• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

donsutherland1 said:
For those who want to examine the impact of a failure to raise the debt ceiling in August, Bloomberg.com has a tool. Users can make their own choices. Afterward, one can have an idea what programs they did not fund.

NOTE: The tool does not consider a scenario where some of the debt is not rolled over and principal payments need to be made. Under such a scenario, even less cash would be available, assuming the U.S. seeks to avoid a debt default. The tool also assumes that all of each spending category is funded e.g., all Social Security payments are made, instead of partial funding.
Click to expand...
Lookd to me like spendng on each item would need to be cut by the same 43% we've been discussing for some time now.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
If the debt ceiling is not raised, there cannot be a deficit as there will be nothing to spend once available revenue is gone.
If interest rates go up, then our interest payemts will go up; revenue available for other spending will go down - but there will not be a deficit.
So, there will not be more government spending, just more spending on interest.
Click to expand...

Until the debt ceiling would be raised, there would be no deficit. However, the impact of the rise in interest rates would be larger long-term imbalances due to slower macroeconomic growth (reduced revenue) and higher debt service costs (interest expense on the existing debt).
 
Kandahar said:
I am concerned that it will not be raised in time to avert default...whether an actual default (i.e. we stop servicing our debt) or a quasi-default (i.e. we direct our remaining resources toward debt servicing, but fail to make good on something else).
Click to expand...
The second condition isn't a default, as the term is used to describe a failure to pay our debt service.

Either of these would be very bad for the credit rating of the US, which would cause our interest rate to spike.
Click to expand...
Not paying our debt service would do this - but then, no one has contemplated not paying our debt service.
Not paying full SS benefits, or full medicare benefits, or full funding the US National Park system, et al, would not.

Meanwhile, we'll be faced with an immediate 43% reduction in government spending.
Click to expand...
Yup. Cut everythng 43%. Live within our means.
 
toddwv said:
It's not a threat, it's the truth. SS isn't in a lockbox, it has been dumped into the general fund for decades in order to mask out-of-control "defense" spending. Right now, some "contractor" in Iraq is using SS money to pay for a new 'Beamer.

So, there is no guarantee that SS checks will go out. Those who are already receiving checks will most likely get them, those who are applying for new benefits probably won't.
Click to expand...

the Clinton surplus came about from raiding the trust, but I imagine partisan hacks will continue bragging about that phony surplus.
 
So, here we are in major financial crisis. Some propose cutting across the board cuts of 43%. This would include SS and military pay.

Setting aside the human issues involved in this for the time being, look at the negative impact that would have at the retailers and grocers doors. This would also reduce sales tax income and so on.

Welcome to the third world America.

State and local governments would be forced to either shut down or scale back to most painful degrees.

Now we have very angry, very hungry people on the streets and in all probability severely reduced police forces.

Welcome to Anarchy America.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Unfortunately, there is no leap whatsoever. If one listened to his show on Monday evening, he was making the argument that concerns about not raising the debt ceiling amount to "Chicken Little" arguments, there would be no catastrophe, and that not raising it would amount to a "new July 4," a "day of liberation." Unfortunately, his website does not include the full transcript of his commentary.
Click to expand...
BDBoop was kind enough to provide a link to the broadcast in his post.

I believe you are misrepresenting Levin's position. He's not "championing a failure in negotiations" and isn't advocating that we maintain the debt ceiling at its current level. He's urging Republicans to stand firm to their committment of reducing the size of government. He's urging Republican leaders to not budge on its "no new taxes" pledge and to not be swayed by Obama's insistence that unless taxes are raised, the economy will collapse, there will be no social security checks, etc.

He's saying... call Obama's bluff. Stand firm. Don't cave. Don't raise taxes. Should Obama push the issue past Aug 2nd... Again, stand firm, don't cave. Life will suck, but we can get through it even if it takes a month of sacrifice.

He's calling Aug 2nd liberation day because - if the Republican leadership holds firm - come hell or high water we'll start to turn the clock back on spending.
 
Polotick said:
So, here we are in major financial crisis. Some propose cutting across the board cuts of 43%. This would include SS and military pay.

Setting aside the human issues involved in this for the time being, look at the negative impact that would have at the retailers and grocers doors. This would also reduce sales tax income and so on.

Welcome to the third world America.

State and local governments would be forced to either shut down or scale back to most painful degrees.

Now we have very angry, very hungry people on the streets and in all probability severely reduced police forces.

Welcome to Anarchy America.
Click to expand...

NOT a problem. As long as Obama doesn't get re-elected.

</sarcasm>
 
Polotick said:
So, here we are in major financial crisis. Some propose cutting across the board cuts of 43%. This would include SS and military pay.
Setting aside the human issues involved in this for the time being, look at the negative impact that would have at the retailers and grocers doors. This would also reduce sales tax income and so on.
Welcome to the third world America.
State and local governments would be forced to either shut down or scale back to most painful degrees.
Now we have very angry, very hungry people on the streets and in all probability severely reduced police forces.
Welcome to Anarchy America.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that ~$1500B in government spending is all that keeps the US from turning into Mexico, complete with food riots?
I cannot -possibly- laugh any louder.
 
if you think about it, this republican demand, "dollar for dollar," does not really balance

the 2.4T advanced to the govt is relatively NOW, borrowing to get us thru the next 18 months

the 2.4 trillions cut are over ten years

the math is one thing, ie, who cares

except the little pair of inequalities above is starting to rumble thru a really disgusted house republican caucus

i can tell you, there will be no raising of the debt ceiling unless substantially more is offered the neanderthals

that's the lay of the land
 
Polotick said:
Some propose cutting across the board cuts of 43%.
Click to expand...
Neither party to the negotiations determining our course of action is making any such proposal. While it may be fun to entertain the possibilities of such a direction, they have little bearing on reality.
 
Taylor said:
BDBoop was kind enough to provide a link to the broadcast in his post.

I believe you are misrepresenting Levin's position. He's not "championing a failure in negotiations" and isn't advocating that we maintain the debt ceiling at its current level. He's urging Republicans to stand firm to their committment of reducing the size of government. He's urging Republican leaders to not budge on its "no new taxes" pledge and to not be swayed by Obama's insistence that unless taxes are raised, the economy will collapse, there will be no social security checks, etc.

He's saying... call Obama's bluff. Stand firm. Don't cave. Don't raise taxes. Should Obama push the issue past Aug 2nd... Again, stand firm, don't cave. Life will suck, but we can get through it even if it takes a month of sacrifice.

He's calling Aug 2nd liberation day because - if the Republican leadership holds firm - come hell or high water we'll start to turn the clock back on spending.
Click to expand...

Urging an unyielding theological line of no compromise whatsoever is exactly a championing of a failure to reach agreement. One cannot separate the consequences from the choice. Choices have consequences. Mr. Levin knows full well that a complete refusal to compromise will lead to a failed negotiation.
 
I stated that Obama should run on facts and statistics. I said this in post 182

FACT: the rate of growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under the previous president than it has been under President Obama. He has slowed the speeding unemployment freight train down mightily compared to the out of control pace of his predecessor.
Click to expand...

The rev did not believe me and accused me of making it up.

ReverendHellh0und said:
I'll wait.

Actually, no, I won't wait, you made that up. :lamo


LNS14000000_83547_1310568721861.gif



yes Obama should run on facts and statistics. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Let us look at the official US Labor Dept unemployment numbers.

here is the Obama record on unemployment compared with the record of the man before him - George Bush

When George Bush entered office in Jan of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
When he left in Jan of 2009, it was 7.6%.
That is an increase of 81%.

When Barack Obama entered office in Jan of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
The latest figure for this May was 9.1%.
That is an increase of 19%

Bush was four times worse in the growth rate for unemployment than President Obama.
that translates into a rate of growth in unemployment at over 400% greater than the same rate for Obama.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Neither party to the negotiations determining our course of action is making any such proposal. While it may be fun to entertain the possibilities of such a direction, they have little bearing on reality.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension in this thread is fail. Try to go back and read the thread so you can keep up.
 
haymarket said:
Let us look at the official US Labor Dept unemployment numbers.

here is the Obama record on unemployment compared with the record of the man before him - George Bush

When George Bush entered office in Jan of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
When he left in Jan of 2009, it was 7.6%.
That is an increase of 81%.

When Barack Obama entered office in Jan of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
The latest figure for this May was 9.1%.
That is an increase of 19%

Bush was four times worse in the growth rate for unemployment than President Obama.
that translates into a rate of growth in unemployment at over 400% greater than the same rate for Obama.
Click to expand...




Did you factor in those who stopped looking? 17% Sorry man, Obama has failed and I hope he really does run on his "Facts" and "stats"......


Oh yeah, and what did Obama do that 1st year that slowed it down? Specifically.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Urging an unyielding theological line of no compromise whatsoever is exactly a championing of a failure to reach agreement. One cannot separate the consequences from the choice. Choices have consequences. Mr. Levin knows full well that a complete refusal to compromise will lead to a failed negotiation.
Click to expand...
Regardless of who refuses to comprimise. Right?
 
The Prof said:
if you think about it, this republican demand, "dollar for dollar," does not really balance

the 2.4T advanced to the govt is relatively NOW, borrowing to get us thru the next 18 months

the 2.4 trillions cut are over ten years

the math is one thing, ie, who cares

except the little pair of inequalities above is starting to rumble thru a really disgusted house republican caucus
Click to expand...
I don't follow. They're concerned about the interest payments??? If we could advance 2.4T to cover the next 18 months by cutting over the next 18 months, we wouldn't need to be having a discussion on the debt ceiling.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Your argument is that ~$1500B in government spending is all that keeps the US from turning into Mexico, complete with food riots?
I cannot -possibly- laugh any louder.
Click to expand...



Somehow I knew your response would be nothing more than a smartassed comment. Now for reality ask yourself how many military families would be unable to eat, then ask yourself how many seniors and disabled would be unable to eat. Then ask yourself how many people it takes to start a riot.

Your proposal to simply cut 43% across the board is completely with any basis in reality.
 
When talking about reducing debt (versus deficit), it might be good to remember only (can/should I use that word?) about 37% is owed to foreign nations. Seems to me a sensible approach would be to prioritize actually paying down principal on those debts first, while maintaining interest payments on the remainder. I would start with those nations deemed "unfriendly" to our long term interests (China and Oil Producing States).
 
Polotick said:
Somehow I knew your response would be nothing more than a smartassed comment.
Click to expand...
It was entirely appropriate, given the inanity of your argument.
You REALLY beleive that the US will collapse if the government doesn't spend $1500B?
:lol:
 
PzKfW IVe said:
The second condition isn't a default, as the term is used to describe a failure to pay our debt service.

Not paying our debt service would do this - but then, no one has contemplated not paying our debt service.
Not paying full SS benefits, or full medicare benefits, or full funding the US National Park system, et al, would not.
Click to expand...

Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs. I called it a quasi-default because that's how markets would view it: a failure to make good on our obligations. Just because we nominally make our interest payments doesn't mean that bondholders will be fooled that easily; they'll be able to see what is happening. Failure to pay our bills as promised (whether to bondholders or senior citizens) would cause a decline in our credit rating, a rise in our interest rates, and at least some of our debt to not be rolled over.

Yup. Cut everythng 43%. Live within our means.
Click to expand...

Like I said, that isn't going to happen for any sustained length of time. The voters won't tolerate it, and any politician who supports it will be absolutely skewered by his/her political opponents.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Urging an unyielding theological line of no compromise whatsoever is exactly a championing of a failure to reach agreement. One cannot separate the consequences from the choice. Choices have consequences. Mr. Levin knows full well that a complete refusal to compromise will lead to a failed negotiation.
Click to expand...
If you truly believe that, I'm curious why you're not castigating Obama for his "championing a failure in negotiations."

He's also staked out "an unyielding theological line of no compromise whatsoever" in refusing any deal that doesn't include a tax increase.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
It was entirely appropriate, given the inanity of your argument.
You REALLY beleive that the US will collapse if the government doesn't spend $1500B?
:lol:
Click to expand...


I'm going to go troll smelly Pagans, they are brighter than you, and more fun.
 
Kandahar said:
Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs. I called it a quasi-default because that's how markets would view it: a failure to make good on our obligations.
Click to expand...
We define these obligations as we choose. Change the definition to one that's 43% less, and the obligations are met.
Deciding to lower you kids' allowance won't do anyting to the interest rate on your credit card; your argument here is unsound.

Just because we nominally make our interest payments doesn't mean that bondholders will be fooled that easily; they'll be able to see what is happening.
Click to expand...
Whcih is... we're paying our current debt service and cutting spending so we do not take on more debt.
Seems pretty darned responsible to me - how, exactly, would this cause interest rates to rise?

Like I said, that isn't going to happen for any sustained length of time. The voters won't tolerate it
Click to expand...
Well, we -do- get the government we deserve... If the people decide they'd rather have out-of-control debt that will eventually lead to a fiscal, then economic, and then societal collapse, as opposed to the perceived 'pain' caused by forcing the government to spend $1500B less, there's no much anyone can do about it.
Enjoy your future. Hope you have plenty of ammunition.
 
Last edited:
Polotick said:
I'm going to go troll smelly Pagans, they are brighter than you, and more fun.
Click to expand...
The ad hom, final refuge of those with nothing worth listening to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom