Gov't Shutdown Closes National Wildlife Refuges

Let's use your math. $238 Billion a month in revenue. $238 billion X 12= $2,856,Trillion in revenue. We will redeem somewhere close to $7.1 Trillion in bonds that roll over. Even if the interest rates go up 1% would have issue new debt to just to sell enough new bonds to redeem the old bonds but it is worse than that you have to remember that we not only have short term obligations but also long term obligations.

So of that $2.856 trillion $672 billion is already spent on interest leaving $2.184 trillion available to you to fund the government. Except there are the off budget programs of Medicare and Social Security that will have to be financed as well. Those programs, which you included in your $2.184 of revenue eat up about $1.7 Trillion of that revenue. This leaves you with $484 Billion to run the government, which is a neat trick since the defense budget is about $690 Billion. Those numbers are before any bonds are redeemed.

Now if you want to cut $200 Billion out of defense thats great but that just leaves you at break even without funding any research, college programs, public land agencies, farm programs or anything else.

Again I am all for cutting and getting our arms around the problem but the problem is not the debt limit and not increasing the debt limit doesn't mean our debt doesn't continue to grow.

Nemont

Nemont said:

Let's use your math. $238 Billion a month in revenue. $238 billion X 12= $2,856,Trillion in revenue. We will redeem somewhere close to $7.1 Trillion in bonds that roll over. Even if the interest rates go up 1% would have issue new debt to just to purchase enough new bonds to redeem the old bonds but it is worse than that you have to remember that we not only have short term obligations but also long term obligations.

So of that $2.856 trillion $672 billion is already spent on interest leaving $2.184 trillion available to you to fund the government. Except there are the off budget programs of Medicare and Social Security that will have to be financed as well. Those programs, which you included in your $2.184 of revenue eat up about $1.7 Trillion of that revenue. This leave you with $484 Billion to run the government, which is a neat trick since the defense budget is about $690 Billion. Those numbers are before any bonds are redeemed.

Now if you want to cut $200 Billion out of defense thats great but that just leaves you at break even without funding any research, college programs, public land agencies, farm programs or anything else.

Again I am all for cutting and getting our arms around the problem but the problem is not the debt limit and not increasing the debt limit doesn't mean our debt doesn't continue to grow.

Nemont

Click to expand...

My main points are still valid that there will not be a default and there would have to be spending cuts.

BigRack said:

My main points are still valid that there will not be a default and there would have to be spending cuts.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, it all makes perfect sense if you don't have to think about it.

I am done. You think as you wish. One can't argue with people who don't believe facts matters.

Have a good one and hope you have a great hunting season.

Nemont

Karl Denninger has a nice post on the default situation. Simply put, there will be no default. Tax revenues exceed the interest payment, at least currently.

Nemont, the saddest part of all is that the majority of voters do not have a clue what you're even talking about and are not mad as hell over the debt and spending. Not surprising since so many are in debt to the gills themselves

Nemont, Thank You!

Here is another link saying how there will not be a default.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richard...cy-agreement-or-not-there-will-be-no-default/

schmalts said:

Nemont, the saddest part of all is that the majority of voters do not have a clue what you're even talking about and are not mad as hell over the debt and spending. Not surprising since so many are in debt to the gills themselves

Click to expand...

Yup, that is a fact. Most people are of the belief that by shutting down the Government and not raising the debt ceiling is somehow stopping the huge accrual of interest and other promises we have made to people in the form of SS, Medicare, pensions, post-retirement health care, and the many other things that none of these morons have the stones to address.

Nemont is exactly correct. None of this stops the liabilities from accruing. Only reform to the programs will reduce the rate of liability accrual, and not a single one of these squeamish soft-siders has either the intelligence or courage to take it on.

If the US Government were required to account for all promises made, the same as publicly traded companies must account for them, the debt would be over $70 Trillion. Read that number - The US Government, if required to account for the present value of all future promises made (as they require of publicly traded companies), the $70T would be recorded as the liability. That is over $500,000 per US Household.

Yeah, that is how much we have promised others we will pay them in future years. That amount assumes we spend nothing on interest, defense, discretionary items, or the minutia that these elected screwballs are jousting about.

When one looks at how Congress has told the Government accountants to keep the books, it makes Bernie Maddoff look like a good instructor of financial record keeping. Why would they not want to know what they really owe? We all know the answer to that.

They want people to think we are only $16 Trillion in debt, as if people knew how big the number was, and the fact that almost all of that $70 T relates to entitlements, Americans would demand entitlement reform, something that none of these eunuchs want to work on.

Serious head-in-sand (or elsewhere) problem on both sides of the aisle. Not a single person from either party is talking about the real problem. They see this squabble as a way to gain some political or election advantage for themselves.

I fear it will never get better until it gets a lot worse. With the fools at the helm, shouldn't be too much longer before the ship is on the rocks and the rats are fleeing for safety. Only when the rats leave the ship can it ever be righted, something that will require a lot more pain in the future than it would inflict if fixed today.

Rant over.

Bigfin, what do you know, your no accountant And I am just some guy ranting over nothing to worry about. I hate to be a dooms day preacher but we are already defaulted but the government refuses to tell the truth and stop patching the bubble they created. Everyone on the press (liberal press) wants to blame those crazy tea party guys for messing up your trip to Yellowstone or the Breaks. The reality is the Tea Party is doing what needed to be done 3 elections ago. We are toast, stick a fork in us, we will never get out of this debt and for those of you with your heads in the sand and have no concept of basic accounting and economics better read what Fin and Nemont typed on this page. The only way out is to default, clean house in Washington and change the constitution to make it impossible to raise the debt if your already in debt. This would FORCE the morons to trim spending. We did not get in this mess because we did not raise the tax on the wealthiest 10% enough (bad idea, you ever work for a poor guy? didn't think so) we got into it by raising the debt ceiling instead of cutting spending to stay under it.
So now is the big question, do we draw the line in the sand and say let's default now before the pain would be worst or do we keep pretending our debt is just all imagination until China tells us they had enough of us spending like a crack addict and forces us into default by saying no more money for you... in a lack of better terms

schmalts said:

Bigfin, what do you know, your no accountant And I am just some guy ranting over nothing to worry about. I hate to be a dooms day preacher but we are already defaulted but the government refuses to tell the truth and stop patching the bubble they created. Everyone on the press (liberal press) wants to blame those crazy tea party guys for messing up your trip to Yellowstone or the Breaks. The reality is the Tea Party is doing what needed to be done 3 elections ago. <snip>

Click to expand...

Naw..., the TPers aren't any better then the Rs or Ds, just more obnoxious. The TPs just want to cut programs that they don't agree with - including public lands - and if you cut all those programs it wouldn't amount to squat. Nobody has guts enough to cut into defense and entitlements.

RobG said:

Naw..., the TPers aren't any better then the Rs or Ds, just more obnoxious. The TPs just want to cut programs that they don't agree with - including public lands - and if you cut all those programs it wouldn't amount to squat. Nobody has guts enough to cut into defense and entitlements.

Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea they want to cut public lands?

Big Fin said:

Yup, that is a fact. Most people are of the belief that by shutting down the Government and not raising the debt ceiling is somehow stopping the huge accrual of interest and other promises we have made to people in the form of SS, Medicare, pensions, post-retirement health care, and the many other things that none of these morons have the stones to address.


They want people to think we are only $16 Trillion in debt, as if people knew how big the number was, and the fact that almost all of that $70 T relates to entitlements, Americans would demand entitlement reform, something that none of these eunuchs want to work on.

Click to expand...

Yes Randy, the 70T is on the accrual basis. People should go and look at the Financial Statements of the US Government that is published every year on the accrual basis.

The Middle Class is going to bear the brunt of it in the future.

BigRack said:

The Middle Class is going to bear the brunt of it in the future.

Click to expand...

The future? They have been bearing the brunt of it now and in the past. Obamacare with it's subsidies is just yet another form of wealth redistribution.

I don't really see there being much of a middle class in the future.

BigRack said:

Where did you get the idea they want to cut public lands?

Click to expand...

From the Helena Hippee of course: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=256426

In a nutshell, they are trying to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land to the highest bidder "to reduce the deficit." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate how little that will reduce the deficit and how much it will help mining/logging/oil and other private interests/campaign donors.

Some google info: https://www.google.com/#q=republicans+selling+3.3+million+acres&safe=active&start=0

RobG said:

From the Helena Hippee of course: http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=256426

In a nutshell, they are trying to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land to the highest bidder "to reduce the deficit." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate how little that will reduce the deficit and how much it will help mining/logging/oil and other private interests/campaign donors.

Some google info: https://www.google.com/#q=republicans+selling+3.3+million+acres&safe=active&start=0

Click to expand...

I still don't see what that has to do with the Tea Party.

I think the Feds should sell the land to the States. I would rather have the States manage the land.

The thugs in the Obongo regime are playing the people for maximum political effect and apparently it's working. But it only works on those who get upset and let it.

BigRack said:

I still don't see what that has to do with the Tea Party.

Click to expand...

"Well look, I'm as Tea Party as it gets."
-- Jason Chaffetz (the public lands sell-off bill sponsor)

RobG said:

"Well look, I'm as Tea Party as it gets."
-- Jason Chaffetz (the public lands sell-off bill sponsor)

Click to expand...

You do realize the Tea Party doesn't have an official stance on selling public lands right?

Would you rather have the Fed or the States own the land?

BigRack said:

I think the Feds should sell the land to the States. I would rather have the States manage the land.

Click to expand...

How do you propose that the states pay for the land? How to you propose that they pay to manage the land?