Republican mainstream flirts with brief default

OpportunityCost · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Exactly what do you think would change here:

I ahve not argued that we haven't done better with R&D, which has government support, but that there is no need for to change. And there isn't.

European medical R&D is going downward not upward and we are enacting legislation that mirrors the European medicine model and you wonder whats changing? I dunno, what could possibly be changing? Its going to change, whether you think it needs to or not.

Jeezy · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Well, tea party folks are nutters.

But what we have here are doctors. If we eliminate anyone who has a POV for no other reason than they have one, there is no one we can quote.

Like you just eliminated doctors that happen to be members of the Tea Party Movement? If that's really the kind of stuff you're going to reach for to close out this argument, then I'm done here. With all due respect, you're not as smart as I thought you were. :roll:

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2011

Jeezy said:
If that's really the kind of stuff you're going to reach for to close out this argument, then I'm done here. :roll:

Physicians Against Obamacare - Home

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul - Investors.com

Well, the first sentences wa an attempt at humor. Sorry if you didn't laugh.

But no one suggests that all physicians hold the same opinion. And you will notice, not only is 45% not a majority, they really didn't quit. The point is, the link explained the point I was making.

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2011

OpportunityCost said:
European medical R&D is going downward not upward and we are enacting legislation that mirrors the European medicine model and you wonder whats changing? I dunno, what could possibly be changing? Its going to change, whether you think it needs to or not.

Why is it going down? Aren't you making a leap in thinking it must be due to any single payer system?

Councilman · Jun 9, 2011

I'm not by any stretch an economist but there have to better ways to deal with this.

Hell there have been a few good ideas pop up here and there on the Forum.

Objective Voice · Jun 9, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
The short version is that we currently borrow money to pay the interest on our debt. Stupid, yes, but that's what we do.
If we cannot borrow money, it is said, we cannot pay the interest on our debt, and so we default on that debt.

However, this is not necessarily so. Federal revenue is an order of magnitude higher than our interest payment on the debt, and so there's no way to argue that failing to raise the ceiling -necessarily- leads to a default. It will lead to a default if the status quo is maintained, but, again, that doesn't have to happen.

Depriving the government of the ability to borrow money means that the government must live within its means and spend no more than the revenue it takes in. That only leads to default if you decide that you'd rather default than cut spending.

Wait a minute...

We've heard Speaker Boehner (along with Cantor and McConnell) all decree, "We Are Broke" how many times since February of this year? And yet, he's also said, "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem." So, which one is it? Are we broke or do we have sufficient funds in the Treasury to pay our debts when the bills come due? You can't have it both ways here.

PzKfW IVe · Jun 9, 2011

Objective Voice said:
Wait a minute...

We've heard Speaker Boehner (along with Cantor and McConnell) all decree, "We Are Broke" how many times since February of this year? And yet, he's also said, "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem." So, which one is it? Are we broke or do we have sufficient funds in the Treasury to pay our debts when the bills come due? You can't have it both ways here.

There is no question that the federal government collects revenue. There is no question that this revenue is sufficient to pay for the interest on the debt.
Thus, there's no question that if we do not raise the debt ceiling and we default, it is because we made the choice to default.
Not sure what else you need here.

Objective Voice · Jun 9, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
There is no question that the federal government collects revenue. There is no question that this revenue is sufficient to pay for the interest on the debt.
Thus, there's no question that if we do not raise the debt ceiling and we default, it is because we made the choice to default.
Not sure what else you need here.

Do you know how much the government took in in net revenue for 2010?

How much is the current national debt?

How much is the interest on that debt?

Illustration your position providing source data (links please) and you may very well convince me to agree with your position. Otherwise, all we have here from the Right (Boehner and co.) are fear tactics.

PzKfW IVe · Jun 9, 2011

Objective Voice said:
1: Do you know how much the government took in in net revenue for 2010?
2: How much is the current national debt?
3: How much is the interest on that debt?

FY2010:
1: $2161.7B
2: Irrelevant to the issue
3: $196.9B
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

Note that 1: is an order of magnitude greater than 3:

The Prof · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Are you suggesting they couldn't possibly be correct?

that's all it takes to qualify as one of your sources, they might be right?

LOL!

you're hilarious, syd

The Prof · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
If we eliminate anyone who has a POV for no other reason than they have one, there is no one we can quote.

you can always cite whitehouse.gov

again

The Prof · Jun 9, 2011

Objective Voice said:
How much is the interest on that debt?

service on the debt, MERE INTEREST ALONE, is fast approaching a perilous ONE TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR

Wave of Debt Payments Facing US Government - General * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

and with the dangerous direction of the bonds market, that approach is accelerating alarmingly

China Has Divested 97 Percent of Its Holdings in U.S. Treasury Bills | CNSnews.com

still, the party in power pusillanimously produces no blueprint

Dems lack budget leadership

leadership, anyone?

Badmutha · Jun 9, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
From Reuters:

http://www.reuters.c...E75700720110608

IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession.

After living 3 years of one failed Keynesian Economic policiy after another...........

........and you still believe Government Spending equates economic growth.....truely unbeliberalble.
.
.
.
.

Badmutha · Jun 9, 2011

Kandahar said:
If they don't raise the debt ceiling, it will literally be the stupidest (economic) thing that our Congress has done in 222 years. And that's not an exaggeration.

Well giving The Most Expensive President in History another credit increase.......

.....if its not the first......its a close second.
.
.
.
.

Objective Voice · Jun 9, 2011

PzKfW IVe said:
FY2010:
1: $2161.7B
2: Irrelevant to the issue
3: $196.9B
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

Note that 1: is an order of magnitude greater than 3:

How is item #2 irrelevent to the issue at hand? We're talking about the ability for the U.S. Treasury to pay its current debts. If you remove item #2 from the equation, you really don't get a clear picture on how much we really owe, just how much interest we owe on the debt. So, how much is the national debt?

TOJ · Jun 9, 2011

Objective Voice said:
How is item #2 irrelevent to the issue at hand? We're talking about the ability for the U.S. Treasury to pay its current debts. If you remove item #2 from the equation, you really don't get a clear picture on how much we really owe, just how much interest we owe on the debt. So, how much is the national debt?

Doesn't matter as long as you can pay the interest and refinance the principle.

.

PzKfW IVe · Jun 9, 2011

Objective Voice said:
How is item #2 irrelevent to the issue at hand?

If the issue is freezing the debt limit, then whatever the debt is, it wont get bigger. Thus, the number itself, in terms of my position, is irrelevant.
The key is the amount paid to debt service, represnted by net interest payments on said debt, which is greater than an order of magnitude smaller than federal income.

#1 and #3 are source data, with a citation, that prove my point, just like you wanted.
Are you ready to agree with my position, that federal revenue is sufficient to pay for the interest on the debt?
And that if we do not raise the debt ceiling and we default, it is because we made the choice to default?

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2011

The Prof said:
you can always cite whitehouse.gov

again

I could, to show what they say there. Seriously dude, try to understand why a sourced might be better in one situation and not other. Think, just for a change of pace. Damn. :coffeepap

The Prof · Jun 9, 2011

you'd need to go to whitehouse.gov to know what they'd say?

LOL!

j-mac · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Well, tea party folks are nutters.

But what we have here are doctors. If we eliminate anyone who has a POV for no other reason than they have one, there is no one we can quote.

Really? You are going to actually type this when you have the nerve to continully throw up American thinker in my face, when I haven't posted from them for years?

You're toast as far as credibilty goes dude....

J-mac

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2011

j-mac said:
Really? You are going to actually type this when you have the nerve to continully throw up American thinker in my face, when I haven't posted from them for years?

You're toast as far as credibilty goes dude....

J-mac

Yeah, I am. Because it is not equal to The American NonThinker. It isn't about the disagreeing that makes your source so poor,. It is its silliness and wild eyed ideological nonsense. That you don't see that is what has always bothered me. Bias means very little to me. Silliness and inaccuracy does. Anything that goes off on liberals or conservatives are evil is not worth reading.

j-mac · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Yeah, I am. Because it is not equal to The American NonThinker. It isn't about the disagreeing that makes your source so poor,. It is its silliness and wild eyed ideological nonsense. That you don't see that is what has always bothered me. Bias means very little to me. Silliness and inaccuracy does. Anything that goes off on liberals or conservatives are evil is not worth reading.

BS you just got your arse handed to you, and now are dishonestly catagorizing that which disagrees with you as not equal when we both know that which you offered is opinion. It's just opinion you agree with.

Oh BTW, you never did answer when I asked you how long it had been since I used at...like I said dude, you have nothing but talking point, propaganda pap...

J-mac

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2011

j-mac said:
BS you just got your arse handed to you, and now are dishonestly catagorizing that which disagrees with you as not equal when we both know that which you offered is opinion. It's just opinion you agree with.

Oh BTW, you never did answer when I asked you how long it had been since I used at...like I said dude, you have nothing but talking point, propaganda pap...

J-mac

No J, I didn't. Your lack of understanding is not handing my ass to me. Take the WSJ for example. Their editorals are largely conservative, but are fine as a source. Having a POV isn't a disqualifier. Being inaccurate and stupid is.

The Prof · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Their editorals are largely conservative, but are fine as a source.

i know, and wik beats the cbc

LOL!

for purposes of comparison and overview

sources...

j-mac · Jun 9, 2011

Boo Radley said:
No J, I didn't. Your lack of understanding is not handing my ass to me. Take the WSJ for example. Their editorals are largely conservative, but are fine as a source. Having a POV isn't a disqualifier. Being inaccurate and stupid is.

Yes Joe, you did. And I didn't say I handed it to you. Learn to read dude. As to the last part, you should start taking your own advice...night now...

J-mac