turbo said:Attacking SS is irresponsible and potentially life-threatening to many seniors. SS is solvent for at least the next 25 years, and it can be made self-sustaining indefinitely by merely lifting the the cap on earnings so that higher wage earners pay a little more. If Congress would do that SOON, the increase could be minimized, since the Treasury bonds pay interest. If Congress wants to wait until SS is in real trouble before acting, then the fix could be painful. We desperately need some adults in DC!
After observing the debate and the positions taken by the various parties I would say that i) neither this Senate or this President will agree to any additional cuts whatsoever absent the force of some kind of partial or total shut off of funds; there will be no cuts absent those conditions. Indeed, in his speech today just prior the debt limit vote the Senate leader Reed inexplicably called for *more* highway funding. ii) There are no hard revenue proposals from any party that would dent the deficit. iii) It was not clear to me at all that raising the debt limit *had* to be done right away with current revenues. Perhaps so, but I haven't seen the case made, and it has to be very good case given i) and ii). What or how did you observe differently?Jimmy Snyder said:I noticed during the debate that the reasons for rejecting were problems that do not need to be fixed within the next few hours. For instance reduced spending is extremely important, but we can fix that next week. Raising revenues can be done during September. However, raising the debt limit had to be done right away. Anyone voting against that has, by definition, their priorities in the wrong order.
Please back up your assertion that interest-bearing Treasury bills are "worthless". That's the kind of foolish talk that the tea-party has been tossing around.WhoWee said:Spending the Social Security funds and leaving worthless paper behind isn't irresponsible? We need to quit making promises that we can't keep and expanding eligibility at the expense of the intended beneficiaries- IMO.
Then the debt limit doesn't work as intended. Let's get rid of it.mheslep said:After observing the debate and the positions taken by the various parties I would say that i) neither this Senate or this President will agree to any additional cuts whatsoever absent the force of some kind of partial or total shut off of funds; there will be no cuts absent those conditions. Indeed, in his speech today just prior the debt limit vote the Senate leader Reed inexplicably called for *more* highway funding. ii) There are no hard revenue proposals from any party that would dent the deficit.
It had to be done right away because S&P said they would lower the US credit rating otherwise. In brinkmanship, the idea is to stop before you careen off the cliff. When you do, there will alway be someone who says "Why did you stop? We still had time." If that is your point, then you are correct, there were still a few hours left.mheslep said:iii) It was not clear to me at all that raising the debt limit *had* to be done right away with current revenues. Perhaps so, but I haven't seen the case made, and it has to be very good case given i) and ii). What or how did you observe differently?
turbo said:Please back up your assertion that interest-bearing Treasury bills are "worthless". That's the kind of foolish talk that the tea-party has been tossing around.
Possibly so.Jimmy Snyder said:Then the debt limit doesn't work as intended. Let's get rid of it.
Which the President could have easily forestalled by stating categorically the US has ample revenue to pay the debt interest and will do so in any event. Some senators proposed legislation to that effect. Also S&P made several statements, including that http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUnitedStatesofAmerica_AAAA_7_14_11.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243932109521&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8" , and for that case no Presidential statement of purpose alone is going to avoid such a downgrade.It had to be done right away because S&P said they would lower the US credit rating otherwise.
Yeah I got it. I'm in disagreement with you about what constitutes the cliff.In brinkmanship, the idea is to stop before you careen off the cliff...
You're dodging the question. Are treasury bonds "worthless"? If so, why do investors buy them as they diversify their holdings?WhoWee said:Did the President tell the country (last week) he didn't know if beneficiaries would receive their checks tomorrow? Did Dodd-Frank anticipate a credit downgrade of US debt? What is the plan to re-pay Social Security funds in the "out years" when cash flows out is greater than cash flows in? Last, has Quantitative Easing increased the value of US Treasuries in the long term?
We have over $15Trillion in debt authorized with a plan to exceed $20Trillion (with the "cuts") - what additional information do you need?
Because, y'know, we are just recovering from waging years of total war in the wake of a great depression.Ivan Seeking said:If you want the good ole days, like the 50s and 60s, then you are asking for a 91% top marginal tax rate.
turbo said:You're dodging the question. Are treasury bonds "worthless"? If so, why do investors buy them as they diversify their holdings?
You have avoided the question, and are parroting the claim by the right that the SS trust is "worthless IOUs", which is ridiculous. Supporting that claim with unsupported hypotheticals re: default does not make the "worthless IOUs" claim true. If it were true, then all the people that use T-bills to diversify their holdings are idiots and only the tea-partiers and radical right are smart. I don't buy that. Nobody should.WhoWee said:I haven't avoided the question - the answer is complex.
turbo said:You have avoided the question, and are parroting the claim by the right that the SS trust is "worthless IOUs", which is ridiculous. Supporting that claim with unsupported hypotheticals re: default does not make the "worthless IOUs" claim true. If it were true, then all the people that use T-bills to diversify their holdings are idiots and only the tea-partiers and radical right are smart. I don't buy that. Nobody should.
would have had no effect on the 2005 proposed social security privatization/reform. [my strike]turbo said:... I for one am really glad that the GOP never managed to privatize SS. The [STRIKE]Bush [/STRIKE]recession