Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments

[Toro]

The Democrats and Republicans both have a lot to lose, as does this country.

People who are saying we should never raise taxes or never cut spending are part of the problem. Both parties should agree to cut spending and raise taxes because ultimately that WILL happen. If we do it now, we will be better off than if it is forced upon us later.

No one is saying that on the Democratic Side, are they? Show me one source where Dems say that we shouldn't cut.

To think this particular problem is bipartisan is ridiculous. It's the GOP and their SHIITE Brethren(the Tea Party) that is pulling the Stonewalling thing.

They don't want a fair approach... they want it their way.... which has been pretty much the case since '08. They have blocked and filibustered just about any significant piece of legislation this whole time.

I love it... the GOP holds the country hostage and Dems either get the blame entirely... or get this 50/50 bullshit.

I agree that this "The Democrats have refused to take tax increases off the table so we are walking" nonsense is laughable but are Democrats saying we should cut entitlements?

 

[Steelplate]

The Democrats and Republicans both have a lot to lose, as does this country.

People who are saying we should never raise taxes or never cut spending are part of the problem. Both parties should agree to cut spending and raise taxes because ultimately that WILL happen. If we do it now, we will be better off than if it is forced upon us later.

No one is saying that on the Democratic Side, are they? Show me one source where Dems say that we shouldn't cut.

To think this particular problem is bipartisan is ridiculous. It's the GOP and their SHIITE Brethren(the Tea Party) that is pulling the Stonewalling thing.

They don't want a fair approach... they want it their way.... which has been pretty much the case since '08. They have blocked and filibustered just about any significant piece of legislation this whole time.

I love it... the GOP holds the country hostage and Dems either get the blame entirely... or get this 50/50 bullshit.

I agree that this "The Democrats have refused to take tax increases off the table so we are walking" nonsense is laughable but are Democrats saying we should cut entitlements?

Yes... Both Medicare and Social Security are on the table.... everything is. Even(gasp) defense spending.

 

[WillowTree]

House Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit without concessions from Senate Democrats. Whether voters hold the Republicans or Democrats responsible for any resulting financial crisis depends on whether there is a crisis and how serious it is. If the crisis is serious enough to cause a major sell off in stocks and bonds and triggers another recession you can bet voters will hold Republicans responsible for a failed risky plan to bring about deficit reduction.

The other side is if the Dems made the concessions, no default.

I guess its in how you look at it.

Politically speaking, the Dems have little reason to compromise, despite what Obama says. House Republicans are between a rock and hard place. If they stand fast, we will have a financial crisis, which could well turn into another recession. The Democrats would then have a strong case to put before the voters, a failed plan of the Republicans to lower the deficit that resulted in a second recession. If, on the other hand they give in to the Democrats and get only meager spending cuts, that’s not going to play well with their supporters.

Party over country. good going demonRats

 

[Toro]

No one is saying that on the Democratic Side, are they? Show me one source where Dems say that we shouldn't cut.

To think this particular problem is bipartisan is ridiculous. It's the GOP and their SHIITE Brethren(the Tea Party) that is pulling the Stonewalling thing.

They don't want a fair approach... they want it their way.... which has been pretty much the case since '08. They have blocked and filibustered just about any significant piece of legislation this whole time.

I love it... the GOP holds the country hostage and Dems either get the blame entirely... or get this 50/50 bullshit.

I agree that this "The Democrats have refused to take tax increases off the table so we are walking" nonsense is laughable but are Democrats saying we should cut entitlements?

Yes... Both Medicare and Social Security are on the table.... everything is. Even(gasp) defense spending.

What are they proposing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tax rate issue is the biggest issue or at least it should be. The entire system needs to be fixed so that it works the way it was originally designed to work and actually be a progressive tax system. Why should a guy making $70,000 pay more taxes percentage wise then a millionaire? Why should people in the middle class get the shaft because the top income earners aren't paying their fair share?

