Default 'Off the Table,' Debt Deal Will Be Struck: Geithner

Source: CNBC

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told CNBC Monday that he is certain that congressional leaders will strike a deal to raise the federal debt ceiling prior to the August 2 deadline to avoid default.

"Each side has said definitively that default is not an option," he said, "They're not going to play around with this."

...

Geithner said the Obama administration and congressional leaders need to work toward addressing long-term deficits, while at the same time ensuring that Medicare and Social Security continue to be funded.

"We're still working very hard and the president as he said last week that he wants us to work toward the biggest, the largest budget agreement we can," he said.

Read more: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43792737

Why do we need a deal where we give away hard won human rights. the republicans HAVE to raise the debt ceiling or wall st will kick their butts. The stage is set for the republicans to HAVE TO accept it. SO why do we need a deal?

It's all smoke and mirrors and political theater.

Oh! and theft as a form of class warfare.

The only thing that will dissuade them is an even bigger payday than
they will be getting by shorting Treasuries and then forcing default.

They don't care what the people think.

When the people show up at their "town halls" to express their displeasure,
the "town halls" are declared private events and the protesters kicked out.

I'd go outside and see if someone had stolen it.

The cuts need to be made at the top.

If you think about your family budget, when things get tough, what do you do?

Do you cut the baby's food by 10%?

Or do you end your cable subscription?

Do you go barefoot in the snow?

Or do you cook at home and stop eating in restaurants?

You don't cut the necessities even if you are buying them for the most helpless member of the family.

it's a fait accompli.

and elderly to the rich, but it won't really help the deficit because it won't solve our trade imbalance.

A lot of people insist that the trade imbalance has nothing to do with our national debt.

Actually, our trade imbalance is the reason our GDP is not growing to keep up with our basic government expenditures. So that is an overly simplified way of explaining why I think they are closely related.

can possibly grab. That's the Republican game plan here, IMO. Make a phony crisis, demand 'concessions'/handouts, and then 'resolve' the crisis that you deliberately created.

Some say that means testing of Medicare and SS is "cutting". Such "cutting", if done properly, in fact, shifts wealth from
the rich to the poor, because means testing is equivalent to a new progressive tax, as it takes benefits away from the rich.
Fiscally it doesn't really matter whether you tax them or decrease the amount of benefits they receive - money is money.
In fact, means testing can be made into a severely progressive tax with effective marginal tax rates exceeding 100%.
For instance, that is the case in Australia, where all social assistance payments and benefits are means tested. For some cases
lost benefits + extra tax would exceed increase in income, making for a marginal tax rate > 100% - some people are
literally better off with lower gross taxable income. So "cutting" can actually take the wealth from the rich, if you know where
and how to cut.

Means-testing Social Security and Medicare would mean that a lot of people who really, really need those programs would feel embarrassed to apply.

That is precisely what greedy right-wingers are hoping for.

I think one of the motivations of the right-wingers, especially the Tea-Partiers is to make other people feel and live really miserable existences so that the Tea-Partiers feel better about themselves.

It is really a matter of wanting to feel better than others.

Everybody should have the basic insurance benefits that we were promised when we were kids and put the first pennies from our first paychecks into Social Security and then Medicare.

The social disruption and misery that will result if you make those programs need-based will surprise you. Many people think of themselves as middle class but then are suddenly surprised to discover that they are impoverished by illness - their own or that of a loved one, inflation, joblessness (so many 50-year olds are now unable to get jobs and are spending down their retirement savings).

No, being on Social Security and Medicare should never be allowed to have a stigma or become a badge of shame. All should be paid out according to the schedule based on what they put in.

means-tested benefit? How would being on SS and Medicare be a "badge of shame" if all people except for the very rich are on them?
Why should the top 1-2% be entitled to the same benefits as the rest of us, even though they can very well afford paying for them?
Refusal to means-test the benefits is just another money hand-out to the rich. Those money come from all of us, the rich don't need
them, the purpose of those programs is to help everyone have a decent life - it really should be a no-brainer. Are Americans really
so stupid that to make them apply for a benefit and feel no shame in doing that, everyone has to be entitled? I don't think they are.

to apply for Social Security although they were poor.

If seniors have to fill out forms or apply for Social Security and provide personal financial information it will be demeaning for many. It's just the way elderly people are. It would also be demeaning to have to ask your children for help which was the situation before Social Security.

It's just the way people, especially older people are.

We had a terrible time getting a young friend of ours to apply for food stamps although he had no money. And I mean no money. You should have seen him. Pride.

I used to work for a homeless shelter. There are a few people out there who are lazy try to get something for nothing. But most people are ashamed to ask for help.

That is what is so good about Social Security. You pay for it. You are entitled to it. No questions asked. To change that even for a few would eventually destroy the system.

The rich should be charged higher taxes across the board.

And the best way to do it is to impose inheritance taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Raise the cap on the income level for which Medicare and SS is paid in and continue to give it to everyone. People consistently in the top 1%, will pay vastly more in, while NOT getting more out for Medicare and getting proportionately less for what they paid in than others on Social Security.

People have always differentiated SS and Medicare from welfare because they paid in over their lives for them. If you exclude the top 2%, in the next austerity move, that might expand to the top 10%. Not to mention, those excluded might question why they need pay into those programs.

Not to mention, how do you define the top 2% - typically people are speaking income - yet after retirement, are you speaking of assets?

income level after which the SS (and Medicare) benefits start to phase out, i.e. minus 1% for every $1000 over the set income or something to that effect.
That can be done on a tax return form, so there is no need to specifically "apply" for means-tested benefits, which scares some "proud" people so much.
That works in Australia and results in undoubtedly much fairer and socially cohesive society than the US. Why shouldn't it work in the US?

of Medicare Part B, that started via the 2003 drug bill. http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_meanstesting/ In terms of SS, above a certain income, SS is taxed. To me both of these seem fair.

Both of these are very different than what you are suggesting. I simply think that raising the cap on income for which pay roll taxes and including capital based incomeare collected would raise more money now for SS and Medicare than what you suggest which would almost surely have to be phased in. In addition, it retains the insurance nature of both programs.

...then why is it ok to cut food programs that feed poor children? What's the republican's point of not cutting the defense budget if the people they claim to defend are simply at home starving to death? It makes no sense.

If Obama is willing to cut Social Security and Medicare, how much is he willing to cut from SSI?

Social Security and Medicare are the most popular programs. People receive benefits from them only because they paid into them.

But they are just the two most popular of a great number of programs that help unfortunate people and help any of us who happen to be at a time in our lives when we need help.

I am distressed that Obama, a Democratic president is not advocating more strongly for the poorest among us, for the elderly, for poor children, for foster children.

This troubles me deeply.

But too many families would rather spend $$$ on items to impress people they don't know then to buy insurance for their kids.

And, just how did filibuster reform go?

Sickening.

He's just the kind of nutbag that would stray from the GOP fold and filibuster any deal he didn't deem adequate.

I keep getting him and his nutty son mixed up.

I'm losing it!

in how sovereign debt functions.

"Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told CNBC Monday that he is certain that congressional leaders will strike a deal"

BOHICA (bend over.. here it comes again)