ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 19, 2011 12:01:43 GMT -5
But just in case-----.."Republican House members propose legislation to ensure military checks if debt ceiling is not raised The Daily Caller – Wed, Jul 13, 2011 ..........Rep. Steve King of Iowa teamed up with Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Louie Gohmert of Texas to introduce legislation Wednesday that prioritizes federal spending if the debt limit is not raised.
The Payment Reliability for our Obligations to Military and Investors to Secure Essential Stability (PROMISES) Act prioritizes payment of military salaries and the interest on the public debt should Congress fail to raise the debt ceiling and the country faces a funding gap.
The impetus for the legislation, according to the three representatives, is to ensure that Washington does not see a repeat of what happened during April’s negotiations over the Continuing Resolution (CR).
“We’ve watched as a couple of things were used as leverage to get agreements here in this Congress,” said King in Wednesday morning’s press conference. “One of them was military pay.”
King added that servicing the debt was vital to maintaining a good credit rating. (McConnell proposal on debt limit prompts swift backlash from conservatives)
“It’s my belief that if we put these two issues together and we get them to the President’s desk… then it’s easier for us to sit down and negotiate what we might do, without the threat of no military pay and without the threat of watching our credit go down,” added King. “These are the two high promises.”
Bachmann reiterated her belief that the U.S. will not no go into default should an agreement on the debt ceiling not be reached by August 2. “This is a misnomer,” said Bachmann, “that the president and treasury secretary are trying to pass off on the American people.”
Later Bachmann said Obama was “holding the full, faith and credit of the United States hostage so he can continue his spending spree!”
All three lawmakers in attendance opposed raising the debt ceiling. And on Wednesday, all three argued that President Obama had been given false information on the consequences of not extending the debt limit. King compared Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s proposal to put the debt ceiling in the president’s hands to the “fox in the hen house.” --- -------------BTW, this should be one of the priorities, imo....
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 19, 2011 12:16:29 GMT -5
Everyone Is Scared Out of Their Minds www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/07/18/everyone-is-scared-out-of-their-minds.aspx Morgan Housel July 18, 2011 No, really. July's consumer confidence fell to the lowest level since March 2009: Source: University of Michigan/Reuters. The date that the confidence level has reverted back to is meaningful. In March 2009, the financial crisis was in high gear, stocks traded at nearly half of the value they do today, the economy was shedding half a million jobs a month, and it looked like a real possibility that Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) and Citigroup (NYSE: C ) would be nationalized. Growing, high-quality companies like Amazon (Nasdaq: AMZN ) and Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL ) could be bought for next to nothing -- both companies traded like they'd never grow again, even as actual earnings came in beautifully. Fear replaced reality. Nobody had faith in anything. If it ever felt like we were in a legitimate depression, it was in March 2009. Do consumers really feel as glum today as they did then? Consumer confidence is driven by four big factors: stocks, gas prices, jobs, and policy -- probably in that order. The current slump likely isn't caused by stocks. Major indexes are still spitting distance from multiyear highs. It probably isn't gas prices, either. While higher than they were a year ago, gas prices have fallen 11% over the past two months. Jobs likely have something to do with it, as June's official government employment numbers were pretty much a bust. But even that isn't convincing: Jobs have been slow for months, and other private job measures show June might not have been as bad as the government's numbers imply. What's left? Policy. And here there's a culprit flailing its arms: the debt ceiling. It's hard to say for sure, but odds are the debt ceiling charade drove the sudden plunge in confidence. Even if everyone thinks the ceiling will eventually be raised, witnessing this much dysfunction in Washington does a number on confidence. The irony is that the reason some politicians are digging their feet in on the debt ceiling is because they say deficits are causing business-crippling uncertainty, but their tactics for dealing with those deficits is creating even more. If there is any good news, it's that consumer confidence is a coincident indicator. It tells you what just happened, not what's about to happen. Its ability to properly forecast stock and job growth is basically nil, and if anything it serves as a contrarian indicator. The future becomes brightest when the mood is the darkest. And it's pretty dim in here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 12:21:28 GMT -5
this never had to be made an issue. they could have simply rubber stamped it, like they have done about 100x since it was first passed.
