What? No government shutdown threads?

[MomentsofSanity]

So what?

Can't they cut the spending instead of raising the debt ceiling?

Sure they can. Problem is they didn't. The debt ceiling is to pay for what congress has already spent, not hat they will in the future.

Amazing you guys still don't get that part yet.

 

[Texashiker]

That's the thing, the budget is set at the beginning, the money is already spent, it the paying of the thing that's being put into jeopardy.

If you have to ask for payment after the fact, then the budget was not set.

Congress is using unfunded liability to raise debt limit.

Sure they can. Problem is they didn't. The debt ceiling is to pay for what congress has already spent, not hat they will in the future.

Amazing you guys still don't get that part yet.

Economics 101, know how you are going to repay a loan "before" you take it out.

 

[sportage]

This. As bad as "Obamacare" is, it's still a step above doing nothing. Health care in the U.S. was horribly broken, and getting worse. We had to do something. The ACA isn't wonderful, but it was the best we could get through a corrupt and obstructionist Congress. My hope is that once the Republicans either grow up or lose about 100 seats in Congress, we can finally shift attention from their useless repeal theatrics and focus instead on how to improve the ACA. I'm not holding my breath.

True! And Obamacare "could" have been a lot better if a full public option had been put in place. But I don't blame republicans for that failure, I blame democrats. Those so called blue dog democrats that sided with the for-profit healthcare industry.

And Obama has not done his part in promoting reform either.
When it nearly failed to pass in congress, Obama did not get personally involved until the very last minute. His attitude was, let congress fight it out.
That is not the LBJ or FDR way of doing things.
I totally believe that if LBJ or FDR had been president in 2008, we'd not only would have mass support for reform, we would have the public option as well.
That would be true leadership.

And it is sad that Obama can talk a good line but somehow seems as if he doesn't quite believe in his own policies. He lacks the ability or desire to do that good old arm twisting when needed. I think after all these Obama years, its obvious he just doesn't have it in him.
He doesn't work that way.
And the result is pudding policy. Or jello policy, if you prefer the jello.

Obamacare is a major leap into expanded healthcare for Americans.
It does a lot of good. Requires personal responsibility. A fundamental idea that every automobile owner understands all too well. Personal responsibility, something even republicans were all in favor of at one time.
The problem has never been with the idea of healthcare reform. We have needed that desperately, or the insurance companies would have eaten us alive.
The problem is not with reform, the problem is with the message, or lack of.

 

[kia75]

According to the libtards in this forum the government should be able to spend as much money as it wants.

Screw a balanced budget like the rest of us have to live by.

You live on a balanced budget? That means you' never bought a mortgage? You never bought a car? You never borrowed to pay for college?

Are you familiar how most manufacturing businesses work? Let's say it costs me $10k to make a car and I can then sell that car for 15k. Unfortunately, between the time of making that car and selling that car I don't have any money. I will eventually get 15k back, but until I do I'm out of cash and my workers need to get paid. So I borrow some money so my workers get paid knowing I'll sell that car for $15k.

This is how all manufacturing works. In the long run the budget is balanced but in the short run due to the ebb and flow of business we might be borrowing a bit here and there to get by. This is especially true for seasonal manufacturing.

The point is that economics is much more complicated then your average family budget.

Screw the people who bought our debt.

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

 

[Texashiker]

You live on a balanced budget? That means you' never bought a mortgage? You never bought a car? You never borrowed to pay for college?

Are you familiar how most manufacturing businesses work? Let's say it costs me $10k to make a car and I can then sell that car for 15k. Unfortunately, between the time of making that car and selling that car I don't have any money. I will eventually get 15k back, but until I do I'm out of cash and my workers need to get paid. So I borrow some money so my workers get paid knowing I'll sell that car for $15k.

Yes, yes, and more yes.

I also had a plan on repaying that money. The debt was paid before it was passed onto my kids or my grandkids.

We have reached a point in our national debt where it will take three generations of tax payers to pay it down. The united states is broke, we will never be able to repay the debt, but the government wants to keep printing more money?

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

Do you realize what would happen if china or japan tried to cash in all those savings bonds they bought?

But yet the government wants to issue more debt?

 

[fskimospy]

Something that was supposed to drive down the cost of insurance, but so far has only shown to actually drive up the cost is not preferable to anything. If possible maybe it should have been fixed before it was rammed down the throats of the public. Remember, we have to pass it to see what is in it.

This is factually inaccurate. Please learn more about the topic.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44552

Maybe we can pull out an $80 Billion surplus this month. Anything is possible.

Sure is. Depending on when various tax receipts come in, how things are accounted for, etc, the federal government quite often runs a surplus for a given month. In June for example, the federal government ran a $116 billion surplus.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This is factually inaccurate. Please learn more about the topic.

Do you have any info on this? I'm wondering if tax penalties are included in the true cost of this legislation.

 

[fskimospy]

Who is supposed to pay this borrowed money back?

How much debt are we supposed to procure before we say enough is enough?

Why did you cut out the rest of my post? You are advocating for the US to breach its contractual obligations. Considering the extreme impact that this will have on the US and the world economy, you better have an enormous amount of economic and policy data to back up such a reckless decision. Can you please provide it?

If you don't like debt, have Congress spend less money in appropriations bills. Don't try to make our country into someone who skips out on the check at dinner. Can you be any more irresponsible?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have any info on this? I'm wondering if tax penalties are included in the true cost of this legislation.

I'm not sure if tax penalties have been factored in, but the overall effect on premiums across the country has been highly variable based on the state. In some states it has increased them, in others it has decreased them. Additionally, depending on how friendly to the ACA the state making the report is, various states have engaged in chicanery (on both sides) to exaggerate the impact.

All in all, the ACA's effect on premiums seems to be mixed. (although again, the goal is to slow the rate of health care inflation, not specifically lower premiums) Regardless, the statement that the ACA has only served to increase premiums is factually false.

 

[Texashiker]

Why did you cut out the rest of my post?

I felt no need to reply to the rest of your post.

Don't try to make our country into someone who skips out on the check at dinner.

Why are you going out to eat if you know you are tapped out on credit?

Can you be any more irresponsible?

Do not spend money you do not have.

 

[fskimospy]

I felt no need to reply to the rest of your post.

You have no answer to the rest of my post, you mean.

Why are you going out to eat if you know you are tapped out on credit?

The argument is not whether we choose to go out to eat or not. That choice was already made. Now the choice is whether or not you want to pay the check or run out of the restaurant. You are arguing that we should run out of the restaurant. Explain yourself.

Do not spend money you do not have.

Already spent. You're saying "do not pay the bill you racked up" Why are you being so irresponsible? Do you refuse to pay your bills?

 

[Texashiker]

You have no answer to the rest of my post, you mean.

The part about our obligations?

We already owe trillions in debt. How are we supposed to pay that? Printing more money is not the answer.

Instead of building a keystone oil pipeline, maybe we need to build an ink pipeline to the federal reserve?

And, when are you going to pay for that trip to the olive garden 20 years ago?

 

[fskimospy]

The part about our obligations?

We already owe trillions in debt. How are we supposed to pay that? Printing more money is not the answer.

Instead of building a keystone oil pipeline, maybe we need to build an ink pipeline to the federal reserve?

And, when are you going to pay for that trip to the olive garden 20 years ago?

You keep dodging the question because you have no answer. You have now repeatedly stated that you think the answer is for the United States to refuse to pay bills it has run up. I want you to explain why you think running out on the check is a good answer.

 

[Texashiker]

You keep dodging the question because you have no answer. You have now repeatedly stated that you think the answer is for the United States to refuse to pay bills it has run up. I want you to explain why you think running out on the check is a good answer.

Increasing the debt limit is the same thing as running out on your bill. As the debt is not being repaid.

Explain how increasing the debt limit, or even doing away with the debt limit is going to help us pay down the debt?

 

[fskimospy]

Increasing the debt limit is the same thing as running out on your bill. As the debt is not being repaid.

This is a basic factual error. Increasing the debt limit is exactly the opposite of running out on the bill. Like, the 100% polar opposite. If we do not increase the debt limit, the US will not pay contractors and beneficiaries the money that is guaranteed them by law. If we do increase the limit, they will be paid.

If you are confused about what the debt limit is that might explain the rest of your posts in this thread.

Explain how increasing the debt limit, or even doing away with the debt limit is going to help us pay down the debt?

If you want a smaller debt, make smaller appropriations bills. The source of the US's debt is our choice to incur those obligations in appropriations bills. Does cutting your credit card in half in the middle of the restaurant mean you don't owe them for dinner anymore?

I think you are confused about the difference between appropriations and the debt limit.

 

[Texashiker]

This is a basic factual error. Increasing the debt limit is exactly the opposite of running out on the bill. Like, the 100% polar opposite. If we do not increase the debt limit, the US will not pay contractors and beneficiaries the money that is guaranteed them by law. If we do increase the limit, they will be paid.

In other words unfunded liabilities. Kinda like what bankrupt detriot.

The government is robbing paul to pay peter.

If you want a smaller debt, make smaller appropriations bills.

If you want smaller debt spend no more then you take in.

 

[fskimospy]

In other words unfunded liabilities. Kinda like what bankrupt detriot.

The government is robbing paul to pay peter.

No, nothing like what bankrupted Detroit. Additionally, you are attempting to relate government debt to personal debt yet again. We've been over why that's a bad idea many times.

You continue to not address what I write and just make new complaints. Do you now understand that raising the debt limit is the opposite of running out on the check?

If you want smaller debt spend no more then you take in.

Right. And you realize that our choices for spending come from appropriations bills, not the debt limit, correct?

 

[Texashiker]

Do you now understand that raising the debt limit is the opposite of running out on the check?

I understand the government has already spent the money, now it has to raise the debt limit so the money can be printed.

Which is totally backwards from the way things are supposed to work.

You do not spend money, then scratch your head and wonder how you are going to pay the bill.

No, nothing like what bankrupted Detroit.

Yes, a lot like detriot. Except detriot could not print its way out of bankruptcy.

The US is bankrupt. The only thing keeping us from going belly up is our ability to print money out of thin air.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the government has already spent the money, now it has to raise the debt limit so the money can be printed.

Which is totally backwards from the way things are supposed to work.

You do not spend money, then scratch your head and wonder how you are going to pay the bill.

No, not so the money can be printed. So the government can issue debt, which is very different.

Does this mean you now agree that we should raise the debt limit? It appears that your complaint is with appropriations, now with the debt limit.

Yes, a lot like detriot. Except detriot could not print its way out of bankruptcy.

The US is bankrupt. The only thing keeping us from going belly up is our ability to print money out of thin air.

The US is not even remotely bankrupt. If that's the case and you believe the US will default on its obligations there are a large number of financial products that will allow you to make a shitload of money if that happens. Are you currently invested in them? If not, why?

The cause of Detroit's bankruptcy more than anything else was a mass exodus of its tax base.

 

[michal1980]

No, nothing like what bankrupted Detroit. Additionally, you are attempting to relate government debt to personal debt yet again. We've been over why that's a bad idea many times.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[Texashiker]

No, not so the money can be printed. So the government can issue debt, which is very different.

Does this mean you now agree that we should raise the debt limit? It appears that your complaint is with appropriations, now with the debt limit.

No, your stance on raising the debt limit is absurd.

Rather than curving government spending, lets just raise the credit limit.

The US is not even remotely bankrupt.

Do you realize how many generations of tax payers it is going to take to pay down the debt?

We are not talking years, we are not talking decades,,,, we are talking generations.

 

[fskimospy]

No, your stance on raising the debt limit is absurd.

Rather than curving government spending, lets just raise the credit limit.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here. Your approach to the debt limit is insane. You are saying that rather than curbing government spending, just refuse to pay your bills. I keep asking for an explanation as to why you think intentional debt default is a good fiscal strategy as opposed to say... cutting spending.

Responsible economics says that we should be rapidly increasing federal spending and borrowing even more, but we can't even get to that discussion so long as you think that intentional default is a good plan.

Do you realize how many generations of tax payers it is going to take to pay down the debt?

We are not talking years, we are not talking decades,,,, we are talking generations.

Do you realize that debt/GDP ratio is what is important and that government debt never needs to be repaid as the government is immortal? Debt can be (and is) rolled over in perpetuity.

 

[chucky2]

Fellow Spender, can you give a status update on when our (I've already converted some conservatives here to my plan) first $5k checks will arrive? We stand ready to stimulate this economy and we just need our first sellout check to begin.

Have you made progress with your super smart political guy friends? Please note to them that this plan was basically insta accepted, and blows the same money we don't have on something that will guaranteed stimulate the economy.

Please get on this, think of the children!