Posted in life
Tell me again why we should reward the financial sector banksters again?
“The U.S. financial sectors that would be at the greatest risk would be those with business models that depend at least partially on short-term funding. These include banks, funds, finance companies, exchanges and clearinghouses, broker-dealers, and life insurers.” <- not sure about you, but these people are not doing me any favors lately..
“While the debt limit has been raised numerous times in the past, and sometimes the issue has been contentious, bond interest and principal have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is raised again and a default avoided, the Aaa rating would likely be confirmed. However, the outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.”
July 14, 2011
This analysis outlines eight reasons why the “Theory of Inevitable Compromise”–that Republicans and Democrats will ultimately hammer out a deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling ahead of August 2–may not hold true in this instance.
“Rut row” -Scooby
Opinion Return to Article Lower the Debt Ceiling
Anton Wahlman, Contributor
07/08/11 – 07:20 AM EDT
NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Yes, you read that right. Not increase it. Not keep it where it is. Lower it. Let me tell you why this is not only feasible, but also desirable.
We are constantly told that we need to go back to the much-better federal government budgets of the mid-to-late 1990s. I’m all for it! Doing just that would indeed enable us to lower the debt ceiling immediately.
Here are the basic facts: Today, federal tax revenue is running at approximately $2.4 trillion. In 1997, Federal spending was $1.6 trillion, which included paying interest on the debt. All we need now is to keep our current tax revenue the same, while adopting the level of government spending that we had in the middle of the universally beloved Clinton-Gingrich years.
With tax revenue of $2.4 trillion and spending of $1.6 trillion, we could lower the debt ceiling by $800 billion per year. Assuming no economic growth, it would then take us approximately 15 years to pay off the federal debt. We would be back to the fiscally sound and prosperous days of the Calvin Coolidge administration.
By stopping the bleeding at the Clinton-Gingrich 1997 level, the debt ceiling could go from $14.4 trillion to $13.6 trillion by 2012, then $12.8 trillion by 2013, $12.0 trillion by 2014, and so forth. This would lower long-term interest rates, encouraging investment and economic growth. GDP would likely grow at a rate a lot closer to China’s current 10% to 12% than our current 2%. Unemployment would go to zero almost overnight, and tax revenue would probably skyrocket well beyond the current $2.4 trillion level.
Did anyone argue in 1997 that the federal government was too small? Not even Bill Clinton did that, as he