What will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

[Phurfur 70]

LoL, wtf is going on around here..

 

 

 

It is just the children trying to categorize evrything so they can attempt to understand it. They have a problem when someone falls through the cracks.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

It is just the children trying to categorize evrything so they can attempt to understand it. They have a problem when someone falls through the cracks.

 

 

You're kidding me, right? Phurfur, the biggest reactionary right-winger on this bored, is claiming to hold some kind of complex political and philosophical beliefs, the likes of which an ordinary Geek could not understand? Yeah fockin' right. You're killing me here Phurfur.

[Phurfur 70]

If we borrow more $ and continue further in to debt we get to keep our prefect rating. When we try to get spending somewhat under control and stop going deeper into debt our rating is ruined..

 

Makes sense to me..

 

 

Wait, this doesn't seem right......

 

Other countries want us to borrow money and give it to them. It is a sweet deal and only an American would be dunb or vain enough to do it.

[Phurfur 70]

 

You're kidding me, right? Phurfur, the biggest reactionary right-winger on this bored, is claiming to hold some kind of complex political and philosophical beliefs, the likes of which an ordinary Geek could not understand? Yeah fockin' right. You're killing me here Phurfur.

 

Do you really think that claiming to be an Independent is a complex political and philosophical belief? I checked a box on a voter registation form. That is what it is all about, nothing else. Get back to work!

[Phurfur 70]

 

You're kidding me, right? Phurfur, the biggest reactionary right-winger on this bored, is claiming to hold some kind of complex political and philosophical beliefs, the likes of which an ordinary Geek could not understand? Yeah fockin' right. You're killing me here Phurfur.

 

 

You ae correct in calling me a right winger. Why does that make me a Republican?

[Frank M 181]

Actually, I suspect it has a lot more to do with morals, money, and gerrymandering. If you really believe the above it says a lot about you.

 

Right. If those districts were just changed a bit, there would likely be a flood of Libertarians elected to Congress. Or if they just could raise a little more money. Never mind that Ross Perot had unlimited funds and couldn't win an election.

 

Or maybe it's simply the fact that regular people don't want them because the vast majority are whackjobs.

[Frank M 181]

The people I voted for did not contribute to the disaster that the Republicans and Democrats have created. I don't buy into their crap and I never will. You on the other hand go for it hook, line and sinker. What a way to get votes, "Don't waste your vote on him, vote for me".

 

So you would prefer no change to a chance for change.

 

Way to go out on a limb, there, you rebel!

[Strike 5,570]

Right. If those districts were just changed a bit, there would likely be a flood of Libertarians elected to Congress. Or if they just could raise a little more money. Never mind that Ross Perot had unlimited funds and couldn't win an election.

 

Or maybe it's simply the fact that regular people don't want them because the vast majority are whackjobs.

 

Ross Perot, much like Ron Paul, couldn't win due to his morals. Gee, I think I mentioned that. And he did pretty damn good for an independent. It's a shame we're stuck with this two party system that pretty much guarantees independents generally can't win. Some have, especially at the lower levels. I think that shows that if it weren't for the influences I mentioned they'd do better. But the GOP and the Dems walk in to any national, and most local, elections with a built in voting base. They just need to influence x percentage of independents. And that's where the money comes in. I can't believe you're pretending that isn't the case. I really don't want to resort to name calling but you're acting pretty dumb on this point.

[Phurfur 70]

So you would prefer no change to a chance for change.

 

Way to go out on a limb, there, you rebel!

 

 

You are assuming change is always good, it is not! Change for the sake of change is the worst thing that can be done.

 

Two years ago you voted for a change in the social structure of our country. We have a 3 class system; upper, middle, and lower class. We are moving toward a 2 class system, the ruling class and the serfs.

 

 

Way to go there you fool!

[Phurfur 70]

Right. If those districts were just changed a bit, there would likely be a flood of Libertarians elected to Congress. Or if they just could raise a little more money. Never mind that Ross Perot had unlimited funds and couldn't win an election.

 

Or maybe it's simply the fact that regular people don't want them because the vast majority are whackjobs.

 

or maybe it is because many people vote for the person the media tells them to vote for. That would be you!

[Bill E. 703]

The economy seems to me to be weak already and patched together with scotch tape, staples, rubber bands, and glue. Given it's fragile state, I have no idea why the Republican Party has decided to see what happens when they deliberately push it over the cliff.

 

Why do you feel that it is the Republicans that are pushing this over the cliff? They said they would raise the debt limit if spending was cut to show that the Feds were trying to get things in order. I think this would pass pretty easily.

 

It is the Dems that are killing the deal by insisting on raising taxes. The debt ceiling and spending are not the issues holding up the deal. Taxes increases are where the controversy lies.

[Frank M 181]

Ross Perot, much like Ron Paul, couldn't win due to his morals. Gee, I think I mentioned that. And he did pretty damn good for an independent. It's a shame we're stuck with this two party system that pretty much guarantees independents generally can't win. Some have, especially at the lower levels. I think that shows that if it weren't for the influences I mentioned they'd do better. But the GOP and the Dems walk in to any national, and most local, elections with a built in voting base. They just need to influence x percentage of independents. And that's where the money comes in. I can't believe you're pretending that isn't the case. I really don't want to resort to name calling but you're acting pretty dumb on this point.

 

Says the guy who thinks that redistricting will improve third party candidates' chances.

 

Do the Dems and Reps have a stranglehold on elections right now? Sure, that's not up for debate. But third party candidates will continue to have zero chance of getting elected when their best examples are Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. What, there are tons of viable third party candidates that are out there that just won't run because they know they can't win? Talk about being dumb.

 

I think it's funny that you think Ross Perot lost because of some hazy "morals" issue. He lost because he wanted to increase the gas tax to pay down the debt and basically had nothing else. Plus he was a little nutty. Guaranteed that he would not have gotten as far as he had had he not spent vast amounts of his own fortune.

[Frank M 181]

You are assuming change is always good, it is not! Change for the sake of change is the worst thing that can be done.

 

Two years ago you voted for a change in the social structure of our country. We have a 3 class system; upper, middle, and lower class. We are moving toward a 2 class system, the ruling class and the serfs.

 

 

Way to go there you fool!

 

Right. You and stick would rather your representative sit idly by and do nothing as the country goes down the sh1tter. I got that already.

 

I'd rather my vote count for something other than just a protestation.

 

ETA and if you didn't think it was going that way long before Obama got into office, you are completely clueless. Which we know you are, but it would just be another example.

[Voltaire 5,317]

If we borrow more $ and continue further in to debt we get to keep our prefect rating. When we try to get spending somewhat under control and stop going deeper into debt our rating is ruined..

 

Makes sense to me..

 

 

Wait, this doesn't seem right......

 

Yes it does.

 

It's really simple.

 

If you buy a refrigerator and then you stop making payments, you should expect credit worthiness to go down.

[Frank M 181]

Why do you feel that it is the Republicans that are pushing this over the cliff? They said they would raise the debt limit if spending was cut to show that the Feds were trying to get things in order. I think this would pass pretty easily.

 

It is the Dems that are killing the deal by insisting on raising taxes. The debt ceiling and spending are not the issues holding up the deal. Taxes increases are where the controversy lies.

 

Right. Republicans are unwilling to discuss the possibility of allowing the "job-building" Bush tax cuts to expire, while Democrats are willing to put entitlement programs up for discussion.

 

Republicans are the Party of No. It will bite them in the ass if this goes bad.

 

Where are all the jobs those tax cuts were/are supposed to create, anyways?

[Reality 3,121]

Yes it does.

 

It's really simple.

 

If you buy a refrigerator and then you stop making payments, you should expect credit worthiness to go down.

 

No, you cancel cable, cell phone, & netflix until you pay off the fridge. Your line of thinking is absurd.

[Voltaire 5,317]

Why do you feel that it is the Republicans that are pushing this over the cliff? They said they would raise the debt limit if spending was cut to show that the Feds were trying to get things in order. I think this would pass pretty easily.

 

It is the Dems that are killing the deal by insisting on raising taxes. The debt ceiling and spending are not the issues holding up the deal. Taxes increases are where the controversy lies.

 

Because it's ridiculous to couple budget negotiations with extending the debt ceiling. The Republicans are deliberately putting the nation's credit worthiness in jeopardy and are clearly willing to default and push it over the line if their demands aren't met.

 

The whole point of balancing the budget is to avoid default. That is the entire point. So in order to avoid defaulting in the future, we're going to default artificially now? WTF logic is that?

 

When the bills come due, we have to find money to pay for things. You don't play with the debt ceiling at all, ever. Frankly, I'm amazed we still have an AAA credit ranking after 10 years of mismanagement. Why deliberately toss that out the window by forcing the government into default?

 

---

 

Honest to God, I actually agree with the Republicans on their goals. But the way to go about it is to stop appropriating so much money for things in the future, not refuse to pay for the things that you bought in the past. The bills are coming due and we're not paying them. How about, to get the house in order, make sure that next year, we have fewer bills to pay? How about that? What's wrong with that?

[Bill E. 703]

Right. Republicans are unwilling to discuss the possibility of allowing the "job-building" Bush tax cuts to expire, while Democrats are willing to put entitlement programs up for discussion.

 

Republicans are the Party of No. It will bite them in the ass if this goes bad.

 

Where are all the jobs those tax cuts were/are supposed to create, anyways?

You could ask the same question about O's stimulus. One policy allowed people to keep more of what they earned, the other spent money we did not have on shovel ready jobs and paid off unions and donors. Plus Bush's tax cuts were what, almost 10 years ago? I think the blame Bush game has jumped the shark.

[DanXIII 8]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/economy/debt_ceiling_taxes/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

 

Republican tax stand a bust with public

 

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney July 14, 2011: 2:03 PM ET

Republican tax stand a bust with public

 

Rep. Eric Cantor has led GOP opposition to revenue increases.

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- House Republicans who refuse to consider tax increases as part of a debt ceiling deal are out of step with most Americans, according to two new polls.

 

That's bad news for Republicans who are betting the farm on resisting Democratic efforts to raise taxes on the rich.

 

When looking to reduce debt, politicians can employ two tactics. The first is to cut spending. The second is to raise taxes. Most budget experts say you need to do both.

 

But House Republicans -- an overwhelming majority of whom have signed a pledge to this effect -- refuse to consider any kind of tax increase, not matter who it hits.

 

Turns out, most Americans don't share their conviction.

 

A full 67% of Americans favor a deal to raise the debt ceiling that includes taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, according to a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University.

 

And according to Gallup, only 20% of Americans want a deal that consists only of spending cuts. That's the position of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and many of his colleagues.

 

Instead, most Americans want the deal to include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, something that is much closer to the bargaining position staked out by Democrats.

 

You would think that Republicans from 2011 would have learned lessons from the Republicans of 1995. That stupid stunt Newt and Co. pulled with the gubmint shutdown virtually guaranteed Willie a second term.

[Frank M 181]

You could ask the same question about O's stimulus. One policy allowed people to keep more of what they earned, the other spent money we did not have on shovel ready jobs and paid off unions and donors. Plus Bush's tax cuts were what, almost 10 years ago? I think the blame Bush game has jumped the shark.

 

You absolutely could ask that. Why you would want to is curious, since the stimulus is money that has been spent already, and the argument here isn't whether it was successful or not, the argument is what each party is willing to give in this situation, and the Republicans are willing to give nothing.

 

So what Bush blame game am I playing? I'm simply saying that the main argument for keeping the Bush tax cuts in place has been that to let them expire would kill job creation, so it's fair to ask where the jobs they are supposedly creating are.

[KSB2424 3,148]

No, you cancel cable, cell phone, & netflix until you pay off the fridge. Your line of thinking is absurd.

 

Unfortunately, the 'mortgages for everyone' policies of Clinton, coupled with the wars of Bush, coupled with the entitlements and craptastic stimulus plans of Obama have backed us in to a corner. I guess we have to raise the debt ceiling, even if it should piss off every single American that we have too.

[Frank M 181]

http://money.cnn.com...x.htm?iid=HP_LN

 

 

 

You would think that Republicans from 2011 would have learned lessons from the Republicans of 1995. That stupid stunt Newt and Co. pulled with the gubmint shutdown virtually guaranteed Willie a second term.

 

That's what I've been saying all along. Thanks, Dan.

[Voltaire 5,317]

No, you cancel cable, cell phone, & netflix until you pay off the fridge. Your line of thinking is absurd.

Thak You. You have explained my position completely.

 

Extending the debt ceiling is not about August's cable, cell phone, and netflex. It's about the fridge we bought in December and it's the Republican's position that we don't pay for the fridge.

 

You have to understand: the money has already been appropriated. Now the bills are coming due and we don't have the money to pay for things. In July, 2011, you can't undo 2011's budget that was passed in December 2010. That money is spent. You can't unspend money. What you can do is affect changes on 2012 and into the future- and that is what we should be haggling about.

[Voltaire 5,317]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/economy/debt_ceiling_taxes/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

 

 

 

You would think that Republicans from 2011 would have learned lessons from the Republicans of 1995. That stupid stunt Newt and Co. pulled with the gubmint shutdown virtually guaranteed Willie a second term.

 

The GOP shut the government down in 995 (and I applauded them for their stand). The difference was that at no time did they refuse to pay the bills or put the nation's credit in jeopardy.

 

It's one thing not to allocate money for the government to continue to function. It's another thing entirely to allocate the money then refuse to pay.

[Reality 3,121]

Thak You. You have explained my position completely.

 

Extending the debt ceiling is not about August's cable, cell phone, and netflex. It's about the fridge we bought in December and it's the Republican's position that we don't pay for the fridge.

 

You have to understand: the money has already been appropriated. Now the bills are coming due and we don't have the money to pay for things. In July, 2011, you can't undo 2011's budget that was passed in December 2010. That money is spent. You can't unspend money. What you can do is affect changes on 2012 and into the future- and that is what we should be haggling about.

 

The federal government brings in 200 billion a month give or take. More than enough to make the "fridge" payment. Borrowing to pay for things we bought on credit is destroying the country.

 

Prioritize....

[Voltaire 5,317]

The federal government brings in 200 billion a month give or take. More than enough to make the "fridge" payment. Borrowing to pay for things we bought on credit is destroying the country.

 

Prioritize....

You can't order the meal then refuse the bill.

 

When you stop paying for sh*t that you said you were going to pay for, it's called : default.

[Reality 3,121]

You can't order the meal then refuse the bill.

 

When you stop paying for sh*t that you said you were going to pay for, it's called : default.

 

Maybe you missed the 200 billion part...

 

[Frank M 181]

You can't order the meal then refuse the bill.

 

When you stop paying for sh*t that you said you were going to pay for, it's called : default.

 

The idea that the government takes in enough to meet it's obligations is a Republican talking point. Reality unfortunately isn't in it due to over saturation of right wing blogs.

[BLS 314]

I think you guys are all panicking over nothing. Do you really think they aren't going to pass the debt ceiling increase?

 

This is all politics. Both sides are trying to push the other and trying to get the most they can out of the deal. It's no different than the NFL lockout. Both want the most out of the deal, both will threaten to pull the curtains on the season and both will blame the other.

 

But in the end, they both KNOW it's stupid not to have a season. Everybody loses.

 

Blaming the Republicans is as stupid as blaming the Democrats. Both sides are playing games.

 

The reality is if the Republicans really wanted to cut spending they wouldn't have passed Bunghole's ridiculous budget.

 

I had to explain this all to my GF this morning because she's getting confused.

 

I said look at it this way:

 

You come to me and say I want to spend about 100% more than we earn this year. You say you want a car, and some new clothes for you and the boys and I want to paint the house and I want a pool put in.

We argue about it for a while and then finally I concede to the spending, but we both understand I'll have to borrow the money to make it happen. Then about 4 months later when you've blown through all of the money and maxed out the credit cards, you ask me to open another credit card so you can pay off the other credit cards we can't pay for. But instead of doing it, I refuse now because I want to try to force you to spend less.

 

It makes zero sense and this is why I have ZERO faith in politicians. You guys that keep blaming one side or the other are both equally misguided IMO.

Here's a tip....none of them give a F*CK about you. They want you doing what you're doing. They want us divided. They want friends to argue. They need that deflection of focus onto something else, so they can continue to rape the country of every shred of dignity they can before they get caught doing or saying something sh1tty and lose their job. Then some brand new fuckstick comes in and tells us how he's gonna change it, and everybody drinks the koolaid and says "Now THIS guy is gonna fix things!" and you end up with the same sh1t and then you wonder how we ended up here.

 

It is what it is folks.

 

 

Ask yourself this....what has Obama done differently than George Bush?

 

Bush - Deficit spending, Obama - Deficit Spending

Bush - Medicare part D (prescription drug), Obama - Obama Care

Bush - 2 Wars with no clear objective, Obama - Continuation of both (which he PROMISED TO END) and started off another 'bombing'.

Bush - Pushed the Fed to inject massive amounts of capital to improve the economy, Obama - Same

Bush - Patriot Act (violation of the 4th Amendment), Obama (who criticized it and promised to end) - Votes to extend it....TWICE.

 

 

Think about it.......there's no difference. You guys that bash Obama didn't bash Bush for the same things. You guys that bashed Bush don't bash Obama, and yet he's Bush II.

 

None of it will change until everyone can realize that and start to support someone who's honest.

[Strike 5,570]

Says the guy who thinks that redistricting will improve third party candidates' chances.

 

Undoubtedly it would. Generally they still wouldn't win due to the other factors I mentioned but to act like having evenly distributed districts wouldn't help just makes you look dumber.

 

 

Do the Dems and Reps have a stranglehold on elections right now? Sure, that's not up for debate. But third party candidates will continue to have zero chance of getting elected when their best examples are Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. What, there are tons of viable third party candidates that are out there that just won't run because they know they can't win? Talk about being dumb.

 

You just proved one of my points. The main reason Jesse Ventura won the governor's race was due to campaign finance reform that made the financial playing field fairly equal.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/ventura110598.htm

 

I think it's funny that you think Ross Perot lost because of some hazy "morals" issue. He lost because he wanted to increase the gas tax to pay down the debt and basically had nothing else. Plus he was a little nutty. Guaranteed that he would not have gotten as far as he had had he not spent vast amounts of his own fortune.

 

Perot spent 63 million or so of his own money on his campaign, and that constituted something like 93% of his campaign contributions. Clinton and Bush each got 55 million just in PUBLIC money for theirs. Oh, and Perot quit the race for three months before reentering. There are a lot of factors as to why he didn't win. Very few of them have anything to do with things other than those that I mentioned.

[posty 2,702]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13339

 

What the Debt Ceiling Really Means

 

The clock is slowly ticking toward Aug. 2, the date on which the U.S. faces "fiscal Armageddon" — according to the Obama administration — unless Congress agrees to raise the debt ceiling. But would we?

 

The Obama administration, as well as much of the media and many economists, tend to equate failure to raise the debt limit with default. That's not precisely true.

 

The Treasury Department estimates that the federal government will collect a bit more than $203 billion in taxes during August — roughly $36 billion just in the first three days. But, during August, the federal government is expected to spend $307 billion. That is why we have a problem.

 

If the government is not able to borrow more money after Aug. 2, spending will have to be reduced to the amount of revenue that the government has. That would require roughly a 44 percent cut in federal spending.

 

This will almost certainly hurt. But it's not the same as default. During August, interest payments on the federal debt will total roughly $29 billion, meaning that there will be sufficient revenue to meet our obligations to creditors. If the Obama administration is truly worried that we might not do so, they could always support legislation by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) that would require the Treasury Department to pay our creditors first.

 

In addition, some $467 billion in government bonds is expected to come due during August, and will have to be rolled over. Though this rollover requires Treasury to enter the debt markets to purchase new securities, it is not technically "new" debt, and so does not run afoul of the debt limit.

 

The concern is that the U.S. would end up having to pay higher interest rates on this rolled over debt. That's not a trivial concern: A 1 percent increase in interest rates could cost taxpayers more than $100 billion per year.

 

Still, we should keep that in perspective — it's less than the amount that the government expects to borrow this month. And that is sort of worst case scenario. In 1979, the federal government actually did briefly default on its debt as the result of a debt ceiling impasse (as well as technical problems). That resulted in just a 60-basis-point increase in interest rates.

 

If we are really worried about a hike in interest rates, what about the hike we can expect if we fail to get federal borrowing under control? Both our deficit and total liabilities are already higher as a percentage of gross domestic product than Greece — or any of the other failing welfare states of Europe.

 

Despite this, creditors have been willing to lend us money at very low interest rates, simply because they trust the U.S. economy over the long-term. If we don't get our budgetary house in order, however, that won't be the case forever. Eventually, we will have to hike interest rates to ensure that the Chinese and others keep buying our bonds.

 

Former Federal Reserve governor Lawrence Lindsey estimates that if interest rates simply return to their historic average, it is likely to cost taxpayers $420 billion in higher payments in 2014, and $700 billion by 2020. The $100 billion or so that we might have to pay if we miss the debt ceiling looks good by comparison.

 

And what about that 44 percent cut in spending? That would require the federal government to cut spending all the way back to what it spent in 2003 — a year not notable for mass starvation and economic collapse. In fact, the revenue we will collect in August would more than cover Social Security payments, Medicare and military salaries, in addition to interest payments on the debt.

