Debt Ceiling And The World Not Ending

[jitts3]

Is it just me or am I the only guy that believes that the only way to stop this Govt from spending so much money is to not allow them to borrow another red cent.

It is my belief that they will not default in the debt should the debt ceiling not be raised, but they will be FORCED to make ACTUAL cuts. Also if they decide to allow a default by funding pet projects and not debt payments, that would stop them from ever borrowing money for a LONG time. Again, how is that bad?

Looks like we are getting a credit downgrade no matter what at this point.

But in the end, where is the "End of the world" they speak of. I just don't see it.

Ok boys, have fun on this one!!:smt101

 

[comsnark]

Oh now you did it!

1st: not one person in a real leadership position is talking about stopping borrowing. The reduction in deficit spending proposed by the gutless democrats (Reid proposal) are paltry small in the first two years. The Boehmer Republican plan (as of this morning) actually has LESS reductions.

2nd: there's a budget. Then there is paying the bill. The Republicans last year campaigned on micro cuts to the budget and restoring Medicare cuts that significantly exceed all their savings.

So: after spending the money (the current budget as approved by the Republican controlled house of representatives; now they are refusing to settle the tab?

3rd: tell me how this is an unforced Error?

4th: Why is the show down over the debt limit (settling tab), and not the budget (ordering the drinks)? There was no threat of credit downgrade UNTIL Congress decided that political gain was worth a likely default.

Every Republican claims that Obama is going to ruin the country. Convince me that the Republican party isn't actually about to succeed in doing major economic damage in the name of cheap political points.

 

[comsnark]

I guess there are a few ways to look at this.

1) If we "never borrow again"; and suddenly balance the budget while paying old debts, then it is "Win-Win". We demonstrate fiscal discipline. We become less beholden to foreign lenders. Everything is good. Except one minor detail. . . . . the current CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED budget spends 30% more than it takes in.

So. . .balancing the budget "instantly" means cutting defense 30% NEXT WEEK.

oh. . and while we are balancing the budget, social security will also get cut permanently 30% ON THE NEXT PAYMENT.

oh. . .wait. . medicare. . . .ALSO cut 30% as of the next month. See a trend?

Think this will effect the economy much?

Think about it. . . .Boehner struggled to find 800 billion in spending reductions over 10 years. Its probably well less than 80 billion in the first year. Now, we have to cut approximately 1046 billion RIGHT NOW. Now this makes some oversimplifications. This simplistic look doesn't take into account that much of the debt is short term. . . the debt actually has to be refinanced often. For triple AAA credit; that's not a big deal. Old debt was at X%. New debt is at X% +/- not much.

This simplistic look also assumes we have working capital to make it through the year. If the Federal budget was front loaded (i.e. spent most of the money early. . .). . .then the cuts happening NEXT WEEK are much larger.

2) We go into some sort of default scenario for a time, then start borrowing again. Now. . we are downgraded. Interest WAS X%. Now it is 1.25X%. Oh crud. Now instead of financing $250Billion per year in interest. . .we are now financing $312Billion per year in interest. Remember that $80Billion in savings Boehner barely has support for? For naught.


Seriously. . . is this any way to run a government? And to think. . almost ALL the current Republican Presidential candidates OPPOSE a debt limit increase.

Tell me. . why can't this "crisis" be forced as part of the NORMAL budgeting process (i.e. argue about it BEFORE spending, not AFTER)?

I mean. . this is not "we have run out of credit". This is "We have plenty of credit -> we just don't want to pay the bill!"

Tell me. . why shouldn't this be used as a litmus to AUTOMATICALLY disqualifying any candidate who opposes a debt limit increase?

 

[comsnark]

I was venting. . . too vile even for the holding tank. I took it directly overboard.

 

[skibum]

LOL... Yes, you did....

The problem is that we've been ordering drinks for over 60 years and got so drunk that we've never even remembered to ask for the check.

 

[comsnark]

Yes.

Although, I still think the Republican party in creating a false crisis - then driving the nation to the brink - have been grossly irresponsible.

 

[skibum]

I don't see it as a "false" crisis. Maybe the timing of the situation is "fixed", but the crisis itself is real.

This probelm simply can not be fixed when 1/2 of the population is not contributing. Everyone needs to pay at least 5% of their income in INCOME taxes. No exceptions. If you get a pay check, you need to pay something. As long as some folks pay nothing, while still being able to vote, they will keep voting for people that will spend like drunken sailors. No disrespect to drunken sailors intended...

 

[Woody]

I don't see it as a "false" crisis. Maybe the timing of the situation is "fixed", but the crisis itself is real.

This probelm simply can not be fixed when 1/2 of the population is not contributing. Everyone needs to pay at least 5% of their income in INCOME taxes. No exceptions. If you get a pay check, you need to pay something. As long as some folks pay nothing, while still being able to vote, they will keep voting for people that will spend like drunken sailors. No disrespect to drunken sailors intended...

Everyone that votes has voted for a 'drunken sailor', that is the real problem, in Washington there is no other kind.

 

[comsnark]

The timing is fixed.

The *correct* time to stage this sit-in is when Congress approves a budget. The time to discuss what the drinks will cost is when you place the order. . .not when the bill arrives at the table. Remember. . . we have plenty of credit.

The anti-American Republican party is just refusing it use it to pay bills they authorized just a few months ago.


It is a clear that a strong minority of Republicans that can't add.

and view "Learning to add" as cardnal sin.

- - - - - -

You say "5% of income in INCOME taxes".

You are distinguishing INCOME taxes from the 6% they already pay in SS taxes? OK. . . I agree with you.

 

[Woody]

The timing is fixed.

The *correct* time to stage this sit-in is when Congress approves a budget. The time to discuss what the drinks will cost is when you place the order. . .not when the bill arrives at the table. Remember. . . we have plenty of credit.

The anti-American Republican party is just refusing it use it to pay bills they authorized just a few months ago.


It is a clear that a strong minority of Republicans that can't add.

and view "Learning to add" as cardnal sin.

- - - - - -

You say "5% of income in INCOME taxes".

You are distinguishing INCOME taxes from the 6% they already pay in SS taxes? OK. . . I agree with you.

Com, in an effort to be accurate "they" actually pay 6.2% in SS tax and 1.45% in Medicare tax, total of 7.65%. But this year Washington has given 'us' a payroll tax holiday which reduced our SS contribution from 6.2 to 4.2%. Can you say STIMULUS. This 2% difference will be made up by the gov so that our SS contributions and future benefit is not affected. Wonder where that money will come from...not to worry we have lots of credit:wow: The f-ckers in Washington give sh-t away even when no one asks for it, that's the problem.

 

[skibum]

You say "5% of income in INCOME taxes".

You are distinguishing INCOME taxes from the 6% they already pay in SS taxes? OK. . . I agree with you.

Yes. the 6% that is paid is not a tax in the sense that it funds the general operation of the government (although it has been stolen from the trust fund for that purpose, as we all know). That 6% is supposed to be savings for a "retirement plan", not a tax to produce general revenue. Everyone should pay this, and NO ONE should be exempt.

When I say taxes, I am talking about actual income taxes.

 

[Woody]

Yes. the 6% that is paid is not a tax in the sense that it funds the general operation of the government (although it has been stolen from the trust fund for that purpose, as we all know). That 6% is supposed to be savings for a "retirement plan", not a tax to produce general revenue. Everyone should pay this, and NO ONE should be exempt.

When I say taxes, I am talking about actual income taxes.

I haven't heard about this thievery, could you explain?

 

[skibum]

I haven't heard about this thievery, could you explain?

Really? Do you live with this guy?



Sorry... that might be misconstrued as an insult. None intended. I just thought that everyone already knew this.

I'll try to explain the theivery. The government started taking 6% of everyone's paychecks a while back because they assumed that people were too stupid to save for their own retirement. They did this in the name of retirement security. Hence the name "Social Security". This money was to be put in a "trust fund". Al Gore called it a "lock box". With me so far? Now, politicians need money to give to people in order to buy their votes for the next election. Since the US is not (was not) a communist country, they just can't go taking all of people's paychecks. They realized that everyone's retirement savings were in the governments hands, and that the people weren't retired yet. They really didn't need to keep the money "handy", so they simply transfed it to the general fund. Then, they spent it by giving it away to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. They figured that there would be more money later on to use when the time came to give the people their own money back at retirement. Still with me? What they didn't realize was that we would end up using environmental laws, excessive regulation, and Kensian economics (high taxes) to completey kill economic growth and prosperity before the time to give the retired folks their money back. Now they need the money to pay retirement benefits to current retirees, and the money isn't there. It was stolen. Just the same as if you put your life savings in a bank, and when you went back to get it they told you "Sorry, we needed to build a new HQ and a bunch of new branches, so we used your money. We'll pay you back when we sell the buildings in 50 or 60 years".

