|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 7:47:13 GMT -5
Number one lie today: If the debt ceiling is not raised we will default on our debt. Defaulting on our debt would be a choice that could be made but not an advisable one. (not going to happen) Number one threat of the day: If the debt ceiling is not raised we can not send out Social Security checks. Stopping Social Security check would be a choice he could make but again it would never happen because the political fall out would be too large. (not going to happen) Number one fear of the day: They won't reach a deal to raise the debt limit. (not going to happen unfortunately) Number one mistake of the day: They reach a compromise deal, raise the debt ceiling everyone claims a victory goes back to campaigning and our countries financial future is degraded even more. (most likely to happen) I am NOT so sure anyone can claim a victory over this mess in Washington DC...but you can bet the President will try to just that and look rather irrelevant again. NOBODY comes out of this mess as a winner but rather you have just witnessed a bunch of losers playing the Washington DC Game of Partisanship again....point fingers, pass the buck, kick the can down the road, and spin, spin, spin...........IMHO 'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress..-Ronald Reagan |
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 21, 2011 7:59:58 GMT -5
Number one lie today: If the debt ceiling is not raised we will default on our debt. Defaulting on our debt would be a choice that could be made but not an advisable one. (not going to happen) Number one threat of the day: If the debt ceiling is not raised we can not send out Social Security checks. Stopping Social Security check would be a choice he could make but again it would never happen because the political fall out would be too large. (not going to happen) Number one fear of the day: They won't reach a deal to raise the debt limit. (not going to happen unfortunately) Number one mistake of the day: They reach a compromise deal, raise the debt ceiling everyone claims a victory goes back to campaigning and our countries financial future is degraded even more. (most likely to happen) Nice to see someone else who understands more than just the immediate gratification to be achieved by one more increase on the countries credit limit. |
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 21, 2011 8:00:32 GMT -5
Nice fear mongering article. I pretty much agree with the consequences of default, but that would be the choice of our elected officials though. Keep servicing our debt or studying gay men's penis sizes...it's their choice.  |
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jul 21, 2011 8:04:09 GMT -5
Number one mistake for 2012: Allow the failed two party monopoly to hold our government hostage and continue to ruin the financial security of our country. Either we take the power away from these two parties or WE are responsible for the failure of our country. Allowing either to have a majority is a recipe for complete ruin as we have just witnessed and splitting the power results in gridlock. We have to start using a little bit of common sense and logic and treating these people as individuals and holding them responsible as individuals. The "party people" who just blindly vote for a candidate of "their" party are most responsible for the situation our country is in today.
|
|
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 21, 2011 8:13:35 GMT -5
The "party people" who just blindly vote for a candidate of "their" party are most responsible for the situation our country is in today. I'm sure hoping for a viable liber and/or indy candidate because I don't think I can stomach voting for either Obama or any of the leading repubs. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 8:14:27 GMT -5
'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it'- Ronald Reagan
'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, here are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.'- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 8:36:33 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 21, 2011 8:55:18 GMT -5
"...but you can bet the President will try to just that and look rather irrelevant again. NOBODY comes out of this mess as a winner "
-------------------------
Both sides will either use the result in a plus way or just campaign..no criticizism or anyone as to how they use it...one thinks irrelevant, I believe just because not happy with POTUS and then others, me, think he has tried to come up with a plan here, gave in where the other side didn't..just to ways to look at it politically..
The result will be the election..I am semi happy with the POTUS over all has done a good job under the cercumstances of what he encountered and was given when assumed office..others feel opposite way,..so be it. I feel he should get another term, till some one else shows up and convinces me differently..some feel complete disaster.
The problem i have there, they felt that way before he assumed office and have been carping on him since then on any and all ideas and doings..that I have a hard time understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jul 21, 2011 9:00:15 GMT -5
If the government fails to raise its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.
There is not even a snowballs chance in h*ll of the govt defaulting. The US treasury has more than sufficient revenue to pay interest on outstanding debt.
There seems to be much confusion about what default means.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 21, 2011 9:00:22 GMT -5
The "party people" who just blindly vote for a candidate of "their" party are most responsible for the situation our country is in today. I'm sure hoping for a viable liber and/or indy candidate because I don't think I can stomach voting for either Obama or any of the leading repubs. Agreed. |
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 21, 2011 9:01:44 GMT -5
If the government fails to raise its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.There is not even a snowballs chance in h*ll of the govt defaulting. The US treasury has more than sufficient revenue to pay interest on outstanding debt. There seems to be much confusion about what default means. I don't think there's any confusion at all. I believe at this point it is intentional misrepresentation in order to advance an agenda that has been proven a failure. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 1:35:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2011 9:09:33 GMT -5
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."
If we defaulted the interest rate that we are charged would go up. That means that we would be paying more & have less money to spend. In a normal household that would mean trimming the costs somehow. I would "assume" that if the government had to trim costs, they would cut back on the number of employees. I don't get how defaulting would increase the size of government.
Oh I get the relationship between payment of employees & the amount of our economy but that's just a perspective thing. If you watch an elephant slowly coming toward you it "seems" to be getting bigger & bigger. But the perspective is wrong, cause the elephant is the same size. Cut the size of government & you have less employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 9:11:05 GMT -5
Here's what the White House is saying about this upcoming financial crisis: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 7/20/2011 James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 12:47 P.M. EDT Q No warm-up speaker today? MR. CARNEY: Not today. Not today. Okay, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here, as ever, at the White House. This is your daily briefing. Before I take questions I have a brief readout. Last night, the President called Senate Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch Mitchell, and House Minority Leader Pelosi to discuss progress we are making -- Mitch McConnell, sorry -- Mitch Mitchell, in addition to being a great drummer for Jimi Hendrix, is also a guitarist in Guided by Voices -- (laughter) -- a different Mitch Mitchell. (Laughter.) Q Whoa! MR. CARNEY: It just -- let’s motor on here. Q I didn’t know the President was a fan of Guided by Voices. MR. CARNEY: I’m working on him. Anyway, sorry, the President spoke with Senators Reid and McConnell, Leader Pelosi and Speaker Boehner to discuss progress we are making in negotiations to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The President will also hold a meeting at the White House today at 2:50 p.m. with House and Senate Democratic leadership. Those are my announcements. Q All eight? MR. CARNEY: I’m sorry? Q All eight leaders? MR. CARNEY: No, sorry, House and Senate Democratic leadership. Q Democratic leadership. MR. CARNEY: Yes. Q Not the Republicans? MR. CARNEY: As we have other meetings to announce, we will announce them. But the meeting we have to announce for 2:50 p.m. today is with the Senate and House Democratic leadership. Q How many? Q Four or eight or -- MR. CARNEY: At least four. We’ll see. Haven’t -- they’re still working on the manifest. Q Photo op? MR. CARNEY: I believe it’s four. Let me get back to you on the coverage. Q Just to follow on that, why are the Republicans not involved, and how did the conversation go with Boehner? MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to read out the individual conversations, except to say that they were obviously useful and productive. We have been having conversations and meetings with different groupings of leaders and rank-and-file members, and we will continue to do that at the presidential, vice presidential and staff levels. This meeting is the next one up. We will get back to you with announcements of other meetings as they happen. Q What’s the goal of today’s meeting? What does he want to accomplish? MR. CARNEY: To discuss approaches for further deficit reduction, balanced approach. Obviously the role that the Gang of Six is playing now in adding to the, we think, the momentum behind the principle that the best way to do this -- the only way to do it, really, to do significant deficit reduction, is to do it in a balanced way; to do it so that we go after all the drivers of our long-term debt, including non-defense spending -- discretionary spending -- defense spending, entitlement spending and tax code spending -- so to further those conversations. We are, as the President said yesterday, in the 11th hour. We need to meet, talk, consult, narrow down what our options are and figure out in fairly short order which train we’re riding into the station. Right now there are multiple options being discussed, including the work that Senator McConnell is doing with Senator Reid and others. There’s the Gang of Six proposal. There are obviously the President’s framework and other proposals out there. And we need to do decide, through the course of these meetings and discussions, eventually what we’re going to do to ensure that, at the very least, as we’ve talked about, the United States does not, for the first time in its history, default on its obligations. Q A couple other quick ones. Can you discuss the President’s challenge in swaying Democratic leaders to go along with changes in entitlements? MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s not leave it at Democratic leaders. I mean, I think it’s the Democrats -- Q Well, for today -- yes, today’s meeting. MR. CARNEY: Well, I think, as representatives of the Democrats in both the House and the Senate. This is an important point that you raise, because while we have certainly spoken a lot about and made clear that we believe Republicans need to be willing to compromise, need to accept that they won’t get 100 percent of what they want, that this is a two-party system and a divided government and it requires compromise and bipartisan cooperation in order for big things to get done -- the same is true for Democrats. And the point the President has been making both in public, and in private in these meetings, is to take political heat in order to argue -- successfully, he believes -- to his fellow Democrats that we need to make some tough choices in order to ensure that we can reduce our deficits, get control over our debt -- precisely because that is the best thing for our economy, and it allows us to continue to make the absolutely necessary investments we need to make in education, in research and development, and in infrastructure to allow the economy to continue to grow. So that's that case he has been making to Democrats and will continue to make. Q And lastly, I know that you’ve gone over this debate about the real deadline considering Congress’ timetable for legislation. Can you explain how it’s possible -- or when do you run out of time to get something as big as a Gang of Six piece of legislation through? I mean, aren’t we there? MR. CARNEY: Well, I would point you to the comments that the OMB director made over the weekend that there is still time if everyone is serious and committed to achieving a big deal. Obviously, time is running short. And in terms of the deadlines we’ve talked about, August 2nd is a real and fast deadline. We must take action to deal with our debt, raising the debt ceiling before then. But there is still time to do something significant if all parties are willing to compromise -- because the parameters of what that might look like are well known, especially to the participants in the negotiations the President oversaw last week. And going back to -- because I may get the question, is it July 22nd, is it the 23rd -- this is, again, an estimate about what it takes to move something through Congress. There is the almost -- the sort of ineluctable modality of the way the Congress works that you have to accept that things can’t turn up and be voted on and reconciled and all the things that need to happen all in one day. So you need to move back from August 2nd from there. But it’s hard to guess, and we’d leave it up to the leaders of Congress to provide their best estimates rather than us. Q But to buy yourselves some time, are you going to have to go with the McConnell plan or a short-term deal, so you can take a little more time, negotiate the broader package? www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/20/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-7202011 |
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jul 21, 2011 9:14:45 GMT -5
I don't think there's any confusion at all. I believe at this point it is intentional misrepresentation in order to advance an agenda that has been proven a failure.
This is my take also.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 9:15:13 GMT -5
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are, as you know, supportive of the efforts by Senators McConnell and Reid to craft a fallback provision, solution, that ensures that we take the necessary action on raising the debt ceiling.
And when I was talking about which train we’re going to ride into the station, right now there are multiple trains heading towards the station and we have to decide. And some of them may continue up to the last moment, because we need to be sure that that failsafe option is there -- even as we pursue, aggressively, the possibility of doing something bigger.
The President has been clear that he will not support a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. There is no reason why we cannot come together now and get something significant done. So what we mean by that is we would not support a short-term extension absent an agreement to a larger deal. That’s not acceptable. Obviously, if both sides agree to something significant, we will support the measures needed to finalize the details of that.
But as you saw -- and I’ll go back to what I just said a minute ago -- Jack Lew over the weekend made clear that because we know what we’re talking about here, if there’s a willingness -- and we believe there’s a growing willingness on Capitol Hill -- if there’s a willingness to do something significant and comprehensive and balanced, we can get that done within the time frame and by the deadline of August 2nd.
