Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
he already raised the debt ceiling once in feb 2010...he blew thru 2 Trillion plus what we took in ( the war costs both wars cost 250B during that time) AND, he didn't need to say or do squat, for or to anyone, he had congressional majorities in both houses......
..now its time for the the crying game because whoops, there is whats called checks and balances......
no, we have to raise it BUT we need to cut and I don't mean the unicorn poopie he promises , the old checks in the mail, won't _____ in your mouth 3-4 years down the road cuts, they will NEVER happen...we need cuts now....
But that does not mean that the debt doesn't get paid.
It's the other stuff that becomes problematic.
Which is what we've been talking about all this time.
Glad to see after 4 pages you are caught up.
But that does not mean that the debt doesn't get paid.
It's the other stuff that becomes problematic.
Which is what we've been talking about all this time.
Glad to see after 4 pages you are caught up.
But that does not mean that the debt doesn't get paid.
It's the other stuff that becomes problematic.
Which is what we've been talking about all this time.
Glad to see after 4 pages you are caught up.
If it's a no brainer, you libbies are in a good position to handle it.But that does not mean that the debt doesn't get paid.
It's the other stuff that becomes problematic.
Which is what we've been talking about all this time.
Glad to see after 4 pages you are caught up.
I think it is pretty much a no brainer. If we are taking in enough revenue to pay our debts, then why are we in debt?
Silly thread after all.
It's a little off point but here what happened during another shut down
Death Rate Drops During Doctor Strike In Israel
Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:
"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"
The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.
That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:
"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"
If you eliminate the budget deficit immediately - which is what you are proposing - you will start contracting the economy at a rate of 7%-10% per year. That is a mathematical fact. It would be a greater contraction than the depth of the Financial Crisis. It would probably be more, given the multiplier affect. Do I think its a good idea to have massive contractionary policy in the midst of one of the worst economies in decades? Hell, no. Do you? Or have you thought this through?
It's a little off point but here what happened during another shut down
Death Rate Drops During Doctor Strike In Israel
Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:
"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"
The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.
That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:
"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"
OK. We're at the limit, and you don't want a ceiling increase. It's axiomatic then, that you want at least a balanced budget. I already know you don't want tax increases; You probably want across the board tax CUTS to compliment your balanced budget. And you think everything will just work itself out?
The deficit was around 10% of GDP this year. I'll quote Mr. Toro because I really can't say it any better.
If you eliminate the budget deficit immediately - which is what you are proposing - you will start contracting the economy at a rate of 7%-10% per year. That is a mathematical fact. It would be a greater contraction than the depth of the Financial Crisis. It would probably be more, given the multiplier affect. Do I think its a good idea to have massive contractionary policy in the midst of one of the worst economies in decades? Hell, no. Do you? Or have you thought this through?
There's really no suitable analogy for the level of intellectual disconnect you're espousing. If you balance the budget by massive spending cuts, you tank the economy - That's a definite. You can claim that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. You think they will immediately be stimulative enough to offset an immediat 10% drop in GDP, with enough leftover to recoup the lost revenue? Or are you just a pissed off malcontent talking out your ass? Hrmmmm?
It's a little off point but here what happened during another shut down
Death Rate Drops During Doctor Strike In Israel
I have went through your posts and you have used the word default so many times.
"Given the choices, my money is on the GOP letting us default." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/175332-the-gop-is-split-and-running-scared.html
"Running up debt is not an issue, and certainly not an issue during a recession. Defaulting on the debt, THAT is an issue."
"A majority of voters currently think there is nothing wrong with defaulting on our debt."
But I can't find one of your posts that you said anything more insightful than that.
And then you say this "Sure, we could service the debt". You are a hypocrite with nothing to add to this conversation. Your posts consist of three sentences always parroting MSNBC, and I invite everyone that thinks I'm an asshole to find me that insightful post. Not there.
I have went through your posts and you have used the word default so many times.
"Given the choices, my money is on the GOP letting us default." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/175332-the-gop-is-split-and-running-scared.html
"Running up debt is not an issue, and certainly not an issue during a recession. Defaulting on the debt, THAT is an issue."
"A majority of voters currently think there is nothing wrong with defaulting on our debt."
But I can't find one of your posts that you said anything more insightful than that.
And then you say this "Sure, we could service the debt". You are a hypocrite with nothing to add to this conversation. Your posts consist of three sentences always parroting MSNBC, and I invite everyone that thinks I'm an asshole to find me that insightful post. Not there.
The first quote fits my position. The next two are out of context, so I can't comment on them directly. But, even if the context was such, am I not allowed to learn more and adjust my opinion on an issue?
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes
My first post in this thread was ... "Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. ... we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from."
Now, care to address that? Or shall you continue your snipe hunt?
I have went through your posts and you have used the word default so many times.
"Given the choices, my money is on the GOP letting us default." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/175332-the-gop-is-split-and-running-scared.html
"Running up debt is not an issue, and certainly not an issue during a recession. Defaulting on the debt, THAT is an issue."
"A majority of voters currently think there is nothing wrong with defaulting on our debt."
But I can't find one of your posts that you said anything more insightful than that.
And then you say this "Sure, we could service the debt". You are a hypocrite with nothing to add to this conversation. Your posts consist of three sentences always parroting MSNBC, and I invite everyone that thinks I'm an asshole to find me that insightful post. Not there.
The first quote fits my position. The next two are out of context, so I can't comment on them directly. But, even if the context was such, am I not allowed to learn more and adjust my opinion on an issue?
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes
My first post in this thread was ... "Not raising the debt ceiling means someone will not get paid. ... we entered in to contracts that we won't be able to honour. That's called default where I come from."
Now, care to address that? Or shall you continue your snipe hunt?
Well those quotes were from today and yesterday, so I'm glad I was able to change your mind.
-- Bipartisan Policy Center: U.S. Won't Default on Debt If Congress Fails to Raise Debt Ceiling | The Weekly StandardThe BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, Powell said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).
That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:
Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
Other spending, such as Departmens of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)
The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department, and Powell points out it would be chaotic picking and choosing who gets paid (in full or partially) and who doesn't.
Powell notes, however, that Congress made sure during a budget standoff in 1996 that Social Security recipients would not be affected. “In 1996, during an impasse, [Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin gave the Congress notice that he would be unable to pay the March ’96 Social Security payment. Congress immediately—and I mean, immediately—passed a law that allowed the Treasury to borrow money specifically for that purpose and exempted that borrowing from the debt limit.” While the U.S. wouldn't default on its debt, Powell argues that failure to raise the debt ceiling could spook the credit markets and lead to higher rates. But that's a risk many Republicans are willing to take if the alternative is accepting a rotten deal.
“I understand where some of the Republicans are coming from," Powell told me. "They do actually think on our current path a crisis is inevitable. In five years it’s going to be worse, so let’s push this thing really hard, and if we have to have it now, let’s have it now. To which my response is: There's every reason to think we're still working on this and there's plenty of time to fix this."
* * * *
Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:
"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"
The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.
That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:
"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"
OK. We're at the limit, and you don't want a ceiling increase. It's axiomatic then, that you want at least a balanced budget. I already know you don't want tax increases; You probably want across the board tax CUTS to compliment your balanced budget. And you think everything will just work itself out?
The deficit was around 10% of GDP this year. I'll quote Mr. Toro because I really can't say it any better.
If you eliminate the budget deficit immediately - which is what you are proposing - you will start contracting the economy at a rate of 7%-10% per year. That is a mathematical fact. It would be a greater contraction than the depth of the Financial Crisis. It would probably be more, given the multiplier affect. Do I think its a good idea to have massive contractionary policy in the midst of one of the worst economies in decades? Hell, no. Do you? Or have you thought this through?
There's really no suitable analogy for the level of intellectual disconnect you're espousing. If you balance the budget by massive spending cuts, you tank the economy - That's a definite. You can claim that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. You think they will immediately be stimulative enough to offset an immediat 10% drop in GDP, with enough leftover to recoup the lost revenue? Or are you just a pissed off malcontent talking out your ass? Hrmmmm?
No need for your baseless projections and ASSumptions.
Ultimately, I'd like for the government to go about it's LIMITED Constitutional business in a LIMITED way.
To do that, a BALANCED budget would be the preferred course.
There is an argument that under certain economic conditions or certain other political (diplomatic) conditions, it might be necessary to have a borrowing authority. Ok. I can live with that, too, within LIMITS.
What I think we cannot live with is the DEBT problem we have now and the pending DISASTER we face.
In order to head-off THAT fucking unimaginable disaster, we need to take urgent and immediate action.
I like and respect Toro. But your appeal to him as "authority" is misguided until and unless somebody on the left side of the fucking political spectrum in this Republic starts accepting BASIC reality as the premise.
The CBO office and others -- including some within the Obama Administration -- have CONCEDED that the budgetary projections of debt without end are UNSUSTAINABLE.
Those are not just political words. They have genuine meaning.
Lots of libs today are AGHAST tht we are talking about a near term event where the very PROSPECT of not paying our debts -- a national DEFAULT -- is even mentionable. But by sticking your heads in the sand, you are consigning us all to that prospect just a little further down the road.
The time to act is absolutely right fucking NOW.
Let's look at it AGAIN:
http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/CRFBLongTermRealistic_Baseline.pdf
Open that link. LOOK at figure 3. Tell me what YOU think we are going to do about this irresponsible debt problem. Debt today is about 69% of GDP. It goes to 88% unless we do something in less than 9 more years. Look at 2035. 24 years. 140% 0f GDP. WTF?
Does it take the CBO to tell you that this IS "unsustainable?"
We have kicked the can down the road all our lives. Can we REALLY responsibly do that even one more time?
Aren't we at least a LITTLE OBLIGATED to stave off the disaster so that our own children and grandchildren have a fighting chance?
The real time to act was in the past. We didn't. We have a chance NOW. Are you content with saying "well, ok, it's a problem but it's a problem we can deal with TOMORROW?"
Worth repeating:
-- Bipartisan Policy Center: U.S. Won't Default on Debt If Congress Fails to Raise Debt Ceiling | The Weekly StandardThe BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. Its a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending if Congress hits the debt limit, Powell said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).
That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:
Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
Other spending, such as Departmens of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)
The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department, and Powell points out it would be chaotic picking and choosing who gets paid (in full or partially) and who doesn't.
Powell notes, however, that Congress made sure during a budget standoff in 1996 that Social Security recipients would not be affected. In 1996, during an impasse, [Treasury Secretary] Bob Rubin gave the Congress notice that he would be unable to pay the March 96 Social Security payment. Congress immediatelyand I mean, immediatelypassed a law that allowed the Treasury to borrow money specifically for that purpose and exempted that borrowing from the debt limit. While the U.S. wouldn't default on its debt, Powell argues that failure to raise the debt ceiling could spook the credit markets and lead to higher rates. But that's a risk many Republicans are willing to take if the alternative is accepting a rotten deal.
I understand where some of the Republicans are coming from," Powell told me. "They do actually think on our current path a crisis is inevitable. In five years its going to be worse, so lets push this thing really hard, and if we have to have it now, lets have it now. To which my response is: There's every reason to think we're still working on this and there's plenty of time to fix this."
* * * *
It's also clear that there's nowhere near enough money to pay all of your legally mandated obligations, so one might say youre defaulting on your non-debt obligations. But again I dont want to get into the labeling contests, said Powell who served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Finance under George H.W. Bush.
he already raised the debt ceiling once in feb 2010...he blew thru 2 Trillion plus what we took in ( the war costs both wars cost 250B during that time) AND, he didn't need to say or do squat, for or to anyone, he had congressional majorities in both houses......
..now its time for the the crying game because whoops, there is whats called checks and balances......
no, we have to raise it BUT we need to cut and I don't mean the unicorn poopie he promises , the old checks in the mail, won't _____ in your mouth 3-4 years down the road cuts, they will NEVER happen...we need cuts now....
Let's make believe, just for the sake of argument, that he took office amid a financial crisis.