Instead the right will hold on to this idea that raising taxes on the rich is just going to mean more job loss and we'll see the end of programs like Social Security and Medicare. We'll see Education cuts, teachers losing their jobs and a much higher percent of people not even graduating from high school. People who lost their jobs and are looking for jobs currently will no longer get unemployment. All the pain goes to the middle class and the rich keep on getting richer.

The guy making $70,000 does not pay more taxes percentage wise than a millionaire.

 

[Bern80]

Using the debt limit requirement in the Constitution to control spending makes no sense. It is Congress that has approved government financial obligations. Now Congress is deciding whether they will honor their obligations.

The place to control spending is through the budget. If the budget process does not work, the process needs to change.

You seem to be suggesting that the best way to make the process 'work' is simply let congress borrow whatever they want.

Yes the process needs to change. A balanced budget amendment would be good. But the fact is that is basically what denyiny an increase in the debt cieling would be. It would be a self imposed budget balancing measure that says "okay folks you can't keep piling ever more money. When you reach the debt cieling, you're done."

Or, and I believe some congressman has already authored this bill, a measure that says government may not have a budget that exceeds 20% of GDP.

Not really. A balanced budget amendment would stop congress from making financial obligations that it does not have the revenue to cover. Exercising the debt limit provision, forces the government to default on obligations that Congress has previously agreed. Not meeting your obligations is not the way to control spending. In the end, the results would be lawsuits, layoffs requiring up to one pay severance, default on loans which would raise the amount the government pays in interest. Exercising the debt limit, would increase spending. No doubt the country would go into another recession which make matters even worse.

No raising the debt ceiling does not mean default. I don't know why people keep saying this to be honest. You default by not paying what you owe. Which is different than simply not being able to borrow more money.

 

[Steelplate]

I agree that this "The Democrats have refused to take tax increases off the table so we are walking" nonsense is laughable but are Democrats saying we should cut entitlements?

Yes... Both Medicare and Social Security are on the table.... everything is. Even(gasp) defense spending.

What are they proposing?

Well, I thought they were... I watched the President's speech today and he said that everything was on the table, including tough choices with entitlements. However, when I tried to search for anything significant, I can't seem to locate much.

But... at the same time... other than Paul Ryan's budget... I can't find much from the GOP either. Methinks they are working behind closed doors on this one.... to be continued.

 

[Steelplate]

You seem to be suggesting that the best way to make the process 'work' is simply let congress borrow whatever they want.

Yes the process needs to change. A balanced budget amendment would be good. But the fact is that is basically what denyiny an increase in the debt cieling would be. It would be a self imposed budget balancing measure that says "okay folks you can't keep piling ever more money. When you reach the debt cieling, you're done."

Or, and I believe some congressman has already authored this bill, a measure that says government may not have a budget that exceeds 20% of GDP.

Not really. A balanced budget amendment would stop congress from making financial obligations that it does not have the revenue to cover. Exercising the debt limit provision, forces the government to default on obligations that Congress has previously agreed. Not meeting your obligations is not the way to control spending. In the end, the results would be lawsuits, layoffs requiring up to one pay severance, default on loans which would raise the amount the government pays in interest. Exercising the debt limit, would increase spending. No doubt the country would go into another recession which make matters even worse.

No raising the debt ceiling does not mean default. I don't know why people keep saying this to be honest. You default by not paying what you owe. Which is different than simply not being able to borrow more money.

Well then... if you can't have access to anymore money and your debts are piling up... who do you pay? Let's face it... the money was already spent. It's not like you can choose to "unspend" it. You can only choose to pay for some things and default on others.

That's what you aren't getting. The obligations are already here.

 

[Toro]

You seem to be suggesting that the best way to make the process 'work' is simply let congress borrow whatever they want.

Yes the process needs to change. A balanced budget amendment would be good. But the fact is that is basically what denyiny an increase in the debt cieling would be. It would be a self imposed budget balancing measure that says "okay folks you can't keep piling ever more money. When you reach the debt cieling, you're done."

Or, and I believe some congressman has already authored this bill, a measure that says government may not have a budget that exceeds 20% of GDP.

Not really. A balanced budget amendment would stop congress from making financial obligations that it does not have the revenue to cover. Exercising the debt limit provision, forces the government to default on obligations that Congress has previously agreed. Not meeting your obligations is not the way to control spending. In the end, the results would be lawsuits, layoffs requiring up to one pay severance, default on loans which would raise the amount the government pays in interest. Exercising the debt limit, would increase spending. No doubt the country would go into another recession which make matters even worse.

No raising the debt ceiling does not mean default. I don't know why people keep saying this to be honest. You default by not paying what you owe. Which is different than simply not being able to borrow more money.

You are correct. However, SS, Medicare and defense spending exceed tax revenues, let alone everything else. So which of those three are going to get cut before interest payments? Which politician is going to get up and say they'd rather pay the Chinese than American troops or seniors?

 

[Toro]

Yes... Both Medicare and Social Security are on the table.... everything is. Even(gasp) defense spending.

What are they proposing?

Well, I thought they were... I watched the President's speech today and he said that everything was on the table, including tough choices with entitlements. However, when I tried to search for anything significant, I can't seem to locate much.

But... at the same time... other than Paul Ryan's budget... I can't find much from the GOP either. Methinks they are working behind closed doors on this one.... to be continued.

If the President says everything is on the table, then both Democrats and Republicans should say everything is on the table, including tax increases.

 

[Bern80]

Not really. A balanced budget amendment would stop congress from making financial obligations that it does not have the revenue to cover. Exercising the debt limit provision, forces the government to default on obligations that Congress has previously agreed. Not meeting your obligations is not the way to control spending. In the end, the results would be lawsuits, layoffs requiring up to one pay severance, default on loans which would raise the amount the government pays in interest. Exercising the debt limit, would increase spending. No doubt the country would go into another recession which make matters even worse.

No raising the debt ceiling does not mean default. I don't know why people keep saying this to be honest. You default by not paying what you owe. Which is different than simply not being able to borrow more money.

Well then... if you can't have access to anymore money and your debts are piling up... who do you pay? Let's face it... the money was already spent. It's not like you can choose to "unspend" it. You can only choose to pay for some things and default on others.

That's what you aren't getting. The obligations are already here.

Because what we pay on a yearly basis toward paying the debt is not all of the budget. The governments takes in more in revenue than that mandatory spending. Those are the only drop dead portions of the budget the government must pay. The rest is all negotiable and can't be considered an obligation.

 

[Urkie]

The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of federal income taxes. Sounds more than fair to me. How much did you pay in taxes last year? I'd like to make sure you're paying your fair share since you're such an authority on how others should be paying your bills for you.

That's not true and you know it. The top 1% do not receive their income the same way that I do or you do so they can bypass the 35% they're supposed to pay. Just ask Warren Buffett who knows a thing or two about it.

I'm not fucking asking someone to pay my bills for me. Way to be an ass. I take care of myself and I'm working hard. I just graduated from college and got a good job if you must know. I just don't think it's fair that people making millions can pay less percentage wise in taxes then I do. Why should the average joe be punished because they don't make as much? That's exactly what's going to happen if huge cuts happen and the tax issue isn't dealt with.

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh if the repubs cause the SS checks to stop they can kiss 2012 goodbye.

 

[oreo]

WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can't agree to increase the government's debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

Although the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn't raised.

It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn't be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.

If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.

Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.

"We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic," said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration. "There is no way to avoid really serious pain."

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That's the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.

Things wouldn't improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.

On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.

As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be "irretrievable."

Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments - USATODAY.com

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.



14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

 

[Flopper]

You seem to be suggesting that the best way to make the process 'work' is simply let congress borrow whatever they want.

