Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

  1. #11
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    You know what's weird? This is a straight AP story and yet it's biased, on purpose.

    Headline:



    Them's fightin' words. He never uses the word "cuts." He's talking about reform. I'm very surprised.
    In terms of deficit reduction, doesn't reform necessarily imply cuts? I don't think it matters whether or not McConnell actually used the word "cuts." In practical terms they're the same thing.

  2. #12
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,836

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Add defense spending to that list and I agree with McConnell completely.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  3. #13
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    In terms of deficit reduction, doesn't reform necessarily imply cuts? I don't think it matters whether or not McConnell actually used the word "cuts." In practical terms they're the same thing.
    No, I really don't think so....but I could be wrong.

    I could see reforming Social Security by raising the retirement age by six months or so, making it taxable over a smaller amount than it is as present and having that revenue go into the SS fund, removing fraud from the system in terms of SS disability (plenty there) and in terms of survivorship benefits, (Got stories there, too.) removing the "you can earn all you want after your full retirement age" deduction in our personal income tax and putting that revenue into the SS fund. I'm sure I could think of more.

    Believe me, when the average senior reads "benefit cuts to Social Security," he's thinkin' his check's gunna get smaller. And that will never happen.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  4. #14
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    No, I really don't think so....but I could be wrong.

    I could see reforming Social Security by raising the retirement age by six months or so, making it taxable over a smaller amount than it is as present and having that revenue go into the SS fund, removing fraud from the system in terms of SS disability (plenty there) and in terms of survivorship benefits, (Got stories there, too.) removing the "you can earn all you want after your full retirement age" deduction in our personal income tax and putting that revenue into the SS fund. I'm sure I could think of more.

    Believe me, when the average senior reads "benefit cuts to Social Security," he's thinkin' his check's gunna get smaller. And that will never happen.
    Ah I see where you're coming from Maggie. I think I can agree, but realistically again tackling all the quote unquote "waste fraud and abuse" is always easier said than done.

  5. #15
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,836

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Ah I see where you're coming from Maggie. I think I can agree, but realistically again tackling all the quote unquote "waste fraud and abuse" is always easier said than done.
    In all honesty, I can't think of a single time when it HAS been done.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    If democrats would follow their own laws like pay go we wouldn't have such a big problem

  7. #17
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    I agree in principle j-mac, but that's SOOOO much easier said than done.
    At this point the pain we are putting off only gets worse with time.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    In terms of deficit reduction, doesn't reform necessarily imply cuts? I don't think it matters whether or not McConnell actually used the word "cuts." In practical terms they're the same thing.
    I guess you have never worked on putting together a budget. Deficit reduction can mean outright reductions of certain things or if you have someone who understands an issue or business it could mean doinf the same or more but be more efficient thus reducing spending.

    Spending more does not necessarily mean getting more.

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    FYI, if the debt limit is not increased, that does not mean that the U.S. would automatically default on its debt. The U.S. would need to cease borrowing funds in excess of its debt limit, meaning in effect that it would have to completely eliminate its budget deficits so long as the debt limit is not increased. As there is tax revenue coming in, the federal government would need to make some wrenching choices: continuing meeting its debt obligations or partially default to allow for more money to be used for current expenditures. The latter course would be very dangerous, as it damage the U.S. credit rating and lead to a long-term risk re-adjustment, meaning higher future borrowing costs. The former could be very unpopular depending on what programs/activities are suspended and potentially painful, too (aggregate demand would contract and that would adversely impact GDP; reductions in social welfare benefits could also adversely impact recipients of those benefits, etc.). The tradeoffs considered, the former course would be the better one, if such a political crisis unfolds.

    Of course, such a crisis is completely avoidable. Given the stakes involved, I believe both the White House and Congress should, in fact, avoid such a stand-off. Instead, they should commit themselves to credible long-term fiscal consolidation. To be credible, at least some of the recommendations made by the two fiscal commissions late last year, should be incorporated in fiscal consolidation legislation that would follow agreement to increase the debt ceiling. As a downpayment toward credible fiscal consolidation, if the President and Congress want to demonstrate through actions that they are truly serious about addressing the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances, perhaps an increase in the Social Security eligibility age could be tied to legislation to increase the debt limit.

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: McConnell: No debt increase without benefit cuts

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    He's not exaggerating. There's a statutory limit to how much debt teh US can incur. Beyond that we have nothing left to spend.

    We are very close to this limit.
    Tax revenue is still coming in. To give a rough idea, projected tax receipts for FY 2011 are around $2.2 trillion and for FY 2012 they are around $2.6 trillion. Projected expenditures for those years are about $3.8 trillion and $3.7 trillion respectively. Net interest payments are estimated at $205 billion and $240 billion respectively.

    So, if one takes an average of the two fiscal year's figures to estimate monthly figures for the next few months (tax revenue should be rising as the economy continues to grow), the monthly averages would be:

    Revenue: $200 billion
    Expenses: $312.5 billion
    Net Interest Payments: $18.5 billion

    Under such a scenario, no default would occur if the federal government paid its $18.5 billion monthly interest expense and then spent no more than $181.5 billion per month on all its other activities. Clearly, that would be extremely painful. For example, if the federal government chose to pay Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all the other mandatory spending programs, it would have less than $2.5 billion per month for everything else. This is just an idea to illustrate the point that technically a debt default need not occur. The numbers are not precise and there would be fluctuations, e.g., a disproportionate share of revenue would become available in April. On the current fiscal path, were such a situation to occur even a few years in the future, there might then be no way to avoid a partial debt default.

    Politically, the above would not be a sustainable course, but a partial debt default would have long-term adverse implications. The bottom line is that both the President and Congress should avoid such a situation, as it would not be sustainable for more than a very short period of time. Given the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances and the incremental risks associated with pursuing yet another status quo budget, the effort to lay out a credible path to fiscal consolidation should begin in earnest. Some spending reductions should begin immediately now that the economy has been growing for almost two years. Such an approach would be compatible with the nation's long-term interests and it is feasible in the context of a growing economy.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 03-11-11 at 11:06 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •