Debt Ceiling Fear Mongering

[Steve Petersen]

Nine times since 1973 Congress and the President have failed to raise the debt ceiling and default did not occur.

Interest on the debt makes up a little over 10% of revenues. Why won't that interest be paid?

 

[Ton80]

So that talk of lowering America's credit rating is also fear mongering. Thanks for pointing out your findings.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Nine times since 1973 Congress and the President have failed to raise the debt ceiling and default did not occur.

Interest on the debt makes up a little over 10% of revenues. Why won't that interest be paid?

The daily treasury statements offer insight into the truthfulness of whether or not we'll broach default if this debt ceiling isn't reached. In other words, they demonstrate unequivocally we won't risk default; there is sufficient money coming in to pay our obligations. Now, we might have to sacrifice some other payments - but fundamentally, the issue is one of priorities.

...and that's the gist of the problem - the debt ceiling is just the battlefield on which the struggle for priorities is being fought. The Democrat priorities are to keep their constituencies satisfied (i.e. "paid") whereas the Republican priorities are getting our fiscal house back in order.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The daily treasury statements offer insight into the truthfulness of whether or not we'll broach default if this debt ceiling isn't reached. In other words, they demonstrate unequivocally we won't risk default; there is sufficient money coming in to pay our obligations. Now, we might have to sacrifice some other payments - but fundamentally, the issue is one of priorities.

...and that's the gist of the problem - the debt ceiling is just the battlefield on which the struggle for priorities is being fought. The Democrat priorities are to keep their constituencies satisfied (i.e. "paid") whereas the Republican priorities are getting our fiscal house back in order.

There is a Constitutional requirement to pay debts. Current receipts can cover that. As you say, the rest is determining priorities, a task that no one in Washington is willing to wrestle with.

 

[EdwinWillers]

There is a Constitutional requirement to pay debts. Current receipts can cover that. As you say, the rest is determining priorities, a task that no one in Washington is willing to wrestle with.

Would that there were a Constitutional requirement not to incur them in the first place for anything but emergencies (wars, disasters, etc.).

Sadly, congress spends money like it grows on trees - and that's true of both sides of the aisle. Few in congress, save when it suits saving their political dairy-airs, are remotely fiscally responsible.

In this debate, the Republicans are the ones trying to save their political dairy airs so are doing the fiscally responsible thing.

The Democrats don't care - they know they have a huge constituency that is more concerned with the freebies they get from their elected taps into the federal coffers. They've been voluntary taps so long they don't know the difference between responsible behavior and irresponsible - evidenced by how willing they are to scare them into the likelihood they might not get those freebies if the ebil Republicans get their [fiscally responsible] way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nine times since 1973 Congress and the President have failed to raise the debt ceiling and default did not occur.

Interest on the debt makes up a little over 10% of revenues. Why won't that interest be paid?

I think our creditors want the principle as well as the interest.

 

[Verv]

Nine times since 1973 Congress and the President have failed to raise the debt ceiling and default did not occur.

Interest on the debt makes up a little over 10% of revenues. Why won't that interest be paid?

It is a fallacy to believe that since things hae been the same in the past, they will be the same in the future.

You are WRONG and the baiss of your entire argument is a FALLACY.

You are so WRONG and you are a Libertarian who does not believe in exercising financial responsibility...

Do you think the Invisible Hand shall save us?!

 

[KarateCowboy]

Congress has shown they cannot be trusted with the money we have given them. No one here has been able to elucidate why they should be trusted with more.

 

[Verv]

Congress has shown they cannot be trusted with the money we have given them. No one here has been able to elucidate why they should be trusted with more.

So we shoul dhae a super small government, right?

Because the invisible hand will help the poor people.

Right?

Like, how about, the government only enforces our "human rights" (which are: Free Speech, Guns for everyone, Free religion and the right to arrest people drinking a beer on the streets)...

And then let the poor people die in the cold snow in New York City on December 24th, 2010, because the Invisible Hand only smacks people who deserve it.

These children are poor because they spend all their time partying and smoking cigarettes, and never are studying, so that is why they are poor.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Do you think the Invisible Hand shall save us?!

The invisible hand is about to slap us senseless all the way to Timbuktu if we don't acquire some basic common sense and start acting responsibly with our money.

If the invisible hand doesn't save us - it certainly will judge us.

 

[EdwinWillers]

So we shoul dhae a super small government, right?

Because the invisible hand will help the poor people.

Right?

Like, how about, the government only enforces our "human rights" (which are: Free Speech, Guns for everyone, Free religion and the right to arrest people drinking a beer on the streets)...

And then let the poor people die in the cold snow in New York City on December 24th, 2010, because the Invisible Hand only smacks people who deserve it.

These children are poor because they spend all their time partying and smoking cigarettes, and never are studying, so that is why they are poor.

What a load of royal sanctimonious doo doo!

