The Question Liberals Can't Answer

[westwall]

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.

That's not necessarily true. Government squanders about 3.5 dollars out of every 5 they take from people. Thus, if the people still had their 5 bucks they could spend more of it more efficiently then the government. SS is a ponzi scheme. It was doomed to fail the second the birth rates started to drop. That is happening and now we are seeing what will happen as the boomers start to draw their checks at an ever increasing rate.

 

[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.

 

[kaz]

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.

Hmm... So you look at a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit and that 100-200 billion of that are the wars in the middle east and conclude that it's the wars that are bankrupting us? Wow. Liberal math...

 

[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...

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.

I know it's Saturday, but isn't it a little early to be drunk off your ass? That question is incoherent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Hmm... So you look at a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit and that 100-200 billion of that are the wars in the middle east and conclude that it's the wars that are bankrupting us? Wow. Liberal math...

We haven't paid for a war since Vietnam.

 

[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!!

 

[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?

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.

 

[dblack]

We haven't paid for a war since Vietnam.

Could that be why we have so goddamned many of them?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not just the debt payments... there's this other matter of running the country along with the debt payments. Let me ask... is that $20B interest only, or actually the normal payment.

If it's an interest only deal... let me ask you something. What happens if you only pay interest payments to your creditors? What happens to your Credit Rating? What is the resulting problem with a shitty credit rating... oh yeah.. interest rates go up and that $20B/month turns into $40B/month.

We don't need to do this crap... that's the problem. I think the issue of debt is on the front burner, and no matter how this ends, will be a focal point from here on out.

If you need to roll over some principal, you can sell more bonds because that's not increasing the debt.

Oh yeah, the interest rate can't go up on bonds you already issued.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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..

 

[8537]

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.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

It does seem like some of the big drivers of US debt are off the table as far as this debate is concerned.

Obama expanded the Afghan war and requested the largest military budget in world history to bipartisan applause. He extended the Bush tax cuts without any noticeable opposition from the GOP.

Bank bailouts were endorsed by both major parties, and years of declining tax revenue from the recession and financial meltdown stemmed from decades of bipartisan efforts to "deregulate" Wall Street.

It seems the corporate press is missing completely how bipartisan consensus, compromise and corruption racked up trillion$ of debt to begin with.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Here's the list of monthly bills....roughly $300b per month.....since we bring in only about $180b....we are about $120b short...

...hmmm.....which to cut.......?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We haven't paid for a war since Vietnam.

Could that be why we have so goddamned many of them?

Indeed it is. Bush invaded Iraq AND cut taxes in the same year. What warmongering rightwing ghoul isn't going to be gung ho for that bargain???

 

[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??

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We haven't paid for a war since Vietnam.

Could that be why we have so goddamned many of them?

Adam Smith, the great capitalist, on not paying for wars:

"The ordinary expence of the greater part of modern governments in time of peace being equal or nearly equal to their ordinary revenue, when war comes they are both unwilling and unable to increase their revenue in proportion to the increase of their expence.

They are unwilling, for fear of offending the people, who, by so great and so sudden an increase of taxes, would soon be disgusted with the war; and they are unable, from not well knowing what taxes would be sufficient to produce the revenue wanted.

The facility of borrowing delivers them from the embarrassment which this fear and inability would otherwise occasion. By means of borrowing they are enabled, with a very moderate increase of taxes, to raise, from year to year, money sufficient for carrying on the war, and by the practice of perpetual funding they are enabled, with the smallest possible increase of taxes, to raise annually the largest possible sum of money.

In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies.

To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory, from a longer continuance of the war."

More here:

Adam Smith observes that the true costs of war remain hidden from the taxpayers because they are sheltered in the metropole far from the fighting and instead of increasing taxes the government pays for the war by increasing the national debt (1776) |

Remarkable how much of it rings true today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.

However, GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH! hasn't been in office for over 2 1/2 years now...Not only did Obutthead basically stay the course of the previous regime, he has floored the throttle to economic Armageddon...He and his ivory tower faculty lounge fools own this shit.

What happened to all the hopey-changey?

BTW, to his credit, Shrubbie tried to have Fannie/Freddie investigated, but the arsonists on the left refused to allow it....The videos showing liberoidal windbag congressweasels poo-pooing that proposed investigation to be a fact have been posted here too many times to mention.