Why cant we set the debt ceiling back to 10T and cut until we get there?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by endfedthe, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. samiam5211

    samiam5211 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the debt is 16 trillion, and we take in about 2.5 trillion a year. We would have to spend 0 for over 2 years to get to 10 trillion.
     
  2. cjm2003ca

    cjm2003ca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    3,648
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38


    thanks for the laugh..i have not read anything that bizarre and funny in years...now be serious and come up with something that makes sense
     
  3. goober

    goober New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    6,057
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I already put forward something that would work, you haven't.
    I'm not suggesting that what I proposed is politically feasible or even desirable, I just said what needs to be done to pay off the debt in a couple of decades.

    You could skip part of it, and still get back down to 10 trillion in a reasonable period, that's what the OP asked for.

    What would you propose?
     
  4. goober

    goober New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    6,057
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So cut everything, very workable, see if you can get Boehner and Cantor to have a presser on the idea...
     
  5. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yea, do you think about what kind of ramifications that would have on our economy? That would cut tens of thousands of government jobs, and flood the job market resulting in a skyrocketing unemployment, union contracts being broken, and most likely lead to riots and a near total collapse. I am with you on cutting spending, I think the government spends WAY too much, but setting the debt ceiling at 10T would cause the government to default on their loans that they already have, and absolutely destroy our country.

    A better solution is to cut the deficit down (slowly...say over 5-10 years) until we reach a surplus, and then use that money to pay down the debt. This would also have ramifications on the economy, but not nearly as drastic as simply setting the debt ceiling at 10T and cutting everything...
     
  6. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zero based budgeting might not be a bad idea, based on projected revenue income for the upcoming budget year. But that would only assist in reducing or eliminating deficit spending, while debt reduction requires reduction of the principal owed which is more than will be eliminated during the life of any of us now living, even if we were to start immediately.
     
  7. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is cheaper, government pay, or unemployment?

    What you have to worry the increased productivity when all the private sectors employees, who's job is to keep their employer in compliance with the BS those government employees dreamed up, can return to productive work.

    All this time the media has told us it was those terrorist in the Tea Party we had to worry about.

    You are saying union and government employees could riot?

    ROTFL.

    We are spending almost $1T in excess of income. Even spread out over 10 years, we would have to cut that $1T, and pay back $1.6T a year. Whats left doesn't even leave enough to pay SSI / Medicare / Medicaid and Disability.

    We are in way too deep, and every minute it gets worse.

    Cut spending now! If it ain't absolutely essential (meaning people will die) - kill it.

    You don't want to see what SH*T will hit the fan if we wait until we can't borrow any more.
     
  8. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    lol I think you misunderstood me. I completely agree that we need to cut spending, but the idea of simply "Cutting ALL government spending" is ridiculous and absurd. Yes, union members would riot. There are several million public sector unions who are under contracts. While I absolutely DESPISE public sector unions (especially the ones with monopolies in states without right to work laws), I am a realist, and understand how powerful unions are. Yes, they would probably riot if we simply cut their pay.

    I think my solution is much more realistic, as simply "Eliminating" $6T in debt is completely unrealistic. I agree that I don't want to see what SH*T will hit the fan, but the fact is, simply eliminating everything to get back to $10T in debt would cause much more SH*T to hit the fan much quicker.

    Also, I'm not really sure I understand your first paragraph about productivity? I agree that most government employees are EXTREMELY overpaid and overcompensated for what they do. They are also much less productive than private sector employees, but again, simply firing them is not the solution the the VERY big problem that we both agree on which is our government debt and deficit.
     
  9. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look at the outrage when we just want to slow the growth in spending, grandma was being thrown off the cliff. How much worse could it be if we really cut spending?

    Look at Detroit, unions are outraged because all the unions aren't "negotiating" together. I will chuckle when they drive themselves off the cliff.

    The ones I feel sorry for are those on retirement, and too old to work. The unions don't care if they bankrupt the city, how can I?

    The only cuts of substance occurred when the "unthinkable" sequester kicked in. Politicians are motivated to spend, not cut.

    I don't want a $10T debt, I want a surplus. There should be no "to big to fail", no corporate welfare, no farm "subsidies", no federal oversight of state activities (the Constitution wouldn't have passed if it included that crap).

    Increase the start age for SSI and Medicare 1 year, every 2 until the start age is 78. Anyone younger that can't work gets disability (and, we make sure they are really disabled).

    Replace welfare with government jobs that pay less than the same private sector job. Don't let anyone starve, but make a job really attractive.

    Government program are killed unless they can sustain themselves on what the private sector is willing to pay, voluntarily.

    Any company spends time on figuring out how to comply with government regulations as interpreted by government employees. Get rid of the government employees, the private sector employee has no one to answer to, so that time can be redirected to productive work.

    In addition, when government employees find work in the private sector, they become productive.

    You have two costs for government employees - the paycheck and the retirement package (income & medical care). Many of the local, state, and federal retirement plans are un/under funded. The retirement plans have grown in the last 15 years (the pay was too high to justify higher wages - better retirement isn't a cost today, so cost "can" kicked down the street). So retirement costs will be going up hugely, as will the debt....

    What this thread hasn't addressed is the money we pay to government regulated monopolies. Regulatory capture puts a lot of money in business / union / special interest hands, with a small portion buying off the politicians and the media. A positive feedback loop concentrating power that has to stop.
     

Share This Page