News Are we there yet? YES - US Debt Limit is Reached

[CAC1001]

Once again... 20 carriers. Do we really need THAT many?

Yes.

No, carriers are not to protect us from other carriers, but if nobody else in the world feels the need to have even 5 carriers to our 20, then I think we as a nation need to look at what we were/are thinking when it comes to that many carriers.

Plenty of other nations probably feel the need to have more carriers, they just don't have the money. Carriers are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Carriers allow force projection, keeping the sea lanes open, and also allow the U.S. to send aid to other countries in need.

 

[CAC1001]

When did you attend college? Keep in mind that tuition has been growing substantially faster than inflation for quite awhile now. It was much easier to work your way through college a few decades ago than now.

I worked a full time job while in college, and still graduated with a ton of debt (all federally subsidized). State college tuitions are likely to grow rapidly as we further reduce funding to them.

There is a lot of belief now that higher education is in a bubble in the same way housing was.

 

[CAC1001]

Taking forces out of Germany might be a bad idea if Russia becomes resurgent in the future. And taking them out of Japan might be a bad idea if/when China becomes resurgent. Also as pointed out, Germany and Japan right now are not allowed to have offensive militaries.

South Korea needs U.S. forces there. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union pushed to have U.S. forces removed from Europe at the time because it wanted to attack the Western European nations and invade them. The problem with U.S. forces being there was that attacking the Western European nations meant an attack on the United States as well, which would have drawn the U.S. directly into a conflict with the Soviets, something they didn't want. With no U.S. forces present, they could have attacked the Western European nations without attacking America.

South Korea faces a similar situation: without U.S. forces, the North could attack as it pleased. But with thousands of U.S. troops there, attacking South Korea will mean a direct attack on American forces.

 

[Jack21222]

Taking forces out of Germany might be a bad idea if Russia becomes resurgent in the future. And taking them out of Japan might be a bad idea if/when China becomes resurgent.

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

I don't think you'd like it if I kept a gun pointed at you "just in case" you one day want to do something aggressive, why should Russia and China feel any different?

 

[CAC1001]

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

Because Britain is a liberal democracy and one of our prime allies. Russia is not a liberal democracy and not an ally and has been trying multiple times over the past decade to bully its former Eastern bloc Soviet satellite countries. To say Russia will never become resurgent I think is too risky a way of looking at it. Some of those nations are our allies now, and Russia doesn't like that. They will be a lot more inclined to bully them with no U.S. presence in the region.

I don't think you'd like it if I kept a gun pointed at you "just in case" you one day want to do something aggressive, why should Russia and China feel any different?

Because Russia and China aren't liberal democracies, they have a history of human rights violations, and both are power hungry. No, not set on global domination, but China wants to become the prime power in Asia (displacing the U.S. there) and has made claims over territories that other nations dispute, such as South Korea and Japan. Russia wants to control its old satellite nations, and it also can bully Europe overall to a degree because of the oil and so forth it provides.

 

[BobG]

Taking forces out of Germany might be a bad idea if Russia becomes resurgent in the future. And taking them out of Japan might be a bad idea if/when China becomes resurgent. Also as pointed out, Germany and Japan right now are not allowed to have offensive militaries.

South Korea needs U.S. forces there. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union pushed to have U.S. forces removed from Europe at the time because it wanted to attack the Western European nations and invade them. The problem with U.S. forces being there was that attacking the Western European nations meant an attack on the United States as well, which would have drawn the U.S. directly into a conflict with the Soviets, something they didn't want. With no U.S. forces present, they could have attacked the Western European nations without attacking America.

South Korea faces a similar situation: without U.S. forces, the North could attack as it pleased. But with thousands of U.S. troops there, attacking South Korea will mean a direct attack on American forces.

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

I don't think you'd like it if I kept a gun pointed at you "just in case" you one day want to do something aggressive, why should Russia and China feel any different?

Saying Russia could become militarily resurgent again might be a cold war fantasy, since the idea of a Soviet bloc and so many buffer states was an emotional holdover from the trauma of World War II (after averaging about 10,000 dead per day for the duration of the war, there was a commitment to making sure another war was never fought on Russian territory). The old guard gets replaced by new leaders that only read about World War II in the history books and that don't see much chance of being invaded by some European power (or American power). Their military objectives are now much more grounded in real world needs than traumatic memories.

China, on the other hand, is a completely different story. They are experiencing an economic surge, that requires more foreign fuel, which requires a military to ensure that China has access to the fuel it needs. China's foreign policy goals could conflict with US foreign policy goals even if China has no deep-seated animosity towards the US. In fact, both countries pursuing the same oil could create the animosity that's currently lacking.

China's forces have been structured almost entirely for defense of their territory, but I would expect them to slowly (or quickly) transition towards developing the capability to support worldwide operations as their dependence on foreign oil increases.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Yes.



Plenty of other nations probably feel the need to have more carriers, they just don't have the money. Carriers are expensive to build and expensive to maintain. Carriers allow force projection, keeping the sea lanes open, and also allow the U.S. to send aid to other countries in need.

Yes, they allow force projection, the same way our foreign bases do, or our long-range aircraft (bombers, para-jumper planes, fighters, re-fuelers, etc).

Planes might not keep shipping lanes open, but I'm pretty sure Destroyers and Cruisers do just as good of a job against our current threats to shipping lanes (Somali pirates... really?) as a Carrier would. In fact, a carrier at this point is probably less effective at keeping shipping lanes open than a Destroyer.

Carriers aren't really about shipping lanes... they are about being able to send fighters quickly and easily into other nations around the world. We could do that with one of the many bases that we are required - by treaty - to keep (Germany, Japan, etc).

I'm not arguing for getting rid of every single one of our 20 carrier task-forces. I am talking about getting rid of a few and finding better -- and more economic ways of accomplishing the same task, especially since currently there is little to no threat to our shipping lanes currently, and in the foreseeable future I doubt there'd be a large enough threat to our shipping lanes or a need to project power so badly that we need 20 carriers as opposed to say... 16. This could be easily accomplished without a large reduction in power since we could dry-dock 4 of them, keeping them maintained enough so that, if needed, we could pull them out in less than a month. If we did that we'd save money by not having to fuel them or have as much work done on them, and we'd still have the same amount of physical power if such a time comes where we'd need all 20 to be floating around on the ocean.

 

[CAC1001]

Saying Russia could become militarily resurgent again might be a cold war fantasy, since the idea of a Soviet bloc and so many buffer states was an emotional holdover from the trauma of World War II (after averaging about 10,000 dead per day for the duration of the war, there was a commitment to making sure another war was never fought on Russian territory). The old guard gets replaced by new leaders that only read about World War II in the history books and that don't see much chance of being invaded by some European power (or American power). Their military objectives are now much more grounded in real world needs than traumatic memories.

You make a good point, but at the same time with the likes of Putin in control of the country, I think that he wants to recreate the old Soviet empire to some degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where does the number 20 come from? I count 1 Enterprise-class and 10 Nimitz-classes. (And 3 Fords under construction) Are you counting LHA's?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Where does the number 20 come from? I count 1 Enterprise-class and 10 Nimitz-classes. (And 3 Fords under construction) Are you counting LHA's?

9 LHD-1 Wasp Class. They are amphibious vessels, carrying LCAC hovercraft and marine/naval helicopters, but they also carry AV-8B Harrier Jump Jet. Wouldn't have added them in, except they can carry quite a few Harriers (up to 20 in their recent deployments, with other helicopters mixed in, I assume for good measure since they are amphibiously-oriented, and helicopters would be a bit better at close support for the deployed - or soon to be deployed - troops).

They are an improved version of the LHAs.

I count them among carriers since they do carry aircraft and helicopters, and most of the rest of the world's aircraft carriers serve basically the same function (Harriers/helicopters).

 

[WhoWee]

Count me convinced - no more carriers - we'll just launch US based missiles to the location of the problem - if that's preferred?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Count me convinced - no more carriers - we'll just launch US based missiles to the location of the problem - if that's preferred?

Not quite what I was going for, and that probably wouldn't be preferable. There is still a use for carriers and large amphibious assault carriers (that also have planes/helis on them).

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's right, they are LHD's now. Gator Navy keeps coming with new designations. (LPH, LHA, LHD - guess the next one in the series)

But there is a huge difference in capabilities between a CVN and an LHD. And a corresponding difference in cost, so it's really not right to lump them together. But the salient point remains - the ability to project non-nuclear power is expensive.

 

[russ_watters]

Once again... 20 carriers. Do we really need THAT many? Could we make do with 19, or 18.. maybe even 15?

My bet is yes, we could.

No, carriers are not to protect us from other carriers, but if nobody else in the world feels the need to have even 5 carriers to our 20, then I think we as a nation need to look at what we were/are thinking when it comes to that many carriers.

You can't really compare our military to any other in the world. Our military is The military that is counted on by all countries to be the World's Policeman. Our role is simply much, much bigger than that of any other country. Sure, we could unilaterally decide to move away from that role, but I doubt other countries would step-up to get back into the role they have decided they don't want, as they have for years been reducing their militaries because they know and accept us in that role. The world would be much less safe if we decided to test if they will pick up the slack. If Indonesia has another tsunami, where else are you going to get 50 helicopters on 3-days notice?

Also, 20 carriers isn't as many as it sounds. A typical navy ship is deployed 1/3 of the time, though carriers tend to be more. So most we have something like 7-10 of these ships deployed at anyone time. And the ocean is a big place. Carriers are fast, but it still takes a week+ to get a carrier from Norfolk to the Med.

 

[russ_watters]

That's right, they are LHD's now. Gator Navy keeps coming with new designations. (LPH, LHA, LHD - guess the next one in the series)

But there is a huge difference in capabilities between a CVN and an LHD.

Yes: The obvious difference being a lack of fixed-wing aircraft except for Harriers! That makes for a pretty limited range of power projection.

 

[Vanadium 50]

While the Harrier is a wonderful aircraft, you're not going to achieve air superiority with 6 of them. Or even 20 of them.

I would also argue that the USN is stretched thin compared to what it is expected to do. There are three wars going on. Plus piracy. Plus keeping an eye on North Korea and arguably China. Plus the SSBN deterrent force. With a fleet that has shrunk so much there are now more admirals than ships. (almost) There needs to be an adjustment in either resources or expectations.

What's most needed is also the least sexy. It needs something to take on the ocean escort role, and it needs more and faster AO's/AOE's.

 

[Ryumast3r]

That's right, they are LHD's now. Gator Navy keeps coming with new designations. (LPH, LHA, LHD - guess the next one in the series)

But there is a huge difference in capabilities between a CVN and an LHD. And a corresponding difference in cost, so it's really not right to lump them together. But the salient point remains - the ability to project non-nuclear power is expensive.

It is very expensive. You (at least I think it was you anyway) said that we were building 3 new Fords correct?

If that's the case, we could dry-dock the 1 non-LHD small carrier (can't remember it's classification right now), and either halt production on the Ford's or replace three Nimitz-class (and maybe dry-dock a fourth, since the Ford's are much better with missiles/planes than the Nimitz's are). With that done, put a temporary halt on production of carriers/large sea vessels like the CVNs until we solve, or partially solve this debt issue.

While the Harrier is a wonderful aircraft, you're not going to achieve air superiority with 6 of them. Or even 20 of them.

I would also argue that the USN is stretched thin compared to what it is expected to do. There are three wars going on. Plus piracy. Plus keeping an eye on North Korea and arguably China. Plus the SSBN deterrent force. With a fleet that has shrunk so much there are now more admirals than ships. (almost) There needs to be an adjustment in either resources or expectations.

What's most needed is also the least sexy. It needs something to take on the ocean escort role, and it needs more and faster AO's/AOE's.

I know you can't cut aircraft carriers willy-nilly, but I was saying cut some of the LHDs, not the CVNs. The CVNs are too big to really cut/dry-dock until we have some replacement (Ford's), or some way to substitute their ability to be out and about. I was saying that since the LHDs are expensive to maintain (they are large ships), and most of their functionality can be replaced with other craft (helicopters -> almost any surface ship, harriers -> carriers, landing craft -> many other surface ships), and since they aren't functionally needed all around the globe all the time (they are really only used for starting a medium operation, most others involve ground-based forces, or helicopters, or planes, or using a combination of all forces available).

There is no easy solution, but the military has to get smarter, just like every other piece of the government.

 

[AlephZero]

What kind of weird cold war fantasy are you trying to live out? Neither Russia nor China show any signs of hostility towards the US. Yet you think it's a good idea to keep a gun trained on them "just in case." While we're at it, why don't we put a base in France, just in case Great Britain tries to subjugate us again?

Actually, you already have several bases in the UK, so you probably don't need another one in France.

As for "cold war fantasies", there was an interview with Henry Kissinger in this weekend's Financial Times newspaper (UK).

His likely scenario for Afghanistan, given the current western polcies, is as leading towards "commemorating the centenary of WWI by re-enacting it".

In summary,
1 Western troops withdraw. (Kissinger recalls writing a memo to Nixon, saying "the first stage of troop withdrawal is like salted peanuts. The more you eat, the more you want.")
2 Any attempt at political negotiations by the West is made futile by troop withdrawal (the other parties know that all they have to do is sit tight for a while).
3 Afghanistan is effectively partitioned: Russian and India form a "northern alliance", and Pakistan makes an alliance with the Taliban in the south.
4 Some "minor incident" triggers a full-scale India-Pakistan war.
5 Cue re-run of 1914- choose your own selection of world powers to support either side.

Al-Quaeda? "They are the least of anybody's worries".

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is no easy solution, but the military has to get smarter, just like every other piece of the government.

One could argue that building Wasps instead of Fords is a cost-cutting measure.

My point is that the Navy is smaller than it has ever been since the 19th century. The Reagan "600-ship Navy" started from a baseline of 530. Today it's 279. In 1988, the Navy's budget was $190B in FY11 dollars. Today it's $150B. Nevertheless, it's charged with doing more than ever before: everything in 1988 + 3 wars + international piracy + taking out the odd terrorist in his Pakistani hideout.

It's reasonable to ask for the Navy to do more. It's reasonable to cut back the Navy. Hoping to do both at the same time, though, is wishful thinking.

 

[Ryumast3r]

One could argue that building Wasps instead of Fords is a cost-cutting measure.

My point is that the Navy is smaller than it has ever been since the 19th century. The Reagan "600-ship Navy" started from a baseline of 530. Today it's 279. In 1988, the Navy's budget was $190B in FY11 dollars. Today it's $150B. Nevertheless, it's charged with doing more than ever before: everything in 1988 + 3 wars + international piracy + taking out the odd terrorist in his Pakistani hideout.

It's reasonable to ask for the Navy to do more. It's reasonable to cut back the Navy. Hoping to do both at the same time, though, is wishful thinking.

Agreed on all points, but we've already started construction on the Fords (and have been for quite some time, IIRC), so destroying them and going for more Wasps would be wasting all the money we've already put into them, though, in the long term, Wasps would definitely be a cheaper solution than building a bunch more Fords (though, like others have pointed out, Wasps can only really carry Harriers and Helicopters since they are primarily landing-craft-carriers, and don't do the air-superiority job as well as a Ford would).

Also agreed on the fact that it's smaller and has a tough job. We are currently fighting three wars, though we are pulling out of one, and working on pulling out of another (Afghanistan/Iraq), and the third one (Libya) we at least have allies helping us out (helping is relative, I'd say we're still doing a grand majority of the legwork there). While piracy is a relatively large issue, it's mostly in one area of the world and we don't really need large vessels for those pirates. Instead of using destroyers or cruisers we could use smaller (but just as fast, since speed is a big part of it) ships to handle the job.

It is wishful thinking to say "do more on significantly less," but I think it's reasonable to say "do just as much as you are now, with a little less." Since every department in the Government is facing cuts, I think it's only reasonable to tell the navy that they should be looking (as they always should be) for cheaper/more efficient ways to accomplish the same goal.

 

[skippy1729]

Does this mean that we can't borrow any more money from the Chinese so we can give it to the Pakistanis so they can buy more fighter jets from China?

HOOYAH!

 

[Vanadium 50]

You bring up a good point with long-lead time items. You also say "Instead of using destroyers or cruisers we could use smaller (but just as fast, since speed is a big part of it) ships to handle the job" and that goes directly into the issue of long-lead time items. Those are frigates, and we have about 20 of them left, the newest of which is 22 years old.

Why aren't they sinking pirates? Two reasons - one is that it's viewed in Washington as a law enforcement problem, which means its the Coast Guard's responsibility and they can't project power to the Horn of Africa. The other is that the CG/DDG/FFG ships are busy providing AAW capabilities to ships that cannot achieve air superiority - like Wasps. (And indeed, the FFG's are losing AAW capability as they go into their refits)

So there is already a mismatch between what we would like to do and what we have the assets to do. A consequence of decreasing defense spending is to open that gap wider. That's not an unreasonable solution - my concern is that there are people who are arguing that decreasing defense spending will not widen that gap and may even close it.

 

[Ryumast3r]

You bring up a good point with long-lead time items. You also say "Instead of using destroyers or cruisers we could use smaller (but just as fast, since speed is a big part of it) ships to handle the job" and that goes directly into the issue of long-lead time items. Those are frigates, and we have about 20 of them left, the newest of which is 22 years old.

Why aren't they sinking pirates? Two reasons - one is that it's viewed in Washington as a law enforcement problem, which means its the Coast Guard's responsibility and they can't project power to the Horn of Africa. The other is that the CG/DDG/FFG ships are busy providing AAW capabilities to ships that cannot achieve air superiority - like Wasps. (And indeed, the FFG's are losing AAW capability as they go into their refits)

So there is already a mismatch between what we would like to do and what we have the assets to do. A consequence of decreasing defense spending is to open that gap wider. That's not an unreasonable solution - my concern is that there are people who are arguing that decreasing defense spending will not widen that gap and may even close it.

Oh definitely. Cutting money to the navy would definitely have to be short-term -- only until we find money elsewhere that can be cut/saved/trimmed -- as we do need to refit our Navy with the equipment/ships/personnel/aircraft that will last us well into the future, instead of hanging on to old technology hoping it gets us through today.

 

[amwest]

we could and possably will take our troops out of Japan without their country being invaded. They do have a military again and by some estimites a strong one.
www.cfr.org/japan/japan-its-military/p10439
Korea is a bit more tricky but SK also has a strong military and should/could defend it's self. We have bases in Guam and are building more and with a combonation of air force and Navy/Marines can project just fine in the SE asia. Plus if we need more bases in SE asia we also have the american somain islands where we could build bases. This would keep our projected power in the region and the tax dollars being spent in the US economy.
www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/marine_guam_121309/

 

[amwest]

I havn't looked into germany having a military but now being part of EU they should take care of them selves. Again our Air Force and Navy/Marines are within reach of Europe quickly enough to provide enough show of force/force in readiness. We don't need to use old WW2 stratigy with a modern military. I still have not seen/heard good evidence indicating that we need to police the world? The Kisinger interview was the closest and that was just speculation. If we do go to war with china it would hurt both countries more than help because we are so economicly ties together, the fear mongering is mainly just old "kill the commies" nonsense. Yes they do have the potential to grow into a military super power, but they havn't shown any push in that direction.

 

[Antiphon]

I think the fear mongering is more like "kill the Yankees".

Wasn't it just a few short years ago the Chinese forced a US surveillance plane down, held the crew for weeks, dismantled and stole the technology in the plane?

Sorry, the Red Chinese may have a lot of economic ties to the west but they are an enemy by their own actions, not by our declarations.

 

[amwest]

I think the fear mongering is more like "kill the Yankees".

Wasn't it just a few short years ago the Chinese forced a US surveillance plane down, held the crew for weeks, dismantled and stole the technology in the plane?

Sorry, the Red Chinese may have a lot of economic ties to the west but they are an enemy by their own actions, not by our declarations.

Enemy by their own actions, you mean because they protected their own sovergn air space and questioned spies flying over their country? Or because they collected all data they could about the technology being used to spy on them? I can't fault other countries or other peoples for wanting to protect what is theirs, or to protect their own privacy.

 

[CAC1001]

Enemy by their own actions, you mean because they protected their own sovergn air space and questioned spies flying over their country? Or because they collected all data they could about the technology being used to spy on them? I can't fault other countries or other peoples for wanting to protect what is theirs, or to protect their own privacy.

The surveillance aircraft was being messed with by two fighter planes from a Chinese squadron known for acting cowboyish, and one of the planes clipped the surveillance aircraft and went down and crashed into the water. The other Chinese pilot then requested permission to shoot down the U.S. plane, but was denied, because that would have been an act of war.

The U.S. plane had a decision to make, either fly out to sea or turn and head for China. In the old Cold War days, especially back when China was completely closed off to the West, the plane would have probably headed out to sea. The pilot decided to head for China, but the Chinese denied him permission to land. He decided to ignore it and land anyway. Along the way, the crew was throwing a lot of equipment out of the plane.

From what I understand, this kind of thing is typical with many U.S. surveillance craft where they get bullied by the fighters of the country they are watching. Planes from the Soviet Union would do it a lot too for planes spying on them, also North Korean planes. It also happens at sea. There was that U.S. Navy surveillance ship that was getting bullied by Chinese ships. The Chinese tried to snag the sonar that the ship was towing, and the U.S. ship's sailors used water hoses to spray at the Chinese sailors.

 

[amwest]

The surveillance aircraft was being messed with by two fighter planes from a Chinese squadron known for acting cowboyish, and one of the planes clipped the surveillance aircraft and went down and crashed into the water. The other Chinese pilot then requested permission to shoot down the U.S. plane, but was denied, because that would have been an act of war.

The U.S. plane had a decision to make, either fly out to sea or turn and head for China. In the old Cold War days, especially back when China was completely closed off to the West, the plane would have probably headed out to sea. The pilot decided to head for China, but the Chinese denied him permission to land. He decided to ignore it and land anyway. Along the way, the crew was throwing a lot of equipment out of the plane.

From what I understand, this kind of thing is typical with many U.S. surveillance craft where they get bullied by the fighters of the country they are watching. Planes from the Soviet Union would do it a lot too for planes spying on them, also North Korean planes. It also happens at sea. There was that U.S. Navy surveillance ship that was getting bullied by Chinese ships. The Chinese tried to snag the sonar that the ship was towing, and the U.S. ship's sailors used water hoses to spray at the Chinese sailors.

Interesting, do you have an article you can point me to with this information? I'd like to read it, i was there (in Korea) for the stand off with chinese navy over the sonar. Yeah the chinese military wing are eagoists and bullies, and arn't liked by their neighbors a lot of the time. However their comunist party is a lot like the diachotomy party system here in the states, you've got the war mongers, the isolationists, and economists, fighting among themselves. Luckily(sort of) the economist part of the comunist party is the majority right now. They want to beat the world money wise not militarily.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I'm just concerned that if the US defaults on its debt, what that will do to other economies in the world. There'd be unrest in the markets wouldn't there?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Realistically, that's just it Stevie. The U.S. government can manipulate money using various means (currently they are borrowing the pensions of government workers) to pay off it's bills and debt, but that only lasts so long (estimates are august/september IIRC). Once that runs out, well... U.S. goes into default and all sorts of bad **** happens.

Even Paul Ryan's plan needs the debt limit to be raised, and his has been, imo, the most drastic thus far. Even if we cut practically everything that can realistically be cut, we still need to raise the debt limit.

 

[Al68]

Realistically, that's just it Stevie. The U.S. government can manipulate money using various means (currently they are borrowing the pensions of government workers) to pay off it's bills and debt, but that only lasts so long (estimates are august/september IIRC). Once that runs out, well... U.S. goes into default and all sorts of bad **** happens.

That's simply not true. Default would only happen if the President prioritizes other spending ahead of servicing the debt.

Even Paul Ryan's plan needs the debt limit to be raised, and his has been, imo, the most drastic thus far. Even if we cut practically everything that can realistically be cut, we still need to raise the debt limit.

It is true that without raising the debt limit, government would have to cut spending more than the Ryan budget. Referring to that as drastic or unrealistic is just silly. How long are people going to fall for the claim that government spending can't be realistically limited to the ~19.5% of GDP it collects?

 

[ParticleGrl]

That's simply not true. Default would only happen if the President prioritizes other spending ahead of servicing the debt.

No, there are legal obligations for spending that make what gets serviced out of the president's hand (or congress's, unless they pass laws). Senator Toomey introduced a Full Faith and Credit Act to prioritize the debt ahead of other legal obligations, but it hasn't passed to the best of my knowledge.

Even if we didn't default directly on bonds, a failure to meet the government's legal obligations will almost certainly have massive repercussions.

 

[Al68]

No, there are legal obligations for spending that make what gets serviced out of the president's hand (or congress's, unless they pass laws).

Yes there are legal obligations for spending, but that doesn't make what I said untrue. The President has the legal authority, and obligation, to service the debt with or without a debt limit increase.

Senator Toomey introduced a Full Faith and Credit Act to prioritize the debt ahead of other legal obligations, but it hasn't passed to the best of my knowledge.

That law would tie the President's hands if enacted, forbidding him from defaulting on the debt, but the fact that he is not currently specifically forbidden from defaulting doesn't mean that he has to default.

And we seem to be forgetting that servicing the debt is a contractual obligation, not just a congressional appropriation. The recipients of the debt interest have a contract from the U.S. government requiring payment. Government legally owes the money, unlike most government spending.

 

[ParticleGrl]

And we seem to be forgetting that servicing the debt is a contractual obligation, not just a congressional appropriation. The recipients of the debt interest have a contract from the U.S. government requiring payment. Government legally owes the money, unlike most government spending.

Medicaid, medicare, and social security also are non-discretionary (government legally owing money), and as legally binding as bonds. The majority of government spending is a legal obligation- the law ties congresses hands, and it MUST be paid. Discretionary spending is about 1/3 or so.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government will default on at least some of its legal obligations.

 

[Al68]

Medicaid, medicare, and social security also are non-discretionary (government legally owing money), and as legally binding as bonds. The majority of government spending is a legal obligation- the law ties congresses hands, and it MUST be paid.

You are using the word "must" as if it applies to obligations that exist only by virtue of a law but not to obligations that exist by virtue of a law plus by virtue of a contractual obligation of government.

And non-discretionary does not mean "government legally owing money", it means the spending is required by current statute. That's a big difference. Congress cannot change what government contractually owes simply by passing a law, but it could (hypothetically) eliminate entitlements entirely, even SS, since recipients have no contract requiring payment.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government will default on at least some of its legal obligations.

Yes, something won't get paid, not necessarily the debt. But the word "default" doesn't (technically) make sense wrt entitlements, since there is no legal contract to default on. And again, servicing the debt is a legal obligation in the same respect as entitlements (ie via statute), in addition to being a contractual legal obligation of government, unlike entitlements.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Yes, something won't get paid, not necessarily the debt. But the word "default" doesn't (technically) make sense wrt entitlements, since there is no legal contract to default on

The "legal contract" is the law as enacted. Consider it a contract between congress and itself, or between congress and the people, or whatever you have it. There is no legal difference between the treasury debt and social security/medicare/medicaid, etc. If the law isn't changed, and social security/medicare/medicaid aren't paid the government has defaulted on its legal obligations, by definition.

And non-discretionary does not mean "government legally owing money", it means the spending is required by current statute.

If you replace statute by its synonym "law" then your statement is obviously false. Spending is required by current law = government legally owes money. Unless you have some strange notion of what legally means.

That's a big difference. Congress cannot change what government contractually owes simply by passing a law

Of course it could. Enacting new law could restructure the debt in all kinds of ways.

 

[Al68]

The "legal contract" is the law as enacted. Consider it a contract between congress and itself, or between congress and the people, or whatever you have it.

I can "consider it" anyway I want and it won't change the fact that that's not what the word "contract" means. A statute is not a contract.

There is no legal difference between the treasury debt and social security/medicare/medicaid, etc. If the law isn't changed, and social security/medicare/medicaid aren't paid the government has defaulted on its legal obligations, by definition.

Which is exactly why that's very different from the federal debt. If the debt is not honored as contracted, that's a default regardless of what laws congress passes. The debt is not government's "contract with itself", it's a real contract with real external entities.

If you replace statute by its synonym "law" then your statement is obviously false. Spending is required by current law = government legally owes money. Unless you have some strange notion of what legally means.

No, "required by law" does not equal "owed" to recipients.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor" that there is no contractual obligation for government to pay anyone any SS benefits. This has been settled law for over half a century.

SS benefits are paid, or not, at whatever amount government chooses, at the whim of government. They are not owed to anyone.