Debt ceiling

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to DILYSI Dave: Here's the issue, I think. They paint things to be one way, and people believe that, but they aren't really that way at all. I post this a lot, so I'll do it quickly. Something like 75% of the budget is Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and the military. Social Security is a mess, but as we discussed earlier, while flawed, it is more or less self funded. We could make changes to Medicaid and Medicare, but people have voted time and again to retain those programs. I think there are reasonable measures that could save some money there, but we're not talking about tens of trillions. People want the programs. People also want lower taxes. Hey, keeping more money is great. So when we have these debates, what do they talk about. NPR. Planned Parenthood. Crap that doesn't add up to anything. Trouble is, if you're not whacking big chunks off the big programs, you're pretty much wasting time. You could eleminate the ENTIRE BUDGET save the programs I mentioned and we would still be WAY underwatter. If you're not talking about those four, you're not talking about anything that can get us to a balanced budget. Plain and simple.

I 100% agree on the Big4. I disagree that "People want them." Bush tried to embark on SS reforms, got the predictable wailing from the Democrats that he wanted to kill old people, and then the Republicans in Congress all tucked tail like a bunch of Bob Costas and hid in the corners. As long as the response to touching entitlements is commercials of pushing old dudes in wheelchairs off of a cliff, we're doomed.

When you set it up as wealth redistribution, such that you have a majority of the population with no skin in the game, voting for expenditures borne by the minority, the current logjam is inevitable. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner."

Well, Dave, why do so many people pay no taxes? Who continually cut taxes? Who is wanting to cut them even more?

And maybe I need to clarify the point. Does EVERYONE want those programs? No, clearly not. But enough people do that anyone who threatens to eliminate them - shoot, even significantly cut them - is serving their last term in Congress. Again, Democrats campaign on those issues. They are very clear that a vote for them is a vote to protect those programs. Entitlements are to Democrats as low taxes are to Republicans. And people continue to vote for Democrats in no small part because of those very programs. If you need proof, look no further than New York 26.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Bush tried to embark on SS reforms, got the predictable wailing from the Democrats that he wanted to kill old people, and then the Republicans in Congress all tucked tail like a bunch of Bob Costas and hid in the corners. As long as the response to touching entitlements is commercials of pushing old dudes in wheelchairs off of a cliff, we're doomed.

You kind of make my point for me. Bush lost and that ad worked. If a large number of people weren't in favor of those programs, then it wouldn't have hurt Bush to take on SS. The fact that it did bears out my point.

And, again, wondering off topic. Those are the underlying issues that got us where we are, true. But they have nothing to do with a vote to raise the debt ceiling. Failing to raise the debt ceiling will not eliminate any of those programs or lower our debt by a cent. It will just lead to economic chaos making it much more difficult to get out of the hole we're in.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You kind of make my point for me. Bush lost and that ad worked. If a large number of people weren't in favor of those programs, then it wouldn't have hurt Bush to take on SS. The fact that it did bears out my point.

Which gets us back to my point. Handling it through the budget process has not, and will not work. Time to cut up the credit card.

Just one thought before I have to go do more work, Moody's is not evaluating our credit rating because the debt ceiling is not being raised, they are doing it because of uncertainty and no plan forward. Read the reports from them. I believe if a Ron Paul got ahold of the budget (or someone like him) and slashed and burned to his heart's content, then Moody's would be equally happy.

I'm not going to say who's right or wrong here in this whole debacle but when there are 70 million (Obama's number) checks being sent out every month and only 310 million people in the US population, somethings wrong.

That equals 1 out of every 4.4 citizens get some form of government money and with the over 65 population at only 12.9%, those ain't all SS checks.

tuna55 wrote: Just one thought before I have to go do more work, Moody's is not evaluating our credit rating because the debt ceiling is not being raised, they are doing it because of uncertainty and no plan forward. Read the reports from them. I believe if a Ron Paul got ahold of the budget (or someone like him) and slashed and burned to his heart's content, then Moody's would be equally happy.

But if you just go slashing and burning in the budget, it is going to do a lot of harm to an already fragile economy.

93EXCivic wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Just one thought before I have to go do more work, Moody's is not evaluating our credit rating because the debt ceiling is not being raised, they are doing it because of uncertainty and no plan forward. Read the reports from them. I believe if a Ron Paul got ahold of the budget (or someone like him) and slashed and burned to his heart's content, then Moody's would be equally happy.

But if you just go slashing and burning in the budget, it is going to do a lot of harm to an already fragile economy.

That's another debate - the point was it would not hurt the credit rating of the US.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You kind of make my point for me. Bush lost and that ad worked. If a large number of people weren't in favor of those programs, then it wouldn't have hurt Bush to take on SS. The fact that it did bears out my point.

Which gets us back to my point. Handling it through the budget process has not, and will not work. Time to cut up the credit card.

My point is that people want the programs. So your point is we should eliminate them anyway?

Marty! wrote: I'm not going to say who's right or wrong here in this whole debacle but when there are 70 million (Obama's number) checks being sent out every month and only 310 million people in the US population, somethings wrong. That equals 1 out of every 4.4 citizens get some form of government money and with the over 65 population at only 12.9%, those ain't all SS checks.

Yes, something is wrong. SS, by the way, pays a lot more than old people at this point. Lot of folks are hurting. But the old people bubble is starting to make it a lot worse. That's why it's time to do something about it. But, again, SS is largely self funded and has nothing to do with the debate about raising the debt ceiling. It's not contributing anything to the debt. In fact, and unfortunately, it's paying for more than SS.

tuna55 wrote: Just one thought before I have to go do more work, Moody's is not evaluating our credit rating because the debt ceiling is not being raised, they are doing it because of uncertainty and no plan forward.

That's not what I've read.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/15/us-aaa-downgrade-would-ripple-into-every-home/

"The credit rating firm said it based its review on the increasing likelihood that the U.S. could default on its debt obligations if Congress fails to reach an agreement to raise the U.S. debt limit before an Aug. 2 deadline set by the U.S. Treasury Department."

That from Fox Business, likely not painting an overly liberal view. It's exactly what I've read from every source, though.

More from the above Fox Business article:

"Sasse, once a top fiscal advisor to former Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri and an expert in state and municipal finance, said the first and most immediate impact of a downgrade would be a broad 'dampening on the economy.'

'Any downgrading of U.S. government bonds would sweep throughout the entire bond market,' he said.

Sasse explained the ensuing domino-effect as follows: the downgrade not only throws up more roadblocks to an already difficult economic recovery, it makes it more expensive for the U.S. government and all government entities down the line -- state, county, local -- to borrow money.

The result is a double whammy on all levels of government. To wit, governments across-the-board will see less revenue coming in due to the economic slowdown and more money going out because without the Aaa rating it will be more expensive for all of those entities to borrow money.

'If you have less money coming in and more going out to service debt there’s less money to spend on public services,' he said. 'You’ll feel it in a lack of new text books and less funding for new programs in school districts.'

Not to mention public safety and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, as the cost of borrowing for big debt issuers -- governments, banks and corporations -- rises everywhere as all manner of debt is downgraded, the costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher interest rates on everything from mortgages to car loans.

Put bluntly, the stakes are very high."

fast_eddie_72 wrote: My point is that people want the programs. So your point is we should eliminate them anyway?

Yes, because a large portion of the population ONLY receive, they never give.

Do you think the purpose of a politician is to do exactly as his constituents want, or what is best for them? The idiots outnumber the smrt ones, which is always something to consider when basing policy off the idiots...

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You kind of make my point for me. Bush lost and that ad worked. If a large number of people weren't in favor of those programs, then it wouldn't have hurt Bush to take on SS. The fact that it did bears out my point.

Which gets us back to my point. Handling it through the budget process has not, and will not work. Time to cut up the credit card.

My point is that people want the programs. So your point is we should eliminate them anyway?

Yes.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Government of the People, by the People and for the People. Yes. It is the job of a representative to represent the People. The "purpose of a politician" is to get elected. Shoot, all I hear lately is calls to put more stuff to a driect vote and give our elected learders less discretion. Here in Colorado we have a law that prevents them from raising taxes without a vote from the people. I agree that's wrong, but I don't see any appitite to change it. It should be a representative democracy where we elect smart people to make decisions on complex issues. It is their job to be informed on these issues in a way we can not be. Then we trust the people we elected to make the right decision. More and more we are giving that power over to people like Grover Norquist who was elected to nothing. Under any circumstance, regardless of reason or situation, no Republican is ever to vote for a tax increase. And they've been quite happy to relinquish that power to him.

I don't think you'll find much support for an ammendment that takes the vote away from members of socieity who "only receive" and "never give".

Who is Grover Norquist? I've heard his name 3-4 times in this conversation, but have no idea who he is.

DILYSI Dave wrote: My point is that people want the programs. So your point is we should eliminate them anyway?

Yes.

Well God love ya if you can get the Republicans to make that part of their platform in the next election. It's an interesting thing to say. I thought that was exactly the criticism being thown at Democrats. They decided they were smarter than "the people" and they were going to tell them what was best for them. But I guess it cuts both ways.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Who is Grover Norquist? I've heard his name 3-4 times in this conversation, but have no idea who he is.

The Godfather of the Republican Party. Did you catch the bit in the debate of the debt ceiling when the Republicans said they would only agree to a tax increase if there was an equal decrease somewhre else? That's Grover Norquist talking. The Republican Party seems to have given all control of tax policy over to this one man who hasn't been elected to anything. They actually go to him and say "so what about this, would that be considered a tax increase?" It's absurd.

He co-wrote the Contract on America and anointed the boy King.

If the people wanted them and could fund them, fine. If the people want them and want to threaten the future viability of the nation to get them, then berkeley the people.

DILYSI Dave wrote: If the people wanted them and could fund them, fine. If the people want them and want to threaten the future viability of the nation to get them, then berkeley the people.

If the people wanted them and their elected leaders would force them to pay for them, fine. If the people want them and rather than raise taxes their leaders want to threaten the future (not to mention current) viability of teh nation to get them, then berkeley those leaders.

also reasonable. :)

Putting on my partisan hat, how many times have we heard a Republican say they won't slash those programs and they can still cut taxes? I think that's irresponsible. A better position for Republicans would be to say "we have to keep our financial house in order. If we're going to save these programs and our country from disaster we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for them. Alternately we could take a hard look at them and see if we can't preserve many of the benefits at a lower cost so taxes can stay low." In other words, it's one or the other. Not both. But they continue to sell this voodoo that we can cut taxes over and over and over again, maintain all our spending and somehow the economy will grow so much because of the low taxes that we can pay for it all. Look around. It didn't work.

If Democrats are "tax and spend" then Republicans are "don't tax but still spend". One makes a lot more sense than the other.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Putting on my partisan hat, how many times have we heard a Republican say they won't slash those programs and they can still cut taxes? I think that's irresponsible. A better position for Republicans would be to say "we have to keep our financial house in order. If we're going to save these programs and our country from disaster we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for them. Alternately we could take a hard look at them and see if we can't preserve many of the benefits at a lower cost so taxes can stay low." In other words, it's one or the other. Not both. But they continue to sell this voodoo that we can cut taxes over and over and over again, maintain all our spending and somehow the economy will grow so much because of the low taxes taht we can pay for it all. Look around. It didn't work.

How many times have we heard a Democrat say that Republicans just want to kill old people? I think that's irresponsible. A better position for Democrats would be to say "we have to keep our financial house in order. If we're going to save these programs and our country from disaster we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for them. Alternately we could take a hard look at them and see if we can't preserve many of the benefits at a lower cost so taxes can stay low." In other words, it's one or the other. Not both. But they continue to sell this voodoo that we can increase entitlements over and over and over again, maintain all our spending and somehow the economy will grow despite making for a hostile business environment. Look around. It didn't work.

:)

fast_eddie_72 wrote: If Democrats are "tax and spend" then Republicans are "don't tax but still spend". One makes a lot more sense than the other.

Actually, I hear "Don't tax, don't spend", followed by Nancy Pelosi talking about killing grandma.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We could make changes to Medicaid and Medicare, but people have voted time and again to retain those programs. I think there are reasonable measures that could save some money there, but we're not talking about tens of trillions. People want the programs.

Sooner or later, the laws of economics (just like the laws of physics) simply quit giving a berk WHAT "the people" want.

That time has been "later" for about 50 years now, if not dating back to the new Deal. It's starting to get "sooner" right now but nobody wants to hear it. It's going to be tough tittie for "the people" unless they decide to grow up a little and accept what needs to be done. Which we all know won't happen.

While I could be wrong, it seems that I heard recently that 47% of the people pay no income tax. That number was supposed to be the % of people on welfare and the rest of the comments went on to say that there are almost enough people able to vote themselves anything they want.