Another no vote on the debt ceiling

[Foxfyre]

When Congress established a program and approved the budget, government has a financial obligation until Congress reverses their decision.

There has to be thousands of entities within the government, which are cost centers, each issuing contracts and hundreds of thousands of requests for payment for services, goods received, salaries and benefits each day. Government is far too large and complex to rapidly switch to a system in which Congress could decide who is to be paid. Even it were possible, Congress would not make those decisions.

If the debt limit is not raised, I believe government would issue payments in the order received until it ran out of money. Government would then default on all payments until it received more revenue. Certainly, treasury bill redemptions without reinvestment would be huge creating an even bigger problem.

I believe the possibility of government default on it's obligations are greater than many believe. It only takes a single senator to block any bill. There are people on both sides of the fence that will stick to their beliefs regardless of the outcome.

There is no way government could manage something like this. Interest rates would increase and what Congress perceived as a way to reduce spending would actually increase spending.

I am not suggesting that we default. I am suggesting that we stop spending. I'm suggesting that we use up what the government already has before it buys any more of anything. I'm suggesting that we close ineffective or non-essential agencies, that we stop funding projects and organizations that never should have been the responsibility of the Federal government in the first place. I am suggesting that we look to members of Congress to also make personal sacrifice such as personally funding their own health and retirement plans and gym memberships. I'm suggesting that we authorize absolutely no money that does not absolutely have to be spent. And I am suggesting that we start now to phase out entitlement programs slowly and carefully so that we do not break faith with the people.

These are all measures to correct the problem so that we do not default on our obligations and debts while we do not add to them.

To say that government is too big to manage efficiently and effectively is not a hell of a lot of incentive to keep sending them more and more money. I am guessing that not a single congressman who votes for the budget has a real clue about what is in it. That needs to stop now.

I completely agree we the need to cut spending, however this should be done through the budget process, not after financial commitments are made.

If Congress tries to reduce the deficit by eliminating inefficiencies and specific programs, they will fail to achieve meaningful spending cuts. The House wanted to cut 293 million from Planned Parenthood, which resulted in a major clash between the two sides and for what? This would have reduced the deficit by .019%. You mentioned NPR. Attempt to cut NPR and there will be another fight and for what? NPR derives only 2% of its budget from the federal government. This amounts 3.6 million dollars, .00024% of the deficit. Making cuts based political ideology is not going to solve the problem. Dropping Gym membership for congressmen, cutting off the lights in Whitehouse, and elimination of first class travel are good political jesters of shared sacrifice, but in the end this would be just distractions from the real tasks.

In order to get a plan through Congress that significantly reduces cost, Congress is going have to concentrate on cost reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. I doubt very seriously if any plan would clear the Senate without some increase in personal income tax. The best approach would be to reconsider how we raise revenues, addressing both personal and corporate taxes, deductions, and rates.

Yes, Congress is going to have to address all the entitlement programs and start phasing them out slowly and carefully NOW. But I don't buy that they can't do anything about a budget that is already passed. They do all the time. The budget is purely a guideline. The actually spending is committed in various appropriations bills after the budget is passed and those sometimes bear little resemblance to the actual budget. It can be very specific in the budget, but if it is left out of the appropriations bill, the money is not spent. That has been a formidable weapon wielded by Congress for nefarious purposes for a very long time now.

It's time they use it to put us back on sound financial footing.

And anyhow the Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year and Congress isn't even close on agreeing to one yet this year.

 

[The T]

I am not suggesting that we default. I am suggesting that we stop spending. I'm suggesting that we use up what the government already has before it buys any more of anything. I'm suggesting that we close ineffective or non-essential agencies, that we stop funding projects and organizations that never should have been the responsibility of the Federal government in the first place. I am suggesting that we look to members of Congress to also make personal sacrifice such as personally funding their own health and retirement plans and gym memberships. I'm suggesting that we authorize absolutely no money that does not absolutely have to be spent. And I am suggesting that we start now to phase out entitlement programs slowly and carefully so that we do not break faith with the people.

These are all measures to correct the problem so that we do not default on our obligations and debts while we do not add to them.

To say that government is too big to manage efficiently and effectively is not a hell of a lot of incentive to keep sending them more and more money. I am guessing that not a single congressman who votes for the budget has a real clue about what is in it. That needs to stop now.

I completely agree we the need to cut spending, however this should be done through the budget process, not after financial commitments are made.

If Congress tries to reduce the deficit by eliminating inefficiencies and specific programs, they will fail to achieve meaningful spending cuts. The House wanted to cut 293 million from Planned Parenthood, which resulted in a major clash between the two sides and for what? This would have reduced the deficit by .019%. You mentioned NPR. Attempt to cut NPR and there will be another fight and for what? NPR derives only 2% of its budget from the federal government. This amounts 3.6 million dollars, .00024% of the deficit. Making cuts based political ideology is not going to solve the problem. Dropping Gym membership for congressmen, cutting off the lights in Whitehouse, and elimination of first class travel are good political jesters of shared sacrifice, but in the end this would be just distractions from the real tasks.

In order to get a plan through Congress that significantly reduces cost, Congress is going have to concentrate on cost reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. I doubt very seriously if any plan would clear the Senate without some increase in personal income tax. The best approach would be to reconsider how we raise revenues, addressing both personal and corporate taxes, deductions, and rates.

Yes, Congress is going to have to address all the entitlement programs and start phasing them out slowly and carefully NOW. But I don't buy that they can't do anything about a budget that is already passed. They do all the time. The budget is purely a guideline. The actually spending is committed in various appropriations bills after the budget is passed and those sometimes bear little resemblance to the actual budget. It can be very specific in the budget, but if it is left out of the appropriations bill, the money is not spent. That has been a formidable weapon wielded by Congress for nefarious purposes for a very long time now.

It's time they use it to put us back on sound financial footing.

And anyhow the Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year and Congress isn't even close on agreeing to one yet this year.

And they are already arguing over the next one.

 

[Foxfyre]

True T. But I for one think it is time to stop throwing up our hands and say the problem is too big to fix so lets just let them do whatever they want to do and hope it's all okay.

If we don't stop raising the credit limit, Congress has proved in spades it won't limit itself. It will spend every penny it is allowed and obligate us for a whole lot more.

No raise in the debt ceiling without some REAL financial solutions to the problem please.

 

[The T]

True T. But I for one think it is time to stop throwing up our hands and say the problem is too big to fix so lets just let them do whatever they want to do and hope it's all okay.

If we don't stop raising the credit limit, Congress has proved in spades it won't limit itself. It will spend every penny it is allowed and obligate us for a whole lot more.

No raise in the debt ceiling without some REAL financial solutions to the problem please.

In my view? I see it as WE the parents take away the card from the petulant children that aren't listening anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

True T. But I for one think it is time to stop throwing up our hands and say the problem is too big to fix so lets just let them do whatever they want to do and hope it's all okay.

If we don't stop raising the credit limit, Congress has proved in spades it won't limit itself. It will spend every penny it is allowed and obligate us for a whole lot more.

No raise in the debt ceiling without some REAL financial solutions to the problem please.

In my view? I see it as WE the parents take away the card from the petulant children that aren't listening anyway.

Exactly. You don't automatically raise the credit limit for your college kid when he or she maxes out his/her credit car on a lot of irresponsible or careless stuff. You sit him down and tell him how it's gonna be and that includes a strict budget.

If we don't put Congress on a strict money limit, they'll never get around to a real budget focused on necessities rather than every cockamamie thing they think it would be great to do.

 

[The T]

True T. But I for one think it is time to stop throwing up our hands and say the problem is too big to fix so lets just let them do whatever they want to do and hope it's all okay.

If we don't stop raising the credit limit, Congress has proved in spades it won't limit itself. It will spend every penny it is allowed and obligate us for a whole lot more.

No raise in the debt ceiling without some REAL financial solutions to the problem please.

In my view? I see it as WE the parents take away the card from the petulant children that aren't listening anyway.

Exactly. You don't automatically raise the credit limit for your college kid when he or she maxes out his/her credit car on a lot of irresponsible or careless stuff. You sit him down and tell him how it's gonna be and that includes a strict budget.

If we don't put Congress on a strict money limit, they'll never get around to a real budget focused on necessities rather than every cockamamie thing they think it would be great to do.

Well stated.

 

[The T]

True T. But I for one think it is time to stop throwing up our hands and say the problem is too big to fix so lets just let them do whatever they want to do and hope it's all okay.

If we don't stop raising the credit limit, Congress has proved in spades it won't limit itself. It will spend every penny it is allowed and obligate us for a whole lot more.

No raise in the debt ceiling without some REAL financial solutions to the problem please.

