Let the nation default?

[Rat in the Hat]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

They'll probably get on that right after they handle the Scott Walker indictment.


Oh, wait...

 

[thereisnospoon]

okey, I guess that INCLUDES DEMOCRATS

These Congress approval polls are a whole lot of bunk.
Using the percentage of the reelection of incumbents, if those polled were asked what their thoughts of THEIR OWN Senator or House member, the approval rating would be in the 80's or even 90's.
Typical...."Oh my guy/gal is fine. It's those other ones they need to get rid of"..

Do you even understand what a "gerrymandered" voting district is? And how come ANY poll that doesn't reflect well on Republicans is "bunk" and any polls that reflect bad on Dems is "gospel"?

Gerrymandering is immaterial.
And my observations on this polling issue regarding approval ratings for Congress are without any partisan thoughts.
Did you see anywhere in my post that mentioned "GOP" members of Congress?
The polls are nonsense.
The evidence is clear in the percentage of incumbents who are voted back into office with each election cycle.
Those are the facts. They are not in argument.
ON the issue of gerrymandering districts...The practice should be overhauled.
There are districts make absolutely no sense. Look at NC-12. The district is gerrymandering run amok. At it's narrowest point is it no wider than the right of way of I-85....And I don't care whether the district is a GOP or a DEM district.
It's wrong.
Districts should use county lines as boundaries. This idea of splitting communities or even neighborhoods where one side of town is one district and the other side of town in another. In the case of large cities, no surface street should ever be used as a boundary. Only major highways because these separate neighborhoods from one another.
Not that gerrymandering is pertinent to this discussion. So lets get back to that discussion.
Absurd.

 

[kaz]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

Does your mommy know what you are doing on the computer?

 

[kaz]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

They should be, not to mention for domestic terrorism.

Jesus, can you guys put a sign up before you start a circle jerk? It's disgusting to walk into one of these...

 

[Flopper]

If the US government is insolvent, it doesn't have enough income to pay it's obligations and it is bankrupt. The US is not insolvent. It merely has to cut down on the frills a tiny bit. No more 100 million dollar vacations for instance. That 300 million the US is giving to the Syrian terrorists, that gets scratched off the list. Likewise another 300 million to Palestinians. Egypt is getting 250 million.

Then there are the parties, junkets, bonuses (for doing an ordinary job) and the useless studies like how fast a shrimp can run on a treadmill. Government waste costs 16 Billion dollars a year.

Government Spending Waste: 25 Wasteful Items - Business Insider

There there are 160 agencies that duplicate the work of other agencies wasting billions more.
GAO finds billions in wasteful, duplicative federal spending - The Hill's RegWatch

In reality, we cannot continue to borrow money just to pay the interest on the money we borrowed last time while we fritter away our income. No one can. No person, no business, no country can.

Actually, it's more than a tiny bit. Preventing the government from borrowing to meet its obligations would require all discretionary spending, such as for defense, education, housing and other annual appropriations, to stop, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the outlays for mandatory programs, such as Social Security, also would have to be halted, while taxes would need to rise to ensure the government had money to spend. Deep spending cuts and tax hikes would throw the economy into recession.

As of Oct 17th, the federal government will have about 30 billion dollars of cash on hand. That isn't enough because the government spends as much as $60 billion per day. How long the government could avoid defaulting would depend on how agile the administration is at raising cash by cutting spending to pay obligations coming due. Eventually, the government would be faced with either violating the law by not preforming some mandatory function or defaulting. At that point they would probably default. However before that happened financial markets would be in crisis mode and the country would be heading into a recession.

Perhaps you can correct my math, but I get $60 billion a day times 365 days comes to $21.9 trillion a year. I don't think your figures are even close.

I said "as much as 60 billion a day". I did not mean an average 60 billion a day, just that spending can be as much 60 billion in a single day in coming weeks. I guess I wasn't clear.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is a race to the bottom, folks. Anyway you slice it up, eventually the day of reckoning will come. The government, at some point, is destined to default on its obligations. It's either that, or they hyperinflate. Or they run tyrannical protectionsit measures in order to pay creditors.

Who is the biggest buyer currently of US monetized debt?

That's nonsense. There is no reason they must default on the debt. The British Empire ran a deficit for probably 100 years with no issue. The problem is not a deficit per se. The problem is teh deficit in regard to the rest of the economy. And here we are pushing the limit.
But if somehow by some miracle Obama woke up and said The deficit is too high. We need to cut it in half in the next 2 years, and then actually did that, we could go on foreever.

Yup & we are making great strides at lowering government spending & debt in regard to the rest of the economy.

Someone else who can't read a graph. Don't they teach this in school anymore?
The debt to GDP ration (the only one that really counts) is enormous. It was bigger than this only in WW2 and that was a time limited event. This time Obama has ramped up spending to a permanent high. It looks better now because the Feds have been collecting increased taxes to pay for Obamacare for 2 years without expending anything in benefits. Here on in the benefits bill becomes due.
It is unsustainable. If we dont do something to scale back entitlement growth we will be the next Greece.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Boehner is as much a liar as a coward.

The president has no problem ‘negotiating,’ with regard to current, unresolved budgeting issues. Of course one fails to see why the president would ‘negotiate’ given the Executive neither writes nor passes spending legislation. Boehner needs to negotiate with Reid. WW staff are allowed to sit in and monitor Congressional negotiations, and contribute items the president might want to see as part of a given law, but any final legislative resolution can be agree upon only by members of Congress.

But Obama cannot ‘negotiate’ concerning existing Federal law, such as the ACA. It’s ignorant idiocy to suggest otherwise.

Boehner and House republicans are of course at liberty to address amending the ACA after they’ve discharged their responsibility to ensure the government is funded and able to pay its debts.

Hmmmm, then how did he change ACA (unconstitutional btw) to delay the employer mandate and 4 other provisions? Funny how he picks and choose what he wants enforced, isn't it? Also, the immigration laws are the "law of the land" yet Obama, et al. refuse to enforce them to the detriment of the American people. Does that qualify as "ignorant idiocy?"

The president didn’t ‘change’ anything.

The text of the Act is exactly the same as the day it was signed into law.

Either because you’re ignorant or a partisan hack, you’re confusing legislating with implementation – Congress writes the legislation and sends those measures to be signed into law by the president. It then becomes the president’s responsibility to implement that now existing Federal law.

Historically presidents have interpreted Federal law and implemented the law in accordance with that interpretation.

If you or anyone else on the right believes the president is interpreting and implementing a given Federal law inappropriately, feel free to take the Administration to court.

Last, however a president might interpret or implement a given Federal law, that has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with Congress’ responsibility to ensure the government is funded and able to pay its debts.

When POTUS decided to offer a one year delay to certain businesses, he in effect 'changed' the ACA law.
Umm. You have this wrong. POTUS does sign bills into law. The Office DOES NOT 'implement' the law.
In the case of laws requiring discretionary spending, it is the responsibility of the Congress to appropriate any funding for the law should said funding be needed.
In this case, ACA requires the Congress appropriate funding for ACA. Currently, ACA is NOT fully funded.
The only reason ACA has lasted this long is that the opposition lacks the necessary votes in the US Senate to pass legislation which outlaws portions of ACA or the entire law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, it's more than a tiny bit. Preventing the government from borrowing to meet its obligations would require all discretionary spending, such as for defense, education, housing and other annual appropriations, to stop, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the outlays for mandatory programs, such as Social Security, also would have to be halted, while taxes would need to rise to ensure the government had money to spend. Deep spending cuts and tax hikes would throw the economy into recession.

As of Oct 17th, the federal government will have about 30 billion dollars of cash on hand. That isn't enough because the government spends as much as $60 billion per day. How long the government could avoid defaulting would depend on how agile the administration is at raising cash by cutting spending to pay obligations coming due. Eventually, the government would be faced with either violating the law by not preforming some mandatory function or defaulting. At that point they would probably default. However before that happened financial markets would be in crisis mode and the country would be heading into a recession.

Perhaps you can correct my math, but I get $60 billion a day times 365 days comes to $21.9 trillion a year. I don't think your figures are even close.

I said "as much as 60 billion a day". I did not mean an average 60 billion a day, just that spending can be as much 60 billion in a single day in coming weeks. I guess I wasn't clear.

Then that's meaningless. Spending could be a 100B in one day. If Obama launched an all out war on China, it would be. But that isnt going to happen. So what is a realistic figure for daily spending?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

No.

But their removal from office through the democratic process is both warranted and vital to the survival of the Nation.

 

[Black_Label]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

They should be, not to mention for domestic terrorism.

Jesus, can you guys put a sign up before you start a circle jerk? It's disgusting to walk into one of these...

That's called the sound of freedom ringing, something the GOP hates more then anything

 

[KissMy]

That's nonsense. There is no reason they must default on the debt. The British Empire ran a deficit for probably 100 years with no issue. The problem is not a deficit per se. The problem is teh deficit in regard to the rest of the economy. And here we are pushing the limit.
But if somehow by some miracle Obama woke up and said The deficit is too high. We need to cut it in half in the next 2 years, and then actually did that, we could go on foreever.

Yup & we are making great strides at lowering government spending & debt in regard to the rest of the economy.

Someone else who can't read a graph. Don't they teach this in school anymore?
The debt to GDP ration (the only one that really counts) is enormous. It was bigger than this only in WW2 and that was a time limited event. This time Obama has ramped up spending to a permanent high. It looks better now because the Feds have been collecting increased taxes to pay for Obamacare for 2 years without expending anything in benefits. Here on in the benefits bill becomes due.
It is unsustainable. If we dont do something to scale back entitlement growth we will be the next Greece.

