Thought you might like to know that, as of today, we've reached the debt ceiling (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/us-to-hit-debt-ceiling-imminently.php?ref=fpblg).
Treasury Sec Geithner says they can move money around till Aug 2 before the nation is actually insolvent, so all is not lost . . . but we're getting pretty close to all being lost. And as predicted, Wall Street is starting to get itchy about the massive consequences. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-09/boehner-must-reassure-markets-that-debt-ceiling-will-be-raised.html)
I have to give the GOP props for sheer ballsiness. Playing chicken with the nation's solvency (and global economic dominance) takes stones, and all to validate their 2012 domestic policy platform!
My question is: is pushing us to the wall the right way to get Mitt Romney elected?
Headlines from the Post:
The Obama administration will begin to tap federal retiree programs to help fund operations after the government lost its ability Monday to borrow more money from the public, adding urgency to efforts in Washington to fashion a compromise over the debt.
Still waiting for a real budget from President Obama.
The budget framework he presented in his most recent feel good speech is not based on CBO numbers and he has not released anything to be scored by the CBO. Want to know why?
It's easy. First of all, it was not a proposal with details, it was a framework only, to be layerd on his existing unadopted budget proposal. He stated in his address that this framework contains "$4 trillion in savings" over 12 years, not the usual 10. Why? Because that sounded better and it was the only way to counter Ryan's budget proposal.
The "savings" would come from cutting about $2 trillion in spending, and $1 trillion in tax increases and a reduction in our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. That's easy math. Right?
So basically he has given a loose farmwork for "saving" $3.3 trillion (if viewed over 10 years). Still better than a sharp stick in the eye, but not enough detail for the CBO to score.
Where does all this money come from? Well it gets a little clearer when you go back and look at the fact that President Obama also mentioned that $400 billion of his proposed cuts in non-security discretionary spending are already contained in his 10 year budget plan 2012 - 2022, along with $320 billion of his proposed tax hikes, plus $200 billion from Obamacare, and an additional $78 billion in defense cuts. So you start to realize that he's using the same "Sebelius" philosophy of presenting numbers twice to make the result seem larger.
So there's actually only about $2.3 trillion over 10 years that represent the reduction in spending in his new framework. Still better than a dead cat on your doorstep. Now we start to get a baseline, though still not enough data for the CBO to score.
Lets take a look at what the CBO has scored. . .President Obama's current 10 year budget 2012-2022 proposal that he intends to add this $2.3 trillion in new savings to. . .The CBO, however, says that Obama's budget would actually increase deficit spending by $2.7 trillion versus current law. So reducing that tally by $2.3 trillion still represents a $400 billion spending increase.
Had he given a better speech he might have passed off the shell game a little longer, and gotten congress to adopt another crisis, therefore raising the debt ceiling in anticipation of strong positive budgetary action, but instead, there is no indication of serious concern in the administration and a continual push for more spending.
At some point you have to take the car keys away or hide the whiskey.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 16, 2011, 02:17:49 PM
At some point you have to take the car keys away or hide the whiskey.
. . . . and drive our country into the ditch in the process?
It's an interesting rationale: we will cause irreparable damage to the economy in order to call attention to something that we've (very recently) decided is morally repugnant.
Also: this isn't about Obama's future budget. This is about money we've already spent.
Quote from: we vs us on May 16, 2011, 03:23:46 PM
. . . . and drive our country into the ditch in the process?
It's an interesting rationale: we will cause irreparable damage to the economy in order to call attention to something that we've (very recently) decided is morally repugnant.
Also: this isn't about Obama's future budget. This is about money we've already spent.
Pushed towards hard choices, I'm confident that President Obama will do the right thing.
You should rejoice, this may be the death knoll of the Republican Party. Refusing to yield in the face of an unstoppable spending force. They will most likely bear the brunt of the blame.
I can't foresee where this will go but I don't see it as positive for either side.
