They aren't paying attention
Printable View
They aren't paying attention
They don't have to. They are elitists.
The truth hurts. Provide a link to any credible economist that does not think defaulting would be detrimental to the economy.
Not raising the debt ceiling would be a good thing.
Signed,
Cutting off noses to spite faces
Those 76% of Americans are not likely to be able to tell you what the fuck the Debt Ceiling is and what not raising it would mean.
If you ask these people if they want to deal with the results of a default I promise you 76% aren't going to say yes.
But in any event, if the GOP wants to listen to this indicator of the will of the people they should do so and they should do so loudly and proudly. They have the power to keep the debt ceiling what it is but I wonder how they would deal with the political ramifications that would come from a default? I'm guessing it would not be good for them.
Obama's right. Most Americans don't know what the hell the debt ceiling is, beyond just some abstract number that's in the news these days. Lord knows I'm no fan of the debt our government is running up, and I'd like to see us run a balanced budget but even I know you've got to raise the debt ceiling.
don't the majority of americans support rasing taxes on the rich to help with the deficit..Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
just sayin..
What those 74% of Americans suggest is the alternative to get the money? Because the vast majority of Americans don't want cuts in SS or Medicare either...
The United States won't default - that's just a scare tactic. There's enough money coming into the treasury to service our debt, with money left over.
Taken from the Rush Limbaugh show last Thursday. I know, I know, many of you will dismiss this completely because of who said it - but explain how he's wrong. We don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem.Quote:
Now, the debt is the bonds issued by Uncle Sam backed by the full faith and credit of the US. Deficit spending is all the insane spending the government does that outstrips the money that it takes in from taxes, fees for government services, sale of these bonds and government land, all of that. No one is saying we should default on our debt. What I'm saying is we won't. We can't. I mean we literally can't. We couldn't if we wanted to. Well, we could if we wanted to if we just stopped accepting payments which is what we would have to do. We cannot default, and there's no reason to default. It's a scare tactic. With the number of bonds that the Treasury has issued, it costs the government about $20 billion every month to service this debt. But the government actually takes in about $200 billion every month, minimum. So we easily have enough to cover the debt service of these bonds. In fact, we could easily cover debt service even if the debt limit was slashed instead of raised.
We've got enough money to cover the debt -- (interruption) $20 billion a month to cover the debt service on the bonds we sell, period, is all we need. The rest is just for spending. The problem is that Obama's spending 300, 500, $600 billion a month more than the $200 billion coming in. That's the problem. The problem is not that we don't have enough revenue coming in to service the debt or the bonds, the sale of the bonds, and Obama is counting on nobody understanding this. Again, the government actually takes in about $200 billion every month. We easily have enough money to cover the debt service, and we could cover that $20 billion a month if we cut, if we reduced the debt limit.
To avoid default all we have to do is to keep making interest and maturity payments on the bonds as they come due. The rest ought to be Obama's political problem, not ours. We're the ones that want to live within our means. He's the one who wants to spend $300-plus billion dollars a month, when we only got $180 billion coming in after we make the $20 billion payment on service to the debt. That's not a default issue. That's a scare tactic. There is no default. It's a common sense problem any adult understands. You can't keep spending money you don't have. We don't have the money.
But it is baloney, and I don't care who said it. Obama can't just say "don't pay for Medicare or Social Security". Those are expenses allocated by law, and it's up to Congress to restructure them in order to make them viable. As it stands, the money to cover that has to come from somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Barry just today dared Boehner to get their party in order and get serious on cutting spending + rein in SS and Medicare spending. We'll see what he does.
He's wrong because the 'insane spending' he's referring to has already been apportioned through bills that have been passed by congress and, is in fact, part of the debt. His premise is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
There's so much waste in the federal government - there's plenty of money if they'd just cut the waste, fraud and abuse. And EVERY single department could sustain a minimum 10% cut. But everyone has their sacred cows and it seems no one wants to make the tough choices. We can't keep borrowing more and more money.
Lets raise SS and medicare rates. Leave taxes alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
The debt ceiling is going to be raised. Let's not be stupid about this.
WC has a great point. Cut the big three's budget (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) by 1/3. Dept. of Ed and Ag can use some trimming. Get rid of the IRS completely and if all that doesnt work- then raise taxes across the board. Let everyone get the same percentage of their earnings taken away from them.
Cut defense while you're at it.
Tell Boehner to do it. Barry just said he has no problem compromising on a re-work of Medicare and SS...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
While they're at it, cut defense spending and close some tax loopholes too.
They already are cutting defense.
Not as much as initially proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Sacred cows.
"Barry just said he has no problem compromising on a re-work of Medicare and SS."
Barry's already counting his speaking fees, Wall St consulting fees, etc, after Jan 2013.
You're calling a 2012 win for the VRWC? Country that fucked and unfuckable?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
yep, if Barry's cuts $Ts from the Big3 while raising only a few $100B in revenue from taxes/loopholes, he's a goner. In fact, touching the Big3 will be fatal. He knows, all Dems know it, the Reugs know it.
The Repugs will win both branches in 2012 (they already own SCOTUS) and America's "fucked and unfuckable" will become much worser fucked, and it will be blatantly clear to even the pollyanna fucktards here.
Trillion wasted on jack shit stimulus.
Let the house of cards burn to the ground and let's get this party started!
Which is why paying attention or caring about politics, or this country, in the first place is completely pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
"completely pointless"
You're getting the message. Citizens' are totally ignored and disenfranchised.
Wall St and UCA "vote" against default, there won't be a default, the limit will be raised. Only their votes count. And there's nothing voters can do to defeat UCA and its subsidiary, the US govt.
A debt deal will get done. That's why the repugs secretly told Wall Street that they were just kidding when they made their purely theatrical vote against raising the debt ceiling earlier this year. Big Business would never forgive them if they held out and crashed the economy over the debt limit.
This made my eyes bleed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Please stop that, I am still recovering from your last doozy.
http://www.atrandomcomics.com/411%20...ing%20Eyes.jpg
Budget Blowhards: Why the Budget Debate Is Destined to Become Ever More Painful
There are few exercises more entertaining than ridiculing the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of leaders in Washington. The great part is that this is completely bipartisan. Neither party has a monopoly on solemnly stated absurdities. And of course we never have to worry about running out of material.
The winner in last week's contest was John Kasich, the former Republican chair of the House Budget Committee and the current governor of Ohio. National Public Radio interviewed Kasich in the context of a piece on the state of the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
NPR introduced Kasich by saying that he was chairman of the House Budget Committee "when he balanced the budget with President Clinton in the 1990s."
Kasich is then quoted as saying: "At the end of the day, you look yourself in the mirror, and you say to yourself, 'Did I do what was right for families and for children, and if I paid a political price, so what?' "
The story then concludes: "That's the kind of attitude the president wants in his meeting Thursday. Come to the White House, he says, but leave your rhetoric at the door."
Pretty touching isn't it? It may even be inspirational. After all a politician who is willing to do what is right even at risk to his career is a rare bird.
It also happens not to be true. The Washington press corps is living some bizarre delusion about the balanced budgets at the end of the Clinton years. They didn't come about from politicians making tough choices. They came about from much stronger than expected economic growth and the willingness of Alan Greenspan to ignore the economic orthodoxy and not shut down the expansion.
This can be easily seen by just looking at the projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). In 1996, CBO projected that the year 2000 budget deficit would be $244 billion (2.7 percent of GDP). Instead the economy ran a surplus of $232 billion, or roughly 2.4 percent of GDP. This involves a shift from deficit to surplus of $476 billion or 5.1 percentage points of GDP. This would be equivalent to reducing the annual deficit by $750 billion in 2011.
While Kasich and NPR tell this shift from deficit to surplus as being the result of politicians making the tough choices to cut spending and raise taxes, this is simply not true. According to CBO, the net contribution to deficit reduction of Mr. Kasich's courage was minus $10 billion. In other words, the sum of the impact of legislated spending cuts and tax increases to the budget over this 4-year period was to add $10 billion to the deficit.
The piece also doesn't mention Clinton's high dollar policy. The over-valued dollar made U.S. goods uncompetitive in world markets and led to a soaring trade deficit by the end of the Clinton years. The massive trade deficit and the imbalances it implied created the basis for the housing bubble.
If we had reality based politics, Clinton would be hiding under a rock, not lecturing us about the route to economic prosperity. In fact, Clinton even had the gall to tell us how to create manufacturing jobs through trade, apparently overlooking the fact that the economy lost manufacturing jobs each of his last three years in office.
The facts are fairly simple here, and they are 180 degrees at odds with the stories on the budget and the economy in the major news outlets. But the budget blowhards have the money and the power so we will be hearing much more from them. We can at least enjoy playing the ridicule game.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-b...tml?view=print
That's what his surgeon him to say.
??? Are you saying that payroll tax increases shouldn't be part of entitlement reform?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
It's certainly fine if that's what you think, but it's hardly a ridiculous suggestion. Raising taxes, cutting benefits & raising the eligibility age are the only three options there are.
"entitlement reform"
you lie, SS is not a pejorative "entitlement".
It's a pension fund, people pay THEIR money in, they draw THEIR money out.
IT'S YOUR MONEY
-- dubya
But I agree that SS increases, shared equally by employee and employer, as now, should be part of the budget deal. And the SS cap should be removed completely, AND applied to capital gains, not just earned income.
Barry made a huge mistake cutting SS contributions. Now he's tied SS to the deficit and general fund, which is wrong. Repugs love it.
Galbraith:
Deficit Predators: Everything You Need to Know About the Twisted, Dangerous Debt Ceiling Fight
The debt ceiling was first enacted in 1917. Why? The date tells all: we were about to enter the Great War. To fund that effort, the Wilson government needed to issue Liberty Bonds. This was controversial, and the debt ceiling was cover, passed to reassure the rubes that Congress would be “responsible” even while the country went to war. It was, from the beginning, an exercise in bad faith and has remained so every single second to the present day.
Today this bad-faith law is pressed to its absurd extreme, to force massive cuts in public programs as the price of not-reneging on the public debts of the United States. Never mind that to force default on the public obligations of the United States is plainly unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th amendment says in simple language that public debts, once duly authorized by law and including pensions, by the way, “shall not be questioned.” The purpose of this language was to foreclose, to put beyond politics, any possibility that the Union would renege on debts and pensions and bounties incurred to win the Civil War. But the application is very general and the courts have ruled that the principle extends to the present day.
What is going on in Congress at this moment already violates that mandate. It is an effort to subvert the authority of the government to meet and therefore to incur obligations of every possible stripe. It is an attack on the concept of government itself – as the “Tea Party” by its very name would no doubt agree. It therefore paints those deficit hawks who are using the debt ceiling to take budget hostages as enemies of the United States Constitution.
The President, though supposedly a constitutional expert and though sworn to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, will not say this. Instead he appears to treat the Constitution as an optional matter, to which he will not resort, in the hope that by negotiating with the hostage- takers he can reach some reasonable outcome that will preserve everyone’s good name. (The great Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe recently argued that the President cannot defy the debt ceiling on his own.That’s a debatable point.) It is as though Lincoln in 1861 faced with the siege of Sumter had sat down with Confederate commissioners to see what could be worked out.
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151593
If it were YOUR money, SS wouldn't be set up the way it is. If it were YOUR money, YOUR money would be put in an individualized account where only YOU get to touch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
What we've got is a ponzi scheme. People pay THEIR money to someone else, they draw SOMEONE ELSE's money out. Works great until you have too many people cashing checks and not enough suckers paying money in.
"What we've got is a ponzi scheme"
YOU LIE
Ponzi schemes are illegal. SS isn't illegal.
hmm...
Ponzi scheme (noun): an investment swindle in which early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones
Which part of this definition does social security not meet?
Which part of the SS and medicare rates do you imagine are not taxes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"Ponzi scheme (noun): an investment swindle"
SS isn't a swindle, it's not even in danger (unless you think the govt will default on the US bonds that SS holds). It's greedy, predatory Wall St and its Repug enablers that want all that money transferred to their filthy hands.
Sure it's a swindle. You stand no chance whatsoever of getting back what you put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
The Social Security Administration disagrees with you.Quote:
, it's not even in danger
It's entirely possible.Quote:
(unless you think the govt will default on the US bonds that SS holds).
A different subject entirely, completely irrelevant to the problems SS is currently facing.Quote:
It's greedy, predatory Wall St and its Repug enablers that want all that money transferred to their filthy hands.