Raising the US debt ceiling

Bitsy · July 30, 2011

No, that's completely wrong. Servicing the debt totals about $29 billion dollars a month. The Federal government will take in revenues totalling almost $200 billion dollars in August. With $85 billion dollars currently on hand. So there is no way any debt payments won't be honored. Unless Obama chooses not to pay them.

Do you have a source for your figures? BTB, still waiting for your source that only people under 50 would see their SS change. It wasn't Ryan!

punked · July 30, 2011

Do you have a source for your figures? BTB, still waiting for your source that only people under 50 would see their SS change. It wasn't Ryan!

His source wont have a day by day break down I will tell you. China doesn't care if you get 100 billion on the 15th if their debt is due on the 10th. That is default which Shady doesn't get.

Scotty · July 30, 2011

He wants Obama to pay China but to stop buying bullets for the troops in Iraq. That has been the point of everyone in this thread and Shady just doesn't care about the troops. He also thinks the government gets all its tax revenue on August 1st like a big pay check even though they really get most tax revenue at the end of the month.

Maybe, but that third branch of government no one has talked about is there to enforce laws, and will do so. If the federal government won't do as it's legally bound to do and pay who it's legally required to pay the courts will step in and order the government - and that includes the congressional branch, to do whatever is necessary to gather the money in order to meet its legal obligations.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

His source wont have a day by day break down I will tell you. China doesn't care if you get 100 billion on the 15th if their debt is due on the 10th. That is default which Shady doesn't get.

Just remember....you get to eat crow if the US does not "default" on debt service payments by 12:01AM on 8/5/2011.

Scotty · July 30, 2011

The US is the third most populous country on the planet. Basic math skills are in order here.

I recognize that. However, even taking that into consideration, there are simply more dirt poor people in your country as a percentage of the population than anyone else in the west has. No one in the west has your slums, your underclass, your hordes of minorities living in miserable squalor.

I'm surprised no one has raised the recently released data which shows that while whites in the US have a median family wealth of over $100,000 the median family wealth of Black is just $6,000

Wealth gap widens between whites and minorities

So you admit that your initial claim was wrong concerning all "western nations". And you are most certainly wrong when all levels of spending are included.

No, I don't. I want to see which western nation has social spending programs that aren't as good as yours in reality, not as a percentage of GDP. Your % of GDP spent simply reflects the fact you have so much poverty.

So your country actually went over the abyss in the 1990's, cut payments to the provinces for "social programs", but the USA can't do the same? Why the different standard?

What we did included raising taxes. Further, our social programs were more generous than yours are now. Even after cutting them back, they were still more generous than yours.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Scotty

punked · July 30, 2011

Maybe, but that third branch of government no one has talked about is there to enforce laws, and will do so. If the federal government won't do as it's legally bound to do and pay who it's legally required to pay the courts will step in and order the government - and that includes the congressional branch, to do whatever is necessary to gather the money in order to meet its legal obligations.

No they really wont. Someone can bring up the payments in a country case and it go up through the system until it might hit the Supreme court in 2 years and they can decide what the 14th amendment means but that is a little to late.

I hear that that the US can revalue its gold reserves though and that might buy them some time.

Scotty · July 30, 2011

No they really wont. Someone can bring up the payments in a country case and it go up through the system until it might hit the Supreme court in 2 years and they can decide what the 14th amendment means but that is a little to late.

I hear that that the US can revalue its gold reserves though and that might buy them some time.

In cases of emergencies the courts are normally willing to hear cases very quickly. And I put it to you that a woman who isn't getting her social security check can probably convince the courts it's an emergency. Furthermore the lawyers acting for the federal government work for the executive branch and are most unlikely to want to fight to delay things. On the contrary, they'd probably do their level best to speed things up. They'd be happy to get a finding from the courts ordering the government to raise taxes, after all.

punked · July 30, 2011

In cases of emergencies the courts are normally willing to hear cases very quickly. And I put it to you that a woman who isn't getting her social security check can probably convince the courts it's an emergency. Furthermore the lawyers acting for the federal government work for the executive branch and are most unlikely to want to fight to delay things. On the contrary, they'd probably do their level best to speed things up. They'd be happy to get a finding from the courts ordering the government to raise taxes, after all.

It wont matter even if it took a month, which is a crazy short time for the court to hear something, it would be to late.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

I recognize that. However, even taking that into consideration, there are simply more dirt poor people in your country as a percentage of the population than anyone else in the west has. No one in the west has your slums, your underclass, your hordes of minorities living in miserable squalor.

Obviously you have not traveled much (e.g. Mexico)...on average, America's poor have more square feet of living space than Europeans.

No, I don't. I want to see which western nation has social spending programs that aren't as good as yours in reality, not as a percentage of GDP.

There are several...look them up on your own time...it's a false claim you keep making without providing any data.

What we did included raising taxes. Further, our social programs were more generous than yours are now. Even after cutting them back, they were still more generous than yours.

The Americans will raise taxes too...they have to. Canada's "generosity" is not reflected in the OECD rankings, the very same standard used to criticize the USA. Canada hasn't even solved the shameful problem of safe potable water for "aboriginals".

Shady · July 30, 2011

Medicare is not a program for the poor, and neither is Social Security. Neither one of them is means tested. They're available to all Americans regardless of income.

No, they're not means tested. Although under the Ryan plan, they would be. But regardless, the vast majority of recipients of these programs are middle and lower class people. Particularly Medicaid, which is specifically a program for the poor. As well as CHIP, the child healh insurance program. Also for the poor and middle class. Even if one completely stopped all payments of social security and medicare to the so-called rich. It would barely make a dent in the current spending levels. Why? Because like I've already said. The vast majority of the spending goes to poor and middle class people. Those are facts.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

I hear that that the US can revalue its gold reserves though and that might buy them some time.

Nah...not very likely...or necessary. There is no hurry.

You mean buy us some time, right fellow citizen?

Edited July 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

pinko · July 30, 2011

Time will tell what? That the Americans will decide what is best for them...in their own way? Well...DUH!

You have no say in what is transpring now within the confines of the Congress. What little say you have is confined to your voting preference at election time.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

.... Why? Because like I've already said. The vast majority of the spending goes to poor and middle class people. Those are facts.

True...there just aren't that many "rich people" to go around, even though they pay most of the taxes. Also, social security payments are weighted to pay more to the poor and middle class as a percentage of their working FICA contributions.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

You have no say in what is transpring now within the confines of the Congress. What little say you have is confined to your voting preference at election time.

Then why did President Obama ask me to communicate with my members of Congress on national television? I am satisfied to let the Constitution work as it always has. I hope you don't mind that...in Winnipeg!

Either way, I will always have more say than you.

Shady · July 30, 2011

Its odd that congress would even mess with this stuff. Do they think people are stupid?

The current level of spending is the result of their own votes. By passing legislation they are essentially ordering the government to spend money, and then trying to make that spending impossible. Congress controls the purse strings. If they dont want to spend money, they should stop signing legislation that directs spending.

Incorrect. Under the Democrats, congress hasn't passed a budget in 2 and a half years. The Federal government has literally been operating without any budget up until the spring when Republicans finally passed a budget resolution. Unfortuantely, the Democrats in the senate still haven't passed anything. But during those 2 and a half years, they spent and spent and spent. Increasing spending by 25% over the two year period. And now they want the debt ceiling raised to absolve them of their irresponsible spending over the last 2 years. Guess they should've thought of that before.

pinko · July 30, 2011

Then why did President Obama ask me to communicate with my members of Congress on national television? I am satisfied to let the Constitution work as it always has. I hope you don't mind that...in Winnipeg!

Either way, I will always have more say than you.

He probably suggested that out of desperation with the antics of the Republican Party. Your Constitution isn't working particularly well. I don't mind if you don't mind.

There sure is a lot of gun violence in Houston.

Bitsy · July 30, 2011

His source wont have a day by day break down I will tell you. China doesn't care if you get 100 billion on the 15th if their debt is due on the 10th. That is default which Shady doesn't get.

From what I can determine his source is from the teabaggers, and they can not even distinguish between interest on the debt and SS, Medicare, Medicaid payements. His $29B figure is interest payments on Treasure securities only. The SS monthy debt payment is almost double that number and that does not include Medicare and Medicaid. I just want to see where the teabaggers are getting their information.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Bitsy

dre · July 30, 2011

You have no say in what is transpring now within the confines of the Congress. What little say you have is confined to your voting preference at election time.

Yes but congress has no say in whether or not the executive branch and treasury honor their obligations. If they refuse to raise the debt cieling the whitehouse will simply print the money it needs.

This whole crisis is fake. Congress wants to put on their little show and pretend that their participation is required to avoid a default but it isnt. They already rubber stamped all this spending and they flat out dont have the power or the mandate to stop.

This is of course why there WILL be an agreement. Congress knows they cant do a damn thing to stop that spending from happening, they can piss and moan and play retarded little games and spend taxpayer money on writing bills they know will not pass in the other respective chamber.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

He probably suggested that out of desperation with the antics of the Republican Party. Your Constitution isn't working particularly well. I don't mind if you don't mind.

Then why are you more worried than me? As for our Constitution, it works without getting permission from a very old queen in another country!

There sure is a lot of gun violence in Houston.

I sure hope so...need to protect this web site's hosting service.

Edited July 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

pinko · July 30, 2011

Yes but congress has no say in whether or not the executive branch and treasury honor their obligations. If they refuse to raise the debt cieling the whitehouse will simply print the money it needs.

This whole crisis is fake. Congress wants to put on their little show and pretend that their participation is required to avoid a default but it isnt. They already rubber stamped all this spending and they flat out dont have the power or the mandate to stop.

This is of course why there WILL be an agreement. Congress knows they cant do a damn thing to stop that spending from happening, they can piss and moan and play retarded little games and spend taxpayer money on writing bills they know will not pass in the other respective chamber.

Great theatre though.

dre · July 30, 2011

Incorrect. Under the Democrats, congress hasn't passed a budget in 2 and a half years. The Federal government has literally been operating without any budget up until the spring when Republicans finally passed a budget resolution. Unfortuantely, the Democrats in the senate still haven't passed anything. But during those 2 and a half years, they spent and spent and spent. Increasing spending by 25% over the two year period. And now they want the debt ceiling raised to absolve them of their irresponsible spending over the last 2 years. Guess they should've thought of that before.

That doesnt matter. Social programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, the police, the military etc are derived from acts of congress and US laws. No running vote is required by congress for these things to be funded.

And now they want the debt ceiling raised to absolve them of their irresponsible spending over the last 2 years. Guess they should've thought of that before.

Sorry thats blind partisan idiocy thats already been completely debunked.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2011

.... The SS monthy debt payment is almost double that number and that does not include Medicare and Medicaid.

SS is not considered to be service on the debt, which is the main concern for a "default" in the financial sector.

Bitsy · July 30, 2011

SS is not considered to be service on the debt, which is the main concern for a "default" in the financial sector.

However, you cloak it, it is still a payment due the citizens of the US to be paid monthly out of the US Treasury.

Bitsy · July 30, 2011

SS is not considered to be service on the debt, which is the main concern for a "default" in the financial sector.

dre · July 30, 2011

SS is not considered to be service on the debt, which is the main concern for a "default" in the financial sector.

Any failure of the US government to honor its financial obligations will have a similar effect though. A government that cant fund its own programs or pay its own employees is not going to have an easy time selling bonds. Its a matter of credibility.

Theres also a question of whether or not the treasury has a constitutional mandate to priortize payments. Depending on what legal advice they get they might have to pay bills in the order they become due as opposed to which bills they think are more important to pay.

This whole line of argument is really just for fun though because the government will pay ALL of its bills SS, Medicare, Interest on the debt, etc no matter what the idiots in congress do.

Edited July 30, 2011 by dre