White house surprised by Americans not wanting country not to go bankrupt with unlimited spending.

[audiophile]

The US has been spending like drunken sailors since Covid hit. Time to listen to our "inner" Dave Ramsey and have some common sense...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1aKZ6n

[FakeAndyStuart]

Time to listen to our "inner" Dave Ramsey and have some common sense...

Sparky, you are absolutely right - perhaps Dave Ramsey ought to be the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

But before everyone on this board has a conniption fit with me agreeing with Audio, let's discuss this in the right way - the debt ceiling is not the right tool to accomplish this. All you Constitutionalists know this already, but as a remedial exercise - the Legislative branch of government- the House - authorizes the budget - the amount to be spent. And the Executive branch - the President - spends it. He can't spend a DIME more than Congress votes for. Every single dollar already spent has been passed by both houses. The Treasury Department isn't asking for money to buy anything that Congress didn't already OK.

(Excuse the slightly sexist references in the next paragraph, just trying to make a point.) Imagine a husband telling his stay at home wife to go spend $100 on groceries. But when the credit card bill comes THAT'S when the husband decides that $100 was too much, he's only gonna pay $75. Not difficult to imagine the consequences.

NOW, if Congress could actually produce a budget that actually does reduce spending, that's the tool for negotiation.

Back to you.

[audiophile]

Agree 100%. I don't want to see this country buried in debt either.

The house has out its proposal, which agrees to raising the debt limit, but also wants to reduce spending, and that is their prerogative as the house.

The White House is not happy, but I think they should at least work with the house. It worked for Bill Clinton and he was re-elected.

[Rate This]

Agree 100%. I don't want to see this country buried in debt either.

The house has out its proposal, which agrees to raising the debt limit, but also wants to reduce spending, and that is their prerogative as the house.

The White House is not happy, but I think they should at least work with the house. It worked for Bill Clinton and he was re-elected.

The point is we don’t need a debt ceiling. It’s completely idiotic.

[audiophile]

If it serves as way of pumping the brakes on the budget then I say keep it.

Personally I think we need a balanced budget amendment, that automatically reduces federal spending 1% every year until it is balanced.

[Rate This]

If it serves as way of pumping the brakes on the budget then I say keep it.

Personally I think we need a balanced budget amendment, that automatically reduces federal spending 1% every year until it is balanced.

It’s putting a limit on money congress has already authorized… that doesn’t make a lick of sense.

[audiophile]

If it serves as way of pumping the brakes on the budget then I say keep it.

Personally I think we need a balanced budget amendment, that automatically reduces federal spending 1% every year until it is balanced.

It’s putting a limit on money congress has already authorized… that doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Not exactly, the feds don't know incoming revenues until after they happen. A lot of projections are known to be bologna.

[km1125]

I think the states should have to set the federal budget that Congress works from, and have to approve any increases necessary.

[Rate This]

If it serves as way of pumping the brakes on the budget then I say keep it.

Personally I think we need a balanced budget amendment, that automatically reduces federal spending 1% every year until it is balanced.

It’s putting a limit on money congress has already authorized… that doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Not exactly, the feds don't know incoming revenues until after they happen. A lot of projections are known to be bologna.

No… the money has been approved as part of the budget… it is literally saying you can’t spend past X even if congress has passed a budget that spends past X already. It’s insane. By increasing the ceiling they are reapproving what they already approved. It’s not needed, it just sounds nice.

[TC Talks]

Republicans are not a majority of leadership anymore. They BARELY hold the house. The American people are tired of this type of gimmick.

Here are the likely outcomes....
https://mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 24&t=62141

[km1125]

If it serves as way of pumping the brakes on the budget then I say keep it.

Personally I think we need a balanced budget amendment, that automatically reduces federal spending 1% every year until it is balanced.

It’s putting a limit on money congress has already authorized… that doesn’t make a lick of sense.

Not exactly, the feds don't know incoming revenues until after they happen. A lot of projections are known to be bologna.

No… the money has been approved as part of the budget… it is literally saying you can’t spend past X even if congress has passed a budget that spends past X already. It’s insane. By increasing the ceiling they are reapproving what they already approved. It’s not needed, it just sounds nice.

They should at least have to pass the debt limit increase BEFORE they approve the upcoming budget, OR put stipulations in the budget on what gets cut if the limit is being approached. I really think it's INSANE that they are allowed to go year after year and authorize deficit spending. It should be a complete anomaly for deficit spending and that alone should go though a thorough process to justify it (and, again, I think the states should have a role in approving that). War, a plandemic, or a recession might justify it, but absent some big events like those, there should be a balanced budget.

[audiophile]

"Plandemic", Freudian slip?

RT: I think it's just part of process going back and forth.

I think house is looking at next year's budget in the negotiations, or trim if money has not been already spent. Increase debt limit with concessions going forward.

Glad we agree on balanced budget!

[Rate This]

"Plandemic", Freudian slip?

RT: I think it's just part of process going back and forth.

I think house is looking at next year's budget in the negotiations, or trim if money has not been already spent. Increase debt limit with concessions going forward.

Glad we agree on balanced budget!

It’s a law that didn’t exist originally. They are playing chicken with the entire economy every six months for no reason whatsoever. If congress passes a budget… that’s what we are spending this fiscal year. Not some arbitrary amount that stops an approved budgeted amount in the middle for political reasons.

Increase it first… ok. But not second guessing what’s already been agreed to in the middle. We cannot function that way and a default would be disastrous.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

I think the states should have to set the federal budget that Congress works from, and have to approve any increases necessary.

I think the Framers would disagree with such an idea.

[km1125]

I think the states should have to set the federal budget that Congress works from, and have to approve any increases necessary.

I think the Framers would disagree with such an idea.

I highly doubt that.

The Framers would be abhorred over the present size and power the Federal Government wields over the states and the citizenry.

Now, they might not want total control of the federal government budget relegated to the states, but if they saw what was happening now with the endless increases in the debt limit, they would CERTAINLY have come up with a mechanism to keep that in check.

You'd think with almost 300 years of evolution and history that we'd be even smarter than that now. But no.