It's official: Hillary vs. Trump

[fyo]

Forcing a balanced budget isn't necessarily a good idea. Aside from the arguments made by others above, there are plenty of other reasons. Primarily, it limits a governments options when dealing with an economic downturn. If unemployment is high, tax income is (usually) down, but the government has a lot of expenses that can be moved around. Particularly, moving up things like road maintenance can decrease unemployment, reduce expenditures on unemployment benefits, get the maintenance done cheaper (since unemployment is high), saving a ton of money in the long run. The government needs more flexibility, not less.

That doesn't make running a huge deficit a good thing, of course, particularly when the economy is doing well.

[Spider-Dan]

They are not all obligations. Plenty of it is willful overspending. Pay our obligations and eliminate the fluff.

ALL of the spending that requires the debt ceiling to be raised are obligations.  The best case scenario is to choose which debts to default on, and defaulting on ANY of them would devastate the value of the dollar... especially since a debt default specifically means that the U.S. has decided that it is simply unwilling to pay its debt (as the U.S. is always able to pay any debt issued in USD, by definition).

I know fact checking isn't allowed, but let's try the known commie rag Wall Street Journal as a source this time:

Does raising the debt ceiling approve new spending?

Raising the debt ceiling allows Congress to pay for things that it has already decided to spend money on. Around one-third of federal spending is discretionary, for which Congress approves annual spending bills with specific instructions about how to spend the money. The other two-thirds is mandatory, meaning money is spent on certain programs established by existing law, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The debt ceiling has become a difficult vote for lawmakers because it’s viewed as one way to force fiscal restraint. If your bank doesn’t increase your credit card limit, the thinking goes, you’re going to have to cut back on spending.

Many economists and investors say that’s a flawed analogy because Congress has already voted to approve the spending. In that sense, refusing to raise the debt limit is a bit like dining and dashing at a restaurant. Congress knew the bill was coming when it ordered the meal. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like running out of the restaurant before paying the check.

[pondwater]

ALL of the spending that requires the debt ceiling to be raised are obligations.  The best case scenario is to choose which debts to default on, and defaulting on ANY of them would devastate the value of the dollar... especially since a debt default specifically means that the U.S. has decided that it is simply unwilling to pay its debt (as the U.S. is always able to pay any debt issued in USD, by definition).

I know fact checking isn't allowed, but let's try the known commie rag Wall Street Journal as a source this time:

Does raising the debt ceiling approve new spending?

Raising the debt ceiling allows Congress to pay for things that it has already decided to spend money on. Around one-third of federal spending is discretionary, for which Congress approves annual spending bills with specific instructions about how to spend the money. The other two-thirds is mandatory, meaning money is spent on certain programs established by existing law, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The debt ceiling has become a difficult vote for lawmakers because it’s viewed as one way to force fiscal restraint. If your bank doesn’t increase your credit card limit, the thinking goes, you’re going to have to cut back on spending.

Many economists and investors say that’s a flawed analogy because Congress has already voted to approve the spending. In that sense, refusing to raise the debt limit is a bit like dining and dashing at a restaurant. Congress knew the bill was coming when it ordered the meal. Refusing to raise the debt limit is like running out of the restaurant before paying the check.

You just proved my point. 1/3 of the money spent is discretionary. Which means, aside from what's been approved in the past, if there is a balanced budget mandate they won't have the option to spend all of that discretionary money. moving forward that fluff money wouldn't be approved. You people seem to think that the government can just keep spending at will and there will be no repercussions. I guarantee that when this whole ponzi scheme collapses that you nutty liberals and the media will find a way to blame it on Bush, LMFAO

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, things like paying defense contractors for goods and services they have already provided are "discretionary."

A "balanced budget mandate" has nothing to do with it; we are talking about spending that has already been legislated.  The idea that it is somehow more fiscally responsible to pass legislation that calls for spending and then refuse to pay the bill that arrives at the end is total nonsense.

To use your analogy again, refusing to raise the debt limit is like balancing your budget by keeping the same house, car, cable TV, cell phone, internet, etc. and then saying, "Well, if I just stop paying my bills then the rest of these issues will sort themselves out."

[pondwater]

A "balanced budget mandate" has nothing to do with it;

That's what I've been talking about for 2 pages. If you have a balanced budget or evan a surplus, you wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling because the spending going forward would have to fall within that mandated balanced budget. I have a feeling you already know this, but you have issues of some kind and have to argue with everyone about everything.

Lets see if you can follow. Balanced budget amendment = a balanced budget = not spending more than you can afford to spend = not adding debt = not having to raise the debt ceiling. Jesus Christ, it's simple math.

[Spider-Dan]

Then pass a balanced budget amendment, or pass new legislation in Congress to reduce the spending.

But don't instantly torpedo the value of the dollar (and the U.S. credit rating) by refusing to pay the bills for things Congress has already committed to.  The point of balancing the budget is supposed to be protecting the value of the dollar (otherwise, there is literally no reason to care about the national debt), but an intentional debt default would do far more to undermine the value of the dollar than any amount of money we could print for decades.

[masterfins]

That's what I've been talking about for 2 pages. If you have a balanced budget or evan a surplus, you wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling because the spending going forward would have to fall within that mandated balanced budget. I have a feeling you already know this, but you have issues of some kind and have to argue with everyone about everything.

Lets see if you can follow. Balanced budget amendment = a balanced budget = not spending more than you can afford to spend = not adding debt = not having to raise the debt ceiling. Jesus Christ, it's simple math.

It's easy to say have a balanced budget, but as Spider said there are certain mandated expenses (S.S., interest on existing debt, gov't employee pensions, wages, military, etc. etc.).  Sure you could cut some programs, but there are times when the economy is so bad that the government has to spend to fuel the economy; so if there was a balanced budget law then the only way to balance it would be to raise taxes.

[pondwater]

It's easy to say have a balanced budget, but as Spider said there are certain mandated expenses (S.S., interest on existing debt, gov't employee pensions, wages, military, etc. etc.).  Sure you could cut some programs, but there are times when the economy is so bad that the government has to spend to fuel the economy; so if there was a balanced budget law then the only way to balance it would be to raise taxes.

No, the government propping up the economy is the problem in the first place. The economy we have today is fake, meaning it can't support itself. In order to fix this mess that the past 50 years of administrations have created, the country would have to suffer to an extent. Not suffer to the point of not eating or going without shoes. But suffer as far as losing this "I want it now" feeling of entitlement. Even if we did that, we would still have the best standard of living on earth. We are hooked on artificially low interest rates, debt, and cheap money created out of thin air. Just like a heroin junkie, remove the junk and suffer through the withdrawls. Sadly, I feel it's past the point of no return since most people have the "I want it now" lifestyle but don't have jack shit to back it up.

[masterfins]

No, the government propping up the economy is the problem in the first place. The economy we have today is fake, meaning it can't support itself. In order to fix this mess that the past 50 years of administrations have created, the country would have to suffer to an extent. Not suffer to the point of not eating or going without shoes. But suffer as far as losing this "I want it now" feeling of entitlement. Even if we did that, we would still have the best standard of living on earth. We are hooked on artificially low interest rates, debt, and cheap money created out of thin air. Just like a heroin junkie, remove the junk and suffer through the withdrawls. Sadly, I feel it's past the point of no return since most people have the "I want it now" lifestyle but don't have jack shit to back it up.

I agree with most of what you are saying here, probably not to the painful extent you do, but I agree.  Interest rates need to go up, in the long run this will help.  IMO the problem is that so many people now are invested in the stock market that no one wants to see it dip, and with a rise in interest rates the market will go down.  It will go back up, but the politicians don't want to deal with the headaches it creates, or the impact on their legacies.  However a balance budget amendment isn't needed to solve this problem.