Politics aside, thi sis an interesting point. I had wondered about it before. Teh Fed couldn;t just issue money to agencies, eg to pay salaries, because either they would get an IOU back, which would reflect an increase in the debt, or it would be a gift, which I doubt the Fed is authorized to do. So it would have to be some sort of asset purchase, perhaps buying bonds from the SS trust so they could pay benefits.
You are, of course, right! The "DemoCraps" will never do that, and for that matter why would anyone in their right mind want to do THAT? Practically all of this social spending is owed to the citizens of the United States, and the remainder is minuscule compared to the budget and essential to keep desperate people off the streets. (You are probably too young to remember the World War I bonus marchers, or "Boners" as they were called. That was one of the events behind the origin of Social Security. Who would ever what to return to that situation? The U.S.A. can neither default on its debt obligations nor its "social spending". Its only reasonable option at present is to cut spending and to increase revenues. A reasonable way to accomplish the latter, given the current economy, is to reverse the ridiculous Bush II tax cuts. The best option, however, would be to not only reverse but to also further increase the uppermost tax bracket sufficient to compensate for a decrease from 28% to 18% in the lower bracket. This would have a much needed positive impact on jobs and the economy without overburdening, by historical standards, the wealthy. At the same time the Social Security contribution rate must be raised by 2 cents on the dollar to adjust for changing demographics. The current mess can be laid squarely on the absurd Bush II wars which made the simultaneous Bush II tax cuts equally absurd! The Bush administration had the order of taking action exactly backwards. First you cut spending, then you cut revenues, not the other way round. (I never thought I would say this, but I now realize that the damage done by Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan and Wall Street pales by comparison to the damage done by the Supreme Court when they ignored the 20th Amendment and put a playboy buffoon and evil neo-fascist into the White and Blair Houses, respectively. Our resulting national nightmare continues.
Are there 23 that did NOT sign the Norquist pledge? It's a curious thought, but there is an opportunity here for that fellow Norquist to go down in history along side the likes of Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney as being instrumental in the demise of the "American" empire.
Or, as I said earlier, they could get rid of tons of pork, redundant welfare/entitlement programs and agencies who have done nothing but waste money since Carter started them (Depts of Energy, Education, etc.). There's also a ton of waste at the Pentagon. All of that should be done long before a so called "revenue increase" is considered. It's noteworthy on your list of America's financial demise that you didn't mention FDR, LBJ, Carter, Frank, Obama, et. al. That shows how shortisighted you are. Better stick with imaginary trading and hope all those "greedy rich" keep paying your entitlements...
Agreed. People like Ron Paul and the tea party aren't Republicans. They're white protectionists who are flirting with the idea of divide and conquer.
So you're saying Ron Paul is a Keynesian? Wow, of all the inane stuff on here, your comment ranks near the top. It reminds me of when someone interviewed people on the street and asked if Obama was a Keynesian. Many were immediately angered and said, "No, he's not a Kenyan!" You rarely go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Your other comment isn't even worthy of a response.
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc690454" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=43861330&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc690454" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=43861330&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
No, I agreed with the original comment that GOP policy has essentially been Keynesian for decades and Ron Paul & the tea party shmucks such as Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly who oppose this, are just socialists puking subverted slavery era libertarianism to gain the poor white vote. You may consider taking Adderall to help follow a dialog.
It is OK to be annoyed when someone says something negative about some of your favorite politicians. It's a natural reaction, and I understand.