If the board of a company vote for new spending for their company at a vote of 6 to 4, with 4 of them being against the measure. Then, when it comes time to release the funds to pay, 6 are against it and 4 are for it, the difference being 2 people switched their vote. Who should be blamed for the company defaulting? Maybe the people that switched their vote? I'm often baffled by your ability to be duped.

---

If the board of a company vote for new spending for their company at a vote of 6 to 4, with 4 of them being against the measure. Then, when it comes time to release the funds to pay, 6 are against it and 4 are for it, the difference being 2 people switched their vote. Who should be blamed for the company defaulting? Maybe the people that switched their vote? I'm often baffled by your ability to be duped.

No one's changed their vote.  There hasn't been a vote.  That's what's so confusing about this.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Congress should never have passed one bill saying "spend that money" followed with another bill that says "don't spend that money". There shouldn't be any kind of debt limit at all when the government itself is free to print new money at will.  All the debt limit does is gives some disingenuous grandstanders in Congress like Ted Cruz and Barack Obama the chance to look like they care about the debt, when they don't.

That said, the second best option is to raise it as quickly and as quietly as possible.

Making a second mistake will not fix the first mistake.  It only encourages further fiscal irresponsibility.

Buying something and then not paying for it would be irresponsible.   Like if you borrowed money on your credit card and then refused to pay the credit card company.   You've spent the money.  Now you have to pay the bill.  Not paying the bill doesn't mean you didn't spend the money.  And if you're overspending, you don't just stop paying your bills.  The solution is to quit buying stuff.

---

Sure. That's how it would work in an individual. No one is denying that. However, if we voted to spend money on a credit card, those that voted to spend the money should also vote to pay it. Republicans are simply saying, you voted for it, now vote to pay for it. Own this piece of legislation you wanted so badly. Here's what's going to happen if a Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling.... IT BECOMES A BIPARTISAN BILL. Why can't dems just own their own legislation? Why are they blaming Republicans? Why aren't you guys pointing the finger squarely at dems? It's politics 101. I expect the Dems to try to play this hand. I just don't expect otherwise intelligent people to fall for it.

---

Sure. That's how it would work in an individual. No one is denying that. However, if we voted to spend money on a credit card, those that voted to spend the money should also vote to pay it. Republicans are simply saying, you voted for it, now vote to pay for it. Own this piece of legislation you wanted so badly. Here's what's going to happen if a Republican votes to raise the debt ceiling.... IT BECOMES A BIPARTISAN BILL. Why can't dems just own their own legislation? Why are they blaming Republicans? Why aren't you guys pointing the finger squarely at dems? It's politics 101. I expect the Dems to try to play this hand. I just don't expect otherwise intelligent people to fall for it.

Oh, I have no problem with that.  No matter whose fault it is, if the Democrats can raise the debt limit on their own, they would be incredibly irresponsible to not do it.  No matter who is responsible for the spending.  We cannot default on the debt.  That would be one of the biggest man-made disasters in the history of the United States.

---

So why should the debt limit be increased?

Congress should never have passed one bill saying "spend that money" followed with another bill that says "don't spend that money". There shouldn't be any kind of debt limit at all when the government itself is free to print new money at will.  All the debt limit does is gives some disingenuous grandstanders in Congress like Ted Cruz and Barack Obama the chance to look like they care about the debt, when they don't.

That said, the second best option is to raise it as quickly and as quietly as possible.

That's pretty much what raising the debt ceiling does.  All it does is devalue the dollar even more.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

They should do away with the idiotic concept of a "debt ceiling."  All that would be accomplished by not extending the debt ceiling is that we would not pay for things we already bought. 

It's as if I decided to cut down on my spending by not paying my credit card bill.  The problem is the deficit spending.  Not paying for the deficit spending doesn't accomplish anything good, and would wreck the economy.

---

So why should the debt limit be increased?

Because if the government refuses to pay its bills, the economy will be wrecked.  That would actually increase the deficits by massive amounts, by destroying the credit-worthiness of the United States.

If we don't want to pay for stuff, we shouldn't buy stuff.  But when we've already bought it, we'd better pay for it, or we will have some extremely serious problems.

The answer to "paying for stuff that we already bought" should be to cut costs and stop "buying stuff" like votes which is the current democrat plan.  In a very simple way of explaining it (at least to me) is that you can't afford to pay your credit card bill so you get another credit card in order to both pay the bill and "buy more stuff".  It is not sustainable.

