White House debt talks collapse

[Sailor Steve]

Still playing partisan political games, eh Gimpy? Can't resist any opportunity to slam the other side.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

You default, the whole western project is in great danger. The US cannot survive in its present form with a default.

It amounts to pure robbery of China, and you cannot be the country you are and do that.


You have to accept the Democrats are the legitimate government of the day so they have to be allowed to have the deciding vote. The repubs can argue against it, win the next election and put into effect THEIR plan for deficit reduction. But in the meantime they must not crash the car rather than let the dems drive. That's how democracy must be allowed to work.

You couldn't be more wrong.

First off, going past the deadline will not bring about a default. The Gov't has all the money coming in from taxes every month. Only if Obama spends that on other things AND refuses to pay the interest due, will there be a default. (He is legally obligated to pay the debt, before other expenses.)

A default would be bad, but an out of control despot who just spends the nation into oblivion without the consent of the people, would be worse. Better to default on the debt, than default on the Constitution.

If there are doubts about paying the debt now, how is taking on more debt helpful? Refusing to make substantial cuts in spending adds to doubts about the US economy, at home and abroad. For congress to simply kick the can down the road and agree to postpone any remedy for someone else to deal with, would be criminally irresponsible.

It is time to grow up and do the right thing. Raise the debt limit. Then argue like hell about how to pay off the debt.

The right thing is for the Republicans to insist that spending cuts (real ones!) be made. Obama is unwilling to accept this. For decades, the debt limit has been raised and paying it has been put off for later. That is why we are in the present situation. Anyone who thinks that there should be some pretty compromise to sweep the dirt under the rug, doesn't understand the problem, or doesn't really want to solve it.

You have to accept the Democrats are the legitimate government of the day so they have to be allowed to have the deciding vote.

This is nonsense. If you don't have the deciding vote, there is no reason to be "allowed" to have the deciding vote. Democracy doesn't work that way. The Constitution requires budgets to begin in the house. Saying the Dems should have the deciding vote because you like them or because Obama is the President, is to advocate dictatorship or mob rule. This is not in the Constitution and hardly "legitimate". Buy the way, the Dems have not passed a budget through the Senate in two years. The last Obama proposed budget, could not even get Democrat support. The crysis is entirely of his making. He wants to play games, where he proposes cuts ten years in the future and he gets tax increases to spend now. This would be nothing more than a fictional solution, a mirage, worse than nothing. If he refuses to deal with the matter in a serious way, the congress is under no obligation to humor him.

Originally Posted by joegrundman

You default, the whole western project is in great danger. The US cannot survive in its present form with a default.

It amounts to pure robbery of China, and you cannot be the country you are and do that.

USA can not survive in any form without a default.

It's time the US Government put the US People first.
How much interest is the upcoming generation expected to be enslaved to?

This is long overdue.
To Hell with the Banksters, China, and the "US" (Globalist) Corporations that moved all the industry there (as they demanded more workers to fill the jobs that no longer exist).

Lead on USA. The rest of us will follow, like it or not.

[Armistead]

Both Reagan and Bush raised the debt ceiling numerous times. Sure all presidents have. Clinton gave us a balanced budget.

Obvious spending is the problem, you can't spend what you don't have, but it's stupid to ignore it's also what you bring in and do to the Bush era tax cuts that were supposed to be limited. The bigger issue is loopholes and shelters, with these US corporations pay less taxes than most nations.

The intent of government was less taxes creates jobs, it really doesn't. The issue I have is the tax code does hurt many businesses that operate in the US, but doesn't effect the mass exodus of wealth and jobs corporations send over seas. Adjust the tax code for those that do business here and increase it for those that send jobs overseas.

But that ain't gonna happen, it's the large wealthy corporations doing business overseas and they own the GOP.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Obvious spending is the problem, you can't spend what you don't have, but it's stupid to ignore it's also what you bring in and do to the Bush era tax cuts that were supposed to be limited. The bigger issue is loopholes and shelters, with these US corporations pay less taxes than most nations.

I posted it before, some weeks ago, and hereby I post it again.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...4-a27f59d70de5

[Oberon]

If the US defaults China will implode. And that will not be pretty.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If the US defaults China will implode. And that will not be pretty.

Aye...a right royal mess

[Garion]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If the US defaults China will implode. And that will not be pretty.

Nah, China will call in the Repo Men and Sky will make a reality TV show about it

Cheers

Garion

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If the US defaults China will implode. And that will not be pretty.

I dunno. They really like fireworks. Might be kinda sparkly.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Alex

Did that constant smelly american patriotism you often read and hear about everywhere....

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

............................................. ...................

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by TorpX

You couldn't be more wrong.

First off, going past the deadline will not bring about a default. The Gov't has all the money coming in from taxes every month. Only if Obama spends that on other things AND refuses to pay the interest due, will there be a default. (He is legally obligated to pay the debt, before other expenses.)

A default would be bad, but an out of control despot who just spends the nation into oblivion without the consent of the people, would be worse. Better to default on the debt, than default on the Constitution.

If there are doubts about paying the debt now, how is taking on more debt helpful? Refusing to make substantial cuts in spending adds to doubts about the US economy, at home and abroad. For congress to simply kick the can down the road and agree to postpone any remedy for someone else to deal with, would be criminally irresponsible.

The right thing is for the Republicans to insist that spending cuts (real ones!) be made. Obama is unwilling to accept this. For decades, the debt limit has been raised and paying it has been put off for later. That is why we are in the present situation. Anyone who thinks that there should be some pretty compromise to sweep the dirt under the rug, doesn't understand the problem, or doesn't really want to solve it.

This is nonsense. If you don't have the deciding vote, there is no reason to be "allowed" to have the deciding vote. Democracy doesn't work that way. The Constitution requires budgets to begin in the house. Saying the Dems should have the deciding vote because you like them or because Obama is the President, is to advocate dictatorship or mob rule. This is not in the Constitution and hardly "legitimate". Buy the way, the Dems have not passed a budget through the Senate in two years. The last Obama proposed budget, could not even get Democrat support. The crysis is entirely of his making. He wants to play games, where he proposes cuts ten years in the future and he gets tax increases to spend now. This would be nothing more than a fictional solution, a mirage, worse than nothing. If he refuses to deal with the matter in a serious way, the congress is under no obligation to humor him.

thank you, i thought that was interesting. if i understand you correctly, then you are saying that my appraisal of the risk of default and balance of power is wrong.

in your opinion there is no risk of default and the dems ultimately have the weaker hand. all the repubs have to do is hold their ground and the dems will have to fold since the debt obligation must be paid first.

tbh, my main concern is the risk of default, not who , repub or dem, gets the better deal.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by TorpX

[INDENT]You couldn't be more wrong.

At the risk of sounding like a child on the playground: no you. You can't be more wrong.

First off, going past the deadline will not bring about a default.

Yes it will. Failure to pay your obligations in part or in whole is default.

The Gov't has all the money coming in from taxes every month.

but not enough to pay all of our monthly obligations.

Only if Obama spends that on other things AND refuses to pay the interest due, will there be a default. (He is legally obligated to pay the debt, before other expenses.)

Obama doesn't sit there with a calculator and a banker's lamp saying "hmm, let's give away this and this, let's pay this guy..." The government spends, BY LAW, according to the previous year's budget. If there is not enough money to do so, it will cause a default.

A default would be bad, but an out of control despot who just spends the nation into oblivion without the consent of the people, would be worse.

Partisan bombast and rhetoric not worthy of a response.

Better to default on the debt, than default on the Constitution.

Except the Constitution guarantees our debt. It's clear that you've given no thought to the consequences of a default. That you and others seriously think this is a good thing that will somehow balance the budget and purge the system is frightening. A default on a government obligation would skyrocket rates, making the debt more expensive and bigger. A default would throw the country back into recession. A default would slaughter the investment portfolios of already battered municipalities. How on earth is that better than anything?

If there are doubts about paying the debt now, how is taking on more debt helpful? Refusing to make substantial cuts in spending adds to doubts about the US economy, at home and abroad. For congress to simply kick the can down the road and agree to postpone any remedy for someone else to deal with, would be criminally irresponsible.

The current proposal is 85% spending cuts, 15% tax increases. To say one or the other is off the table is pure ideological stupidity.


blah blah blah tired of rebutting this.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Still playing partisan political games, eh Gimpy? Can't resist any opportunity to slam the other side.

Ill stop when you guys stop.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Ill stop when you guys stop.

Simply wish I understood