deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 11, 2011 15:52:42 GMT -5
according to a Professor who was just on NPR who did a study with another Professor on the event.
The default was a similar impasse event as of now, only affected about $120 million in Treasury bills before the problem was solved, peanuts compared to the debt..however, we owed about $800 Billion then, and at a increase of 6/10 % that amounted to a penalty of about $8 Billion.
When he was asked how long that increase as a penalty lasted, he said they carried it out for about six months , the study, after the event, and the increase, 6/10% was still in effect when they stopped their study, the time line..
Just a little reality of what could happen and we owe what, $14 trillion , and some want to play Russian Roulette with this possible deflating on our debt because they want to hold to their principals?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 11, 2011 15:55:07 GMT -5
Noone is talking about defaulting on the national debt. No matter how many talking heads say it on the radio or TV, it doesn't make it any more true and just goes to show how pathetic people are trying to shock and awe others into running their story.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 22:50:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 15:56:04 GMT -5
I thought that the 1979 default was due to some technical glitches - that even though it wasn't even a purposeful default it still cost. I would think the penalty would be even worse if we defaulted on purpose.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 11, 2011 16:29:21 GMT -5
Here is an older but, nice article regarding what we are looking at interest payment wise over the next 10 years and what will happen if we face a 1% increase in interest rate. money.cnn.com/2011/02/02/news/economy/interest_national_debt/index.htmThis was from February. We have to do something drastic, if we intend to ever get solvent again. We are headed for a really bad place if we as a country don't demand that something be done. Looking at what we have spent, are going to spend, and are wishing to spend our money is going to be where the Russians were in 1998. The similarities between the '98 Russian crisis and our economy today is staggering.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 11, 2011 16:37:13 GMT -5
To me, and I have been following it..the Democrats, the President have stepped up to the plate..they have their own issues of protecting but no matter what you say, the Pubs, absolute no cuts in any taxes yo be done....seems to me, as being a bit much..I think the House leader has tried..but his hands are tied..his people are not willing to compromise in any way, and are playing it as a way to get back into the white House no matter what
Reminds me of some Col's back in the day, do what ever it takes to get their next promotion, even a possible Star , no matter who it hurt, how necessary or in some cases , not really necessary.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 11, 2011 21:57:34 GMT -5
Noone is talking about defaulting on the national debt. No matter how many talking heads say it on the radio or TV, it doesn't make it any more true and just goes to show how pathetic people are trying to shock and awe others into running their story. they weren't talking about it in 1979, either. but it happened. the cost for defaulting on $120M was $6B.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 22:50:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2011 22:40:38 GMT -5
Just a little reality of what could happen and we owe what, $14 trillion , and some want to play Russian Roulette with this possible deflating on our debt because they want to hold to their principals?
I think that it's much more than principals Deziloooooo. How many times did people come to the other board for help because of debt? Of all those times, what percent came because it was the end, they couldn't borrow any more. Most of them kept spending until they just couldn't carry the debt load (may their payments anymore). They just didn't want to change their lifestyles. Well Congress is the same way except worse because it's "play" money. Don't agree? Check this out.
After President Obama took office he did the stimulus package. That took us up to our debt ceiling (pretty much). Did they do any kind of a budget? Sure, 700 DAYS later & after the other party did a budget (& started to make a big deal about it). Did they cut spending in any way even knowing that they were going to hit the debt ceiling? Nope. Did they try to do ANYTHING to avoid this while they had control of everything...NO (again). Even now when a shutdown is looming they are using this as a political weapon (hey the Republicans wouldn't agree with us so it's them, not us). They screwed the country & now want to blame it on something or someone else.
I ask you Deziloooooo is it better to force the issue & gets spending cuts now (& risk deflating)? Or would you rather default on 28 or 40 trillion dollars of debt later?
I say force the issue. If the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts then default. Sooner or later we are going to have to pay & now is a lot better than later. Oh & as for tax cuts I still think they are good for the economy & so do the Republicans. Trying to use that as holdup on this (by the Democrats) when the Republicans have you over a barrel is just plain stupid, UNLESS your going to try to us it politically & to hell with the country.
