The Debt Ceiling

[twenty02]

No, for the way the federal government operates, that is functionally accurate. Now you can make the argument that they have the option to cut the budget at any time and that is completely true. However, I am 44 years old and I cannot ever remember a time in my life where the federal budget shrank. Without looking I am thinking that post WW2 we probably saw a decrease in federal spending but it has been increasing ever since then with an explosion of spending starting in the 1980's and then going into overdrive at the turn of the century.

So when we go to the budget negotiations now, the spenders will say that this inflated budget due to the pandemic is our baseline for spending and any attempts to walk it back are spending cuts and how oh how can we live without them. I know this because it just happened. You would have to cut about 32-35% of the 2023 budget just to get back to the 2019 trend lines. That won't happen and you know it. The trend line for increased spending jumped way quicker than it has been and now that 100% increase in food stamps from 2019 to 2023 is going to become sacrosanct. You will have to fight tooth and nail and be accused of starving people to reduce spending that doubled over the course of 4 years.

So yeah, technically the government could pass a $1 budget but that isn't reality. What I described above is the reality. In the budget negotiations the spending baseline was just increased to national emergency numbers.

I'll add, the $6T in govt spending per year we are now doing. $4.2T of that is automatic spending, that's on cruise control (and growing 5+%/year).

SS, health care and interest are the only big rocks there.

You are talking about food stamps. You could zero out food stamps (and related food welfare) completely and it would drop the $4.2T to $4.1T.

Until people want to seriously discuss the $4T+ in annual, automatic spending, that's growing well in excess of the overall economy, it's all a joke.

 

[Sope Creek]

I honestly don't remember what my position was on all the money that got handed out back then. Go ahead and claw back what you can for the PPP, I never said that couldn't happen but anything in the past, particularly something you have to claw back, is going to be a drip in the bucket compared to the baseline that was just set for the yearly budget.

Again, the budget in 2019 was 40% less than the 2023 budget. That 40% increase occurred supposedly because of a once in a lifetime pandemic, ergo, when that pandemic was brought under control, the spending should have come down. Instead we have now baked that emergency increase into our baseline budget for comparison going forward.

Everybody got their "sugar" during the pandemic. You, me, everyone. The question is why we should continue to have that additional sugar for a pandemic baked into future budgets? The 2019 budget was the true trajectory of where government spending had been (and it was massively increasing already) and now we have turned an emergency once in a lifetime "everybody gets their sugar" pandemic budget into our baseline budget. That is stupid. Claw back what you can of the $800B PPP, get the people who committed fraud but don't pretend that $800B is the big deal when you are looking at an almost $1.8T every year above the 2019 baseline.

It's a big deal . . . giving money to fraudsters at taxpayer expense is a big deal, no matter the amount in comparison to the baseline. It was the political foundation for the rest of the money spent. Folks are thinking about "I gotta get mine".

The question is who is going to stop this. You want it on Democrats' watch. I prefer it on Republicans' watch. The real issue is stopping it. This tit-for-tat is gonna kill us.

 

[Sope Creek]

I'll add, the $6T in govt spending per year we are now doing. $4.2T of that is automatic spending, that's on cruise control (and growing 5+%/year).

SS, health care and interest are the only big rocks there.

You are talking about food stamps. You could zero out food stamps (and related food welfare) completely and it would drop the $4.2T to $4.1T.

Until people want to seriously discuss the $4T+ in annual, automatic spending, that's growing well in excess of the overall economy, it's all a joke.

I'll say it again . . . there should be a means testing criterion used to access SS and Medicare funding. Currently folks who have paid in are getting monthly checks to protect their savings/investments.

I understand they've paid into the fund . . . I have too . . . maybe a reduction in the amounts paid in will soften that blow for future folks. I'm OK so long as when my investments run out I can access SS and Medicare funds. Maybe trade this for long term care coverage if one's investments run out.

 

[outside shooter]

I would be OK with some level of means testing and also with the age of eligibility raising, automatically, as average life expectancy rises. Both factors are to my disadvantage, likely, as I have always saved for retirement assuming SS was not a lead-pipe lock, and age went from 65 to 67 for me. But a 65-year old in the time of FDR was not living nearly as long as a 65-year-old today.

