The Question Liberals Can't Answer

[Neotrotsky]

The Left's last hope

We must scare old people

 

[kaz]

The thing that amazes me is how little conservatives think things through...

Agreed, that's why I'm a libertarian.

Imagine if S.S. check don't go out...

As has been pointed out, there's plenty of tax revenue to pay debt, send out social security checks and fund the military, so it's irrelevant.

The same holds true of the HealthCare industry if medicare checks are cut off...it will ripple through our economy...

Government cutting welfare reduces the spending of welfare recipients, but it also stops taking that money from those who earned it. You can argue your odd sense of fairness that people have the right to spend other people's money, but you can't argue it's bad for the economy to stop doing it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

he Question Liberals Can't Answer
I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

The issue was never ‘default’ per se, but the 44 percent cut in spending needed if the ceiling isn’t raised. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, that 44 percent would result in $39 billion left to address remaining funding obligations.

As you can see from the study, the obligation to defense vendors alone would nearly exhaust the remaining funding:

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

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Debt Ceiling Analysis FINAL (updated).pdf

As we can see from the list above, there’s a method to the GOP’s madness, as most program spending noted are opposed by the right.

Consequently there would be a de facto default, as the above obligations wouldn’t be met.

Needless to say, the failure to meet these obligations, deciding the criteria as to what programs to fund and which programs not, would cause chaos and confusion throughout the Nation and in the markets world-wide.

Whatever the semantics, default – or a failure to meet obligations – would indeed be catastrophic; there are no lies or scare tactics. Real people would suffer real hardship. Since these people don’t make up the conservative constituency for the most part, however, it’s clear to see why this is a non-issue for the right.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The thing that amazes me is how little conservatives think things through...

Imagine if S.S. check don't go out...

Tens of millions of people will suddenly not be able to pay their rent. That means millions of landlord will suddenly have a large part of their income cut off. These landlords have financial obligations themselves...millions are likely to default on all sorts of payments...

The same holds true of the HealthCare industry if medicare checks are cut off...it will ripple through our economy...

Those are only a few of the sectors of the economy that will get hit.

This isn't about some credit rating agencies downgrading the U.S. government or about some interest rates going up by a bit.

It's about a massive cutoff of funds in many many sectors of the economy and the ripple effect it will have on the economy as a whole.

You can bet that the DOW will drop about ten thousand points with a month. Businesses and banks are going to close all over the place.

Everything in economics is inter-related.

Then O better pay seniors huh?

And 10k in a month? Umm I'm thinking it may be time to put the Wedding Singer on ignore....

 

[Wry Catcher]

The thing that amazes me is how little conservatives think things through...

Agreed, that's why I'm a libertarian.

Imagine if S.S. check don't go out...

As has been pointed out, there's plenty of tax revenue to pay debt, send out social security checks and fund the military, so it's irrelevant.

The same holds true of the HealthCare industry if medicare checks are cut off...it will ripple through our economy...

Government cutting welfare reduces the spending of welfare recipients, but it also stops taking that money from those who earned it. You can argue your odd sense of fairness that people have the right to spend other people's money, but you can't argue it's bad for the economy to stop doing it.

Social Security is not welfare; but the point made by Richard is spot on. Cutting off social security or welfare suggests the butcher, baker and candlestick maker won't sell as many goods, and the landlords who own the property rented to the butcher, baker, the candlestick maker and the bank which holds the SS recipients mortgage won't get paid.

This whole redistribution of the weatlh is a canard; too much wealth in the hands of too few harms the economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

We're borrowing 40% of what we're spending. In order to stop borrowing, 40% of what you would have spent can't be spent.

What 40% is that?

 

[Mr.Nick]

I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

They will and they will blame it on republicans despite the notion that republican leadership has introduced several bills already.

It's the games they play....

 

[8537]

I'm sure the folks at Boeing would consider it a default if the Defense department quit paying them.

Ditto, the thousands of other contractors.

 

[kaz]

I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

We're borrowing 40% of what we're spending. In order to stop borrowing, 40% of what you would have spent can't be spent.

What 40% is that?

Did you actually read the question before you replied or did you just ignore it?

 

[kaz]

Cutting off social security or welfare suggests the butcher, baker and candlestick maker won't sell as many goods

I do like the liberal ability to create something from nothing. You take money from someone who earned it and give money to someone who didn't and BAM! More money. I don't know how to respond to that, it's just tripping.

Hmm...maybe I did know how to respond to it....

 

[georgephillip]

I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

Are you talking about defaulting on bondholders or on payments to Social Security recipients?
Active duty military??

 

[Chris]

I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

If the debt payment is only $20 billion a month, why is the treasonous Tea Party so worried about it?

We spend more than that in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[skookerasbil]

The thing that amazes me is how little conservatives think things through...

Agreed, that's why I'm a libertarian.


As has been pointed out, there's plenty of tax revenue to pay debt, send out social security checks and fund the military, so it's irrelevant.

The same holds true of the HealthCare industry if medicare checks are cut off...it will ripple through our economy...

Government cutting welfare reduces the spending of welfare recipients, but it also stops taking that money from those who earned it. You can argue your odd sense of fairness that people have the right to spend other people's money, but you can't argue it's bad for the economy to stop doing it.