The other thing that is very stupid is that democrats think that they can raise more "income" to pay these credit card bills by raising taxes.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

They should do away with the idiotic concept of a "debt ceiling."  All that would be accomplished by not extending the debt ceiling is that we would not pay for things we already bought. 

It's as if I decided to cut down on my spending by not paying my credit card bill.  The problem is the deficit spending.  Not paying for the deficit spending doesn't accomplish anything good, and would wreck the economy.

---

Because if the government refuses to pay its bills, the economy will be wrecked.  That would actually increase the deficits by massive amounts, by destroying the credit-worthiness of the United States.

If we don't want to pay for stuff, we shouldn't buy stuff.  But when we've already bought it, we'd better pay for it, or we will have some extremely serious problems.

The answer to "paying for stuff that we already bought" should be to cut costs and stop "buying stuff" like votes which is the current democrat plan.  In a very simple way of explaining it (at least to me) is that you can't afford to pay your credit card bill so you get another credit card in order to both pay the bill and "buy more stuff".  It is not sustainable.

The other thing that is very stupid is that democrats think that they can raise more "income" to pay these credit card bills by raising taxes.

Taxation is an essential function of government.  Taxes are income to the government.  Try to wrap your head around it because it won't change.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Congress should never have passed one bill saying "spend that money" followed with another bill that says "don't spend that money". There shouldn't be any kind of debt limit at all when the government itself is free to print new money at will.  All the debt limit does is gives some disingenuous grandstanders in Congress like Ted Cruz and Barack Obama the chance to look like they care about the debt, when they don't.

That said, the second best option is to raise it as quickly and as quietly as possible.

That's pretty much what raising the debt ceiling does.  All it does is devalue the dollar even more.

No.  The dollar will be devalued if the United States fails to raise the debt ceiling and defaults on its debt.  

Defaulting on the debt would be absolutely horrific.

---

The answer to "paying for stuff that we already bought" should be to cut costs and stop "buying stuff" like votes which is the current democrat plan.  In a very simple way of explaining it (at least to me) is that you can't afford to pay your credit card bill so you get another credit card in order to both pay the bill and "buy more stuff".  It is not sustainable.

The other thing that is very stupid is that democrats think that they can raise more "income" to pay these credit card bills by raising taxes.

Taxation is an essential function of government.  Taxes are income to the government.  Try to wrap your head around it because it won't change.

The government was never designed to have an "income".  Try to wrap your head around that.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The answer to "paying for stuff that we already bought" should be to cut costs and stop "buying stuff" like votes which is the current democrat plan.  In a very simple way of explaining it (at least to me) is that you can't afford to pay your credit card bill so you get another credit card in order to both pay the bill and "buy more stuff".  It is not sustainable.

The other thing that is very stupid is that democrats think that they can raise more "income" to pay these credit card bills by raising taxes.

Taxation is an essential function of government.  Taxes are income to the government.  Try to wrap your head around it because it won't change.

That's not true according to modern monetary theory. I'm still in the early phases of learning about it, but it's looking more and more like that's the theory being adopted by the fed. In that case, taxes are useful for creating equity and punishing political opponents.

---

That's pretty much what raising the debt ceiling does.  All it does is devalue the dollar even more.

No.  The dollar will be devalued if the United States fails to raise the debt ceiling and defaults on its debt.  

Defaulting on the debt would be absolutely horrific.

I worry about losing our reserve currency status.

---

No.  The dollar will be devalued if the United States fails to raise the debt ceiling and defaults on its debt.  

Defaulting on the debt would be absolutely horrific.

I worry about losing our reserve currency status.

To whom?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Taxation is an essential function of government.  Taxes are income to the government.  Try to wrap your head around it because it won't change.

That's not true according to modern monetary theory. I'm still in the early phases of learning about it, but it's looking more and more like that's the theory being adopted by the fed. In that case, taxes are useful for creating equity and punishing political opponents.

MMT derives from Chartalism.
Chartalism explains that people adopt a government's currency if and only if that government is collecting taxes in that currency.
So even if you go down that road, you still have taxation as an essential function of government.  And the money collected is income to the government.   The big innovation of MMT is they are showing that the taxes don't need to be equal to the spending if the government has control over the creation of money.  However, the taxes still have to exist.  They can't be zero or else people will start to use something else as their main currency.

---

I worry about losing our reserve currency status.

To whom?

At this point you'd worry about BitCoin, DogeCoin, etc.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's not true according to modern monetary theory. I'm still in the early phases of learning about it, but it's looking more and more like that's the theory being adopted by the fed. In that case, taxes are useful for creating equity and punishing political opponents.

MMT derives from Chartalism.
Chartalism explains that people adopt a government's currency if and only if that government is collecting taxes in that currency.
So even if you go down that road, you still have taxation as an essential function of government.  And the money collected is income to the government.   The big innovation of MMT is they are showing that the taxes don't need to be equal to the spending if the government has control over the creation of money.  However, the taxes still have to exist.  They can't be zero or else people will start to use something else as their main currency.

---

To whom?

At this point you'd worry about BitCoin, DogeCoin, etc.

Regarding the part in bold, the government doesn't have that.  It comes from "the fed" which is not a government entity.

Also "printing more dollars" does not "create more money".  All it does is put more dollars into circulation.  A VERY simple explanation of it is this.  If a widget costs $1 it's because that $1 is only one of say a million in circulation.  So suppose the government "creates" another million dollars and puts it into circulation, that $1 widget is now worth $2 because the amount of money available has doubled.

Also, taxes are supposed to fund "essential" operations.  Much of what tax money goes toward isn't "essential" for the operation of the government at all levels (federal, state or local).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

MMT derives from Chartalism.
Chartalism explains that people adopt a government's currency if and only if that government is collecting taxes in that currency.
So even if you go down that road, you still have taxation as an essential function of government.  And the money collected is income to the government.   The big innovation of MMT is they are showing that the taxes don't need to be equal to the spending if the government has control over the creation of money.  However, the taxes still have to exist.  They can't be zero or else people will start to use something else as their main currency.

---

Regarding the part in bold, the government doesn't have that.  It comes from "the fed" which is not a government entity.

Also "printing more dollars" does not "create more money".  All it does is put more dollars into circulation.  A VERY simple explanation of it is this.  If a widget costs $1 it's because that $1 is only one of say a million in circulation.  So suppose the government "creates" another million dollars and puts it into circulation, that $1 widget is now worth $2 because the amount of money available has doubled.

Also, taxes are supposed to fund "essential" operations.  Much of what tax money goes toward isn't "essential" for the operation of the government at all levels (federal, state or local).

1) the Fed gets its mission and its powers from Congress, regardless of if it views itself as public or private.

2) printing more money does not inevitably create inflation. If there is slack in the economy, there cannot be inflation. Inflation only happens in response to shortages or bidding wars.

3) what tax money should be used for is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is valid, but I do not agree with it. But I would bet that there are things we agree. I think we agree the tax money should not be used just to make a few government officials rich. I think you would agree that if the two of us have the same living situation, we should pay the same amount in taxes, I shouldn't get any special preference. I think we agree that spending should be distributed evenly, there shouldn't be a bunch of projects in one city, and no spending or projects in another city, when both cities pay taxes.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I worry about losing our reserve currency status.

To whom?

Renminbi, euro, sterling pound, swiss franc, gold, bitcoin - who knows, take your pick. 

I'm not saying it's imminent but I thinks it's something that should be given attention. Defaulting on our debts certainly wouldn't help.

---

Taxation is an essential function of government.  Taxes are income to the government.  Try to wrap your head around it because it won't change.

The government was never designed to have an "income".  Try to wrap your head around that.

Exactly. Everyone acts like income taxes have always been a thing in this country when that is simply not the case. There is no amendment that says thou shall be taxed so the government can have income.

---

To whom?

Renminbi, euro, sterling pound, swiss franc, gold, bitcoin - who knows, take your pick. 

I'm not saying it's imminent but I thinks it's something that should be given attention. Defaulting on our debts certainly wouldn't help.

Yes, it's not imminent nor likely because the dollar is by far the most stable of any currency even in these times. Crypto isnt a serious contender because its strongest characteristic is its detachment from a stabilizing authority. The other national currencies are just too small to be effective except the Yuan which is also itself unstable. The US dollar remains the only real option for the time being and in longer term outlooks.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Renminbi, euro, sterling pound, swiss franc, gold, bitcoin - who knows, take your pick. 

I'm not saying it's imminent but I thinks it's something that should be given attention. Defaulting on our debts certainly wouldn't help.

Yes, it's not imminent nor likely because the dollar is by far the most stable of any currency even in these times. Crypto isnt a serious contender because its strongest characteristic is its detachment from a stabilizing authority. The other national currencies are just too small to be effective except the Yuan which is also itself unstable. The US dollar remains the only real option for the time being and in longer term outlooks.

The Yuan is pegged to a basket of other currencies.  The only "floating" currency that is tied to an economy comparable to ours is the Euro.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.