5 ms·

I dread an actual or “technical” default but I think a line in the sand needs to be drawn. Government freebies and overspending caused incredible harm to the g

I dread an actual or “technical” default but I think a line in the sand needs to be drawn. Government freebies and overspending caused incredible harm to the general public as it contributed to inflation over the past few years. Real incomes are painfully down and the average person is much worse off. We’re now paying close to $1T per year in interest alone on bloated US govt debt. Enough is enough. Government spending needs to be cut. Edit: those who downvote, what exactly do you disagree with in the above?

redeeman 3y ago
> those who downvote, what exactly do you disagree with in the above? they believe that taxing someone else more is gonna allow their spendomania to continue. if only we take a little bit more of someone elses money!!!
rnk 3y ago
We sure could save a lot by cutting social security for old people, reduce medicare payments, cut down food stamps for people with kids that's a few trillion right there. Or we could just cancel recent tax cuts that were focused on wealthy people and get trillions more in revenue. Remember the last pres has a record addition to the debt of $7 trillion with three debt increases without a threatened debt default, somehow.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Sure, I agree with you. Let’s make the tax system somewhat more progressive and simpler. But that alone won’t help enough. The issue is the spending associated with and related to the “inflation reduction act”. Spending of this type is mostly unnecessary pork.
  - sharemywin 3y ago
    The only way to pay down the debt is massive tax increases on the wealthy. The same way we did it in from 46' to 80' https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/ https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/
- redeeman 3y ago
  Or how about we implement a FAIR tax system. the entire cost of the US is divided up by the count of its citizens equally. its easy to say "tax this tax that" when its other people getting ripped off. If everyone had to personally decide if playing warlord in god knows how many countries is worth the money they must rip out of their wallet, im guessing the US would be in less wars. if people had to vote with their wallet on whether stuff is worthwhile, i bet spending would be cut very very rapidly, instead everyone wants their cut of an increasingly larger cake, spiralling totally out of control
abeppu 3y ago
Yes, government spending needs to be cut -- but isn't the time to fight for fiscal responsibility when you're writing the budget, the tax code, and the various bills which authorize spending? Causing a crisis by defaulting _after_ you've overspent is only going to make lives more difficult for the general public. Want a line in the sand? Promise to vote not to reelect your representative if they vote for a budget which increases spending at faster than k%/yr. If you're a hawk, pick k to be negative. But this default mess is just dysfunctional.
wcoenen 3y ago
I am not from the US and I didn't downvote, but my understanding is that your congress needs to approve spending twice: first they vote for laws that require a budget to implement, and then later when the money is actually needed (but isn't actually available without exceeding the debt ceiling) then they need to vote again to increase the debt ceiling. Trying to keep spending under control at that second stage, is like managing your budget by refusing to pay your credit card bill. It would make much more sense to control spending at the first stage.
- anotherman554 3y ago
  "I am not from the US and I didn't downvote, but my understanding is that your congress needs to approve spending twice: first they vote for laws that require a budget to implement, and then later when the money is actually needed " Sort of. The debt ceiling is not required by the U.S. constitution, so congress doesn't need to do things this way, the process could be changed by an act of congress. The debt ceiling was first established by law in 1917.
  - NBJack 3y ago
    The debt itself is effectively leverage invented by congress. It has no real merit beyond a poker chip that also happens to be the financial nuclear option. I don't see their motivation to get rid of something that actively works in their favor most of the time. That's the part that truly sucks.
czzr 3y ago
They’re downvoting you (I’m guessing) because you fundamentally don’t understand how the budgeting process works. You can believe in cutting spending, sure - this is not the mechanism to do it. Here’s a rough analogy - you can decide at the start of the month not to buy a gym membership to save money, however you cannot sign a contract for the gym and then decide at the end of the month not to pay it to save money, and further, when the gym come to collect you threaten to shoot yourself in the foot unless the gym tears up your contract. (This last part is exactly as dumb as the Republicans threat).
- bequanna 3y ago
  You don’t have to like your opponent’s strategy, but you also don’t get to decide whether or not they use it. The goal is to cancel BS “inflation reduction act” spending that was approved prior to the House having a Replublican majority. This is their chance to do this. And considering the threat “dumb” is naive. There are just as many scorched earth conservatives as liberals.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  I downvoted because of “freebies”, not because of a misunderstanding of budgets.
- Rury 3y ago
  The government's budget process is not unique in any fundamental way. It's only different because it's political and has many different people's interests in the matter. Otherwise it obeys the same principles as a personal budget. Nothing prevents you from over budgeting your income and borrowing to the max, and then when your income is gone and have no money left to pay your bills or creditors, to ask for an extension of credit. Your analogy is toothless, given the principles behind that scenario happens every day in the credit industry.
sharemywin 3y ago
but would you not pay your mortgage and f* up your credit if your wife said I'll talk to you about budget once we pay the mortgage? btw, I didn't downvote you.
- bequanna 3y ago
  A better analogy is my wife took out a mortgage in my name and I’m refusing to pay it.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    Ah, so anarchy. No continuity in government. What rational thinking. I too was a big anarchist when I was 15 and there was a fun punk scene in the Bay Area.
    - bequanna 3y ago
      Anarchy? Not sure I follow. I’m simply saying that you need to compromise with me or I’m willing to take action that will hurt both of us.
      - clipsy 3y ago
        If the government was obligated to get approval from every single person for every single decision there would be no government; you cannot even get every single person to agree that the sun rises in the east or the sky is blue. You have a petulant child's worldview.
        AYBABTME 3y ago
        The system is designed in this way though. If it wasn't meant to be a two step process, which allows a new party to make a different (painful) decision later on, then it wouldn't have been designed this way. There's a big problem with US debt these days. I'm not sure the Republican's gimmick today is the appropriate solution, but something has to be done, or this will be the undoing of the US. Increase income, reduce spending, there's not many ways to go about it. And you need to do both. Unless you just plan on devaluing the currency, which isn't going to last long with the nascent tug of war in reserve currency status being mounted by China. The US is very vulnerable right now and most people aren't willing to swallow the hard medicine required. The undoing of previous prominent powers historically came in similar fashions. More tax, reduced spending. Harder work.
ulrashida 3y ago
Sure, enough is enough, but why this mechanism and not during the budgeting process? One allows the overall system to work, the other showcases to the world (yet again) that the US can't be trusted with systems necessary for international collaboration. It is boggling how many in the US blithely hand wave away the incredible damage this exclusively inward view does in the long term.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ngetchell 3y ago
  It will never be done during the budget process because Republicans would need to show their hand. They can't balance the budget without touching the third rail of politics. The debt ceiling let's them act tough without pissing off the American people.

