What? No government shutdown threads?

[michal1980]

only people that dont want to deal with the issue dont want to compare government debt to personal debt.

They say its not the same, so therefor its ok to ignore it.

No, only people who understand government debt don't compare the two. Ignorant or unprincipled people who are trying to distort reality for political reasons frequently attempt to equate the two.

Once you become immortal and owe your debts in a currency you can create at will we will compare your household to sovereign debt. Sound good? Let me know when you have an ETA on this, as I'm excited for that discussion.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/do-li...-they-just-hate-conservatives/article/2535594

Even your best friend krugfuckman wrote the following "What will happen to our stature if and when China takes away our credit card?"

So its ok for him to make analogies, but not for others. Got it.

 

[michal1980]

Congratulations on surpassing incorruptible as being the dumbest poster on this forum!
.

Is this the only response you know? Anyone you disagree with you just copy and paste the same shit.

 

[fskimospy]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/do-li...-they-just-hate-conservatives/article/2535594

Even your best friend krugfuckman wrote the following "What will happen to our stature if and when China takes away our credit card?"

So its ok for him to make analogies, but not for others. Got it.

Do you not know the difference between an analogy and actually not understanding how budgeting works?

To use an analogy, this is like when Microsoft complained that bundling Netscape was the equivalent of coke having to package in a can of Pepsi with every six pack. In this case our complaint is that conservatives actually think Netscape is made out of soda.

 

[ivwshane]

Imposing a debt ceiling doesn't mean any risk of default. We just roll the outstanding coming due over into new debt. The debt ceiling remains the same. We've done this before, we did it the last time.

Fern

Lol! The last time? The debt ceiling was raised, is your memory really that bad?

 

[ivwshane]

You're being purposefully obtuse, if not downright silly.

You know the pragmatic realities of politics.

And, BTW, now that we've gotten a little better idea of what Obamacare is it IS an idea to say let's dump and go back to what we had before.

Fern

Yep it's an idea alright! Is it a good one? Is it better than Obamacare? The answer is no but hey! It's an idea so credit should be given! Kind of like how parents give kids a trophy just for playing.

If this whole thread illustrates anything at all it's that the right is completely ignorant of how federal budgeting works and "ignorant" is putting it very lightly!

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Fern
Imposing a debt ceiling doesn't mean any risk of default. We just roll the outstanding coming due over into new debt. The debt ceiling remains the same. We've done this before, we did it the last time.

Fern

Lol! The last time? The debt ceiling was raised, is your memory really that bad?

We went well past the ceiling/deadline that time and the Treas Sec had to do quite a bit of 'juggling' to keep things together. So, yes, we rolled over debt into new. I.e. default on outstanding debt isn't an issue; issuing new/additional future debt is.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

We went well past the ceiling/deadline that time and the Treas Sec had to do quite a bit of 'juggling' to keep things together. So, yes, we rolled over debt into new. I.e. default on outstanding debt isn't an issue; issuing new/additional future debt is.

Fern

Then all that's left is the default on numerous other legal obligations, the fact that our systems aren't made to prioritize payments like that, and the general illegality of intentionally violating all of the various statutes that obligate the government to make payments.

 

[Fern]

Yep it's an idea alright! Is it a good one? Is it better than Obamacare? The answer is no but hey! It's an idea so credit should be given! Kind of like how parents give kids a trophy just for playing.

Many think no Obamacare is better than Obamacare. So, yes, the old status quo is preferable.

If this whole thread illustrates anything at all it's that the right is completely ignorant of how federal budgeting works and "ignorant" is putting it very lightly!

No. What is shows is that even ignorant people can be arrogant jackasses.

Check some of these links and you'll see we have gone past the debt ceiling and that outstanding debt is not affected, i.e., no default. That whole wild claim, like SS won't be paid to retirees (current receipts and the remaining surplus are enough to fund benefits), is just a bunch of partisan fear mongering.

Note: Link 31 and 6 are particularly useful. #6 is much shorter and gets to the point quickly.

https://www.google.com/#q=debt+ceiling+outstanding+debt+rolled+over

Fern

 

[Fern]

Then all that's left is the default on numerous other legal obligations, the fact that our systems aren't made to prioritize payments like that, and the general illegality of intentionally violating all of the various statutes that obligate the government to make payments.

Irrelevant.

The claim was made that we'd default on our debt and interest rates would go up (really, it was tinfoil hat conspiracy rant that I was responding to) and that's demonstrably false. It's partisan FUD/fear mongering.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Irrelevant.

The claim was made that we'd default on our debt and interest rates would go up (really, it was tinfoil hat conspiracy rant that I was responding to) and that's demonstrably false. It's partisan FUD/fear mongering.

Fern

It is in absolutely no way irrelevant. Like, at all.

It's not partisan FUD/fear mongering, and it's incredibly dangerous that people would be so foolish as to believe such a thing. To repeat, government systems aren't set up to prioritize payments, so right off the bat there is a technological hurdle that won't be overcome.

Secondly, the idea that by just prioritizing bond interest payments that we wouldn't be considered to be in sovereign default is a fantasy. It would have massive, worldwide financial effects that we don't even understand.

Third, prioritizing debt payments like that is quite likely illegal.

Speaking of partisan FUD, you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Jhhnn]

Imposing a debt ceiling doesn't mean any risk of default. We just roll the outstanding coming due over into new debt. The debt ceiling remains the same. We've done this before, we did it the last time.

Fern

Incorrect. The govt needs to pay off existing debt *before* any new borrowing can occur, which is impossible once the debt ceiling is reached.

Otherwise, there will be a period of time when both debts exist, thus exceeding the debt limit.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is in absolutely no way irrelevant. Like, at all.

It's not partisan FUD/fear mongering, and it's incredibly dangerous that people would be so foolish as to believe such a thing. To repeat, government systems aren't set up to prioritize payments, so right off the bat there is a technological hurdle that won't be overcome.

Secondly, the idea that by just prioritizing bond interest payments that we wouldn't be considered to be in sovereign default is a fantasy. It would have massive, worldwide financial effects that we don't even understand.

Third, prioritizing debt payments like that is quite likely illegal.

Speaking of partisan FUD, you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

He's not just swallowing it, he's spreading it.

 

[Lithium381]

You guys are obviously forgetting the keynesian multiplier effect. . .

 

[ivwshane]

We went well past the ceiling/deadline that time and the Treas Sec had to do quite a bit of 'juggling' to keep things together. So, yes, we rolled over debt into new. I.e. default on outstanding debt isn't an issue; issuing new/additional future debt is.

Fern

Wait so was the debt ceiling raised or not? Just because we could do some juggling for a few months doesn't mean we didn't have to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[ivwshane]

Is this the only response you know? Anyone you disagree with you just copy and paste the same shit.

Lol, it's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of facts, he has no facts. Do you understand what the debt ceiling is? Do you understand how it works? Do you understand that not raising it is not the same as cutting debt, or the converse?

We can't even begin to have a conversation if there is no agreement on the facts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Isn't it just a little disingenuous to start with the 2009 budget when that year included a one time charge of about $800 Billion? (The stimulus package)

Fern

It's not disingenuous...it's downright dishonest to use 2009 as a baseline to favorably compare future spending deficits.

Yawn. I suggest you take it up with Matt then, since he's the one that cited the 2009 deficit (as Fern's quote clearly shows). Matt's on your team, you know. Was he being "dishonest", or did he miss an RNC memo? Perhaps you should all huddle up and get your talking points in sync before continuing.

That said, the numbers are what they are, whether they serve your party agenda or not. Crying about "one-time" charges has become tiresome. It was the Bush apologists' standard dodge throughout most of his tenure, used to excuse hiding Iraq invasion expenses outside of the formal budget to understate deficits. This is just more of the same.

Further, the 2010 and 2011 deficits were both roughly only $200 billion less than 2009. Clearly about $600B of that $800B "one time charge" was not one-time at all. As Eskimospy points out, much of that increased spending was already set by earlier legislation, a fact you've both ignored yet again.

Finally, let's get back to the comment that started this. Your buddy Matt quoted old Obama statements about the deficit, insinuating this was another example of hypocrisy. In response, I pointed out that deficits under Obama have been dropping. I understand that fact is inconvenient for Republicans, but it's a fact nonetheless.

(For the record and to preempt stupid responses from some of your knuckle-dragging brethren, note that I am not claiming Obama personally lowered the deficit. Unlike seemingly most Americans, I understand POTUS has significant influence on revenue and spending, but he doesn't control them.)

 

[cubby1223]

Yawn. I suggest you take it up with Matt then, since he's the one that cited the 2009 deficit (as Fern's quote clearly shows). Matt's on your team, you know. Was he being "dishonest", or did he miss an RNC memo? Perhaps you should all huddle up and get your talking points in sync before continuing.

My God, do you clowns not understand P&N is not a team competition?

 

[Bowfinger]

My God, do you clowns not understand P&N is not a team competition?

Yet they attacked me for something Matt posted. Go figure. Perhaps you mean P&N shouldn't be a team competition, but for a great many people here, that's exactly what it is. Based on your posting history, I'd say you're very much part of Team Republican.

 

[Engineer]

My God, do you clowns not understand P&N is not a team competition?

Could have fooled me, lol. :biggrin:

 

[Matt1970]

Yawn. I suggest you take it up with Matt then, since he's the one that cited the 2009 deficit (as Fern's quote clearly shows). Matt's on your team, you know. Was he being "dishonest", or did he miss an RNC memo? Perhaps you should all huddle up and get your talking points in sync before continuing.

That said, the numbers are what they are, whether they serve your party agenda or not. Crying about "one-time" charges has become tiresome. It was the Bush apologists' standard dodge throughout most of his tenure, used to excuse hiding Iraq invasion expenses outside of the formal budget to understate deficits. This is just more of the same.

Further, the 2010 and 2011 deficits were both roughly only $200 billion less than 2009. Clearly about $600B of that $800B "one time charge" was not one-time at all. As Eskimospy points out, much of that increased spending was already set by earlier legislation, a fact you've both ignored yet again.

Finally, let's get back to the comment that started this. Your buddy Matt quoted old Obama statements about the deficit, insinuating this was another example of hypocrisy. In response, I pointed out that deficits under Obama have been dropping. I understand that fact is inconvenient for Republicans, but it's a fact nonetheless.

(For the record and to preempt stupid responses from some of your knuckle-dragging brethren, note that I am not claiming Obama personally lowered the deficit. Unlike seemingly most Americans, I understand POTUS has significant influence on revenue and spending, but he doesn't control them.)

I didn't ignore anything. The one time emergency spending for 2009 was supposed to be just that, one time. Not the new status quo. Obama and co took that one time amount, spent just under that the next year and claim they are reducing the deficit. In your mind if someone doesn’t consider that deficit reduction they are being "dishonest". The seven years we had before 2009 we averaged $400 Billion deficits. How you see spending just under a $1.4 Trillion one time emergency spending budget as deficit reduction is beyond me. And about that “set by earlier legislation” BS, you know damn well any time the republicans have pushed to reduce spending each time a budget comes up (or Continuing Resolutions seeing as how we can’t even pass a budget) the left runs commercials about pushing granny off a cliff.

 

[Lithium381]

My God, do you clowns not understand P&N is not a team competition?

Partisanship has its side effects. . . everything is "us" vs "them"

 

[Bowfinger]

I didn't ignore anything. The one time emergency spending for 2009 was supposed to be just that, one time. Not the new status quo. Obama and co took that one time amount, spent just under that the next year and claim they are reducing the deficit. In your mind if someone doesn’t consider that deficit reduction they are being "dishonest". The seven years we had before 2009 we averaged $400 Billion deficits. How you see spending just under a $1.4 Trillion one time emergency spending budget as deficit reduction is beyond me. And about that “set by earlier legislation” BS, you know damn well any time the republicans have pushed to reduce spending each time a budget comes up (or Continuing Resolutions seeing as how we can’t even pass a budget) the left runs commercials about pushing granny off a cliff.

Wow, your reading skills really suck. Maybe somebody else can help you follow along better.

 

[cubby1223]

Voting to not raise the debt ceiling is doing that. It's saying, I can pay you back, I just choose not to.

And voting to raise the debt ceiling is saying "I cannot pay you back in any responsible way, but I'll still take your money."


I think this argument needs to get down to some basics. Who exactly is lending the United States Government money, and why? People lend to the U.S. because they believe they will make more money off of the U.S. than if they lend the money to someone else.

The reason why raising the debt limit is an option is because there are people willing to immediately lend to the U.S. government.

 

[Matt1970]

Wow, your reading skills really suck. Maybe somebody else can help you follow along better.

I am trying to see things from your point of view but I just can't seem to jam my head up my own ass.

 

[K1052]

And voting to raise the debt ceiling is saying "I cannot pay you back in any responsible way, but I'll still take your money."


I think this argument needs to get down to some basics. Who exactly is lending the United States Government money, and why? People lend to the U.S. because they believe they will make more money off of the U.S. than if they lend the money to someone else.

The reason why raising the debt limit is an option is because there are people willing to immediately lend to the U.S. government.

D:

It's like watching a bunch of plumbers perform neurosurgery in here.