Congressional Spending is why the Debt Ceiling has to be raised. No other reason.

[riqster]

I know most of us here know this: but I thought I'd post just to help us ignore all of the distractions and red herrings that the Wingnut-contolled media throws out there:

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/congressional-spending-is-why-the-debt-ceiling-has-to-be-raised-no-other-reason/

Full Post (I'm the author, so it's legal):

The “Republicans” who control the House of “Representatives” are once again threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless their whiny, silly, pouting, and just generally idiotic demands du jour are met. In this case, it’s a demand that ObamaCare be destroyed. A ridiculous demand, of course, but that’s not how deep the rabbit hole of stupid goes.

Here’s the deal: Congress spends money. They are responsible for the amount of taxing and spending. That means they are responsible for the amount of the national debt. That means they are responsible for the need to raise the debt ceiling.

“But ObamaCare”, the Wingnuts cry. News flash: Congress voted for it. That means they’re responsible for the funding that they voted for. Not the Prexy, not the courts: that’s what’s called the Separation of Powers. Congress holds the power of the purse, and for years they have been using that power in a most irresponsible manner.

Yes, the debt is too high. But that is no reason for Congress to try to weasel out of paying the bills they have run up over the decades. No, that is a reason to adjust tax and spending policy to bring the national debt down in the future,

The law of the land says the U.S. Government has to pay its bills. If Congress refuses to do so, they will be in violation of the law. And only Congress will be responsible. No one else. It’s their fault for spending more than they take in.

Nothing else at the link.

[Happyhippychick]

1. I would argue that the loopholes in the tax code are another reason

Super rich people are able to funnel their money off shore, as are corporations, and they don't contribute to the pot.

[riqster]

2. That is part of the same issue, and Congress's fault.

They refuse to bring in enough revenue to cover their spending, and they won't distribute the revenue burden in an equitable manner.

You are quite right in your post.

[Happyhippychick]

3. Yep. :)

[kentuck]

4. Good point.

They refuse to raise the revenue needed and they refused to make necessary cuts to balance the budget.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. "Super rich people are able to funnel their money off shore, as are corporations"

That's not a loophole, that's a fact of law. We can't force other nations to tax for us. "Hey, I need you to collect a half-trillion dollars from those guys and then give it over to us." is not a tax strategy. Even if these other nations collected the money (they won't, they make more money being a tax haven) they sure as heck wouldn't just hand it over like obedient simpletons.

[Happyhippychick]

8. It never even occurred to me that we should force other nations to tax for us.

I don't know where you would have presumed that from what I said. I think we should prevent untaxed money from going overseas in the first place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I wouldn't say that was your intent and I understand your counterpoint

but, for the sake of completeness of discussion, these things get set-up on purpose. Remember, much the value of currency is its liquidity, to be there to take advantage of opportunities or cover expenses as they arise. If you keep it from moving off-shore it won't move on-shore either.

I would also add that, while not your intent, there are many who do carry the erroneous idea that it is possible to tax money outside US jurisdiction. If I unfairly saddled you with their errors I apologize.

[Happyhippychick]

10. Ah, got it. No apology necessary! :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. That's a feature of a bicameral system - it can get a deadlock

in which one house wants to reverse previous commitments, but the other house wants to implement them. When they can't pass bills to either go ahead (by funding it) or back out, you get a situation in which politicians are expected to negotiate. But Republicans have, since the 1990s at least, seen 'negotiation' as 'do what I say or the country gets it'.

[riqster]

7. And they actually WILL "shoot the hostage". nt