whose fault was that?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2011 12:22:37 GMT -5
this never had to be made an issue. they could have simply rubber stamped it, like they have done about 100x since it was first passed. whose fault was that? The people who rubber-stamped it without giving it enough thought the last 100 times.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 12:24:19 GMT -5
this never had to be made an issue. they could have simply rubber stamped it, like they have done about 100x since it was first passed. whose fault was that? The people who rubber-stamped it without giving it enough thought the last 100 times. cute. but there are quite a few Republicans in that group, including not a few that are currently putting up a huge fuss.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2011 12:25:17 GMT -5
The people who rubber-stamped it without giving it enough thought the last 100 times. cute. but there are quite a few Republicans in that group, including not a few that are currently putting up a huge fuss. It's nice to see some old RINOs learning new tricks.
|
|
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 19, 2011 12:33:22 GMT -5
but there are quite a few Republicans in that group, including not a few that are currently putting up a huge fuss. Remind me again how Obama fully supported raising the debt ceiling under Bush. BTW, if you're insinuating that the repubs are hypocrites....well, no surprise there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 12:40:30 GMT -5
but there are quite a few Republicans in that group, including not a few that are currently putting up a huge fuss. Remind me again how Obama fully supported raising the debt ceiling under Bush. he didn't. he regards that decision as a mistake. i accept that, given that it was.BTW, if you're insinuating that the repubs are hypocrites....well, no surprise there. i never speak in generalities.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 12:41:54 GMT -5
cute. but there are quite a few Republicans in that group, including not a few that are currently putting up a huge fuss. It's nice to see some old RINOs learning new tricks. i have heard they are untrainable. that is clearly not true. check out McCain! the maverick/moderate who has become a GOP stalwart!
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2011 12:46:12 GMT -5
Remind me again how Obama fully supported raising the debt ceiling under Bush. he didn't. he regards that decision as a mistake. i accept that, given that it was.BTW, if you're insinuating that the repubs are hypocrites....well, no surprise there. i never speak in generalities. Well then maybe unlike Obama and the Dems, the Reps are learning from their mistakes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 12:52:19 GMT -5
Well then maybe unlike Obama and the Dems, the Reps are learning from their mistakes. or from Obama, as the case may be. how well would THAT suit them?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 19, 2011 13:03:12 GMT -5
How did defaulting on our debt become the first thing we would do if the ceiling is not raised? Why would Social Security checks be at risk if the ceiling is not raised since this program is funded by workers and is deducted from their paychecks each week? This type of warning is completely political and would only happen if they made a conscious decision to choose those items for reduction rather then make the reductions where they should be made.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 13:17:09 GMT -5
How did defaulting on our debt become the first thing we would do if the ceiling is not raised? Why would Social Security checks be at risk if the ceiling is not raised since this program is funded by workers and is deducted from their paychecks each week? This type of warning is completely political and would only happen if they made a conscious decision to choose those items for reduction rather then make the reductions where they should be made. i can tell you. i took over as CFO of a struggling company last year. they were not only 60 days behind on their loan payments, they were 30 days behind on payroll, and had over $100k in unpaid commissions to employees. the first order of business is NOT to bring the debt up to date. the credit is ruined at that point, anyway. it is to keep the employees working, so the enterprise can function. in order to do that, MORALE is the thing that needs work. so, what i did is sit down with each employee and let them know that i would PERSONALLY guarantee that they would not be left in the lurch. and that if they ever had any questions or emergencies, that they should contact me PERSONALLY and let me know what they were, so i could help them. unfortunately, i also had to lay off 1/3 of the staff. that was tough. but i had to do it. if we look at the government in the same way, the first thing that should be done is to get everybody working on the same team. the next thing that should be done is to cut costs. and the final thing that is to be done is to bring obligations in order. HOWEVER, in order to maintain morale, cutting funds that directly affect PEOPLE is going to be a very bad move. in this sense, the GOP has the upper hand. debtors will scream loudly. they will raise our rates. but the common folk won't see the affects until this herd of buffalo is long out to pasture. i think that, in a sense, the GOP is taking the path of least resistance here. they are giving into the petulant whiners who want it all and want to give up nothing. we will see if the Democrats are employing the same strategy, shortly. they probably are.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 19, 2011 13:31:29 GMT -5
From my perspective threatening to stop Social Security payments because a credit limit for the general budget is not raised would be most similar to threatening to lock down your employees 401K accounts or personal savings accounts that they have already paid into. The Social Security account is an account that has been pilfered from by these thieves for decades and has no connection to the general fund balance or credit limitations. This account was established and funded by past and present employees for one purpose and when they try to reach across to use it as a threat it doesn't set well with me.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jul 19, 2011 13:47:29 GMT -5