redeeman 3y ago

> those who downvote, what exactly do you disagree with in the above? they believe that taxing someone else more is gonna allow their spendomania to continue. if only we take a little bit more of someone elses money!!!

rnk 3y ago

We sure could save a lot by cutting social security for old people, reduce medicare payments, cut down food stamps for people with kids that's a few trillion right there. Or we could just cancel recent tax cuts that were focused on wealthy people and get trillions more in revenue. Remember the last pres has a record addition to the debt of $7 trillion with three debt increases without a threatened debt default, somehow.

bequanna 3y ago
Sure, I agree with you. Let’s make the tax system somewhat more progressive and simpler. But that alone won’t help enough. The issue is the spending associated with and related to the “inflation reduction act”. Spending of this type is mostly unnecessary pork.
- sharemywin 3y ago
  The only way to pay down the debt is massive tax increases on the wealthy. The same way we did it in from 46' to 80' https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/ https://www.longtermtrends.net/us-debt-to-gdp/
redeeman 3y ago
Or how about we implement a FAIR tax system. the entire cost of the US is divided up by the count of its citizens equally. its easy to say "tax this tax that" when its other people getting ripped off. If everyone had to personally decide if playing warlord in god knows how many countries is worth the money they must rip out of their wallet, im guessing the US would be in less wars. if people had to vote with their wallet on whether stuff is worthwhile, i bet spending would be cut very very rapidly, instead everyone wants their cut of an increasingly larger cake, spiralling totally out of control

abeppu 3y ago

Yes, government spending needs to be cut -- but isn't the time to fight for fiscal responsibility when you're writing the budget, the tax code, and the various bills which authorize spending? Causing a crisis by defaulting _after_ you've overspent is only going to make lives more difficult for the general public. Want a line in the sand? Promise to vote not to reelect your representative if they vote for a budget which increases spending at faster than k%/yr. If you're a hawk, pick k to be negative. But this default mess is just dysfunctional.

