Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The debt limit is totally meaningless.
1) If Congress commits to spending money, that commitment has been made regardless of some arbitrary debt ceiling.
2) The movement of actual debt based on spending commitments is not restrained by arbitrary debt ceilings or borrowing caps.
3) Is there any person on this planet that seriously believes that the US will actually default on debt or not pay social security benefits or not pay the military?
4) The President is Constitutionally obligated to pay the nation's obligations.
Given the above the whole debt ceiling issue is theater. The real fight is not the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is being used by both sides to press a political agenda. Yes, democrats and Obama have a political agenda. And yes they are as inflexible up to this point as Republicans.
|
If the debt limit were totally meaningless, why don't they just drop the issue? What's with all the emergency meetings and talk of default and economic disaster?
I know what you think of the debt ceiling. But it's there. It can't be meaningless because it's there. If they don't raise it, they either default or break the law.
Maybe that's what Republicans really want: a lose-lose situation for Obama: break the law or violate the Constitution.
Classy.
Quote:
|
Why is what I presented preposterous but singling out people who own a successful business is not? Seems to me it is simply a matter of perspective.
|
First, the cat tax thing isn't an issue. Is it in the budget? Is it an idea put forth by members of Congress? Are they talking about purple glitter paint as well?
Why won't you comment on my purple glitter paint?
Second, what are you referring to exactly when you mentioned singling out people who own a successful business? Are you referring to something I posted earlier? Could you point this out to me?
Quote:
|
The real issue is spending not tax rates.
|
So why are the Republicans adamantly against the tax changes when the spending cuts are where they're supposed to be? What's so wrong with closing loopholes, etc., if it will help make cutting spending that much easier? Are you a proponent of loopholes?
Quote:
|
In my view they don't have to be. Obama is the one who wants to use the tax code for things like redistribution, social engineering, and punishing certain types of behavior. Taxes should be reflective of the real costs to society, nothing more and nothing less in my view.
|
I suppose it's a matter of whether you are more willing to accept these things over, say, class warfare, plutocracy, and continued Republican-supported corporate welfare and nanny statism. What's the lesser of two "evils"? Maybe the one that costs more money whether through spending or lost revenue.
Who has historically been better at reducing deficits? Republicans? Democrats? Who should we be listening to?
The Republicans are strong-arming their wants and are unwilling to compromise. Obama has compromised to the point of alienating much of his own party, and yet it still isn't enough even though the cuts have gone beyond what Republicans wanted at first.
Tax reform isn't a communist tactic.