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.
I majored in finance, though I only earned a bachelor's degree, but I always thought default, loosely, meant inability to pay interest and principal when due. The dictionary definition of default on dictionary.com is "fail to fulfill an obligation, esp. to repay a loan or to appear in a court of law." I fail to see how not raising the debt ceiling automatically causes default to occur.
We have to pay the interest on our debt. Otherwise we go into default. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, since we are operating at a loss nationally, then we wouldn't be able to pay the interest because our debt ceiling can't be raised.
The only way to keep from going into default without raising the debt ceiling would be to completely slash this years budget, so as the interest on the debt wouldn't exceed the debt ceiling.
I don't even think thats possible without shutting down all US military personnel, stop paying social security and medicare, and literally shut down all federal operations.
The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.
The rich pay more than their fair share. In fact, the Top 48% of income earners pay 100% of the income taxes. #Fail
If you raise taxes on the rich, nothing about this statement changes. The top 48% of income earners pay 100% of the income taxes. The only change, the federal government collects more money and doesn't have to borrow money to operate.
The rich pay more than their fair share. In fact, the Top 48% of income earners pay 100% of the income taxes. #Fail
I don't know about top 48% but it is easier to find data on top 50%. Then, there are millionaires who don't end up owing income taxes either, while there plenty near the bottom that do. Having said that, let us look at the following numbers:
Adjusted Gross Income of Top 50% (2008) as a percent of total AGI: 87.25%
Income tax share of Top 50% (2008) as a percent of total income tax: 97.30%
AGI for Top 50%: $7.3 Trillion
AGI for Bottom 50%: $1.0 Trillion
Top 50% contributed $1.0 Trillion in income tax, or at an average rate of 13.65%. The bottom 50% contributed only $28 billion, or an average rate of 2.6%.
Now let me ask you... what distribution of income taxes between the top 50 and bottom 50, as far as percentage of income tax share go, would satisfy you? Or, do you think it would be brilliant to just raise the income taxes on the bottom 50% by about 11% so it matches those in the top 50%? Or how about cutting the taxes on the top 50% to match that applies to the bottom 50%, to just 2.6%? That would guarantee another $800B in budget shortfall, perfect recipe that you desire for your ideological ends, eh?
It would eman that ther governamnt woud have to shift from spending on programs to paying the debt. There is enough money to pay the debt but other thigns would have to go unpaid. SS is not one of them because it comes from one fund only by law.That is why if SS runs short in years ahead there will be automatic acrosssthe broad reductions by law.
It would eman that ther governamnt woud have to shift from spending on programs to paying the debt. There is enough money to pay the debt but other thigns would have to go unpaid. SS is not one of them because it comes from one fund only by law.That is why if SS runs short in years ahead there will be automatic acrosssthe broad reductions by law.
Do you think our soldiers would get paid in your scenario? The people who work for government contractors would have to be laid off, since those bills wouldn't get paid. What else?
Do you think our soldiers would get paid in your scenario? The people who work for government contractors would have to be laid off, since those bills wouldn't get paid. What else?
Our debt is almost the same level as our national GDP. To pay keep from hitting the debt ceiling we'd have to literally shut down all of the government, all of it. Not one government entity would get money, no government employee would get no money, and anyone drawing social security wouldn't get paid until the next year, because no one would be working to process their payments.
The debt ceiling will be raised, Republicans will not let it expire. There will be a deal.
If you raise taxes on the rich, nothing about this statement changes. The top 48% of income earners pay 100% of the income taxes. The only change, the federal government collects more money and doesn't have to borrow money to operate.
rubbish, raising taxes does NOT increase revenues to the government, it LOWERS them. the most recent example is new jersy where christie lowered taxes and cut spending, and revenues to the government increased. funny how that works.
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.