First - no one brought up any of this nonsense but you. You're ascribing that silliness to people here *as if* that's what they said, believe, whatever.

Second - I doubt you have the FIRST CLUE why those children are poor. I bet you don't even know who those children are. I bet you downloaded some stock photo off the web - probably searched "poverty" or "starvation" or something like that to find what you thought was the perfect picture to serve up that ludicrous statement.

Third - since you so self-righteously brought that photo into play (and thank you btw for correcting us that they aren't that way because they spent all their time partying, smoking cigarettes, and not studying [not studying???] - we would've never guessed...), and since you apparently DO know how they got that way, enlighten us - please. How *did* those people get that way - in particular, since the context is the United States' debt ceiling - enlighten us how those people's plight is remotely topical to this subject here - we'd sure like to know because that photo is quite provocative.

Point - if you have one (a point that is), and it's relevant to this topic, make it. Put together an argument and back it up with reasonable warrant - otherwise spare us the irrelevant, off-topic sanctimony.

I'll even help you a bit - the comments you made were in response to this:
Originally Posted by KarateCowboy

Congress has shown they cannot be trusted with the money we have given them. No one here has been able to elucidate why they should be trusted with more.
​

If it's your point the US congress should be trusted with more money lest we all turn out like those people in your stock photo above, demonstrate how trusting congress with more money will prevent such situations. You might start with identifying those people in your stock photo, their country (I'm just guessing here, but it's probably not the US), and outlining for us how the 'invisible hand' failed them, how a large government would not have failed them.

In other words, rather than meandering emotional panderings that put words into people's mouths they didn't say, "elucidate why they [congress] should be trusted with more [money]."

 

[lordbt]

So we shoul dhae a super small government, right?

Because the invisible hand will help the poor people.

Right?

Like, how about, the government only enforces our "human rights" (which are: Free Speech, Guns for everyone, Free religion and the right to arrest people drinking a beer on the streets)...

And then let the poor people die in the cold snow in New York City on December 24th, 2010, because the Invisible Hand only smacks people who deserve it.

These children are poor because they spend all their time partying and smoking cigarettes, and never are studying, so that is why they are poor.

Well, there is the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'iron fist' of the state. I think it is pretty clear which one you favor.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Well, there is the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'iron fist' of the state. I think it is pretty clear which one you favor.

Exactly.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Verv's posts here are unusual and not consistent with his style. We might want to let it slide . . .

 

[Douger]

Verv's posts here are unusual and not consistent with his style. We might want to let it slide . . .

Verv's posts here are quite consistent, Verv is a statist, and to be honest, I don't mean that in a derogatory way.
As even proponents of the free market will say, it only works when you have a moral people.
For a good Biblical comparison, look what God imposed on His own people when they abused their liberties and indulged in cruelties towards the poor and oppressed.
Liberty, isn't God, it's nice, but it must be earned.

 

[lordbt]

Verv's posts here are unusual and not consistent with his style. We might want to let it slide . . .

I am not familiar enough with him to know one way or another. But for the record, if I ever post something like that, feel free to fire away.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Republicans spend like crazy and cut taxes at the same time. When they have their guy as president the debt isn't a big issue. Cheney made that clear- no big deal. The debt ceiling was raised 7 times under bush. They also start needless wars to transfer the American peoples wealth to the military industrial complex and the lucky corporations they pick to rebuild Iraq. Once the other party wins the presidency all of a sudden things are different though. The Debt does matter after all!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Verv's posts here are quite consistent, Verv is a statist, and to be honest, I don't mean that in a derogatory way.
As even proponents of the free market will say, it only works when you have a moral people.
For a good Biblical comparison, look what God imposed on His own people when they abused their liberties and indulged in cruelties towards the poor and oppressed.
Liberty, isn't God, it's nice, but it must be earned.

Any form of government will work if you have moral people.

Unfortunately, people are not moral. People who are not moral will also find their way into government. What that means is that you need to find a way to protect people from the not moral people in society, and from the not moral people in the government.

 

[MachZer0]

The Republicans spend like crazy and cut taxes at the same time. When they have their guy as president the debt isn't a big issue. Cheney made that clear- no big deal. The debt ceiling was raised 7 times under bush. They also start needless wars to transfer the American peoples wealth to the military industrial complex and the lucky corporations they pick to rebuild Iraq. Once the other party wins the presidency all of a sudden things are different though. The Debt does matter after all!

I wonder if Obama recalls that in 2006 when when Bush was president he voted against raising the debt ceiling? So apparently when a Republican is in the White House, raising the debt ceiling is bad, but when a Democrat is in the White House, it is necessary to prevent an economic Armageddon

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I wonder if Obama recalls that in 2006 when when Bush was president he voted against raising the debt ceiling?

I think that was supposedly a plan to defund the war/ occupation of Iraq. The same occupation he is continuing right now of course. Which leads me to believe his opposition was simply a political expediency. Just another game like the Republicans are playing now.