutdown is HUGELY unpopular (even with a lot of FReepers supporting it).
2) There are those like Paul Ryan who want a pragmatic approach.
“You can’t not raise the debt ceiling,” said House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan during a forum at the National Press Club on Thursday.
“But we want to have real fiscal controls, real spending cuts to go with this.” Perennial fiscal hawk Rep. Jeff Flake agrees. “Any debt increase “has to be in tandem with spending cuts.” Sen. Tom Coburn, who has characteristically threatened to filibuster the vote, said he wanted $300 billion in agreed cuts before he’d back down. And the new House speaker, John Boehner, said in a statement Thursday that “the American people will not stand for” an increase to the debt limit “unless it is accompanied by meaningful action . . . to cut spending.”
3) Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) has suggested that comprehensive tax reform be included as part of a deal.
4) One idea that has started to catch on is a proposal by Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) to tie raising the debt ceiling to a balanced-budget amendment. Cornyn introduced such a bill in December, and it was unanimously approved by the Republican Conference.
Democrats have been doing their best to “frame the argument” by painting Republicans as economic extremists. Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, accused Republicans of “playing chicken” with the debt ceiling on ABC’s This Week. Failure to raise the limit, he said, would be “totally unprecedented” and have “catastrophic” consequences ( including this L.A. Times editorial).
I believe that the Republicans’ primary goal should be “winning the argument” on debt and spending. In other words, they should make the case to the public, and independent voters in particular, that Democratic policies are to blame for the country’s fiscal woes.
Repeal the HC bill save 520 billion dollars, and DO NOT RAISE the debt limit.
No matter who's doing it, it's dangerous and irresponsible to refuse to raise the debt limit.
I wonder if the LAT said the same thing in 2006 or castigated the Dems who voted against raising the debt limit. I seriously doubt it. The MSM has two standards, one for the Dems and the Left and one for the Reps. Now that Obama is in the WH, it is dangerous and irresponsible to refuse to raise the debt limit.
"Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste" (Anon) This is an admirable opportunity for 'The Government' whoever they are, to seize the moment and force the Bureaucracy to cut spending instantly. I have seen it done in business; all expenditures frozen and only essentials are permitted from this time forward. No expenses permitted - none. Do not tell me it cannot be done - it can - I have seen it done in business. Anything not legally contracted for is to be deferred or better yet, be canceled. No hiring, no outside contractors, no raises unless there is a legal obligation. All funds frozen with release permitted only against a sign-off three levels up. IT CAN BE DONE! Then the Debt Ceiling need not be raised.
This debt ceiling issue is primarily a tactical issue. Obviously conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility and Dims believe in big government leading to totalitarianism.
The Republicans will try to exact as many spending cuts as possible from the Dims, and then Dims will resist at every step. Then the “witching” hour will arrive and the Dims will believe that they have all the leverage and they will win the day by preventing cuts.
The best way to counter the Dims is to raise the debt ceiling by a very small amount (say one month or two of projected spending) so that the debate on excessive spending will essentially be continuous. The public will see that Republicans are being responsible by raising the debt ceiling to avoid default. The Dims can easily be pilloried for their profligate spending ways.
I bet over half those reporters have maxed out their credit cards then called the bank for an increase in their credit limit. That will show everybody how responsible they are in handling their finances.
I suggest the House pass legislation to raise the debt limit by one year. And attach amendments
If nothing else, it would be humorous to see how the Senate deals with this. Of course there would have to be a conference committee, more merriment.
And then the biggie: would nobama sign it?
Michele Bachman could get her hits in on the Dodd-Frank financial bill.
Turning this into a cost slashing opportunity could be loads of fun!
MSM, we're just following the lead of the President of the United States. What could be objectionable about that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.