There is a lot more than principal involved here.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 11, 2011 23:11:49 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 12, 2011 0:50:16 GMT -5
old tex I am a realist..I also have principals and there are certain ones one goes to the mat for, this isn't one of them. I also have been around a while, and when younger was very emotional in thought and doings as some are now, but as I have lived a while I also have realized some of those emotions got me no where, and I saw where such emotions got people killed.
I like rational thoughts, gets more accomplished and the problem with boards like this there is to much posturing and emotions and not enough rational thoughts.
"I say force the issue. "
If we do, the little hickcup in 1979, would be laughable..as to what it would cost us..on top of what we owe, just makes no sense..reminds me of the final battles in Germany when all was lost, all knew it..yet for emotion sake they continued to the end to what accomplishment?
As far as "forcing the issue ", same thing. You are asking us to do it , solve the problem, all in one or two large swoopes..when it took how long to get there..and the suffering of ..and there will be and the suffering will be unbearable, and on good people, not just what some here in their emotional state think of as the dreges of society..
To fight three wars for over ten years and not have tax increase to pay for them, you call that logical, good common sense, fiscal responsibility?..To say no to any and all tax increases, close some loopholew, even the obviouse ones such as those on excesses, example Jet air craft by the privates,[ So many more ] the loop holes , just to do a "in your face Mr. President" is going to convince me of your feeling of "force the issue "? Take your emotions and put it you know where, your not impressing me..give me some help here and I will be glad to discuss it with you but your and others emotions have just left me cold..
If they would agree to some of these correct tax increases, closing of loop holes then they would get more from the other side and the saving , the increase of revenue of the tax increases could be set aside strickly for debt reduction over what has been provided in negotiations..there are ways to work things out.
The pubs have decided it's their way or the highway and are hoping for a shut down of government thinking that American public will blame the other side..they are wrong there and the penalty we as a country will take from that action of it is so will make 1979 seem like a pimple on a elephants butt in consequences..
[ I understood the cost of the 1979 hickcup was at least 8 Billion or more..no one really knows when the 6/10 of 1 % penalty went off...in the study done by these two professors they say they stopped their research after 6/7 months and up to then it was still on, and remeber, that was on a debt of $800 Billion]
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 12, 2011 0:58:45 GMT -5
>>> The pubs have decided it's their way or the highway <<< ...I thought the current debt ceiling was put in place by Dems, too?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 12, 2011 7:38:02 GMT -5
Wonderful to say "Just default" until you realize that people who need those government payments, like indigent elderly, will go without. Wonderful to say default, until you realise that there are other options out there besides government bonds and a buyer's strike by foreign lenders can starve the country of capital and cause more of our GDP to be paid out to the owners of capital, not used for the welfare of the nation. Nobody is saying default. Cut the crap out of the budget and we will be able to afford our debt. What's really idiotic is arguing that unless we increase our debt we cannot afford to pay our current debt. When you can't afford current debt, when is it ever a good idea to take on more?? Welcome to: Sure, cut the necessities like police and fire rather than the social redistribute the wealth programs. How can you bilk the idiot taxpayers for more if you don't scare 'em by sacrificing a few, eh?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 12, 2011 7:51:33 GMT -5
Noone is talking about defaulting on the national debt. No matter how many talking heads say it on the radio or TV, it doesn't make it any more true and just goes to show how pathetic people are trying to shock and awe others into running their story. they weren't talking about it in 1979, either. but it happened. the cost for defaulting on $120M was $6B. I expect that those in Treasury at this point have learned their lesson and will pay the interest on the debt first and the rest after. I hope I get to see if my expectations are correct.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 12, 2011 7:57:11 GMT -5
We truly are living in the age of stupid but will qualify that by saying it didn't just happen since Obama has been in office. He did not create this problem but has certainly only made an existing problem worse. Both parties are taking a "my way or the highway approach" not just the Republicans and that is why the average American taxpayer is tired of the way our current politics are not working and why they want change. They want real change not the stuff we have seen from this administration that claims to want bipartisanship but in the same sentence blames everything since creation on the other party. The Republicans are on the right side of the page on this issue. We have to stop increasing our debt load now and the only way that will happen in Washington is if there is jeopardy of some sort. Hopefully the people will see through the scare tactics and support common sense. Anyone throwing numbers around about what the potential cost of our current debt could be should definitely understand that increasing that load would also cost us more.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 12, 2011 8:12:19 GMT -5
We truly are living in the age of stupid but will qualify that by saying it didn't just happen since Obama has been in office. He did not create this problem but has certainly only made an existing problem worse. To blame all this on Obama would be foolish since we have not had a reduction in our deficit in over 50 years. Our government has enabled us, the citizens, and we as a majority are unwilling to let go of any of our fluff to balance our budgets nor do we want to be taxed for the actual costs of all these niceties provided by our bloated government. It's a catch 22 and unless people realize this, it will be our downfall. We are at the point now where we can still pull back from the edge and save this thing. These clowns in DC can flap all they want about budgets that cut the deficit over x years, but they are talking about the annual deficit, not our total debt. Until we actually eliminate the annual deficit, we're still increasing our total debt. I'd rather take a little pain now to reduce that debt rather than wait until we get to the point similar to Greece and face mandated austerity measures at some point in the future. I still don't believe anything will be fixed by either party because the American public won't like the bad taste left from all the cutting necessary to eliminate our annual deficits. That's exactly my point. If we need to borrow more to pay current debt, what are we going to have to do to pay that new debt we just took on? Why, borrow more, of course. Where does it stop?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 12, 2011 8:38:26 GMT -5
It is time to push the issue, and see which party blinks. The party that blinks, is the one who gets voted out in 2012. Entirely voted out. If it is the Democrats that blink, vote them out because they are nothing but hot air, and no guts. If it is the Republicans, because they are stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 22:50:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 8:52:52 GMT -5
As far as "forcing the issue ", same thing. You are asking us to do it , solve the problem, all in one or two large swoopes..when it took how long to get there..and the suffering of ..and there will be and the suffering will be unbearable, and on good people, not just what some here in their emotional state think of as the dreges of society..
No, they are asking Democrats to ADDRESS the issue or if it sounds better start cutting now. Of course it can't be "fixed" now but the first step is admitting there's a problem & the 2nd step is to start cutting spending. In 2 years the Democrats haven't done that & if allowed, they won't do it until they just can't make the payments.
If it was you & 40% of every dollar you spend was borrowed wouldn't you want to not spend much? Could you run you house where you lived that way? How long would it take for you to go under & not be able to make the payments?
As for the comments about screwing people that the government makes payments to. My question is this, If the Democrats really cared about the people would they REALLY go into negotiations with the stipulation of cutting taxes when they know that's now & has been in the past a deal breaker? This whole issue is only kind of about the debt ceiling for them. The important thing to them is to make the Republicans look bad so that they have a chance in the next election. Are the Republicans hands clean here...I doubt it. I'm sure they have ulterior motives to (probably dealing with the election), but it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than to do the wrong thing.
Every "balanced budget" that we have done in the past relied on spending cuts at "sometime in the future". They were all laid out spread out into the future that both parties knew they would never follow but it looked good to the public at the time. In each of those instances we ended up increasing the national debt because there were no spending cuts. Well we have reached a critical economic moment here. Borrowing 40% of what you spend should be a critical moment in ANTONE'S book. This issue needs to be addressed NOW & regardless of what the Republicans reason for forcing the issue the right path to take is to force the issue now. The choice is to get spending cuts, screw the people now, or screw the people later for a much longer time period. I'm for either spending cuts now or shutting down the government to make our congress address this problem NOW.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 12, 2011 9:55:52 GMT -5
I'm all for addressing this issue here and now, make the cuts and balance the budget, let the whining and "the revolt" begin. We need to spend the coming years to reduce our debt not reduce our deficit. The only thing that will not fix the problem is allowing one of these parties to hold a majority in our government. We need to reduce the monopoly and power these two parties have by voting in independent minded individuals who will put the best interest of the people and their country in front of short term political and financial gain that influences their votes now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 10:31:50 GMT -5
they weren't talking about it in 1979, either. but it happened. the cost for defaulting on $120M was $6B. I expect that those in Treasury at this point have learned their lesson and will pay the interest on the debt first and the rest after. I hope I get to see if my expectations are correct. if people pull their debt, it will be more than interest.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 10:34:33 GMT -5
It is time to push the issue, and see which party blinks. The party that blinks, is the one who gets voted out in 2012. Entirely voted out. If it is the Democrats that blink, vote them out because they are nothing but hot air, and no guts. If it is the Republicans, because they are stupid. the GOP is stone cold stupid to not accept this plan. the Democrats have offered $3 for every $1 of revenue, even though the debt ceiling most certainly will NOT be raised without their vote. the GOP seems to be saying that we don't need to raise the debt ceiling, which is patently false. we do. given that, holding the thing that needs to be done hostage and forcing all the pain on the party in charge is not negotiating, it is extortion.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 12, 2011 10:51:45 GMT -5
I expect that those in Treasury at this point have learned their lesson and will pay the interest on the debt first and the rest after. I hope I get to see if my expectations are correct. if people pull their debt, it will be more than interest. Ah. So you're thinking that once we show people that we aren't going to need to borrow more, they will be less likely to want to hold the existing debt. I'd wager the opposite. Supply/demand. We limit the supply of out debt and the demand for it will increase IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 22:50:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2011 10:57:46 GMT -5
holding the thing that needs to be done hostage and forcing all the pain on the party in charge is not negotiating, it is extortion.
If extortion is the ONLY way to get the Democrats to address this issue then I say go for it. Another 700 days doesn't need to pass.
To me this is a classic case that shows sometimes the end does justify the means.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 12, 2011 11:46:35 GMT -5
we defaulted in 1971.
if you bought a 35 dollar gov't gold bond in 1970 that was redeemable in 1oz of gold, .......... in 1971 and thereafter, all bonds that were sold for gold redemption, could only be redeemed for fiat paper currency.
purchasers did not have a choice, they were stuck with paper, when they thought they had bought gold from the usa gov't.
our gov't will default on anything, for any reason, and will tell us (the american taxpayer) "that it was for our own good".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 11:57:17 GMT -5
if people pull their debt, it will be more than interest. Ah. So you're thinking that once we show people that we aren't going to need to borrow more, they will be less likely to want to hold the existing debt. I'd wager the opposite. Supply/demand. We limit the supply of out debt and the demand for it will increase IMO. no, just the opposite. i think that people who lend money have choices where to lend it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 12:00:05 GMT -5
holding the thing that needs to be done hostage and forcing all the pain on the party in charge is not negotiating, it is extortion.If extortion is the ONLY way to get the Democrats to address this issue then I say go for it. Another 700 days doesn't need to pass. To me this is a classic case that shows sometimes the end does justify the means. i think you are underestimating the seriousness of not raising the debt ceiling, tex. if it is as consequential as i believe it is, the ends absolutely do not justify the means.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 12, 2011 12:02:48 GMT -5
Ah. So you're thinking that once we show people that we aren't going to need to borrow more, they will be less likely to want to hold the existing debt. I'd wager the opposite. Supply/demand. We limit the supply of out debt and the demand for it will increase IMO. no, just the opposite. i think that people who lend money have choices where to lend it. I agree that people who lend money have choices where to lend. I believe they will choose to lend to someone who is not taking on new debt. You seem to think they would prefer to lend to someone who is taking on additional debt. That does not seem logical to me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 12:04:51 GMT -5
no, just the opposite. i think that people who lend money have choices where to lend it. I agree that people who lend money have choices where to lend. I believe they will choose to lend to someone who is not taking on new debt. You seem to think they would prefer to lend to someone who is taking on additional debt. That does not seem logical to me. i take it you are not a banker?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 12, 2011 12:07:05 GMT -5
I agree that people who lend money have choices where to lend. I believe they will choose to lend to someone who is not taking on new debt. You seem to think they would prefer to lend to someone who is taking on additional debt. That does not seem logical to me. i take it you are not a banker? No, but I worked in banking (as an accountant) for 10 years prior to moving to Texas. Why, are you a banker?
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 12, 2011 12:20:52 GMT -5
think you are underestimating the seriousness of not raising the debt ceiling
dgl- and i think you overestimate the seriousness of not raising the debt ceiling.
so what does either of the above statements mean? nothing at all!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 13:35:05 GMT -5
think you are underestimating the seriousness of not raising the debt ceilingdgl- and i think you overestimate the seriousness of not raising the debt ceiling. so what does either of the above statements mean? nothing at all! after commenting on every post you find meaningless, do you have any time left in your busy pantywadding schedule?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 12, 2011 13:36:17 GMT -5
i take it you are not a banker? No, but I worked in banking (as an accountant) for 10 years prior to moving to Texas. so, does your experience in banking say that a customer that borrows money should not be lent to?
|
|