Treasury to tap pensions to help fund...

Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government

There are 60 comments on the www.washingtonpost.com story from May 16, 2011, titled Treasury to tap pensions to help fund government. In it, www.washingtonpost.com reports that:

Lee Sachs, chief executive officer for AlliancePartners and former assistant U.S. Treasury secretary, says the debt ceiling can't be tied to deficit talks. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has warned for months that the government would soon hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling — a legal limit on how much it can borrow. With that limit reached Monday, Geithner is undertaking special measures in an effort to postpone the day when he will no longer have enough funds to pay all of the government’s bills. Geithner, who has already suspended a program that helps state and local government manage their finances, will begin to borrow from retirement funds for federal workers. The measure won’t have an impact on retirees because the Treasury is legally required to reimburse the program. The maneuver buys Geithner only a few months of time. If Congress does not vote by Aug. 2 to raise the debt limit, Geithner says the government is likely to default on some of its obligations, which he says would cause enormous economic harm and the suspension of government services, including the disbursal of Social Security funds.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.washingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Let's talk to each other:”

Since: Apr 10

NOT about each other!

#55 May 17, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make it simple.
Dems - For workers
Reps - For Wall Street
Dems - For womens rights
Reps - For men in Washington telling women what to do.
Dems - For new energy sources
Reps - For oil company tax cuts
Dems - Prefer decreasing military spending.
Reps - Prefer increasing military spending.
Dems - Against death penalty
Reps - Kill 'em all
Dems - For minimum wage increase
Reps - For eliminating minimum wage
Dems - For Healthacre for all
Reps - Let them die if they are broke.
Dems - For civil rights
Reps - For white elite race dominance.
Dems - Hope for Presidential success
Reps - For Presidential failure at any cost
How does that explain or justify this statement you made?

"Anyone who thinks the United States National budget can be compared to yourhousehold grocrey budget, does not belong in this discussion."

I guess I'm just too dense to make a connection.

Cathouse Mouse

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#56 May 17, 2011
the perfessor wrote:
<quoted text>How does that explain or justify this statement you made?
"Anyone who thinks the United States National budget can be compared to yourhousehold grocrey budget, does not belong in this discussion."
I guess I'm just too dense to make a connection.
No, you're not dense. Things are just moving fast and you were in the toilet. No blame, no harm. Joe was just about to explain to us how he envisions balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and create a 5% unemployment rate nationally before the mid-terms in 2014.

I think he had to run to work. Joe didn't invest wisely in himself early in life so he still flips those burgers waitng on those trickle down riches to take him away from it all like a Calgon bath.
Wake Up

Nashville, TN

#57 May 17, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make it simple.
Dems - For workers
Reps - For Wall Street
Which is why in the 2008 and 2010 elections, the top 500 US corporations donated overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Goldman Sachs, 72%-----Citigroup Inc, 61%----Lehman Brothers, 64%
of the top 100 corporations, only 12 lean republican http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - For womens rights
Reps - For men in Washington telling women what to do.
Which is why so many Democrat organizations like code pink and feminist protest against the way Muslim women are treated like chattel and why Condi Rice was appointed under a Republican...etc etc
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - For new energy sources
Reps - For oil company tax cuts
Dems FOR giving BILLIONS in taxpayer money to solar and wind energies that gladly take the money and skim a little off the top back into Democrat campaign coffers, before skipping off to China. And, solar/wind are what? 120% MORE expensive than traditional methods? lol, that kind of "new" energy will bankrupt us like it has Spain.
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - Prefer decreasing military spending.
Reps - Prefer increasing military spending.
Dems want to decrease military spending..yet we're now at war in Libya, and things are looking dicey in Pakistan, since they're shooting at us now. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-helicopter-p...
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - Against death penalty
Reps - Kill 'em all
Dems, against executing murders who have been tried and convicted, but FOR killing an unborn babies....makes perfect sense.
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - For minimum wage increase
Reps - For eliminating minimum wage
Minimum wage increases, more of the poor lose their jobs-teenagers and minorities the most affected. But with democrats, it's about good intentions, not the actual results. http://mises.org/daily/2130
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - For Healthacre for all
Reps - Let them die if they are broke.
Dems have given all of us Healthinsurance with Obamacare. Which won't do a damn thing for actual health care. Rising insurance and treatment prices, doctor shortages, and "death" panels are already coming into play. Take a look at Massachusetts to see a small picture of what to expect.
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - For civil rights
Reps - For white elite race dominance.
Dems, policies put minorities into their groups, and keep them dependent on gov't handouts, ensuring they are retained as Democrat voting blocks, instead of allowing them the opportunity to improve their own individual lives.
Reps: "...one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." MLK
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Dems - Hope for Presidential success
Reps - For Presidential failure at any cost
IF Obama and the rest of the Democrat policies are continued to be put into place, "success" of our President means the DESTRUCTION of our country. Rising gas and energy prices, rising unemployment and underemployment (17%+), unsecured borders, the coming horror of Obamacare...the list goes on and on.
Wake Up

Nashville, TN

#58 May 17, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
I should've just asked how you would lower oil prices.
You could have at least googled a respectable answer and plagerized it.
the nice thing about google and the internet, is it allows you to be able to access some of the greatest experts, evidence and opinions in any given field from all over the world.
He he he

Bradenton, FL

#59 May 17, 2011
Wake Up wrote:
<quoted text>
the nice thing about google and the internet, is it allows you to be able to access some of the greatest experts, evidence and opinions in any given field from all over the world.
and the biggest dumbazzes, idiots, and liars......

“The Turdblossom of Topix”

Since: Dec 08

Paragould

#60 May 17, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me make it simple.
Dems - For workers
Reps - For Wall Street
Dems - For womens rights
Reps - For men in Washington telling women what to do.
Dems - For new energy sources
Reps - For oil company tax cuts
Dems - Prefer decreasing military spending.
Reps - Prefer increasing military spending.
Dems - Against death penalty
Reps - Kill 'em all
Dems - For minimum wage increase
Reps - For eliminating minimum wage
Dems - For Healthacre for all
Reps - Let them die if they are broke.
Dems - For civil rights
Reps - For white elite race dominance.
Dems - Hope for Presidential success
Reps - For Presidential failure at any cost
Democrats are for the workers?

Why is it Republicans average low unemployment and Democrats average high unemployment?

“The Turdblossom of Topix”

Since: Dec 08

Paragould

#61 May 17, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're not dense. Things are just moving fast and you were in the toilet. No blame, no harm. Joe was just about to explain to us how he envisions balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and create a 5% unemployment rate nationally before the mid-terms in 2014.
I think he had to run to work. Joe didn't invest wisely in himself early in life so he still flips those burgers waitng on those trickle down riches to take him away from it all like a Calgon bath.
I hope you are threatening him with personal messages again.

That's pretty immature for a grandpa.

“Let's talk to each other:”

Since: Apr 10

NOT about each other!

#62 May 17, 2011
He he he wrote:
<quoted text>
and the biggest dumbazzes, idiots, and liars......
...comedians, perverts, righteous, sinful.....
WAKE UP

United States

#63 May 17, 2011
This IS TREASON!!!!!

Cathouse Mouse

Since: Aug 10

Cathouse Mouse

#64 May 17, 2011
BoatsNHoes wrote:
<quoted text>
Democrats are for the workers?
Why is it Republicans average low unemployment and Democrats average high unemployment?
What's this? Another racist remark? You think our current President knows nothing about jobs because he's black? Is that what you're saying?

You never cease to amaze us with your stuff.
guest

United States

#65 May 18, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
And I guess you think running the finances of this nation after 8 years of GW is as simple as making a grocery list?
GW didn't control the purse strings, Congress did. And during the first 6 years of GW when Republicans controlled Congress, the finances were okay, not great, but supremely better than the last 2 years that GW served when Democrats controlled Congress.

But again, the point is that there is a very, very basic finanical principle involved here. It is so basic that it applies to both your home grocery budget as well as the budget of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet.

I'm astounded that you lack the mental acuity to grasp it.

“The Turdblossom of Topix”

Since: Dec 08

Paragould

#66 May 18, 2011
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
<quoted text>
What's this? Another racist remark? You think our current President knows nothing about jobs because he's black? Is that what you're saying?
You never cease to amaze us with your stuff.
He obviously doesn't know anything about jobs but I don't care if he's polka dot.

He's only half black by the way and I'm more scared of the white part than the black.

“The Turdblossom of Topix”

Since: Dec 08

Paragould

#67 May 18, 2011
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
GW didn't control the purse strings, Congress did. And during the first 6 years of GW when Republicans controlled Congress, the finances were okay, not great, but supremely better than the last 2 years that GW served when Democrats controlled Congress.
But again, the point is that there is a very, very basic finanical principle involved here. It is so basic that it applies to both your home grocery budget as well as the budget of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet.
I'm astounded that you lack the mental acuity to grasp it.
They don't understand, everybody has tried to explain the basics but they don't get it.
guest

