Lets see..it's Friday, and the final day to

[deziloooooo]

reach a debt cealing agreement is what again? Oh yeah, Tuesday, and the Speakers bill on the problem, a no go so back to the drawing board. mmmmmmm

--------------------------------------------
news.yahoo.com/weak-speaker-failed-debt-vote-disarmed-nations-top-111905041.html
--------------------------------------------
[Click on link to read the article]
--------------------------------------------
The Weak Speaker: How a Failed Debt Vote Disarmed the Nation's Top RepublicanAfter Eden: Norway's Tragedy Spotlights Europe's Far Right


House Speaker John Boehner failed to muster enough GOP votes to pass his plan to raise the debt limit on Thursday night, throwing into question the fate of Boehner's proposal as well as that of his speakership.

Republican leaders must now rewrite the legislation in order to attract more conservatives as they try to pass a revised version on Friday.

But considerable damage has been done. Boehner's negotiating stance in the ongoing effort to trim deficits and raise the debt ceiling by next Tuesday's deadline is hobbled; any credibility he had in claiming that his restive members could get behind a consensus debt deal has vanished. The Speaker has gone lame."

[Value Buy]

Dezi, in many respects, after the President's speech, it is on the back of Harry Reid to accept a Tea Party demand......the onus is on the leftwing Dems, not middle of the road Republicans at this point.

[Deleted]

And yet, after listening for how long now about the Aug. 2 deadline, it's suddenly become a couple of more weeks. Any bets on the length of the next "deadline" when the new one runs out.

[deziloooooo]

Are we agreed or are we not, that to not raise the debt ceiling, allow us to go into default, forget the arguments some have put up that we can still pay our debt interest, bond payments ,just certain bills not paid..yadda, yadda..that has been done to death..

the basis point may go up .5 or more, adding to our debt in the billions..as well as all the other problems arising.

Realizing if they did quickly came up with a solution on the ceiling after failing to do so in time , Tuesday, and interest rates do NOT automatically , quickly come down, they won't, history has proven that, the rating agencies determine the rates, it would be a calamity with far reaching consequences.

Slowing the economy even more, more unemployment, costs to all Americans who have any kind of loans, same with business and the most important thing is not to allow that to happen.

Or is it thought , well just let it happen, the results, would be bad but not that bad, the suggested consequences are over blown by most of the experts who are predicting dire consequences.

So we default, so be it.

What say anyone?

[Deleted]

The retreating deadline indicates that the consequence of the original deadline was a fabrication. I pointed this out a month ago. Taxes are being collected, the debt interest will be paid at the expense of the more frivolous social programs, could be for a long time to come, this is the premise of the tea party stance.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 11:37:16 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The retreating deadline indicates that the consequence of the original deadline was a fabrication. I pointed this out a month ago. Taxes are being collected, the debt interest will be paid at the expense of the more frivolous social programs, could be for a long time to come, this is the premise of the tea party stance.

"frivolous social programs," that means federal employees, [not the military of course]..SS, Medicare , medicaid, all the other enforcement agencies, IRS included, and on and on...

You know not all programs , expendatures, are a "Bridge to no where "

what about the Billions added to the debt, increase interest rate that is said to be a automatic, your saying it won't happen, suggested that alone will be $150 Billion to $200 Billion...even if opnly $100 billion...just added on top when they are trying to save every little bit..
But ok, I did ask, sorry for the rant, your entitled to your opinion, any one else? ;D

[rockon]

Honestly from what I have been able to deduct from all of the different talking heads it is much more likely that our credit rating will be down graded from not being aggressive enough in cutting the deficit. As I have noted many times this deadlock is really kind of immaterial because they are arguing over amounts that really does not change our course and will result in much higher debts along with much higher service costs in he future. Thats why I have reached the conclusion that the Tea Party members are actually the ones who are in the correct position on this debate.

[Deleted]

No apology needed, bluntness is appreciated. Do you feel that Greenspans artificially holding down the interest rates in the mid 1990's and continuing with Bernanke today only exacerbates the problem of the Fed spending up to what it can afford at the lower rate and then running into problems, now that no one wants to buy its debt due to the low interest. QE from the federal reserve doesn't pay off the debt, it merely devalues our currency at the expense of every one who uses it. The Federal reserve calling QE "stimulus" is laughable to those who know better.

[jkapp]

Jul 29, 2011 11:48:29 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jul 29, 2011 11:37:16 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

The retreating deadline indicates that the consequence of the original deadline was a fabrication. I pointed this out a month ago. Taxes are being collected, the debt interest will be paid at the expense of the more frivolous social programs, could be for a long time to come, this is the premise of the tea party stance.

"frivolous social programs," that means federal employees, [not the military of course]..SS, Medicare , medicaid, all the other enforcement agencies, IRS included, and on and on...

You know not all programs , expendatures, are a "Bridge to no where "

what about the Billions added to the debt, increase interest rate that is said to be a automatic, your saying it won't happen, suggested that alone will be $150 Billion to $200 Billion...even if opnly $100 billion...just added on top when they are trying to save every little bit..
But ok, I did ask, sorry for the rant, your entitled to your opinion, any one else? ;D

How is debt added by interest any different than debt added by continued spending? Our debt is unsustainable, that has been said for years now but the politicians have ignored it. Increasing the debt even more does nothing to help us - we will hit this problem again in a few years (or sooner the way government spends these days) and those rates will increase ANYWAY on a larger debt amount.

The government has to prove it can cut spending before we just add more credit to their line or else we'll just keep falling deeper into the hole. And so far they have not proven a thing in that respect...so the only way to get them to make real cuts is to force it - or force them to show just how much they don't care about America's solvency or its future by forcing a debt limit increase.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2011 12:27:35 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That's right dezi, frivolous. Who needs kids or the elderly? A complete waste of money, as they will just die eventually anyway.

Approximately 40% of federal expenditures would be thus classified as "frivolous".

Although I must say if they did away with the IRS, tax collection may plummet.

I tend to stay away from the emotional slant approach as this doesn't change the numbers at all. One way or another the huge Fed debt will get paid, whether through cutting spending or cutting the value of our dollar. Which do you prefer?

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 12:38:12 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 29, 2011 11:48:29 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

"frivolous social programs," that means federal employees, [not the military of course]..SS, Medicare , medicaid, all the other enforcement agencies, IRS included, and on and on...

You know not all programs , expenditures, are a "Bridge to no where "

what about the Billions added to the debt, increase interest rate that is said to be a automatic, your saying it won't happen, suggested that alone will be $150 Billion to $200 Billion...even if only $100 billion...just added on top when they are trying to save every little bit..
But ok, I did ask, sorry for the rant, your entitled to your opinion, any one else? ;D

How is debt added by interest any different than debt added by continued spending? Our debt is unsustainable, that has been said for years now but the politicians have ignored it. Increasing the debt even more does nothing to help us - we will hit this problem again in a few years (or sooner the way government spends these days) and those rates will increase ANYWAY on a larger debt amount.

The government has to prove it can cut spending before we just add more credit to their line or else we'll just keep falling deeper into the hole. And so far they have not proven a thing in that respect...so the only way to get them to make real cuts is to force it - or force them to show just how much they don't care about America's solvency or its future by forcing a debt limit increase.

"How is debt added by interest any different than debt added by continued spending?"

mmm, if I buy something I get some thing..if no more then giving out more in unemployment say, they will then spend it and if not just on food and stuff, might get some tax $ back..even if just state, every little bit helps, and to add to the debt with more interest costs, you get nothing for that.

The problem is we are a very complex country with many facets and one of those facets are many who are in need, and until we say, sorry your on your own, medical, food, kids, schooling, infrastructure, transportation costs, high ways, bridges, air traffic controllers, air ports, police functions, prisons, schools, power and all those other things that make a society, we will be spending $...or we will be come a third world country, and those on the bottom will wither and die and if we can accept that, I guess we then will spend less.

If we go that route, I would suggest keep the expenditures on public safety high, whether police or military, because i feel before those on the bottom go quietly , not sure they will, I wouldn't be surprised if so many will band together to get what the rest have , and take by force possible, am thinking of the French Mobs in their revolution.

I know as one old one would say here, guns and ammunition, but me thinks the mob too would have those and I am not sure how affective they would be..no matter what bravado would be spoken of here by so many.

[fairlycrazy23]

It is likely that the house will pass a bill today and the Senate will not start work on it until Monday, they will modify it pass and send it to GOP Tuesday, putting the entire thing squarely on the GOP. It appears that the Republicans have been played.

[jkapp]

Jul 29, 2011 12:27:35 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That's right dezi, frivolous. Who needs kids or the elderly? A complete waste of money, as they will just die eventually anyway.

Approximately 40% of federal expenditures would be thus classified as "frivolous".

Although I must say if they did away with the IRS, tax collection may plummet.

The government over-promised what the taxpayer could afford to pay...and the ignorant masses of this country believed them. Simple as that - we can't pay them because we can't AFFORD to pay them.

It's obvious the elderly don't give two shits about ruining future generations by throwing more debt on top of them, while collecting their full benefits and taking away those same benefits from future generations, so why should those future generations care about saving the elderly's benefits??

