Majority of Americans don't want debt ceiling raised without spending cuts enacted

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rity-would-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling/​

Soon Congress will have to vote on raising the nation’s debt limit so the federal government can borrow more money to make good on its spending commitments. If it were up to the American public, they would vote no -- with a majority saying the debt limit should only be raised after major spending cuts have been made.

A Fox News national poll asks voters to imagine being a lawmaker and having to cast an up-or-down vote on raising the debt ceiling: 37 percent would vote in favor of it, while 58 percent would vote against it.

More than a third of Democrats would vote against raising the debt limit as well, and an amazing 62% of Democrats, when asked if the debt limit ceiling increase should go hand in hand with major spending cuts responded in the affirmative. In addition, 65% of Independents responded in the same manner.

The American people are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.

A link to the poll itself: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...rity-would-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling/

Go to question 35, which is on the next to last page. The rest of the polling is pretty fascinating as well.

 

[InTheLight]

I know I'll get upbraided for this but I've said before and I'm sure I'll say it again--Polls are not news. Polls do not prove the correctness or deficiency of a particular political stance. Polls are compilations of opinions.

That said, polls are useful in that they take the pulse of the nation's opinions.

 

[Revmitchell]

I know I'll get upbraided for this but I've said before and I'm sure I'll say it again--Polls are not news. Polls do not prove the correctness or deficiency of a particular political stance. Polls are compilations of opinions.

That said, polls are useful in that they take the pulse of the nation's opinions.

Well all I can tell you is get used to seeing them on this board.

 

[InTheLight]

Well all I can tell you is get used to seeing them on this board.

I'm trying. :laugh:

And I would say to you--When CTB posts a poll stating that a majority of Americans agree with a certain Democratic party position, don't get all bent out of shape.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I know I'll get upbraided for this but I've said before and I'm sure I'll say it again--Polls are not news. Polls do not prove the correctness or deficiency of a particular political stance. Polls are compilations of opinions.

Words generally spoken by a person who hates the poll results.

That said, polls are useful in that they take the pulse of the nation's opinions.

And the nation's pulse pretty much says "We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore."

 

[InTheLight]

Words generally spoken by a person who hates the poll results.

It's a poll. What is there to like or not like about it? That said I agree with the premise--Raising the debt ceiling must be coupled with spending cuts.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It's a poll. What is there to like or not like about it?

Because it shows that people holding to your opinion are suddenly are now in the minority. The liberal agenda is in danger, and while I know that you insist you are not a "liberal" the opinions you express on this board are decidedly in favor of that same liberal agenda.

That said I agree with the premise--Raising the debt ceiling must be coupled with spending cuts.

So do 62% of all Democrats, surprisingly enough.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So do 62% of all Democrats, surprisingly enough.

With that much ignorance within the population, if it is true, it is no surprise that most people lose money in the stock market.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

With that much ignorance within the population, if it is true, it is no surprise that most people lose money in the stock market.

Advocating fiscal responsibility is "ignorance"? I'd hate to see your credit rating.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Advocating fiscal responsibility is "ignorance"? I'd hate to see your credit rating.

I agree about responsibility. Right now it is being responsible to raise the debt ceiling and then to straighten out the mess.

Oh, I have no credit rating as I never borrow. If a person is responsible, pays their bills on time and does not borrow there is no credit rating. Banks hate such people as they cannot steal from them through loans and other "we will make you life easy" refinancing.

One of my firm beliefs and one I live by is to never borrow for anything that depreciates in value ... like a car.


That is being fiscally responsible.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I agree about responsibility. Right now it is being responsible to raise the debt ceiling and then to straighten out the mess.

The responsible thing to do is not to "kick the can down the road" again, which is precisely what you are advocating. If they raise the debt ceiling, they won't address the issue of spending cuts. The Democrats won't let them. They abhor cuts, as the first thing to go is their "precious" -- social welfare.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The responsible thing to do is not to "kick the can down the road" again, which is precisely what you are advocating. If they raise the debt ceiling, they won't address the issue of spending cuts. The Democrats won't let them. They abhor cuts, as the first thing to go is their "precious" -- social welfare.

The pain and suffering will be much greater if the debt limit is not raised. They should raise it such that this issue will not come up again for several years. That would give them time to address other issues.

If you do not mind the stock market crashing, the country sent into a deep recession or depression and interest rates going very high, then don't raise the debt limit. But, if you have desires of living somewhat comfortably pray they resolve this issue quickly.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The pain and suffering will be much greater if the debt limit is not raised.

Do you actually know what not raising the debt ceiling means? Apparently not.

The first thing that happens is the enactment of "extraordinary measures" which aren't all that extraordinary. The Treasury currently is paying all of the government’s bills without issuing new debt by engaging in these "extraordinary measures." By manipulating accounts and postponing scheduled intra-government transfers, the Treasury can eliminate the need to issue bonds to finance those needs, and instead use newly issued bonds to pay obligations as they come due, without adding to the level of debt.

Both parties are afraid of hitting the "X-date" -- the first day that the federal government is unable to meet all of its obligations in full and on time. In the unlikely event that the arguments over the debt ceiling extend beyond the X-Date, the economic outlook could become increasingly dicey as the Treasury would do everything in its power to avoid missing an interest payment -- should it be allowed to go that far. It won't.

