"Three senators cause default"

[rockon]

The cut, cap and balance plan failed to get approval in the senate by a vote of 51-46 which means three democratic senators may ultimately be responsible for a global economic melt down, the end of Social Security and force the USA to default on all of it's loans for the first time in history. Where is the outrage???

[jkapp]

They're Democrats, so it's ok for them to do so...because, as you know, everything is always the Republicans' fault even if the Democrats cause a problem.

I'm sure you'll hear some form of this argument: Well if it weren't for the Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't have had to vote for default.

[Angel!]

I'm not outraged because I don't think there will be a global economic meltdown, the end of SS, or a default. I am also not so short-sighted to blame 3 people for the problems that have been created by both parties over the last few decades.

[rockon]

Angel glad to hear your vision is that good. I forgot to show a winking face on the original post. Couldn't agree with you more this problem and our current economic situation is in fact a result of decades of going in the wrong direction. Any thoughts on getting these bums out and convincing the voters to hold them to a higher standard?

[Driftr]

Anyone know why McCain didn't choose to vote?

[Trongersoll]

i still don't buy that "no raising of the debt limit" = "default". I must be missing something. As i see it, the Gov. will only default if it chooses to do so.

[jkapp]

Jul 22, 2011 13:50:34 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

i still don't buy that "no raising of the debt limit" = "default". I must be missing something. As i see it, the Gov. will only default if it chooses to do so.

\

Correct...but you can't utilize the fearmongering tool with statements like that

[jkapp]

LOL! My co-worker and I were just discussing the SS payments not going out if the debt limit isn;t raised...

And he said: "But I thought the Democrats have been saying there's enough money in the program to last until 2029 (or some such time)." So what happened to all that money they kept telling us was just sitting there waiting to be paid?? ;D

Democrats caught in a lie again!!!

[dancinmama]

Jul 22, 2011 13:50:34 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

i still don't buy that "no raising of the debt limit" = "default". I must be missing something. As i see it, the Gov. will only default if it chooses to do so.

Now the credit ratings agencies are looking for more than just raising the debt ceiling. They want to see that we are actually going to do something about the debt problem, so even if we don't default our credit rating may be lowered which could lead to serious repercussions.

[Angel!]

Jul 22, 2011 13:39:25 GMT -5 rockon said:

Angel glad to hear your vision is that good. I forgot to show a winking face on the original post. Couldn't agree with you more this problem and our current economic situation is in fact a result of decades of going in the wrong direction. Any thoughts on getting these bums out and convincing the voters to hold them to a higher standard?

LOL! I feel much better knowing your post wasn't completely serious. I was talking to an acquaintance the other day that really believes this whole debt ceiling business is going bring about the end of the US.

I have no idea how you fix the system. A big part of the problem is most of the country is fairly moderate, but the politicians keep representing the voters at the extremes & they posture & refuse to compromise in the best interest of this country.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5 rockon said:

The cut, cap and balance plan failed to get approval in the senate by a vote of 51-46 which means three democratic senators may ultimately be responsible for a global economic melt down, the end of Social Security and force the USA to default on all of it's loans for the first time in history. Where is the outrage???

um....it was going to get vetoed, dude. the vote was window dressing.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 13:58:57 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 22, 2011 13:50:34 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

i still don't buy that "no raising of the debt limit" = "default". I must be missing something. As i see it, the Gov. will only default if it chooses to do so.

\

Correct...but you can't utilize the fearmongering tool with statements like that

default means something different for governments than individuals. it means simply "missing interest payment". it is something that most Americans have occasionally done.

we actually HAVE defaulted before. in 1979.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 14:03:01 GMT -5 dancinmama said:

Jul 22, 2011 13:50:34 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

i still don't buy that "no raising of the debt limit" = "default". I must be missing something. As i see it, the Gov. will only default if it chooses to do so.

Now the credit ratings agencies are looking for more than just raising the debt ceiling. They want to see that we are actually going to do something about the debt problem, so even if we don't default our credit rating may be lowered which could lead to serious repercussions.

that is because they don't want the uncertainty of raising the debt ceiling IN THE FUTURE. the alternative, which they ALSO suggested, was REMOVING the debt ceiling. that would also satisfy them.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jul 22, 2011 14:09:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 22, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5 rockon said:

The cut, cap and balance plan failed to get approval in the senate by a vote of 51-46 which means three democratic senators may ultimately be responsible for a global economic melt down, the end of Social Security and force the USA to default on all of it's loans for the first time in history. Where is the outrage???

um....it was going to get vetoed, dude. the vote was window dressing.

What do you mean window dressing, this bill passed the House of Representatives and nearly passed the Senate. Seems a lot more than just window dressing.
And what is it about the bill that democrats don't like?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 14:13:10 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jul 22, 2011 14:09:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um....it was going to get vetoed, dude. the vote was window dressing.

What do you mean window dressing, this bill passed the House of Representatives and nearly passed the Senate.

the fact that it had 20 votes less than 67 votes that would be required to override Obama's veto.

[Trongersoll]

Jul 22, 2011 14:10:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 22, 2011 13:58:57 GMT -5 jkapp said:

\

Correct...but you can't utilize the fearmongering tool with statements like that

default means something different for governments than individuals. it means simply "missing interest payment". it is something that most Americans have occasionally done.

we actually HAVE defaulted before. in 1979.

Exactly! the Gov. still has income. They have should have the means to pay the interest without borrowing more. If they don't then there is a different, unaddressed, problem.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 14:16:18 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

Jul 22, 2011 14:10:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

default means something different for governments than individuals. it means simply "missing interest payment". it is something that most Americans have occasionally done.

we actually HAVE defaulted before. in 1979.

Exactly! the Gov. still has income. They have should have the means to pay the interest without borrowing more. If they don't then there is a different, unaddressed, problem.

most people who miss payments have income. so this is a red herring.

it is not a matter of income, it is a matter of timing of income. if you are the treasury, and you owe $34B in interest in the 6th, and you only have $28B that day, you are going to have to short someone. and that will trigger a default.

the problem with just saying "tough shit" is that those are some very expensive words. it could cost up to $200B a year for the privelage of saying "tough shit", which puts the budget that much MORE out of whack.

[Trongersoll]

Relatively speaking, there better not ever be a day that the bill due exceeds the entire resources of the Treasury. If the treasury chooses to pay the Gov's workers rather than the interest, they the Gov. has "Choosen" to default.

[upstatemom]

Most Congressman and Senators are Lawyers. I do think it is time to vote in some accountants and some Economists. In the mean time, make those idiots take some accounting 101 and accounting 102 classes so they can get a basic understanding of expenses can not exceed income.

modifies to add the word classes

[Deleted]

I'm sure you'll hear some form of this argument: Well if it weren't for the Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't have had to vote for default.

I was actually thinking that I bet the Democrats wish that had some of that 1 trillion dollars they spend on the stimulus package back or even some of that 2 million dollars per hour they have been spending for the last 2 years. Naw...they know that they can raise taxes & keep spending.

[Driftr]

Looks like Turbo-Tax Timah may need to hone his cash management skills to prevent a default.

[Trongersoll]

If they can't borrow more, they can always print more.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 14:25:12 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

Relatively speaking, there better not ever be a day that the bill due exceeds the entire resources of the Treasury.

um....that is why we maintain a debt ceiling that is ABOVE what we owe.

sheesh.

i can see why Obama is having such a hard time selling this.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 14:25:12 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

If the treasury chooses to pay the Gov's workers rather than the interest, they the Gov. has "Choosen" to default.

you are assuming that they have that option. that may not be the case.

however, the same could be said about military personnel or social security recipients. do you think they should be cut off to pay the Chinese?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 14:32:43 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I'm sure you'll hear some form of this argument: Well if it weren't for the Republicans, the Democrats wouldn't have had to vote for default.

I was actually thinking that I bet the Democrats wish that had some of that 1 trillion dollars they spend on the stimulus package back or even some of that 2 million dollars per hour they have been spending for the last 2 years. Naw...they know that they can raise taxes & keep spending.

you think it is just the Democrats that wish that?

wow.

we live in different universes, tex.

everyone- this is not a partistan battle any more. both sides screwed up, and here we are. bickering about who is going to be more abused by the cutbacks is pointless. it is meaningless. it is counterproductive.

[fairlycrazy23]

So again, what is so bad about cut cap and balance that the President promised to veto it?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 15:06:41 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

So again, what is so bad about cut cap and balance that the President promised to veto it?

i think there were two issues there.

one is that the cap was 18% -vs- the current standard of 24%

second is that the balanced budget part would require cuts only, and no tax increases.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 22, 2011 14:20:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 22, 2011 14:16:18 GMT -5 Trongersoll said:

Exactly! the Gov. still has income. They have should have the means to pay the interest without borrowing more. If they don't then there is a different, unaddressed, problem.

most people who miss payments have income. so this is a red herring.

it is not a matter of income, it is a matter of timing of income. if you are the treasury, and you owe $34B in interest in the 6th, and you only have $28B that day, you are going to have to short someone. and that will trigger a default.

the problem with just saying "tough shit" is that those are some very expensive words. it could cost up to $200B a year for the privelage of saying "tough shit", which puts the budget that much MORE out of whack.

djlung... why bother trying to explain...to some here it's like a thrill ride, exciting, "oooh we are living possible through a defalt, what a experience"..getting a vivaciouse thrill out of , some what like one of those extra large, fast semi in the mind dangerouse roller coasters they build now..your just wasting your breath with them...sorry to say.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 22, 2011 15:19:25 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 22, 2011 14:20:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

most people who miss payments have income. so this is a red herring.

it is not a matter of income, it is a matter of timing of income. if you are the treasury, and you owe $34B in interest in the 6th, and you only have $28B that day, you are going to have to short someone. and that will trigger a default.

the problem with just saying "tough shit" is that those are some very expensive words. it could cost up to $200B a year for the privelage of saying "tough shit", which puts the budget that much MORE out of whack.

djlung... why bother trying to explain...to some here it's like a thrill ride, exciting, "oooh we are living possible through a defalt, what a experience"..getting a vivaciouse thrill out of , some what like one of those extra large, fast semi in the mind dangerouse roller coasters they build now..your just wasting your breath with them...sorry to say.

what bothers me is that the SOLUTIONS to the problem resemble the problem. this supply side shit is going to bankrupt this nation.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jul 22, 2011 15:11:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 22, 2011 15:06:41 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

So again, what is so bad about cut cap and balance that the President promised to veto it?

i think there were two issues there.

one is that the cap was 18% -vs- the current standard of 24%

second is that the balanced budget part would require cuts only, and no tax increases.

As far as I know neither one of those statements is true.

(b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-2560


The section of the law with GDP percentage caps has exemptions and is for the future, which is virtually meaningless and isn't 18% in any regard.


But just think about it , even if it was 18%, isn't that an insanely huge chunk out of GDP for the Federal Government to take?