(Debt Ceiling Threat by GOP) - Pay China and Banks before Senior Citizens

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. mcrain, Feb 1, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2011

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    In case you don't like TPM... from the horses mouth:

    I like how he's trying to take the "default" scare tactic off the table... by scaring senior citizens and every other American who would lose benefits. He must think that his first priority is to make sure China and the big banks are ok, that way we can have a calm discussion about how the President and Senate have to comply with their demands.
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #2
    The government should simply print more money to meet all the promises it's made.

    It's not like there are consequences to doing so.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Gee- this wouldn't be as much of a problem if they had just let the tax cuts expire.
     
  4. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #4
    You know what? I'm okay with them using my SS benefits to pay off debt. It's not like I expected them anyway. We gotta get out from under China et al or we are headed for heartbreak.

    That said, it's not really fair to siphon from today's retirees since they couldn't have known how jacked up the nation would be when they needed SS, right? :rolleyes:
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    The way for us to get out of debt is not to get rid of Social Security. It's to budget ourselves and tax ourselves properly- neither of which we have been doing. This Reaganomics BS way of thinking has to stop. It doesn't work , and is largely responsible for why we are where we are. There can be no disputing that. Before Reagan, we were the largest creditor nation in the world. After him, we were the biggest debtor nation. It's ridiculous, and it needs to stop.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    First, I can't believe that the myth that SS is crumbling before our eyes has gotten so much traction in this country.

    Second, I can't believe that the GOP really thinks they are sneaky with their never ending assault on SS. Their tactic of choice this go around (with everything) is to tie it to the big bad scary debt monster, because China is somehow going to call in all of our debt at once and sink not only us, but themselves in the process. Come on.
     
  7. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #7
    Or just raise the ceiling. We've done that countless times and we're fine, right? Right!
     
  8. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #8
    Social Security will NEVER be eliminated, bankrupt, or privatized. It is as simple as that. You WILL have Social Security when you retire; it may work in a slightly different form, but the Federal Government is not going to come on TV one day and say "yep, we're done. peace!".
     
  9. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #9
    Agreed, but I'll still volunteer as stated. The gubment should never have been responsible for retirement savings for able-bodied people.

    That kind of lackadaisical attitude about debt is a major problem in this country IMHO. Debt isn't bad in and of itself, but to have as much as we do as a sovereign nation (or as many of us as private citizens) is completely unhealthy. I hope you are right about China, but they have the muscle to make debt collection pretty darn interesting if they choose to.
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    Yes, it should. Things can happen to people to cause them to lose their life savings. Any society that is in any way civilized should have such a safety net.
     
  11. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #11
    Why not?
     
  12. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #12
    The first money that should be siphoned to China and the Banks if the US government fails to agree on a strategy is the salaries of Congressmen and Senators. Maybe the US Treasury could also seize some of the money they get paid by corporations and lobby groups too, since dealing with all that crap is exactly why they aren't concentrating on agreeing how to sort US government debt out.
     
  13. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #13
    Yeah, who cares about inflation? Just print more money!
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Social Security will run out of money according to current projections by 2037, which is far enough out that we have time to do something about it and that drastic action today might not be in our best interests.

    While I agree, it's all a matter of scale. Some debt may be necessary, even valuable in its own terms, but our debt has accelerated in the last decade towards unsustainable levels.

    However, China has no intent of calling in our debt, because to do so would wreck their economy because we're currently tied together. This, of course, doesn't cover a future when China doesn't need the US.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    China calling in even a significant amout of our debt would destroy their economy, they currency is tied to ours. No its not good to have debt as high as we do, but we've had this level before (relatively speaking). General rule of thumb, pay off debt when times are good, spend to make up for lack of demand when times are rough.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Actually, that is when it will be able to meet 70% of its obligations, which is far from being out of money. Something will need to be done, but its far from the doomsday scenario lie the media loves to partake in.
     
  17. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #17
    "Able-bodied" is the key point, but I'm probably not representing my argument in the best way. I don't have any beef with the idea of a disability/welfare program as a last resort.

    But I don't like the idea of disbursing money willy-nilly to anybody who asks for it when they turn 62 years of age. There doesn't seem to be any financial qualification to receiving benefits unless you are still working. Why give handouts to people (hopefully like me in 25-30 years) who would otherwise be self-sufficient?

    TBH I'm more worried about other actions they could take to protect their investments that would stop short of calling our debt outright.
     
  18. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #18
    Yet another stillborn GOP prank bill, proposed by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
     
  19. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #19
    While I agree with the first sentiment, I disagree that that is a general rule of thumb. Whether you are an individual or a country, if you pay off debts when times are good, then two things happen. The first is that you've greatly reduced the likelihood of rough times ahead. Rough times are often debt-driven - that first obligation falters and then the other debt obligations become jeopardized and snowball. Second, when there are the inevitable rough times, if you have previously paid your debts and, perhaps like Clinton, even built up a surplus, then you as an individual, and you as a country, can and must reduce spending and - the good news is - you are in fact in a position to do so.

    Put another way, if you pay off your debts when times are good, and yet then spend when times are rough - you will never advance.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    If you have a surplus what is wrong with spending at the same level or even a little more? Note that I said a little, not two wars worth of spending.
     
  21. Doc750 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    #21
    there should be a three strike rule for congress. Every time they say or do something stupid, it counts as a strike. After three, they get thrown out.
     
  22. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #22
    Because, when times are rough, that is what you do. Save. Buckle down. Again, that is with the assumption that the first part of your premise had played out - that you paid down debts when times were good.

    I think some people - not necessarily you - don't look at payments on debt as spending. If money is leaving you (as a person or country), it is spending. Sure, some spending is more wise than other spending. But money leaving you is money leaving you.

    If you as an individual pay down your debts, get a surplus and times turn rough, what does a prudent person do? Save. Perhaps during that economic downturn there may be an opportunity to purchase something you have wanted/needed and heretofore it was too expensive but the rough times pushed the price down. Sure, if you know you still have enough to weather the rough patch you are in, go for it.

    If you are a country and pay down your debts, get a surplus and times turn rough, what does a prudent country do? Return it to the people that paid it with a tax refund, credit, and/or reduction and need it to get through the rough time. If a well-run country builds up a surplus, then it means they taxed too much, plain and simple, and what better time to let the people who gave it to you keep it than when they need it most?

    Duly.
     
  23. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #23
    Where did you get this from? We don't hand out money "willy-nilly". Do you even know what Social Security is or are you simply parroting talking points from somewhere.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    So what do you think of states "rainy day fund"? Shouldn't there be a bit of money in case of unforseen emergencies? I'd rather not see a government running perfectly neutral in terms of input and output, but rather saving X amount "just in case". After X amount, feel free to cut taxes.
     
  25. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #25
    I think we are in agreement, although our respective definitions of rainy day funds may differ. I believe strongly that an individual should do his or her absolute best to pay down debt and, additionally, have a rainy day fund. (I myself have done a ***** job at both, but I'm making some very substantial changes to my life to do so.) Likewise, I concede that a government should have a rainy day fund, so to speak.

    But back to where this all started, once you - as a country or an individual - have done the first part of what you said - paid down your debts - your risk of rough times, downturns, rainy days, etc. massively diminishes and, by extension, your rainy day fund can decrease proportionally.

    As I'm writing this, I have another thought. When it comes to saving, that is where the individual/country analogy breaks down. Sure, a country should have a rainy day fund, but it is not the purpose of government to build a warchest of money. It is, however, the purpose of being employed to do your best to save for your future - to build your own warchest, so to speak, so that you don't have to live off your family or the government when you are no longer able to work. (I'm talking in broad terms; not taking a swing at social security.)
     

Share This Page