I do see it as necessary though. It's one of these "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" moments.
(http://www.realclearsports.com/blognetwork/the_coors_effect/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif)
The GOP is simply doing what Obama, Reid, and Schumer (4 times) have done on the debt ceiling.
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2011, 06:44:53 PM
(http://www.realclearsports.com/blognetwork/the_coors_effect/oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif)
The GOP is simply doing what Obama, Reid, and Schumer (4 times) have done on the debt ceiling.
Really? That's news to me. Cite?
Quote from: we vs us on May 16, 2011, 07:35:34 PM
Really? That's news to me. Cite?
Seriously? You don't remember when the dems voted against raising the debt ceiling just 5 years ago?
Well, here you go:
http://millennialpundit.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-america-has-debt-problem-and.html
Oh, but since Hoyer and Obama regret those votes, they can reclaim the high ground.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/155509-hoyer-joins-obama-in-calling-past-vote-on-debt-ceiling-a-mistake
Quote from: guido911 on May 16, 2011, 08:42:56 PM
Seriously? You don't remember when the dems voted against raising the debt ceiling just 5 years ago?
But that was different. W was Prez then.
I seem to remember reading in the Constitution that it is the House that originates the budget. And what wevus said about past law (and the recession) being what is requiring the increase.
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 02:10:11 PM
I seem to remember reading in the Constitution that it is the House that originates the budget. And what wevus said about past law (and the recession) being what is requiring the increase.
They did! But of course it has always been the administrations privilege to offer their own budget.
Instead we get platitudes from a teleprompter, and misleading numbers specifically designed to influence the least of us.
I guess I missed a speech. Been busy lately. The Republicans are completely out to lunch on the entire budget issue. Paul Ryan's budget is a pack of lies that makes even less sense than the least sensible of the Democratic proposals I've seen. It relies upon growth we have literally never seen in our history to work.
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 02:23:32 PM
I guess I missed a speech. Been busy lately. The Republicans are completely out to lunch on the entire budget issue. Paul Ryan's budget is a pack of lies that makes even less sense than the least sensible of the Democratic proposals I've seen. It relies upon growth we have literally never seen in our history to work.
That is incorrect, it relies on the exact same two growth scenarios used by congress and the administration (the CBO report and the OMB report). It does provide a massive contrast in spending though.
(http://budget.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/highresolution/52d9f5db-dced-4e5b-b908-f2a7f3cddb08.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 17, 2011, 02:32:34 PM
That is incorrect, it relies on the exact same two growth scenarios used by congress and the administration (the CBO report and the OMB report). It does provide a massive contrast in spending though.
Aside from his ideological dislike of the Ryan plan, Krugman has detailed on his blog exactly where Ryan's arithmetic doesn't add up.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/paul-ryans-multiple-unicorns/
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 02:44:31 PM
Aside from his ideological dislike of the Ryan plan, Krugman has detailed on his blog exactly where Ryan's arithmetic doesn't add up.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/paul-ryans-multiple-unicorns/
Krugman. Seriously? I'll wait until you bust out the Noam Chomsky take on Ryan's budget before engaging you on the arithmetic of it.
Quote from: guido911 on May 17, 2011, 03:00:07 PM
Krugman. Seriously? I'll wait until you bust out the Noam Chomsky take on Ryan's budget before engaging you on the arithmetic of it.
Arithmetic is not subject to ideology. Or do you think that Krugman gets 5 when he adds two and two while you get three when doing the same calculation?
Quote from: nathanm on May 17, 2011, 03:20:29 PM
Arithmetic is not subject to ideology. Or do you think that Krugman gets 5 when he adds two and two while you get three when doing the same calculation?
Remember that budget bill that we had to go to the 11th hour to get signed? The one the Republicans wanted so badly? Well, now it would seem that it actually INCREASES spending.
Like I'm surprised at all....
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/17/cbo-budget-bill-actually-increases-spending/
Unsurprising. The Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to the budget and haven't since Eisenhower said that we should be wary of the military-industrial complex.
Quote from: Hoss on May 17, 2011, 03:28:05 PM
Remember that budget bill that we had to go to the 11th hour to get signed? The one the Republicans wanted so badly? Well, now it would seem that it actually INCREASES spending.
Like I'm surprised at all....
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/17/cbo-budget-bill-actually-increases-spending/
Ahh, yes the "Obama Compromise" bill.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5246/5244253845_7cce3abd49.jpg)
Goes to show that even when you compromise and add just a few of President Obama's ideas you get an increase.
But, in all seriousness, the bill the Republicans presented even without the Obamaization was watered down and weak. They had an opportunity to cut far more, but didn't have the balls to stand up to the Administration. It was disappointing. Quite a victory for President Obama. He made the republicans look like wimps.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/05/21/number-of-the-week-95-days-to-wipe-out-2011-growth/
QuoteTreasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that if the debt limit isn't increased by August 2, the government will no longer be able to spend more than it collects in revenue. That means it will have to cut spending by about 35%, probably choosing among such items as payments to contractors, soldiers' salaries, social security and Medicare.
On average, the cuts would amount to about $3.8 billion a day, according to our own estimates based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office. At that rate, over a period of only 95 days, the cuts would add up to 2.9% of gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation*. That's just enough to negate all the economic growth forecasters expect in 2011.
So, if the debt ceiling isn't raised by November, the entire year's recovery would be erased. Good times.
Quote from: we vs us on May 22, 2011, 09:41:24 AM
So, if the debt ceiling isn't raised by November, the entire year's recovery would be erased. Good times.
QuoteThat means it will have to cut spending by about 35%, probably choosing among such items as payments to contractors, soldiers' salaries, social security and Medicare.
Excellent first choices if you are trying to scare the crap out of everyone.
I would suggest starting with Federal legislator and Executive branch salaries. It wouldn't make too big a dent but the symbolism would be great.
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that if the debt limit isn't increased by August 2, the government will no longer be able to spend more than it collects in revenue."
Mr. Turbo Tax makes it sound as if that's a bad thing. Earlier today, talking heads were speculating on whether or not the U.S. should try and help out with the EU debt crisis by giving or lending them money we would have to borrow to loan or give them. I can't believe that kind of thinking is even on the table. Not sure if this was simply "what if" speculation by the heads or if its actually being debated in the Admin.
As long as you're aware that 35% is the vast majority of the discretionary budget, which includes the military. It would leave us with about $100 billion worth of discretionary spending, or 1/8th of what we presently spend on the military and homeland security (and the nuclear weapons related part of the DOE's budget)
Just saw that the House voted against raising the debt ceiling. Apocalypse expected in hours.
Quote from: guido911 on May 31, 2011, 06:18:25 PM
Just saw that the House voted against raising the debt ceiling. Apocalypse expected in hours.
The GOP is starving school children and killing the elderly again, aren't they?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 31, 2011, 06:20:19 PM
The GOP is starving school children and killing the elderly again, aren't they?
More than 300 voted against raising the debt ceiling. This includes numerous democrats that also support starving school kids and killing the elderly.
QuoteHouse Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., blasted Republicans before the debate began for playing games when defaulting on government loans is at risk.
"If we were adults and acting as adults, we would come together and give certainty to the markets that, 'Of course, America's going to pay its bills," said Hoyer, who planned to vote against the so-called "clean" debt limit increase.
Democrats were split on the vote: 97 lawmakers rejected the bill, while 82 voted for it. Seven Democrats voted "present," to avoid taking a stand.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/house-debt-limit-vote/1
I just love how Hoyer throws a fit over the GOP voting against raising the debt ceiling while just a few years ago he did the same damned thing.
Quote from: guido911 on May 31, 2011, 06:26:48 PM
More than 300 voted against raising the debt ceiling. This includes numerous democrats that also support starving school kids and killing the elderly.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/house-debt-limit-vote/1
I just love how Hoyer throws a fit over the GOP voting against raising the debt ceiling while just a few years ago he did the same damned thing.
Yeah, well, it's different when THEY do it Greedo ;)
Of course the same republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling seven times under President Bush. But not now.
Hypocrites.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 31, 2011, 08:42:29 PM
Of course the same republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling seven times under President Bush. But not now.
Hypocrites.
Surprise! Both sides play party politics.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 31, 2011, 09:09:00 PM
Surprise! Both sides play party politics.
whocouldanode? ???
I have to agree that most members of Congress, regardless of party, are hypocrites.
One of you guys needs to run next time.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 31, 2011, 09:28:13 PM
I have to agree that most members of Congress, regardless of party, are hypocrites.
One of you guys needs to run next time.
I hate Congress so that would make me a huge hypocrite from the get go.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 31, 2011, 09:28:13 PM
I have to agree that most members of Congress, regardless of party, are hypocrites.
One of you guys needs to run next time.
Why? Do you think we are hypocrites too?
It's the Military, Stupid!: Don't Blame America's Debt Crisis on Social Security and Medicare (Especially on Memorial Day Weekend)
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/639
"If the US would just cut its military spending down to size, instead of spending as much as the rest of the world combined on war or preparing for war--say by 75%--it would free up more than $450 billion a year that could go towards funding things like improved education, research into alternative energy, improving health care access, and paying down the deficit, too. Toss in cuts in the outsized $40+ billion annual secret intelligence budget, in the nation's obsolete and dangerous nuclear weapons program and other ancillary military-related expenditures, and we're talking about saving half a trillion dollars a year!"
Cut deficits ...cut Corporate Welfare! Leave the poor alone!
And B!tch McConnel is a traitor to the United States to hold our economy hostage over medicare. Just a reminder: John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl all voted to increase the debt limit a combined total of 19 times during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
So the Republicans defeated their own proposal?
QuoteHouse Republicans engineered Tuesday the defeat of their own proposed $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit. The vote Tuesday was 97-318, far below the two-thirds majority needed for passage.
Tuesday's vote was the second show vote in as many weeks: Last week, Democrats in the Senate forced Republicans to vote on a House GOP proposal that would make controversial changes to Medicare.
When House GOP leaders scheduled Tuesday's vote simply to raise the debt ceiling by another $2.4 trillion, they knew that the entire House Republican caucus would be trooping to the White House on Wednesday to meet with President Obama.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136829602/house-to-vote-on-debt-ceiling-bill (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136829602/house-to-vote-on-debt-ceiling-bill)
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 31, 2011, 11:06:37 PM
It's the Military, Stupid!: Don't Blame America's Debt Crisis on Social Security and Medicare (Especially on Memorial Day Weekend)
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/639
"If the US would just cut its military spending down to size, instead of spending as much as the rest of the world combined on war or preparing for war--say by 75%--it would free up more than $450 billion a year that could go towards funding things like improved education, research into alternative energy, improving health care access, and paying down the deficit, too. Toss in cuts in the outsized $40+ billion annual secret intelligence budget, in the nation's obsolete and dangerous nuclear weapons program and other ancillary military-related expenditures, and we're talking about saving half a trillion dollars a year!"
Cut deficits ...cut Corporate Welfare! Leave the poor alone!
And B!tch McConnel is a traitor to the United States to hold our economy hostage over medicare. Just a reminder: John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl all voted to increase the debt limit a combined total of 19 times during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Unfortunate reality is a significant segment of the U.S. economy has become dependent on the military teat. Eisenhower was right.
That said, the military has helped spur things which have become useful to civilians like GPS, advances in aircraft which have translated down to quicker and more fuel efficient air travel, alternative fuel development and use. Cutting 75% out of their budget would have a devastating impact on the economy. Figure out how to wean them over 10-20 years without causing an economic cataclysm and you might win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: Townsend on June 01, 2011, 10:20:51 AM
So the Republicans defeated their own proposal?
