Poll: Should the government raise the debt ceiling?

[Toe Jam]

Our debt will reach critical mass on Monday.

Should the debt ceiling be raised? How should we go about it?

[PokerPacker]

I just thought those voting cake should recall that it is a lie.

[Springfield]

The way I understand it, if we don't raise the debt ceiling then the economy goes back in the tank. If we don't raise the debt ceiling then we must either raise taxes or cut our budget.

It seems we have three options:

1. Raise the debt ceiling.

2. Raise taxes.

3. Cut our budget.

I'd love to know what someone with an actual economic knowledge base thinks. I'm just repeating what I've heard. Seems like none of the above options will actually happen.

[SnyderShrugged]

No absolutely not

[PeterMP]

Do we really have a choice?

If we don't, doesn't the federal government pretty much shut down in the next few weeks or months?

Isn't the real question, just how much to raise it?

[Larry]

I'm gonna pull a zoony, here.

Show me a person voting "No", and I'll show you a person who wants the US economy to collapse. (I will further assert that the only possible reason for wanting this, is the belief that it will benefit one political party.)

Everybody knows that it has to be raised. The alternative is a national disaster.

The only question is now much political posturing and theatrics will be involved, and how much additional damage will the theatrics cost?

[twa]

Maybe we need a disaster to straighten things out?

We of course will raise it and continue the farce.

[deejaydana]

I'm gonna pull a zoony, here.

Show me a person voting "No", and I'll show you a person who wants the US economy to collapse. (I will further assert that the only possible reason for wanting this, is the belief that it will benefit one political party.)

Everybody knows that it has to be raised. The alternative is a national disaster.

The only question is now much political posturing and theatrics will be involved, and how much additional damage will the theatrics cost?

Fitting that you inserted "theatrics" into this post :pfft:

[Maxima2000]

It really is obvious that you need to raise the debt limit, or to put it bluntly, the government will not be able to finance itself BY LAW. I don't see how anyone could possibly be against this.

Also, anyone else notice how there are a lot of "mystery voters" that aren't actually posting why they are against raising the debt ceiling?

[Skins24]

I'm gonna pull a zoony, here.

Show me a person voting "No", and I'll show you a person who wants the US economy to collapse. (I will further assert that the only possible reason for wanting this, is the belief that it will benefit one political party.)

Everybody knows that it has to be raised. The alternative is a national disaster.

The only question is now much political posturing and theatrics will be involved, and how much additional damage will the theatrics cost?

The question is SHOULD we raise it. No we shouldn't.

Unfortunately, in order to avert disaster, we have to.

[Larry]

Fitting that you inserted "theatrics" into this post :pfft:

I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain.

[Metalhead]

No, I suppose. I don't understand the situation though. By raising the ceiling don't we go further into debt? Where and when do we draw the line?

[twa]

There is no line other than the debt ceiling ....which keeps moving

[Madison Redskin]

Yes, but it should be coupled with major reforms regarding entitlement spending.

---------- Post added May-12th-2011 at 07:04 PM ----------

No, I suppose. I don't understand the situation though. By raising the ceiling don't we go further into debt? Where and when do we draw the line?

Yes, we will go further into debt. However, the alternatives are even worse. If we don't raise the debt limit, there's a good chance we'd end up defaulting on our debt service obligations. If we default, the cost to borrow in the future would skyrocket. Why does that matter? Because roughly 40% of our expenditures go towards our debt service obligations and we're going to need to keep borrowing for the foreseeable future.

[Larry]

. . . roughly 40% of our expenditures go towards our debt service obligations. . .

You got anything even remotely close to backing that up?

Numbers I'm looking at, 40% of our expenditures is more than Defense and Welfare combined. It's almost more than Defense and health care combined.

[Madison Redskin]

You got anything even remotely close to backing that up?

Numbers I'm looking at, 40% of our expenditures is more than Defense and Welfare combined. It's almost more than Defense and health care combined.

Sorry, brain fart. It's been a long day. I meant to say we borrow 40% of the money we spend.

[Darth Tater]

I'm gonna pull a zoony, here.

Show me a person voting "No", and I'll show you a person who wants the US economy to collapse. (I will further assert that the only possible reason for wanting this, is the belief that it will benefit one political party.)

Everybody knows that it has to be raised. The alternative is a national disaster.

The only question is now much political posturing and theatrics will be involved, and how much additional damage will the theatrics cost?

Actually, pretty much the opposite. Anybody who wants to raise the debt ceiling is the person who wants the national economy to go to hell.

[Madison Redskin]

Actually, pretty much the opposite. Anybody who wants to raise the debt ceiling is the person who wants the national economy to go to hell.

Do you think we should default? If not, where are you going to find the cash to make up for the shortfall?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Senator Obama in 2006 felt we didn't need to

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

Senator Barack Obama

Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt

March 16, 2006

Of course thats when he wasn't in charge

Now though

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/president-barack-obama-exclusive-concedes-senate-vote-against-raising-debt-limit-political.html

Obama Exclusive: Concedes Senate Vote

George Stephanopoulos: You’ve got to extend the debt limit by May. And it seems like you made up the job-- your job is a lot tougher because of your vote in the Senate against extending the debt limit…When did you realize that vote was a mistake?

President Obama: I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a Senator versus the vantage point of a…President. When you’re a Senator, traditionally what’s happened is this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars… As President, you start realizing, "You know what? We-- we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States." And so that was just a example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.

I wonder if President Marco Rubio will say the same in 2020 :whoknows:

[DRSmith]

Of course thats when he wasn't in charge

Of course he said the vote was political but to be honest back then the debt did not need to be added to by starting a war in Iraq and cutting revenues both of which created the need for more borrowing

[SkinsHokieFan]

Of course he said the vote was political but to be honest back then the debt did not need to be added to by starting a war in Iraq and cutting revenues both of which created the need for more borrowing

Huh? It was 2006, not 2002.

The debt hasn't needed to be added this year with the stimulus and a Democrat Congress keeping the Bush era taxes in place

[DRSmith]

Huh? It was 2006, not 2002.

The debt hasn't needed to be added this year with the stimulus and a Democrat Congress keeping the Bush era taxes in place

You mean the tax cuts that were expiring that the Republicans had a hissy fit over?

As for stimilus almost every nation on Earth had to do something to help their economies after the Wall Street crap

[SkinsHokieFan]

You mean the tax cuts that were expiring that the Republicans had a hissy fit over?

As for stimilus almost every nation on Earth had to do something to help their economies after the Wall Street crap

60 D Senators. Mega majority in the House. The Presidency.

Every bill passed and signed into law from 2009-2010 was the responsibility of one party.

And certainly if its good enough for Senator Obama to make a "political" vote in 2006, it is good enough for Senator Rubio, DeMint, or Brown to do the same in 2011 without serious concessions on future spending.

[DRSmith]

60 D Senators. Mega majority in the House. The Presidency.

Every bill passed and signed into law from 2009-2010 was the responsibility of one party.

And certainly if its good enough for Senator Obama to make a "political" vote in 2006, it is good enough for Senator Rubio, DeMint, or Brown to do the same in 2011 without serious concessions on future spending.

Really no one wouls fillabuster things?

You think health care would have passed so much easier if what you said were true

[SkinsHokieFan]

Really no one wouls fillabuster things?

You think health care would have passed so much easier if what you said were true

To quote Senator Obama in 2006

"failure of leadership"