Debt Ceiling

Proponents of Raising the Debt Ceiling Want To Bankrupt Your Kids

|

Cut credit card
grafixtek / photo on flickr

Whether it's long-term or short-term, proposals to hike the debt ceiling are schemes for allowing the federal government to borrow more money so it can continue to spend beyond its means. Politicians want to borrow more money because they have spending plans that consistently exceed the amount of money that the federal government takes in as taxes, and that are projected to continue to outpace revenues into the foreseeable future. Raising the debt ceiling means snowballing debt rolling downhill right toward our children and their children.

In a Cato Institute paper published in February of this year, Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Social Security Advisory Board warns:

Current U.S. fiscal policy, including the recently concluded "fiscal cliff " debt deal, is placing an enormous financial burden on today's children and on future generations in order to deliver government benefits to current middle-aged workers and their elders. Standard government accounting methods hide that intergenerational transfer from the public and make it difficult to calculate how large the transfer is. Intergenerational resource transfers will grow larger as the composition of budget receipts and expenditureschanges with relatively faster growth of age- and gender-related social insurance programs. Intergenerational redistributions through federal government operations could substantially affect different generations' economic expectations and choices and exert powerful long-term effects on economic outcomes.

Entitlements are a big part of the problem. In fact, current middle-aged workers are expected to receive such enormous benefits via Social Security and Medicare under existing policies, Gokhale continues, that their lifetime net tax burdens are "almost fully eliminated." With the Congressional Budget Office projecting spending to steadily rise, as a percentage of GDP, over the decades to come, while taxes are expected to remain a bit above their decades-long average share of GDP, that means deficits, year after year, and growing debt, as ceilings get bumped ever-higher until the economy buckles under the pressure.

Federal spending and revenue
CBO

This is without taking into account the fact that "the increase in debt relative to the size of the economy, combined with an increase in marginal tax rates (the rates that would apply to an additional dollar of income), would reduce output and raise interest rates relative to the benchmark economic projections that CBO used in producing the extended baseline." Taking the resultingly depressed economy into account, "debt under the extended baseline would rise to 108 percent of GDP in 2038."

This means, essentially, that the massive tab for everything else besides entitlements is being passed along to the next generation via borrowing to cover today's bill. And they'll have a lousy economy in which to scare up the payments.

Of course, most of the current flock of politicians—Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Boehner, and company—expect to have happily sucked up the entitlements that will leave their tax payments "almost fully eliminated" long before the bill comes due. It's tough luck for their kids and grandkids, along with ours—unless they've arranged for them to dodge the consequences (they wouldn't do that, would they?).

That intergenerational passing of the check, with no plan in sight to do otherwise, is the big problem with just raising the debt ceiling like our self-proclaimedly responsible policial class insists. Pay no mind to the debt—it's doom if we don't comply.

But what doom? Economist and Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy has pointed out that "if the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury can prioritize interest and debt payment to avoid a default." Now, Moody's Steven Hess agrees, writing, "We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact. The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt."

So, the federal government is fully able to pay off its already hefty tab even if we cut up the credit card. Then, maybe, it can finally get its spending under control.

NEXT: Malala Yousafzai To Be Awarded EU Human Rights Prize

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So who blinks first?

    Obama or Boehner?

    1. Does tearful blubbering count as blinking? If so, 100 gold dragons on Boehner.

    2. I thought Orange Julius already blinked this morning?!

      1. Looks like he wants to hold the line on Obamacare but concede a short-term debt-ceiling hike.

        No way Obama takes it though.

        1. Somewhat clever posturing on Boner’s part.

  2. Proponents of Raising the Debt Ceiling Want To Bankrupt Your Kids

    Jokes on them, I don’t have any kids. Burn baby burn!

    1. We’re all somebody’s children, Hugh.

      1. It takes a village, after all

      2. Right, we’re all the children of Barack Obama. And Big Daddy takes care of all of us. All he asks in return is that we follow the rules he lays down and don’t show him any sass. Big Daddy loves us, and it pains him terrible when we make him hurt us like that.

      3. We’re all somebody’s children, Hugh.

        Not Epi.

        1. True. Anarchists reproduce by fission, like all bacteria.

          1. Surinam toads. That is all.

        2. I’m actually just a figment of your imagination, so I guess you’re right.

        3. Epi is a character on a malfunctioning holodeck.

          1. Did you just call me Dixon Hill?!?

            1. Evil Metrosexual WOP Not-Lincoln is back!

  3. How about we just keep spending under the debt limit? In fact, what about matching expenditures to revenue?

    1. Break out the butterfly nets. ProLib’s gone crazy!

      1. I admit, I have been reading radical tracts from the Federalist Papers.

        1. Don’t let anyone in the government find out.

      1. Goddamnit, I thought the last Eagles fan was stabbed recently.

        1. Can we get someone in California to stab Serious? I’m willing to throw in a few bucks.

          1. He already told us where he’ll be tonight…

          2. Stab him with their steely knives, but they just can’t… kill the beast?

            *ducks*

          3. So…One of These Nights I’ll be stabbed?

            1. Now you’re getting desperado…

              1. Epi’s all talk, I’ve got a peaceful, easy feeling that can only stem from living life in the fast lane. And a tequila sunrise.

              2. Epi’s all talk, I’ve got a peaceful, easy feeling that can only stem from living life in the fast lane. And a tequila sunrise.

            2. That’s what you’ll get for living Life in the Fast Lane

              1. Somebody’s gonna hurt someone before this thread is through.

                1. “One of these nights”, he sighed. The lone Desperado was standing at the door of the Hotel California, trying to hide his Lying Eyes from the Witchy Woman he’d met In The City. But his chance to Take It Easy that night was Already Gone. The Peaceful, Easy Feeling he’d been enjoying vanished as she approached. “Get Over It, babe” she said, “You know you want The Best of My Love, because Love Will Keep Us Alive.”

          4. Ye gods, I’m aligned with Episiarch. It’s like the U.S. and the Soviets in WWII all over again. He’s the commie, of course.

            In any event, fuck the Eagles. Even Stalin hated the Eagles. As did Hitler.

            1. You know who else hated the Eagles?

              1. No, but I’ll shake his hand.

              2. Frank Gifford?

        2. Goddamnit, I thought the last Eagles fan was stabbed recently.

          You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.

          1. Goddamnit, I thought the last Eagles fan was stabbed recently.

            If they lived in Philly, it’s entirely a believable story… oh wait, wrong Eagles, never mdind…

            1. Have the eagles ever let anyone down?

              1. Only everyone ever.

                God I hate The Eagles.

                The band, not the football team. The football team I’m ambivalent about.

                1. Both are unpleasant to behold.

                2. The football team employs a convicted felon with a nasty, nasty history of sadism and brutality.

                  Yet you are ambivalent. Interesting.

        3. I don’t know how anyone can be bothered to hate the Eagles. To me they are just totally neutral generic radio music that I never would listen to on purpose but is less annoying than a lot of what you might hear on the radio.

          1. They are superior to Fallout Boy.

          2. I don’t actually hate them. I just turn the dial when I hear them.

    2. UNpossible! Death!! Misery! Suffering! Anguish! Blood in the streets! Orphans eating old people!!!!111111111three!

    3. According to Robert Murphy, we would have to cut 15.6% of total spending and/or 48% reduction in Defense and Nondefense discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2014.

      1. I think most profitable private companies could make themselves 15% smaller without completely collapsing into bankruptcy.

        1. My company chopped itself approx 33% recently precisely to avoid bankruptcy. It’s painful….but our break-even level is SO much lower now!

          Of course, none of that means a thing to the gummint, which is immune to market signals…

      2. 15.6% of total spending and/or 48% reduction in Defense and Nondefense discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2014.

        Not a bad start.

