OK, now they aren't even pretending that they have any intention of ever paying that money back. Of course they are hoping they will be long gone by the time the bill comes due.

/Time for more phone calls to my reps.

Crosshair: OK, now they aren't even pretending that they have any intention of ever paying that money back.

What do you think.... either default or direct monetization of debt within 15 years?

Senescent Dawn: What do you think.... either default or direct monetization of debt within 15 years?

Why would we default on debt that isn't due for 40-50 years? You realize we don't have to pay it all back at once, right?

DamnYankees: Why would we default on debt that isn't due for 40-50 years? You realize we don't have to pay it all back at once, right?

Duh. But servicing the debt gets more and more expensive, and eventually prohibitively so if the government wants to do anything but make those interest payments. If we're running trillion dollar deficits for a decade as Medicare payments edge skyward, I think we're in for a rough time fiscally.

Senescent Dawn: Duh. But servicing the debt gets more and more expensive, and eventually prohibitively so if the government wants to do anything but make those interest payments. If we're running trillion dollar deficits for a decade as Medicare payments edge skyward, I think we're in for a rough time fiscally.

Well, you do know they plan for this, right? If your read the news you know that there was actually a lively debate in the White House between Geithner and Summers (and some other people) debating whether or not we needed to put a cap on our debt in order to pay it back easily. Obama decided for the cap. They plan this shiat out.

Right now our debt to GDP ratio isn't insanely high. When it gets to unsustainable levels we can talk about your point.

DamnYankees: If your read the news you know that there was actually a lively debate in the White House between Geithner and Summers (and some other people) debating whether or not we needed to put a cap on our debt in order to pay it back easily.

Hasn't there always been a cap? Is that the same as the debt ceiling? They just move it up whenever we get that high.

DamnYankees: Right now our debt to GDP ratio isn't insanely high. When it gets to unsustainable levels we can talk about your point.

I'd prefer to talk about it before the death of our currency is set in stone.

Senescent Dawn: Hasn't there always been a cap? Is that the same as the debt ceiling? They just move it up whenever we get that high.

I have no idea if thats always been official policy. I would be somewhat surprised if Bush even gave a crap.

Senescent Dawn: I'd prefer to talk about it before the death of our currency is set in stone.

Any particular reason to think this would happen?

Crosshair: OK, now they aren't even pretending that they have any intention of ever paying that money back. Of course they are hoping they will be long gone by the time the bill comes due.

/Time for more phone calls to my reps.

You have to spend your way out of a recession. We wouldn't be anywhere near so bad off if Bush hadn't been running a deficit when it wasn't needed.

DamnYankees: I have no idea if thats always been official policy. I would be somewhat surprised if Bush even gave a crap.

That is true. There is officially a limit on how much the national debt can be, but yeah, every time we reach the number they just move it to a higher number.

not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

DamnYankees: I have no idea if thats always been official policy.

Back from the halcyon days of 2006: Link (new window). As far as I know, the debt ceiling means jack-all squat.

DamnYankees: Any particular reason to think this would happen?

Here's a speech from a Federal Reserve official on the upcoming costs of entitlements, as of last year (before all this went down.) Link (new window)

Here's the kicker:

"Suppose we decided to tackle the issue solely on the spending side. It turns out that total discretionary spending in the federal budget, if maintained at its current share of GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than the entitlement shortfall. So all we would have to do to fully fund our nation's entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut-almost eliminated, really-to tackle this problem through discretionary spending.

I hope that gives you some idea of just how large the problem is. And just to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?"

The money flat-out isn't there, long term. And the more debt we accumulate now, the less power we'll have to deal with it as interest payments gobble up more and more of our buying power.

Senescent Dawn: The money flat-out isn't there, long term. And the more debt we accumulate now, the less power we'll have to deal with it as interest payments gobble up more and more of our buying power.

But this is entirely the wrong way of looking at it. The problem isn't that we are borrowing too much, but that our spending projectings, mainly healthcare, are absolutely massive. It doesn't matter if we borrow, print, or do nothing - health care is going to bankrupt us. So instead of worrying about borrowing money, worry about reforming healthcare. The latter will take care of the former, not vice versa.

FlashHarry: not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

Does that surprise you? Of course, they could have negotiated with them, given them a whole bunch of concessions, only to have nearly the entire party turn their noses up at it again. Of course they are going to vote no, they are deathly afraid this is going to work.

Like they say, a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

FlashHarry: not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

Did a single Democrat in either chamber vote against it?

KaponoFor3: FlashHarry: not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

Did a single Democrat in either chamber vote against it?

Yes.

DamnYankees: Yes.

Who's being mavericky?

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: Yes.

Who's being mavericky?

You can click on the article and find out.

DamnYankees: You can click on the article and find out.

When I read this part:

"Voting along party lines..."

I pretty much assumed that it was straight party discipline.

And looking through the article, I don't see any discussion about dissenting votes by Dems except a link to Conrad's alternative budget which was from last week.

KaponoFor3: "Voting along party lines..."

I pretty much assumed that it was straight party discipline.

I know its hard to read a few paragraphs down from that. Takes a lot of effort.

GAT_00: FlashHarry: not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

Does that surprise you? Of course, they could have negotiated with them, given them a whole bunch of concessions, only to have nearly the entire party turn their noses up at it again. Of course they are going to vote no, they are deathly afraid this is going to work.

Why on earth do you think any real concessions were available to Republicans? Democrats are in a position to cram this down the GOP's throat; why would they compromise?

DamnYankees: I know its hard to read a few paragraphs down from that. Takes a lot of effort

Someone is snarky this morning.

The House voted 233-196 to support the Democratic budget proposal, with just 20 Democrats voting with Republicans in opposition. The Senate approved its blueprint 55-43, with all but two Democrats voting yes.

I'm sorry, does that answer my question about who is being mavericky? I mean, you did respond to that question with the ever so polite "You can click on the article and find out." OK, I clicked, it doesn't say who did it.

Looks like the infallible DamnYankees may be wrong *GASP*

FlashHarry: not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

And you are surprised? For at least the next two years the republicans are going to see what it's like to be shat upon. I hope they open their mouths nice and wide.

KaponoFor3: Looks like the infallible DamnYankees may be wrong *GASP*

I'm wrong alot. But you are among my list of people in whom I place no good faith. So I don't really care when you ask for information like that, but I don't believe you care. One of your overriding goals on Fark is to prove that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, and you turn every thread into a meditation on that. I didn't particularly want to throw you an assist. You can always use the google.

DamnYankees: But you are among my list of people in whom I place no good faith.

Yes, because amongst conservative posters on FARK, I am one of the most unreasonable?

DamnYankees: So I don't really care when you ask for information like that, but I don't believe you care. One of your overriding goals on Fark is to prove that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, and you turn every thread into a meditation on that. I didn't particularly want to throw you an assist. You can always use the google.

Translation: I made a fool out of myself by implying with snarkiness that the information was contained within the article, and it ends up it isn't.

Just own up to a mistake, it happens man. I own up to mine.

And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

KaponoFor3: Yes, because amongst conservative posters on FARK, I am one of the most unreasonable?

Not sure what the means. You are among the most polite and well-spoken, to be sure. You're not a troll. But I don't believe you to be intellectually honest. I'm not sure if that makes you "unreasonable" - I think it makes you quite normal for most conservatives, actually.

KaponoFor3: Translation: I made a fool out of myself by implying with snarkiness that the information was contained within the article, and it ends up it isn't.

Just own up to a mistake, it happens man. I own up to mine.

I was wrong. Info wasn't there. But I still don't believe you really care if it was Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu who flipped.

KaponoFor3: And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

"Equally" is the important word you seemed to have left out.

DamnYankees: But I don't believe you to be intellectually honest. I'm not sure if that makes you "unreasonable" - I think it makes you quite normal for most conservatives, actually.

ZOMG total burn!

DamnYankees: I was wrong. Info wasn't there.

Thank you, I appreciate your honesty.

KaponoFor3: Thank you, I appreciate your honesty.

I wish I could say the same for you.

KaponoFor3: ZOMG total burn!

Wasn't supposed to be.

DamnYankees: I wish I could say the same for you.

Must... maintain... smugness... at... all... costs...

DamnYankees: KaponoFor3: Thank you, I appreciate your honesty.

I wish I could say the same for you.

KaponoFor3: ZOMG total burn!

Wasn't supposed to be.

The sexual tension between you two is palpable.

KaponoFor3: Must... maintain... smugness... at... all... costs...

Ha. Alright.

filth: Why on earth do you think any real concessions were available to Republicans? Democrats are in a position to cram this down the GOP's throat; why would they compromise?

They were compromises made for the stimulus bill. How many Repubs voted for that?

Who cares? Like any of us will ever have to pay it off.

GAT_00: filth: Why on earth do you think any real concessions were available to Republicans? Democrats are in a position to cram this down the GOP's throat; why would they compromise?

They were compromises made for the stimulus bill. How many Repubs voted for that?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to think that Republicans should be somehow more engaged in the process. I find that ridiculous, and my question to you is what you think the GOP should have done that would have had any chance of working.

eddyatwork: FlashHarry: not a single republican vote. not one in either chamber.

And you are surprised? For at least the next two years the republicans are going to see what it's like to be shat upon. I hope they open their mouths nice and wide.

well, they do seem to be closeted, self-loathing pervs, so a scat fetish would not surprise me.

filth: I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to think that Republicans should be somehow more engaged in the process. I find that ridiculous, and my question to you is what you think the GOP should have done that would have had any chance of working.

Oh, no, I don't think they do. They didn't offer any ideas worth entertaining. I was more commenting that even when they get what they want, they oppose it, so there is no reason to involve them.

KaponoFor3: And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

Both? How about every?

HulkHands: KaponoFor3: And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

Both? How about every?

A P-Funk party does not suck. It doesn't stop, either.

KaponoFor3: And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

This is like saying that chocolate cake and spoiled meat are both bad for you. I mean, chocolate cake is a lot of empty calories and is fattening. On the other hand spoiled meat might land you in the hospital or in the morgue.

Just because they are both bad for you doesn't mean that they are equally bad for you.

good.

Dr. Rosenrosen: KaponoFor3: And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

This is like saying that chocolate cake and spoiled meat are both bad for you. I mean, chocolate cake is a lot of empty calories and is fattening. On the other hand spoiled meat might land you in the hospital or in the morgue.

Just because they are both bad for you doesn't mean that they are equally bad for you.

And to continue this metaphor, it is very frustrating to see people judging our diet of chocolate cake while they have their mouths full of spoiled meat.

/off to lunch!

eqtworld: I forget what McCain was going to do, shut down the government and stop earmarks and "tell us the names" of earmarkers and the economy is fundamentally strong etc...

/I guess we will never know their names : (

I LOL'd TWF!

Of course, W's budget of 3.1 trillion from last year (not counting Iraq war expenses and the annual AMT fix) was acceptable, but tack another .4 trillion on there, fix the accounting tricks, and try to fix our long-term structural problems, and OMGOMG SOSHELISM!!11

Did they read it before they voted for it this time around?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpajamasmedia.com%2F instapundit%2F&feature=player_embedded

Compelling.

KaponoFor3: DamnYankees: But you are among my list of people in whom I place no good faith.

Yes, because amongst conservative posters on FARK, I am one of the most unreasonable?

DamnYankees: So I don't really care when you ask for information like that, but I don't believe you care. One of your overriding goals on Fark is to prove that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, and you turn every thread into a meditation on that. I didn't particularly want to throw you an assist. You can always use the google.

Translation: I made a fool out of myself by implying with snarkiness that the information was contained within the article, and it ends up it isn't.

Just own up to a mistake, it happens man. I own up to mine.

And I'm sorry you are so partisan that you are unwilling to see that both parties suck.

Both parties have bad points. But the Republicans are worse than the Democrats.

Calvin Coolidge: Of course, W's budget of 3.1 trillion from last year (not counting Iraq war expenses and the annual AMT fix) was acceptable, but tack another .4 trillion on there, fix the accounting tricks, and try to fix our long-term structural problems, and OMGOMG SOSHELISM!!11

Yep.....13% increase....No big deal, right? Our economy is growing by 13%, why not the budget?