Poll

10 votes (35.71%)
18 votes (64.28%)

28 members have voted

ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
July 15th, 2011 at 11:04:08 AM permalink
OK ... so this is a question with the potential for a HUGE political charge. But I ask it with a pure motive, and to show that, I'm not going to opine on the "why" and the political philosophy.

My motive? To gauge what this tiny sample of American society believes.

As discussed in another thread, people who can't or won't answer a simple question will always obfuscate. As this question isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife" type question, it is answerable.

My direct answer: no. The government still has money coming in ... at least, it's still being deducted from my paycheck and I assume it's going to the government. Once they have it, they decide where to spend it.
Alan
Alan
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 582
July 15th, 2011 at 11:12:43 AM permalink
Since I don't rely directly on any of the gov's services(SS, Medicare/aid, etc.) , I could care less what they do. But, I wish there was one thing they would do, and that is quit wasting money on stupid shit!
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 107
  • Posts: 6384
July 15th, 2011 at 11:27:46 AM permalink
Not immediately. There are certain outlays which the government must pay at a certain time or it will be deemed 'in default'. These are the interest payments on the bonds it issues. Other outlays, like Medicare payments to doctors for care already rendered, if not paid 'on time' will not be considered a government 'default', but rather a delay. The federal government not funding a museum, although very worrisome for the museum, would not be considered a 'default'. Laying off or furloughing workers would also not be a 'default'. Basically not allowing the feds to keep spending more money than it is taking in just forces the tough decisions that the democratic leadership would never make if not forced to.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1296
  • Posts: 21191
July 15th, 2011 at 11:58:06 AM permalink
I agree with SOOPOO, but still voted "yes." If the government can't borrow more money then spending at the current rate will exceed tax revenue. However, as SOOPOO said, that doesn't mean it can't pay all its debts. It could still pay most of them. In the short term it could cut non-essential spending. However, eventually, it would not be able to cover in full obligations like Social Security and interest payments. That is why I voted "yes." Had the question been phrased as meeting its obligations on Aug 2, I would have voted "no."

By the way, I think this crisis illustrates that the so-called Social Security trust funds do not exist. Otherwise we could borrow from them for at least a short-term solution.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 298
  • Posts: 8215
July 15th, 2011 at 12:06:22 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

By the way, I think this crisis illustrates that the so-called Social Security trust funds do not exist. Otherwise we could borrow from them for at least a short-term solution.



If they existed, Obama could not say he wasn't sure SS checks are going out. Of course they would, if there was the money in these funds.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
guido111
guido111
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 707
July 15th, 2011 at 12:07:18 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

By the way, I think this crisis illustrates that the so-called Social Security trust funds do not exist. Otherwise we could borrow from them for at least a short-term solution.

An excellent truthful SS article HERE
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/69

Don't get me started on SS, I'm 61 y/o.

On PAPER, SS looks good, but the US Gov INVESTS that money in US Bonds. What does that mean???

They have already SPENT ALL that money and now owes it back! There are only IOUs in that trust fund as well as 10 or more other trust funds.

problem is, They use one credit card to pay another, that pays another, that pays another etc.!

They think $$$ grows on trees, and in a way it does since it is printed on PAPER!
wrongway
wrongway
Joined: May 16, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 101
July 15th, 2011 at 12:57:23 PM permalink
My wife and I decided two years ago to not ever borrow any more money. (Lowered our debt limit) Guess what? All of our bills get paid every month! Gov't should not be any different. But getting politicians to say "Sorry we can't afford it...." LOL not gonna happen.
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
July 15th, 2011 at 12:58:46 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

By the way, I think this crisis illustrates that the so-called Social Security trust funds do not exist. Otherwise we could borrow from them for at least a short-term solution.



I don't think the crisis will have anything to do with paying immediate debts, the crisis will come in terms of other countries, particularly China, acquiring bonds for their foreign exchange. There will be a shift to other currencies. The exact composition of each countries FOREX is a state secret, but in aggregate some of it is identified.

Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER)
$5,305,526 World allocated foreign exchange in US$ millions
$3,219,964 US dollars
$1,409,099 Euros
$..218,365 pounds Sterling
$..201,976 Japanese Yen
$.....5,649 Swiss francs
$..250,472 Other currencies

But the government will not pay some debts in order to create an emergency situation. It's like closing the National Parks when a budget agreement can't be reached. How else do you get the middle class to feel some pain from day one, without actually endangering the lives of people.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 162
  • Posts: 9295
July 15th, 2011 at 1:03:43 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Other outlays, like Medicare payments to doctors for care already rendered, if not paid 'on time' will not be considered a government 'default', but rather a delay.



Aren't delays already factored into the system because of the bulk of claims? If a partial government shutdown further erodes the payment process, the system will simply back up with unpaid claims with others piling on top. Since the government will only eventually reemploy the same number of processors, it will likely be twice as much work that will take 2/3s longer as they are un-incentivized government paid paper pushers.

Well, I don't know, I'm just trying to spread alarm.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 15th, 2011 at 1:28:38 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Not immediately. There are certain outlays which the government must pay at a certain time or it will be deemed 'in default'. These are the interest payments on the bonds it issues. Other outlays, like Medicare payments to doctors for care already rendered, if not paid 'on time' will not be considered a government 'default', but rather a delay. The federal government not funding a museum, although very worrisome for the museum, would not be considered a 'default'. Laying off or furloughing workers would also not be a 'default'. Basically not allowing the feds to keep spending more money than it is taking in just forces the tough decisions that the democratic leadership would never make if not forced to.



Removal "democratic" from this statement and it makes sense... the sort of tough decisions will be tough decision for either stripe of government (though I would suspect the knife to much sharper under a Republican leadership to cut deep into certain areas very easily, but never make a tough decision to raise taxes).

I find the current impasse amusing (it's not my country, I don't live there....) as both sides seem to have a reasonable set of changes to make, but neither will mix in each other's ideas (reducing tax breaks AND cutting spending would appear to me to be the way forward).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829

  • Jump to: