• 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

My original post to this effect postulated a 43% cut in all spending, across the board.
43% cut in SocSec
43% cut in Medicare
43% cut in defense spending
43% cut in...

Now, a 43% cut in defense spending will give the DoD a budget of about $375B (using FY2009 numbers), the allocation of which will be determined otherwise - so, that may or may not mean the end of our wars.

OK, fair enough. I'd still like to end our wasteful wars as if we're discussing cutting social programs for OUR people, there should be no way in hell we should spend over a trillion dollars "bringing freedom" to others. I think we could evaluate a lot of things and scrap the ones we don't need and try to preserve those which benefit the American people. If we're this broke, then the rest of the world will just have to take care of themselves for awhile. It's their job anyway, we shouldn't be World Police....or we should get paid for it.
 
I think we could evaluate a lot of things and scrap the ones we don't need and try to preserve those which benefit the American people.
For many things, that's exactly what would happen - various budgets would be looked at and the people in charge of them - sometimes Congres, sometimes not - would have to decide what items to cut and by how much.

However, certain spending - like entitlements - do not work that way; the only real way to cut spending in them is to reduce everyone's benefit by an equal precentage.
 
Irrelevant. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then spending -must- be cut to match revenue.
No program, no entitlement - nothing is above being cut.

Only a F***ing idiot would support legislation that would do so much harm to so many people!
 
Only a F***ing idiot would support legislation that would do so much harm to so many people!
Sorry that your argument is so poor that you're forced to resort to ad homs.
When you believe you can have a civil discussion among adults, please let us know.
 
Re: August 1, 2011

It will soon. Liquor licenses are not being renewed and bars and taverns are droppping like flies. It's only a matter of time until the drunks go on a rampage. LOL.

Yup, starting here, our "Minnesota Nice" will be at war with "Where the **** is my brewski!?"
 
In contrast to the almost delusional comments that not raising the debt ceiling would essentially have no major adverse impact being circulated by some media pundits e.g., Mark Levin who described such a situation as a "day of liberation," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that such a failure would have real consequences. CNBC reported:

"As a matter of arithmetic, fairly soon after that date there would have to be significant cuts in Social Security, Medicare, military pay or some combination of those in order to avoid borrowing more money," Bernanke said, focusing on areas that could affect key voting blocs ahead of 2012 elections.

"If, in fact, we ended up defaulting up the debt—or even if we didn't ... it's possible that simply defaulting on our obligations to our citizens might be enough to create a downgrade in credit ratings and higher interest rates for us, which would be counterproductive of course because that makes the deficit worse," he said.

News Headlines
 
For many things, that's exactly what would happen - various budgets would be looked at and the people in charge of them - sometimes Congres, sometimes not - would have to decide what items to cut and by how much.

However, certain spending - like entitlements - do not work that way; the only real way to cut spending in them is to reduce everyone's benefit by an equal precentage.

Yeah, I mean at the same accord we have things like SS and such for a reason. We've seen the poor houses of the Industrial Revolution and didn't want to do that. We decided as a society to fund a base level of living standard for the elderly. While I think that there is a lot we could do to restructure the programs which could save money but not significantly cut into benefits; I would prefer that we look other places first. We could get rid of a lot of stuff first like TSA, end the War on Drugs, end foreign aid, end HLS, significantly reduce the power of the CIA so that it's restricted to strictly intelligence gathering, end all subsidies, etc. While almost all programs will realize a cut; there's plenty to go after first while preserving certain social programs for the most part and keeping in tack our scientific funding and labs and such (which are also necessary).

And taxes may have to go up at some point. If we are unwilling to cut SS or Medicade and Medicare, then we have to pay for them.
 
In contrast to the almost delusional comments that not raising the debt ceiling would essentially have no major adverse impact being circulated by some media pundits e.g., Mark Levin who described such a situation as a "day of liberation," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that such a failure would have real consequences. CNBC reported:



News Headlines

Exactly. I think that many of the people who favor not raising the debt ceiling (or even those who favor a showdown to extract concessions) don't truly understand the consequences. It could result in MORE government spending, because interest rates would increase, adding to the deficit and negating many of the proposed cuts.
 
Yeah, I mean at the same accord we have things like SS and such for a reason. We've seen the poor houses of the Industrial Revolution and didn't want to do that. We decided as a society to fund a base level of living standard for the elderly. While I think that there is a lot we could do to restructure the programs which could save money but not significantly cut into benefits; I would prefer that we look other places first. We could get rid of a lot of stuff first like TSA, end the War on Drugs, end foreign aid, end HLS, significantly reduce the power of the CIA so that it's restricted to strictly intelligence gathering, end all subsidies, etc. While almost all programs will realize a cut; there's plenty to go after first while preserving certain social programs for the most part and keeping in tack our scientific funding and labs and such (which are also necessary).
That's the point - if you simply cut everything by the same %, then you eliminate the fights over the "sacred cows".
Cutting FY2009 spendng by 43% leaves $1.8T in revenue - more than we spent in FY2000.
 
Sorry that your argument is so poor that you're forced to resort to ad homs.
When you believe you can have a civil discussion among adults, please let us know.

It it sometimes difficult to not react when a right-winger says something as ignorant as, cut everything by 43%. This is unworkable and you know it. The only reason you have a problem with this is because the president is Obama. Otherwise, you would no doubt sing a different tune,.

