PDA

View Full Version : Right Wing Lunatic Fringe Says Default Might Be Good


Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 12:01 AM
“It really is irresponsible of the president to try to scare the markets,” said Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky. “If you don’t raise your debt ceiling, all you’re saying is, ‘We’re going to be balancing our budget.’ So if you put it in those terms, all these scary terms of, ‘Oh my goodness, the world’s going to end’ — if we balance the budget, the world’s going to end? Why don’t we spend what comes in?”

“If you propose it that way,” he said of not raising the debt limit, “the American public will say that sounds like a pretty reasonable idea.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/many-in-gop-offer-theory-default-wouldnt-be-that-bad.html?_r=0

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 12:24 AM
I rarely agree with Friedman, but I have to agree with this paragraph:

President Obama is leading. He is protecting the very rules that are the foundation of any healthy democracy. He is leading by not giving in to this blackmail, because if he did he would undermine the principle of majority rule that is the bedrock of our democracy. That system guarantees the minority the right to be heard and to run for office and become the majority, but it also ensures that once voters have spoken, and their representatives have voted — and, if legally challenged, the Supreme Court has also ruled in their favor — the majority decision holds sway. A minority of a minority, which has lost every democratic means to secure its agenda, has no right to now threaten to tank our economy if its demands are not met. If we do not preserve this system, nothing will ever be settled again in American politics. There would be nothing to prevent a future Democratic Congress from using the exact same blackmail to try to overturn a law enacted by their Republican rivals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/friedman-us-fringe-festival.html?src=recg

The Republicans have to clean their own house. They have allowed their lunatic fringe to set up a situation which no president could ever surrender to. The minority wants to unpin a fundamental strut of our government and kick it loose. If the president allows them to do it, he'll be excoriated by all future presidents. For the good of our way of government, he cannot not allow the lunatic fringe to succeed.

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 12:27 AM
Love this guy from the OP:

Representative Ted Yoho, a freshman Florida Republican who had no experience in elective office before this year, said the largest economy on earth should learn from his large-animal veterinary practice.

“Everybody talks about how destabilizing doing this will be on the markets,” he said. “And you’ll see that initially, but heck, I’ve seen that in my business. When you go through that, and you address the problem and you address your creditors and say, ‘Listen, we’re going to pay you. We’re just not going to pay you today, but we’re going to pay you with interest, and we will pay everybody that’s due money’ — if you did that, the world would say America is finally addressing their problem.”

We got some real Einsteins here. :rofl:

Meck77
10-09-2013, 04:48 AM
Let's compare this to maybe a real life example. A young college student has a credit card. This student has maxed out their first card. In order to keep up with financial obligations, rent, car pmt, etc the student gets a second card and gets cash advances so they can "pay" the first card. Rather than cutting costs, paying down the credit card, the student is raising their own debt ceiling. Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the United States is doing is not much different.

Speaking of LUNACY. If we don't pull another credit card Social Security is on the chopping block. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/10/07/social-security-issues-debt-ceiling-warning/

Ro...Please explain to me what we are doing now isn't TOTALLY INSANE?


How can we possibly raise a little more money without taxing the American people to death? Just so happens the United States has 650,000,000 acres of public land. Most of that is out west. Just so happens much of this land is sitting over oil and gas.........Even if it's not over gas and oil surely there are people willing to buy some from US. Ah but it doesn't really work that way. The credit card machine is gobbling up more land. Nice to own your own printing press!

Meanwhile our government is scaring old people into believing they are going to lose their social security checks if we don't plunge ourselves into more debt.

Come on Ro....

peacepipe
10-09-2013, 05:55 AM
Let's compare this to maybe a real life example. A young college student has a credit card. This student has maxed out their first card. In order to keep up with financial obligations, rent, car pmt, etc the student gets a second card and gets cash advances so they can "pay" the first card. Rather than cutting costs, paying down the credit card, the student is raising their own debt ceiling. Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the United States is doing is not much different.

Speaking of LUNACY. If we don't pull another credit card Social Security is on the chopping block. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/10/07/social-security-issues-debt-ceiling-warning/

Ro...Please explain to me what we are doing now isn't TOTALLY INSANE?


How can we possibly raise a little more money without taxing the American people to death? Just so happens the United States has 650,000,000 acres of public land. Most of that is out west. Just so happens much of this land is sitting over oil and gas.........Even if it's not over gas and oil surely there are people willing to buy some from US. Ah but it doesn't really work that way. The credit card machine is gobbling up more land. Nice to own your own printing press!

Meanwhile our government is scaring old people into believing they are going to lose their social security checks if we don't plunge ourselves into more debt.

Come on Ro....

you are obviously to much of a simpleton to understand the debt limit. its about paying the bills we have already built.

W*GS
10-09-2013, 06:58 AM
Let's compare this to maybe a real life example. A young college student has a credit card.

The government isn't a private individual. It's not a business, either.

What is it with some people that they think government is one or both? It is not.

TonyR
10-09-2013, 07:44 AM
Wells Fargo Bank economist Scott Anderson has said of a default, “It would be an earth-shattering event. It’s taken as given that U.S. Treasuries are a safe asset. Once you question that assumption, it shakes the foundations of global finance and the way it’s been established over the last 50 years.”

University of California, Berkeley, economist Barry Eichengreen, a world-renowned expert on the international monetary system, warned that a debt default could lead to a run on the dollar if foreigners come to feel that the U.S. is being run by irresponsible leaders. As he put it:

“If there is a threat to the dollar, it stems not from monetary policy, but from the fiscal side. What is most likely to precipitate a dollar crash is evidence that U.S. budgets are not being made by responsible adults. A U.S. Congress engaged in political grandstanding might fail to raise the debt ceiling, triggering a technical default. Evidence that the inmates were running the asylum would almost certainly precipitate the wholesale liquidation of U.S. Treasury bonds by foreign investors.” http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2778/must-read-bruce-bartlett-debt-limit

TonyR
10-09-2013, 07:49 AM
Another good read on the subject.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/house_republicans_debt_default_and_government_shut down_the_gop_thinks_the.html

TonyR
10-09-2013, 07:53 AM
If you look at members’ actions and votes instead of their statements, the number of Republicans in the House who favor a clean CR and oppose the Cruz-driven strategy of shutdown and hostage-taking is not 21. It’s 0. The entire House Republican caucus is responsible for its shutdown-based legislative strategy. The only difference among the members is that Tea Party conservatives have the decency to admit what they’re up to. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-irresponsible-officials-in-washington-are-moderate-republicans-2013-10

^ There are effectively no moderates left in the party.

Sullivan states it better than I can:

The purge has worked, hasn’t it? There is effectively no Republican party any more. There is a radical movement to destroy the modern American state and eviscerate its institutions in favor of restoring a mythical, elysian, majority-white, nineteenth-century past. This crisis is proving that more powerfully than even watching Fox. We need to see what is in front of our nose: a cold civil war has broken out between those properly called conservatives, defending the credit of the government, empirical reality, and adjustments to modern life and those properly called radical reactionaries declaring our current elected president and Senate as illegitimate actors, bent on the destruction of America, and therefore necessitating total political warfare, even to the point of threatening to destroy the global economy. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/08/what-moderate-republicans/

Meck77
10-09-2013, 08:18 AM
you are obviously to much of a simpleton to understand the debt limit. its about paying the bills we have already built.



Projecting much?

debt ceil·ing
noun
1.
an upper limit set on the amount of money that a government may borrow.
"on Friday, Congress raised the debt ceiling by $800 million"

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 08:44 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-irresponsible-officials-in-washington-are-moderate-republicans-2013-10

^ There are effectively no moderates left in the party.

Sullivan states it better than I can:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/08/what-moderate-republicans/

What's funny (not really) is that Sully would've been (probably was) saying exactly the opposite 7 years ago, when it was Bush in the big boy chair, and not a single Democratic 'moderate' existed in the Senate. LOL

The end result will be the same. Default isn't on the table. But nobody's going to sign up for President O's South Park Rochambeau gambit either. LOL

Blart
10-09-2013, 10:30 AM
Meck:

The debt ceiling is not like your family's credit card. Whoever is telling you this is either ignorant or trying to deceive you.

When Congress passes a budget, it is voting to spend more than it takes in. It’s been doing so (with one brief exception in the 1830s) since the earliest days of our republic.

It makes up the difference by issuing debt. People enthusiastically purchase this debt (treasury bonds) because it's the safest investment in the world. Or at least it was.

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 10:38 AM
The left's dream is to remove all economic restraint on their dreams and ambitions.

Enlightened Progressives should be free to vote for all the good stuff the United Trial Lawyers can imagineer without being distracted by all the petty annoyances of "unintended consequences" or "how to pay for it" LOL

W*GS
10-09-2013, 11:39 AM
The left's dream is to remove all economic restraint on their dreams and ambitions.

The right's dream is to let the wealthy and corporate interests **** us and the planet.

A couple of Kochs right up the chute.

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 11:47 AM
The right's dream is to let the wealthy and corporate interests **** us and the planet.

A couple of Kochs right up the chute.

Next you'll tell me it can all be fixed by the Obama Administration turning its technical acumen towards setting up the "Expedia of Carbon Taxes" LOL

TonyR
10-09-2013, 12:14 PM
So, BB, you think a default would be good? No worries?

houghtam
10-09-2013, 12:23 PM
So, BB, you think a default would be good? No worries?

And he's not partisan.

:spit:

nyuk nyuk
10-09-2013, 12:26 PM
The right's dream is to let the wealthy and corporate interests **** us and the planet.

A couple of Kochs right up the chute.

This is a farty old canard. Corporate interests have a heavy hand in both major US parties. Who is pushing for amnesty? Business and unions in industries purged of Americans now serving illegal alien members for the most part. Ethnic and religious lobbies a far 2nd place.

Then of course you have a certain political party whose old white blue collar core jumped ship to the GOP in the 80s.

Taco John
10-09-2013, 12:36 PM
Moody's credit rating agency raining on Obama's scare parade:

Moody's offers different view on debt limit

One of the nation’s top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation’s sterling AAA credit rating.

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”

The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.

“The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

Treasury Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

broncocalijohn
10-09-2013, 12:46 PM
So, BB, you think a default would be good? No worries?

I don't think it is a good idea but it seems sooner then later that kicking the can down the road is just helping us now but the stability of our nation and true economic stronghold will be gone. The sigh of relief when it is raised is for that instant but the problem continues on when the elected officials take the next breath.

The lunacy fringe might be those in congress now and those in the past.

peacepipe
10-09-2013, 12:48 PM
Moody's credit rating agency raining on Obama's scare parade:

Moody's offers different view on debt limit

One of the nation’s top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation’s sterling AAA credit rating.

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”

The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.

“The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

Treasury Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

I guess the question is: why in the hell should dems concede to anything if defaulting isn't a big deal? obviously,rethugs think its a big deal,there strategy was to use it to extract concessions from the president.

nyuk nyuk
10-09-2013, 12:54 PM
I guess the question is: why in the hell should dems concede to anything if defaulting isn't a big deal? obviously,rethugs think its a big deal,there strategy was to use it to extract concessions from the president.

How is it that concessions are only a good thing if they come from the GOP and thuggery if the other way around?!

peacepipe
10-09-2013, 01:11 PM
How is it that concessions are only a good thing if they come from the GOP and thuggery if the other way around?!
thuggery is using extortion(as rethugs are doing)to get what you want. in a normal,as it should be,negotiation there can be concessions if both partys are in fair talks.

Rigs11
10-09-2013, 01:45 PM
You can't make this shet upHilarious!

Kochs to Congress: Focus on spending, not Obamacare

In a move that highlights a growing rift in conservative ranks, Koch Industries -- the privately held energy conglomerate owned by billionaires Charles and David Koch -- today distanced the firm from allied political groups lobbying to keep the government shut down unless Obamacare is defunded

A letter, signed by the company's chief lobbyist and sent to members of Congress, says that Koch Industries has taken no position on the shutdown dispute in Congress "nor have we lobbied on legislative provisions defending Obamacare."

Instead, Koch Industries wants Congress to focus on "balancing the budget" and "cutting government spending," among other goals, said Philip Ellender, Koch Industries president for government and public affairs.

The letter comes in the wake of media reports documenting how Freedom Partners -- a newly formed conservative trade association closely associated with the Koch brothers -- has helped finance many of the conservative and Tea Party groups that have been pressuring Republicans to link defunding Obamacare to the passage of a continuing resolution to fund the government and extend the debt ceiling.Hilarious!


It was also spurred by a floor speech by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday that blamed the Koch brothers for the government shutdown. The Kochs "have been raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get us to where we are right now," Reid said.

Over the past year, Freedom Partners -- whose board members include three current and former Koch employees -- has doled out over $235 million, including grants to Heritage Action for America, Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Patriots, State Tea Party Express and other groups that have been pushing to defund the Affordable Care Act.
But privately, Koch officials have expressed concern to lawmakers that the prospect of a government default over the Obamacare issue would be a "disaster" for the economy, according to one GOP consultant who recently discussed the matter with Koch officials and asked for anonymity. Koch Industries associates note that the firm is widely diversified, including last month's $7.2 billion purchase of a company that makes connectors for Apple iPhones and other consumer products -- one of many markets that could be effected by spikes in credit resulting from a government default.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/09/20886586-kochs-to-congress-focus-on-spending-not-obamacare#comments

Meck77
10-09-2013, 01:52 PM
Wow. Yeah debt, efficiency, accountability, Printing 85 Billion a month to try and keep our economy afloat doesn't matter.

At some point you will FEEL what I see coming.

Rigs11
10-09-2013, 02:10 PM
Hold the Vote Boner!

Votes are there to break shutdown, but not the will
Posted by
CNN's Dan Merica
Updated 10/9/2013 at 8:00 a.m.

Washington (CNN) – There appeared to be enough votes in the House on Wednesday to approve legislation to reopen the federal government, according to an ongoing CNN survey of House members.

CNN's vote count

All 200 Democrats and 19 Republicans support passing a continuing resolution with no additional legislative strings attached that would reopen the federal government, which has been partially closed for a week over a bitter policy dispute between Republicans and Democrats on health care. With three vacancies in 435 member House, 217 votes are currently the minimum needed for the measure to win approval in the House.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/votes-are-there-to-break-shutdown-but-not-the-will/?hpt=hp_t2

DenverBrit
10-09-2013, 02:49 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tea+Party+Anger+Cartoon.gif

W*GS
10-09-2013, 04:10 PM
Sounds like the GOP to me...

18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

elsid13
10-09-2013, 04:48 PM
Moody's credit rating agency raining on Obama's scare parade:

Moody's offers different view on debt limit

One of the nation’s top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation’s sterling AAA credit rating.

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”

The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.

“The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

Treasury Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

I would like to point out it is analyst opinion and thus is not set in stone. The underlying assumptions are key to this type of "reports"

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 04:51 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Tea+Party+Anger+Cartoon.gif

Bingo!

Ever wonder why the Tea Party would worry about going after the EPA? You won't wonder after you find out that the Koch Bros. are in the Top Ten Worst Polluters List of America every single year.

DenverBrit
10-09-2013, 04:58 PM
Bingo!

Ever wonder why the Tea Party would worry about going after the EPA? You won't wonder after you find out that the Koch Bros. are in the Top Ten Worst Polluters List of America every single year.

It's one of those Kodak moments when incredibly stupid people join hands with the mega wealthy for a common cause.

Fedaykin
10-09-2013, 05:49 PM
Moody's credit rating agency raining on Obama's scare parade:

Moody's offers different view on debt limit

One of the nation’s top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation’s sterling AAA credit rating.

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”

The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.

“The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

Treasury Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

Math people, basic math:

The current deficit is what, 900 billion? Where do you suggest we instantly cut 900 billion dollars in spending?

The total discretionary spending currently is 1.5T

~1T of that is defense spending (DoD, VA, DoE, DHS, NASA, etc.)

Interest is 246 billion of that 1.5T

That leaves ~250bn in other discretionary spending (DOI, DoEd, DoJ, etc.) from which you can cut.

So what are you going to cut? All non defense, non-interest spending is only going to get you 1/4 of the deficit. To make up that other 3/4 you are going to have to do some combination of the following

a.) gut defense related spending (DoD+ VA,DHS,etc.)
b.) stop servicing current debt (i.e. DEFAULT)

That assumes you've already completely scrapped the rest of the government dumping perhaps 10s of millions of public and private (contractor) workers into the unemployment lines (with a corresponding ballooning of social spending there) along the way.

Saying we can just instantly balance the budget is pure lunacy.

If you want to do it with non-discretionary spending (the biggies being SS medicare, and military pensions/va), then you are both going to have to pass legislation that will stop those programs and in the process effectively steal (again!) all the money that has been collected to fund those programs. Oh, and if you DO pass the legislation to stop those programs, you also reduce the total revenues by about 1T, meaning you still have to cut discretionary spending just like I noted above!

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 05:53 PM
It's one of those Kodak moments when incredibly stupid people join hands with the mega wealthy for a common cause.

And the common cause is to funnel more money and power to the mega wealthy at the expense of the stupid people. Carnivals have been operating on this principle for centuries. ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-09-2013, 07:52 PM
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1378710_10151888258627908_1470000257_n.png

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 08:04 PM
Who was plotting with Bernie when he voted against paying our debts in 2006?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-09-2013, 08:05 PM
Who was plotting with Bernie when he voted against paying our debts in 2006?

Is that how the Fox Ministry of Truth spun it?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-09-2013, 08:06 PM
House Republicans who love to wrap themselves in the Constitution should keep something in mind:

Their obligations to pay the nation's bills aren't optional. Neither is their oath of office.

http://on.msnbc.com/GNgh6s

Missouribronc
10-09-2013, 09:50 PM
Anyone who thinks the federal government can't operate within its means like a business or an individual is an absolute fool.

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 09:52 PM
Anyone who thinks the federal government can't operate within its means like a business or an individual is an absolute fool.

Yeah. Just like hospitals.

Missouribronc
10-09-2013, 09:54 PM
Yeah. Just like hospitals.

I'm sorry. You must not know a lot about hospitals.

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 09:57 PM
I'm sorry. You must not know a lot about hospitals.

I've worked in one for years. Without government subsidies they wouldn't exist. Tell me, what marketable item does the U.S. produce? What is our market? What is our market share? Who are our investors? Who are our customers? How is production doing? We're spending a massive ****load of money on military. How much profit does that bring in? etc.

Missouribronc
10-09-2013, 10:03 PM
I assume you're referring to tax exemptions.

And taxes are only passed on to consumers, so it ultimately is the consumer that suffers any sort of increase in taxes.

Rohirrim
10-09-2013, 10:07 PM
I assume you're referring to tax exemptions.

And taxes are only passed on to consumers, so it ultimately is the consumer that suffers any sort of increase in taxes.

That and all the Medicaid and Medicare money coming in. If that wasn't there, those people would be uninsured, but they'd still be coming in.

peacepipe
10-09-2013, 10:15 PM
I assume you're referring to tax exemptions.

And taxes are only passed on to consumers, so it ultimately is the consumer that suffers any sort of increase in taxes.

you are right assuming a business owner doesn't want to stay in business. consumers will only pay so much for a product, regardless of what the business pays in taxes.

BroncoBeavis
10-09-2013, 10:37 PM
I've worked in one for years. Without government subsidies they wouldn't exist. Tell me, what marketable item does the U.S. produce? What is our market? What is our market share? Who are our investors? Who are our customers? How is production doing? We're spending a massive ****load of money on military. How much profit does that bring in? etc.

This reminds me of the guy who claimed that farmers wouldn't have enough water if it weren't for the Bureau of Reclamations among other federal agencies.

What he failed to realize is that people built plenty of dams before the federal government got involved. Without federal involvement, there would likely be many more dams than there are today.