Q Let me ask you briefly about Libya. The French are saying that Qaddafi could stay in power -- or could stay in Libya if he gives up power. Is that something the U.S. would support?
MR. CARNEY: The United States’ position has always been that Colonel Qaddafi lost his legitimacy to lead and that he needs to be removed from power, remove himself from power. It is up to the Libyan people to decide what his future is beyond that. So it's not for us to say.
The issue here is that he needs to step down. He's lost his legitimacy. He is increasingly isolated not just from the world but from his own country. The opposition has made significant progress. The international community, together with the United States, is taking the steps necessary to recognize the TNC as the provisional government and, with the aid of doing that, freeing up funds for the opposition to use, the TNC to use.
In so many ways -- the Qaddafi regime is running out of fuel and cash. I mean, there are so many ways that he’s really running out of time. So the issue here is removing himself from power, no longer being a threat to the people of Libya. And then it’s up for the Libyan people to decide their own future, including what that means for Qaddafi if he’s not out of the country.
Q But if he stays in the country, you’re not going to quibble with that is what I'm --
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, this is for the Libyan people to decide. Our position is quite clear about his retaining power and -- or rather giving up power and no longer being a threat to his people.
Jake.
Q Does the White House have a position, now that you’ve had a chance to review it, on the Gang of Six plan beyond the general support for principle -- its principles that the President discussed yesterday?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what I would say is that again, as I said yesterday, it represents significant, broad support along the lines of the approach that the President took. There are -- as we look at the provisions within it -- and as you know, there was some level of detail provided and more coming -- it’s possible we may not agree with every aspect of their approach. But the issue here isn’t which piece of paper will be the final piece of legislation because that's going to be -- if the decision is made that we’re going to take a bipartisan approach, that we’re going to take a balanced approach, the framework that the President put forward, that the Gang of Six has now put forward, that Simpson and Bowles Commission has put forward, and others, are all available to create a process that produces a piece of legislation that we believe a majority in Congress would support and certainly the American people would support, and the President would sign.
The details of that obviously would have to be worked out. But the frame here -- savings out of the tax code, savings from entitlement reform, significantly reduced nondefense discretionary spending, reduced defense spending that's done in a way that protects our national security -- this is the way to go about it. And that's how you get to the $3.5 trillion and above savings over 10 years that we’ve talked about, and that the Gang of Six is talking about.
So as long as there’s political will, the details -- there’s enough substance out there now for a package to be crafted. And I think -- I would note that one of the things that either Speaker Boehner or his spokesperson said last night was that there was some similarity between what the Gang of Six had put forward and what the President and the Speaker had been talking about when they were looking at the possibility of achieving a grand bargain. So again, that's the -- we agree with that assessment. And if the will is there, we can get down to negotiating the details.
Q So you don't -- so there’s no change?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have a specific provision of the Gang of Six’s proposal to declare from here that we accept or reject. The overall approach we definitely accept. And as you know, others, including the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States, have been having discussions about what a grand bargain would look like concretely. So there is a framework with details that has already been worked on, that this helps propel the -- or create momentum behind the possibility that we could actually move in that direction. It may --
Q If this were to become legislation, would the President sign it?
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I’m not going to make a declaration about the specifics of what the Gang of Six has put forward, in part because all the details aren’t even known yet. This is not a piece of legislation -- it’s not even written as a bill, so we would not issue a statement of administration policy or make a declaration about whether the President would sign it based on an outline.
What he does wholly support is the approach that they’ve taken because he believes it’s the right approach. It’s the approach that overwhelmingly we’ve seen now the American people support -- Americans who are both Democrats and Republicans and Americans who are independents -- they all support this kind of approach. So we find that very encouraging.
Q What reason do you have or does the President have to be optimistic that the House Republicans or the House of Representatives in general can muster a majority vote for anything other than the cut, cap and balance bill?