 

Obviously, the longer the impasse goes on, the more the inability to borrow will hurt. We will face a super version of the government shutdowns that we've endured before. But, eventually, the debt ceiling is going to be increased and government operations will return to more or less normal.

 

The real fiscal Armageddon that this country faces comes not from a delay in raising the debt ceiling, but from out-of-control federal spending and government debt.

 

If a little pain now helps solve that problem for the long term, it may well be worth it.

[DanXIII 8]

I think you guys are all panicking over nothing. Do you really think they aren't going to pass the debt ceiling increase?

 

 

 

According to Boehner, not a single one of the Tea Party caucus intends to vote for a debt ceiling increase no matter what deal he strikes with the Dems.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13339

 

What the Debt Ceiling Really Means

 

The clock is slowly ticking toward Aug. 2, the date on which the U.S. faces "fiscal Armageddon" — according to the Obama administration — unless Congress agrees to raise the debt ceiling. But would we?

 

The Obama administration, as well as much of the media and many economists, tend to equate failure to raise the debt limit with default. That's not precisely true.

 

The Treasury Department estimates that the federal government will collect a bit more than $203 billion in taxes during August — roughly $36 billion just in the first three days. But, during August, the federal government is expected to spend $307 billion. That is why we have a problem.

 

If the government is not able to borrow more money after Aug. 2, spending will have to be reduced to the amount of revenue that the government has. That would require roughly a 44 percent cut in federal spending.

 

This will almost certainly hurt. But it's not the same as default. During August, interest payments on the federal debt will total roughly $29 billion, meaning that there will be sufficient revenue to meet our obligations to creditors. If the Obama administration is truly worried that we might not do so, they could always support legislation by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) that would require the Treasury Department to pay our creditors first.

 

In addition, some $467 billion in government bonds is expected to come due during August, and will have to be rolled over. Though this rollover requires Treasury to enter the debt markets to purchase new securities, it is not technically "new" debt, and so does not run afoul of the debt limit.

 

The concern is that the U.S. would end up having to pay higher interest rates on this rolled over debt. That's not a trivial concern: A 1 percent increase in interest rates could cost taxpayers more than $100 billion per year.

 

Still, we should keep that in perspective — it's less than the amount that the government expects to borrow this month. And that is sort of worst case scenario. In 1979, the federal government actually did briefly default on its debt as the result of a debt ceiling impasse (as well as technical problems). That resulted in just a 60-basis-point increase in interest rates.

 

If we are really worried about a hike in interest rates, what about the hike we can expect if we fail to get federal borrowing under control? Both our deficit and total liabilities are already higher as a percentage of gross domestic product than Greece — or any of the other failing welfare states of Europe.

 

Despite this, creditors have been willing to lend us money at very low interest rates, simply because they trust the U.S. economy over the long-term. If we don't get our budgetary house in order, however, that won't be the case forever. Eventually, we will have to hike interest rates to ensure that the Chinese and others keep buying our bonds.

 

Former Federal Reserve governor Lawrence Lindsey estimates that if interest rates simply return to their historic average, it is likely to cost taxpayers $420 billion in higher payments in 2014, and $700 billion by 2020. The $100 billion or so that we might have to pay if we miss the debt ceiling looks good by comparison.

And what about that 44 percent cut in spending? That would require the federal government to cut spending all the way back to what it spent in 2003 — a year not notable for mass starvation and economic collapse. In fact, the revenue we will collect in August would more than cover Social Security payments, Medicare and military salaries, in addition to interest payments on the debt.

 

Obviously, the longer the impasse goes on, the more the inability to borrow will hurt. We will face a super version of the government shutdowns that we've endured before. But, eventually, the debt ceiling is going to be increased and government operations will return to more or less normal.

 

The real fiscal Armageddon that this country faces comes not from a delay in raising the debt ceiling, but from out-of-control federal spending and government debt.

 

If a little pain now helps solve that problem for the long term, it may well be worth it.

 

Exactly. So if seniors don't get their Social Security checks it's because the Obama administration will place a higher priority on paying for trivial BS over SS payments.

 

His scare tactics are getting lame.

[Bill E. 703]

Because it's ridiculous to couple budget negotiations with extending the debt ceiling. The Republicans are deliberately putting the nation's credit worthiness in jeopardy and are clearly willing to default and push it over the line if their demands aren't met.