Social Security is not welfare; but the point made by Richard is spot on. Cutting off social security or welfare suggests the butcher, baker and candlestick maker won't sell as many goods, and the landlords who own the property rented to the butcher, baker, the candlestick maker and the bank which holds the SS recipients mortgage won't get paid.

This whole redistribution of the weatlh is a canard; too much wealth in the hands of too few harms the economy.

Trickle-up Poverty economic policy harms it far more s0n. Over time, it plays right into the hands of those who desire to have the state take over the means of production.

 

[dblack]

We're borrowing 40% of what we're spending. In order to stop borrowing, 40% of what you would have spent can't be spent.

What 40% is that?

Ok.. so the claims are that spending would need to be cut by anywhere from 10% to 40% to avoid default (without raising the debt ceiling). Let's throw out the extremes, and split the difference - let's say we'd need to cut 25% from next year's budget. I don't think that would be impossible.

First, we start with military spending. We're actively engaged in what? seven or eight places around the globe? We could save a bundle by just cutting back on our habit of fucking with half the nations on the planet at any given time. The 'planet' might even appreciate the gesture.

Second, we eliminate "welfare" in the form of targeted tax breaks. Our government derives much of its current power via all the special favors it hands out, but that's lost revenue. Make taxes about straight-up revenue generation and drop all the "incentives", "credits", "abatements" and "mandates" that currently pollute our tax code. Everyone pays their fair share, no bullshit.

Third, take careful stock of entitlement spending. There's no need to slash the safety net, but we can save a lot by ensuring that our tax dollars are being spent on the truly needy, and not simply used to further ambitious social engineering schemes. Most people can, and should, take care of themselves. It's better for them and it's better for our nation.

I think serious efforts in all three of those categories could combine to give us the savings we need. It's going to piss plenty of people off, but they'll get over it. And we'll have a shot at averting our much anticipated demise.

 

[8537]

By the way, Treasury has an 87B debt payment due on August 4th. On August 15th, about 29B in interest payments are due.

So there's 116B of the 200B in revenues for the month - nevermind that the revenues don't all come in on or before Aug 4.

 

[Chris]

We're borrowing 40% of what we're spending. In order to stop borrowing, 40% of what you would have spent can't be spent.

What 40% is that?

Ok.. so the claims are that spending would need to be cut by anywhere from 10% to 40% to avoid default (without raising the debt ceiling). Let's throw out the extremes, and split the difference - let's say we'd need to cut 25% from next year's budget. I don't think that would be impossible.

First, we start with military spending. We're actively engaged in what? seven or eight places around the globe? We could save a bundle by just cutting back on our habit of fucking with half the nations on the planet at any given time. The 'planet' might even appreciate the gesture.

Second, we eliminate "welfare" in the form of targeted tax breaks. Our government derives much of its current power via all the special favors it hands out, but that's lost revenue. Make taxes about straight-up revenue generation and drop all the "incentives", "credits", "abatements" and "mandates" that currently pollute our tax code. Everyone pays their fair share, no bullshit.

Third, take careful stock of entitlement spending. There's no need to slash the safety net, but we can save a lot by ensuring that our tax dollars are being spent on the truly needy, and not simply used to further ambitious social engineering schemes. Most people can, and should, take care of themselves. It's better for them and it's better for our nation.

I think serious efforts in all three of those categories could combine to give us the savings we need. It's going to piss plenty of people off, but they'll get over it. And we'll have a shot at averting our much anticipated demise.

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Clinton balanced the budget before Bush came in and cut taxes, started two wars, and created an unfunded trillion dollar drug plan.

 

[dblack]

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That would be a good start, but I suspect it would take a good deal more than that.

The other thing that rarely gets mentioned is the huge expansion of the surveillance state and domestic 'intelligence' that OBL goaded us into. Cost estimates on that vary wildly, as so much of it is under the radar by design, but none of the estimates are piddling. We're burning through huge sums in our slow-burn panic over terrorism.

 

[Chris]

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

That would be a good start, but I suspect it would take more.

The other thing that rarely gets mentioned is the huge expansion of the surveillance state and domestic 'intelligence' that OBL goaded us into. Cost estimates on that vary wildly, as so much of it is under the radar by design, but none of the estimates are piddling. We're burning through huge sums in our slow-burn panic over terrorism.

Osama bin Laden said his goal was to bankrupt America.

Our ridiculous response to the minor threat of terrorism may have made him the winner in this contest.

 

[kaz]

I'm sure the folks at Boeing would consider it a default if the Defense department quit paying them.

Ditto, the thousands of other contractors.

So your answer is that the left doesn't understand what it means to for the Federal government to default on loan payments? Interesting. That's a pretty big accusation since it includes the President, the Senate Majority leader and the rest of the DC gang. Then again, you could be right.

 

[kaz]

I keep asking liberals this question every time they use the word "default." They aren't answering it. So let's try a thread for it.

Why would the US default on our debt payments when it would be catastrophic (according to you), debt payments are $20 billion a month and tax revenue is $200 billion a month? Obviously we wouldn't. When you have to endlessly use scare tactic lies to justify your views, maybe at some point you should question your views...

Are you talking about defaulting on bondholders or on payments to Social Security recipients?
Active duty military??

The answer is in the question. You liberals seriously can't read, can you? The question is regarding the specific claim that we will default on debt payments. That you want to have a separate debate about what the government spends money on is non-responsive.