Wrapping up the economic implications of raising or not raising the debt ceiling in less than two minutes is all but impossible in my opinion, but why not at least try? Bankrupting America does just that in this video after the jump.
From BankruptingAmerica.org.
From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.
What we’re reading…
Loading ...
Spending is like crack to a politician, and no, despite their protestations, they can’t quit anytime they want to. And like any other drug, they need more and more to get the same high (reelected).
It is time for a serious trip to the economic equivalent of the Betty Ford clinic.
No question…….. it’s time for a spending intervention
I am all for cutting spending. However, that does not necessarily mean that borrowing will stop. Will the debt limit still have to go up? Do you know? How much do you have to cut to make a difference?
Interesting question. Perhaps Jim has an answer. I would argue though, that any spending cuts would be to the good, even if it still results in a debt ceiling increase.
The problem is that the debt ceiling is anything but when you can raise it practically at will.
“How much do you have to cut to make a difference?”
40%
Stop spending what you don’t, CAN’T get.
Speaker Boehner said today “Trillions“
How about we stop paying subsidies to the Oil companies that profited 45 Billion. Yes, 45 BILLION last year. So why do they need subsidies if they profit such an outrageous amount? Why are we paying $4.38 per gallon and paying subsidies to them on top of that. Seems like that would be a good place to start to cut spending.
Here is someone else that has labeled business expenses as some sort of government handout. Some pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money, so why don’t we just tell them they can only write off a portion of their research and development expenses. Heck, tell they can’t write any of it off … for the collective good.
For those of you who read my oil “subsidies” post and thought I was playing word games with subsidies and expenses, MiddleoftheRoad is a perfect example of someone who thinks we are “paying subsidies to them.”
Do your homework, then come back, middle.
From what I could find, the oil companies get about $4 billion in tax breaks annually. A mere drop in the bucket compared to a nearly $4 trillion budget for FY 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
If we’re looking to cut “subsidies” from the budget, perhaps the mortgage interest deduction should be the first on the chopping block. The president’s FY 2010 budget stated that in 2012 it will “cost” the government an estimated $131 billion. Not to mention the property tax deduction ($31 billion) and capital gains exemption ($50 billion).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/uploadedpdf/412099-mortgage-deduction-reform.pdf
At $212 billion, the homeowners’ “subsidies” sure dwarf the oil companies’ paltry $4 billion tax breaks. Don’t get me wrong, none of it is the government’s money. And I agree with Dims, a flat tax is a fair tax.
Oh. Gee., what was I thinking, it’s the GOP. Gas & Oil Party. Gotta protect thos big oil companies.
go to the oil subsidy post for your answers
Try something more substantive than baseless ad hominem attack, middle.
You are sounding like you ran off the road into the ditch. On the left side of the road.
As usual we get off the subject, point fingers and eventually get to insults. How about adult dialogues for a change.
We were doing fine until Middleoftheroad started in. Thank him/her.
Time to stop supporting foreign regimes with money.
Time to stop supporting the NEA, Planned Parenthood and public radio.
Time to stop any high speed rail that will need “assitance” to be profitable.
Time to stop supporting anything Congress does not have the authority to do.
All bills and laws should specify what article of the constitution give them the authority.
You would be surprised at how much money would stop flowing
There is no “ceiling” to the debt…more of an “open roof” policy.
Unlike the case with “Chicken Little” Gore and AGW, the sky actually will fall if they don’t rein in spending.