debt talk w/out monkey poop...

Anyone want to actually talk about the debt ceiling stuff?

I am really curious, if they don't raise the amount we borrow, doesn't this just mean that we defund stuff?

I know this is serious, but it does not mean that we specifically defund loan repayment...or default does it?

Would we not continue to not mow national monuments before we don't pay back a legit debt?

The would we not work our way down the list of other stuff that is more optional than not repaying debt, essentially more services in order of their actual need?

And if so, for folks that want to trim down govt spending that obvious (by the fact that we have been carrying a huge debt for a long time without a specific reason except we want more ((vs. a short debt for a short time for a specific reason like a world war)), could this not be one of the best tools ever to do it?

Or alternatively, if this is not the tool to use, what plan do those that think this is bad have to trim down the debt to zero where it belongs unless we have a specific world scale tragedy to deal with? What is the justification for simply raising it, why are we not trimming so we don't have to raise it in the first place?

I do request that folks posting in this thread try and address all questions posed by others, not selective answering combined with monkey crap that leads to the same non conversations...or at least try not to leave obvious loopholes as traps in your logic. I also request that folks try not to mention a party, but rather a methodology that could happen or a sequence of events as after you stop looking at your nametags, we are actually all in this together. Typically the party is only mentioned as an atlatl for monkey poop (both here and in the media and on the senate floor).

They probably have an emergency plan. Maybe the Fed will find some way to cheat? Or maybe they could trim every bureau by an equal amount? Or emergency new taxes?

This isn't about future spending, this is about money already spent, how do you trim what you have already spent? and now the bills are due to be paid. Are any of you really suggesting the USA refuse to pay what it owes?

I personally don't see a big difference in personal vs public debt. The government supposedly works for the people yet consistently operates in a way that contradicts what a responsible person should do with his own finances. A responsible individual purchases what he can afford and saves enough to deal with future problems or wanted/needed purchases. A responsible individual doesn't accumulate debt beyond what he can pay and knowingly leave his family with the bill when he dies.

And while it's true that an individual can use debt to create wealth, that only works when the individual plans to pay the debt off as a first priority. But with this mamouth debt the government has created from both sides, paying it down seems to be the last priority. None of our leaders feel the debt in their own lives... so what incentive do they have to make tough choices, especially when those tough stances on debt may very well cost them their cushy careers.

If we peasants were not held accountable for the debt we created, this country would have died shortly after it was born.

archer wrote: This isn't about future spending, this is about money already spent, how do you trim what you have already spent? and now the bills are due to be paid. Are any of you really suggesting the USA refuse to pay what it owes?

Archer, this thread is about avoiding this logic pitfall.

The money we spend is NOT all owed. We have a current amount we can spend WITHOUT borrowing more.

AGAIN, why do you assume that we are not going to pay money we owe? That is the marketing threat. Is it not obvious we will pay money we owe and TRIM DOWN ON OTHER SPENDING.

For example we can pay back a loan and then not fund food stamps or new tanks or we can reduce federal funding of states and towns and bridges, etc. I am not suggesting anything specific, just that we fund more than LOANS with our budget.

Can you address this topic? Again I brought up this thread because people seem to be saying what you are saying without thinking about it.

You don't honestly believe that all the money we have available without new loans is not even enough to pay our old loans do you? If you did, do you realize how underwater that would make us? How at risk we all would be. I do not believe we are in that much debt.

But again, I don't understand why people are threatening that we would not pay back owed money, we would obviously stop domestic services and lay off federal workers.....you have already seen what they will do when they have less money....they did it a couple weeks ago. I suggest they would just continue the process of layoffs, park closures and defunding.....and not default on the loans.

If you can, talk about this subject in stead of the scare propaganda that is not supported. And if you really think we are going to default, can you explain the details of how that will proceed....can you show some basic budget numbers (like how much of the budget is services, how much is loans and how much taxes we will pull in the next year, then blend them together to show the default and perhaps even identify the first loan to be defaulted). My sense is that the only reason you think we are going to default is that it has been the topic of many articles that also have not actually explained how it is going to happen. AND PLEASE, do not post one of those articles. If you find a source, feel free to cite it and then explain it in your own words, how default will unfold vs. the obvious solution that has already started, the layoffs and cutbacks of services, since the 1st of the month.

The 17% shutdown is your teaser of the debt limit stuff, it has not resulted in default, only less payments to those using the govt to get their income. The effect of this shutdown has been greatly overblown and many if not plugged into the internet or TV would not even know about it. This is definitely not good in the short run, but will likely be way better in the long run if those dependent on the govt find other sources of income, esp as the govt gets out of other businesses it will determine on its own it cannot afford (like it has during the last two weeks).

Also Archer, a quality answer to these questions will not likely be addressed in a few sentences, esp not a regurgitation of unsupported statements like you did here and I was specifically trying to avoid. To me supported is with logic and steps to a conclusion, not an article, unless it is coming out of a peer reviewed journal or something (you know where people are kept honest on what they say vs. articles which have very little basis in anything but marketing). Instead of starting with the last article we have read, start with math and basic logic and build the default out of actual budget numbers, I really don't think you will be able to, not because you are not a capable person, because the logic is not there to be had. Again, logic and math, not articles by people that don't feel like they need to use math or logic to explain math or logic and the consequences there in.

Rick wrote: I personally don't see a big difference in personal vs public debt. The government supposedly works for the people yet consistently operates in a way that contradicts what a responsible person should do with his own finances. A responsible individual purchases what he can afford and saves enough to deal with future problems or wanted/needed purchases. A responsible individual doesn't accumulate debt beyond what he can pay and knowingly leave his family with the bill when he dies.

And while it's true that an individual can use debt to create wealth, that only works when the individual plans to pay the debt off as a first priority. But with this mamouth debt the government has created from both sides, paying it down seems to be the last priority. None of our leaders feel the debt in their own lives... so what incentive do they have to make tough choices, especially when those tough stances on debt may very well cost them their cushy careers.

If we peasants were not held accountable for the debt we created, this country would have died shortly after it was born.

I see no issue with making a commitment to not borrow again outside of emergencies and simply divide the outstanding debt by the citizens and let each person pay their share over a 10 year period. We have already suffered through 5 years of stagnation, 10 more years and we may be back on top again.

It would only be something like $10k a year per person or something like $30k per year per non minimum wage taxpayer. We spend that kind of money to educate the average family's kids each year for public education......

Remember Pay-Go? Only could increase spending by cutting it somewhere else or raising revenue...except in case of emergencies, so now everything has been deemed an emergency.

NO hyperbole,just a human assessment of the topic at hand... http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts ... -this-one/