democrats name calling again...

[billc]

double post. Sorry.

 

[billc]

Don't worry, Obama and the democrats are doing there best to cut off the military. the Russians and chinese really appreciate their efforts. Our friends and allies, not so much.

While we are on the topic of the debt deal, why doesn't someone look up what exactly the tea party republicans wanted in exchange for the increase in the debt ceiling? What did they want that was so important that they would have set off their suicide vests if they didn't get it? What completely unreasonable requests did they make that were beyond the pale? Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[billc]

Here is the Cut cap and balance plan:

http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/

Wow, you read that and you can see how crazy these tea party guys are...NOT.

 

[billc]

I guess 2/3 rds of americans are terrorists:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...ricans-support-house-cut-cap-and-balance-plan

The poll in the article is from CNN.

 

[Empty Hands]

I guess what I'm trying to ask is how raising the debt ceiling "authorizes payment of spending that has already occurred", instead of authorizing more spending.

The debt ceiling is not a spending authorization. That occurs through the budget and appropriations process. It doesn't matter if the debt ceiling is eleventy billion trillion gazillion, not a single penny can be spent without a budget authorized by Congress. That is where the decision to spend or not spend occurs. That is why without a budget or a continuing resolution, the government shuts down - as it did in 1994. The debt ceiling and the budget are entirely separate.

You're saying that it's a specifically responsible decision that conservatives should be backing, instead of the decision to borrow even more which they would not. If I understand things correctly, anyway.

What I am trying to get across here is that the borrowing has already happened. The budgets were approved by Congress, which pushed us past the debt ceiling last December. The spending and appropriations had already occurred. That is why we're even using the word "default." For instance, in 1994 when the government shut down and there was no budget, there wasn't a default.

That is why the responsible decision is to raise the debt ceiling to pay for what has already been spent. The responsible point of time to slash spending is during the budget and appropriations process. Even a government shutdown is defensible, and I might disagree, but I could understand it. Default is completely and totally indefensible however, and grossly irresponsible. The decision to spend or not to spend should be made when you are pulling out your wallet, not when the credit card bill arrives in the mail.

 

[billc]

There was not going to be a default.

 

[MaxiMe]

MIght be off topic but it relates.

Name changeing.

Govmt doesn't produce a widget. So their income is a TAX. How do we now call it Revenue (both sides are doing it)?

 

[billc]

People don't like Taxes, so the politicians need something that fools people.

 

[jks9199]

No money can be appropriated except through the budget process (basically). Deciding to spend is done in the yearly budget. The debt ceiling is a separate total borrowing authority, but it makes no decisions upon what or if money will be spent. We could in theory have a debt ceiling of 500 trillion dollars and a national debt of 14 trillion dollars (what we have now). There is no causal connection. You could even have a national surplus and still have a high debt ceiling.

As I understand it, the debt ceiling is kind of like the credit limit on a credit card. You don't have to max the card out -- and we don't HAVE to max the debt ceiling out (in theory... practice has become something different.)