I don't know what the means testing would or should involve. Taxable income over a lifetime? Total assets? Something else? It seems silly to punish people for their non-SS retirement savings, if net wealth is the criterion.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I would be OK with some level of means testing and also with the age of eligibility raising, automatically, as average life expectancy rises. Both factors are to my disadvantage, likely, as I have always saved for retirement assuming SS was not a lead-pipe lock, and age went from 65 to 67 for me. But a 65-year old in the time of FDR was not living nearly as long as a 65-year-old today.

I don't know what the means testing would or should involve. Taxible income over a lifetime? Total assets? Something else? It seems silly to punish people for their non-SS retirement savings, if net wealth is the criterion.

Raising eligibility age cuts benefits. Probably better to raise cap

 

[UncleMark]

Raising eligibility age cuts benefits. Probably better to raise cap

Yes it is. The broken down laborers can barely make it to early retirement as it is. Lifting the cap fixes SS for decades.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yes it is. The broken down laborers can barely make it to early retirement as it is. Lifting the cap fixes SS for decades.

Yup.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Yes it is. The broken down laborers can barely make it to early retirement as it is. Lifting the cap fixes SS for decades.

It doesn't fix it at all. It just makes a crappy system last longer. The answer is to take the assets out of treasuries and put them all into a US Government TSP account. A better answer would be to set up accounts for individuals with matching funds. Then we have a decent system which allows for accumulation of wealth to pass on as desired.

 

[UncleMark]

It doesn't fix it at all. It just makes a crappy system last longer. The answer is to take the assets out of treasuries and put them all into a US Government TSP account. A better answer would be to set up accounts for individuals with matching funds. Then we have a decent system which allows for accumulation of wealth to pass on as desired.

I won't argue the point, but we both know that is a pipe dream. So instead of doing nothing, let's do the next best thing and fix what we have as best we can.

 

[Sope Creek]

It seems silly to punish people for their non-SS retirement savings, if net wealth is the criterion.

Yeah, I thought of that . . . but that's a luxury I'm not sure we can afford anymore.

I was thinking about my situation when I posted that. I can afford to draw down on my savings for medical (so long as I can pay Medicare reimbursement rates) and living expenses for a while . . . if I had a backup like Medicare and social security it would make the expenditures worthwhile. My guess is that there are others similarly situated. What are they gonna do, take it with them? Leave it to their children? And I have deliberately not defined what the means test would be . . . there are a lot of folks out there smarter than I who have thought about that stuff already.

The bottom line is we're gonna have to make do with somewhat less, and this is one way to do that, while taking less from younger generations' paychecks.

 

[Spartans9312]

Automatic spending cuts would threaten infrastructure funding - Roll Call

A backstop mechanism in last month’s debt ceiling package — if triggered — could force spending cuts in infrastructure programs.

rollcall.com

 

[Spartans9312]

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

View embedded media

We have absolute morons on my side of the aisle these days. This must change.

 

[twenty02]

We have absolute morons on my side of the aisle these days. This must change.

I've given up any hope. We have the govt we deserve. Look what passes for conservative thought on this board......reposting dumb tweets about owning the libs. This place is a microcosm of society, at large. A decade+ ago there was a lot of serious, interesting and intelligent debate. Now we've got what we've got.

 

[Spartans9312]

We have absolute morons on my side of the aisle these days. This must change.

“US government debt reaches $33 trillion”

We have to cut spending.

 

[DANC]

View embedded media

Donalds is a rising star in the GOP. He's very conservative and talks common sense.

 

[Spartans9312]

Donalds is a rising star in the GOP. He's very conservative and talks common sense.

Gaetz is a moron

 

[DANC]

Gaetz is a moron

I don't know that he's a moron. He's just not a team player. He wants a harder line than most other GOPers and will be obnoxious to his own team to get what he wants.

He's not a real likeable guy, but not a 'moron', as the media like to portray him.

For every one of him and MTG and Boebert, there are at least as many sketchy Dems and you don't hear a word about them.

 

[Spartans9312]

I don't know that he's a moron. He's just not a team player. He wants a harder line than most other GOPers and will be obnoxious to his own team to get what he wants.

He's not a real likeable guy, but not a 'moron', as the media like to portray him.

For every one of him and MTG and Boebert, there are at least as many sketchy Dems and you don't hear a word about them.

We will find out if/when he runs for governor of Florida. DeSantis has done a hell of a job ….it only takes one like Gaetz to give it all back

 

[Sope Creek]

“US government debt reaches $33 trillion”

We have to cut spending.

OK, where do you start?

Remember social security and Medicare make up the bulk of spending.

Have at it.

 

[DANC]

We will find out if/when he runs for governor of Florida. DeSantis has done a hell of a job ….it only takes one like Gaetz to give it all back

Depends who he runs against. I don't see him winning a GOP Primary for Governor.

 

[DANC]

OK, where do you start?

Remember social security and Medicare make up the bulk of spending.

Have at it.

You realize SS and Medicare have surpluses right now, right?

 

[Spartans9312]

OK, where do you start?

Remember social security and Medicare make up the bulk of spending.

Have at it.

All of it. We need to massively shrink the federal government, grow the economy through sensible tax cuts, privatize social security and sell federal assets. Basically a complete reinvention of the federal government.

 

[Sope Creek]

All of it. We need to massively shrink the federal government, grow the economy through sensible tax cuts, privatize social security and sell federal assets. Basically a complete reinvention of the federal government.

That's not gonna fly. You know that.

Please start with legitimate cuts that both sides can agree to.

If you want to reinvent the federal government, lay it out for us.

 

[Sope Creek]

You realize SS and Medicare have surpluses right now, right?

For the moment. So? What's your point?

All we hear about is that social security benefits will have to be cut in 2033 by 25% or so.

 

[Sope Creek]

A decade+ ago there was a lot of serious, interesting and intelligent debate.

You talking about on the Cooler?

Say it ain't so . . . .

 

[Spartans9312]

That's not gonna fly. You know that.

Please start with legitimate cuts that both sides can agree to.

If you want to reinvent the federal government, lay it out for us.

I listed two things. You dismissed out of hand. The Department of Education can go. I’m for unwinding almost everything federally and returning those “responsibilities” to the states. Hard line to accomplish over a 25 year time period.

Or we can kick the can

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I've given up any hope. We have the govt we deserve. Look what passes for conservative thought on this board......reposting dumb tweets about owning the libs. This place is a microcosm of society, at large. A decade+ ago there was a lot of serious, interesting and intelligent debate. Now we've got what we've got.

why would the shills and liars that represent both sides of the Wall St party here, including yourself, want interesting and intelligent debate.

that's the last thing you and they want.

no one has tried harder than i to engage in that, and the rest of the board, including yourself, wants absolutely none of it.

and when i do try, i get nothing but personal attacks in return, with no response from said attackers what so ever regarding what i posted, just the attack. (meaning they can't discredit or credibly debate what i said, but hate that i said it and absolutely don't want it discussed or said again.).

most of the usual suspects are here specifically to shut down "interesting and intelligent debate", not promote it.

seems a beyond bizarre way for those here to spend their day, but while we can easily observe what people do, knowing for sure their motives as to why they do it are a totally different story.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

All of it. We need to massively shrink the federal government, grow the economy through sensible tax cuts, privatize social security and sell federal assets. Basically a complete reinvention of the federal government.

got it.

you make no secret that you are here to promote the govt being 100% to promote Wall St and the investor class at the expense of everyone else.

at least you don't try and hide that agenda.

i guess for you the govt only 98% serving Wall St and the investor class at the expense of everyone else just isn't enough.

you'll just never be satisfied until you get that last 2%.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don't know that he's a moron. He's just not a team player. He wants a harder line than most other GOPers and will be obnoxious to his own team to get what he wants.

He's not a real likeable guy, but not a 'moron', as the media like to portray him.

For every one of him and MTG and Boebert, there are at least as many sketchy Dems and you don't hear a word about them.

Hahahahahahaha. Find me a Boebert please On the Dem side of the aisle.

 

[TomEric4756]

I think option 3 of

1) Biden/Senate say no to the House proposal and we default.

2) Biden/Senate accepts the Houses proposal and the debt ceiling is raised.

3) Biden/Senate say no to the House proposal, but do negotiate a compromise to raise the debt ceiling.

Is the likely choice this time.

 

[BradStevens]

Hahahahahahaha. Find me a Boebert please On the Dem side of the aisle.