Not my definition, but it is the same thing... Thievery by "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorized way.

 

[Woody]

Really? Do you live with this guy?

View attachment 20933

Sorry... that might be misconstrued as an insult. None intended. I just thought that everyone already knew this.

I'll try to explain the theivery. The government started taking 6% of everyone's paychecks a while back because they assumed that people were too stupid to save for their own retirement. They did this in the name of retirement security. Hence the name "Social Security". This money was to be put in a "trust fund". Al Gore called it a "lock box". With me so far? Now, politicians need money to give to people in order to buy their votes for the next election. Since the US is not (was not) a communist country, they just can't go taking all of people's paychecks. They realized that everyone's retirement savings were in the governments hands, and that the people weren't retired yet. They really didn't need to keep the money "handy", so they simply transfed it to the general fund. Then, they spent it by giving it away to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. They figured that there would be more money later on to use when the time came to give the people their own money back at retirement. Still with me? What they didn't realize was that we would end up using environmental laws, excessive regulation, and Kensian economics (high taxes) to completey kill economic growth and prosperity before the time to give the retired folks their money back. Now they need the money to pay retirement benefits to current retirees, and the money isn't there. It was stolen. Just the same as if you put your life savings in a bank, and when you went back to get it they told you "Sorry, we needed to build a new HQ and a bunch of new branches, so we used your money. We'll pay you back when we sell the buildings in 50 or 60 years".

Not my definition, but it is the same thing... Thievery by "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorized way.

This doesn't seem any different than what a bank does, they don't have most of their depositers money on hand either....they're using it.

 

[skibum]

This doesn't seem any different than what a bank does, they don't have most of their depositers money on hand either....they're using it.

Correct. However, banks are using the money to make more money. They lend it out and charge interest or invest in something to make a profit. If they just GAVE the money away, then they would also be guilty of stealing. If the bank makes bad loans or investments and fails, the the FDIC insures the depositors money. After a bank fails, the government investigates the bank's officers to see if it was theft, or incompetence. If it was theft, someone goes to jail. If it was incompetence, then it is just an insurance claim...

A government can't make money (not counting just printing it). Every dollar sent into the governement is a dollar that does not buy groceries, movie tickets, patronize your local shopping mall. It only goes to the select, small group of businesses that they like. Ususally, the ones owned by people who donated to the elected officials who are responsible for determining who gets the money.

That's why the trillions spent under Obama's stimulus plan did not help. How many federal government people walked into whatever business that you work at and became a customer? Stop by your local supermarket and ask how much food the government bought from them. My guess is none. Did they go to your marina and rent a slip? Have your mechanic fix a boat? Stop at the coffee shop down the road and buy breakfast? This is the reason that Keynsian economics fail. The government doesn't patronize a wide enough variety of businesses over a wide enough geographic area. Sure, the immediate area around Washington DC does well, but my guess is that ya'll don't have a lot of government employees or agencies near Lake Superior to help your economy. I can't swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting a government employee around here... I'm thinking about trading my dead cat for a machete.

 

[Woody]

Correct. However, banks are using the money to make more money. They lend it out and charge interest or invest in something to make a profit. If they just GAVE the money away, then they would also be guilty of stealing. If the bank makes bad loans or investments and fails, the the FDIC insures the depositors money. After a bank fails, the government investigates the bank's officers to see if it was theft, or incompetence. If it was theft, someone goes to jail. If it was incompetence, then it is just an insurance claim...

A government can't make money (not counting just printing it). Every dollar sent into the governement is a dollar that does not buy groceries, movie tickets, patronize your local shopping mall. It only goes to the select, small group of businesses that they like. Ususally, the ones owned by people who donated to the elected officials who are responsible for determining who gets the money.

That's why the trillions spent under Obama's stimulus plan did not help. How many federal government people walked into whatever business that you work at and became a customer? Stop by your local supermarket and ask how much food the government bought from them. My guess is none. Did they go to your marina and rent a slip? Have your mechanic fix a boat? Stop at the coffee shop down the road and buy breakfast? This is the reason that Keynsian economics fail. The government doesn't patronize a wide enough variety of businesses over a wide enough geographic area. Sure, the immediate area around Washington DC does well, but my guess is that ya'll don't have a lot of government employees or agencies near Lake Superior to help your economy. I can't swing a dead cat by the tail without hitting a government employee around here... I'm thinking about trading my dead cat for a machete.