Earlier this year, the GOP-led House tried to codify prioritization of debt interest payments with a bill that would have directed the Treasury Secretary to make interest payments before any other obligations, such as Social Security checks and payments to contractors. Both Senate Democrats and the president opposed the bill, and it died in the hands of the liberals, even though the measure makes eminent sense.

The administration’s alternative to prioritization was laid out in an August 2012 letter the Treasury’s inspector general sent in response to a query from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. According to the IG, Treasury officials were skeptical of prioritization because they were uncertain that the agency's computer payment system was capable of prioritizing among its millions of monthly scheduled payments.

Instead, the officials determined that the "least harmful" course of action would be a "delayed payment regime," in which no payments would be made until they could all be made on a day-by-day basis. Because the U.S. operates at a deficit, the payment delays would get increasingly worse with each day past the X-Date. Again, if it gets that far. Again, it won't.

You and the liberals want to paint a picture of dire straits the instant we hit midnight, October 16. Your "hair-on-fire-sky-is-falling" scenarios simply will not happen. It won't be good, but it won't be a disaster either, and if you think even this Great Pretender who fancies himself a statesman but is nothing more than a tin-pot, third-rate dictator will let it go anywhere near the X-date, you're as looney as he is.

 

[Don]

Why are you responding to CTB?!?

CTB says in one post that he has no credit rating, he doesn't borrow, he doesn't like the thought of borrowing for anything that depreciates in value, and "if a person is responsible and pays their bills on time"...and then turns around and says we should raise the nation's debt ceiling high enough that we don't have to talk about the debt ceiling for a couple of years.

Where I come from, we call that speaking out of both sides of our mouths.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why are you responding to CTB?!?

CTB says in one post that he has no credit rating, he doesn't borrow, he doesn't like the thought of borrowing for anything that depreciates in value, and "if a person is responsible and pays their bills on time"...and then turns around and says we should raise the nation's debt ceiling high enough that we don't have to talk about the debt ceiling for a couple of years.

Where I come from, we call that speaking out of both sides of our mouths.

Not really. We are already in a mess and need to get out of it. It will take time. To default will bring disaster in many ways. If my personal finances were in such a mess I would go to the bank to work out a program to relieve the mess. Not to do so would mean I would have everything taken away. Same with the country.

Do you really believe that you will suffer no consequences if the gov. defaults?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Not really. We are already in a mess and need to get out of it. It will take time. To default will bring disaster in many ways. If my personal finances were in such a mess I would go to the bank to work out a program to relieve the mess.

You just admitted you lied about your abhorrence to debt. If you feel as strongly as you claim you do about debt, you wouldn't go to the bank, you'd go to Crown Ministries and learn how to pay down your debt practically, without borrowing. Done with you.

 

[Don]

Not really. We are already in a mess and need to get out of it. It will take time. To default will bring disaster in many ways. If my personal finances were in such a mess I would go to the bank to work out a program to relieve the mess. Not to do so would mean I would have everything taken away. Same with the country.

Do you really believe that you will suffer no consequences if the gov. defaults?

Do you really believe we will fully default? I fully expect that there will be an "eleventh-hour miracle" (either the Republicans or the Democrats deciding it's not worth the fight, or both sides coming to an agreement).

And if we do default, don't you think they'll be (or should be) like most of us and prioritize the spending, paying off our foreign creditors first and working from there?

You and I (and everyone else here) knows that if the debt ceiling is raised without some talk about cutting spending, that they'll do exactly as you suggested: raise it enough to not worry about it for a couple of years, and then that's exactly what they'll do--not worry about it for a couple of years.

When are we going to start holding our elected officials--ALL OF THEM--accountable?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

When a republican is in office.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Do you really believe we will fully default? I fully expect that there will be an "eleventh-hour miracle" (either the Republicans or the Democrats deciding it's not worth the fight, or both sides coming to an agreement).

With the crazies in the Tea Party and the GOP afraid of them I am not as optimistic as in other years. But a president cannot negotiate with kidnappers. They will just keep raising the bar.

And if we do default, don't you think they'll be (or should be) like most of us and prioritize the spending, paying off our foreign creditors first and working from there?

Where would you start. No Social Security payments the elderly? No pay for the military? No pay on Treasury bonds? What do you suggest we not pay?

You and I (and everyone else here) knows that if the debt ceiling is raised without some talk about cutting spending, that they'll do exactly as you suggested: raise it enough to not worry about it for a couple of years, and then that's exactly what they'll do--not worry about it for a couple of years.

When are we going to start holding our elected officials--ALL OF THEM--accountable?

Maybe a miracle will happen and they, both parties, will start being responsible. I know that a default will be disastrous both economically and politically around the world.

To answer Bro.C ... the last Republican president we had very quickly turned a budge surplus into a deficit. I have no faith in the GOP to loo out for anyone but themselves and the rich.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

"the rich"

:laugh:

If I thought you would debate your "point" in an honest, rational manner, I would try.

I'm glad Barack has your back. But I see you still haven't invested in a spell-checking program.