The Question Liberals Can't Answer

[kaz]

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?

I'm asking YOU which 40% of our current spending are you not going to spend in August?

and then in September, and then in October, and then in November, and then in December.

If you think not raising the debt ceiling is no big deal, then it should be no big deal to tell us what you think won't get paid,

and why that's no big deal.

Why don't you go into a thread that's about government spending or start one. This one is not about that. Since you're too fucking lazy to read the op and address it, I'll repeat the question just for you, you lazy bimbo.

The left keep saying we will "default" on our loans and that will destroy our credit rating. Since the debt payments are about $20 billion a month and we receive $200 billion a month currently in tax receipts, why would we default? Care to address it or do you just want to change the subject because you can't? My God, you have to hand liberals a fish because they aren't going to catch one.

 

[kaz]

87B debt payment due on August 4th. On August 15th, about 29B in interest payments are due.

So the 87B - 29B is principle. Note that since the debt limit is not lowered, they can refinance that part of the payment, so the 87 billion's not relevant to the question.

The 87B is due on maturing notes. We either need to roll over the notes or default on them.

They can't refinance anything, nor can they hold an auction.

You don't understand a debt ceiling, do you? The debt ceiling says they can't issue more then $14 trillion or whatever the exact amount is. That means they can't hold an auction that exceeds that level of debt. If they re-pay principle, viola, the total national debt goes down. That means they can sell bonds that get us back up to the current level of debt. Now I'd like them to not be able to do that either, but currently they can.

 

[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...

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....

Please defend the Republicans. Those guys and gals held the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives from 2003 until 2007 and could easily have brought spending under control. They did not. They did however use scare tactics to develop support for the invasion of Iraq, a military fiasco which cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. By failing to properly regulate Wall Street (well, to their credit they imprisoned Martha Stewert for insider trading) they failed to put a stop to real estate speculation and nearly brought down our entire economy.

I have seen your name enough in discussions I'm posting in to know you have to have read enough of my posts to know I rip Republicans too. I reject as the bull crap that it is the premise that I have to pick and that to attack the left is to "defend the Republicans." Oddly you never step in when I rip the Republicans and whine by doing that I'm "defending the Democrats."

Is your imagination actually so small that you can conceive of nothing but a Republican or a Democrat? That you are so amazingly the same makes that even more inconceivable.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

DemocRats love the fear tactics. So they keep saying we are going to default, not pay seniors or vets , medicare wont be paid. Ect but the truth of the matter is we have enough revenue coming in to pay all that and then some. .Washington has a spending problem not a revenue problem but according to Obummer he would rather take in more money so he has a blank check to do what he wants with it weather the american people want it or not!!

Good lord, another braindead cracker from the land of the inbred.

We have enough to pay all that and then some?? Are you mental? We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend.

Who doesn't get paid from now on in your deranged vision of the future?

Specifically..

I provided the specific list.....have your fearless leader decide the priorities.....

 

[kaz]

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.

The US has two main types of debt.

One to investors who bought US bonds and another that's owed for bills that come due, such as payments to Social Security, Medicare, contractors, etc.

You cons...

I'm actually a libertarian and you're actually an idiot. Ironically the conservatives seem to grasp fine that I'm not a conservative and liberals don't. I'm thinking it's because they're smarter then you. I oppose the wars in the middle east and think drugs and prostitution should be legal for example. Conservatives say nope, not a conservative. Liberals say duh, dar, you're a straight line Republican, burp.

...may be under the impression investors deserve priority in this debate.

Maybe, but the question is specifically about "default." You may consider it a commitment, but the question is specifically about the liberal claim that we're going to "default" on our debt and that's going to destroy our credit rating. You on the other hand are arguing liberal ideology that redistribution of wealth is "debt." As I said, you're an idiot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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....

Please defend the Republicans. Those guys and gals held the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives from 2003 until 2007 and could easily have brought spending under control. They did not. They did however use scare tactics to develop support for the invasion of Iraq, a military fiasco which cost our nation dearly in blood and treasure. By failing to properly regulate Wall Street (well, to their credit they imprisoned Martha Stewert for insider trading) they failed to put a stop to real estate speculation and nearly brought down our entire economy.

Martha Stewart didn't commit any insider trading offenses.
Martha Stewart did not go to jail for insider trading.



