The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-04-2013, 08:28 AM   #1
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default getting around the debt ceiling fight.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ng-end-around/

With President Obama having kicked off debt ceiling negotiations by vowing not to negotiate over the debt ceiling, a new option for paying off the nation’s considerable tab is gaining momentum with cheeky fiscal and monetary wonks.

It goes like this: Should Congress fail to extend the U.S. debt limit —reached again on Dec. 31 — the president could ask the Treasury to begin printing trillion dollar coins (in a process explained mostly seriously by Jim Pethokoukis on his American Enterprise Institute blog), a number of which could then be put toward fulfilling debt obligations in the event new legislation stalls in Congress.

While there are laws in place to regulate how much paper, gold, silver or copper currency can be circulated by the government, there is nothing so clearly stated when it comes to platinum. That door open, the Treasury could have the U.S. Mint melt and mold a few trillion dollars of it, then ship the goods over to the Federal Reserve for safekeeping until the time comes to pay the bills.

The more difficult part comes sometime after the decision is made to coin the platinum and before the Mint gets to work in sculpting the pieces.

At that point, the American people must decide whose face will adorn the trillion dollar trinket. The process to determine the “specs” of the coin, U.S. Mint Public Affairs Specialist Genevieve Billia warns, must be “determined by legislation,” creating the potential for another congressional impasse.

Also to note: The likeness sculpted into its side must belong to a dead person, ruling out early favorite Ikea Monkey, but boosting the candidacies of Ronald Reagan and John Maynard Keynes.

Last edited by peacepipe; 01-04-2013 at 08:45 AM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-04-2013, 08:31 AM   #2
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Personally, I'd rather him use the constitutional option,but with rethugs willing to tank the economy for their own political ideologies it a good option.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:21 PM   #3
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Why not just make some cuts to spending that we obviously need and the whole county agrees needs to happen.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:05 PM   #4
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Personally, I'd rather him use the constitutional option,but with rethugs willing to tank the economy for their own political ideologies it a good option.
Why not just make some cuts, raise the limit and keep compromising like they did on the taxes? Or were you pissed they raised the threshold to 450 grand? best thing is for Obama to scoff at the repub cuts, then meet somewhere in the middle by maybe asking for something else he wants, then raise the debt limit. If Repubs were willing to crash economy why did they deal on the fiscal cliff? Also your savoir Obama just signed almost a 700 billion dollar defense bill. Are you sure he isn't really far off on what you want to see cut from defense? Not sure its the repubs you should be mad at right now.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:13 PM   #5
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

No,nip this in the bud now. You allow the rethugs to hold this thing hostage,they'll always hold it hostage. Like they say, don't negotiate with terrorist. I have no problems with cuts as long as they are not to SS or Medicare. BTW a majority of the country don't want Medicare or SS to change.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:25 PM   #6
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
No,nip this in the bud now. You allow the rethugs to hold this thing hostage,they'll always hold it hostage. Like they say, don't negotiate with terrorist. I have no problems with cuts as long as they are not to SS or Medicare. BTW a majority of the country don't want Medicare or SS to change.
But those are the two biggest problems moving forward. Isn't taking them off the board sort of taking your ball and going home? You accuse Repubs of not compromising but then take an uncompromising position.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:30 PM   #7
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Also peace remember any precedent set will also be used against you someday. Just like Repubs will eventually have to deal with Dems using the 60 threshold to stop legilsation from coming to a vote. So if you give the President the power to raise debt limit one day it will be a repub not having to listen to the democrats. Thats why its always better to use a compromise rather then a hammer. I was really surprised the repubs getting the tax threshold raised wasn't considered more of a victory for repubs then media made it out.

Then repubs got a provision in defense bill making it tough for Bama to move prisoners from Guantanamo. Not like conservatives didnt get some wins IMO.

So whats your plan? To have Obama mint trillion dollar coins to avoid debt limit and spending cuts? Wow I don't think that would go over to well.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:35 PM   #8
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
But those are the two biggest problems moving forward. Isn't taking them off the board sort of taking your ball and going home? You accuse Repubs of not compromising but then take an uncompromising position.
We both pointed to what a majority the country wants. They want spending cuts but not to SS & Medicare. So that leaves defense spending which is outrageously high. That leaves oil subsidies,how many bases do we actually need in foreign countries. A majority of the country doesn't mind taxes,when justified. Tarriffs are far too low. Hell in Medicare you can cut out over payments. There are other options out there. Rethugs are just using the situation to do away with programs they don't like.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:38 PM   #9
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Also peace remember any precedent set will also be used against you someday. Just like Repubs will eventually have to deal with Dems using the 60 threshold to stop legilsation from coming to a vote. So if you give the President the power to raise debt limit one day it will be a repub not having to listen to the democrats. Thats why its always better to use a compromise rather then a hammer. I was really surprised the repubs getting the tax threshold raised wasn't considered more of a victory for repubs then media made it out.

Then repubs got a provision in defense bill making it tough for Bama to move prisoners from Guantanamo. Not like conservatives didnt get some wins IMO.

So whats your plan? To have Obama mint trillion dollar coins to avoid debt limit and spending cuts? Wow I don't think that would go over to well.
The debt limit is unconstitutional,so therefore whether there's a rep or a dem in office,there shouldn't be a debt limit.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:41 PM   #10
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Why not just make some cuts to spending that we obviously need and the whole county agrees needs to happen.
Everyone acts like federal funds are just thrown away. They actually do things that are meaningful and critical for America.

Do we cut funds that pay for the FAA and Air Traffic Control?
How about reducing the number of food inspectors?
Or better yet let cut back on Border Security.
Maybe we should just stop fix interstates.
Better yet lets not fund basic research or the CDC.
Maybe we should transfer Mount Rushmore to Disney.

It easy to talk about numbers but let talk about what we want as country and real things vs generalities.
elsid13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:20 PM   #11
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ng.php?ref=fpb
Quote:
Echoing President Obama’s refusal to negotiate on the debt limit, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) warned Republicans on Friday that Democrats have no intention of giving in to any of their demands in exchange for lifting the nation’s borrowing limit to pay its bills.

“I think that risking government shutdown, risking not raising the debt ceiling, is playing with fire,” Schumer told reporters in the Capitol, in response to a question from TPM. “Anyone who wants to come and negotiate, and say ‘we will raise the debt ceiling only if you do A, B, C’ will not have a negotiating partner. And if then they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling, it’ll be on their shoulders. I would bet that they would not go forward with that.”

The No. 3 Democrat declared that Obama and congressional Democrats have learned their lesson from the 2011 fiasco that nearly led to a default. He predicted that Republicans will give in and cleanly raise the country’s borrowing authority — which expires around March — if Democrats stonewall and give them no other option.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:45 PM   #12
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

So Peace you want defense slashed but the guy you voted for just approved over 600 billion for them. Are you pissed off? So I guess maybe next yr they cut defense? Fact is its not a big enough piece of the pie to solve our problems.

No one wants to admit its federal pensions and entitlements. If we only spent 300 billion a yr on defense it still wouldn't make up the difference.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 07:37 PM   #13
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
So Peace you want defense slashed but the guy you voted for just approved over 600 billion for them. Are you pissed off? So I guess maybe next yr they cut defense? Fact is its not a big enough piece of the pie to solve our problems.

No one wants to admit its federal pensions and entitlements. If we only spent 300 billion a yr on defense it still wouldn't make up the difference.
SS & Medicare are not entitlements,you pay into those programs your entire working life. They are investments,not entitlements. Do I like the idea that there was some compromise,yes I do cause that's how government works.