Sorry Trajan. The picture would not look much different regardless of who won the election. The suit in the white house doesn't have nearly the influence you think it does.
They anticipate taking in between 172 and 200B in 'revenue" in august. They expect debt service payments of around 29B and SS payments of around 50B, another 3B for veterans pensions and roughly 12B for defense with an additional 39B or so in defence contracts payments and 50B for medicare/medicaid. Thats the whole thing. They could delay most medicare and medicaid payments and doctors and hospitals would just have to wait, they would have to pay the premium portion for medicare advantage or those people would lose thier insurance, but its not a lot comparatively... maybe 2 or 3B and they could delay alot of the payments to defence contractors and free up more money for something else like paying essential government employees and retiree pensions. Figuring they withhold 60% or so that means roughly 40-50B to play with to do that and whatever they consider "essential services" like running guns into Mexico and stuff..Have you ever actually looked at the budget and our so-called "revenues?"
Have you?
If so, then, you can tell us for certainty what the obligations are at the Federal level for the month of August. And, you can tell us how much tax receipts will be coming in to cover those obligations.
Please do. I'd love to know the numbers.
LOL!
If you have been at this a while then even YOU know that these numbers are largely the work of creative fiction writers.
To some extent there is a need to engage in speculation. Revnue projections HAVE to be based on some assumptions. But therein lies part of the problem. Figures lie and liars figure.
There is a simpler way to go about this.
Isolate, first, the money which "we" have "borrowed." There is interest to be paid and a portion of principle to be paid. Determine that number and it gets the first priority. No defaults allowed, after all.
Wanna lower the interest payments over time? Good. Like a responsible homeowner, there's a reward for the effort. But there's also a cost. The amount you pay to cover principle must go up in the short term. Figure that number out and make it the second priority.
Next, identify the amounts that we NEED to spend to properly and Constitutionally run the government. Yes, to some extent this WILL include the military and that number is pretty big. So for purposes of discussion, we will be obliged to find ways to CUT the military budget over time. Ok. Nothing is (or should be) off the table. But until we do that, we still have to cover the costs of the military we have now. That gets the next priority.
We also have certain other commitments. Let's be honest about some of this for a change. There is no fucking "trust fund" for social security or medicate and medicaid. That money comes from the damned Treasury. So get the numbers and attend to current payments as the next priority. But don't get too comfy. We must also start to get to the difficult business of cutting those costs. Nothing is a sacred cow. Nothing is off the table.
Take a look at this (but don't take any numbers as gospel truth):
Budget Simulator | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
As for your phony question regarding August's debt obligations veersus revenues, as you likely know, that number is not a given. For historical reference, though, you can educate yourself here:
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Instead of debating and discussing the question "should we raise the debt limit?" the BETTER topic for serious discussion SHOULD be:
"How much should we immediately LOWER the Debt Limit?"
The answer should require, of course, that we meet all current obligations as a condition of ANY and ALL possible answers. No defaults permitted.
That limits the money available to spend on other stuff, of course, so the NEXT question should then be:
"How do we divvy up the balance of our resources?"
OK. We're at the limit, and you don't want a ceiling increase. It's axiomatic then, that you want at least a balanced budget. I already know you don't want tax increases; You probably want across the board tax CUTS to compliment your balanced budget. And you think everything will just work itself out?
The deficit was around 10% of GDP this year. I'll quote Mr. Toro because I really can't say it any better.
If you eliminate the budget deficit immediately - which is what you are proposing - you will start contracting the economy at a rate of 7%-10% per year. That is a mathematical fact. It would be a greater contraction than the depth of the Financial Crisis. It would probably be more, given the multiplier affect. Do I think its a good idea to have massive contractionary policy in the midst of one of the worst economies in decades? Hell, no. Do you? Or have you thought this through?
There's really no suitable analogy for the level of intellectual disconnect you're espousing. If you balance the budget by massive spending cuts, you tank the economy - That's a definite. You can claim that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. You think they will immediately be stimulative enough to offset an immediat 10% drop in GDP, with enough leftover to recoup the lost revenue? Or are you just a pissed off malcontent talking out your ass? Hrmmmm?