It's amazing the greed and lack of caring the elderly show the young and even more amazing how they complain that they aren't shown as much respect by that same group of young people. Apparently as you get older your ability to put two and two together gets lost??

[jkapp]

mmm, if I buy something I get some thing..

But if its bought on borrowed dollars you haven't really bought anything...someone ELSE bought it (by loaning the money to you) and now you have to find a way to actually buy it (pay for it) yourself PLUS pay for the interest on the borrowed money. Again, more debt and more interest either way you slice it.

[jkapp]

If we go that route, I would suggest keep the expenditures on public safety high, whether police or military, because i feel before those on the bottom go quietly , not sure they will, I wouldn't be surprised if so many will band together to get what the rest have , and take by force possible, am thinking of the French Mobs in their revolution.

I know as one old one would say here, guns and ammunition, but me thinks the mob too would have those and I am not sure how affective they would be..no matter what bravado would be spoken of here by so many.

Interesting...we have to keep borrowing to pay the entitlement class what they feel they're due under threat of violence? I believe that's called being robbed...or extortion.

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2011 12:52:19 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 29, 2011 12:27:35 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That's right dezi, frivolous. Who needs kids or the elderly? A complete waste of money, as they will just die eventually anyway.

Approximately 40% of federal expenditures would be thus classified as "frivolous".

Although I must say if they did away with the IRS, tax collection may plummet.

The government over-promised what the taxpayer could afford to pay...and the ignorant masses of this country believed them. Simple as that - we can't pay them because we can't AFFORD to pay them.

It's obvious the elderly don't give two shits about ruining future generations by throwing more debt on top of them, while collecting their full benefits and taking away those same benefits from future generations, so why should those future generations care about saving the elderly's benefits??

It's amazing the greed and lack of caring the elderly show the young and even more amazing how they complain that they aren't shown as much respect by that same group of young people. Apparently as you get older your ability to put two and two together gets lost??

jkapp, even though I'm way closer to the elderly part of life versus the young people group. Your observation is the correct one in my opinion. K to you

[floridayankee]

Jul 29, 2011 12:27:35 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That's right dezi, frivolous. Who needs kids or the elderly? A complete waste of money, as they will just die eventually anyway.

That's what makes debating with some people a waste of time. It always turns into either starving kids argument or old people dying in the street.

People need to leave the drama shit alone and take a real look at the amount of money wasted by our government in all areas including the damned military.

The sky is not falling.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 12:52:19 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jul 29, 2011 12:27:35 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That's right dezi, frivolous. Who needs kids or the elderly? A complete waste of money, as they will just die eventually anyway.

Approximately 40% of federal expenditures would be thus classified as "frivolous".

Although I must say if they did away with the IRS, tax collection may plummet.

The government over-promised what the taxpayer could afford to pay...and the ignorant masses of this country believed them. Simple as that - we can't pay them because we can't AFFORD to pay them.

It's obvious the elderly don't give two shits about ruining future generations by throwing more debt on top of them, while collecting their full benefits and taking away those same benefits from future generations, so why should those future generations care about saving the elderly's benefits??

It's amazing the greed and lack of caring the elderly show the young and even more amazing how they complain that they aren't shown as much respect by that same group of young people. Apparently as you get older your ability to put two and two together gets lost??

ET TU JKAPP.. you too will find yourself, sooner then you think , one of those seniors you are so demonizing and then you too can see how your reasoning skills might deminish over time as you too can take part in the "the greed and lack of caring the elderly show the young " ;D

[something to look forward to ehh ]

[Deleted]

"frivolous social programs," that means federal employees,

How in the heck could we even expect them to reach an agreement when we on these boards are so far apart? As for frivolous social programs meaning federal employess....They are working members of society & pay taxes. That statement sounds like it just came from a fear mongering left website. Designed to scare & cause a reaction.

In truth those "federal employees" are helping the country get through this problem (as are all tax payers) by paying taxes.

As for possible failures on this issue, I see only one. If any agreement is reached raising of the debt ceiling without REAL & MEANINGFUL (more than a 100 million) spending cuts then that is a failure. I'll also point out that 100 million in spending cuts is equal to about 2.5 DAYS of congressional spending is that's pretty minor.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 29, 2011 12:44:58 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jul 29, 2011 12:27:35 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That's right dezi, frivolous. Who needs kids or the elderly? A complete waste of money, as they will just die eventually anyway.

Approximately 40% of federal expenditures would be thus classified as "frivolous".

Although I must say if they did away with the IRS, tax collection may plummet.

I tend to stay away from the emotional slant approach as this doesn't change the numbers at all. One way or another the huge Fed debt will get paid, whether through cutting spending or cutting the value of our dollar. Which do you prefer?

...I'd prefer the former...