Rethugs will have to bend our way for the debt ceiling.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:51 PM   #14
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
SS & Medicare are not entitlements,you pay into those programs your entire working life. They are investments,not entitlements. Do I like the idea that there was some compromise,yes I do cause that's how government works.

Rethugs will have to bend our way for the debt ceiling.
i think maybe some small cuts in exchange for raising the limit is reasonable. Obama used to decry raising it so I think he should at least be able to do something to get it raised.

I agree the people getting screwed over but I don't see any other way to make the budget balance. I don't think asking Americans to work maybe a couple yrs more is a huge deal for people. The old age was back when people didn't live as long and healthcare wasn't as good. I think we could work an extra 2-3 yrs in exchange for the govt really cutting other spending. I agree it cant all be on the backs on soc sec and medicare.

I know something just went into action where people now have to pay tax on healthcare bennies they get? So Govt is going to be coming for revenue. We simply must make them cut and using the debt limit to get some IMO is perfectly legitimate.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:55 PM   #15
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Still peace the president just signed a defense spending package with no more cuts. Some were agreed to before this but still a huge defense budget. Are you sure the Democrats really want to cut defense. Or do they just play at that because liberals like you enjoy hearing it? But when push comes to shove the dems know you will be voting for them even if they never cut defense right? Thats why I dont think it ever gets cut much.

Both sides don't want to find jobs for 150 thousand troops etc. Also closing foreign bases will never be popular with the military. Domestic bases never with the Congressman and Senators from those states/cities.

The a lot of defense contracting now takes place in liberal states like CA and Feinstien and Boxer fight like crazy for big defense contractors.

Like I said you preach over and over about defense and it never gets touched.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 08:08 AM   #16
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

We can debate what needs to be cut anytime you want but this isn't about what cuts need to be made, it's about a political party,Republicans,using the tactics of extortion/black mail to get what they want. You don't negotiate with terrorist. You don't give a child who throws a temper tantrum what he wants. Why? Because they'll do it again & again. The fact that rethugs are using extortion/blackmail to get leverage,means they have no leverage.

Last edited by peacepipe; 01-05-2013 at 08:11 AM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 04:13 PM   #17
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
We can debate what needs to be cut anytime you want but this isn't about what cuts need to be made, it's about a political party,Republicans,using the tactics of extortion/black mail to get what they want. You don't negotiate with terrorist. You don't give a child who throws a temper tantrum what he wants. Why? Because they'll do it again & again. The fact that rethugs are using extortion/blackmail to get leverage,means they have no leverage.
Answer the question. The man you voted for just signed a defense bill are you unhappy with him? Also how come its not extortion when dems say our way or we go over the cliff? But if repubs say give in some to us or we go over the cliff it is extortion? Is there one set of rules for the politicians you agree with and another for conservatives?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 04:58 PM   #18
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Why not just make some cuts to spending that we obviously need and the whole county agrees needs to happen.
An amazing concept way over the heads of the progressives
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 09:26 PM   #19
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Answer the question. The man you voted for just signed a defense bill are you unhappy with him? Also how come its not extortion when dems say our way or we go over the cliff? But if repubs say give in some to us or we go over the cliff it is extortion? Is there one set of rules for the politicians you agree with and another for conservatives?
Because it was no cliff,defaulting on our debt has real consequences here & worldwide. Defaulting is also unconstitutional.
Second Obama was offering compromise the whole time.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 12:58 AM   #20
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Because it was no cliff,defaulting on our debt has real consequences here & worldwide. Defaulting is also unconstitutional.
Second Obama was offering compromise the whole time.
You still won't admit that had lets say Romney won, then signed a 700 billion dollar defense bill you would be railing on how stupid he is and how wrong it is. Admit it you Obama just as much of a hawk for defense spending as qany Repub. Sure he may not want to send troops in as much but nonetheless he didn't really want to cut it.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 03:11 AM   #21
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,926

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Why not just make some cuts to spending that we obviously need and the whole county agrees needs to happen.
Because every program has its own lobby buying its own congressmen. Read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/congr...-tanks-2012-10

Until the corrupting influence of money is removed from government, you'll never do anything about it, regardless of which ideological path you wish to follow. The first day a congressmen enters office, he gets right to work raising money to run again in two years. And for the next two years, he will spend the majority of his time raising money. What kind of system is that?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 07:30 AM   #22
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Because it was no cliff,defaulting on our debt has real consequences here & worldwide. Defaulting is also unconstitutional.
Second Obama was offering compromise the whole time.
Defaulting may have been decided to be unconstitutional but that doesn't necessarily make the debt limit unconstitutional. It just means you can't borrow any more to pay the bills. The last time this came around, they were making preparations for the military to go without pay. A week of such things happening and suddenly people would be ready to take real action. I say that and the chief income of my family is from military pay.

The problem is the big 3 untouchables all need to be touched. Of course the people don't want them touched but, again, it always comes back to that quote about democracy and people voting themselves all the money in the treasury. We can't let the peoples' love of handouts bankrupt the country.

Recall, when on an airplane, they always tell you to fix your oxygen mask before helping others. Similarly, the government can be much more help to everyone in the long run if they'd stabilize themselves first. However, until the government can responsibly handle its own duties, it needs to take a step back and reorganize.

For me, personally, I'd pay things in the order of:

-Debt - only because we have to
-Those with day to day responsibilities (This would include deployed military)
-Those basically on retainers (This would be non-deployed military, all those jobs where people just wait around incase they're needed)
-Those who have paid-in accounts (SS and the sort)
-Congressmen
-Those who just have their hand out

Get as far down the line as you can with payments and when the money runs out, too bad. It's not ideal but would be a method for paying debt without increasing the debt limit.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 08:36 AM   #23
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
Defaulting may have been decided to be unconstitutional but that doesn't necessarily make the debt limit unconstitutional. It just means you can't borrow any more to pay the bills. The last time this came around, they were making preparations for the military to go without pay. A week of such things happening and suddenly people would be ready to take real action. I say that and the chief income of my family is from military pay.

The problem is the big 3 untouchables all need to be touched. Of course the people don't want them touched but, again, it always comes back to that quote about democracy and people voting themselves all the money in the treasury. We can't let the peoples' love of handouts bankrupt the country.

Recall, when on an airplane, they always tell you to fix your oxygen mask before helping others. Similarly, the government can be much more help to everyone in the long run if they'd stabilize themselves first. However, until the government can responsibly handle its own duties, it needs to take a step back and reorganize.

For me, personally, I'd pay things in the order of:

-Debt - only because we have to
-Those with day to day responsibilities (This would include deployed military)
-Those basically on retainers (This would be non-deployed military, all those jobs where people just wait around incase they're needed)
-Those who have paid-in accounts (SS and the sort)
-Congressmen
-Those who just have their hand out

Get as far down the line as you can with payments and when the money runs out, too bad. It's not ideal but would be a method for paying debt without increasing the debt limit.
Since you seem to know everything explain what happens with interest rates nation wide for mortgages,small business loans skyrocket, how it will put us into a dbl dip recession, if not worse a depression.
You act as if the worse thing that happens is a few things don't get paid out.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:12 AM   #24
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,491
Default

What it means is the govt needs to stop spending so much more then they bring in. Obviously we will run deficits. In some ways they aren't as bad as we make them out to be. It's just its getting bigger at almost 2 times the rate under Obama. Even when you take out the war spending it will still be getting bigger.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2013, 09:22 AM   #25
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,296

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

There is no question we must cut back spending, there is no choice. But we must also find revenue as cuts alone won't be enough, the deficit is too large.

Any members of the house who hold the economy hostage to the debt ceiling, should be recalled for incompetence and fiscal sabotage. When will the country say 'enough' and mean it?
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Denver Broncos