- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'm a simple man, explain to me why we "have to" raise the debt ceiling
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:03 pm to OohPooPahDoo
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:03 pm to OohPooPahDoo
quote:
Sorry that's not how it works. The U.S. Treasury is only entitled to the Fed's profits - and after U.S. Treasuries tank, the Fed will take massive losses
That's very much a chicken/egg question. If they print money and thus prevent treasuries from "crashing," then its irrelevant.
2
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:06 pm to kfizzle85
And yes, at the end of the day, its a bunch of politicans playing politics (while oddly enough always claiming "this isn't something to play politics with"), and if they decided, for whatever reason, to not raise it, it would have deleterious effects probably sooner rather than later.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:10 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
That's very much a chicken/egg question. If they print money and thus prevent treasuries from "crashing," then its irrelevant.
That won't keep treasuries from crashing. If anything it will do the opposite. No one wants to tie $1 up in debt for a year if they think $1 will be worth ten times less in a year.
And, like I said, the Treasury is only entitled to the PROFITS of the Fed. Absent Congressional intervention, it would take years for the fed to make up its losses and turn profit again.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:11 pm to OohPooPahDoo
It would certainly make them lose market value, I think you're predictably jumping to doom and gloom conclusions suggesting they would crash, which obviously feeds into your following point. I'm not going to argue with you about that, you're entitled to your own opinion.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:14 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
, I think you're predictably jumping to doom and gloom conclusions suggesting they would crash, which obviously feeds into your following point.
The value of any debt obligations plummets when the debtor stops making interest payments or when the market has reason to believe it may stop making those payments soon.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:19 pm to OohPooPahDoo
So you're saying the Treasury has zero dollars? They can't pay out obligations past one day? Please link.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 1:20 pm to OohPooPahDoo
quote:
The value of any debt obligations plummets when the debtor stops making interest payments or when the market has reason to believe it may stop making those payments soon.
You are preaching to the choir.
-------------
In regards to youths not respecting elders, I think you have no basis to make a such a broad generalization.
The entire argument that "they paid in their entire life and deserve it" is true for the elderly, but what about all of the youth that are paying into a system now that they will never benefit from without drastic adjustments? This is a two-sided coin.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 7:37 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
So you're saying the Treasury has zero dollars?
No.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 7:37 pm to lynxcat
quote:
The entire argument that "they paid in their entire life and deserve it" is true for the elderly, but what about all of the youth that are paying into a system now that they will never benefit from without drastic adjustments?
The needed adjustments aren't really that drastic
Posted on 4/18/11 at 7:42 pm to OohPooPahDoo
Pushing back the benefit age by 3-5 years.
I still think social security is a terrible program. Let me have access to my own damn money to invest, save, or spend as I choose.
I still think social security is a terrible program. Let me have access to my own damn money to invest, save, or spend as I choose.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 8:09 pm to lynxcat
lynxcat. agreed. I would love an opt out option for the social programs we were forced into. Still would like to see the constitutionality on tha SS, Medicare.
I think it is fascinating and troubling to ponder Medicare as an expense to be paid at a sum that is yet to be determined. The benefits have no price cap. It's an open bar, and they-- we-- the government-- well all of us are paying. Not good.
SS on the other hand can be logically accounted for based on the number of retirees and what they get out of the system upon retirement based on their life expectancy.
Personally, I think we put too much trust in our leaders to think that they can fix this. They can't, and they won't. I hope I am wrong.
I think it is fascinating and troubling to ponder Medicare as an expense to be paid at a sum that is yet to be determined. The benefits have no price cap. It's an open bar, and they-- we-- the government-- well all of us are paying. Not good.
SS on the other hand can be logically accounted for based on the number of retirees and what they get out of the system upon retirement based on their life expectancy.
Personally, I think we put too much trust in our leaders to think that they can fix this. They can't, and they won't. I hope I am wrong.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 8:41 pm to lynxcat
quote:
Let me have access to my own damn money to invest, save, or spend as I choose.
When you lose it on bad investments and are left destitute and too old to work the government will step in anyway.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 8:49 pm to OohPooPahDoo
But should they? That's the bigger question.
The whole you rights end where mine begin thing.
Some people need safety nets to be sure, but it can't continue as is, whether one thinks it should or not.
The whole you rights end where mine begin thing.
Some people need safety nets to be sure, but it can't continue as is, whether one thinks it should or not.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 9:12 pm to OohPooPahDoo
quote:
When you lose it on bad investments and are left destitute and too old to work the government will step in anyway.
I think you are targeting the wrong crowd by saying something like this to the MTB. Yes, it is an issue that the majority of Americans with absolutely little money-sense runs into, but I have faith that the regular MTBs' are intelligent enough to invest intelligently and within their means.
If you believe SS is absolutely necessary for the existence of the country, then we are going to disagree so much philosophically that we will never come to terms.
Posted on 4/18/11 at 9:13 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
An opt out couldn't exist because everyone would opt out and the program would end.
A basic understanding of the Present Value of a Dollar says give me my money now, not in 30 years.
A basic understanding of the Present Value of a Dollar says give me my money now, not in 30 years.
This post was edited on 4/18/11 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 4/18/11 at 9:16 pm to lynxcat
exactly, the program would end. It wouldn't have to be immediate. Sure, we will all pay a price to do this, but let it wind down, or drastically modify it. What's the alternative?
Why should you be legally responsible for my welfare? Vice versa? That's where faith and charity are to be utilized, not the law.
Back to the OP, Geithner said on Sunday talk show that SS checks wouldn't go out. Isn't this supposed to be funded? Why would we have to borrow money to pay this out?? How much will it need to be raised? A few trillion more? So we can continue to buy our own debt? Or print more money?
It's all a kabooki dance!
Why should you be legally responsible for my welfare? Vice versa? That's where faith and charity are to be utilized, not the law.
Back to the OP, Geithner said on Sunday talk show that SS checks wouldn't go out. Isn't this supposed to be funded? Why would we have to borrow money to pay this out?? How much will it need to be raised? A few trillion more? So we can continue to buy our own debt? Or print more money?
It's all a kabooki dance!
This post was edited on 4/18/11 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 4/18/11 at 9:25 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
If a woman has the "right to choose" what to do with her body and abort a little baby, then why am I not given the "right to choose" whether to join or not join SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and any other stupid gov't program?
WHERE IS MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY MONEY?? IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY THEY ARE WASTING.
WHERE IS MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY MONEY?? IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY THEY ARE WASTING.
Posted on 4/19/11 at 10:34 am to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
quote:
But should they? That's the bigger question.
In a civilized society should government act as a last resort for ensuring its citizens do not die of starvation or exposure?
Seriously?
quote:
The whole you rights end where mine begin thing.
Do right wingers ever consider actual reality or do their heads only contain ideological slogans?
quote:
Some people need safety nets to be sure, but it can't continue as is, whether one thinks it should or not.
Uhh, yeah, it can. As long as there are taxpayers social security can continue.
Posted on 4/19/11 at 10:41 am to lynxcat
quote:
Yes, it is an issue that the majority of Americans with absolutely little money-sense runs into, but I have faith that the regular MTBs' are intelligent enough to invest intelligently and within their means.
OK. last time I checked being smart didn't exclude you from investment risk. If you're "smart" you'd move all your risky investments mostly into treasuries by the time you retire - which means the taxpayer has to foot the bill anyway!
quote:
If you believe SS is absolutely necessary for the existence of the country, then we are going to disagree so much philosophically that we will never come to terms.
What does philosophy have to do with anything? In 1929 the stock market crashed and by 1934 millions of folks too old to work were left destitute. So in 1935 social security was passed. The seniors of that day got a freebie since they didn't have to pay into the system. That's OK since when they were in their working years SS hadn't even been though of - but no more freebies anymore.
If we eliminated social security - the same damn thing is bound to happen somewhere along the line (unless you think maybe you and your MTB friends can get together and figure out someway to prevent stock market crashes from ever happening).
Not to mention the obvious practical problem with ending it - you'd have to either
1) dick over the folks who have been paying into it all their lives
2) make current workers pay for it even though they wouldn't be getting it
I'm assuming we wouldn't do 1 - and really we couldn't, since a lot of the folks who write are laws fall into that group and might take offense to the idea that they should have to give up something they've paid for all their lives - in which case by doing 2, you'd be asking the current generation to fund not only the last generations retirement insurance but their retirement plan as well. Sorry but I just don't have the income to fund two retirements!
This post was edited on 4/19/11 at 10:46 am
Posted on 4/19/11 at 11:20 am to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
quote:
Sure, we will all pay a price to do this,
I thought the government was broke?
quote:
Why should you be legally responsible for my welfare?
quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You are one of the People, right?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News