Majority would vote against raising the debt ceiling without concomitant spending cuts

From Fox News, via Sister Toldjah:

Fox News Poll: Majority would vote against raising debt ceiling
By Dana Blanton | Published October 08, 2013 | FoxNews.com

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.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said the country will be unable to meet its commitments starting October 17.

Most Republicans (78 percent) and a majority of independents (57 percent) would vote against raising the limit. So would almost all Tea Partiers (88 percent).

Click here for the poll results.

More than half of Democrats would vote in favor of increasing the debt ceiling (57 percent), while 38 percent would vote against doing so.

At the same time, 62 percent of voters want Congress to raise the limit only after agreeing on “major cuts in government spending.”  Far fewer — 27 percent — believe the limit must be increased and that is it “reckless” to even debate not doing so.

Even Democrats, by a 48-42 percent margin, are more likely to say spending cuts must accompany an increase in the debt limit.

By wide margins Republicans (77-11 percent) and independents (65-26 percent) would require cuts in government spending before agreeing to raise the debt ceiling.

More at the link.

It sounds to me that the public are smarter than our government. Even the Democrats agree that government spending must be seriously cut, though a majority of Democrats opposed the sequester, the only actual spending cuts made, while Republicans and independents approved of it.

Of course, given that the Federal reserve has been, in effect, writing checks on money it does not have, for a couple of years now, and those checks and other debt instruments are all being honored, I’m not certain why the federal government couldn’t just keep writing checks on money it doesn’t have. After all, everyone accepts the checks as good, and the federal government won’t bounce them, so why not?

Heck, given the way the government has been operating, we could reduce taxes to zero! The federal government would still keep writing checks, and people and corporations and countries would still continue to honor those checks, and the government wouldn’t return them marked NSF, so we can buy whatever the Hell we want, right, and not burden the taxpayers with paying for them!

So, why raise the debt ceiling at all? We don’t need to go into debt to spend more money than we have, right?

13 Comments

  1. The Editor:

    given that the Federal reserve has been, in effect, writing checks on money it does not have, for a couple of years now

    That’s what I was eluding to in the other thread. The Fed isn’t really “writing checks” it’s just creating monetary value out of thin air. And for some crazy reason it seems to be okay not only here at home but with the rest of the world. We owe trillions to ourselves and other countries and nobody balks.

    Then our Editor observes:

    Heck, given the way the government has been operating, we could reduce taxes to zero!

    I hadn’t thought of that but it makes complete sense. Why tax us at all if they can just press a computer key and Presto! another trillion? That way we keep our money which is the greatest stimulus of all since we’ll buy all kinds of goodies we normally couldn’t afford and they just keep pushing that key. Better yet, what comes after a Trillion?

  2. My biggest fear of the last 5 years from this Red Diaper muzzie may come true next week

    Sources: Obama to usurp Constitutional power from Congress
    Anthony MartinConservative Examiner
    October 4, 2013

    According to sources in Congress and the White House, Barack Obama is preparing to usurp the Constitutional power of Congress to control the purse strings of the federal government. The Obama plan entails using the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to bypass Congress on the upcoming debt ceiling debate and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling without the approval of Congress.

    On Thursday Mark Levin cited several Congressional sources who have told him that Obama has no intention of negotiating with Congress on the debt, which is just under $17 trillion, the highest in U.S. history. When unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare are added in, the real debt is over $125 trillion — a figure so astronomically high that the country has no hope of ever paying it back. Uncontrolled spending has led the nation to this point.

    According to Levin, Congressional sources say that Obama does not want any limits on his spending ability, in spite of the fact that the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to control spending. Further, the use of the 14th Amendment to bypass Congress has never been done before. Thus, such an act would be an entirely new “interpretation” of the 14th Amendment and would raise a plethora of Constitutional issues concerning separation of powers.

    Read the rest here: http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-obama-to-usurp-constitutional-power-from-congress

  3. According to sources in Congress and the White House, Barack Obama is preparing to usurp the Constitutional power of Congress to control the purse strings of the federal government. The Obama plan entails using the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to bypass Congress on the upcoming debt ceiling debate and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling without the approval of Congress.

    that would be the bit that reads:

    “Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

    Remind us again, Yorkie, you senile old fool, where Congress has the constitutional authority to “question the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”?

  4. 1 - troll 7

    “Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    It’s not 1866, Troll.

  5. What the fuck?

    Yorkie, you really are a blind fool. Let me elucidate

    “Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, [clause specifically including special circumstances], shall not be questioned. [Sentence denying responsibility for special circumstances]”

    It’s not 1866, Troll.

    Indeed, idiot – so why even mention “insurrection or rebellion”?

    Once again, Yorkie, you senile old fool, where does Congress have the constitutional authority to “question the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”?

  6. Indeed, idiot – so why even mention “insurrection or rebellion”?

    Once again, Yorkie, you senile old fool, where does Congress have the constitutional authority to “question the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”?

    You really do just copy and paste like a fool with no understanding of meanings. The Amendement was AFTER THE CIVIL WAR and was referencing debt caused by the states that Seceded from the USA. Oh, I forgot, this one required thought more than Cut and Paste. And they let you loose on the Public Daily. Good Night Troll. -EOD-

  7. You really do just copy and paste like a fool with no understanding of meanings. The Amendement was AFTER THE CIVIL WAR and was referencing debt caused by the states that Seceded from the USA.

    You are unable to read, aren’t you?

    The Amendment is in reference to all debt. It specifically references the Civil War debt, but it is clearly written to apply to all debt, you moron.

    Look carefully –

    “Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law COMMA INCLUDING debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion COMMA shall not be questioned.”

    Now where exactly did you learn to read that you interpret “INCLUDING” to mean “LIMITED ONLY TO THIS”, you senile old fool?

  8. The Fourteenth Amendment holds that the debt of the United States is valid, and may not be challenged in any court of law subject to American jurisdiction; it does not mean that the federal government can continue to issue debt instruments in excess of a statutory limit, which is what this fool of a President wishes to do. It could also be held to mean — though this is an expansive reading — that when debt service payments are due, they must be made first, and that if there is insufficient money to pay the debt service and the ordinary expenditures of government, the debt service must be paid completely before money is spent on the other functions of government.

    So, the answer to your question, ” where does Congress have the constitutional authority to “question the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law”?,” you wonderfully literate and highly educated librarian, the Congress is not questioning the validity of the public debt; it has simply set a limit on how much more debt may be incurred.

  9. The Fourteenth Amendment holds that the debt of the United States is valid, and may not be challenged in any court of law subject to American jurisdiction; it does not mean that the federal government can continue to issue debt instruments in excess of a statutory limit, which is what this fool of a President wishes to do.

    Remind me again who passes the Acts requiring the President, as the executive officer who does not have the power of the purse, to spend set amounts of money?

  10. Just thought I’d let you know I’m doing my bit to spur the economy. Last month, I hit a milestone and this month I’ll hit another milestone. I hit the 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel purchased since June 1 mark last month. To date, I have purchased around 11,500 gallons. I have. This month, I’ll hit the 100,000 miles traveled since June 1 mark. I have paid 6 other drivers to team with me to travel that far, 6 students I was entrusted to train to become professional drivers. And one of those six, a woman, was named as one of the drivers of the quarter.

    I’m hoping in the next 4 months to add another truck to my company and another full-time trainer to my payroll.

Comments are closed.