Debt Limit

[Maggie]

I actually saw a video last week of Kansas freshman Rep. Tim Huelskamp questioning the chairman of the Social Security Admin. Huelskamp had a graph that showed August revenue projections exceeding budgetary expenses. So there is no danger of default or Soc. Sec. checks not going out in August.

The way it was explained is that revenues start declining in the late months (Nov & Dec), but because numbers are often reported as a monthly average there is the appearance that funds won't be available, triggering additional debt. Bottom line is, the funds are there. Furthermore, as I understand it, debt service, military and entitlements get paid first. Discretionary spending is what might suffer.

Obama's fear-mongering (lying) might have legs, if this discussion were taking place closer to the holidays.

Royal - there is no mandate, as I understand, as to what gets paid first - SS, the Military, ect. Which is why Tim Terrific or President Obama can make these threats. The "executive" can choose - after all the money has been allocated by Congress.

Discretionary spending will have to "suffer" and should. But that is not the issue in the long term.

SS :whistle: - if it were a "lock box" it would not be part of the problem. But as it is, gasp, - SS benefits today don't reap what they put in (it is many times that much - on the backs on those that can't even vote). This works until it doesn't - there is no mortar, there is certainly no foundation.

[Maggie]

"Obama's fear-mongering" has only legs if you allow it. It is the GOP's decision.

[wsushox1]

So by dealing with the entitlements you mean?

Just trying to learn more, I often hear phrases on the news such as we must deal with entitlements, close loopholes, but those are ridiculously vague. I've tried to find out what they mean by that, but I can't. I learn better when someone other than the "book: explains it to me.

[wsushox1]

The best situation is for the Nikkei to lose about 8% tonight then for investors to get uneasy and for the American markets to drop around 10% tomorrow. Then maybe we can see what kind of deal can get done.


Regardless of whether or not the defaulting will have any factual harmful effects or not is irrelevant, if investors and the public believe it will, then it will. Confidence is a finnicky thing.

There is no getting around that.

Your premise is wrong. The question is not whether default would have adverse affects. Of course it would – I know of no one that says otherwise. The markets would have reacted long ago if it were the case that default was an issue. But the United States will not default, they will pay their bond holders – and have the money to do so – the August deadline is fictitious.

The reason the United States is getting downgrade warnings is not the threat of default but because of the overall long term fiscal situation. That means these rating agencies (whatever you think about their utility) are actually waiting to see signs that our government is serious about addressing these issues. The same is true of the PIGS in Europe. If the United States loses its AAA status – you will see serious economic consequences.

Now I am not so naive as to expect the federal government to address all these issues during this debt limit debate. And frankly, aside from the Ryan budget (which also has its flaws), none of the current plans “solve” this problem. But the government must show a willingness to address these issues – that means real cuts, not smoke and mirrors – that means real cuts NOW, not promises to do so in the future (through some new committee or whatever).

The debt debate is simply leverage for the GOP to get started down this road – the road to realism. And it will be a thorny venture – for these entitlements are the life blood of progressives/liberals/Democratic politicians.

Damn right they better pay their bond holders or my college fund is screwed.

[RoyalShock]

I'm no expert, but I think when they say "deal with entitlements" it means reforming them so that they don't bankrupt our country in the future (though, in reality, they already have).

When you hear the term "unfunded mandates" they are referring to future entitlement spending (Soc. Sec, Medicare, Medicaid).

[vancedave56]

This has been coming for a long time - it didn't just happen overnight. Playing the blame game on this board is just like the blame game in Washington. Everybody talks, and nobody listens. The next argument is being formulated while the other person is talking. Doing what is best for the "American people" should not be so difficult. It seems EVERYONE has an agenda or special interest group to look out for. I am all for not paying the Senators, Congressmen, President, etc. until the jobs they are performing are acceptable - lock, stock, and barrel. They are supposedly there to serve the people. How about let's start NOW.

[vancedave56]

I usually do not post in the political forum, and try to refrain from here on out. I have little knowledge of politics, and I feel most politicians to be self-serving. Now, back to basketball. :D

[BOBB]

This has been coming for a long time - it didn't just happen overnight. Playing the blame game on this board is just like the blame game in Washington. Everybody talks, and nobody listens. The next argument is being formulated while the other person is talking. Doing what is best for the "American people" should not be so difficult. It seems EVERYONE has an agenda or special interest group to look out for. I am all for not paying the Senators, Congressmen, President, etc. until the jobs they are performing are acceptable - lock, stock, and barrel. They are supposedly there to serve the people. How about let's start NOW.

+1

[wufan]

I often think back to what I have read about Thomas Jefferson and his statement of politicians participating in government only out of a "reluctant moral obligation." He felt that politicians should only serve because they felt a duty to do so.

Politicians should vote their conscious with the prospect of re-election being totally an afterthought. I think it's great that we have opposing views and debates, but the only special interests that should be upheld should be those that are best for the American People and that uphold the Constitution.

There is great value a strong national defense as well as providing well-fare for the common man, and for those that serve us, that feel compelled to stick to those principles, I applaud their efforts. I truly think, however, that far too much posturing for re-election has over-shadowed these fine qualities.

[Maggie]

I'm no expert, but I think when they say "deal with entitlements" it means reforming them so that they don't bankrupt our country in the future (though, in reality, they already have).

When you hear the term "unfunded mandates" they are referring to future entitlement spending (Soc. Sec, Medicare, Medicaid).

Right on both counts.

[WuDrWu]

I see this much like the pension issue in New Jersey....only about a trillion times worse.

To fix the problem, entitlements must be reformed, PERIOD. That's it....end of discussion.

Anything else is just telling our children or grandchildren that it's all their problem and we aren't man enough to tackle the issues today.

[Maggie]

If I read or hear anything else about this debt debate, I may face plant into my coffee table. For your enjoyment (maybe); oh, and our debt is more sustainable than his rap career. From Reason:

Remy: Raise The Debt Ceiling Rap

[shockall]

IMHO, this whole debate is about Obamacare. If Obama can't get extra money from increased taxes from any source, he can't afford to kick off his Obamacare. If Republicansa don't agree on extra money from increased taxes from any source, Obama can't afford to kick off his Obamacare.

[Maggie]

IMHO, this whole debate is about Obamacare. If Obama can't get extra money from increased taxes from any source, he can't afford to kick off his Obamacare. If Republicansa don't agree on extra money from increased taxes from any source, Obama can't afford to kick off his Obamacare.

It is, meaning the debt, is about health care cost - for the most part. But listen to this:

White House Spends 10 Min. Saying They Won't Release A Plan They Might Not Have

I feel for Carney. It is difficult to polish a turd.

[RoyalShock]

This has been coming for a long time - it didn't just happen overnight. Playing the blame game on this board is just like the blame game in Washington. Everybody talks, and nobody listens. The next argument is being formulated while the other person is talking. Doing what is best for the "American people" should not be so difficult. It seems EVERYONE has an agenda or special interest group to look out for. I am all for not paying the Senators, Congressmen, President, etc. until the jobs they are performing are acceptable - lock, stock, and barrel. They are supposedly there to serve the people. How about let's start NOW.

I don't see much past blame being placed, just current blame for those who don't want to take the drastic, and necessary steps, to fix the problem going forward. One side is trying, the other is obstructing. That much is clear.