Well, she's not as accomplished politically as Boebert, but seems more accomplished on the scale of inappropriateness*:

Democratic Virginia House candidate performed sex acts with husband on webcam for ‘tips’

A Virginia Democratic candidate for the state’s House of Delegates performed sex acts with her husband online — and asked her virtual audience to pitch in with “tips,” The Post has confirmed.…

nypost.com

*Yes, this was just an excuse to post a salacious Onlyfans story.

 

[Spartans9312]

Well, she's not as accomplished politically as Boebert, but seems more accomplished on the scale of inappropriateness*:

Democratic Virginia House candidate performed sex acts with husband on webcam for ‘tips’

A Virginia Democratic candidate for the state’s House of Delegates performed sex acts with her husband online — and asked her virtual audience to pitch in with “tips,” The Post has confirmed.…

nypost.com

*Yes, this was just an excuse to post a salacious Onlyfans story.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

For the moment. So? What's your point?

All we hear about is that social security benefits will have to be cut in 2033 by 25% or so.

If they turn fauxi loose in china with some more “reduce SS and Medicare recipients” virus experiments, they can solve that problem.

 

[Sope Creek]

I listed two things. You dismissed out of hand. The Department of Education can go. I’m for unwinding almost everything federally and returning those “responsibilities” to the states. Hard line to accomplish over a 25 year time period.

Or we can kick the can.

You said everything must go. I said that's not gonna fly, because it's not. Folks aren't going to accept that.

I've proposed answers to both Medicare and social security on here before. I'm looking for real world solutions, not pie-in-the-sky wish lists that have no chance of passage. That's why you got dismissed out of hand.

So I take it that you vote for kick the can and see where that gets us?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

View embedded media

what does someone's openness or prudishness regarding sex have to do with the reality that bringing down the US's grossly inflated drug prices should be a number one priority of govt, not the insanity of keeping them grossly overly inflated by law.

 

[Spartans9312]

You said everything must go. I said that's not gonna fly, because it's not. Folks aren't going to accept that.

I've proposed answers to both Medicare and social security on here before. I'm looking for real world solutions, not pie-in-the-sky wish lists that have no chance of passage. That's why you got dismissed out of hand.

So I take it that you vote for kick the can and see where that gets us?

I think we need to start cutting in all 12 appropriations bills. Start by going back to 2022 levels on all. The next year you go to 2021 levels…..etc. We have to make a concerted effort. We should privatize social security and I think we are going have to sell federal assets. We didn’t get here overnight and we aren’t getting out overnight…but we need to start doing the work.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I think we need to start cutting in all 12 appropriations bills. Start by going back to 2022 levels on all. The next year you go to 2021 levels…..etc. We have to make a concerted effort. We should privatize social security and I think we are going have to sell federal assets. We didn’t get here overnight and we aren’t getting out overnight…but we need to start doing the work.

wrong wrong and wrong, unless all you want to promote is Wall St and the investor class at everyone else's expense. (which you don't even try and hide as your agenda for everything).

what we need is to go back to the taxing policies that promoted balanced budgets, and the govt being controlled by the citizenry rather than the billionaires and multinational corporations, neither of whom have the best interests of the citizenry at heart in the slightest.

any discussion on what the govt needs to do, needs to start at exactly who should the govt be serving.

we don't disagree on how govt best serves it's primary agenda, we disagree on what the primary agenda of govt should be.

 

[snarlcakes]

I've given up any hope. We have the govt we deserve. Look what passes for conservative thought on this board......reposting dumb tweets about owning the libs. This place is a microcosm of society, at large. A decade+ ago there was a lot of serious, interesting and intelligent debate. Now we've got what we've got.

What is left to discuss? Everyone knows the answers. Drastically cut back government spending and raise taxes. Democrats know it, as do Republicans. They won’t do it because they want to get re-elected. The truth is most people don’t care and choose to vote for people who will kick the can down the road.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You said everything must go. I said that's not gonna fly, because it's not. Folks aren't going to accept that.

I've proposed answers to both Medicare and social security on here before. I'm looking for real world solutions, not pie-in-the-sky wish lists that have no chance of passage. That's why you got dismissed out of hand.

So I take it that you vote for kick the can and see where that gets us?

I truly believe your regional approach would have terrible hiccups, hell probably gerd, but is the way to go. For myriad reasons