Obama was not president when spending went through the roof. But we did have Democrats in control of congress during a big part of it. Bush prescription drug healthcare explosion was also a big problem.

 

[Yurt]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

They should be, not to mention for domestic terrorism.

cite specific examples, you've been claiming this all day yet have not provided a single example

 

[Duped]

Can Obama be impeached for being anti American?

 

[freedombecki]

The Congress needs to remove the President due to incompetency.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is just scary to me. What the Tea baggers don't seem to understand is that no matter what, the debt ceiling MUST be raised. It does not matter what spending programs get cut. Defaulting on our debt is the worst possible scenario no matter what dems or repubs agree to.

No..The federal government could easily make the necessary cuts.
All that needs to be done is take the baseline budget increases for all depts which receive discretionary spending and cut the increases for each dept by 50%...
Each dept would get an increase. Not just as large. Problem solved.
But of course with a free spending socialist in the WH and democrats in the Senate concerned only with their freeloading constituencies would never consider such "Draconian" ( democrats word) cuts. Event though it's not a cut. It's a reduction of a scheduled increase.
Only on planet liberal can an increase be deemed a cut.
Scary? You're God damned right it's scary. It's scary when almost half the population's hair starts to fall out because they believe government will suddenly not be there to care for them.

Here's an idea, how about freezing all Federal agency budgets every year? After all Federal workers pay has been frozen for 3+ years. Why do they need bigger budgets every year?

I was attempting to appear as though there was a middle ground to be met here.
The increases theoretically cover any inflation.
Instead of baseline increases, budget increases should be indexed to the rate of inflation.
This would encourage dept heads to save taxpayer money where ever possible.
For example, if a dept does not need to buy 10,000 reems of paper just because it is in the budget, the purchasing people buy only what the dept needs. If there is paper left over, they keep it for the next year. The dept can save enough paper over a period of time to the point where it does not have to purchase paper at all for one year.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup & we are making great strides at lowering government spending & debt in regard to the rest of the economy.

Someone else who can't read a graph. Don't they teach this in school anymore?
The debt to GDP ration (the only one that really counts) is enormous. It was bigger than this only in WW2 and that was a time limited event. This time Obama has ramped up spending to a permanent high. It looks better now because the Feds have been collecting increased taxes to pay for Obamacare for 2 years without expending anything in benefits. Here on in the benefits bill becomes due.
It is unsustainable. If we dont do something to scale back entitlement growth we will be the next Greece.

Obama was not president when spending went through the roof. But we did have Democrats in control of congress during a big part of it. Bush prescription drug healthcare explosion was also a big problem.

Bullshit.
Obama's "stimulus" coupled with low growth caused the spike in debt to GDP.

 

[EriktheRed]

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh boohoo staph. If only the party you support could win the Senate and the WH. But that ain't gonna happen for a long long time.

BTW Obama care hasn't affected me negatively. (except for the government shut down provided by rethugs) I already have health insurance. You should try working for a living with a company that provides health insurance. Then maybe you wouldn't cry about it all the time.

Oh. So your employer insurance policy is in 100% compliance with the federal mandates?
If not, you'll be getting a substantial increase in your premiums so that your carrier can come into compliance. Otherwise, you'll be on the exchanges along with all the other people who are employed but their employer decided it was just too expensive to insure the workers.

You know what. There was an increase in premiums this year. And last year, and the year before and the year before that and on and on.

But you want to know the interesting thing about those increases? (I am sure you don't) the increases have been smaller since Obamacare was brought into play.

How could that be?

But the idea of shutting down the government and defaulting on debt could be applied to ANY legislation that the other party didn't like.

Are you for that or not. I am getting tired of asking and reading your dodges.

Oh? Is that a fact....You have an issue with providing some kind of evidence when you make your statements on here?
I don't....Obamacare's winners and losers in Bay Area - San Jose Mercury News
Affordable Care Act - San Jose Mercury News
Obamacare Facebook Erupts with Citizen Sticker Shock.

I bet the San Jose Mercury News will get its White House press credential pulled. LOL.
Oh, our insurance may double. Obamacare.. Such a good deal, they made it mandatory.

 

[Flopper]

The government collects approximately $230 Billion dollars a month in taxes. The interest on the national debt is about 20 Billion a month. Why would we ever default on our national debt unless the Obama Administration decided not to pay the interest?

interest on the debt is our ONLY financial obligation???

lolol!!!!

Making good on our debt is only part of the government's financial obligation. Bills passed by congress are a big part of that obligation. If Congress denies the government the money it needs to fulfill the requirements of laws it has passed it will not solve the problem but it will lead to a financial crisis.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Displays such as this little message only make your side appear desperate.