To be so calloused as to be willing to bring so much hardship on so many who have no other source of income is beyond belief, even for a republican! This is exactly what cutting SS checks would do. I think you already know this, but since it probably won't affect you, you don't care!
 
today:

According to the [Gallup], 53 percent of people who say they’re following the debt limit debate very closely said they want their member of Congress to vote against raising it. Just 37 percent said they wanted a vote to increase it.

And just 34 percent of those who say they’re following the debate told Gallup they think not raising the limit would result in an economic crisis.

Poll: Most say don't raise debt limt | POLITICO 44
 
Last edited:
Exactly. I think that many of the people who favor not raising the debt ceiling (or even those who favor a showdown to extract concessions) don't truly understand the consequences. It could result in MORE government spending, because interest rates would increase, adding to the deficit and negating many of the proposed cuts.
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.
 
It it sometimes difficult to not react when a right-winger says something as ignorant as, cut everything by 43%. This is unworkable and you know it. The only reason you have a problem with this is because the president is Obama. Otherwise, you would no doubt sing a different tune,.

To be so calloused as to be willing to bring so much hardship on so many who have no other source of income is beyond belief, even for a republican! This is exactly what cutting SS checks would do. I think you already know this, but since it probably won't affect you, you don't care!

Exactly. It's all a bunch of posturing bastards. McConnell even said “I refuse to help Barack Obama get reelected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy.”

Read more: Mitch McConnell does damage control on debt ceiling plan - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

So no. He doesn't want to do his duly elected job. He wants to WIN!

Disgusting git.
 
In contrast to the almost delusional comments that not raising the debt ceiling would essentially have no major adverse impact being circulated by some media pundits e.g., Mark Levin who described such a situation as a "day of liberation," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that such a failure would have real consequences.
How does calling Aug 2nd "a day of liberation" equate to "not raising the debt ceiling would have no major adverse impact?" That's a *HUGE* leap. Do you have an actual quote from Levin where he makes the claim you want to attribute to him?
 
How does calling Aug 2nd "a day of liberation" equate to "not raising the debt ceiling would have no major adverse impact?" That's a *HUGE* leap. Do you have an actual quote from Levin where he makes the claim you want to attribute to him?

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.
 
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.

But you are overlooking that the debt ceiling WILL be raised. Period. Even if our government stupidly keeps this showdown going past the brink, almost NO ONE in Congress has the stomach for a permanent 43% cut to government funding...that would be politically ruinous for whoever supported it. Now, the debt ceiling increase might happen before we are in a de-facto default, or it might happen after. But it will happen. And when it does, the government will go right back to deficit spending (perhaps with some cuts as part of the agreement, but nevertheless still not enough to balance the budget). If this showdown adversely impacts our credit rating, our interest rates will go up, which means that we will be paying more on our debt servicing.

For example, if a brief default (or a brief quasi-default) caused our interest rates to increase by 1%, it would negate approximately $1 trillion of the spending cuts that would be part of the debt ceiling agreement. 2% would negate $2 trillion, etc. So we'd still be spending that money...we'd just be wasting it on something completely useless (debt interest) instead of something that could actually help people.

My advice to Congress: Take whatever budget cuts have already been negotiated, and then get behind Mitch McConnell's proposal to automate the debt ceiling increases. That should be sufficient for Republicans to declare victory, to maintain the credibility of the US debt, to keep the economy going without major problems, and to prevent this kind of brinkmanship from arising again in the near future.
 
Last edited:
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.

If Taylor actually cares, he can download and listen here.
 
I've got laryngitis and my fingers are broken from repeating myself but you can't balance anything if you refuse to balance. CUTS ARE NOT ENOUGH. Deep cuts are not enough. Tax issues, loopholes, and everything else NEED to be looked at and addressed.

People are going to remember this window of time when it comes time to vote again. We're going to remember that the entire Republican party was willing to flush us down the ****ter, and we will vote accordingly.
 
But you are overlooking that the debt ceiling WILL be raised.
The consequences you listed were predicated on the idea that it would not be raised.
That's what I responded to; your post is inaccurate because of the reasons I listed.
 
Last edited:
it certainly sounds to me like something the great one, mark levin, would say

most informed americans agree with him, by the way, according to gallup, today

be all that what it may

it appears the egghead economists have A LOT more explaining to do

they better hurry up

however, it's very simple, informed moms and pops see clear

the prez wants 2.4 to get thru next november

the knuckle dragging neanderthals led by michelle bachmann who, if not a slut is certainly a nut, insist on d4d, dollar for dollar

they WERE in agreement on about 1.7 as of about sunday

except everything's kinda blown up since then

one thing underlying all of this, bigtime---which few remark upon---is the seething personal hatred the parties feel towards each other personally, both sides

we'll all know soon

patience
 
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.

August Invoices Show U.S. Treasury

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.
 
The consequences you listed were predicated on the idea that it would not be raised.
That's what I responded to; your post is inaccurate because of the reasons I listed.

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). Either of these would be very bad for the credit rating of the US, which would cause our interest rate to spike. Meanwhile, we'll be faced with an immediate 43% reduction in government spending.

On the other hand, I am not at all concerned that the government will fail to raise the debt ceiling for any permanent-ish length of time. It's just not politically possible...people will start screaming bloody murder after the first social security check is missed, the first soldier goes unpaid, or the first doctor isn't compensated by Medicare. Congress will absolutely relent and raise the debt ceiling (even now, McConnell and Boehner have both given public assurances that they plan to raise the debt ceiling and regard not doing so as an unthinkable option). The main question is do we raise it now...or AFTER our credit rating falls, interest payments go up, and a good chunk of those spending cuts are negated?
 
Back
Top Bottom