• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tell Congress NOT to lift the Federal debt ceiling

shanek

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
15,990
Geez...Our Federal debt is already $7.5 trillion, and the "fiscally responsible" "small government" "conservative" Republicans who have control of Congress want to vote to make it even bigger!

Enough is enough. This borrow-and-spend Congress is sending us spiralling into perpetual debt. The interest on the national debt is becoming a larger and larger portion of the Federal budget. Government is robbing businesses of capital which could be used to revive the economy and create higher-paying jobs. And they're sacrificing our future to satisfy their spending habits today.

Fortunately, DownsizeDC.org gives us a very good way to speak out to our representatives. If you don't think that Congress should raise the debt ceiling yet again, it's very easy to voice your opinion by going to this page:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=13

You don't have to create a user to send the message, although it does make it easier if you want to go back and send messages on other topics.
 
I wonder if anyone on the capital hill has realized that the relative "low" interest payments we are doing today are only temporary. That when rates go up to combat inflation, so will the cost of the debt!

Unfortunately I haven't seen this consideration in any of the budget projections..
 
Don't you know that the increasing debt is GOOD for the economy? We'll have no problem paying it off when we lower taxes to nothing and the ecomony explodes as a result. Haven't you been listening to the President? Why pay now when it'll get paid off later by MAGIC!
 
corplinx said:
I sympathize with the sentiment, but pragmatically its not feasible.
Click to expand...

What's not feasible? Spending responsibly within one's means?
 
shanek said:
What's not feasible? Spending responsibly within one's means?
Click to expand...
Is this really shane I see supporting regulation to force people to act "responsibly"???
 
shanek said:
What's not feasible? Spending responsibly within one's means?
Click to expand...

Serious military cutbacks are need to balance the budget. Might want to axe medicare too while we are at it. Also, a few hidden tax increases would help.

There is a non-pragmatic way to fix the problem. Its a radical way to change way. There are even more radical ways to do it but I posted the simplest way.

As I said, getting such radical changes through congress, the senate, and the pres is what our constitution is designed to prevent. The senate was designed for inaction.

Yes, we all want the deficit to go away but it isn't going to happen the Michael Badnarik way, even if he were president.
 
corplinx said:
Serious military cutbacks are need to balance the budget.
Click to expand...
Right, and we can't do that. Uncle Sam needs to spend the money to close the bunker busting nukes gap we have with.... wait, the USSR is gone and most other nuclear nations we're hostile with only have beginning stages nuclear weapons.

Why are we spending money on bunker busting nukes again? Or a missle defence system, for that matter?
 
Upchurch said:
Right, and we can't do that. Uncle Sam needs to spend the money to close the bunker busting nukes gap we have with.... wait, the USSR is gone and most other nuclear nations we're hostile with only have beginning stages nuclear weapons.

Why are we spending money on bunker busting nukes again? Or a missle defence system, for that matter?
Click to expand...

You should start a separate thread on this. I'd love to hear the debate. (Right now I'm 90% FOR BBN's and SDI)
 
Rob Lister said:
You should start a separate thread on this. I'd love to hear the debate. (Right now I'm 90% FOR BBN's and SDI)
Click to expand...
I would too. but my point, which I got side tracked from, was that cutting the defence budget is not a rediculous idea.
 
The Fool said:
Is this really shane I see supporting regulation to force people to act "responsibly"???
Click to expand...

To force GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to act responsibly.
 
corplinx said:
Serious military cutbacks are need to balance the budget.
Click to expand...

I have two responses to this:

1) NONSENSE. We could cut the rest of the government down to only what is allowed by the Constitution, keep the military the size that it is, end the Income Tax and replace it with nothing, and still have a nice hefty surplus remaining.

2) Since our military is in over 100 countries where it has no business being in the first place, we could cut back our military without affecting national defense. In fact, such a military woult be much better at national defense since it wouldn't spend so much time on international offense.

As I said, getting such radical changes through congress, the senate, and the pres is what our constitution is designed to prevent.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

And our Constitution is designed to prevent just this sort of extravagent budget, personal intrusions into our liberties, mighty military, and extensive debt.
 
Upchurch said:
I would too. but my point, which I got side tracked from, was that cutting the defence budget is not a rediculous idea.
Click to expand...

It is if you spell it like that! :)

It isn't the defense budget that needs cutting. It's the budget in general. Could well be that increasing defense spending would result in greater revenue. Could well not-be too.
 
Rob Lister said:
It is if you spell it like that! :)
Click to expand...
Stupid school computers with their stupid not-having ieSpell. :p

Yeah, I am aware that cuts really need to be made across the board in order to balance the budget. The three biggest chunks of our budget goes to the DoD, Health and Human Services, and paying off our debt. Obviously, cutting back on the third one doesn't do much to help pay off the debt and I know almost nothing about the subtlties second one, so I focused on the first. It's not that I value the DoD any more or less over the others.
 
shanek said:
To force GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to act responsibly.
Click to expand...
but shouldn't free market forces take care of this? Government officials, sorry, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that are not acting responsible will be out performed by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS that do act responsibly and be removed by natural forces, why are you supporting the use of evil gubment regulation?
 
The Fool said:
but shouldn't free market forces take care of this?
Click to expand...

Free market forces work because of competition (or the possibility thereof) and because of the option of people to do without the service if they so choose. Neither exists with government. Market forces just don't work here.
 
shanek said:
Geez...Our Federal debt is already $7.5 trillion, and the "fiscally responsible" "small government" "conservative" Republicans who have control of Congress want to vote to make it even bigger!

Enough is enough. This borrow-and-spend Congress is sending us spiralling into perpetual debt. The interest on the national debt is becoming a larger and larger portion of the Federal budget. Government is robbing businesses of capital which could be used to revive the economy and create higher-paying jobs. And they're sacrificing our future to satisfy their spending habits today.

Fortunately, DownsizeDC.org gives us a very good way to speak out to our representatives. If you don't think that Congress should raise the debt ceiling yet again, it's very easy to voice your opinion by going to this page:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=13

You don't have to create a user to send the message, although it does make it easier if you want to go back and send messages on other topics.
Click to expand...

Given your enthusiastic support for loony toons like Michael Badnarik and Jack "The Molestor" Stratton, I will pass on clicking any link you post, assuming it's just another loony group.
 
shanek said:
Free market forces work because of competition (or the possibility thereof) and because of the option of people to do without the service if they so choose. Neither exists with government. Market forces just don't work here.
Click to expand...
So you don't consider free elections a free market force that regulates politicians? You dn't consider election campagns competition? Why do you need gubment regulation to keep politicians "responsible" surely the naughty ones will be naturally culled by elections and competition from alternate political parties? Have you abandoned your principles because you have finally found a regulation you like?
 
The Fool said:
So you don't consider free elections a free market force that regulates politicians? You dn't consider election campagns competition? Why do you need gubment regulation to keep politicians "responsible" surely the naughty ones will be naturally culled by elections and competition from alternate political parties? Have you abandoned your principles because you have finally found a regulation you like?
Click to expand...

Well said. But now we have to hear shaneks high pitched whine about how unfair the world is and how the Demopublicans or whatever the hell he calls them are in a secret conspiracy with the Illuminati to keep his precious Libertarian Party off the ballot. What he won't tell you is that where the loony Libertarians did get on the ballot, they averaged ZERO percent of the vote!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom