New Calls on GOP Side Not to Lift Debt Limit .

[ScreamingEagle]

But they have been saying for years they are triming the fat off. There is only so much fat on a piece of steak before you start cutting into meat itself.

We're nowhere near the alleged "meat".

You could cut 20% across the board and the moocher class would still have plenty of lard to sustain them.

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

Isn't that much like raising your credit card limits to cover the bills you cannot pay....?

 

[Cuyo]

We're nowhere near the alleged "meat".

You could cut 20% across the board and the moocher class would still have plenty of lard to sustain them.

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

Isn't that much like raising your credit card limits to cover the bills you cannot pay....?

Yes. But that doesn't exactly address my post.

 

[Oddball]

But they have been saying for years they are triming the fat off. There is only so much fat on a piece of steak before you start cutting into meat itself.

We're nowhere near the alleged "meat".

You could cut 20% across the board and the moocher class would still have plenty of lard to sustain them.

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

I detect a certain measure of glee in this fact....As if to say; "well, we can never really pay it back, so fuck it let's party".

 

[Avatar4321]

But they have been saying for years they are triming the fat off. There is only so much fat on a piece of steak before you start cutting into meat itself.

We're nowhere near the alleged "meat".

You could cut 20% across the board and the moocher class would still have plenty of lard to sustain them.

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

I agree. 20% is way to shallow of a cut. We are going to need at least a 60% cut

 

[Avatar4321]

I detect a certain measure of glee in this fact....As if to say; "well, we can never really pay it pack, so fuck it let's party".

I noticed that as well. If he were concerned with fixing the problems in America and didnt think that was enough he would be calling for larger cuts, not acting like it's not enough so screw it.

 

[Cuyo]

We're nowhere near the alleged "meat".

You could cut 20% across the board and the moocher class would still have plenty of lard to sustain them.

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

I detect a certain measure of glee in this fact....As if to say; "well, we can never really pay it back, so fuck it let's party".

No, it's a wholesale rejection of the argument that "Instead of raising the ceiling, let's just cut spending 20%." The math just don't work out.

Taxes must be increased if we're going to get out of this. It's inevitable. I support cuts too, but we can't exclusively cut our way out of this. There's not enough to cut. A majority of the "Spending" are mandatory obligations.

 

[Cuyo]

We're nowhere near the alleged "meat".

You could cut 20% across the board and the moocher class would still have plenty of lard to sustain them.

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

I agree. 20% is way to shallow of a cut. We are going to need at least a 60% cut

OK. 60% of $3.55T = $2.13T. The entire discretionary budget in 2010 was $1.37T. So after you've eliminated the entire military and all other discretionary programs, you only have $750B to go.

So what should we reneg on? Debt interest? SS Payments? Medicare people have been paying into their entire lives?

This argument gets so tiresome....

 

[Avatar4321]

Obviously, across the board is a difficult concept for Cuyo to understand.

 

[Cuyo]

Obviously, across the board is a difficult concept for Cuyo to understand.

Mathematics appear to be a difficult concept for Avy to understand. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler than I did above.

 

[Oddball]

This imaginary '20 percent across the board' would not alleviate the need to raise the ceiling.

I detect a certain measure of glee in this fact....As if to say; "well, we can never really pay it back, so fuck it let's party".

No, it's a wholesale rejection of the argument that "Instead of raising the ceiling, let's just cut spending 20%." The math just don't work out.

Taxes must be increased if we're going to get out of this. It's inevitable. I support cuts too, but we can't exclusively cut our way out of this. There's not enough to cut. A majority of the "Spending" are mandatory obligations.

Then fuck 'em.....Nobody gets out for free.

 

[editec]

Lords of Finance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sounds like a compelling read

I had no idea it was so well recieved, TM.

I picked it up in a remainder bin while I was in PA.

I'm about half way through it, now, and per usual when I read a good history, all it does is reinforce my opinion that mankind's hubris inevitably leads to one damned crises after the other.


Oh yeah, that and my other grand theory about all social science which is simply this:

NOBODY KNOWS NUTTIN!

But after the fact, then of course we can ALL see where the mistakes were made.

Its actually an offshoot of my (admittedly limited( understanding of CHOAS theory.

Since social systems are, much like all complex systems climate being the one most people are focusing on right now) , TOO RANDOM to make even medium term predictions about.

 

[Cuyo]

I detect a certain measure of glee in this fact....As if to say; "well, we can never really pay it back, so fuck it let's party".

No, it's a wholesale rejection of the argument that "Instead of raising the ceiling, let's just cut spending 20%." The math just don't work out.

Taxes must be increased if we're going to get out of this. It's inevitable. I support cuts too, but we can't exclusively cut our way out of this. There's not enough to cut. A majority of the "Spending" are mandatory obligations.

Then fuck 'em.....Nobody gets out for free.

So you'd rather fuck the seniors who paid the higher taxes for their entire lives out of their benefits, than subject the current work force to moderately higher taxes?

I think you know better.

Not to mention, the single biggest line item on our budget, Social Security, has a MASSIVE surplus. The money has been blown elsewhere; That is, building an empire.

 

[Oddball]

So you'd rather just collapse the entire economy and destroy the USD for everyone?

That IS where all this ends up.

 

[Avatar4321]

I detect a certain measure of glee in this fact....As if to say; "well, we can never really pay it back, so fuck it let's party".

No, it's a wholesale rejection of the argument that "Instead of raising the ceiling, let's just cut spending 20%." The math just don't work out.

Taxes must be increased if we're going to get out of this. It's inevitable. I support cuts too, but we can't exclusively cut our way out of this. There's not enough to cut. A majority of the "Spending" are mandatory obligations.

Then fuck 'em.....Nobody gets out for free.

The so called "Mandatory" obligations are about as mandatory as feeding rocks to children.

Unfortunately, Cuyo, like many of our politicians, refuse to admit that we have no money and that we need mandatory cuts.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you'd rather fuck the seniors who paid the higher taxes for their entire lives out of their benefits, than subject the current work force to moderately higher taxes?

I think you know better.

The only people screwing the eldery are the people like you who are lying to them.

 

[Cuyo]

So you'd rather just collapse the entire economy and destroy the USD for everyone?

That IS where all this ends up.

I think we should spend what we take in, or less. If we could cut our way to that goal, great. But we can't. So yes, taxes are dangerously low, and must be increased. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who disagrees.

 

[Cuyo]

So you'd rather fuck the seniors who paid the higher taxes for their entire lives out of their benefits, than subject the current work force to moderately higher taxes?

I think you know better.

The only people screwing the eldery are the people like you who are lying to them.

"Lying to them?" What have I said that's incorrect?

 

[Oddball]

So you'd rather just collapse the entire economy and destroy the USD for everyone?

That IS where all this ends up.

I think we should spend what we take in, or less. If we could cut our way to that goal, great. But we can't. So yes, taxes are dangerously low, and must be increased. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who disagrees.

Unlike you, I've faced up to the fact that there really is no free lunch, and that the 15+% of my hard earned production that has been expropriated from me for the last 20-odd years is gone forever.

It's about time the rest of America faced up to it, rather than lying to themselves and trying to polish turds.

 

[Cuyo]

So you'd rather just collapse the entire economy and destroy the USD for everyone?

That IS where all this ends up.

I think we should spend what we take in, or less. If we could cut our way to that goal, great. But we can't. So yes, taxes are dangerously low, and must be increased. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who disagrees.

Unlike you, I've faced up to the fact that there really is no free lunch, and that the 15+% of my hard earned production that has been expropriated from me for the last 20-odd years is gone forever.

It's about time the rest of America faced up to it, rather than lying to themselves and trying to polish turds.

Why do you think that advocating tax increases, including my own, is analogous to me thinking there's a "Free lunch?" That's just an odd line of reasoning.

 

[Oddball]

Because your tax increase is to prop up the façade that the free lunch is alive and well.

The problem is, has been, and remains spending....Including that "mandatory" nonsense.