Does refusing to raise the debt ceiling necessarily mean defaulting on existing debt? Isn’t it possible for the government to just say, instead, “Ok, as long as the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’re going to cut spending until it’s in line with revenues. We’re going to lay off federal employees, we’re going to stop issuing new contracts, etc., but we’re going to continue to pay the interest on the debt.”
That would certainly cause its own problems, I’m sure, but we wouldn’t default.
The last collapse resulted in Social Security, the FDIC and a number of other egalitarian moves.
Failing that there could also be a Dark Age. Which wouldn’t be anything close to as dark as the hellish abyss of a perpetual Plutocracy that we’re headed into.
With things like Fox Noise, the Koch brothers and ALEC, etc. dominating the airwaves? When the media is outright censoring Union protests with a hundred thousand people screaming for pro-worker reforms?
No offense intended, but the day that the citizenry gets both sides of the story, much less when it becomes well informed, is the day the concept of a “Straight Dope” ceases to be relevant.
The US did not default on its debt in the Great Depression. Full stop. The crash of 1929 is in no way comparable to defaulting on the national debt.
So? That doesn’t have any bearing on whether we will emerge with significant reforms.
A collapse, be it the crash of 1929 or a currency collapse in the future, means a good chance of really big problems for the rich. The rich immediately lose the ability to marshal the troops to their defense: they’ll be fleeing home to protect their families. With a crippled infrastructure, it’ll become difficult for the rich to continue spreading their propaganda.
Moreover it could lead to the splitting of the United States: the Right goes one way and the Left goes the other. I consider that to be a good thing. The Right can capitalism themselves to death with offshoring, pollution and no workplace safety laws, and my side can finally join the rest of the world in the 21st century.
So stop making a false equivalency between the crash of 1929 and defaulting on the national debt. The outcomes are in no way similar, so just stop it.
Sure, stop funding the government or “defer” social security payments or “defer” military salaries or something along those lines while still servicing the debt.
Or what? You’ll Pit me? :rolleyes:
You’re arguing whether dying by fire is the same as drowning in a frozen lake. Of course they’re not the same. But you’re dead regardless. And that’s the point I was making: a collapse is a collapse when you’re talking about forcing society to rethink itself.
Nope. We are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent. Only about 11 of those cents are spent on civilian discretionary programs. We could get rid of defense and still run up short. We would have to start cutting into entitlements to balance the budget.
Balderdash. We have several different avenues open to us such as:
Among many others, I’m sure.
In an ideal world, perhaps. But in the real life world, with an August 2nd deadline approaching, the partisan polarization in Congress and a White House that has said there is no Plan B, none of your suggestions will be enacted, let alone considered.
Are you under the impression that it is easier to raise taxes with a Republican congress than it is to raise the debt ceiling?
I was responding to the notion that we would be able to balance the budget without raising the debt ceiling merely by cutting spending. It can’t be done unless you are ready to cut entitlements on CURRENT beneficiaries.
Why do people like to preface their posts with one word sentences like “Balderdash” or “Nonsense” or something like that. Am I the only one that finds this an annoying habit?
I thought I was following this thread pretty closely. Apparently, not closely enough. I didn’t get that you were providing a scenario regarding balancing the budget without raising the debt ceiling. Rather, I thought you were saying that cutting entitlements was the only way to balance the budget.
Yes, but we could do that, couldn’t we? We could say, "Until the debt ceiling is raised, our first priority is towards financing debt payments from current revenues, our second is continuity of government operations and vital services, and only after those are done, does money go to entitlements and discretionary spending.
So I hear there’s to be an actual first vote soon, and that it’s not expected to pass.
How will the important markets react? Will they “panic,” assuming that this is indicative of future negotiations, or will they yawn and dismiss it as more theatre with over two months to go?
… And it didn’t.
Wonder what the national/international financial reaction will be? If it’s anything but panic, both sides can say they’re right: Democrats can claim that with about two months still to go, they still have time to avoid Armageddon, while the Republicans can say that this proves that nothing bad will happen with default.
Nope. That would not suffice. It is necessary to collect more taxes.
Bush-Era Tax Cuts Projected As Largest Contributor To Public Debt [CHART] | HuffPost Impact Here is the chart. it should make it clear what caused the deficit. It is not entitlements.
I get the impression the Republicans think the Democrats are so desperate to avoid debt-ceiling related Armageddon that they will accept any political cost to avoid it, or perhaps that the Dems will be blamed if financial Armageddon happens. I find both viewpoints puzzling. Anyone have any idea what the Republicans think they are up to? I mean, that vote to end Medicare went so well for them …
Congressional Democrats do have a track record of caving.
No one will respond to you until some delusional argument can be concocted to say your link contradicts you. It doesn’t, of course, but that’s never stopped anyone.