Yes, Bush spent way, way, way too much.
Too late for him to cut spending. Obama will have to do it instead.

True. She was convicted of four counts of obstruction of justice and sentenced to Federal Prison. She obstructed the investigation into insider trading and the US Attorney could not prove such insider information motivated her to sell stock; but the prosecutor was able to prove Ms. Stewart tossed sand in their eyes of the umpire (now why did that phrase come to mind?) and obstructed justice.

Cutting spending means cutting jobs. Why is that smart given the state of the economy today?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

The US has two main types of debt.

One to investors who bought US bonds and another that's owed for bills that come due, such as payments to Social Security, Medicare, contractors, etc.

You cons may be under the impression investors deserve priority in this debate.

If the debate is about defaulting on our debt, you're right, investors who bought our debt deserve priority.

Just like would happen to Greece, if we default on our debt payments, our credit rating crashes and our credit dries up.
Just like Greece, if we reduce social program payments and shrink government, our credit outlook will improve.

"Defaulting on bonds—that is, not paying back a loan—will have more far-reaching consequences on interest rates, credit ratings, and on the global markets than missing payments for spending. (Of course, if you're one of the millions of Americans who depend on Social Security, any suspension of those checks will be plenty serious as well.)"

As Debt Limit Deadline Draws Closer, We (Sadly) Explain What ‘Default’ Could Mean - ProPublica

 

[dblack]

Not gonna do it.

I regularly ripped the shit out of the Shrub and his neconettes for all their profligate spending, needless knee-jerk expansions of bureaucracy and generally acting like LBJ on steroids.....

Not to speak for Wry Catcher, but I suspect the point is less about 'choosing sides' than making the case for something. Or perhaps asking the question "why should we trust Republicans this time?". The Tea Party movement is eager to use the debt ceiling crisis as an excuse to push for cuts - but as several here have asked, "what should we cut?". To which we hear foot shuffling and the usual Republican rhetoric about entitlements.

When the Tea Party movement began, it was infused with quite a lot of anti-war sentiment. They were opposed to the 'War on Terror' nonsense and adamant about eliminating corporate welfare and cutting military spending as first priorities. Since they've been co-opted by the Republicans, we don't hear much of that. It's fine to stand firm on not raising the debt ceiling and not raising taxes, and mostly I'm glad they're doing it (although I don't see how eliminating targeted tax breaks is a bad thing - or why it should be considered 'raising taxes'). But if they want to be taken seriously, they need to offer serious plans to radically cut federal spending beyond entitlements.

I guess what's so frustrating is that if the Tea Party hadn't sold out to the Republicans, they could have found some friends on the leftward side of things. There seems to be genuine enthusiasm from Democrats for ending all the crazy tax breaks and 'incentives'. That would be good for all of us and help balance the budget. We could even reduce nominal tax rates and maintain the same revenue. They could have also garnered bi-partisan support to get us the hell out of Iraq and out of the business of "World Police". These are lost opportunities - instead the Tea Party has become fixated on being 'ANTI-Obama' instead of FOR sane policy.

They say all the time that their number one priority is seeing to it that Obama fails (seemingly no matter what he is trying to do). That's just stupid. I'd far rather see Obama reelected and make real progress on policy, than to 'defeat' him while squandering real opportunity for progress. And that seems to be the goal of the current crop of Republicans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not gonna do it.

I regularly ripped the shit out of the Shrub and his neconettes for all their profligate spending, needless knee-jerk expansions of bureaucracy and generally acting like LBJ on steroids.....

Not to speak for Wry Catcher, but I suspect the point is less about 'choosing sides' than making the case for something. Or perhaps asking the question "why should we trust Republicans this time?". The Tea Party movement is eager to use the debt ceiling crisis as an excuse to push for cuts - but as several here have asked, "what should we cut?". To which we hear foot shuffling and the usual Republican rhetoric about entitlements.

When the Tea Party movement began, it was infused with quite a lot of anti-war sentiment. They were opposed to the 'War on Terror' nonsense and adamant about eliminating corporate welfare and cutting military spending as first priorities. Since they've been co-opted by the Republicans, we don't hear much of that. It's fine to stand firm on not raising the debt ceiling and not raising taxes, and mostly I'm glad they're doing it (although I don't see how eliminating targeted tax breaks is a bad thing - or why it should be considered 'raising taxes'). But if they want to be taken seriously, they need to offer serious plans to radically cut federal spending beyond entitlements.

