• 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

Jeezy said:
Raising the interest rate? Yes.

Make it a little harder to pay back the debt? I guess.

By leaps and bounds? No.

As it stands, interest payments represent a pretty small part of receipts. There'd have to be a truly massive global US bond dump for it to be a big problem....and there won't be.
Click to expand...

If we default and interest rises .6% (as it did in 1979), that would result in approximately another $88 Billion per year. Compound that and you have added another $1 trillion-plus to the national debt.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If we default and interest rises .6% (as it did in 1979), that would result in approximately another $88 Billion per year. Compound that and you have added another $1 trillion-plus to the national debt.
Click to expand...

A fraction of what the wars are costing. A fair trade if you ask me.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
To get an insight of how before his time Keynes really was, i would read Chapter 21 of "The General Theory of Employment, Inflation, and Money."

Both neo-classical and Keynesian's have similar views on monetary policy except for things like the existence of a liquidity trap.
Click to expand...

You mean the chapter where he talks about the quantity theory?

I guess.

What came out in the late 70s and 80s had some subtle differences...especially considering what mainstream Phillips-Curve Keynesians were suggesting by that point.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
If we default and interest rises .6% (as it did in 1979), that would result in approximately another $88 Billion per year. Compound that and you have added another $1 trillion-plus to the national debt.
Click to expand...

a. You know what else increases interest payments on your debt? Higher debt.

b. We won't default.

c. Which interest rate in 1979 are you referring to? Because the federal funds rate went up by a lot more than .6% in 1979.

d. Our annual...annual tax receipts are in the trillions.

Goldenboy219 said:
I guess it all depends on whether the dollar weakens or strengthens from technical default?!?! Since the debt we are talking about is in dollar terms, paying back fixed amounts in weaker (inflated) dollars would make things easier for those in hock. But, then again economic activity would tank instantanously, thereby reducing reducing real national income(s).

You would think a default would lead to a general price increase...... But...

You would think that tens of trillions of dollars of debt would not allow a general increase in prices when people are out of work in hordes...
Click to expand...

I mean...all of those things should, in theory happen. The question I guess is which happens longest? I don't think there would be a long-term bite out of real income but...I don't know. The market is a funny thing.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
The point is: you can't lower the national debt by defaulting on our payments. You expand it.
Click to expand...

The fact is, there is absolutley no reason we would default on our payments.
 
1Perry said:
The fact is, there is absolutley no reason we would default on our payments.
Click to expand...

And, we must change the tax and spend mentality of Congress. This is an imperative.
 
lb0714cd20110714033831.jpg
 
bombshell, baby!

rahm the ram does his very own AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS moment in windy, hard shouldered CHICAGO

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is sending layoff notices to about 625 city of Chicago employees — and delaying 61 blocks of curb and gutter improvements and 76 blocks of sidewalk repairs — after union leaders didn’t agree to work-rule changes the mayor wants or offer alternate ways to cut costs by a deadline Friday.

“My duty as mayor is to protect our city’s taxpayers and be their voice — not to protect the city’s payroll,” Emanuel said at a City Hall news conference Friday. “No amount of smoke and mirrors can put off the tough decisions any longer.”

The layoffs — which Emanuel said will save roughly $12 million — target 75 percent cut of the Chicago Department of Transportation’s “seasonal” workforce, as well as custodians at O’Hare Airport, Midway Airports and the city’s public libraries; and workers who run the city’s water-bill call center and manage city benefits.

The transportation department layoffs will be begin immediately. As a result, city curb and gutter repairs are being put off until next year.

Custodial services, benefits management and the water-bill call center will be privatized after 30- and 45-day layoff notices go out.

“I recognize that the workers affected here are people with families to support and bills to pay, and they are going to be cast into an economy that is scarce on jobs,” Emanuel said. “But there are millions of hard-working families across the city who are trying to pay bills every day, get their kids to school every day or in camp. They’re trying to make ends meet on a paycheck that may run out by the end of the month. Those are the people [who] pay the bills [and] that expect the services.”

Emanuel’s decision to pull the trigger on layoffs escalates a high-stakes standoff with organized labor that is only in Round One.

Even more concessions or layoffs will be needed to erase a $700 million operating shortfall in the city’s 2012 budget — and $500 million more when unfunded pension liabilities are factored in.
Click to expand...

Emanuel sends layoff notices to city workers in union showdown - Chicago Sun-Times

surprised?

is there any way barack the slasher is NOT following these developments in his home town?

do you think maybe he still talks to the ram sometimes?

i wonder what advice that ruthless pragmatist would suggest?

hey, barry, call rahm

fyi, the governor of dark blue connecticut had a very similar atc-like experience with his unions in june

Union Deal Defeated; Gov. Dannel P. Malloy Pledges To Cut Close to 7,500 State Workers - CTnow

afscme rejected dan malloy's "savings and concessions" reform

so he FIRED em---ouch

these DEM governors can be RUTHLESS

THEY can get away with slapping down their soviets in ways folks like me might only read about

party on, peeps
 


I guess this explains the difficulty in getting the debt ceiling raised.
 
If Bush said this, you guys would be praising his "responsibility" for not guaranteeing the entitlements. IOKIYAR, I guess.

Of course if Bush said it, the Left would be saying he's scaring old people, so there you go.
 
How about doing the right thing for a change.
 
That's the innate problem. People have different perceptions of what is right and wrong. Some people think Keynsian Theory is the answer to all our problems, so taxing the wealthy and showing the surplus of cash through the economy is the right thing to do. Some people are more traditional, and think taxation will hinder growth, forcing corporations and people to horde their resources instead of using them.

What you deem right, isn't right in the eyes of other people. And so the circle continues, and it will probably continue for quite some time.
 
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...
LOL.

You democrats are such liars. Give the government workers the Social Security IOUs as pay. Use their pay to provide to the people who were compelled to participate in the Government's ponzi scheme whatever money there is.
 
Re: August 1, 2011

commonsense said:
Today, on CBS news, Pres Obama stated that he could not guaranty that checks for social security, will go out on time, unless the debt issue is resolved by August 3, 2011
Does anyone think this odd?
Click to expand...
Not at all. It is in the Democratic Party Playbook.
 
liblady said:
it's actually disgusting that republicans are completely unwilling to compromise. trust me, people see this. even some republicans see this.
Click to expand...
I think we should compromise with the one term Marxist president Obama. We should agree to all of the cuts in government spending that he offers. Then we should offer up our own. Cut, cut, cut, cut. But no tax increases.
 
randel said:
if this comes to pass, and social security checks don't go out, let us see how fast republicans are bounced out of office on their collective ass in 2012.
Click to expand...
I agree to accept your idea. Let's see.
 
randel said:
a deal had been put up by dems which came down to 3 dollars in cuts, for every 1 dollar in increased taxes...pretty sweet deal you ask me, getting 3 for 1.
Click to expand...
We should compromise for this deal. We should accept the three dollars in cuts today for a promise of raising taxes on the people who currently pay no income taxes.
 
liblady said:
dems will cut the budget, along with tax increases. reps will just cut the budget. get it?
Click to expand...

This is actually funny. If democrats really planned on cutting spending then why do they need more (potential) money? The dirty truth is that democrats lie. All of the cuts will be in the out years (and we know they will not actually happen) while the tax increases will be immediate, of if he follows the Clinton model, retroactive.

Cut, cut, cut, cut.
 
Again, this isn't about tax cuts or tax hikes. It is about whether or not we should be following Keynsian Theory or not.
 
Kandahar said:
So it's a fear tactic to suggest that not raising the debt ceiling might cause us to default, it's a fear tactic to suggest that it might cause us to not pay our soldiers, and it's a fear tactic to suggest that it might jeopardize the entitlements of the elderly. So let's try it this way: Where do YOU suggest we find 43% of our budget to eliminate in the next three weeks? (Hint: cutting NPR funding doesn't quite get you there.)
Click to expand...
Why don't we look to the Constitution? Let us compare the government's myriad departments to the Constitution. If we cannot find it in the constitution let's close the department. Education would go. EPA would go. Those would help a great deal. Then, since the departments were extra-constitutional we could do a blanked repeal of all of their idiotic regulations. That would cut the budget and also act as a jobs bill.

And, oh yeah, let's defund NPR.
 
haymarket said:
We need a full blown, very aggressive, very much "in your face", very much no holds barred campaign filled with statistics, fact and figures about the right wing war on the working class in America. That should be the centerpiece and focus of the campaign because everything else is just a plank in that platform.
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with this. The differences between the party you represent and the party that I tend to vote for would be clear and stark. But how does that fit the party whose prescription for success can be summarized by the question, "How can we fool them (the American people) today?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom