Reply to Politian

I can’t say why or how but I do get to speak to Senator and Congress directly reguardless of party. Even the Democrat Politician like Sherrod Brown answers my call and calls me back.
In a response to a conversation I get this letter (form letter created by someone other that Sherrod Brown). I want to respond but I don’t even know where to begin.

Here is the letter: Please provide me with some of your insight on the content of this letter.

Thank you for getting in touch with me about defaulting on our national debt.
The government regularly borrows money from the public and from government accounts to finance operations already approved by Congress. Debt takes the form of government bonds, which are sold to private citizens, companies, and other governments. The Treasury Department has announced that, without additional borrowing allowed, the United States will not be able to meet its obligations as of March 2013.
Under current law, Congress must pass and the President must sign legislation allowing the Treasury to issue additional debt. The last time that the Treasury sought additional borrowing abilities to meet our nation's obligations to its creditors, a lengthy debate led investors to believe that, for the first time in its history, the United States might default on its debts. As a result, the nation's debt was downgraded from the top credit rating, unsettling markets.
To avoid another potentially damaging standoff, President Obama has proposed a change in the process for making payments to our nation's creditors. Under the President's proposal, instead of requiring an affirmative vote to issue additional government debt, Congress would vote to disapprove the President's proposal to issue debt to pay our creditors.
This change would permanently change the method of issuing new bonds that was used when Congress last issued new bonds in the summer of 2011. The change is intended to provide additional reassurances to the nation's creditors that the United States will pay its debts.
It is important to note that new borrowing does not authorize new spending. Bonds are only issued to make payments that are required to fund existing laws and operations. Without these bonds, the nation would default on its payments for current services.
Congress has the constitutional obligation to maintain checks on our nation's spending and I will continue to support policies that protect Congress's oversight of our nation's finances. The House and Senate must be responsible stewards of our financial standing and protect our nation's good standing with its creditors. If we do not, the United States could face higher borrowing costs or unsettle still weak financial markets. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to responsibly reduce our nation's spending while meeting our current obligations.
Should legislation regarding a default on our debts come before the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for getting in touch with me.

The hell it doesn't authorize new spending - if that wasn't the case we wouldn't be perpetually increasing it and piling on debt. Blank checks enable new spending - what the heck do they think Obamacare was?

I just can't, in good conscience, respond to that without exceeding the 350-word ceiling I'm trying to stay under these days.

How is the person who wrote this employed?

gut;1366959 wrote:The hell it doesn't authorize new spending - if that wasn't the case we wouldn't be perpetually increasing it and piling on debt. Blank checks enable new spending - what the heck do they think Obamacare was?

It doesn't authorize additional spending. It authorizes payment of previous expenditures.

Sherrod Brown and every other liberal currently holding office in D.C. can go FUC #$% themselves.

There is simply nothing else to say.

stlouiedipalma;1366969 wrote:It doesn't authorize additional spending. It authorizes payment of previous expenditures.

Actually, by his own words, it says "existing" laws an operations, not previous ones.

Not really here or there, because either way, it means that money either is spent, or was spent, irresponsibly.

Though if they are indeed existing, perhaps they ought not be, seeing as it requires borrowing to continue implementing them.

stlouiedipalma;1366969 wrote:It doesn't authorize additional spending. It authorizes payment of previous expenditures.

Do you just drink the koolaid, or do you really buy in to the horse sh!$? Do you want to solve our problems, or do you want to just be a tax-n-spend liberal hack?

QuakerOats;1366981 wrote:or do you want to just be a borrow-n-tax-n-spend liberal hack?

FIFY

gut;1367062 wrote:FIFY

Based on my most recent paycheck, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

At risk of being pummeled, I have got to ask this question:

If the law was passed, why should it not be automatically funded?

If I purchased a Cadillac, and really could only afford an Impala, Am I allowed to say that I know I agreed to buy it at this price, but cannot afford to pay for it because my new wife said it cost too much?

I will not dispute for a second that the nation is in tremendous debt, but it seems that these debt ceiling debates are full of buyers remorse.

They can fix the problem by admitting that they are spending too much damn money, and then doing something about it.

Refusing to pay for debts already incurred is a default, and puts doubt upon an already shakey situation.

If we are gonna lose an arm and a leg, we first have to acknowledge the bleeding and stop it before we worry about replacing them with bionic limbs purchased on credit. But we still need to pay the doctor bill.

Too bad we can't sue for malpractice.

Devils Advocate;1367299 wrote:If I purchased a Cadillac, and really could only afford an Impala, Am I allowed to say that I know I agreed to buy it at this price, but cannot afford to pay for it because my new wife said it cost too much?

As far as I'm concerned, you're asking legitimate questions without being belligerent. I can't see too many people pummeling you for it ... at least I'm not going to.

I think the issue with the part that I quoted above is that (a) they shouldn't be able to get past the "If I purchased a Cadillac ..." part. They shouldn't be able to buy the Cadillac in the first place, if all they can afford is the Impala.

Now, that's all fine and good going forward, but what to do about the past?

Well, I think the first part would be to come up with a more analogous example. With a vehicle, for example, eventually, you own it, and you won't have to keep purchasing it.

Perhaps cell service would be an accurate example. A law or program that costs money to simply operate on a yearly bases isn't something you own one day and can stop paying for.

If I signed up for a robust Verizon plan that I couldn't afford, I'd naturally have options.

(a) I could charge it to my credit card each month ... a card I don't have the money to pay off at the same rate I'm accumulating it.
(b) I could just stop paying and get the service shut off, plus have back-due payments.
(c) I could cancel the plan. Sometimes requires a fee (depending on where I am in a contract), but in the long run, it's financially the cheapest option.

Now, it would be ideal if I'd just never signed up in the first place, since I couldn't afford it without credit.

However, we are where we are. Ifs and buts are moot. I'd suggest the best option is (c). Stop the programs, laws, and ancillaries that are costing us money we cannot afford.

O-Trap;1367310 wrote:.However, we are where we are. Ifs and buts are moot. I'd suggest the best option is (c). Stop the programs, laws, and ancillaries that are costing us money we cannot afford.

What do you do if your wife is also on the plan and she just happens to have a different view on it than you do. She thinks it best to just raise your credit limit now and then handle the fight about the verizon bill later. Maybe you wish you weren't married to this woman because you've come to realize she has totally different values than you do. And, you could raise your credit limit and borrow at 1% and your debt is currently about equal to your income?

If you don't raise your credit limit, unprecedented bad things happen.

Seems to me the only option, given your intransigent wife with different values (democrats), cheap credit equal to income (national debt about equal to GDP with investors willing to lend at 1%), unprecedented events that will surely be bad if limit is not raised and default occurs (Not sure what would happen if U.S. defaulted...most likely bad), is to raise your credit limit and try to divorce your wife or get her to change her ways at a time when something unprecedented won't happen...

Devils Advocate;1367299 wrote:At risk of being pummeled, I have got to ask this question:

If the law was passed, why should it not be automatically funded?

If I purchased a Cadillac, and really could only afford an Impala, Am I allowed to say that I know I agreed to buy it at this price, but cannot afford to pay for it because my new wife said it cost too much?

I will not dispute for a second that the nation is in tremendous debt, but it seems that these debt ceiling debates are full of buyers remorse.

They can fix the problem by admitting that they are spending too much damn money, and then doing something about it.

Refusing to pay for debts already incurred is a default, and puts doubt upon an already shakey situation.

If we are gonna lose an arm and a leg, we first have to acknowledge the bleeding and stop it before we worry about replacing them with bionic limbs purchased on credit. But we still need to pay the doctor bill.

Too bad we can't sue for malpractice.

Well we try to do that with medicare and social security with dedicated payroll taxes...not so much with general expenditures which are financed by general tax revenue which is at historical lows. Bad economy is the primary reason but there is also a structural deficit because conservatives came convinced around the 70's that they were just pursuing balanced budgets in support of the liberal welfare state. Consequently the "starve the beast" strategy was tried once again in the early 2000's with one intent being to "drown the government in a bath tub".

The ultimate goal being to use the structural budget deficit as a means to justify cutting the welfare state.

If you'll remember correctly in the early 2000's the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan were clamoring about the need to slash revenue because we might pay our national debt down too fast by 2010.

BoatShoes;1367318 wrote: defaulted...most likely bad)or get her to change her ways at a time when something unprecedented won't happen...

Something unprecedented will always happen. This year it might be a war, ornext year it will be an eartquake or hurricane. The point is, we need to spend less than we take in, both to pay debt and for unexpected things.

BoatShoes;1367318 wrote:What do you do if your wife is also on the plan and she just happens to have a different view on it than you do. She thinks it best to just raise your credit limit now and then handle the fight about the verizon bill later. Maybe you wish you weren't married to this woman because you've come to realize she has totally different values than you do. And, you could raise your credit limit and borrow at 1% and your debt is currently about equal to your income?

If you don't raise your credit limit, unprecedented bad things happen.

Seems to me the only option, given your intransigent wife with different values (democrats), cheap credit equal to income (national debt about equal to GDP with investors willing to lend at 1%), unprecedented events that will surely be bad if limit is not raised and default occurs (Not sure what would happen if U.S. defaulted...most likely bad), is to raise your credit limit and try to divorce your wife or get her to change her ways at a time when something unprecedented won't happen...

Essentially, what you've just suggested is to do what she wants until we either agree (not likely) or I am able to separate myself from her (not realistic as a parallel).

I'm not going to further wreck my finances in order to keep from fighting with my wife. If anything, I'm either leaving the plan or kicking her off the plan. If she wants to do that, she can ruin her own credit and financial situation. Essentially, I'd make it optional to the individual. If she wants the Verizon plan, she can foot 100% of the bill. I'll go without it and live within my means. Let's see which of us ends up in better shape via the decision.

But I would NOT continue to allow her to put our financial state in worse and worse condition. We disagree, but it's hardly just a matter of opinion. Thus, no, I would not raise my credit limit out of a need to spend all that credit.

I'd be willing to bet almost nobody knows of any situation in which consumer spending (ie investing in something without the potential for a financial return larger than the investment) on an ever-growing credit line with an increasing balance has benefited that person, particularly if including the act of increasing their credit limit when they max out the current one on the credit line (really, not much different than starting to spend on a second credit card after maxing the first one out).

Ask any expert in personal finance, and they'll tell you that's a foolish and dangerous practice. Somehow, we think it's magically different at the national level.

I like the husband and wife analogy. It's two people (parties) who both have input but neither has control so they just argue back and forth for eternity.

Much of our spending is not "contractual" or "promised" into perpetuity. Defense spending can certainly be cut in the future without breaking any contracts or "promises". 99-wk unemployment is not something we are in any way obligated to continue paying, much less into perpetuity.

SS and Medicare benefits are completely out-of-balance with what has been paid in - it needs to be changed. It's never been a defined benefit.

Obamacare you can get rid of that.

And we can go on and on. At what point do we stop spending money we don't have? The concept behind a debt ceiling is so we don't perpetually kick the can down the road. Shame on Obama for chastising Congress for not playing his game of kick the can.

Devils Advocate;1367321 wrote:Something unprecedented will always happen. This year it might be a war, ornext year it will be an eartquake or hurricane. The point is, we need to spend less than we take in, both to pay debt and for unexpected things.

Wars have happened before. Supply shocks have happened before. The United States has never defaulted on its obligations. The promise that the United States will pay you is the ultimate good promise in the world. We don't want to see what happens if that ceases to be the case.

gut;1367337 wrote:Much of our spending is not "contractual" or "promised" into perpetuity. Defense spending can certainly be cut in the future without breaking any contracts or "promises". 99-wk unemployment is not something we are in any way obligated to continue paying, much less into perpetuity.

SS and Medicare benefits are completely out-of-balance with what has been paid in - it needs to be changed. It's never been a defined benefit.

Obamacare you can get rid of that.

And we can go on and on. At what point do we stop spending money we don't have? The concept behind a debt ceiling is so we don't perpetually kick the can down the road. Shame on Obama for chastising Congress for not playing his game of kick the can.

Yeah...all that stuff can be cut...but until it is done so with congressional action those obligations are grounded in the law and until they're changed; breaching them is just as bad as any breach.

O-Trap;1367328 wrote:Essentially, what you've just suggested is to do what she wants until we either agree (not likely) or I am able to separate myself from her (not realistic as a parallel).

I'm not going to further wreck my finances in order to keep from fighting with my wife. If anything, I'm either leaving the plan or kicking her off the plan. If she wants to do that, she can ruin her own credit and financial situation. Essentially, I'd make it optional to the individual. If she wants the Verizon plan, she can foot 100% of the bill. I'll go without it and live within my means. Let's see which of us ends up in better shape via the decision.

But I would NOT continue to allow her to put our financial state in worse and worse condition. We disagree, but it's hardly just a matter of opinion. Thus, no, I would not raise my credit limit out of a need to spend all that credit.

I'd be willing to bet almost nobody knows of any situation in which consumer spending (ie investing in something without the potential for a financial return larger than the investment) on an ever-growing credit line with an increasing balance has benefited that person, particularly if including the act of increasing their credit limit when they max out the current one on the credit line (really, not much different than starting to spend on a second credit card after maxing the first one out).

Ask any expert in personal finance, and they'll tell you that's a foolish and dangerous practice. Somehow, we think it's magically different at the national level.

Defaulting on your debts will wreck your finances in this case...especially considering that everyone in your neighborhood is counting on you because you've always paid your debts. Refusing to pay the bill will wreck your finances. Taking on a little more debt than your income for the time being until you can get a new wife and eliminate those bills will not wreck your finances.

In real non government entity life, it would absolutely be a better decision, if your debt was equal to your income, to increase your debt (especially at 1% interest) until you could cut out those bills rather than refuse to pay your bills. Especially if you know your income is likely to grow at a faster rate than that every year.

It is a no brainer when the world economy is counting on you to do it.

BoatShoes;1367355 wrote:Defaulting on your debts will wreck your finances in this case...especially considering that everyone in your neighborhood is counting on you because you've always paid your debts. Refusing to pay the bill will wreck your finances. Taking on a little more debt than your income for the time being until you can get a new wife and eliminate those bills will not wreck your finances.

In the meantime, however, I should cut back on what I've been spending so much money on. I'm not saying to default on my debts. I'm saying to get rid of the monthly expenditures while I pay off my debts. Provided I stop spending so much, I won't really need to take out more debt.

In my family, if my wife disagreed that strongly about it, then as I said, we'd split up our finances. She could do what she wanted with hers. I'll do what is best with my own.

BoatShoes;1367355 wrote:In real non government entity life, it would absolutely be a better decision, if your debt was equal to your income, to increase your debt (especially at 1% interest) until you could cut out those bills rather than refuse to pay your bills. Especially if you know your income is likely to grow at a faster rate than that every year.

#1. The problem is the notion that you "can't cut out those bills" right now. There are PLENTY of things my wife and I enjoy that aren't necessities, and that are essentially at my whim. If I want to cut them out next month, I can. There is no need to discuss "when" we'll be able to cut them out. We can cut them out now.

#2. Again, I'm not saying to not pay your bills. In fact, I mentioned that in my initial response to DA. That would be option (b). I'm not advocating option (b). I'm advocating option (c).

#3. Given the fact that the debt has continued to increase while well under the credit limit, delaying the ceiling does little to force spending reductions. You don't keep digging a hole deeper until you can figure out how to climb out.

As for the growing income, the only way that's happening is to make the economic climate more hostile for the constituency. Doesn't strike me as a long-term solution, particularly when a long-term solution is necessary to pay off such a sizable debt.

BoatShoes;1367355 wrote:It is a no brainer when the world economy is counting on you to do it.

The rest of the world is not our government's constituency. I certainly would advocate doing things that are good for other countries' economies, but not at the expense of our own citizens here.

BoatShoes;1367352 wrote:Yeah...all that stuff can be cut...but until it is done so with congressional action those obligations are grounded in the law and until they're changed; breaching them is just as bad as any breach.

The debt ceiling is also law, meant to prevent endlessly spending more than you take in. That's the purpose of the debt ceiling that continues to fly over your head. Congress is just as obligated, arguably more so, to reduce the deficit as they are in keeping promises they couldn't keep in the first place.