Many of these same kinds of examples exist in healthcare. But the fantasy that hospitals would just cease to exist without subsidies just because they receive subsidies is laughable. Besides, I'm not sure what hospital you work for, but ask your CFO some time how far ahead your hospital comes out on Medicaid subsidies when you factor in Medicare/Medicaid undercompensation.

When you sum it all up, often public-payer business costs hospitals money. Most are lucky if they break even.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-10-2013, 09:14 PM
I'm sorry. You must not know a lot about hospitals.

L0L! :laugh:

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o4/johnbsr/NEW%20DEMOTIVATORS/MORANS.jpg

HILife
10-11-2013, 05:49 AM
you are obviously to much of a simpleton to understand the debt limit. its about paying the bills we have already built.

That's exactly correct. These bills have already hit. All they are doing is paying it. Defaulting is a none option, ask Warren Buffet and all the other billionaires. They can't all be wrong.

frerottenextelway
10-11-2013, 08:20 AM
Moody's credit rating agency raining on Obama's scare parade:

Moody's offers different view on debt limit

One of the nation’s top credit-rating agencies says that the U.S. Treasury Department is likely to continue paying interest on the government’s debt even if Congress fails to lift the limit on borrowing next week, preserving the nation’s sterling AAA credit rating.

In a memo being circulated on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Moody’s Investors Service offers “answers to frequently asked questions” about the government shutdown, now in its second week, and the federal debt limit. President Obama has said that, unless Congress acts to raise the $16.7 trillion limit by next Thursday, the nation will be at risk of default.

Not so, Moody’s says in the memo dated Oct. 7.

” We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact,” the memo says. “The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues; it does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. There is no direct connection between the debt limit (actually the exhaustion of the Treasury’s extraordinary measures to raise funds) and a default.

The memo offers a starkly different view of the consequences of congressional inaction on the debt limit than is held by the White House, many policymakers and other financial analysts. During a press conference at the White House Tuesday, Obama said missing the Oct. 17 deadline would invite “economic chaos.”

The Moody’s memo goes on to argue that the situation is actually much less serious than in 2011, when the nation last faced a pitched battle over the debt limit.

“The budget deficit was considerably larger in 2011 than it is currently, so the magnitude of the necessary spending cuts needed after 17 October is lower now than it was then,” the memo says.

Treasury Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-the-shutdown-4/?hpid=z2#c1e3ada3-dc00-41d8-92cb-327c5c814d82

Default Truthers! Our credit is based upon investors believing the US Dollar is the safest investment. That's what keeps our economy, and the worlds economy from completely crashing into complete chaos. We already had people like Fidelity completely sell off ALL their US treasury bonds. What do you think would happen if we pass that deadline? Honestly? Come into reality world for a minute.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-11-2013, 09:11 AM
Once again, Parry has the repigs' number...

Making the Economy Scream

by Robert Parry

Link (http://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/09/making-the-economy-scream/)

Americans who have studied CIA destabilization campaigns around the world may see some striking parallels to the strategy of Tea Party Republicans who have provoked a government shutdown and now are threatening a credit default. The idea is to make the country appear ungovernable and to make the economy “scream.”

This approach is similar to what CIA operatives do to get rid of disfavored political leaders in other countries, such as when Nixon ordered the spy agency to sabotage Chile’s economy and upset its political stability in the early 1970s.

The CIA’s thinking is that most people just want a chance to make a living. So, if an economic crisis can be ginned up – while propaganda outlets put the blame on the government leaders who are ostensibly in charge – then the people will ultimately turn against those leaders in an effort to restore normality.

In effect, the CIA takes the political process hostage by inflicting economic pain on the average citizen, sponsoring “populist” disorders, spreading confusion through propaganda outlets and then waiting for a weary population to give in. This technique has worked in many countries over the years – and surely the idea long predated the formation of the CIA in the late 1940s.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-11-2013, 09:13 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/gop-shame-131010.jpg

B-Large
10-11-2013, 09:54 AM
Math people, basic math:

The current deficit is what, 900 billion? Where do you suggest we instantly cut 900 billion dollars in spending?

The total discretionary spending currently is 1.5T

~1T of that is defense spending (DoD, VA, DoE, DHS, NASA, etc.)

Interest is 246 billion of that 1.5T

That leaves ~250bn in other discretionary spending (DOI, DoEd, DoJ, etc.) from which you can cut.

So what are you going to cut? All non defense, non-interest spending is only going to get you 1/4 of the deficit. To make up that other 3/4 you are going to have to do some combination of the following

a.) gut defense related spending (DoD+ VA,DHS,etc.)
b.) stop servicing current debt (i.e. DEFAULT)

That assumes you've already completely scrapped the rest of the government dumping perhaps 10s of millions of public and private (contractor) workers into the unemployment lines (with a corresponding ballooning of social spending there) along the way.

Saying we can just instantly balance the budget is pure lunacy.

If you want to do it with non-discretionary spending (the biggies being SS medicare, and military pensions/va), then you are both going to have to pass legislation that will stop those programs and in the process effectively steal (again!) all the money that has been collected to fund those programs. Oh, and if you DO pass the legislation to stop those programs, you also reduce the total revenues by about 1T, meaning you still have to cut discretionary spending just like I noted above!

A discussion about cutting spending is almost worthless unless you discuss the big 3, Medicare & Medicaid, SS and Military outlays. To me, there will have to be some further mean-testing of Social Security and Medicare in the future to stablize the budget, as well as pretty substantial cuts to miltary outlays as well.

What's strikes me as ironic is Conservatives are 100% deadset, rabidly aginst the Affordable Care Act, but when you think about it, it is the test kitchen for privatizing parts of Medicare... if the ACA works and comes out as a cost effective solution to healthcare, there is more likelihood of success in proposing that Amercians with certain asset levels in retirement will be routed to he ACA to purchase private coverage in their retirement instead of being a Medicare recipient. to me, they are fighting a Pyrrhic War on the ACA that will ultimately crush one of their long-term strategies in he future. If the ACA rocks it and GOP makes it work, what possible defense could people have to not consider privatising Medicare,or parts of it?

BroncoBeavis
10-11-2013, 10:59 AM
A discussion about cutting spending is almost worthless unless you discuss the big 3, Medicare & Medicaid, SS and Military outlays. To me, there will have to be some further mean-testing of Social Security and Medicare in the future to stablize the budget, as well as pretty substantial cuts to miltary outlays as well.

What's strikes me as ironic is Conservatives are 100% deadset, rabidly aginst the Affordable Care Act, but when you think about it, it is the test kitchen for privatizing parts of Medicare... if the ACA works and comes out as a cost effective solution to healthcare, there is more likelihood of success in proposing that Amercians with certain asset levels in retirement will be routed to he ACA to purchase private coverage in their retirement instead of being a Medicare recipient. to me, they are fighting a Pyrrhic War on the ACA that will ultimately crush one of their long-term strategies in he future. If the ACA rocks it and GOP makes it work, what possible defense could people have to not consider privatising Medicare,or parts of it?

Good post. But the biggest theoretical problems with the ACA are that it doubles down on what the real enabler of expensive American Health Care is. Universal Cover-Everything insurance allows the medical system and Pharma to gouge people, because people have no incentive to be smart consumers. And the nail in the coffin is that it attempts to pay for the sick by coercing the healthy. Which violates the entire concept of insurance. And will cause the whole thing to crash down around itself in a fairly short period of time. And then team Proggy will pronounce "See! We tried 'the market' and it doesn't work!"

When in reality they turned market principles upside down as only government can.

The plus side of it is that it may help to eventually break the employer-coverage model. That needed to go away a long time ago.

Insurance in general though needs to be for catastrophic loss and not everything under the sun. Your mechanic would charge a hell of a lot more if he knew nobody gave a **** what he charged.

And health insurance needs to be structured more like life insurance. You buy in when you're young and usually healthy, and are guaranteed a certain payment (plus some kind of standard inflation rate) for the rest of your days.

End employer-based coverage. Encourage HSA/catastrophic coverage programs. And lifetime or at least long-term insurance rating would do wonders for Healthcare in the US. Then the government would only have to function to fill in a few gaps.

peacepipe
10-11-2013, 11:20 AM
A discussion about cutting spending is almost worthless unless you discuss the big 3, Medicare & Medicaid, SS and Military outlays. To me, there will have to be some further mean-testing of Social Security and Medicare in the future to stablize the budget, as well as pretty substantial cuts to miltary outlays as well.

What's strikes me as ironic is Conservatives are 100% deadset, rabidly aginst the Affordable Care Act, but when you think about it, it is the test kitchen for privatizing parts of Medicare... if the ACA works and comes out as a cost effective solution to healthcare, there is more likelihood of success in proposing that Amercians with certain asset levels in retirement will be routed to he ACA to purchase private coverage in their retirement instead of being a Medicare recipient. to me, they are fighting a Pyrrhic War on the ACA that will ultimately crush one of their long-term strategies in he future. If the ACA rocks it and GOP makes it work, what possible defense could people have to not consider privatising Medicare,or parts of it?

Outside of it not be guaranteed, and private ins. Wont want to cause they can't profit from it.

peacepipe
10-11-2013, 11:30 AM
Look people, the privatization of SS, medicare, and Medicaid will never happen.

peacepipe
10-11-2013, 11:32 AM
Single payer will.be the next logical step

Meck77
10-11-2013, 01:07 PM
It makes up the difference by issuing debt. People enthusiastically purchase this debt (treasury bonds) because it's the safest investment in the world. Or at least it was.

The GOOD thing about the republicans creating a fuss is our debt WILL be less desirable to purchase and our government will have no choice to cut expenses thus limiting the need for debt ceiling increases.

I'm convinced the less the government tries to regulate and "fix" things the better off we are. Gridlock is actually a good thing.

Just got off the phone with one of the biggest real estate bankers in Colorado. In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders. 208!

One of the big one's to hit is January 2014. If you own have more than 5 owner carries that you own and want to do a 6th you will have to abide by the same restrictions as the banks do. People joke about Obama being a communist but it really is heading there!

Owner carry for those who may not know is if you own a property out right and act as the bank and seller finance to the new buyer essentially holding the not and collecting payments from them.

W*GS
10-11-2013, 01:27 PM
Just got off the phone with one of the biggest real estate bankers in Colorado. In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders. 208!

Since it was the "real estate bankers" who nearly collapsed the entire economy, yeah, the government is going to clamp down on 'em.

WTF did they expect?

Rohirrim
10-11-2013, 02:23 PM
Since it was the "real estate bankers" who nearly collapsed the entire economy, yeah, the government is going to clamp down on 'em.

WTF did they expect?

No ****. Are these people living in a bubble, or what?

TonyR
10-11-2013, 03:43 PM
In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders.

They should have thrown 208 of them in prison.

peacepipe
10-12-2013, 01:48 AM
The GOOD thing about the republicans creating a fuss is our debt WILL be less desirable to purchase and our government will have no choice to cut expenses thus limiting the need for debt ceiling increases.

I'm convinced the less the government tries to regulate and "fix" things the better off we are. Gridlock is actually a good thing.Just got off the phone with one of the biggest real estate bankers in Colorado. In the last three years the government has thrown 208 pieces of legislation at the lenders. 208!

One of the big one's to hit is January 2014. If you own have more than 5 owner carries that you own and want to do a 6th you will have to abide by the same restrictions as the banks do. People joke about Obama being a communist but it really is heading there!

Owner carry for those who may not know is if you own a property out right and act as the bank and seller finance to the new buyer essentially holding the not and collecting payments from them.the collapse of 2008 proves that wrong,but then again you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-12-2013, 10:33 PM
the collapse of 2008 proves that wrong,but then again you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Indeed.

But then, we're talking about a CO resident who constantly sounds the alarm about eminent domain laws in his state while never uttering a word of concern or protest about the millions of acres of private and public land already appropriated by the oil and gas industry in his state (and the resulting displacement of his fellow residents.)

That's the sort of cognitive dissonance required to be a conservative nowadays.

I guess he doesn't want to offend his "coalition partners" (read: the oil and gas industry and its GOP bedfellows.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-12-2013, 10:49 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/aca-hostage-tape-3.jpg