Government agencies and employees are everywhere Ski. Maybe the gov should be investing the SS money kind of like a bank, nothing too risky though.

 

[skibum]

They may be everywhere, but not in sufficient quantities to keep every town in business...

 

[comsnark]

Well. . . to reiterate. . . I agree with Skibum that the "poor" should pay more taxes. A token 5% seems appropriate.

I also agree with Woody that the "tax holiday" that was agreed to is an utterly stupid cop-out. I wonder how much that "stimulus" compares with the "debt reductions" currently being pushed in Washington?

I am a firm believer in progressive taxation. . .with no loopholes and deductions.. . . I am one who thinks the ~$106K SS wage tax cap is more than a wee bit stupid.

I am preparing to drink heavily down on the boat. . .so my eyes glazed over on the discussion of borrowing from the SS trust fund. I will just say this: If the Republicans are not willing to raise the debt ceiling "just because" it sounds like more debt. . .what are the odds they will tolerate putting money back into the SS trust fund when the time comes?

Tell me why any Tea Party candidate, (which is as we speak is struggling to agree on a bill that cannot possible become law, thus wasting everyone's time in crafting REAL legislation), should ever be allowed to be elected to a political office with fiduciary responsibility?

In other words, any office with fiduciary responsibility should have passage of a 5th grade math test as a prerequisite.

 

[Woody]

Well. . . to reiterate. . . I agree with Skibum that the "poor" should pay more taxes. A token 5% seems appropriate.

I also agree with Woody that the "tax holiday" that was agreed to is an utterly stupid cop-out. I wonder how much that "stimulus" compares with the "debt reductions" currently being pushed in Washington?

I am a firm believer in progressive taxation. . .with no loopholes and deductions.. . . I am one who thinks the ~$106K SS wage tax cap is more than a wee bit stupid.

I am preparing to drink heavily down on the boat. . .so my eyes glazed over on the discussion of borrowing from the SS trust fund. I will just say this: If the Republicans are not willing to raise the debt ceiling "just because" it sounds like more debt. . .what are the odds they will tolerate putting money back into the SS trust fund when the time comes?

Tell me why any Tea Party candidate, (which is as we speak is struggling to agree on a bill that cannot possible become law, thus wasting everyone's time in crafting REAL legislation), should ever be allowed to be elected to a political office with fiduciary responsibility?

In other words, any office with fiduciary responsibility should have passage of a 5th grade math test as a prerequisite.

I would say about the same as not redeeming a US savings bond.

When you look at the history of budget deficits and the national debt along with the current goings on I think it's clear no one has an edge when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

 

[skibum]

<snip>. . I am one who thinks the ~$106K SS wage tax cap is more than a wee bit stupid.

Nope... Considering how all of the money has already been stolen, the cap needs to be raised. Otherwise we can never get outta the hole. I'd even go so far as to put a 1-3% "SS recovery fee on all imported goods to help out with that. BUT... Like I said before, stop putting people on the program and gradually wind it down. The government has already proven that it is less responsible than the population at large. As a matter of fact, they have proven to be the propagator of bad behavior, and a lousy example for all of us..

In other words, any office with fiduciary responsibility should have passage of a 5th grade math test as a prerequisite.

You keep reiterating this insult, and yet you keep overlooking the big picture. It is NOT the math that is the problem, it is the thought process that the money MUST be spent - forever. If we stop spending money like it is going out of style, the revenues will catch up and the math will work out.

SS and medicare are the two biggest albatrosses ever hung around this country's neck. As long as they exist, people like you can get away with pointing out that the problem can not be fixed. We are Americans damnit. There is no problem that can not be solved if we work together. As somoene who voted Tea Party this time (and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon), I know that repairing these problems is going to be difficult. Weening folks off the government teat is not going to be fun. People will whine, *****, and yes, maybe even riot like we see in Greece. But that pain will be a temporary problem. What we have with the status quo is a permanent problem that can't be fixed without major changes. The first step in any recovery is swallowing pride and admitting that a mistake was made. The second step is fixing it. Come on... Join the rest of us on step 2...

Ok... One question.... If raising the debt ceiling is not "more debt", then what is it???? The "ceiling" IS a limit on debt. That's like saying the limit on your credit card is not the maximum amount that you can put on the card.