dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 A golden opportunity That's all there is read. It's not a "golden opportunity" ... we have to pay our bills. It's that simple. There are no golden opportunities with that. It's crazy and it doesn't matter who does it, who did it, when how or why...it's just crazy. It's unconstitutional quite frankly.
WorldTraveller Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Why don't you send that to your guys...or does it work one way? It's well documented the GOP's stance on how to recover from the shellacking of 2008...sit on the sidelines and B word betting the economy to crash and keeping their finger prints off it (aka doing nothing in a time of crisis) so when it was time for the next election they could point a finger and also state exactly what you are doing now: "Obama is not bipartisan." You see..when cooperation is a campaign theme the other party can single handedly break it. All that is need to examine is what is known ("known" as in fact) about the strategy meeting in late December/Early January before Obama was sworn in...all that is necessary to show it was working in action is the events leading the recovery act. Buy your parties own trash, go right ahead. You are literally the product of a political strategy. If I was you, I would be upset as well. I know that supporting a person who has failed is not an easy thing to do, specially having to try to defend his failed record and leadership. I supported bush until he signed Medicare D, and amongst the people I talked politics too, specially the conservatives, they hated hearing my constant bashing of bush for being a fiscal fraud. Maybe you will someday value results over the indivdual you support. I find that to be much more admirable. There is no getting around this, Obama is the president, and we should all expect results, not excuses. That's all there is read. It's not a "golden opportunity" ... we have to pay our bills. It's that simple. There are no golden opportunities with that. It's crazy and it doesn't matter who does it, who did it, when how or why...it's just crazy. It's unconstitutional quite frankly. It was a golden opportunity, and he blew it
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 When you've maxed out your credit cards, and don't earn enough to pay your bills, I assume you believe it wise to simply take out more credit cards?
WorldTraveller Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 We don't have a budget. We have spending. And I maintain that our ability to borrow cheaply in the future is healthy for our spending policy over the long term. He doesn't know any better. He's a defender of the status quo, and the status quo assures us of a debt crisis. It will take bold leadership to address our looming fiscal nightmare, and the president doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 When you've maxed out your credit cards, and don't earn enough to pay your bills, I assume you believe it wise to simply take out more credit cards? Comparing my financial situation to the US government? Are we going to actually talk seriously here? Congressional Budget Office: By itself, setting a limit on the debt is an ineffective means of controlling deficits because the decisions that necessitate borrowing are made through other legislative actions. By the time an increase in the debt ceiling comes up for approval, it is too late to avoid paying the government’s pending bills without incurring serious negative consequences. Read more: http://business.time.com/2011/07/12/what-to-do-with-the-debt-ceiling-get-rid-of-it/#ixzz25qHen3F7
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Comparing my financial situation to the US government? Are we going to actually talk seriously here? It's the exact same thing, only on a much greater scale and with much greater consequences. Furthermore, the US has defaulted on it's debt atleast six prior times that we are aware of. The most recent in 1970. We're still here.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 It's the exact same thing, only on a much greater scale and with much greater consequences. Furthermore, the US has defaulted on it's debt atleast six prior times that we are aware of. The most recent in 1970. We're still here. LOL and our spending is under control? You arguing for or against my position that the debt limit does not solve our spending problems?
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I'm arguing that a default would be good for our long term economic outlook.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I'm arguing that a default would be good for our long term economic outlook. A default would be bad for the short term, and catastrophic if we defaulted for any considerable amount of time. You cited a defaults in the past...was it good for long term economic outlook? Whether we make payment of our obligations (when we are the US government) is not the answer to spending problems. The only answer to spending problems is...obviously...coming to terms on a budget deal that works well enough and both sides can accept.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) The US government spends more than 70% of what it's citizens earn each year, with the difference between what we tax and spend made up by borrowing. The problem has become so systemic that the only way out is our inability to borrow. Edited September 8, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) The US government spends more than 70% of what it's citizens earn each year, which the difference between what we tax and spend made up by borrowing. The problem has become so systemic that the only way out is our inability to borrow. And the solution is to not pay our bills? Makes no sense...tough problem no matter who you ask and most reasonable agree we need revenue increases and spending reductions (more spending reduction than revenue increase obviously) and we can't shrink up the economy while doing it b/c then we won't be able to do anything but pay our interest and eventually it will collapse. So we need to find a way to compromise on an appropriate balance between revenue increases and spending reductions through a smart policy that allows leaves room for policy that allows us to grow out of this stagnation. Sound familiar? And the elephant in the room is the mortgage write down thread...we can't do the most important part (keep growing at a moderate rate) until we get with it. Throw the tea party and Grover and anyone so pissed they can't think anymore out (including liberals), come to terms on Simpson-Bowles, write down substantial mortgage debt, and capitalize on the investments we've already made in the reinvestment act which are more than anybody has reported on. That will kick us in the right direction pretty hard, and in the coming years after taking that path we'll have more room to push even harder. Before long...we'll be alright. Edited September 8, 2012 by TheNewBills
GG Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 It's the exact same thing, only on a much greater scale and with much greater consequences. Furthermore, the US has defaulted on it's debt atleast six prior times that we are aware of. The most recent in 1970. We're still here. Six times? A default now would be ruinous to the credit rating, the dollar's standing as the reserve currency and treasuries as a safe haven. This is the same logic that people used when they said Lehman should file bankruptcy because it would fix the overextended financial system.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 No. That is no more than "pie in the sky" rhetoric used by politicians hoping to kick the fiscal can down the road just long enough to secure themselves a family legacy strong enough to get them off of the sinking ship that they all know they've created. Yes. Sometimes the solution is default.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) No. That is no more than "pie in the sky" rhetoric used by politicians hoping to kick the fiscal can down the road just long enough to secure themselves a family legacy strong enough to get them off of the sinking ship that they all know they've created. Yes. Sometimes the solution is default. That is pure maniac talk Edited September 8, 2012 by TheNewBills
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Six times? A default now would be ruinous to the credit rating, the dollar's standing as the reserve currency and treasuries as a safe haven. This is the same logic that people used when they said Lehman should file bankruptcy because it would fix the overextended financial system. It's an inevitability. Lehman is a canard, as Lehman doesn't exist in a vacuum. We're already well past the point where the the pain will be inescapable and real. Edited September 8, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 It's an inevitability. Lehman is a canard, as Lehman doesn't exist in a vacuum. We're already well past the point where the the pain will be inescapable and real. No we're not. Lehman proved how cavalier attitudes about benign defaults can snowball into a global calamity. A US default would be a disaster because it will set off exogenous factors that have nothing to do with the US budget deliberations. US lawmakers should recognize the role the country plays on the geopolitical stage and what the dollar means to its stability. You believe that a default will cause the Democrats to face up to the reality of unsustainability of the deficits. You couldn't be further from the truth. If the country defaults, and the debt ceiling isn't increased you'll set off a massive run on treasuries. But there's nothing in that equation that would force Democrats to stand off their position. So you will have a default, the massive reverberation of a default, and wil still need to deal with the budget, where the other side will tell you,"why should we cut spending, the US is no longer AAA, treasuries are getting whacked, dollar is in the dumps, so what's the downside of more deficits?"
Delete This Account Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 No we're not. Lehman proved how cavalier attitudes about benign defaults can snowball into a global calamity. A US default would be a disaster because it will set off exogenous factors that have nothing to do with the US budget deliberations. US lawmakers should recognize the role the country plays on the geopolitical stage and what the dollar means to its stability. You believe that a default will cause the Democrats to face up to the reality of unsustainability of the deficits. You couldn't be further from the truth. If the country defaults, and the debt ceiling isn't increased you'll set off a massive run on treasuries. But there's nothing in that equation that would force Democrats to stand off their position. So you will have a default, the massive reverberation of a default, and wil still need to deal with the budget, where the other side will tell you,"why should we cut spending, the US is no longer AAA, treasuries are getting whacked, dollar is in the dumps, so what's the downside of more deficits?"
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Oh oh, this makes me nervous. you just !@#$ed up...somewhere...clearly...
Recommended Posts