Yes the process needs to change. A balanced budget amendment would be good. But the fact is that is basically what denyiny an increase in the debt cieling would be. It would be a self imposed budget balancing measure that says "okay folks you can't keep piling ever more money. When you reach the debt cieling, you're done."

Or, and I believe some congressman has already authored this bill, a measure that says government may not have a budget that exceeds 20% of GDP.

Not really. A balanced budget amendment would stop congress from making financial obligations that it does not have the revenue to cover. Exercising the debt limit provision, forces the government to default on obligations that Congress has previously agreed. Not meeting your obligations is not the way to control spending. In the end, the results would be lawsuits, layoffs requiring up to one pay severance, default on loans which would raise the amount the government pays in interest. Exercising the debt limit, would increase spending. No doubt the country would go into another recession which make matters even worse.

No raising the debt ceiling does not mean default. I don't know why people keep saying this to be honest. You default by not paying what you owe. Which is different than simply not being able to borrow more money.

Default is inevitable if a compromise is not reached. Default does not just mean failing to pay government debt. It also means contract defaults and failure to make payments as required by law. Shutting down any government department would result in massive defaults. Failure to pay states for Medicaid services, defense contractors, Medicare payments to providers, and thousands of other obligations would all constitute defaults.

It has been suggested the government should just layoff thousands of workers in order to avoid defaults. If the government does this, it would be obligated to pay severance pay, which can be up 1 year’s salary.

So yes defaults would result. If the crisis was not resolve when a month or so, there would be a massive number of defaults accompanied by penalties and lawsuits. But by far the most damage would be lose of faith in the government, the very thing we are trying to avoid by bringing the deficit under control.

 

[Flopper]

WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can't agree to increase the government's debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

Although the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn't raised.

It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn't be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.

If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.

Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.

"We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic," said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration. "There is no way to avoid really serious pain."

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That's the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.

Things wouldn't improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.

On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.

As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be "irretrievable."

Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments - USATODAY.com

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.

View attachment 13934

14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

Our obligations were made by Congress. Yes, passing the debt limit is equivalent to increasing the credit limit in order pay our obligations. To do otherwise would destroy our credit and faith in the government and that's not a Fear Game, that's a fact.

 

[Bern80]

WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can't agree to increase the government's debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

Although the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn't raised.

It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn't be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.

If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.

Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.

"We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic," said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration. "There is no way to avoid really serious pain."

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That's the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.

Things wouldn't improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.

On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.

As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be "irretrievable."

Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments - USATODAY.com

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.

View attachment 13934

14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

Our obligations were made by Congress. Yes, passing the debt limit is equivalent to increasing the credit limit in order pay our obligations. To do otherwise would destroy our credit and faith in the government and that's not a Fear Game, that's a fact.

What you are doing is nothing more than fear mongering flopper. Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't shut off revenue. IT does mean that finally government has to take a hard look at what it does. Raising the debt ceiling simply allows them to continue business as usual and put us farther in debt. You are a fucking fool if you think there will be real change to how government spends money if the debt ceiling is raised.

 

[auditor0007]

Who says they will chose to cut SS or Medicare or the paychecks to the military??

The party in power will chose what to cut.

Of course if you claim your going to have to cut SS, Medicare or paychecks to the military and are doing so because you can't reach an agreement with the GOP then of course its the GOP's fault. Right??

Of course it is.

House Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit without concessions from Senate Democrats. Whether voters hold the Republicans or Democrats responsible for any resulting financial crisis depends on whether there is a crisis and how serious it is. If the crisis is serious enough to cause a major sell off in stocks and bonds and triggers another recession you can bet voters will hold Republicans responsible for a failed risky plan to bring about deficit reduction.

To help the situation we need to cut expensis and raise revenue

Well that's pretty simple; just cut taxes and that will raise revenues.