The federal treasury has plenty of money to pay everything that is constitutionally authorized, including all interest payments on outstanding debt. This idea that economic Armageddon will sweep the country is pure demagoguery.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 19, 2011 14:34:07 GMT -5
The federal treasury has plenty of money to pay everything that is constitutionally authorized, including all interest payments on outstanding debt. This idea that economic Armageddon will sweep the country is pure demagoguery. Moody's seems to think otherwise. in fact, they seem to think that the mere IDEA that we would CONSIDER not raising the ceiling is enough to call our credit into question. they suggested this week that we ELIMINATE the debt ceiling. i am sure that would go over real well with the Tea Party contingent.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 19, 2011 15:46:43 GMT -5
by the US Government would mean in every day life. I know , he was formerly head of IMF but his thoughts are still rewarding to me and frightening to say the least. Who disagrees? ------------------------------------------------- globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/18/defaulting-to-big-government/------------------------------------------------- [Click on the link to read the article] ------------------------------------------------- Defaulting to big government Editor's Note: Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is co-founder of a leading economics blog, BaselineScenario,a professor at MIT Sloan, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-author, with James Kwak, of 13 Bankers. For more from Johnson, visit Project Syndicate’s website or check it out on Facebook and Twitter. By Simon Johnson "Leading United States congressmen are determined to provoke a showdown with the Obama administration over the federal government’s debt ceiling. Ordinarily, you might expect House Republicans to blink at this stage of the negotiations, but there is a hardline minority that actually appears to think that defaulting on government debt would not be a bad thing. These representatives – with whom I've interacted at three congressional hearings recently – are convinced that the US federal government is too big relative to the economy, and that drastic measures are needed to bring it under control. Depending on your assessment of “Tea Party” strength on Capitol Hill, at least a partial debt default does not seem as implausible as it did in the past – and recent warnings from ratings agencies reflect this heightened risk. But the consequences of any default would, ironically, actually increase the size of government relative to the US economy – the very outcome that Republican intransigents claim to be trying to avoid."
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 20, 2011 14:22:05 GMT -5
I have heard this from some right pundits. Pay all the constitutionally authorized obligations, such as debt,military,etc.and don't worry about the others. Wonder where they feel SS and medicare would fit on the priority list .....
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 20, 2011 14:33:17 GMT -5
Anybody that believe that continuing to borrow to meet our desires is sound fiscal policy is deluded.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 20, 2011 14:41:18 GMT -5
Anybody that believe that continuing to borrow to meet our desires is sound fiscal policy is deluded. I don't think anyone believes that. But, most also don't believe we can overnight balance the budget & get rid of the deficit. So until we can get to that point, then we either have to borrow money or just quit paying some of the bills.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 20, 2011 14:46:05 GMT -5
Anybody that believe that continuing to borrow to meet our desires is sound fiscal policy is deluded. I don't think anyone believes that. But, most also don't believe we can overnight balance the budget & get rid of the deficit. So until we can get to that point, then we either have to borrow money or just quit paying some of the bills. We need to quit paying A LOT of bills, by cutting back on federal spending dramatically, i heard we have to borrow 40% of everything the federal government spends,that seems insane. Could any of you imagine making 60k year but spending 100k a year with no end in sight, as you go on your debt servicing keeps getting bigger and bigger and you have to borrow more and more just to stay even. What we will get is a raise to the debt ceiling that will last past 2012 elections, some minor immediate cuts, little tweaks, little adjustments now, and BIG future cuts in spending, which will never happen.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 20, 2011 14:51:05 GMT -5
But what we will get is a raise to the debt ceiling that will last paste 2012 elections, some minor immediate cuts, little tweaks, little adjustments now, and BIG future cuts in spending, which will never happen. Yep, that is most likely what we will get.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 20, 2011 14:55:11 GMT -5
...at first glance, I'd say the PROMISES Act would get my support... I'm ticked that it even needs to be made a law in the first place... ...as to the massive cuts that we need to make? we could have issued a 30day notice to countless universities and organizations already... too bad, so sad, study the rate of grass growth later... I don't care that it adds up to pennies on the dollar of our deficit... it must be done... many yesterdays ago...
|
|
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 20, 2011 15:17:22 GMT -5
Anybody that believe that continuing to borrow to meet our desires is sound fiscal policy is deluded. I don't think anyone believes that. But, most also don't believe we can overnight balance the budget & get rid of the deficit. So until we can get to that point, then we either have to borrow money or just quit paying some of the bills. How 'bout this one? The National Institutes of Health (NIH) subsidized a study attempting to find out if a gay man’s penis size has any correlation with his sexual health.
The research, titled “The Association between Penis Size and Sexual Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men,” began in 2006 and surveyed 1,065 gay men. Among its key findings: Those gay men who felt they had small or inadequate penis sizes were more likely to become “bottoms,” or anal receptive, while gay men with larger penises were more likely to identify themselves as “tops,” or anal insertive.
Another discovery from the research: men with smaller penises were more likely to be psychologically troubled than those with larger genitalia. The goal of the study was to understand the “real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society.”
The researchers at Hunter College Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies Training (CHEST) got taxpayer money as part of an NIH grant that went to Public Health Solutions and the National Development and Research Institutes, Inc. (NDRI).
NDRI has received taxpayer money since 1985 for “behavioral science research on drug abuse, AIDS and crime.” NIH records show that NDRI has received more than $15 million since 2000.
The gay men penis-size study falls under the NDRI’s drug abuse, AIDS and crime research category. In 2006, the year the organization started funding the penis-size research, it received $899,769 in taxpayer money.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,267
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 20, 2011 15:19:09 GMT -5
Another discovery from the research: men with smaller penises were more likely to be psychologically troubled than those with larger genitalia. The goal of the study was to understand the “real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society.” I could have told you that just by counting the number of Hummers on the road.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 20, 2011 15:19:52 GMT -5
At this stage I am not interested in who's at fault..what concerns me is the continuous posting , articles that run along these lines from such as the former Sec of the Treasurer under Clinton, and it seems the same refrain is being said in their own words by others who have held the same position under different administrations or are just very knowledgeable on these financial and budgetary concerns, from both sides of the aisle by the way, which really are desturbing to me, and to say there is no danger if the limit is not raised ?? --------------------------------------------- globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/18/defaulting-to-big-government/------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Click on link to read whole article] ------------------------------------- "The reason is simple: a government default would destroy the credit system as we know it. The fundamental benchmark interest rates in modern financial markets are the so-called “risk-free” rates on government bonds. Removing this pillar of the system – or creating a high degree of risk around US Treasuries – would disrupt many private contracts and all kinds of transactions. In addition, many people and firms hold their “rainy day money” in the form of US Treasuries. The money-market funds that are perceived to be the safest, for example, are those that hold only US government debt. If the US government defaults, however, all of them will “break the buck,” meaning that they will be unable to maintain the principal value of the money that has been placed with them. The result would be capital flight – but to where? Many banks would have a similar problem: a collapse in US Treasury prices (the counterpart of higher interest rates, as bond prices and interest rates move in opposite directions) would destroy their balance sheets. There is no company in the US that would be unaffected by a government default – and no bank or other financial institution that could provide a secure haven for savings. There would be a massive run into cash, on an order not seen since the Great Depression, with long lines of people at ATMs and teller windows withdrawing as much as possible."
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 20, 2011 15:32:16 GMT -5
Again, that article is equating not raising the debt ceiling to defaulting on government debt, they are not the same thing.
When Obama/Reid et al. voted against raising the debt ceiling, where they in fact arguing FOR government default
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 20, 2011 15:46:29 GMT -5
Fairly I am not here to pick and choose..basically, they must raise the debt cealing or we will have years of bad stuff happening..to allow us to go into defalt , it will be of little consequenc who is at fault, I don't really think those lost on the Titanic where thinking as the ship slid beneath the waves as they sang the last hymn who the hell was at fault..
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 20, 2011 15:49:58 GMT -5
Fairly I am not here to pick and choose..basically, they must raise the debt cealing or we will have years of bad stuff happening..to allow us to go into defalt , it will be of little consequenc who is at fault, I don't really think those lost on the Titanic where thinking as the ship slid beneath the waves as they sang the last hymn who the hell was at fault.. ...and, again, this ship is sinking as is... the question is how long it will take before it cannot be 'saved' despite intervention...
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 20, 2011 15:53:01 GMT -5
Fairly I am not here to pick and choose..basically, they must raise the debt cealing or we will have years of bad stuff happening..to allow us to go into defalt , it will be of little consequenc who is at fault, I don't really think those lost on the Titanic where thinking as the ship slid beneath the waves as they sang the last hymn who the hell was at fault.. ...and, again, this ship is sinking as is... the question is how long it will take before it cannot be 'saved' despite intervention... I'd liken leaving the debt ceiling where it is to closing the water-tight doors on the Titanic to prevent it from sinking. Yes, those trapped below will die (or go bankrupt in this case), but many more will be saved than if the doors were left open and folks were sent to the life boats.
|
|