 

The whole point of balancing the budget is to avoid default. That is the entire point. So in order to avoid defaulting in the future, we're going to default artificially now? WTF logic is that?

 

When the bills come due, we have to find money to pay for things. You don't play with the debt ceiling at all, ever. Frankly, I'm amazed we still have an AAA credit ranking after 10 years of mismanagement. Why deliberately toss that out the window by forcing the government into default?

 

---

 

Honest to God, I actually agree with the Republicans on their goals. But the way to go about it is to stop appropriating so much money for things in the future, not refuse to pay for the things that you bought in the past. The bills are coming due and we're not paying them. How about, to get the house in order, make sure that next year, we have fewer bills to pay? How about that? What's wrong with that?

 

In part I think it because they know the Dem's will not agree to cutting spending if they are not forced to do it by tying it into the debt ceiling vote.

 

"How about, to get the house in order, make sure that next year, we have fewer bills to pay? How about that? What's wrong with that?"

 

I agree with you on that but isn't that the point of forcing cuts in spending? I feel that we absolutely have to raise the ceiling and cut spending. To set things right down the line more spending cuts and tax increases will be needed. but what is wrong with showing that we are serious by cutting spending before asking people to shell out more money than they already do in taxes?

[Voltaire 5,317]

In part I think it because they know the Dem's will not agree to cutting spending if they are not forced to do it by tying it into the debt ceiling vote.

 

"How about, to get the house in order, make sure that next year, we have fewer bills to pay? How about that? What's wrong with that?"

 

I agree with you on that but isn't that the point of forcing cuts in spending? I feel that we absolutely have to raise the ceiling and cut spending. To set things right down the line more spending cuts and tax increases will be needed. but what is wrong with showing that we are serious by cutting spending before asking people to shell out more money than they already do in taxes?

 

 

The time to "force spending cuts and show they are serious" is before next year's money is spent, not when the bills from last year come due this year.

 

Since the money for 2012 hasn't been appropriated yet, and the Senate is run by cuckolds, the House GOP will have plenty of input. They will have their fingerprints all over how much money is spent. And bless them for it, that is their reward for winning the last election.

 

They have control (along with the President and technically the Senate) of government spending in 2012 and 2013. Nothing will get spent in 2012 or 2013 that doesn't come with the approval of the House GOP. So when the time comes to fund USA.gov in 2012- why don't they "force spending cuts" and "show they are serious" then?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The time to "force spending cuts and show they are serious" is before next year's money is spent, not when the bills from last year come due this year.

 

Since the money for 2012 hasn't been appropriated yet, and the Senate is run by cuckolds, the House GOP will have plenty of input. They will have their fingerprints all over how much money is spent. And bless them for it, that is their reward for winning the last election.

 

They have control (along with the President and technically the Senate) of government spending in 2012 and 2013. Nothing will get spent in 2012 or 2013 that doesn't come with the approval of the House GOP. So when the time comes to fund USA.gov in 2012- why don't they "force spending cuts" and "show they are serious" then?

 

 

The Dems have ignored their Constitutional requirement to pass a budget for 2 years while they controlled the House, Senate, and White House. The Rep controlled House already passed a budget, which has been ignored by the Reid Senate.

 

If the dems want to act like children and ignore their Constitutional duties the Reps have every right to hold their feet to the fire and force them to make some grown up decisions.

 

We are fukking broke, and the dems are running up deficits of over $1.4 Trillion dollars every year without a budget. Fukk them. Do you fukking job, asshats.

[Voltaire 5,317]

The Dems have ignored their Constitutional requirement to pass a budget for 2 years while they controlled the House, Senate, and White House. The Rep controlled House already passed a budget, which has been ignored by the Reid Senate.

 

If the dems want to act like children and ignore their Constitutional duties the Reps have every right to hold their feet to the fire and force them to make some grown up decisions.

 

We are fukking broke, and the dems are running up deficits of over $1.4 Trillion dollars every year without a budget. Fukk them. Do you fukking job, asshats.

 

"Budget" "Continuing Resolution" "TomAto" "TomaAHto"

 

I don't see how folks get worked up over this. Sh*t, you should be dancing in the streets that the Dems didn't pass a budget.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This guy nails it. :banana:

 

Here's a joke for you: President Obama nearly bankrupts the country with his out-of-control deficit spending -- then demands responsible fiscal leadership from the Republicans.

 

OK, this is no time for humor: The country faces a deadline of Aug. 2 to either raise the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion to around $16 trillion or face the prospect of defaulting on our loans and cutting services.

 

But jokers seem to be all we have in Washington these days, with the president as comedian-in-chief.

 

Who but a comic could propose (as Obama did back in February) a $3.7 trillion budget that would have added $7.2 trillion more to the national debt by 2021?

 

 

 

When that drew universal scorn, who but a jokester would then have followed with a specifics-free do-over speech on fiscal policy in April? That "plan" was so funny that, when asked about its budgetary effects, Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Elmendorf cracked, "We don't estimate speeches."

 

And who but a funnyman would explicitly threaten senior citizens, as Obama did this week, by saying he couldn't "guarantee" that Social Security checks would go out on schedule next month if an agreement to raise the borrowing limit can't be reached?

 

Meanwhile, no Democratic-controlled chamber of Congress has been able to pass a budget in two years: They refuse to cut spending, they don't dare raise taxes without Republican cover -- and now even new borrowing could become impossible.

 

Then-Sen. Obama had it right back in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here."

 

That was then, this is now, and politics is still the name of the game. What's going on in Washington isn't a serious conversation about how to halt and reverse the ruinous growth of federal spending, but the usual jockeying for position as election season approaches.

 

How else to explain Obama's adamant refusal to put some serious numbers on the table? The administration's talks with the GOP leadership broke down over the weekend largely because the president is only willing to offer -- wait for it -- a grand total of $2 billion in real spending cuts in 2012.

 

That's it -- $2 billion with a "b," out of a projected deficit of more than a trillion dollars. No wonder Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that no solution to the debt problem is possible as long as Obama is in office.

 

Yet McConnell isn't much better. With Republicans terrified that they'll be blamed if Grandma doesn't get her Social Security check, he has floated a "last resort," Rube Goldbergian plan. He'd allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling on his own, three times at up to $900 billion a pop, subject to an all-but-impossible congressional veto -- all in the hopes that the public (which opposes raising the debt limit by a 2-to-1 margin) will blame the president.

 

Time for the Republicans to man up and end this laugh riot. Do they really think the public would blame them if Obama directs the Treasury Department not to issue Social Security checks? If Obama holds up military pay or executes any of the sky-is-falling scenarios he and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have been floating?

 

Just to be clear: If the debt limit isn't raised, the Treasury can still cover obligations like debt service. The government takes in $200 billion a month. It can still spend -- it just can't spend as much. And it's the Executive Branch that must decide which checks don't go out.

 

The GOP needs to hold the line: No tax hikes, no more borrowing to spend on unreformed, unaffordable programs.

 

Americans aren't stupid: They know where the buck stops.

 

And where the jokes need to stop, too. Obama inadvertently let the Social Security cat out of its imaginary "lockbox" when he threatened to stop the checks. Because there is no trust fund: Social Security is paid either out of current revenues or with borrowed money. It's a pyramid scheme that's running out of suckers.

 

The president and Congress should take this moment to level with the American people about the solvency of entitlement programs, but of course they won't.

 

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_comedian_in_chief_dUjUlGMZt4xcT4awrHrqbN

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Keep pushing it Republicans. I want any independent voter (and I mean truly independent, not Phurfur "independent" :lol) who hasn't already figured it out to realize that the Republican party is unfit to govern. That they would truly drive the car over the cliff if they thought it would hurt Obama. That they are willing to imperil the fragile economy during a time of tepid recovery. That they couldn't give a fock about 99% of Americans as long as the top 1% gets to continue bleeding the rest of this country dry. By all means, push the issue.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Keep pushing it Republicans. I want any independent voter (and I mean truly independent, not Phurfur "independent" :lol) who hasn't already figured it out to realize that the Republican party is unfit to govern. That they would truly drive the car over the cliff if they thought it would hurt Obama. That they are willing to imperil the fragile economy during a time of tepid recovery. That they couldn't give a fock about 99% of Americans as long as the top 1% gets to continue bleeding the rest of this country dry. By all means, push the issue.

 

Bwahahahahahahaahh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The Dems had the White House and huge majorities in both houses of Congress and failed to pass a budget for over 2 years.

 

Time to let some adults into the equation.

 

And I'm curious how the top 1% are bleeding the rest of the country dry.