This Whole Debt Limit Thing

[BeAChooser]

mandatory programs

Who made them mandatory? The same folks who can unmake them mandatory?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Who made them mandatory? The same folks who can unmake them mandatory?

Actually, if the Gov't approves it in the budget, it's mandatory until actual cuts are made.

When discussing the annual budget, mandatory vs discretionary applies. Once the budget is approved/accepted/passed, it becomes law and the funding contained therein must be provided unless and until that budget is amended (note this does not preclude cost savings measures or projects coming in under budget. Only requires that the money outlaid for those projects be available).

 

[BeAChooser]

I do believe they fall under the designation of "Common Defense" and "General Welfare".

"Common Defense"? Ironic considering Obama is saying we should cut defense to keep food stamps. And will there be any such thing as "General Welfare" when the country has gone broke trying to pay for the growing burden of welfare programs proposed by democrats ... programs that have run amuck yet failed time and time again to accomplish their stated goals? No, we will end up like the USSR did, I'm afraid.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Who made them mandatory? The same folks who can unmake them mandatory?

Actually, if the Gov't approves it in the budget, it's mandatory until actual cuts are made.

Non-sequitur.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Non-sequitur.

Ok.

Try this on:

You claim that they're not obligations.
You're proven wrong.
You then non-sequitor of your own to "well, these people can un-obligate them"
I agree that they're obligations until the budget is amended.
You accuse me of non-sequitor.

Congrats. You win the internet. I think. Or something.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=579217&p=1

Armageddon On Or After Aug. 2 Not Very Likely

… snip …

If the U.S. government misses interest payments on public debt soon after Aug. 2, rating agencies will downgrade U.S. treasuries, prompting investors to dump those securities and sell dollars en masse.

Such a market reaction would increase U.S. and world interest rates, decimate investment spending and trigger an inflationary spiral as the Fed is forced to monetize U.S. debt.

But given the high likelihood of such an adverse market reaction to a debt default, would the Obama administration fail to make debt-service payments a top priority after Aug. 2?

The only way I could see that happen is if Obama WANTED all the bad things that would result to happen. Because the money is clearly there to continue servicing the debt.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

"Common Defense"? Ironic considering Obama is saying we should cut defense to keep food stamps. And will there be any such thing as "General Welfare" when the country has gone broke trying to pay for the growing burden of welfare programs proposed by democrats ... programs that have run amuck yet failed time and time again to accomplish their stated goals? No, we will end up like the USSR did, I'm afraid.

Could you be so kind as to show me where in the Constitution (or anywhere for that matter) "Provide for the Common Defense" is to be interpreted as "spend as much money as possible on defense programs, regardless of outcome or need. Oh, and that money's not allowed to be cut, ever"?

The country has gone broke trying to pay for unfunded military expenditures and tax cuts for the wealthy. Hardly because of "General Welfare" outlays. But, hey, what's a few details between friends

 

[BobTheDonkey]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=579217&p=1



The only way I could see that happen is if Obama WANTED all the bad things that would result to happen. Because the money is clearly there to continue servicing the debt.

If only the servicing of the debt were the only obligation that must be paid.

 

[Bri]

The only way I could see that happen is if Obama WANTED all the bad things that would result to happen. Because the money is clearly there to continue servicing the debt.

Again, bad things would happen if we default on any of our obligations. Yes, we could prioritize and pay interest on our debt as well as some other obligations, but we would very likely have to default on others.

Even if Congress could quickly make mandatory spending un-mandatory and cut spending on any program, in order to avoid default it would have to immediately cut 40% of all spending, including military. Without cutting the military, it would have to immediately cut 70% of all other spending to avoid default. Do you think that's likely to happen?

Realistically, if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the United States would very likely default and our credit rating would be lowered. That's what "debt ceiling default crisis" refers to.

-Bri

 

[BeAChooser]

The country has gone broke trying to pay for unfunded military expenditures

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/03/28...centage-of-gdp-well-below-historical-average/

Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Well Below Historical Average

... snip ...

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/defense-spending-and-gdp.gif

According to that, defense spending has averaged about 5.5% of GDP the last 45 years and is now below that average. And for that spending we have not only remained mostly safe in a very dangerous world filled with committed opponents, we've gained technology that has marketedly improved our lives and economy.

In comparison, spending on social programs (federal, state and local combined) is now over 16% of GDP in the US: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2p-McAzz12w/TdcJwAC1-KI/AAAAAAAAAgg/EBBdDPX-rxE/s1600/Slide1.JPG . Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medical alone, which have become more and more synonomous with welfare, is now over 10% of GDP and growing rapidly. If you include private spending, 25% of US GDP is devoted to social expenditures. And what have we gotten for all that money for all those years? Have ANY of the social ills those programs claimed they'd cure really been fixed? No. And what technological benefit has resulted? Can you think of anything? Hmmmmmm?

So once again we learn you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[tyr_13]

In comparison, spending on social programs (federal, state and local combined) is now over 16% of GDP in the US: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2p-McAzz12w/TdcJwAC1-KI/AAAAAAAAAgg/EBBdDPX-rxE/s1600/Slide1.JPG . Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medical alone, which have become more and more synonomous with welfare, is now over 10% of GDP and growing rapidly. If you include private spending, 25% of US GDP is devoted to social expenditures. And what have we gotten for all that money for all those years? Have ANY of the social ills those programs claimed they'd cure really been fixed? No. And what technological benefit has resulted? Can you think of anything? Hmmmmmm?

So once again we learn you don't know what you are talking about.

Of course, which is why violent crime is at historic highs for example. Oh wait, it isn't? So more people must be starving now than in the past right? Oh, no, they aren't? Well at least we haven't got any new technology that we aren't using right freaking now to communicate. Oh, that's wrong too!

Seriously, does that drivel you posted even fool you?

 

[BeAChooser]

Of course, which is why violent crime is at historic highs for example. Oh wait, it isn't?

If you look at Figure 1 in this report: http://faculty.unlv.edu/mccorkle/Declining Violent Crime Rates in 90s.pdf, you will see that prior to the start of the War On Poverty in 1964, the murder rate in the US was relatively low. And you will see that after the WOP began, the murder rate immediately started rapidly rising. By the early 70's it had doubled. In fact, there is a direct correlation between the ramping up of WOP spending between 1964 and the early 70's, and the rise in the murder rate. Likewise, Figure 1 shows that robbery rates were relatively low prior to 1964. And again you can see a dramatic rise in the robbery rate (a quadrupling) and it correlates with the period when WOP spending grew most dramatically. So are you certain that welfare spending didn't in fact lead to the high murder rates?

And as further evidence that there might be a correlation between higher violent crime and higher social spending, note that the high murder rates persisted until the early 90's, when welfare spending was signicantly cut thanks to a Republican Congress and when the economy exploded due to lower taxes and technology first developed by … defense contractors.

And maybe there's something else going on that you haven't considered? Now you'd think that the most liberal cities in the US would be the most "giving" to the poor and needy. In which case, you'd expect, if what you are claiming is true, that the crime rate in the most liberal cities would be the lowest in the nation. But ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2750238/posts

Crime Rates in Liberal and Conservative Cities Compared


… snip …

We agreed to compare just the top five cities in each category … snip … I am listing the top 5 cities in each category followed by the (total crime rate, violent crime rate, property crime rate). A score of 100.00 is exactly the national average. … snip …

Most Liberal

1. Detroit, Michigan (445.47, 503.51, 310.04)
2. Gary, Indiana (404.09, 490.36, 202.79
3. Berkeley, California (159.6, 135.67, 215.43)
4. Washington, DC (283.93, 325.02, 188.06)
5. Oakland, California (382.01, 420.48, 292.24)


Most Conservative


1. Provo, Utah (49.9, 43.92, 63.86)
2. Lubbock, Texas (159.19, 153.1, 173.41)
3. Abiline, Texas (163.21, 178.73, 127.01)
4. Hileah, Florida (99.13, 81.3, 140.73)
5. Plano, Texas (53.46, 40.56, 83.54)

that doesn't appear to be true.

So more people must be starving now than in the past right? Oh, no, they aren't?

Then why are more people on food stanps in the US than since records were first kept in 1969? Here is a chart that shows that statistic over the past 30 years.

http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/snap.jpg

As you can see, all that welfare spending during that time didn't seem to reduce the the percent of the population who were recipients of food stamps. The percentage was about the same in 2006 as it was in 1980. It was even higher than in 1994 than it was in 1980. So all the TRILLIONS of dollars in welfare that was spent in that timeframe doesn't appear to have even started to solve the underlying problem. It was wasted.

Well at least we haven't got any new technology that we aren't using right freaking now to communicate. Oh, that's wrong too!

I didn't say we don't enjoy new technology. What I said is that it's mostly the result of defense related technology development. The Internet was a defense program (ever hear of ARPAnet?). The first modern computer was the result of defense spending. The first integrated circuit came out of a defense program. So did the first transistor. So our ability to "freaking" communicate with each other did NOT result from spending on welfare or social security or medicare or medical. But from defense spending.

Now what was that you were saying about drivel and fools?

And by the way, here's another chart comparing welfare and defense outlays (from http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-size-and-scope-of-means-tested-welfare-spending ):

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/18F8675C9F2089842452D5FE17DB4701.gif?w=370&as=1

It doesn't quite paint the picture the BTD tried to paint.

 

[tyr_13]

If you look at Figure 1 in this report: http://faculty.unlv.edu/mccorkle/Declining Violent Crime Rates in 90s.pdf, you will see that prior to the start of the War On Poverty in 1964, the murder rate in the US was relatively low. And you will see that after the WOP began, the murder rate immediately started rapidly rising. By the early 70's it had doubled. In fact, there is a direct correlation between the ramping up of WOP spending between 1964 and the early 70's, and the rise in the murder rate. Likewise, Figure 1 shows that robbery rates were relatively low prior to 1964. And again you can see a dramatic rise in the robbery rate (a quadrupling) and it correlates with the period when WOP spending grew most dramatically. So are you certain that welfare spending didn't in fact lead to the high murder rates?

Yes, I'm sure. Want to know what else happened demographically during that time period? Of course not, who needs conflicting data when you can be ideologically pure. No need to be reminded about the Great Depression (when murder rates were much higher) for just one example.

And as further evidence that there might be a correlation between higher violent crime and higher social spending, note that the high murder rates persisted until the early 90's, when welfare spending was signicantly cut thanks to a Republican Congress and when the economy exploded due to lower taxes and technology first developed by … defense contractors.

So wait, which are you crediting today? It gets confusing following your rotating 'blame and credit' talking points. Do you have a flow chart?

And maybe there's something else going on that you haven't considered? Now you'd think that the most liberal cities in the US would be the most "giving" to the poor and needy. In which case, you'd expect, if what you are claiming is true, that the crime rate in the most liberal cities would be the lowest in the nation. But ...

From freerepublic AND irrelevant to the topic. Very nice.

Then why are more people on food stanps in the US than since records were first kept in 1969? Here is a chart that shows that statistic over the past 30 years.

Yeah, just some more people kept from starving. And here I thought you were going to disagree with me.

As you can see, all that welfare spending during that time didn't seem to reduce the the percent of the population who were recipients of food stamps. The percentage was about the same in 2006 as it was in 1980. It was even higher than in 1994 than it was in 1980. So all the TRILLIONS of dollars in welfare that was spent in that timeframe doesn't appear to have even started to solve the underlying problem. It was wasted.

No, it stopped them from going hungry. What did you think it was supposed to do? Food stamps get food, they don't get you a job. I'm glad you're finally out as stating that feeding people is a waste of money though.

I didn't say we don't enjoy new technology. What I said is that it's mostly the result of defense related technology development. The Internet was a defense program (ever hear of ARPAnet?). The first modern computer was the result of defense spending. The first integrated circuit came out of a defense program. So did the first transistor. So our ability to "freaking" communicate with each other did NOT result from spending on welfare or social security or medicare or medical. But from defense spending.

Now what was that you were saying about drivel and fools?

Yes, drivel and foolishness indeed. Started by defense spending. Developed by other means and through other grants, like to link up the colleges that did result in the internet as well, and many times without government spending. That you want welfare spending to be about technology is the problem in the first place. And yes, I noticed that you've shifted the goal from 'social spending' to 'social security and medicare'.

And by the way, here's another chart comparing welfare and defense outlays (from http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-size-and-scope-of-means-tested-welfare-spending ):

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/18F8675C9F2089842452D5FE17DB4701.gif?w=370&as=1

It doesn't quite paint the picture the BTD tried to paint.

Really, the heritage foundation disagrees? Quell surprise. You've contributed nothing but have confirmed that yes, you do believe your own drivel.

 

[USEagle13]

Come on default!!!!!! Default FTW!

 

[lomiller]

Who made them mandatory? The same folks who can unmake them mandatory?

If Republicans in congress are in favor of eliminating Social Security and Medicare they should just come out and say it during an election campaign.

 

[USEagle13]

If Democrats in congress are in favor of mooching off of hardworking people for the rest of their life while they sit on their butts eating bon bons and doritos then they should just come out and say it during an election campaign.

I fixed it for you.

 

[Puppycow]

http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Another poll showing that the GOP is losing the public on this.

64% want to see tax increases as part of a deal to cut the budget deficit, whereas only 34% want spending cuts only.

61% think it would cause "major problems" or "a crisis" if the the debt ceiling is not raised.

52% think that Obama has acted responsibly but only 33% think the GOP has.

76% favor raising taxes on businesses that own private jets.

73% favor raising taxes on people making more than $250 K.

77% oppose cutting Medicaid.

84% oppose cutting Social Security.

87% oppose cutting Medicare.

 

[Kestrel]

http://pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Another poll showing that the GOP is losing the public on this.

64% want to see tax increases as part of a deal to cut the budget deficit, whereas only 34% want spending cuts only.

61% think it would cause "major problems" or "a crisis" if the the debt ceiling is not raised.

52% think that Obama has acted responsibly but only 33% think the GOP has.

76% favor raising taxes on businesses that own private jets.

73% favor raising taxes on people making more than $250 K.

77% oppose cutting Medicaid.

84% oppose cutting Social Security.

87% oppose cutting Medicare.

They polled the wrong people. The GOP doesn't give a damn about most Americans. They are only interested in what the Forbes 400 think.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd much prefer to see the top income tax rates stay where they are and remove the tax breaks... Not sure why the upper tax bracket had to be reduced to increase taxes for everyone...

I suspect that's because Republicans were involved in the negotiations (or at least members of the Gang of 6 were thinking of what trade-off would get Republicans opposed to ANY increase in revenues to accept the deal).

It's the ugly art of compromise.

 

[Dymanic]

They polled the wrong people. The GOP doesn't give a damn about most Americans. They are only interested in what the Forbes 400 think.

Evidently, it's not quite that simple:

"A sprawling coalition of Wall Street and Main Street business leaders sent an unmistakable message to lawmakers Tuesday: Enough squabbling. Get the debt ceiling raised."

"Many of the House GOP freshmen most opposed to a compromise were swept into office with the help of financial support from groups behind the letter."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-and-deficit/2011/07/12/gIQAiVGpAI_story.html