Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually the mistake Congress and the people of the US made was allowing a president to even think he had something to do with any budget.
The president's job is to enforce the laws that Congress enacts, and to function as commander-in-chief and the chief diplomat.
Planning budgets is not the president's responsibility. That responsibility falls on Congress, and specifically on the House.
Correct. Typically, even in government, the Executive will say what they would like to see...but ultimately, the legislative branch is in charge of drawing up and approving the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Bartlett is a liar like the Liar-in-Chief.
Social Security is a money-in/money-out scheme.
The Social Security taxes that were collected from payrolls last quarter are presently being paid out now.
There is no need for Treasury to do anything. It is true that during the recent minor economic downturn, Social Security failed to collect enough in revenues to pay out for a couple of months.
There is evidence that payroll taxes declined last quarter. Whether Social Security collected enough to pay out this quarter is unknown. If September's report indicates payroll taxes decline again, that might indicate the US is heading toward another economic downturn, or even a recession, and Social Security might have problems meeting payouts, and at that time, Treasury will have to decide whether to pay benefits or interest on the debt.
It is already known that Social Security will not be able to collect enough in revenues in 2016, or in any successive years to meet the payouts, and at that time, Treasury will have pay up unless Social Security taxes are increased or Social Security benefits are reduced so that Social Security can meet payouts.
yes, you are correct. Social Security tax comes in, and that should basically cover payouts. But we know that currently it does not. Part of the payouts is from the Treasury (theoretically, from the "trust fund", but as I already stated, it exists only on paper). The President is playing politics, as i've stated, and Social Security doesn't have to be the victim. But something is. No matter what the government chooses as the line items that don't get paid, it's going to **** someone off.
I wonder...to all those that think voting to not raise the debt limit is a good idea (let's ignore the consequences for argument's sake), which obligations do you think the government should not pay?
here's my point. obama is NOT going to cut social security no matter what happens and for him to say otherwise is just fear mongering. obama is the titular head of the democratic party and the democratic party did not submit a budget, and they simply can't go around blaming the republicans for no budget and expect to get away with it. obama brought this on himself with all of the blame and can't expect to just get away with it.
what an ideal leader would say is "here we are, let's fix it".
i also agree that social security is a scheme that is not going to be able to be paid out as promised because GDP is not going to be able to keep up-especially with unemployment rising and social service needs increasing. you can only print so much money and fool people for so long until there is blowback.
i don't think we ever came out of the recession. i think wall street did with bailouts and with quantitative easing, but certainly wall street does not represent main street. i am sure that bernanke is going to use any excuse to start up QE3 but he has economic constraints, after all.
technically speaking, quantitative easing didn't end. we're just not expanding it any further. the government is still re-issuing to continue the current level of QE in effect.
they wont be spending it if they dont have the money. they will have to come up with a fresh $2.4 trillion budget or they can spend like normal and run out of money 60% into a month because they will be 40% short on cash.
i wish they would stop arguing over the debt limit and come up with a 60% budget.
herein lies the problem with how you understand things to work.
you can't go back and redo your budget without the market punishing you for that. the budget is in place, and if we do not follow it, as a result of not having 100% of the money for it, we will be punished for that by the credit rating agencies.
the impact of that punishment is, when we issue new treasuries to refinance our current debt, it will be at higher interest rates, and our debt will become more expensive than it currently is over time.
so...as i said. you can not raise the debt limit to cover the spending you told them to spend...but there will be consequences to that action.
two issues...
1. Debt limit for current fiscal year.
2. Budget for next fiscal year.
As for the budget, I'd love to see it reduced to the level you're saying. I don't believe that is realistic, but I'd like to see it.
you're combining the two issues into 1, when it's just simply not the case. None of this discussion is about the existing budget. Sadly, there appears to be some young congressmen/women that do not understand that.
you can't go back and redo your budget without the market punishing you for that. the budget is in place, and if we do not follow it, as a result of not having 100% of the money for it, we will be punished for that by the credit rating agencies.
so what money are they going to spend on the budget if they dont raise the debt limit?
like it or not brady, the budget would have to change. we will also be "punished." but thats fine because it makes debt less affordable and the government shouldnt be taking on debt.
so what money are they going to spend on the budget if they dont raise the debt limit?
that's up to the Executive Branch to decide. Yes, not raising the debt limit will have the effect of decreasing spending for the current fiscal year. It will reduce it to around the $2.4T you are talking about. The Executive Branch technically has the constitutional authority to spend what it was told to spend in the budget anyways, but I believe the Treasury already stated it will not do that. So, if the debt limit is not raised, the Executive Branch must decide what spending it should cover with the $200B it has coming in each month. No matter what it leaves out, it will have "defaulted" on that spending. When an organization defaults on spending, the credit rating agencies usually take that to be an indication of the future risk of that organization. The U.S. government would lose it's extremely favorable credit rating, and our current national debt would gradually become more expensive, with P&I payments eating up even more of the $200B/month coming in. Resulting in defaulting on even more obligations as time goes on.
This isn't really disputed by anyone on either side. I think everyone knows the consequences, which is why, in the end, probably at 11pm on the deadline date, a couple of douchebags will emerge triumphantly smiling about how they saved us all from catasrophe (they won't mention, they caused the possible catasrophe).
The question is - how will the negotiations help shape our FUTURE budgets. Will conservatives get everything they want, reducing spending only, which would be virtually impossible if the end-goal is a balanced budget for next fiscal year? Will liberals get what they want, using scare tactics like saying Social Security payments might not be made? I don't even know what liberals want, to be honest with you. Supposedly Obama wants $4T net savings in the next decade. between a combindation of spending reductions and closing tax loopholes (translation - increasing taxes by eliminating deductions). Conservatives want, what?, $2T in spending decreases only? I can't even keep track of what anyone wants anymore. All i know is...we're being told this is one issue, when it is not. It's been made one issue, but it really is two separate issues. First is - will our government stand behind it's obligations. Second is - will our government get it's act together, and balance the budget (answer to #2 is NO - but it might do little bits and pieces to get there).
technically speaking, quantitative easing didn't end. we're just not expanding it any further. the government is still re-issuing to continue the current level of QE in effect.
headline:
Moody's sounds note of caution while Bernanke promises support for US economy
Federal Reserve chief admits he is prepared to start third round of quantitative easing if US economy continues to flag
Phillip Inman The Guardian, Thursday 14 July 2011
they are out of bullets, but they are still firing the gun.
many large ceo's have heard from their political pundants that both sides will milk this until the end but dont worry default isnt an option.
guess we will see how it resolves..
im guessing the tea party group will want to position themselves to use their rhetoric in this battle to help them in 2012. then they will have the house, senate and presidency and the ball is totally in their court.
im guessing the tea party group will want to position themselves to use their rhetoric in this battle to help them in 2012. then they will have the house, senate and presidency and the ball is totally in their court.
Smells like you are smoking something a little bit stronger than Tea.
Your boys keep screwing around and p.o. the middle and you are going to wiped out like the R's after The Contract on America.
Keep it up.
Pulled my 1992 Perotista T-Shirt out of the drawer, yesterday.
Smells like you are smoking something a little bit stronger than Tea.
Your boys keep screwing around and p.o. the middle and you are going to wiped out like the R's after The Contract on America.
Keep it up.
Pulled my 1992 Perotista T-Shirt out of the drawer, yesterday.
you can put all the smiley faces you want into a post, i know you liberals are very worried about how much power the tea party currently has and then will have after the 2012 election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