United States

#68 May 18, 2011
You didn’t direct these questions to me, but I’ll take a stab at answering them.
Cathouse Mouse wrote:
What will you cut funding on?
Eliminate the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland Security (we already have Dept. of Defense). Move to a fair tax system and eliminate IRS. Stop all foreign aid. Bring home our troops that are spread all over the world defending other nations at the cost of American taxpayers.
Where will you invest?
Government isn’t a financial investment firm.
How will you increase revenues without raising taxes?
Economic growth spurred by reducing tax rates, eliminating unnecessary regulations and reworking trade agreements with foreign nations that severely disadvantage domestic manufacturers.
How will you address our failing infrastructure while cutting spending?
Redirecting revenues collected from gas tax and other excise taxes to federal roads only, such as the interstate system. Stop funding state projects like the billions wasted on the Big Dig boondoggle in Boston.
How will you decrease the size in government and still ensure the safety of the citizens? meaning, how will we be sure our homes are safe from unregulated construction? How will we know that cars are safe? Our food is safe? Our water is drinkable? Our air is clean enough not to kill us?
Much of government isn’t involved in those things you mentioned. We do have regulations in place that address most if not all of those issues. As far as safety of citizens is concerned, that is a state issue, not a federal one, except in the area of military protection against attack.

continued…..
guest

United States

#69 May 18, 2011
continued…..
How will you pay for healthcare for the elderly?
That is not a responsibility of the federal government. Social Security and Medicare must be slowly brought to an end. I would take everyone under 45 out of those programs immediately, and allow anyone above 45 the option of getting out. When those who choose to stay in the system die off, those programs are eliminated.
Will you increase the minimum wage as a requirement for corporate tax cuts?
No. Government has no lawful authority to set wage and price controls. Wages are best set by the operation of the free market.
Will you keep our National Parks open?
Of course.
Will our Air Travel remain safe?
Absolutely.
Will our children get as good or better education?
Only if government gets out of the way.
How will you create jobs for 27 million people before the first mid-term in 2014?
Creating jobs is not a responsibility of federal government. Maintaining an environment where economic growth and opportunity is available is. That is done by setting up certain boundaries to ensure the established free market enterprise is maintained.
amused

United States

#70 May 18, 2011
guest wrote:
continued…..
<quoted text>
That is not a responsibility of the federal government. Social Security and Medicare must be slowly brought to an end. I would take everyone under 45 out of those programs immediately, and allow anyone above 45 the option of getting out. When those who choose to stay in the system die off, those programs are eliminated.
<quoted text>
No. Government has no lawful authority to set wage and price controls. Wages are best set by the operation of the free market.
<quoted text>
Of course.
<quoted text>
Absolutely.
<quoted text>
Only if government gets out of the way.
<quoted text>
Creating jobs is not a responsibility of federal government. Maintaining an environment where economic growth and opportunity is available is. That is done by setting up certain boundaries to ensure the established free market enterprise is maintained.
OK..now you want to say "Creating jobs is not a responsibility of federal government."..well then how come on other posts you just want to blatantly blame Obama and the Dems in Congress for unemployment woes?..just curious..can't have it both ways my friend..Enjoy!
guest

United States

#71 May 18, 2011
amused wrote:
OK..now you want to say "Creating jobs is not a responsibility of federal government."..well then how come on other posts you just want to blatantly blame Obama and the Dems in Congress for unemployment woes?..just curious..can't have it both ways my friend..Enjoy!
Again, I've never blamed Obama for the unemployment numbers. Stop chastising me for something I've never done.

Second, the unemployment numbers are indicative of the state of our economy. The Democrat Congress is chiefly responsible for that for because their actions caused it.
Wake Up

Nashville, TN

#72 May 18, 2011
amused wrote:
<quoted text>
OK..now you want to say "Creating jobs is not a responsibility of federal government."..well then how come on other posts you just want to blatantly blame Obama and the Dems in Congress for unemployment woes?..just curious..can't have it both ways my friend..Enjoy!
Because the Obama policies can influence employment levels. We can either create a healthy business environment, common sense regulations, fair and simple tax code, lower tax rates, lower energy prices etc, or we can do what Obama is doing.

Obamacare-already 200+ waivers (many for unions and other Dem supporters), how do businesses make investment decisons on hiring, expanding etc, when they have no idea what Obamacare will cost them? AT$&T said that Obamacare will cost over a BILLION DOLLARS to their bottom line.

The gov't bailout of the auto companies, the federal gov't ignored over 150 years of bankruptcy laws, instead of bond holders being first in line for asset/reinbursement etc, it was given to the UAW (big dem supporters...hmm...) If we ignore the law, how does a company know what is going to happen in the future?

Look at Shell off the coast of Alaska. 4+ Billion dollars in gov't leases, environmental studies and test wells, after all those years, they were moving a drill platform in to drill, and they lost their permits on appeal by a lefty group, permits removed by a four member board of Democrats, one of whom was a former lawyer of the world wildlife foundation. Oh ya, they didn't get any of their 4 billion back.

Again, if the gov't can change the rules arbitrarily, why risk your money and your business in that type of uncertainty?

We have THE highest corporate tax rates anywhere in the world, BUT, depending on who you're buddies with, like GE, you may end up paying no taxes at all.(it's worth noting, no corporation pays taxes, it's just passed on to the consumer anyway). But gov't through regulations, legislation is able to skew the free market, and pick "winners and losers"-look at ethanol. It's a farce, everyone knows it, but since they need the midwest farmer votes, no one is talking about repealing the BILLIONS spent on subsidizing ethanol, under obama, they want to take it from 10% ethanol per gallon, to 20%!!!!

So, that, in part, is why we blame Obama for the continued economic doldrums.
amused

United States

#73 May 18, 2011
Wake Up wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Obama policies can influence employment levels. We can either create a healthy business environment, common sense regulations, fair and simple tax code, lower tax rates, lower energy prices etc, or we can do what Obama is doing.
Obamacare-already 200+ waivers (many for unions and other Dem supporters), how do businesses make investment decisons on hiring, expanding etc, when they have no idea what Obamacare will cost them? AT$&T said that Obamacare will cost over a BILLION DOLLARS to their bottom line.
The gov't bailout of the auto companies, the federal gov't ignored over 150 years of bankruptcy laws, instead of bond holders being first in line for asset/reinbursement etc, it was given to the UAW (big dem supporters...hmm...) If we ignore the law, how does a company know what is going to happen in the future?
Look at Shell off the coast of Alaska. 4+ Billion dollars in gov't leases, environmental studies and test wells, after all those years, they were moving a drill platform in to drill, and they lost their permits on appeal by a lefty group, permits removed by a four member board of Democrats, one of whom was a former lawyer of the world wildlife foundation. Oh ya, they didn't get any of their 4 billion back.
Again, if the gov't can change the rules arbitrarily, why risk your money and your business in that type of uncertainty?
We have THE highest corporate tax rates anywhere in the world, BUT, depending on who you're buddies with, like GE, you may end up paying no taxes at all.(it's worth noting, no corporation pays taxes, it's just passed on to the consumer anyway). But gov't through regulations, legislation is able to skew the free market, and pick "winners and losers"-look at ethanol. It's a farce, everyone knows it, but since they need the midwest farmer votes, no one is talking about repealing the BILLIONS spent on subsidizing ethanol, under obama, they want to take it from 10% ethanol per gallon, to 20%!!!!
So, that, in part, is why we blame Obama for the continued economic doldrums.
Just like the Reagan policies..Bush 1 Poicies..and Bush 2 policies..created economic havoc..what is good for the goos is good for the gander..hell let's throw in "tricky Dick Nixon...

Horrible policy decisions accumulate..and then is laid on the current occupant of the white house and congress..since oh lets say the 1970..we have had 2 democratic presidents and 4 (and a 1/2..counting Ford)..that their abrupt change of course created havoc..as far as out economic system and job situation here in America..now the workers are just trying to figure out which end is up..after corporate politics, party politics, the corrupting of a free market system by the greedy..etc etc etc..and so it goes..
guest

Lonsdale, AR

#74 May 18, 2011
amused wrote:
..now the workers are just trying to figure out which end is up..
We know which way is up! It sure as hell ain't the Democrat way we've suffered under for the last 4 years.

The answer is so damn simple. Cut out all unnecessary spending. Do not borrow any more money, period. Encourage economic growth by lowering corporate tax rates, capital investment tax rates, and repealing idiotic and unnecssary regulations.

Then tackle the long term problems by putting a sunset clause on Social Security and Medicare. We simply cannot afford to be taking care of everyone in the country. That never was the purpose of government. Make people be responsible for themselves.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Michael Bennet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colorado becomes the first state to vote on sin... Nov '15 Elise Gingerdoodle 1
News AFP hits Bennet on Colorado co-op failure Nov '15 Elise Killed Herself 1
News Colorado's Senators Working Together To Bridge ... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Shaded Tree 1
News 'Almost Any Deal Is Better': Iran Nuclear Deal ... (Sep '15) Sep '15 Nicole 2
News EPA: Colorado mine waste spill much larger than... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Agents of Corruption 2
News Pot Politics: The Marijuana Business Comes To W... (Jul '15) Jul '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 3
News TPP: 13 Democratic Senators Invite Republicans ... (Jun '15) Jun '15 spadethetrade 1
More from around the web