MR. CARNEY: The reason to be optimistic is that the members of the House of Representatives were elected by the American people, by their constituents in their districts. And if they listen not just to the loudest voices, especially those in special interest groups, who argue that they should or shouldn’t do one thing, but take into account the views of all of their constituents, we believe that a majority in both houses would support a balanced approach. And in the end, listening to the voices of the people who elected you, who sent you to Washington is really what you’re supposed to do and what this is all about.
And we believe that there are some signs that -- certainly many signs of a growing willingness to consider this approach among Democrats and Republicans. And that's a positive thing. So we obviously understand that the political dynamics in the Congress are pretty complicated, and we’re a step removed from it, but keen observers of it. But we continue to make the case and work with the leaders of Congress and other willing participants among the rank and file that this is the approach that will best serve the American people, will best serve the economy, and will best serve the political interests of everyone because doing the right thing in this case is good politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 9:20:28 GMT -5
I don't think there's any confusion at all. I believe at this point it is intentional misrepresentation in order to advance an agenda that has been proven a failure. This is my take also. We all know there are (1) Liberal Agendas, (2) Fear Mongering, (3) Conservative Agendas, (4) Political Infighting at play here but no body doubts the seriousness of the debt ceiling or it's implications unless you don't give a dam and think this is all a farce, or a game..?? |
|
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 21, 2011 9:31:17 GMT -5
I don't think there's any confusion at all. I believe at this point it is intentional misrepresentation in order to advance an agenda that has been proven a failure. This is my take also. We all know there are (1) Liberal Agendas, (2) Fear Mongering, (3) Conservative Agendas, (4) Political Infighting at play here but no body doubts the seriousness of the debt ceiling or it's implications unless you don't give a dam and think this is all a farce, or a game..?? I don't give a damn! It's all a farce and a game! The fact that they are looking to raise the debt ceiling just enough to get through 2012 and have to revisit the issue in 2013 shows that nothing is seriously being considered. We supposedly were going to trim 4T from the debt in 12 years The healthcare insurance exchanges set up under the AHCA is going to 1/2t to the debt in less than 7 years. The numbers of Babyboomers who will be hitting SS and Medi in the next 10 years will also balloon what we have to pay out. We will borrow and borrow until no one will lend to us again. Pain now or pain later, it is still going to be pain. |
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 21, 2011 9:34:13 GMT -5
We all know there are (1) Liberal Agendas, (2) Fear Mongering, (3) Conservative Agendas, (4) Political Infighting at play here but no body doubts the seriousness of the debt ceiling or it's implications unless you don't give a dam and think this is all a farce, or a game..?? I don't give a damn! It's all a farce and a game! The fact that they are looking to raise the debt ceiling just enough to get through 2012 and have to revisit the issue in 2013 shows that nothing is seriously being considered. We supposedly were going to trim 4T from the debt in 12 years The healthcare insurance exchanges set up under the AHCA is going to 1/2t to the debt in less than 7 years. The numbers of Babyboomers who will be hitting SS and Medi in the next 10 years will also balloon what we have to pay out. We will borrow and borrow until no one will lend to us again. Pain now or pain later, it is still going to be pain. News Flash our government in Washington DC still has not passed a budget plan for this year...is this the government you voted for??? |
|
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 21, 2011 9:44:20 GMT -5
I don't give a damn! It's all a farce and a game! The fact that they are looking to raise the debt ceiling just enough to get through 2012 and have to revisit the issue in 2013 shows that nothing is seriously being considered. We supposedly were going to trim 4T from the debt in 12 years The healthcare insurance exchanges set up under the AHCA is going to 1/2t to the debt in less than 7 years. The numbers of Babyboomers who will be hitting SS and Medi in the next 10 years will also balloon what we have to pay out. We will borrow and borrow until no one will lend to us again. Pain now or pain later, it is still going to be pain. News Flash our government in Washington DC still has not passed a budget plan for this year...is this the government you voted for??? BIGGER NEWSFLASH: Our government hasn't passed a budget since April 2009. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 1:35:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2011 11:36:20 GMT -5
It seems to me way back when there was a president with a sluggish economy. The amount we owed was a big deal back then too. Then the economy took off & there was so much money coming in because of taxes that what we owed wasn't all that important. Getting the economy rolling is very important right now. I see one of the main problems as business over regulation but that won't be fixed any time soon. Throwing money at it hasn't proved to work. I think we will have to wait until it picks up.
|
|
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 21, 2011 11:48:16 GMT -5
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. i think they will, actually. but i could be wrong. |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 21, 2011 12:54:56 GMT -5
There is a excellent article in the "SunSentinal today, 7/21, entitled :
"Gop at crux of debt logjam " by Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau..that I have been trying to google to get and post the link, but to no avail.
It explains in detaiil three options the goverbnment could do if thety don't raise the debt cealing, and the consequences..if any one can fins it , would appreciate it, very informative as it answers many questions or thoughts posted here by many posters as to what would happen..
|
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 21, 2011 12:59:29 GMT -5
If the government fails to raise its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.
i see it just the opposite (long term)
If the government raises its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.
|
|
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 21, 2011 13:13:52 GMT -5
If the government fails to raise its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.i see it just the opposite (long term)If the government raises its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off. i would bet any amount of money that you are wrong about the market selloff. you have PayPal?  |
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 21, 2011 13:22:43 GMT -5
yes
|
|
Trongersoll
Junior Member
former Software Engineer
Joined: Jul 1, 2011 11:51:53 GMT -5
Posts: 178
|
Post by Trongersoll on Jul 21, 2011 13:22:44 GMT -5
What I don't get is why the Gov. has to borrow, continuously. I could see borrowing for special cases, just like people borrow for a car or to buy a house. But borrowing to cover the interest on your debt? That is the road to destruction. Why can the Gov. live within it's means?
|
|
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 21, 2011 13:46:46 GMT -5
What I don't get is why the Gov. has to borrow, continuously. I could see borrowing for special cases, just like people borrow for a car or to buy a house. But borrowing to cover the interest on your debt? That is the road to destruction. Why can the Gov. live within it's means? That's the thing...we don't need to borrow more to service the current debt. We need to borrow more to cover all our wasteful pork projects and entitlement programs while we service the debt. By threatening default, our government is telling us they'd rather pay for their pork and entitlements rather than pay off our bills. |
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jul 21, 2011 14:04:10 GMT -5
What I don't get is why the Gov. has to borrow, continuously. I could see borrowing for special cases, just like people borrow for a car or to buy a house. But borrowing to cover the interest on your debt? That is the road to destruction. Why can the Gov. live within it's means? As mentioned we don't have to borrow to specifically pay the debt. But the Federal Government is spending %60 more than it is taking in, that spending includes debt, plus all the rest. And as we continue to borrow more to sustain current spending levels the amount each month we need to service the debt also increases. This doesn't even take into account that we are continuing to roll over debt every month, and as we continue to try to find buyers for this debt we may have to increase the amount of interest we pay. Even with a growing economy it would not be sustainable in the long run. People also keep pointing to the fact that we can continue to roll over our debt at low interest as a sign we are viewed positively , but most don't take into account that the FED is doing a lot of this buying, and what do they care about whether they get a return, they can just print money. And a lot of the alternatives are just as bad or worse. |
|
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 21, 2011 14:22:51 GMT -5
name your bet. if there is no debt ceiling increase by the second, the market goes down for the next week. if there IS, it goes up for the next week. i bet FOR that position, at 1:1 |
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jul 21, 2011 14:30:48 GMT -5
just in case you can't understand what you read.......and need to see it again........
If the government fails to raise its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.
i see it just the opposite (long term)[/b]
If the government raises its borrowing limit by Aug. 2, the impact on consumers could be deep and wide-ranging, from rising interest rates to a stock market sell-off.
who said anything about one week?
|
|
