Posted on 10/05/2013 12:47:50 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
Why are this Admin. and Dem politicians and the MSM continuing to say we HAVE to raise the debt ceiling or the US will default on its debt? AFAIK, that’s a big lie.
Raising the debt ceiling just allows the US to BORROW more money, like increasing the limit on a credit card, so they can increase the amount of debt.
There is now more tax revenue being collected than ever before. From what I’ve read at various sources, that revenue is sufficient to service the debt and fund the entitlements and necessary functions of the US. Thus, keeping the debt ceiling where it is will NOT lead to a default.
If I’m wrong in my assessment, I welcome correction.
Your assertions are more or less correct, except that you already know the answer to your rhetorical question.
The point is that the spending spree must continue - for it provides the path to power and fundamental transformation.
And, with all the new taxes kicking in with Orino Care, they should see a large increase in revenues.
Since there’s nothing being spent nor authorization to be spent, obviously there’s no pressing need to raise the debt limit. Thanks LucianOfSamasota.
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants... bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society. Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors. [but he’s not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
I didn’t know they passed a budget.
Well it is high time to put Rand Paul’s feet to the fire about exactly what does he MEAN by being libertarian.
Some folks have gotten into the “Libertarian” fold thinking that not only can they be laissez-faire, but that they can nanny a relaxed moral world view into government, not grasping the essential contradiction here. There’s no need to lock oneself into the sin of homo pseudo marriage. Even if a state or states do it, that shouldn’t lasso Uncle Sam (in carrying out things that are quintessentially Uncle Sam, such as national defense) into doing it... respect for freedom of policy should go both ways!
There is NO federal revenue or financial REQUIREMENT that without a raise in the federal debt limit the U.S. Tresury would have no choice but to default on any of the U.S. debt obligations comming due.
Any requirment to raise the federal debt limit, OR to avoid any need to raise the federal debt limit AND to not default on any U.S. debt obligations comming due IS mostly determined by federal spending, which (a) is adjustable in many ways and (b) is, unlike the U.S. debt, not a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED federal government obligation.
By simply cutting federal spending by the amount of any perceived need for raising the debt limit there would be no need to immediatelty raise the federal debt limit, and whether or not there is any “budget agreement” that tells the treasury how to make up any shortfall, the Constitution gives the executive the authority and responsibility to make whatever spending cuts will offset that shortfall until there is a budget agreement; and with those cuts made, just like “sequester” did, for the treasury to just go ahead and AT LEAST pay any debt obligations coming due, no matter what else it does not pay right now.
What is being ignored in the whole public/media conversaation is tax rates and obligations on business and individuals are not “on hold” and MOST income based revenue to the federal government continues to flow into the treasury from whitholding taxes and business & self-employed individuals paying quarterly estimated taxes; as well as most other federal taxes and fees, which continue to get paid.
The “shutdown” is NOT as much a matter of revenue, as it is simply a budget allocation process deciding where it can be spent with regard to any change from where it is currently authorized to be spent. Sequester itself, is just another form of “automatic” spending cuts in the absence of a total annual federal budget agreement.
HOWEVER, constitutionally, if federal spending continues to cause a deficit that is higher than the current authorized federal debt limit will allow, the treasury, under the executive’s responsibility and authority can make additional “sequester like” cuts and still pay the only constitutionally mandated expense that MUST be paid - the debt obligations that come due.
Typical caving in in 3, 2, ...
I could sure use an extra week of paid vacation.
I can’t even retire now because of the uncertainty of this nation.
Rand will express his support for amnesty when he believes it’s politically safe to do so. He’s liberal on this issue.
It’s the liberal’s view shared by many so-called conservatives to grant various forms of relief to the illegal aliens. A true conservative would reliably advance forms of return and attrition.
Neither statism nor libertarianism are direct factors on the immigration front in my opinion notwithstanding the liberal tenets of the LP platform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.