I guess what's so frustrating is that if the Tea Party hadn't sold out to the Republicans, they could have found some friends on the leftward side of things. There seems to be genuine enthusiasm from Democrats for ending all the crazy tax breaks and 'incentives'. That would be good for all of us and help balance the budget. We could even reduce nominal tax rates and maintain the same revenue. They could have also garnered bi-partisan support to get us the hell out of Iraq and out of the business of "World Police". These are lost opportunities - instead the Tea Party has become fixated on being 'ANTI-Obama' instead of FOR sane policy.

They say all the time that their number one priority is seeing to it that Obama fails (seemingly no matter what he is trying to do). That's just stupid. I'd far rather see Obama reelected and make real progress on policy, than to 'defeat' him while squandering real opportunity for progress. And that seems to be the goal of the current crop of Republicans.

Well stated. I also wonder why these new and radical Republicans haven't (maybe they have) included cuts to their salaries and eliminating the entitlement to medical care which they receive?
A post above whined about a teacher who had weeks and weeks of vacation, an $85,000 per year salary (which I suspect was inflated, but who knows) and great benefits. It seems members of Congress forget they too eat and drink from the public table and if a teacher ever accepted money from the parent of a child to influence a grade s/he would be fired. Yet pols always have their hand out and always deny 'donations' have no influence on their votes. No larger lie has ever existed for so long.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

The US has two main types of debt.

One to investors who bought US bonds and another that's owed for bills that come due, such as payments to Social Security, Medicare, contractors, etc.

You cons...

I'm actually a libertarian and you're actually an idiot. Ironically the conservatives seem to grasp fine that I'm not a conservative and liberals don't. I'm thinking it's because they're smarter then you. I oppose the wars in the middle east and think drugs and prostitution should be legal for example. Conservatives say nope, not a conservative. Liberals say duh, dar, you're a straight line Republican, burp.

...may be under the impression investors deserve priority in this debate.

Maybe, but the question is specifically about "default." You may consider it a commitment, but the question is specifically about the liberal claim that we're going to "default" on our debt and that's going to destroy our credit rating. You on the other hand are arguing liberal ideology that redistribution of wealth is "debt." As I said, you're an idiot.

Or maybe you're an arrogant self absorbed bitch who's unfamiliar with the meaning of "default"?

Default means a failure to honor debt that's owed.

The US has two main types of "debt."
One is owed to investors who bought US bonds.
The second is owed to bills that come due every month.

While defaulting to investors would have greater effect on US credit ratings, a failure to honor debts owed to vendors, seniors and soldiers also qualifies as a default.

Maybe you should start washing dishes and let your wife run the back office?
Bitch.

 

[kaz]

Default means a failure to honor debt that's owed.

The US has two main types of "debt."
One is owed to investors who bought US bonds.
The second is owed to bills that come due every month.

While defaulting to investors would have greater effect on US credit ratings, a failure to honor debts owed to vendors, seniors and soldiers also qualifies as a default.

Maybe you should start washing dishes and let your wife run the back office?
Bitch.

The question isn't about your opinion that sending out socialism checks is a "debt," it's about Obama's lie that we'll default on our debt payments to our creditors and that will raise our interest rates. Even if you're right, it's not what Obama said. He said we will default to our creditors, and that will raise interest rates. Do you not grasp what your Holy Leader said? How fucking stupid are you? Sounds like you should be the one washing dishes. You probably already do.

 

[Lovebears65]

DemocRats love the fear tactics. So they keep saying we are going to default, not pay seniors or vets , medicare wont be paid. Ect but the truth of the matter is we have enough revenue coming in to pay all that and then some. .Washington has a spending problem not a revenue problem but according to Obummer he would rather take in more money so he has a blank check to do what he wants with it weather the american people want it or not!!

Good lord, another braindead cracker from the land of the inbred.

We have enough to pay all that and then some?? Are you mental? We borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend.

Who doesn't get paid from now on in your deranged vision of the future?

Specifically..

Yet again the people on the left have to resort to name calling