My feeling is they'll kick the can down the road,
just like every other Congress has done. They'll
all be dead in 30 years, and will just leave the
problem to the next generation, who will do the
same.
And so on...
The debt ceiling exists literally for what we see now - for political theater, and so one side can attempt to hold the other hostage (which side is doing it doesn't really matter)
Dead serious we could outright eliminate the ceiling tomorrow and there would be no ill effects, other then politicians no longer being able to invoke it every so often. Which is why this will never happen.
Dead serious we could outright eliminate the ceiling tomorrow and there would be no ill effects, other then politicians no longer being able to invoke it every so often. Which is why this will never happen.
You think for sure they will raise it. Me too.
It would be a neat trick if they left in place at its current level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just hoping that the Gang of Six will manage to get their plan pushed through again. About the only real patriots in the entire Senate right there in my opinion.
If it comes to it, there is always the "Nuclear Option" ... i.e., President Obama can raise the debt ceiling without the will of Congress by invoking the 14th Amendment.
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. ..."
This is a bad idea, as it will break down the separation of powers (not to mention making even harder to deal with Congress in the future), but it is still better then defaulting.
See the question is would it be 'authorized by law' if Congress doesn't approve it? I could see an argument using the budget they passed as grounds for such legal authority but it would be... messy.
He does have another option -- He has the power to lock Congress in session and not let them out. That's one I think most of the people in the USA would approve of and would earn him some serious points.
He can even throw down the, "Constitutional Obligation" line that the tea party has been so wrapped up in.
See the question is would it be 'authorized by law' if Congress doesn't approve it? I could see an argument using the budget they passed as grounds for such legal authority but it would be... messy.
That's the catch though.
Raising the Debt Ceiling does not authorize any new spending. It gives the Treasury the authority to borrow to cover existing spending already approved by Congress.
But, yes, it would be messy. Very messy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah all in all I would go with the "Get the military to lock them all in until they do their job."
It's something everyone can get behind and he can present it as, "Well since Congress didn't want to do it's job I am Constitutionally compelled to us the Constitutional power given to my by the Constitution to force them to fulfill their Constitutional obligations as outlined by the Constitution. As such according to Article _ Section _ of the Constitution I am going to Constitutionally lock Congress in until they obey the Constitution.
...
...
...
Also Constitution. That' is all."
Yeah all in all I would go with the "Get the military to lock them all in until they do their job."
So would I, but do we have the time? August 2nd is coming up awefully fast.
Yeah all in all I would go with the "Get the military to lock them all in until they do their job."So would I, but do we have the time? August 2nd is coming up awefully fast.
Are you aware that there isn't a shower on Capitol Hill? 11 days trapped in Congress with no shower -- yeah they'll get it done, and if not he can keep them there until the job is done.
And I would suggest after locking them in if they don't get it done by August 2 then the first bill not paid should be the electric bill for Capitol Hill -- that combined with this heat wave -- oh yeah they'll get it done.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say waterboard all of them!
Yes exactly they will kick the can down the road...and they will keep kicking that can until it gets too big to kick.
Then they will default...default in piecemeal, and not necessarily a direct default through a repudiation of debt...but default will happen someday.
Not guaranteed -- after all we have been in worse overall debt before and not defaulted, and at several points we've almost killed the debt altogether (which leads into its own sticky problems).
The problem is the government runs far below what any company would consider acceptable operating expenses and continues to do so at the expense of quality of service. When you consider that any private companies that would do what the government does at the funding level of the government (either in pieces or as a full entity) universally fall apart or show themselves as scams (or at minimum unscrupulous in business practice) the fact the government continues to manage as much as it does is quite frankly astounding.
If you don't want a debt ceiling, if you want the US government to keep borrowing money, then you clearly don't care about the US government defaulting.
Of course we could also restore them to their original funding levels too -- making more money helps with paying off debts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No raises for anyone in congress unless we the people approve those raises first (tie raises to consumer satisfaction--after all, they exist to serve us)!
I'm not saying that it would solve the problem in and of itself -- however not borrowing that money and having to it apply to the problem will help.
The current tax cuts have done 1.2 trillion dollars of damage to the bottom line in ten years. That's money that had to be borrowed meaning it also has to be paid back with interest. If instead we collect that money we don't pay interest we don't owe it to someone else and we can still use it to pay the bills.
It is by no means a silver bullet but to not state it as an 'obvious' part of any solution simply means that anything else in the solution falls flat.
When you have a $100k income and a huge debt you don't pay that debt by quitting your job and taking less pay else where -- which is exactly what some in congress are wanting to continue doing.
I'm not saying that it would solve the problem in and of itself -- however not borrowing that money and having to it apply to the problem will help.
Quit talking sense! Seriously though, I agree with the repubs in that spending needs to be seriously cut. I disagree with both parties that it should come from entitlement programs first. DEA could be eliminated. ATF could be eliminated. TSA could be eliminated. DHS could be eliminated. Military could be reduced. I would not increase taxes on wages or corporate taxes. I would however, erase any maximum on income taxes, shore up as many loopholes and deductions in the corporate tax code as I possibly could, as well as returning the capital gains tax rate back to the pre-Clinton rate.
Just what I would do, if I were to be elected Overlord.
Edited for clarity
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No country lasts with a weak government -- no country with a small government has a strong government. We are a big nation, we are going to need a big government. The government operating the way we want it to, providing the things we want (even just the simple services of clean water, and a safe infrastructure) is going to be expensive.
Every service that has been turned over to private industry has taken a nose dive in quality and increased the cost of that service.
This is due to greed for profits (put off and squeak through on the thinnest efforts possible), the increased cost of workers in the private sector compared to the (quite frankly) chumps of the public sector and corporate inability to give a flying care about anything beyond their profits.
No country lasts with a weak government -- no country with a small government has a strong government. We are a big nation, we are going to need a big government. The government operating the way we want it to, providing the things we want (even just the simple services of clean water, and a safe infrastructure) is going to be expensive.
Every service that has been turned over to private industry has taken a nose dive in quality and increased the cost of that service.
This is due to greed for profits (put off and squeak through on the thinnest efforts possible), the increased cost of workers in the private sector compared to the (quite frankly) chumps of the public sector and corporate inability to give a flying care about anything beyond their profits.
I agree. Im not opposed to a strong government. But I think our government is involved in things that it has no business in governing. I didnt say get rid of the FDA, but definitely get rid of the DEA, for instance. We already have the FBI to handle federal crime, why do we need an ATF (especially considering that alcohol tobacco and firearms are all legal)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick reminder - the government is not a household.
Government spending is not the same as household spending.
Government debt is inherently different from "credit card debt."
Please stop confusing the two.
Also literally the debt as it stands now could be solved by axing Bush tax cuts, Medicare could be solved by axing the ceiling, etc, etc. It's amazing how many problems are solved with a solution of "The rich pay their g!+%$$n dues."
|
The United States will not default on its debt on August 2 unless the Treasury decides to default.
Repeat.
The United States will not default on its debt on August 2 unless the Teasury decides to default.
Default is not paying the interest on treasury bonds owed around the world to investors, + the principal owed on mature bonds.
The United States takes in more than enough money, monthly, to pay its "credit card bills". About 10 times more.
The issue is, the leftover money once the "credit card bills" are paid off does NOT support the rest of the current budget.
Solving who gets what's leftover if the gov't honors it's debt payments will be ugly, nooooo doubt. BUT there's no reason to invoke the 14th Amendment clause to allow the president to override Congress' Constitutionally granted budget authority in order to service the United States' debt obligations because...
The United States will not default on its debt on August 2 unless the Treasure decides to default...by not paying the amount owed on treasury bonds out of government monthly revenues first.
Also literally the debt as it stands now could be solved by axing Bush tax cuts, Medicare could be solved by axing the ceiling, etc, etc. It's amazing how many problems are solved with a solution of "The rich pay their g$&$@@n dues."
Again I agree that it will not solve the problem in and of itself -- but to not do it is like saying, "Well I'm in debt so I might as well not collect the rent from my renters this time."
It simply doesn't make sense to not restore revenues.
Basically put the president has the power to solve this problem if Congress decides to irresponsibly no do what it is supposed to do.
It's interesting that the leader of the house is trying to blame the president for what is solely his branch of government's problem, and creation.
They knew this would happen when they passed the budget and yet they passed it anyways without doing anything about the upcoming possible crisis.
In my opinion that amounts to a neglects of duty and possibly even treason.
Solving who gets what's leftover if the gov't honors it's debt payments will be ugly, nooooo doubt. BUT there's no reason to invoke the 14th Amendment clause to allow the president to override Congress' Constitutionally granted budget authority in order to service the United States' debt obligations because...
The United States will not default on its debt on August 2 unless the Treasure decides to default...by not paying the amount owed on treasury bonds out of government monthly revenues first.
Except ...
... what defines a "government debt"?
For example:
Now paying "Social Security" is a football, but what is the actual requirements of existing law on that issue?
|
|
Solving who gets what's leftover if the gov't honors it's debt payments will be ugly, nooooo doubt. BUT there's no reason to invoke the 14th Amendment clause to allow the president to override Congress' Constitutionally granted budget authority in order to service the United States' debt obligations because...
The United States will not default on its debt on August 2 unless the Treasure decides to default...by not paying the amount owed on treasury bonds out of government monthly revenues first.
Except ...
... what defines a "government debt"?
For example:
paying the military?
paying the salaries of the hundreds of other government workers? Now paying "Social Security" is a football, but what is the actual requirements of existing law on that issue?
Salaries are not debt, they're budgeted items. They're also obligations. But not debt.
there will be LOTS of budget shortfalls. It will wreak all sorts of havoc. But it will not be a default on the United States' Federal Government's debt.
Government debt - especially the debt of the government whose currency is considered the main legal tender throughout the world - is not like household debt. The government has more tools at its disposal to solve the problem that you or I wouldn't have. It does not have infinite power to solve the problem, however - there are hard realities that I don't think many of our elected officials are ready and willing to face.
It does not have infinite power to solve the problem, however - there are hard realities that I don't think many of our elected officials are ready and willing to face.
It is not just "our elected officials," FAR too many of the citizenry also have this problem.
That has been the crux of our budget problems since the 1980s. (... and probably earlier)
Basically put the president has the power to solve this problem if Congress decides to irresponsibly no do what it is supposed to do.
It's interesting that the leader of the house is trying to blame the president for what is solely his branch of government's problem, and creation.
They knew this would happen when they passed the budget and yet they passed it anyways without doing anything about the upcoming possible crisis.
In my opinion that amounts to a neglects of duty and possibly even treason.
I agree. Except not treason. The war on Libya might be construed as treason as it aids our enemies (terrorists who now have a new recruiting tool, not to mention the reports of al-qaeda among the rebel forces. But it would be a real stretch to call the budget fight treason.
Though not intended as inflammatory, I apologize in advance for those who might misconstrue my statement with its intent.
2 unpaid-for wars, and tax breaks that precipitated the greatest wave of off-shoring and economic double-dealing whilst claiming financial patriotism, and the minute someone say, 'Hey, we have to deal with these shenanigans,' blame is immediate allocated.
While I want the wars to be ended immediately, I also understand the need to do what we can to un-bork what was done, and finishing things out responsibly. Troops need to be paid, and taken care of both financially and physically. Optimally, they need to be brought home.
I wonder if the bought and paid set are finding what looms to be a worthy price for drinking the Koch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the bought and paid set are finding what looms to be a worthy price for drinking the Koch.
I am pretty sure that they are.
Though not intended as inflammatory, I apologize in advance for those who might misconstrue my statement with its intent.
2 unpaid-for wars, and tax breaks that precipitated the greatest wave of off-shoring and economic double-dealing whilst claiming financial patriotism, and the minute someone say, 'Hey, we have to deal with these shenanigans,' blame is immediate allocated.
While I want the wars to be ended immediately, I also understand the need to do what we can to un-bork what was done, and finishing things out responsibly. Troops need to be paid, and taken care of both financially and physically. Optimally, they need to be brought home.
stuff
Really good link, that second one.
I wonder if the bought and paid set are finding what looms to be a worthy price for drinking the Koch.I am pretty sure that they are.
Though not intended as inflammatory, I apologize in advance for those who might misconstrue my statement with its intent.
2 unpaid-for wars, and tax breaks that precipitated the greatest wave of off-shoring and economic double-dealing whilst claiming financial patriotism, and the minute someone say, 'Hey, we have to deal with these shenanigans,' blame is immediate allocated.
While I want the wars to be ended immediately, I also understand the need to do what we can to un-bork what was done, and finishing things out responsibly. Troops need to be paid, and taken care of both financially and physically. Optimally, they need to be brought home.
I think the problem is that raising taxes is worse than commiting heresy among circles on the right the way Grover Norquest works so it will never happen.
Also writing on napkins is heresy.
I think the problem is that raising taxes is worse than commiting heresy among circles on the right the way Grover Norquest works so it will never happen.
Also writing on napkins is heresy.
I think the main problem that Tea Party has (and this is just my opinion) is that everytime there was a debt ceiling debate before, they were promised spending cuts. Cuts which never materialized. I think this stand is one based on a matter of principles, and they want the cuts that they were promised before and they want them to take effect now, not in the future. The problem is, the corporate controlled legislators on both sides of the aisle will cut social safety net programs first before ever touching anything that could and should be cut.
EDIT- So no matter what happens or which side "wins", we the people are guaranteed to be the losers.
I agree. Except not treason. The war on Libya might be construed as treason as it aids our enemies (terrorists who now have a new recruiting tool, not to mention the reports of al-qaeda among the rebel forces. But it would be a real stretch to call the budget fight treason.Basically put the president has the power to solve this problem if Congress decides to irresponsibly no do what it is supposed to do.
It's interesting that the leader of the house is trying to blame the president for what is solely his branch of government's problem, and creation.
They knew this would happen when they passed the budget and yet they passed it anyways without doing anything about the upcoming possible crisis.
In my opinion that amounts to a neglects of duty and possibly even treason.
Much less of a recruiting tool than Iraq and Afghanistan were -- in fact it really doesn't help your point that the Arab Emirate and several other Muslim nations asked us to be there specifically. To date we have not actually taken the initiative (as in deciding our own course of action as opposed to doing what we are being asked to do) in the Libya civil conflict.
I honestly think President Obama didn't actually want to be involved at all. I think he felt he had to get involved due to his campaign positions and the position he wants to portray the USA in. I believe this is the reason he didn't approach Congress. He knew that if he didn't they would shut down our active involvement while not leaving our troops out on a limb -- putting us in a support position instead of lead position. Notice he didn't even fight to try and get on going funding for a lead position in the conflict
Basically put President Obama set Congress up to do his dirty work for him, and allowed him a way to say to our allies, "Gee wish I could do more but Congress has tied my hands, sorry."
It's like having someone at home to call you when you are going to a party you don't really want to be at, and Congress obliged him all the while thinking they were somehow 'punishing' and 'putting him in his place'.
Purposefully destabilizing the country with a budget you pass and then don't do anything to support though leaving the country in a financial crunch? Yeah that's not good -- it's like spending all your family's money knowing you are going to lose your job and not caring if the obligations you made are met or your kids are fed.
The republicans are aiming for a smaller government by crashing it (and all those it represents) into the ground. A lot less is left after you ram something into something else.
A sidenote -- the USA economy cannot exist in its current (or any other sustainable form) without the USA government fully operational.
Because the government -- like it or not -- is the currency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting stuff in this thread so far.
Is the debt ceiling/default thing a big deal? Only in the way that the Reichstag burning was a big deal. It will be used as a excuse to declare financial war on the middle and lower classes in this country. Naomi Klein lays it all out in the Shock Doctrine.
Since I can remember, the dominate economic theory in this country is what G.H.W Bush referred to in 1979 as Voodoo Economics, aka Trickle-Down economics. The idea being: by making the rich even richer, they spend that money to create jobs. The reality is more like a plantation owner buying more slaves.
Add in a non-stop assault on unions and workers rights, regulations set up to reward outsourcing and off-shore banking, a mass of undocumented workers, and the nature of technology allowing a decrease in the work force, deregulation on all fronts and you are left with the rich getting stupid rich, and the poor getting poorer.
Seems politicians (on both sides of the isle) only ideas for "fixing" this mess is to keep doing what got us here in the first place. "We lose money on each sale? We'll make it up in volume!"
I honestly hope for something dramatic to shake up the nation. Yeah it will be real ugly for a while, but not as ugly as it will be if the rich are allowed to keep looting our country for several more years. I would rather it happen under Obama (a stooge for the bankers) then President Glen Beck with vice president Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist.
To quote Kodos (or Kang, I can never remember),
"The policies of failure have failed, we must make them work again!"
Interesting stuff in this thread so far.
Is the debt ceiling/default thing a big deal? Only in the way that the Reichstag burning was a big deal. It will be used as a excuse to declare financial war on the middle and lower classes in this country. Naomi Klein lays it all out in the Shock Doctrine.
Since I can remember, the dominate economic theory in this country is what G.H.W Bush referred to in 1979 as Voodoo Economics, aka Trickle-Down economics. The idea being: by making the rich even richer, they spend that money to create jobs. The reality is more like a plantation owner buying more slaves.
Add in a non-stop assault on unions and workers rights, regulations set up to reward outsourcing and off-shore banking, a mass of undocumented workers, and the nature of technology allowing a decrease in the work force, deregulation on all fronts and you are left with the rich getting stupid rich, and the poor getting poorer.
Seems politicians (on both sides of the isle) only ideas for "fixing" this mess is to keep doing what got us here in the first place. "We lose money on each sale? We'll make it up in volume!"
I honestly hope for something dramatic to shake up the nation. Yeah it will be real ugly for a while, but not as ugly as it will be if the rich are allowed to keep looting our country for several more years. I would rather it happen under Obama (a stooge for the bankers) then President Glen Beck with vice president Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist.
To quote Kodos (or Kang, I can never remember),
"The policies of failure have failed, we must make them work again!"
I think undocumented workers are a good thing becuase then your country is doing well. Also laws requiring checking of papers waste time at businesses that could be used in producing more product. Also illegal immigrants pay sales taxes but do not have identification so they if anything help budgets becuase how do you get government services without an id.President Obama stop enforcing immigration laws.
Can any country last forever? Adam Smith thought they only survived for around 200 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have heard the argument again and again that we don't raise the debt ceiling and then just cut what we can't pay... After paying interest on loans. Ok, what happens when interest rates on those loans rise 10+% due to skittish markets that don't trust the dollar? What happens to our economy when millions of government workers lose their jobs? What happens to all those companies that rely on government contracts? How many more unemployed people do we need? And NPC Dave, it is almost 40% of what we take in that goes to loan payments, not the less than 10% that you claim. It isn't just PBS that goes under. Hope no one needs a passport, regular mail, veteran's benefits, college loans, etc... Hope people enjoy interest rates in the 15-20% range for cars, houses, and colege. Sorry if I sound ticked, but I really get angry when people play games with our world economy. I don't want us to be another Greece. I agree, we need to cut costs, but there also needs to be reasonable revenue. We have a lower tax rate on the richest 1% now then during the 80s. By the way, if we default, we will still be paying interest on our debt...guess who owns almost 85% of that debt? You get a prize if you said the richest 1% of this country.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
News flash to the learning impaired -- paying interest doesn't lower principal meaning you continue paying indefinitely while gaining no ground.
When you are in debt you need to make more money to pay off the debt in addition to cutting costs where you can.
The problem here is someone (the republicans) don't want to pay for what they've spent.
I currently pay 23% of my income to taxes -- those making more than $250 dollars a year -- pay closer to 19%. Yeah they'll claim their tax bracket is 30% or higher... but that's not what they pay in taxes (especially corporations), after they get done with all their loopholes, tax rebates, 'incentives', and the like they take home more.
You want interesting? Why not look at the fact the only think climbing faster than the debt is corporate profits -- which are not used for anything other than making the rich richer -- and what do they spend that money on? It isn't pay raises for their workers, or more people to cut their lawn.