Comments on: Goldman Sachs: Debt default is “extremely unlikely” http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/11/goldman-sachs-debt-default-is-extremely-unlikely/ Politics and policy from inside Washington Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:23:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: ertdfg http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/11/goldman-sachs-debt-default-is-extremely-unlikely/comment-page-1/#comment-12543 ertdfg Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:06:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/?p=9210#comment-12543 "the Treasury would likely prioritize interest payments, Social Security and Medicare payments, and “essential” defense payments over other types of spending, and should have enough revenues to cover the essentials. But make no mistake: the negative consequences of failing to make other payments would be very severe." Yes, I'm sure making the government prioritize spending and quit spending 150% of revenue every month is "severe" to government officials. It's like taking a crack pipe away form an addict... let me tell you he's convinced he'll die if you do that, it'll be the worst thing ever... and just give him back his pipe. Some important questions to consider: Do you think the government can keeps spending 150% of it's revenue forever without prioritizing spending? Do you think that the government will really make meaningful steps to reduce spending and stop the continued waste? Do you think prioritizing your spending and reducing it to your income when you're in dire financial straits is a bad thing? I don't see which of these is even a negative, much less something we shouldn't consider letting happen... they all look like pretty good things to be doing to me. “the Treasury would likely prioritize interest payments, Social Security and Medicare payments, and “essential” defense payments over other types of spending, and should have enough revenues to cover the essentials. But make no mistake: the negative consequences of failing to make other payments would be very severe.”

Yes, I’m sure making the government prioritize spending and quit spending 150% of revenue every month is “severe” to government officials.

It’s like taking a crack pipe away form an addict… let me tell you he’s convinced he’ll die if you do that, it’ll be the worst thing ever… and just give him back his pipe.

Some important questions to consider:

Do you think the government can keeps spending 150% of it’s revenue forever without prioritizing spending?

Do you think that the government will really make meaningful steps to reduce spending and stop the continued waste?

Do you think prioritizing your spending and reducing it to your income when you’re in dire financial straits is a bad thing?

I don’t see which of these is even a negative, much less something we shouldn’t consider letting happen… they all look like pretty good things to be doing to me.

]]>