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136829602/house-to-vote-on-debt-ceiling-bill (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136829602/house-to-vote-on-debt-ceiling-bill)
That's a matter of perspective. As I recall, Obama and the dems wanted a "clean bill" on raising the debt ceiling and Boehner gave them exactly that. Here is the dem letter:
http://welch.house.gov/images/stories/PDF/debtceiling04152011.pdf
Quote from: guido911 on June 01, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
That's a matter of perspective. As I recall, Obama and the dems wanted a "clean bill" on raising the debt ceiling and Boehner gave them exactly that. Here is the dem letter:
http://welch.house.gov/images/stories/PDF/debtceiling04152011.pdf
A skewed perspective says no?
The letter, what is your perspective on it?
Quote from: Townsend on June 01, 2011, 02:29:08 PM
A skewed perspective says no?
The letter, what is your perspective on it?
Don't know since I do not have a list of all the signatories and how they ultimately voted yesterday. I thought the letter had 114 people signing it, yet that was not the number who ultimately voted on the clean bill.
Quote from: guido911 on June 01, 2011, 02:36:52 PM
Don't know since I do not have a list of all the signatories and how they ultimately voted yesterday. I thought the letter had 114 people signing it, yet that was not the number who ultimately voted on the clean bill.
I started looking them up but started to lose the will to live after the first one.
The US congress is starting to remind me of the Tulsa City Council.
Anybody lose a little "value" today in their savings/retirement accounts? Is this the first stroke in this hypocritical politician fighting that will continue to erode your nest egg?
Confidence is everything. Call Mitch the B!tch or that crybaby Boner or even you own Rip Sully and/or Senaturds
and tell them to avoid costing you your pensions and savings before it's too late....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 01, 2011, 04:03:05 PM
Anybody lose a little "value" today in their savings/retirement accounts? Is this the first stroke in this hypocritical politician fighting that will continue to erode your nest egg?
Confidence is everything. Call Mitch the B!tch or that crybaby Boner or even you own Rip Sully and/or Senaturds
and tell them to avoid costing you your pensions and savings before it's too late....
Please, shut the hell up.
Quote from: guido911 on June 01, 2011, 04:08:28 PM
Please, shut the hell up.
Cause and Effect? Dow Drops 280 Points 24 Hours after House GOP Votes Against Raising Debt Ceiling
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/06/02/cause-and-effect-dow-drops-280-points-24-hours-after-house-vote-against-raising-debt-ceiling/
"Imagine the firestorm that would raging on Republican propaganda outlets right now if the stock market had dropped 2.2 percent within 24 hours after Democrats had voted unanimously not to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
The entire right-wing noise machine — from Fox & Friends to Limbaugh, from Hannity to O'Reilly — would be singing the same refrain: The stock market has sent a clear message of disapproval over the Democrats' irresponsible vote. Whether that assertion was true would not matter. They would make it true simply by unanimously agreeing that it was.
But because it was Republicans who voted irresponsibly, right-wing media sees no relationship between the vote and market drop.
And, of course, neither does the "liberal" lamestream corporate inside-the-Beltway media."
Wish this site had an ignore button...
Sitting in my hotel room in Indianapolis LMFAO!!!
I don't think I could get through the day without some of the stuff posted on this forum.
Thank you all for the joy you give me.
Moody's will review US credit rating if there's no move in the debt ceiling by July.
http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Updates-on-Rating-Implications-of-US-Debt-Limit-Long?lang=en&cy=global&docid=PR_220066
QuoteNew York, June 02, 2011 -- Moody's Investors Service said today that if there is no progress on increasing the statutory debt limit in coming weeks, it expects to place the US government's rating under review for possible downgrade, due to the very small but rising risk of a short-lived default. If the debt limit is raised and default avoided, the Aaa rating will be maintained. However, the rating outlook will depend on the outcome of negotiations on deficit reduction. A credible agreement on substantial deficit reduction would support a continued stable outlook; lack of such an agreement could prompt Moody's to change its outlook to negative on the Aaa rating.
Although Moody's fully expected political wrangling prior to an increase in the statutory debt limit, the degree of entrenchment into conflicting positions has exceeded expectations. The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the odds of a short-lived default. If this situation remains unchanged in coming weeks, Moody's will place the rating under review.
If the Teabaggers and GOP continue to play politics, down goes the market. GoldmanSacks must be licking their chops.....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 02, 2011, 05:06:33 PM
If the Teabaggers and GOP continue to play politics, down goes the market. GoldmanSacks must be licking their chops.....
Hope you are set up to short it all the way down.
Doesn't matter whether or not we raise the debt ceiling, sooner or later our debt will eventually be downgraded. We are kicking the can down the block yet again with a bunch of artificial measures set to put off the inevitable, but hoping it will be one someone else's watch rather than the current admin or Congress.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 02, 2011, 05:06:33 PM
If the Teabaggers and GOP continue to play politics, down goes the market. GoldmanSacks must be licking their chops.....
My gosh, are you STILL talking?
More reading than talking.
Here, get educated. No more whining. :-*
Financial Crisis Rooted In Politics of Creditworthiness, Study Contends
http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/06/financial-crisis-rooted-in-politics-of.html
"A common reading of the recent subprime mortgage crisis pins the blame on bankers and loan brokers who extended mortgages to those who could not afford them, thereby inflating a housing bubble that was destined to burst. While technically correct, that reading ignores the "politics of creditworthiness" that undergirded the rise of subprime mortgages, as explained in a new article in the June issue of the American Sociological Review by Simone Polillo, an assistant professor of sociology in the University of Virginia's College of Arts & Sciences."
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 03, 2011, 04:40:19 PM
More reading than talking.
Here, get educated. No more whining. :-*
Saw that the author is a contributor to the Democratic Daily. No thanks.
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/
QuoteSpeaker Boehner: American people will not tolerate an increase in the debt limit without spending cuts and reforms.
Looks like our credit rating's about to take another slap upside.
Quote from: Townsend on January 11, 2013, 04:24:32 PM
Looks like our credit rating's about to take another slap upside.
No one in Washington gives a fat smile about it. They just keep on greasing the people who keep them in power with free money from the treasury.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 11, 2013, 04:26:38 PM
No one in Washington gives a fat smile about it. They just keep on greasing the people who keep them in power with free money from the treasury.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8369/8370698985_c3d8fb4692_o.jpg)
Did I hear something about a Million Dollar coin?
Quote from: DolfanBob on January 11, 2013, 04:37:24 PM
Did I hear something about a Million Dollar coin?
Trillion. It'll be super huge.
Do you think your teabaggers will let us go belly up?
I have no problem with the platinum $1 trill coin.
Anybody take notice of the FED paying back the Treasury $90 billion this week?
Or, is that above everybody's ceiling here?
I dislike the trillion dollar coin option, but because of politics, not economics. Economically it doesn't matter except that it can assure the markets that the Tea Partyists can no longer hold the economy hostage in the way they have been. What I'd prefer to see is an elimination of the debt ceiling in exchange for removing the (accidental) power of the executive to mint trillion dollar coins.
If the Tea Partyists were serious, they wouldn't try to hide the fact that we've already done over $4 trillion in deficit reduction since Obama took office. They wouldn't constantly harp about ACA without a way to replace its net cost savings to the federal budget. They wouldn't claim we need to increase our military budget at a time when the joint chiefs aren't asking for it. They wouldn't claim we need to cut taxes today. I don't know about you guys, but when I'm facing a gap in my finances, I cut expenses, not income.