My original post to this effect postulated a 43% cut in all spending, across the board.
43% cut in SocSec
43% cut in Medicare
43% cut in defense spending
43% cut in...
Now, a 43% cut in defense spending will give the DoD a budget of about $375B (using FY2009 numbers), the allocation of which will be determined otherwise - so, that may or may not mean the end of our wars.
For many things, that's exactly what would happen - various budgets would be looked at and the people in charge of them - sometimes Congres, sometimes not - would have to decide what items to cut and by how much.I think we could evaluate a lot of things and scrap the ones we don't need and try to preserve those which benefit the American people.
Irrelevant. If the debt ceiling is not raised, then spending -must- be cut to match revenue.
No program, no entitlement - nothing is above being cut.
Sorry that your argument is so poor that you're forced to resort to ad homs.Only a F***ing idiot would support legislation that would do so much harm to so many people!
It will soon. Liquor licenses are not being renewed and bars and taverns are droppping like flies. It's only a matter of time until the drunks go on a rampage. LOL.
"As a matter of arithmetic, fairly soon after that date there would have to be significant cuts in Social Security, Medicare, military pay or some combination of those in order to avoid borrowing more money," Bernanke said, focusing on areas that could affect key voting blocs ahead of 2012 elections.
"If, in fact, we ended up defaulting up the debt—or even if we didn't ... it's possible that simply defaulting on our obligations to our citizens might be enough to create a downgrade in credit ratings and higher interest rates for us, which would be counterproductive of course because that makes the deficit worse," he said.
For many things, that's exactly what would happen - various budgets would be looked at and the people in charge of them - sometimes Congres, sometimes not - would have to decide what items to cut and by how much.
However, certain spending - like entitlements - do not work that way; the only real way to cut spending in them is to reduce everyone's benefit by an equal precentage.
In contrast to the almost delusional comments that not raising the debt ceiling would essentially have no major adverse impact being circulated by some media pundits e.g., Mark Levin who described such a situation as a "day of liberation," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that such a failure would have real consequences. CNBC reported:
News Headlines
That's the point - if you simply cut everything by the same %, then you eliminate the fights over the "sacred cows".Yeah, I mean at the same accord we have things like SS and such for a reason. We've seen the poor houses of the Industrial Revolution and didn't want to do that. We decided as a society to fund a base level of living standard for the elderly. While I think that there is a lot we could do to restructure the programs which could save money but not significantly cut into benefits; I would prefer that we look other places first. We could get rid of a lot of stuff first like TSA, end the War on Drugs, end foreign aid, end HLS, significantly reduce the power of the CIA so that it's restricted to strictly intelligence gathering, end all subsidies, etc. While almost all programs will realize a cut; there's plenty to go after first while preserving certain social programs for the most part and keeping in tack our scientific funding and labs and such (which are also necessary).
Sorry that your argument is so poor that you're forced to resort to ad homs.
When you believe you can have a civil discussion among adults, please let us know.
According to the [Gallup], 53 percent of people who say they’re following the debt limit debate very closely said they want their member of Congress to vote against raising it. Just 37 percent said they wanted a vote to increase it.
And just 34 percent of those who say they’re following the debate told Gallup they think not raising the limit would result in an economic crisis.
If the debt ceiling is not raised, there cannot be a deficit as there will be nothing to spend once available revenue is gone.Exactly. I think that many of the people who favor not raising the debt ceiling (or even those who favor a showdown to extract concessions) don't truly understand the consequences. It could result in MORE government spending, because interest rates would increase, adding to the deficit and negating many of the proposed cuts.
That's becasue, as I said, your argument is so weak, you have no other choice.It it sometimes difficult to not react...
To be so calloused as to be willing to bring so much hardship on so many who have no other source of income is beyond belief, even for a republican!
It it sometimes difficult to not react when a right-winger says something as ignorant as, cut everything by 43%. This is unworkable and you know it. The only reason you have a problem with this is because the president is Obama. Otherwise, you would no doubt sing a different tune,.
To be so calloused as to be willing to bring so much hardship on so many who have no other source of income is beyond belief, even for a republican! This is exactly what cutting SS checks would do. I think you already know this, but since it probably won't affect you, you don't care!
How does calling Aug 2nd "a day of liberation" equate to "not raising the debt ceiling would have no major adverse impact?" That's a *HUGE* leap. Do you have an actual quote from Levin where he makes the claim you want to attribute to him?In contrast to the almost delusional comments that not raising the debt ceiling would essentially have no major adverse impact being circulated by some media pundits e.g., Mark Levin who described such a situation as a "day of liberation," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that such a failure would have real consequences.
How does calling Aug 2nd "a day of liberation" equate to "not raising the debt ceiling would have no major adverse impact?" That's a *HUGE* leap. Do you have an actual quote from Levin where he makes the claim you want to attribute to him?
If the debt ceiling is not raised, there cannot be a deficit as there will be nothing to spend once available revenue is gone.
If interest rates go up, then our interest payemts will go up; revenue available for other spending will go down - but there will not be a deficit.
So, there will not be more government spending, just more spending on interest.
Unfortunately, there is no leap whatsoever. If one listened to his show on Monday evening, he was making the argument that concerns about not raising the debt ceiling amount to "Chicken Little" arguments, there would be no catastrophe, and that not raising it would amount to a "new July 4," a "day of liberation." Unfortunately, his website does not include the full transcript of his commentary.
The consequences you listed were predicated on the idea that it would not be raised.But you are overlooking that the debt ceiling WILL be raised.
The consequences you listed were predicated on the idea that it would not be raised.
That's what I responded to; your post is inaccurate because of the reasons I listed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?