 

[auditor0007]

WASHINGTON — Social Security payments to millions of retirees and people with disabilities could be threatened if President Obama and Congress can't agree to increase the government's debt limit by Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.

Although the Treasury Department likely could avoid delaying Social Security checks, the analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center points up the depth of the cuts that would be needed if the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling isn't raised.

It shows that in August, the government could not afford to meet 44% of its obligations. Since the $134 billion deficit for that month couldn't be covered with more borrowing, programs would have to be cut.

If Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, payments to defense contractors and interest payments on Treasury bonds were exempt, that would be all the government could afford for the month. No money for troops or veterans. No tax refunds. No food stamps or welfare. No federal salaries or benefits.

Want to protect the social safety net? That would be possible — but only if Treasury stopped paying defense contractors, jeopardizing national security. Plus virtually every federal agency and employee.

"We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic," said Jay Powell, a former top Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration. "There is no way to avoid really serious pain."

The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and spending for August 2009 and 2010 and found that the government likely would not have enough revenue to make the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due Aug. 3. That's the first Wednesday of the month, when a majority of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income checks go out.

Things wouldn't improve much as the days pass. The first major interest payment to creditors would be due Aug. 15 — $29 billion, more than the $22 billion due to arrive in revenue.

On that day, Treasury would have to roll over nearly $500 billion in maturing debt — necessitating an auction which, by that time, might have fewer takers than usual. If demand declines, interest rates would rise.

As the center foresees it, the picture would get worse: layoffs and lawsuits. Global market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access.
The effect on the country, said former Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, would be "irretrievable."

Debt-limit delay would jeopardize Social Security payments - USATODAY.com

OMG--the sky is falling-. So the Federal Government is going to raise their credit card limit--(without any spending cuts) and this bill has our kids and unborn grandkids names written all over it for repayment. GET A FREAKIN BACKBONE.

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 YEARS. Resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink right now. This equates to $534,000.00 PER HOUSEHOLD in America owed to the Federal Government.

You Draw a line right now--or social security/medicare will no longer exist. Do NOT be dupped into this FEAR game that democrats and Barack Obama continually launch at you.

We as AMERICANS are better than this. I refuse to pass or kick the can down to my kids and grandkids. And if you can't stand up and do the same--you're not an American.

View attachment 13934

14.3 trillion in red ink now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--as baby boomers are now entering social security/medicare. DEMOCRATS and BARACK OBAMA HAVE NO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.--except to SCARE you into voting for these missing in action--economic morons.

So cut spending and raise taxes. You can't cut $1.8 trillion from the budget without completely decimating every program out there including SS and Medicare. Never in the last 60 years have we tried to run the federal government on revenues equal to 14% of GDP, yet Republicans insist it can and should be done, while giving even more tax cuts to the wealthy. It is irresponsible and people need to wake up.

 

[editec]

The Federal government owes the SSA trillions of dollars.

Obviously if the FEDS refuse to pay SSA, but continue to pay its other debt obligations the shit will hit the fan pretty damned fast.

In 2008 – 50,898,244 recepients recieved $615,344,000,000. (I presume that number is even larger today)

That means, if social security payments were not sent at least $51 BILLION dollars a month would not be going into the economy.

Now just imagine that the economy is going to look like if suddenly the cash flowing in the economy is $51 billion a month LESS than normal

INSTANT depression, folks.

Millions upon million of families will not buy food, will not pay rent, will not pay down mortgages starting the first month those payments are not met.

Unless you're VERY independently wealthy, unless your survival does not depend on our national economy, if Social Security payments are not made?

You too are going to go down the shitter right along with the rest of US economy.

Why?

Because that $51 billion dollars is a large part of the profits that private industry makes every month, that's why.

You might have enough money to buy food, but it is quite likely that you local grocery store will not be selling enough to keep their doors open.

Main street would be boarded up, small businesses and large would be in trouble within weeks of this event happening.