wcoenen 3y ago

I am not from the US and I didn't downvote, but my understanding is that your congress needs to approve spending twice: first they vote for laws that require a budget to implement, and then later when the money is actually needed (but isn't actually available without exceeding the debt ceiling) then they need to vote again to increase the debt ceiling. Trying to keep spending under control at that second stage, is like managing your budget by refusing to pay your credit card bill. It would make much more sense to control spending at the first stage.

anotherman554 3y ago
"I am not from the US and I didn't downvote, but my understanding is that your congress needs to approve spending twice: first they vote for laws that require a budget to implement, and then later when the money is actually needed " Sort of. The debt ceiling is not required by the U.S. constitution, so congress doesn't need to do things this way, the process could be changed by an act of congress. The debt ceiling was first established by law in 1917.
- NBJack 3y ago
  The debt itself is effectively leverage invented by congress. It has no real merit beyond a poker chip that also happens to be the financial nuclear option. I don't see their motivation to get rid of something that actively works in their favor most of the time. That's the part that truly sucks.

czzr 3y ago

They’re downvoting you (I’m guessing) because you fundamentally don’t understand how the budgeting process works. You can believe in cutting spending, sure - this is not the mechanism to do it. Here’s a rough analogy - you can decide at the start of the month not to buy a gym membership to save money, however you cannot sign a contract for the gym and then decide at the end of the month not to pay it to save money, and further, when the gym come to collect you threaten to shoot yourself in the foot unless the gym tears up your contract. (This last part is exactly as dumb as the Republicans threat).

bequanna 3y ago
You don’t have to like your opponent’s strategy, but you also don’t get to decide whether or not they use it. The goal is to cancel BS “inflation reduction act” spending that was approved prior to the House having a Replublican majority. This is their chance to do this. And considering the threat “dumb” is naive. There are just as many scorched earth conservatives as liberals.
UncleMeat 3y ago
I downvoted because of “freebies”, not because of a misunderstanding of budgets.
Rury 3y ago
The government's budget process is not unique in any fundamental way. It's only different because it's political and has many different people's interests in the matter. Otherwise it obeys the same principles as a personal budget. Nothing prevents you from over budgeting your income and borrowing to the max, and then when your income is gone and have no money left to pay your bills or creditors, to ask for an extension of credit. Your analogy is toothless, given the principles behind that scenario happens every day in the credit industry.

sharemywin 3y ago

but would you not pay your mortgage and f* up your credit if your wife said I'll talk to you about budget once we pay the mortgage? btw, I didn't downvote you.

bequanna 3y ago
A better analogy is my wife took out a mortgage in my name and I’m refusing to pay it.
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  Ah, so anarchy. No continuity in government. What rational thinking. I too was a big anarchist when I was 15 and there was a fun punk scene in the Bay Area.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    Anarchy? Not sure I follow. I’m simply saying that you need to compromise with me or I’m willing to take action that will hurt both of us.
    - clipsy 3y ago
      If the government was obligated to get approval from every single person for every single decision there would be no government; you cannot even get every single person to agree that the sun rises in the east or the sky is blue. You have a petulant child's worldview.
      - AYBABTME 3y ago
        The system is designed in this way though. If it wasn't meant to be a two step process, which allows a new party to make a different (painful) decision later on, then it wouldn't have been designed this way. There's a big problem with US debt these days. I'm not sure the Republican's gimmick today is the appropriate solution, but something has to be done, or this will be the undoing of the US. Increase income, reduce spending, there's not many ways to go about it. And you need to do both. Unless you just plan on devaluing the currency, which isn't going to last long with the nascent tug of war in reserve currency status being mounted by China. The US is very vulnerable right now and most people aren't willing to swallow the hard medicine required. The undoing of previous prominent powers historically came in similar fashions. More tax, reduced spending. Harder work.

ulrashida 3y ago

Sure, enough is enough, but why this mechanism and not during the budgeting process? One allows the overall system to work, the other showcases to the world (yet again) that the US can't be trusted with systems necessary for international collaboration. It is boggling how many in the US blithely hand wave away the incredible damage this exclusively inward view does in the long term.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ngetchell 3y ago
It will never be done during the budget process because Republicans would need to show their hand. They can't balance the budget without touching the third rail of politics. The debt ceiling let's them act tough without pissing off the American people.