• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says (msn.com)

The United States could plunge into an immediate recession if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and the country defaults on its payment obligations this fall, according to one analysis released Tuesday.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, found that a prolonged impasse over the debt ceiling would cost the U.S. economy up to 6 million jobs, wipe out as much as $15 trillion in household wealth, and send the unemployment rate surging to roughly 9 percent from around 5 percent.

Lawmakers in both parties agree that the debt ceiling must be raised to avoid economic calamity, but their standoff over how to do so has intensified. Despite the national debt increasing by close to $8 trillion under President Donald Trump, Republicans have been adamant that they will refuse to help Democrats increase the debt ceiling, in opposition to President Biden’s spending plans.

The Treasury Department has said it will exhaust its “extraordinary measures” to pay the U.S. obligations sometime in October, giving lawmakers little time to act to head off calamity.

Democrats unveil new plan to fund government, suspend debt ceiling as major showdown with GOP looms
“This economic scenario is cataclysmic. … The downturn would be comparable to that suffered during the financial crisis” of 2008, said the report, written by Zandi and Bernard Yaros, assistant director and economist at Moody’s Analytics.

The debt limit is the maximum amount of debt that Treasury can issue to pay the country’s bills. It was suspended from 2019 through the beginning of last month under a deal reached during the Trump administration. If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, Treasury would be unable to pay debts as they come due. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said earlier this week that such a default would be unprecedented in U.S. history. Moody’s “best estimate” is that this date is Oct. 20, although Treasury has not given a more precise day.

At that point, Treasury officials would face excruciating choices, such as whether to fail to pay $20 billion owed to seniors on Social Security, or to fail to pay bondholders of U.S. debt — a decision that could undermine faith in U.S. credit and permanently drive federal borrowing costs higher.

Failure to raise the debt limit would have catastrophic impacts on global financial markets. Interest rates would spike as investors demand a higher rate of return for the risk of taking on U.S. debt given uncertainty about repayment. An increase in interest rates would ripple through the economy, raising costs not only for taxpayers but also for consumers and other borrowers. The value of the U.S. dollar would also decline long term as investors questioned the security of purchasing U.S. treasuries. The cost of auto and home loans would rise.

White House rules out concessions on debt ceiling while GOP refuses to help avert financial crisis
“Stock prices would be cut almost in one-third at the worst of the selloff, wiping out $15 trillion in household wealth,” the Moody’s report finds. The market would rebound once the impasse is resolved, but some amount of the losses would be permanent. “Treasury yields, mortgage rates, and other consumer and corporate borrowing rates spike, at least until the debt limit is resolved and Treasury payments resume.”

Both parties remain confident a debt ceiling breach will be avoided. Both White House officials and GOP lawmakers have insisted in recent days that the debt ceiling will be raised or suspended. But they are sharply divided over how that will occur.

Republicans have insisted that Democrats should increase the debt limit on their own, because they are pushing trillions of dollars in new spending priorities. But Democrats have rejected that approach because current national debt levels, which require raising the debt ceiling, are due to an array of policy priorities from both parties. The debt ceiling would have to be raised or suspended regardless of the spending package being pursued by the Biden administration.

The path forward is unclear. Congressional Democrats on Monday unveiled a plan to package the debt ceiling suspension with funding the federal government — which would otherwise shut down at the end of this month — along with emergency funding for disaster relief and Afghan refugee resettlement funds. Republicans are expected to block the measure, with even moderate GOP senators saying they will vote against that package as long as it includes raising the debt ceiling. Democrats will then face a choice about their next steps.

Even resolving the matter before the debt ceiling is breached could hurt U.S. taxpayers and the American economy in the long term. The budget battles over the debt ceiling of 2011 and 2013 under the Obama administration created financial uncertainty and deflated business investment, costing the U.S. economy as much as $180 billion and 1.2 million jobs by 2015, according to Zandi and Yaros.

Historically, both parties have come together to ensure the debt ceiling gets raised. Turning it into a political pawn would jeopardize international faith in the U.S. government, driving the cost of borrowing higher, even if it is not breached.

“Brinkmanship around this whole process will be reflected in higher cost to taxpayers,” Zandi said in an interview. “There is a cost to doing this in a way that is not at least somewhat bipartisan.”

I think we knew this would come eventually. 30-40 years of fiscal irresponsibility has definitely had its effects.

Eventually, we'll have to either cut spending or raise revenue - or a combination of the two.

One way of cutting spending is by reducing the prices of things our government spends money on, particularly in the areas of healthcare and defense.

There might be inventive ways of raising revenue. Since the U.S. government seems to love capitalism so much, then perhaps selling advertising space on public buildings and other properties might be just the thing. They could even have sponsors for press conferences and sessions of Congress.

Reporter: And what's the President's plan for the Middle East?
Psaki: I'll answer that in a moment, after a brief word from our sponsors. Friends, whenever I get irregularity, I take Ex-Lax, but I always make sure to never squeeze the Charmin.

Things like that, they could probably do.

What other ways of cutting spending and/or raising revenues are there?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
What other ways of cutting spending and/or raising revenues are there?
It's useless to even ask, since the same greed and corruption that caused the debt will make it impossible for us to mitigate it. Let's put it this way: if the government could cut costs, or cut services, they will already have done it. And if they could raise more revenue by raising taxes, they will have already done that, too. Since the rich control the government, they certainly aren't going to pay for anything more. And since the rest of us are already stretched to our limit, we can't reasonably pay for anything more. And since the government is totally and probably irrevocably corrupted by legalized bribery, it can't do anything about either of those two conditions. So nothing will be done about it. It will simply continue until the system collapses.

Welcome to the inevitable results of capitalism.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Eventually, we'll have to either cut spending or raise revenue - or a combination of the two.
Or just keep borrowing. Inflation (ie, currency devaluation)
has been the traditional method of reducing debt service cost.
One way of cutting spending is by reducing the prices of things our government spends money on, particularly in the areas of healthcare and defense.
Reducing prices means that providers will have less incentive
to produce. Can you see a possible downside to that?
Instead of reducing prices paid (not really possible), how about
spending less on wasteful things like useless wars?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's useless to even ask, since the same greed and corruption that caused the debt will make it impossible for us to mitigate it. Let's put it this way: if the government could cut costs, or cut services, they will already have done it. And if they could raise more revenue by raising taxes, they will have already done that, too. Since the rich control the government, they certainly aren't going to pay for anything more. And since the rest of us are already stretched to our limit, we can't reasonably pay for anything more. And since the government is totally and probably irrevocably corrupted by legalized bribery, it can't do anything about either of those two conditions. So nothing will be done about it. It will simply continue until the system collapses.

Welcome to the inevitable result of capitalism.

Well, the very last resort would be for the government to print more money to pay off the debt.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Or just keep borrowing. Inflation (ie, currency devaluation)
has been the traditional method of reducing debt service cost.

Yes, although there's a question as to how long we can keep doing this.

Reducing prices means that providers will have less incentive
to produce. Can you see a possible downside to that?
Instead of reducing prices paid (not really possible), how about
spending less on wasteful things like useless wars?

I agree about not spending on useless wars, but I would say there is a downside to any choice we make. We're seeing a downside right now because no one wanted to solve the problem 30 years ago.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, although there's a question as to how long we can keep doing this.
They'll do it until they can't.
I agree about not spending on useless wars, but I would say there is a downside to any choice we make. We're seeing a downside right now because no one wanted to solve the problem 30 years ago.
The downside to cutting prices paid would mean that
the same product or service wouldn't be provided.
Want a 25% price cut on an EA-18G?
Sure, it could be done....but what feature would be
eliminated? Avionics? Electronic warfare system?
Nah.
The product wouldn't function.
So the contractor would simply refuse to make it.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
I agree about not spending on useless wars, but I would say there is a downside to any choice we make. We're seeing a downside right now because no one wanted to solve the problem 30 years ago.
The rich people who control our government like those useless wars very much. They make huge piles of money from all that military spending. So they're going to make sure we're engaged in one, somewhere, on a regular basis. It's what they pay the politicians for.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The rich people who control our government like those useless wars very much. They make huge piles of money from all that military spending. So they're going to make sure we're engaged in one, somewhere, on a regular basis. It's what they pay the politicians for.
Blame the rich, eh.
A less polite poster might call that "BS".

Did you vote for Hillary or Obama?
They both favored useless war.
Even Biden voted to start the Iraq war.
Obama expanded both wars, & was re-elected.

Voters need to take responsibility for the policies
they reward their leaders for enacting. Blaming
the wealthy or the MIC is just sticking one's head
in the sand. It changes nothing.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
They'll do it until they can't.

The downside to cutting prices paid would mean that
the same product or service wouldn't be provided.
Want a 25% price cut on an EA-18G?
Sure, it could be done....but what feature would be
eliminated? Avionics? Electronic warfare system?
Nah.
The contractor would simply refuse to make it.
People who have more money than they need will invest it whether it returns 5 cents on the dollar of 50. What else are they going to do with it? Spend it? We could only wish!

So cutting prices will not result in their refusing to invest in commercial enterprise. It will simply cut their profits, which will cause them to whine and howl and threaten Armageddon (as you are essentially doing). But in the end their greed will keep them investing, because it has to.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Blame the rich, eh.
A less polite poster might call that "BS".

Did you vote for Hillary or Obama?
They both favored useless war.
Even Biden voted to start the Iraq war.
Obama expanded both wars, & was re-elected.
And they are politicians doing what the politicians are being paid to do by the wealthy elites that benefit. Just as I stated. Political party is basically irrelevant.
Voters need to take responsibility for the policies
they reward their leaders for enacting. Blaming
the wealthy or the MIC is just sticking one's head
in the sand. It changes nothing.
It has long since been proven that the desire of the voters has very little to do with the actions of government. In fact, almost none.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They'll do it until they can't.

Seems rather reckless without any real plan.

The downside to cutting prices paid would mean that
the same product or service wouldn't be provided.
Want a 25% price cut on an EA-18G?
Sure, it could be done....but what feature would be
eliminated? Avionics? Electronic warfare system?
Nah.
The product wouldn't function.
So the contractor would simply refuse to make it.

Another option would be for the government to build and operate their own defense plants. Stop using private contractors. Without having to spring for executive bonuses or feed the profit-hungry greed machine of Corporate America, costs can be reduced. The difference between how much it actually costs to make it versus how much the government actually spends on it would be money saved.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The rich people who control our government like those useless wars very much. They make huge piles of money from all that military spending. So they're going to make sure we're engaged in one, somewhere, on a regular basis. It's what they pay the politicians for.

They also fool the public into believing that all this warmongering is necessary for America's interests. But considering how much America's economy has been crippled and our government facing possible default on the debt, one might well ask: How have America's interests benefited from all of this? Our government has wasted so much money, yet has nothing to show for it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
People who have more money than they need will invest it whether it returns 5 cents on the dollar of 50. What else are they going to do with it? Spend it? We could only wish!

So cutting prices will not result in their refusing to invest in commercial enterprise. It will simply cut their profits, which will cause them to whine and howl and threaten Armageddon (as you are essentially doing). But in the end their greed will keep them investing, because it has to.
Without profit, there's no reason to invest.
Better to sit on cash than to risk it with no
expectation of positive return.
No company can deliver a products at a
price lower than costs.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And they are politicians doing what the politicians are being paid to do by the wealthy elites that benefit. Just as I stated. Political party is basically irrelevant.
It has long since been proven that the desire of the voters has very little to do with the actions of government. In fact, almost none.
As long as you voters continue voting for politicians who
wage these useless wars, they'll continue waging them.
Or do you argue that voting is irrelevant? Everyone
might as well stay home in November because the
result is dictated by some secret cabal, eh.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Seems rather reckless without any real plan.
In our form of government, individuals have plans. But
all these individuals differ a great deal. The net effect
is no coherent long term plan.
Contrast this with a country like China, which has a
continuing leadership....no elections to upset the plan.
Another option would be for the government to build and operate their own defense plants. Stop using private contractors. Without having to spring for executive bonuses or feed the profit-hungry greed machine of Corporate America, costs can be reduced. The difference between how much it actually costs to make it versus how much the government actually spends on it would be money saved.
You believe that government could do a better
& cheaper job than defense contractors, eh.
I've worked for government.
I've worked for defense contractors.
I don't share your optimism.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No company can deliver a products at a
price lower than costs.

Yes, but how much does it actually cost, in terms of actual materials and personnel? Are we getting the biggest bang for our buck? Or are we overspending on overpriced goods?

We pay our politicians and other government personnel so they would ask questions like this and spend wisely. But then you hear stories about $15,000 toilet seats and wonder if anyone is really minding the store.

Are the politicians, bureaucrats, and private contractors feathering their own nests at taxpayer expense? That's what I wonder about.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says (msn.com)







I think we knew this would come eventually. 30-40 years of fiscal irresponsibility has definitely had its effects.

Eventually, we'll have to either cut spending or raise revenue - or a combination of the two.

One way of cutting spending is by reducing the prices of things our government spends money on, particularly in the areas of healthcare and defense.

There might be inventive ways of raising revenue. Since the U.S. government seems to love capitalism so much, then perhaps selling advertising space on public buildings and other properties might be just the thing. They could even have sponsors for press conferences and sessions of Congress.

Reporter: And what's the President's plan for the Middle East?
Psaki: I'll answer that in a moment, after a brief word from our sponsors. Friends, whenever I get irregularity, I take Ex-Lax, but I always make sure to never squeeze the Charmin.

Things like that, they could probably do.

What other ways of cutting spending and/or raising revenues are there?
It has nothing to do with curbing spending but all to do with paying whom we owe. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, the stock market will take a hit, and any prolonged holding back can result in some rather serious problems.

It's party politics all over again, as the Pubs had no problem whatsoever when they agreed with the Dems that it had to be raised in 2017, but now with the Dems more in charge they've decided to play hardball, probably to appease their base.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Well, the very last resort would be for the government to print more money to pay off the debt.

That has been what it has done since for ever. it is why the unpayable debt exists.
America has never been prepared to pay off its debts or pay for its lifestyle out of income. it just passes it down the generations.
It looks like that process is coming to and end.

It will cause another world crash.
A valueless world reserve currency smashes everyone.

America must start living within its means, and start paying off its debts. it is bankrupt and has been for years.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, but how much does it actually cost, in terms of actual materials and personnel? Are we getting the biggest bang for our buck? Or are we overspending on overpriced goods?

We pay our politicians and other government personnel so they would ask questions like this and spend wisely. But then you hear stories about $15,000 toilet seats and wonder if anyone is really minding the store.

Are the politicians, bureaucrats, and private contractors feathering their own nests at taxpayer expense? That's what I wonder about.
If government cannot manage even a competitive bidding
process to procure materiel from private contractors, then
how do you expect this same government to assume
responsibility for the whole engineering, design, prototyping,
& manufacturing process?

As for $15,000 toilet seats, I've seen how such things can
arise. Imagine....
Government specs a new widget design.
It's designed, & a prototype widget is made.
Government changes specs.
New protoype widget is made.
Repeat.
Government buys very few widgets.
Overhead costs are distributed over these few.

I'd propose that government consider using more
commercially standard products, & fewer MIL spec
oddities.
I recall being able to buy MIL spec Arizona dust for
testing purposes. The dust had to meet special
stringent standards. It was much spendier than
ordinary dust. But sometimes such things are useful.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
U.S. default this fall would cost 6 million jobs, wipe out $15 trillion in wealth, study says (msn.com)







I think we knew this would come eventually. 30-40 years of fiscal irresponsibility has definitely had its effects.

Eventually, we'll have to either cut spending or raise revenue - or a combination of the two.

One way of cutting spending is by reducing the prices of things our government spends money on, particularly in the areas of healthcare and defense.

There might be inventive ways of raising revenue. Since the U.S. government seems to love capitalism so much, then perhaps selling advertising space on public buildings and other properties might be just the thing. They could even have sponsors for press conferences and sessions of Congress.

Reporter: And what's the President's plan for the Middle East?
Psaki: I'll answer that in a moment, after a brief word from our sponsors. Friends, whenever I get irregularity, I take Ex-Lax, but I always make sure to never squeeze the Charmin.

Things like that, they could probably do.

What other ways of cutting spending and/or raising revenues are there?

Fast forward to 2028 and President A. O. Cortez announces the beginning of the First Four Year Plan in the People's Democratic Republic of America.

primary-share.png
 
Top