If we default-poll

archer wrote: I have to vehemently disagree with PS....I do NOT want to be taken care of by my children....I do not want to live with them or have them live with me....I value my independence and enjoy being able to take care of myself....my 93 yr old mother feels the same. SS and Medicare help us do that. I will fight anyone who tries to take away my way of life and my dignity that I worked so many years for. Its easy for some of you to wish you could foist all the seniors off onto their children so you can save a few bucks..fortunately our country recognized the contributions of seniors and rewards their years with dignity. It does not punish them with poverty and force them to live off their children or beg from strangers. Your world PrintSmith would not be a retirement I would relish.

Thank you for helping me prove my point archer. You don't want to live with your children, or have your mother live with them either, you just want the federal government to tax them, their children, and their children's children, along with the children and grandchildren of everyone else, and send you the money so that your lifestyle and wishes can be as you want them to be. The tax withheld from everyone's gross pay has more than doubled since you started working (along with the tax levied against the employers), as has an adjusted gross income subject to the tax (adjusted for inflation, in 1966 the amount subject to tax would be less than $46K instead of the current $106K). Shall we double it again so that you get what you want? Is it worth taking 10% of every dollar your children and grandchildren make, matched by their employer for a total of 20% of their wages, so that you can have what you want?

And please spare me the argument about removing the cap on earnings subject to the tax will solve the problem. We've heard that before in regards to Medicare - the program which currently steals over 45% of the money it spends from the general fund - when the Democrats used it to gain support for removing the cap on earnings subject to that tax in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

I will be happy to have my parents live with me and for me to live with my children. And my children will be glad to have me. Extended families are great.

Great.....what do we do with people who don't have children?

It was their fault for not breeding... They should have thought about people like PS in advance, and planned 60+ years ago for that situation.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: But what of the 14th Amendment, Section 4? If Congress defaults on debts by not raising the debt ceiling, will they not be in violation of the Constitution?

As noted many times previously, the government can service its debt without defaulting and without raising the debt ceiling. It can't keep all of its social promises under such a scenario, but it can service the debt on the notes it has issued and still have lots of money left over, just not as much as it wants to have.

Please go back and read the title of this thread. I am responding to the premise of this thread.

The limit currently in place does not need to be raised in order to avoid default as your response indicates. Your premise, the Congress must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid defaulting, is a flawed one. Default would be a voluntary choice if the debt limit is not raised. Not raising the debt ceiling is not a defacto default on the debt incurred. That is a misnomer - a scare tactic being employed - in an effort to misrepresent the current situation.

Congress might well be in violation of Amendment 14 Section 4 if they choose to default on the debt, but choosing to default on the debt is something separate and apart from the current debt limit. While true that raising the limit to keep the issue out of the 2012 elections would make a choice of whether to default on the debt unnecessary since it would allow the federal government to spend all the money Congress appropriated, it is not a requirement that all the money appropriated be spent as the money appropriated for the fence at the border clearly shows.

But heck, why bother to address the issue when the politicians can keep kicking the can down the road by choosing to allow themselves to spend as freely as they wish and print the money necessary to cover the bill, right? Heck, we should just encourage them to print the $14 Trillion the need to erase the debt. There wouldn't be any bad consequences then, would there?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: But what of the 14th Amendment, Section 4? If Congress defaults on debts by not raising the debt ceiling, will they not be in violation of the Constitution?

As noted many times previously, the government can service its debt without defaulting and without raising the debt ceiling. It can't keep all of its social promises under such a scenario, but it can service the debt on the notes it has issued and still have lots of money left over, just not as much as it wants to have.

Please go back and read the title of this thread. I am responding to the premise of this thread.

The limit currently in place does not need to be raised in order to avoid default as your response indicates. Your premise, the Congress must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid defaulting, is a flawed one. Default would be a voluntary choice if the debt limit is not raised. Not raising the debt ceiling is not a defacto default on the debt incurred. That is a misnomer - a scare tactic being employed - in an effort to misrepresent the current situation.

Congress might well be in violation of Amendment 14 Section 4 if they choose to default on the debt, but choosing to default on the debt is something separate and apart from the current debt limit. While true that raising the limit to keep the issue out of the 2012 elections would make a choice of whether to default on the debt unnecessary since it would allow the federal government to spend all the money Congress appropriated, it is not a requirement that all the money appropriated be spent as the money appropriated for the fence at the border clearly shows.

But heck, why bother to address the issue when the politicians can keep kicking the can down the road by choosing to allow themselves to spend as freely as they wish and print the money necessary to cover the bill, right? Heck, we should just encourage them to print the $14 Trillion the need to erase the debt. There wouldn't be any bad consequences then, would there?

Works for me if interest rates double, and the market sinks. Great idea, I am all for it. Then enjoy 2012.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: But what of the 14th Amendment, Section 4? If Congress defaults on debts by not raising the debt ceiling, will they not be in violation of the Constitution?

As noted many times previously, the government can service its debt without defaulting and without raising the debt ceiling. It can't keep all of its social promises under such a scenario, but it can service the debt on the notes it has issued and still have lots of money left over, just not as much as it wants to have.

Please go back and read the title of this thread. I am responding to the premise of this thread.

The limit currently in place does not need to be raised in order to avoid default as your response indicates. Your premise, the Congress must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid defaulting, is a flawed one. Default would be a voluntary choice if the debt limit is not raised. Not raising the debt ceiling is not a defacto default on the debt incurred. That is a misnomer - a scare tactic being employed - in an effort to misrepresent the current situation.

Congress might well be in violation of Amendment 14 Section 4 if they choose to default on the debt, but choosing to default on the debt is something separate and apart from the current debt limit. While true that raising the limit to keep the issue out of the 2012 elections would make a choice of whether to default on the debt unnecessary since it would allow the federal government to spend all the money Congress appropriated, it is not a requirement that all the money appropriated be spent as the money appropriated for the fence at the border clearly shows.

But heck, why bother to address the issue when the politicians can keep kicking the can down the road by choosing to allow themselves to spend as freely as they wish and print the money necessary to cover the bill, right? Heck, we should just encourage them to print the $14 Trillion the need to erase the debt. There wouldn't be any bad consequences then, would there?

Really, I believe that those holders of Treasury bonds that mature while the Treasury has insufficient funds to pay might disagree with you in regard of no "default".

The limit currently in place does not need to be raised in order to avoid default as your response indicates. Your premise, the Congress must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid defaulting, is a flawed one. Default would be a voluntary choice if the debt limit is not raised. Not raising the debt ceiling is not a defacto default on the debt incurred. That is a misnomer - a scare tactic being employed - in an effort to misrepresent the current situation.

Exactly right- just like not getting your credit card limit raised does not mean that you will not or can not pay your bills- it just means that you wont be able to borrow more to spend more. We don't need to borrow more- we need to spend less!

I would vote against raising the limit- it's time to cut back, not spend more.

I don't think this will happen though- these politicians are going to keep on spending as soon as they raise the debt limit.

BearMtnHIB wrote:

The limit currently in place does not need to be raised in order to avoid default as your response indicates. Your premise, the Congress must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid defaulting, is a flawed one. Default would be a voluntary choice if the debt limit is not raised. Not raising the debt ceiling is not a defacto default on the debt incurred. That is a misnomer - a scare tactic being employed - in an effort to misrepresent the current situation.

Exactly right- just like not getting your credit card limit raised does not mean that you will not or can not pay your bills- it just means that you wont be able to borrow more to spend more. We don't need to borrow more- we need to spend less!

I would vote against raising the limit- it's time to cut back, not spend more.

I don't think this will happen though- these politicians are going to keep on spending as soon as they raise the debt limit.

Of course they are. How else will they get re-elected?

archer wrote: Great.....what do we do with people who don't have children?

Silly me, I thought that Social Security, and all the other domestic welfare programs, are supposed to be safety nets to make sure that people don't wind up homeless and hungry. Those without children are more in need of a safety net than those with children don't you think? The children are already a pretty good safety net for the parents, are they not? You'd take in your mom rather than see her kicked to the curb, wouldn't you? I know I would. Wouldn't your kids do the same for you? Given that reality, why do you need of a safety net as large as someone who doesn't have those same options available to them? I understand why you might not want to live with your children, but why then am I and the other taxpayers financially responsible for funding your choice? If the answer to that question is yes, why?