In my view? I see it as WE the parents take away the card from the petulant children that aren't listening anyway.

Exactly. You don't automatically raise the credit limit for your college kid when he or she maxes out his/her credit car on a lot of irresponsible or careless stuff. You sit him down and tell him how it's gonna be and that includes a strict budget.

If we don't put Congress on a strict money limit, they'll never get around to a real budget focused on necessities rather than every cockamamie thing they think it would be great to do.

And what does Obama say? Just stick our mom and dad with more taxes to force the issue.

 

[Flopper]

I completely agree we the need to cut spending, however this should be done through the budget process, not after financial commitments are made.

If Congress tries to reduce the deficit by eliminating inefficiencies and specific programs, they will fail to achieve meaningful spending cuts. The House wanted to cut 293 million from Planned Parenthood, which resulted in a major clash between the two sides and for what? This would have reduced the deficit by .019%. You mentioned NPR. Attempt to cut NPR and there will be another fight and for what? NPR derives only 2% of its budget from the federal government. This amounts 3.6 million dollars, .00024% of the deficit. Making cuts based political ideology is not going to solve the problem. Dropping Gym membership for congressmen, cutting off the lights in Whitehouse, and elimination of first class travel are good political jesters of shared sacrifice, but in the end this would be just distractions from the real tasks.

In order to get a plan through Congress that significantly reduces cost, Congress is going have to concentrate on cost reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. I doubt very seriously if any plan would clear the Senate without some increase in personal income tax. The best approach would be to reconsider how we raise revenues, addressing both personal and corporate taxes, deductions, and rates.

Yes, Congress is going to have to address all the entitlement programs and start phasing them out slowly and carefully NOW. But I don't buy that they can't do anything about a budget that is already passed. They do all the time. The budget is purely a guideline. The actually spending is committed in various appropriations bills after the budget is passed and those sometimes bear little resemblance to the actual budget. It can be very specific in the budget, but if it is left out of the appropriations bill, the money is not spent. That has been a formidable weapon wielded by Congress for nefarious purposes for a very long time now.

It's time they use it to put us back on sound financial footing.

And anyhow the Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year and Congress isn't even close on agreeing to one yet this year.

And they are already arguing over the next one.

I agree cutting the budget by revision is certainly possibly, however I have my doubts as to how much it would really save.

To me, the whole budget process just doesn't make sense. As you said, Congressmen have no idea what they are approving and that is certainly the case with the budget. I think a far better approach would be for Congress to approve the President's Budget Request with say a 1% cut or specify a percentage cuts by department. Then allow the various departments and agencies to determine how best to implement the cut. If we allowed the departments and agencies to decide how to implement cuts to programs, I bet we could easily cut 10% and maintain near 100% of the functionality in most departments.

Imagine the Board of Directors for GE requiring that management cut 5% of the cost of raw materials used for armature manufactures in their power generation division. That would be insane micromanagement but that is exactly what Congress does.

 

[The T]

Yes, Congress is going to have to address all the entitlement programs and start phasing them out slowly and carefully NOW. But I don't buy that they can't do anything about a budget that is already passed. They do all the time. The budget is purely a guideline. The actually spending is committed in various appropriations bills after the budget is passed and those sometimes bear little resemblance to the actual budget. It can be very specific in the budget, but if it is left out of the appropriations bill, the money is not spent. That has been a formidable weapon wielded by Congress for nefarious purposes for a very long time now.

It's time they use it to put us back on sound financial footing.

And anyhow the Democrats didn't even pass a budget last year and Congress isn't even close on agreeing to one yet this year.

And they are already arguing over the next one.

I agree cutting the budget by revision is certainly possibly, however I have my doubts as to how much it would really save.

To me, the whole budget process just doesn't make sense. As you said, Congressmen have no idea what they are approving and that is certainly the case with the budget. I think a far better approach would be for Congress to approve the President's Budget Request with say a 1% cut or specify a percentage cuts by department. Then allow the various departments and agencies to determine how best to implement the cut. If we allowed the departments and agencies to decide how to implement cuts to programs, I bet we could easily cut 10% and maintain near 100% of the functionality in most departments.

Imagine the Board of Directors for GE requiring that management cut 5% of the cost of raw materials used for armature manufactures in their power generation division. That would be insane micromanagement but that is exactly what Congress does.

The FLAW in your arguement is that you CITE GE...a private entity...that doesn't PAY taxes as of late...

But as to others or any household?

Imaging them running their budgets like gubmint?

Thing is? The Gubmint's bluff has been called. S&P called them...

Something HAS TO BE DONE...this has been going on too long. That can they kick down the road can't be kicked any longer.

The Debt ceiling should remain where it is. The world will NOT come to an end. it would signal the rest of the world that WE are serious of this debt.

 

[The T]

The PEOPLE whom pay the bills are INSISTING that it not be raised.

 

[Flopper]

And they are already arguing over the next one.

I agree cutting the budget by revision is certainly possibly, however I have my doubts as to how much it would really save.

To me, the whole budget process just doesn't make sense. As you said, Congressmen have no idea what they are approving and that is certainly the case with the budget. I think a far better approach would be for Congress to approve the President's Budget Request with say a 1% cut or specify a percentage cuts by department. Then allow the various departments and agencies to determine how best to implement the cut. If we allowed the departments and agencies to decide how to implement cuts to programs, I bet we could easily cut 10% and maintain near 100% of the functionality in most departments.

Imagine the Board of Directors for GE requiring that management cut 5% of the cost of raw materials used for armature manufactures in their power generation division. That would be insane micromanagement but that is exactly what Congress does.

The FLAW in your arguement is that you CITE GE...a private entity...that doesn't PAY taxes as of late...

But as to others or any household?

Imaging them running their budgets like gubmint?

Thing is? The Gubmint's bluff has been called. S&P called them...

Something HAS TO BE DONE...this has been going on too long. That can they kick down the road can't be kicked any longer.

The Debt ceiling should remain where it is. The world will NOT come to an end. it would signal the rest of the world that WE are serious of this debt.

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

 

[Shooter]

Good for him. Raising the debt ceiling would be beyond idiotic.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree cutting the budget by revision is certainly possibly, however I have my doubts as to how much it would really save.

To me, the whole budget process just doesn't make sense. As you said, Congressmen have no idea what they are approving and that is certainly the case with the budget. I think a far better approach would be for Congress to approve the President's Budget Request with say a 1% cut or specify a percentage cuts by department. Then allow the various departments and agencies to determine how best to implement the cut. If we allowed the departments and agencies to decide how to implement cuts to programs, I bet we could easily cut 10% and maintain near 100% of the functionality in most departments.

Imagine the Board of Directors for GE requiring that management cut 5% of the cost of raw materials used for armature manufactures in their power generation division. That would be insane micromanagement but that is exactly what Congress does.

The FLAW in your arguement is that you CITE GE...a private entity...that doesn't PAY taxes as of late...

But as to others or any household?

Imaging them running their budgets like gubmint?

Thing is? The Gubmint's bluff has been called. S&P called them...

Something HAS TO BE DONE...this has been going on too long. That can they kick down the road can't be kicked any longer.

The Debt ceiling should remain where it is. The world will NOT come to an end. it would signal the rest of the world that WE are serious of this debt.

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

People are inherently wasteful as long as they are allowed to be. But when budget crunch reality sets in you would be amazed how much more efficient the whole thing can be.
You would also be amazed at the dexterity of Treasury. I recall the last shut down they managed a few tricks. This wont be any different. It certainly wont be the Armageddon the administraiton predicts.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree cutting the budget by revision is certainly possibly, however I have my doubts as to how much it would really save.

To me, the whole budget process just doesn't make sense. As you said, Congressmen have no idea what they are approving and that is certainly the case with the budget. I think a far better approach would be for Congress to approve the President's Budget Request with say a 1% cut or specify a percentage cuts by department. Then allow the various departments and agencies to determine how best to implement the cut. If we allowed the departments and agencies to decide how to implement cuts to programs, I bet we could easily cut 10% and maintain near 100% of the functionality in most departments.

Imagine the Board of Directors for GE requiring that management cut 5% of the cost of raw materials used for armature manufactures in their power generation division. That would be insane micromanagement but that is exactly what Congress does.

The FLAW in your arguement is that you CITE GE...a private entity...that doesn't PAY taxes as of late...

But as to others or any household?

Imaging them running their budgets like gubmint?

Thing is? The Gubmint's bluff has been called. S&P called them...

Something HAS TO BE DONE...this has been going on too long. That can they kick down the road can't be kicked any longer.

The Debt ceiling should remain where it is. The world will NOT come to an end. it would signal the rest of the world that WE are serious of this debt.

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

There is no money in the treasury. We have been running on empty and IOUs for a long time now. All some of we people are asking is they stop spending right now on anything and everything that they do not HAVE to spend.

If that means shutting down non essential services, so be it. If that means cutting off their favorite charities, unions, and special interest groups, wonderful. If that means not spending for new stuff but using up the billions of dollars of stored equipment and furniture, then do that. If it means suspending their own raises and benefits, that should be done too. If it means cancelling unissued contracts and projects that can wait, they should wait. If it means offending constituencies they depend on to get re-elected, well that's just tough.

Yes pay our legitimate debts and obligations that already exist. But don't tell me they can't save hundreds and hundreds of billions in expenditures that can wait or never have to be spent. And until they do that, no raise in the debt ceiling.

 

[Toro]

The FLAW in your arguement is that you CITE GE...a private entity...that doesn't PAY taxes as of late...

But as to others or any household?

Imaging them running their budgets like gubmint?

Thing is? The Gubmint's bluff has been called. S&P called them...

Something HAS TO BE DONE...this has been going on too long. That can they kick down the road can't be kicked any longer.

The Debt ceiling should remain where it is. The world will NOT come to an end. it would signal the rest of the world that WE are serious of this debt.

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

There is no money in the treasury. We have been running on empty and IOUs for a long time now. All some of we people are asking is they stop spending right now on anything and everything that they do not HAVE to spend.

If that means shutting down non essential services, so be it. If that means cutting off their favorite charities, unions, and special interest groups, wonderful. If that means not spending for new stuff but using up the billions of dollars of stored equipment and furniture, then do that. If it means suspending their own raises and benefits, that should be done too. If it means cancelling unissued contracts and projects that can wait, they should wait. If it means offending constituencies they depend on to get re-elected, well that's just tough.

Yes pay our legitimate debts and obligations that already exist. But don't tell me they can't save hundreds and hundreds of billions in expenditures that can wait or never have to be spent. And until they do that, no raise in the debt ceiling.

That's not what raising the debt ceiling means. Not raising the debt ceiling means stopping social security checks, stopping medicare payments, starving the military and slashing everything else.

The budget deficit is $1.6 trillion. That's over 11% of GDP. Total spending is $2.2 trillion. Of that $200 billion is interest. $800 billion is each spent on social security, medicare and medicaid, and defense. Add those up, and you get $2.6 trillion. Everything else is $1.2 trillion.

The decline in GDP in the past recession was less than 4%. Not raising the debt ceiling means that we will incur on ourselves a contraction that is 3x more severe than the past recession. That's why the debt ceiling will get raised, despite all the posturing to the contrary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

There is no money in the treasury. We have been running on empty and IOUs for a long time now. All some of we people are asking is they stop spending right now on anything and everything that they do not HAVE to spend.

If that means shutting down non essential services, so be it. If that means cutting off their favorite charities, unions, and special interest groups, wonderful. If that means not spending for new stuff but using up the billions of dollars of stored equipment and furniture, then do that. If it means suspending their own raises and benefits, that should be done too. If it means cancelling unissued contracts and projects that can wait, they should wait. If it means offending constituencies they depend on to get re-elected, well that's just tough.

Yes pay our legitimate debts and obligations that already exist. But don't tell me they can't save hundreds and hundreds of billions in expenditures that can wait or never have to be spent. And until they do that, no raise in the debt ceiling.

That's not what raising the debt ceiling means. Not raising the debt ceiling means stopping social security checks, stopping medicare payments, starving the military and slashing everything else.

The budget deficit is $1.6 trillion. That's over 11% of GDP. Total spending is $2.2 trillion. Of that $200 billion is interest. $800 billion is each spent on social security, medicare and medicaid, and defense. Add those up, and you get $2.6 trillion. Everything else is $1.2 trillion.

The decline in GDP in the past recession was less than 4%. Not raising the debt ceiling means that we will incur on ourselves a contraction that is 3x more severe than the past recession. That's why the debt ceiling will get raised, despite all the posturing to the contrary.

No it doesn't. It just means that, instead of borrowing money to pay for everything in sight, the government has to survive with the money it actually has on hand. Geithner has statuary authority to decide which bills to pay and which ones to defer. If it was going to happen the way you describe the deadline for raising the ceiling would be May 20, not the middle of June.

 

[Foxfyre]

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

There is no money in the treasury. We have been running on empty and IOUs for a long time now. All some of we people are asking is they stop spending right now on anything and everything that they do not HAVE to spend.

If that means shutting down non essential services, so be it. If that means cutting off their favorite charities, unions, and special interest groups, wonderful. If that means not spending for new stuff but using up the billions of dollars of stored equipment and furniture, then do that. If it means suspending their own raises and benefits, that should be done too. If it means cancelling unissued contracts and projects that can wait, they should wait. If it means offending constituencies they depend on to get re-elected, well that's just tough.

Yes pay our legitimate debts and obligations that already exist. But don't tell me they can't save hundreds and hundreds of billions in expenditures that can wait or never have to be spent. And until they do that, no raise in the debt ceiling.

That's not what raising the debt ceiling means. Not raising the debt ceiling means stopping social security checks, stopping medicare payments, starving the military and slashing everything else.

The budget deficit is $1.6 trillion. That's over 11% of GDP. Total spending is $2.2 trillion. Of that $200 billion is interest. $800 billion is each spent on social security, medicare and medicaid, and defense. Add those up, and you get $2.6 trillion. Everything else is $1.2 trillion.

The decline in GDP in the past recession was less than 4%. Not raising the debt ceiling means that we will incur on ourselves a contraction that is 3x more severe than the past recession. That's why the debt ceiling will get raised, despite all the posturing to the contrary.

You must not have read anything I wrote actually. I am not suggested we default on anything that we owe or are obligated for. But I am suggesting that they cut out ALL the non essential stuff that doesn't HAVE to be spent BEFORE they force the people to take on hundreds of billions in new debt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Critics of the government contend it is inefficient, inept, and wasteful. Yet faced with a debt ceiling, those same people believe government could pull the rabbit out of the hat and not default on contracts, interest payments, and bond redemptions. Interest rates on treasury bills would easily double. There would be no savings and the government would be permanently saddled with high interest rates.

There is no money in the treasury. We have been running on empty and IOUs for a long time now. All some of we people are asking is they stop spending right now on anything and everything that they do not HAVE to spend.

If that means shutting down non essential services, so be it. If that means cutting off their favorite charities, unions, and special interest groups, wonderful. If that means not spending for new stuff but using up the billions of dollars of stored equipment and furniture, then do that. If it means suspending their own raises and benefits, that should be done too. If it means cancelling unissued contracts and projects that can wait, they should wait. If it means offending constituencies they depend on to get re-elected, well that's just tough.

Yes pay our legitimate debts and obligations that already exist. But don't tell me they can't save hundreds and hundreds of billions in expenditures that can wait or never have to be spent. And until they do that, no raise in the debt ceiling.

That's not what raising the debt ceiling means. Not raising the debt ceiling means stopping social security checks, stopping medicare payments, starving the military and slashing everything else.

The budget deficit is $1.6 trillion. That's over 11% of GDP. Total spending is $2.2 trillion. Of that $200 billion is interest. $800 billion is each spent on social security, medicare and medicaid, and defense. Add those up, and you get $2.6 trillion. Everything else is $1.2 trillion.

The decline in GDP in the past recession was less than 4%. Not raising the debt ceiling means that we will incur on ourselves a contraction that is 3x more severe than the past recession. That's why the debt ceiling will get raised, despite all the posturing to the contrary.

But hopefully not before the GOP has wrung maximum concessions from Obama, like rolling back Obamacare. This has already started, with Obama actually signing legislation to revoke some parts of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pryor is a Conservative Democrat [Blue Dog]. Unfortunately, they are the reason the Democratic Congress didn't get as much accomplished as some of us hoped.

So, then...
You agree that labelling the GOP congressional minority as "obstructionist" and "the party of no" was just a bunch of partisan hooey.
Right?

I said the obstructionists were Republicans and Democrats who act like Republicans.

Happy now?

 

[The Rabbi]

Pryor is a Conservative Democrat [Blue Dog]. Unfortunately, they are the reason the Democratic Congress didn't get as much accomplished as some of us hoped.

So, then...
You agree that labelling the GOP congressional minority as "obstructionist" and "the party of no" was just a bunch of partisan hooey.
Right?

I said the obstructionists were Republicans and Democrats who act like Republicans.

Happy now?

So representing your constituents' interests is now considered "obstructionist"? Interesting.