Whether you cut spending today or tomorrow doesn't really matter - you have to cut spending. And the purpose of the debt ceiling is to force reductions when leaders are unwilling to make the necessary cuts. That Obama would suggest this is non-negotiable is his greatest failure of leadership yet.

gut;1367827 wrote:The debt ceiling is also law, meant to prevent endlessly spending more than you take in. That's the purpose of the debt ceiling that continues to fly over your head. Congress is just as obligated, arguably more so, to reduce the deficit as they are in keeping promises they couldn't keep in the first place.

Whether you cut spending today or tomorrow doesn't really matter - you have to cut spending. And the purpose of the debt ceiling is to force reductions when leaders are unwilling to make the necessary cuts. That Obama would suggest this is non-negotiable is his greatest failure of leadership yet.

It hasn't flown over my head.

Congress has commanded the president to spend X amount that is going to require borrowing to meet those expenditures.

Congress has commanded the president not to borrow more money.

It is a contradiction. Regardless of what the president does he will break the law unless he employs some shenanigans (platinum coin, 14th amendment, issuing scrip).

So, what do we do?

Entitlement cuts like a chained CPI or medicare vouchers aren't going to reduce spending enough to require not raising the debt ceiling imminently again.

Republicans have no real plan for specific spending cuts as the fiscal cliff negotiations proved.

So there's no foundation for a bargain at all. There's no foundation for Congress to change the law and command the president to spend less. The simple choice that causes the least harm is to raise the debt ceiling.

Continuing to deficit spend after the fiscal cliff deal will not be as problematic as defaulting on spending obligations. Not only would the default be bad but you're looking at an economic contraction of spending by 6% of GDP which would lead to a disastrous recession. This is especially true considering that the deficit has been reduced considerably over the last couple of years.

It is a no-brainer really.

O-Trap;1367391 wrote:In the meantime, however, I should cut back on what I've been spending so much money on. I'm not saying to default on my debts. I'm saying to get rid of the monthly expenditures while I pay off my debts. Provided I stop spending so much, I won't really need to take out more debt.

In my family, if my wife disagreed that strongly about it, then as I said, we'd split up our finances. She could do what she wanted with hers. I'll do what is best with my own.



#1. The problem is the notion that you "can't cut out those bills" right now. There are PLENTY of things my wife and I enjoy that aren't necessities, and that are essentially at my whim. If I want to cut them out next month, I can. There is no need to discuss "when" we'll be able to cut them out. We can cut them out now.

#2. Again, I'm not saying to not pay your bills. In fact, I mentioned that in my initial response to DA. That would be option (b). I'm not advocating option (b). I'm advocating option (c).

#3. Given the fact that the debt has continued to increase while well under the credit limit, delaying the ceiling does little to force spending reductions. You don't keep digging a hole deeper until you can figure out how to climb out.

As for the growing income, the only way that's happening is to make the economic climate more hostile for the constituency. Doesn't strike me as a long-term solution, particularly when a long-term solution is necessary to pay off such a sizable debt.



The rest of the world is not our government's constituency. I certainly would advocate doing things that are good for other countries' economies, but not at the expense of our own citizens here.

It's very simple. You can't cut your current expenditures without your wife's consent (president and democrats in Senate) even if you accept much of it is useless...they/she has come to the opposite conclusion. In real life you can not listen to your wife but you can't under our Constitution. It is impossible not to spend unless your wife consents. Consequently, you either borrow slightly above your income level at 1% or default. You keep saying cutting is an option when clearly it isn't. If default has disastrous consequences (which it does)...it will wreck your finances while borrowing more at 1% after a couple debt reduction compromises will not...threatening to default unless spending cuts are extracted is inappropriate and the obvious answer is to simply do that which will not be disastrous.

QuakerOats;1366981 wrote:Do you just drink the koolaid, or do you really buy in to the horse sh!$? Do you want to solve our problems, or do you want to just be a tax-n-spend liberal hack?

Why don't we just leave it up to right-wing extremist hacks like you? Then when we go in the dumper you can sit back, arms folded and proclaim how proud you are that you and your kind "solved the problem". No thanks.