    4. How about Congress passes appropriations bills into law to change appropriations?

      1. How about a budget?

        1. Get your talking points updated.

          1. Tell that to the government teachers, the fascist professors, the lamestream media, hollywood, tv producers, unemployed libtards on the internet…

            Oh wait.

  4. According to my checks, it appears they are trying to bankrupt me.

  5. What do you mean there’s something wrong with relying on superheated economic bubbles in order to run a tax surplus? That’s the American way!

  6. Proponents of Raising the Debt Ceiling Want To Bankrupt Your Kids

    Let’s see, bankrupt down the road some people who have no legal right to vote or enter into contracts, or keep giving free stuff to the people who vote right now…

    That’s a tough choice.

    1. It’s too late. Unfunded liabilities mean they are already bankrupt. And that’s after total debt being $50-$60T. Everyone is fucked.

      1. Says you, I got my Obama Phone.

  7. Only if they agree to increase the choclate rations to 25 grams!

    1. I think you mean:

      Only if they agree to increase the choclate rations from 30 grams to 25 grams!

      1. I thought me meant:

        Oly if tey agee to Incrse te choco rats from 30 gra to 25 gra!

  8. “Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt.”

    1. Just raise the debt ceiling.

    2. You stupid rednecks, just raise the debt ceiling to infinity and fire up those printing presses, forward comrades!

      /The Krugenmeister

    1. In the comments? Can you point us to a time stamp or somethin’?

      1. Just sort the comments by reverse chronological order and go down the “view more” a little ways.

        1. That dude was an idiot. He seriously used “I wrote a paper on 2A in college” as an argument??

          1. “My mom says I’m the most handsome boy in school.”

        2. Which one are you? There’s a whole lot of shit and a whole lot of slapdowns happening on that thread.

          1. Nevermind, found you by your blog url.

          2. Ken Spicer’s my name. I’m shitslapping some dumbass named David Gager that once wrote a paper in COLLEGE on the 2A.

            This isn’t even fair.

            1. I see. He’s just pulling out the standard anti-gun talking points. He’s learned them very well it seems, but isn’t used to meeting serious resistance.

            2. That article makes me want to go out and buy an AR10

        3. COLLEGE! Don’t you understand? COLLEGE!

          I guess I have to admire your persistence. It is really depressing how readily and enthusiastically some people want to give up any right to be armed.

    2. Gager is a creep. And a little wuss-boy. You destroyed him.

      1. Hey, I was faded out by the time you guys left on Saturday. I just wanted to say thanks for coming out. We missed you guys.

  9. Proponents of Raising the Debt Ceiling Want To Bankrupt Your Kids

    Fuck yo couch kids

  10. Joke’s on them; my kids are already bankrupt.

  11. In fact, current middle-aged workers are expected to receive such enormous benefits via Social Security and Medicare under existing policies, Gokhale continues, that their lifetime net tax burdens are “almost fully eliminated.”

    But that’s on average. Those unlucky enough to die young get doubly screwed as they’ll never get to enjoy all that money that was taken from them over the years.

    1. That might be true if it were remotely possible that those enormous benefits will actually be delivered.

      Which they won’t. Because math.

  12. I love “for the children” bullshit coming from people who refuse to entertain the idea of ever raising taxes. If we don’t have to, why should they? Also from people who consistently mock anyone using “for the children” as an excuse for doing anything.

    1. Your’e slipping, boy.

      That only rates a C- trolling effort.

    2. If you don’t understand the difference you are just being purposefully obtuse.

      1. What difference? Our children will find themselves in a world where you actually have to pay for stuff you buy? What will precipitate this momentous shift into a new era in which arithmetic actually applies to numbers?

        1. Our children will find themselves in a world where you actually have to pay for stuff you buy?

          Psst. They should pay for it with their own individual money.

      2. IF YOU DON’T WANT HIGHER TAXES YOU HATE THE CHILDREN WAFFLES!

        How’d I do Tony?

      3. Or could it be that actually caring about the well-being of children is off-limits (they do present a particularly bothersome challenge to the tenets of libertarian morality), but using children as props in a transparently deceitful bullshit parade whose only purpose is to advance the same tired old ideological agenda (cut off all government support for the needy, including children) is perfectly fine?

        1. I can agree this once with Tony that ‘the children’ panics are a cheap rhetorical ploy that grows increasingly tiresome regardless of the ideology attached to it.

          1. You are agreeing with a position I do not endorse. I think it is vital to consider the welfare of children in formulating public policy ideas.

            Libertarians mock such concern because they know that they can’t fit the existence of children into their moral system. You start admitting there are children in the world, even totally helpless infants, then you start to realize that “personal responsibility” as an alternative to community rings a bit hollow.

            1. The difference between spending public money on regulations/programs/entitlements for the children and reducing the future debt burden of the next generation is huge. This isn’t even debatable. If you took all the spending on programs that are “for the children” and returned it as a stimulus check to taxpayers I think it would do a world more good.

            2. Responsibility is something we ascribe to adults Tony, so the existence of children poses no real problem for libertarianism.

              -You are agreeing with a position I do not endorse. I think it is vital to consider the welfare of children in formulating public policy ideas.

              So using children as a prop is OK as long as ‘your side’ is doing it?

              1. It’s their schtick. Can’t steal material like that.

              2. The difference is I’m not using children as props. I’m saying the existence of children necessitates adding a measure of complexity to our moral worldview vis-a-vis public policy. Not all parents will be good parents. Your moral worldview depends on meritocratic assumptions. But if people’s futures are determined largely by who their parents are, we don’t have meritocracy, but aristocracy. One of the major points of having a welfare state is to promote meritocracy, as counterintuitive as that may sound to you.

                1. I’m convinced. I’m convinced that our goals are the same but I find your means untenable and unethical. Good parents will always have better, healthier children and there’s no spending money on bad parents that will change that. It’s not aristocracy it’s a fact of life.

                  1. “Life isn’t fair” is a shorter way of putting it. That doesn’t mean we should endorse the least fair scenario. Life should be fair. A large degree of unfairness distorts meritocracy and makes a mockery of capitalism. I’m not advocating for anything close to equal outcomes, just an approach to equal opportunity. A safety net is just a floor beneath which we don’t let people fall so that we can avoid generational cycles of poverty. The kids of poor parents should at least have a fighting chance. Even now they really don’t. And you want to gut the safety net even more, endorsing moving even more toward an aristocratic norm.

                2. BS. The main reason for having a welfare state is so that people like you can pat themselves on the back for helping “the children” when, in fact, all they’ve done is to take money from one group and give it to another.

                  Children, environment, unemployed, etc., are just excuses to redistribute wealth so that all are equally poor and so that the elite (which I suppose includes you) can keep track of their merit badges in their meritocracy.

                  If you really want to help people, then just do it. You don’t need other people’s money, use your own. But I don’t think you really want to solve problems. If you did, you would be devoting your time to it instead of whiling time away here telling others what they should do to help needy people.

                3. Your moral worldview depends on meritocratic assumptions.

                  Yawn. You’re like an energizer bunny of BS. It just keeps going and going.

                  All hyperbolic criticism, with an ironic lack of self-reflection.

            3. And don’t feed me bullshit about hyperinflation or other such discredited bogeymen.

              Nope, no boogeymen here!!! Why, exponential functions don’t even exist!!

              http://www.economics-charts.co…..i-1913.png

              you start to realize that “personal responsibility” as an alternative to community rings a bit hollow.

              Only a shitlib would equate a massive centralized bureaucracy with “community.”

              1. Why, exponential functions don’t even exist!!

                Oh please, Tony doesn’t even understand what an exponential function is, nevermind how it applies to this.

            4. Because community = government apparently?

              Oh, and it’s hilarious to see you endorse “FOR THE CHILDRUN!” bullshit that is on other issues used to justify the suppression of homosexuality (or even sexuality in general), outlaw drugs, censorship, abortion restrictions, etc.

              1. Nobody promised you that politics would be as black and white as you apparently need them to be.

                Everyone who’s not a political psychopath like libertarians considers children in their political worldview. Some think what’s important is protecting them from drugs and genitals. Others think what’s important is making sure they are healthily fed and well educated so they can take advantage of the capitalism you say is the best possible economic system.

        2. I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

        3. using children as props in a transparently deceitful bullshit parade whose only purpose is to advance the same tired old ideological agenda

          That’s a good one. Let me see… what group of people has used that propaganda line to their political advantage for as long as I can remember… Hmm….

      4. If you don’t understand the difference you are just being purposefully obtuse.

        Tony really is that stupid.

        1. But we already know this. So why do so many wish to engage with it?

          1. Damn good question.

    3. please point me to the dem tax proposal that raises enough money to close the deficit.

      1. The Dems do not think that totally eliminating the deficit is a priority at this moment. And nobody can explain why it should be. And don’t feed me bullshit about hyperinflation or other such discredited bogeymen. I am perfectly well aware, even if you aren’t, that deficit and debt serve only one purpose for libertarians and Republicans: the excuse to enact your draconian social agenda. Among other ways, the reason I know this is that you refuse to ever entertain raising taxes. That’s the easiest way to close the deficit, so why not endorse it? The answer is obvious.

        1. Shorter Tony: DERP!

        2. -The Dems do not think that totally eliminating the deficit is a priority at this moment.

          I bet Greece thought this way up until recently too.

          -That’s the easiest way to close the deficit, so why not endorse it?

          How so? The easiest way is surely to stop spending much money. The government just has to…stop.

          1. The US and Greece are not in the same situation. At least not until the reckless behavior this very magazine endorses happens (passing the debt ceiling).

            How is it easier to cut a trillion dollars in spending than to raise a trillion dollars by repealing some of the tax cuts of recent decades? The former will result in a degradation of the standard of living of millions; the latter, none.

            1. ok, i’ll try again. please explain what kind of tax rates we’d need to raise a trillion extra dollars.

              1. JUST TAX THE RICH. 100% That ll fix our woes.

              2. Actually we could get halfway there by eliminating underpayment and tax avoidance by individuals and small businesses. Eliminating tax avoidance by large corporations could make up the other half. We could go another $500 billion or so (nobody really knows) by ending tax haven abuse.

                Doesn’t that sound more humane than cutting healthcare for old poor people? Or is the latter your goal all along, and debt has fuckall to do with anything?

                1. “Actually we could get halfway there by eliminating underpayment and tax avoidance by individuals and small businesses.”
                  – you mean achieving the impossible. excellent idea. i don’t know why the irs hasn’t thought of that.
                  – i don’t know what you mean by “tax avoidance.” do you mean not paying amounts not owed but that Tony think should be owed? that’s not too helpful.

            2. So raising taxes on people won’t degrade their standard of living? That’s a good one.

              1. We’ll you see gubment will just turn around and use the money to enrich your life. And if there are further debt problems…..TAX THE RICH !!!!!!!!

            3. Tony, apart from the fact that raising taxes often harms the entire economy, it also requires taking other people’s money. Stopping spending just requires the government to not spend other people’s money. What could be easier?

              1. It’s not their money if it’s taken in taxes. What belongs to whom is entirely decided by law. If money is owed in taxes, it’s not your money.

                1. And there’s no evidence that taxing the rich harms the economy at all. There is evidence that taking from what little the poor and middle class have does do serious harm. The reasons should be obvious–but you have to believe in economic demand and not just supply.

                  1. And there’s no evidence that taxing the rich harms the economy at all.

                    Except for reality.

                    The reasons should be obvious–but you have to believe in economic demand and not just supply.

                    Maybe I believe in both!

                2. Spoken like a true fascist. Too bad for you Tony it’s getting easier to sidestep your bullshit. There are tax shelters out there and BTC or some other electronic currency will be huge too.

                  1. So you don’t give a shit about the US government’s debt, I take it?

                3. Now this one is so monumentally stupid and over the top it only gets an F+ on the troll-o-meter.

        3. so you admit the dems plan is to pass the bill off to the next generation too. thanks.

          1. Why will the next generation have to pay taxes to close the deficit or service the debt when this one apparently doesn’t? Why don’t you guys endorse, I dunno, actually addressing the problem you’re claiming is so dire?

            1. because the bill’s going to come due someday.

              1. Why not today, though?

                1. why not what today? why not raise taxes enough to close the deficit today? because that would require backbreaking levels of taxation. repealing the bush tax cuts on everyone wouldn’t even get halfway there.

                  1. But it wouldn’t require backbreaking levels of spending cuts?

                    Look there’s plenty I’d cut–I’d start with defense and corporate welfare. But there’s just as certainly plenty in taxes to be raised (if debt is a serious concern of yours), since they’ve been cut to the bone by Republican governments for decades.

                    Even aside from changes in tax rates, revenue is the real issue. A growing economy will help close the deficit all by itself.

                    1. Attach to all this the disclaimer that I don’t believe the deficit or the debt to be an existential crisis. It’s like 10th on the list of things to worry about, at best.

                    2. so “cut to the bone” in Tony-land is over the average as a percentage of GDP since 1945?

        4. I’m interested in raising taxes–as long as it’s your taxes and not mine. You seem willing to pay more, while I’m not. So I say: let you pay them.

          Democrats seem willing to pay (or at least to extract) more taxes, but republicans and libertarians do not. So it’s simple. Let’s just raise taxes on those who think doing so is a good idea, and reduce regulatory pressures on those who think it to be a good idea. How’s that?

      2. Forget it, people. It is Thursday after all, and it is too blinded by an ideology that is always one good leader away from being proved right to give any credence to any other points of view.

        You all know this.

        1. Oh well, I tried.

        2. You’re attempting to impose your libertarian agenda on them by asking them not to tax you.

  13. Try explaining this to a few young people, as I did. Not a few expressed a desire to “make sure the old folks get everything they need.” There’s no worrying about the debt limit – I was told that it must have looked huge to the adults back in 1950 after WWII but here we still are 60 years later chugging along.

  14. We must raise the debt limit! Because $17,000,000,000,000 in debt is simply not enough!

    1. Remember when $4 trillion seemed like an incredible and unreasonable amount of debt?

      1. I remember 1980… when we hit $1 trillion in debt.

    2. It really irks me that the idea of not raising the limit is somehow not even discussed. By either party or the media. Can’t even be conceived of.

      1. This is where some well funded conservative group should run ads simply playing Obama’s speech against raising the debt ceiling.

        1. Please, that Obama guy was just playing dumb and bullshitting in 2006

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..79604.html

      2. This. Somehow, there’s room enough in the budget to talk about invading Syria, but there’s nothing left to cut!

  15. And, yes, the bill will become due. Our outstanding debt is an asymptotal curve that is going vertical. That means, really, that we will default someday, and probably not too far in the future.

    The default could be a refusal to pay, or it could be a slo-mo default via hyperinflation. But those are pretty much our alternatives.

    If we were to balance the budget today and not add to the principal, then I guess it might be possible to avoid this fate. However, the principal amount is so high that reverting the mean in interest rates from today’s historic lows would run our debt service payments up to somewhere between $600BB and $1TT per year (if memory serves). That’s why its different now. A balanced budget today doesn’t save us from truly brutal debt service down the road.

    And SocSec/Medicare are now drawing from the general fund, so maintaining a balanced budget in the face of high 12-figure debt service and increasing drag from entitlement programs may be impossible.

    1. I think the inevitable default is why we cannot cut military spending.

      1. Huh?

  16. I want cake.

  17. When the geezers start cashing their handouts en masse (as they’re starting to do), the youth will revolt.
    Young people are not as stupid as most people think. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
    The older you are, the more likely you don’t know shit.
    You just want your check and them damn kids to respect you.

    1. Hey, how the geezers supposed to retire into scuba diving and mountain climbing, if the youth won’t do their fair share?

  18. If I ever met Tony in person, I’d have a hard time not beating his face in–and a delightfully easy time doing it.

    I’m so sick of hearing from maggots like Tony that my life and my mind are his property. Soon as interest rates move, the dollar ponzi is toast, their beloved State will collapse like the hollow body that it is, and then we’ll just see.

    1. Then, when our politicians are all taking like fiscal conservatives while they implement austerity (i.e., talking about “financial responsibility”, not “kicking the can down the road”, “burdening our children with taxes for the selfish benefit of the present”, etc.), they’ll blame it on the Koch brothers and fox news for pushing us all into a libertarian paradise.

    2. I think the analogy of zombie is more apt than maggot, although I can see how that might apply as well.

      Liberals have been conditioned into all sorts of bizarre beliefs that they uncritically accept i.e.: debt doesn’t matter, taking guns away from the law abiding makes us safer, taxing people and businesses through the nose doesn’t “hurt” them and only good things will result, heavy regulation doesn’t drive away businesses…etc.

      It’s maddening to those of us that understand what nonsense it all is.

      They can do this because they have no actual understanding of economics yet they’ve been trustingly lied to by their fellow travelers, reinforced by the gibber of the media. The sphincter of their minds is closed. It’s a waste of time arguing with the Tonys of this world. They’re fighting to protect their worldview, irrational though it may be.

      1. You’ve nearly mastered the logic-like terminology and insults, but the fact is you are the ones who demonstrably don’t know what you’re talking about. Point to a single shred of empirical evidence of positive outcomes of your beliefs.

    3. You people should definitely be coming up with all the ideas for how everyone should live.

  19. We could ask Germany to bail us out.

  20. Government bonds: how you make the government promise to tax you in the future.

  21. As a lawyer who has done too many bankruptcy petitions to count, the misuse of the word “bankruptcy” really annoys me.

  22. The U.S. public is finally starting to see through this B.S. Even your prime patrons, the Koch brothers, are getting the message.

    From the Murdoch/WSJ survey that said that 24 percent of those polled approve of the job the Republicans in Congress are doing, and 53 percent blame GOP lawmakers for the shutdown while 31 percent say Obama is at fault.

    Oooooh…gahhh! (Dive!)

  23. “Proponents of Raising the Debt Ceiling”

    That would include almost every sitting member of Congress. Actually, probably every single one.

  24. The writer already fell for one shell game, how the debt is calculated. The real outstanding debt is ~$17T (including SS IOU’s etc) so 0 of GDP today. The unfunded NPV is about $60T (the amount of money that needs to be in bank today to pay future benefits given assumptions of future rate of return). Add in private debt and the figure now is over $120T. When the faith in the $ is lost many holders of debt will feel real pain. Maybe WW3 too.

  25. Let it collapse now before it gets worse. Then kick the gov. to the curb and choose peace.

  26. my friend’s step-sister makes $84/hr on the computer. She has been laid off for nine months but last month her check was $21144 just working on the computer for a few hours. Continue Reading
    =========================
    http://www.works23.com
    =========================

  27. Since I started fre+lancing I’ve been bringing in $90 bucks/h? I sit at home and i am doing my work from my laptop. The best thing is that i get more time to spent with my family and with my kids and in the same time i can earn enough to support them… You can do it too. Start here.for more work detail go to tech tab.
    =========================
    w?w?w.JOBS72.com
    =========================

  28. my buddy’s aunt makes $87 an hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her payment was $19984 just working on the internet for a few hours. great post to read
    ===========================
    http://www.works23.com
    ===========================

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.