# The Tea Party Says Nothing Will Happen If We Default



## Interpol

They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming. 

But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Do you have a link for this claim?


----------



## ScienceRocks

I heard that 4% of our gdp will be destroyed with defaulting. At least.


----------



## Billy000

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



Well, its hard to get dumber than a tea bagger. No level of education will change their stubborn ignorance.


----------



## bripat9643

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



Do you suppose you could actually quote someone saying that?


----------



## idb

> The opposition of Republicans to President Barack Obamas demands for a clean increase in the US borrowing limit, without any strings attached, is partly driven by a widely held view among rank-and-file conservatives that a failure to lift the US borrowing authority would be far from catastrophic for the economy and financial markets. They argue the US Treasury department could comfortably prioritise debt payments over other obligations, thereby avoiding default.


Tea Party unmoved by threat of US default - FT.com


----------



## idb

From the same link


> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.


----------



## LoneLaugher

The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts. 

Everything is going to be just fine.


----------



## ScienceRocks

LoneLaugher said:


> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.



Maybe Obama could have the fed print the money? Don't they already print money(80 billion) towards the economy...


----------



## DaGoose

bripat9643 said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose you could actually quote someone saying that?
Click to expand...




idb said:


> From the same link
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.
Click to expand...


Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff? 

It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz. 

.

.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



The Tea Party says you're a liar; but then, being a Progressive means that you're a liar


----------



## ScienceRocks

DaGoose said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose you could actually quote someone saying that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff?
> 
> It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The goal of 2014 should be directed towards removing radicals.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

idb said:


> The opposition of Republicans to President Barack Obamas demands for a clean increase in the US borrowing limit, without any strings attached, is partly driven by a widely held view among rank-and-file conservatives that a failure to lift the US borrowing authority would be far from catastrophic for the economy and financial markets. They argue the US Treasury department could comfortably prioritise debt payments over other obligations, thereby avoiding default.
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party unmoved by threat of US default - FT.com
Click to expand...


So, it's not a default


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> Do you have a link for this claim?



Here you go..

For Ted Yoho, government shutdown is ?the tremor before the tsunami? - The Washington Post



> I think we need to have that moment where we realize [were] going broke, Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isnt raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets, since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.
> For Ted Yoho, government shutdown is ?the tremor before the tsunami? - The Washington Post



That's the most ludicrous thing I ever heard.

Rand Paul: ?We Are Winning? Like Charlie Sheen | Video Cafe

So please..


----------



## Sallow

LoneLaugher said:


> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.



Hard to believe isn't it?

Military foundation steps up to cover 'disgusting' delay in payments for families of fallen - U.S. News

It's not like there isn't an ongoing war or anything..


----------



## idb

CrusaderFrank said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposition of Republicans to President Barack Obamas demands for a clean increase in the US borrowing limit, without any strings attached, is partly driven by a widely held view among rank-and-file conservatives that a failure to lift the US borrowing authority would be far from catastrophic for the economy and financial markets. They argue the US Treasury department could comfortably prioritise debt payments over other obligations, thereby avoiding default.
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party unmoved by threat of US default - FT.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it's not a default
Click to expand...


Because the Tea Party says so?


----------



## Pauli007001

It's going to be horrific!!
Worse than the sequester !!
We all remember how terrible they said that was going to be.......
What a joke!!


----------



## Pauli007001

Sallow said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe isn't it?
> 
> Military foundation steps up to cover 'disgusting' delay in payments for families of fallen - U.S. News
> 
> It's not like there isn't an ongoing war or anything..
Click to expand...


Odd how there's enough dough to pay park rangers overtime to strong arm people out of national parks........
Twisted liberal lies!!


----------



## LoneLaugher

Damn..there sure are a lot of nutter lightweights here.


----------



## NoNukes

Matthew said:


> I heard that 4% of our gdp will be destroyed with defaulting. At least.



It could effect the world economy and throw the world back into recession and effect the recovery made by some nations such as the UK.


----------



## idb

NoNukes said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that 4% of our gdp will be destroyed with defaulting. At least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could effect the world economy and throw the world back into recession and effect the recovery made by some nations such as the UK.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt that we're going to find out.


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.



Just need to double up the printing presses, I mean, that works....right?

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just need to double up the printing presses, I mean, that works....right?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


You idiot. Learn when someone is being sarcastic.  Read what I said. Fuck.


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just need to double up the printing presses, I mean, that works....right?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiot. Learn when someone is being sarcastic.  Read what I said. Fuck.
Click to expand...


Easy brah... 

Touchy aren't we?

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just need to double up the printing presses, I mean, that works....right?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. Learn when someone is being sarcastic.  Read what I said. Fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy brah...
> 
> Touchy aren't we?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


No. Bored. So many of you just don't get shit. It is like talking to a toddler.


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. Learn when someone is being sarcastic.  Read what I said. Fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy brah...
> 
> Touchy aren't we?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Bored. So many of you just don't get shit. It is like talking to a toddler.
Click to expand...


OK- I can dig it

Speaking of talking to the young

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher

Tool. You are a tool. You will believe and repeat just about anything. Like a toddler. Go get your binkie. 

snopes.com: Obama Uses Teleprompter for Speech to 6th Graders



By the way....the guy standing behind the POTUS in your pic.....is not a secret service agent. You are a monumental failure.


----------



## Nyvin

Man, what a group of retards...Steve King,  Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun,  Ted Cruz....who the hell would be the least bit proud of this group of imbeciles??     They're nothing short of a national embarrassment!


----------



## LoneLaugher

Come on back Geaux.......we miss your input here.


----------



## Geaux4it

LoneLaugher said:


> Come on back Geaux.......we miss your input here.



Ok--- My parody is not appreciated...

Just about ready to take my ball and go home. 

Except I have to go to the salt mine to pay the deadbeats of this countries bills 

-Geaux


----------



## Edgetho

1)  Only a complete and utter knob-slurping idiot of the first magnitude uses snopes for....  Anything.  Read up on what complete phonies they are (there's only two of them, like Mutt & Jeff, Abbot & Costello, etc)

2)  The United States pays roughly $18 Billion a Month to service its Debt.

3)  The United States, RIGHT NOW, takes in roughly $227 Billion in Taxes every Month.

4)  Do the math.

5)  Idiots


----------



## ScienceRocks

Edgetho said:


> 1)  Only a complete and utter knob-slurping idiot of the first magnitude uses snopes for....  Anything.  Read up on what complete phonies they are (there's only two of them, like Mutt & Jeff, Abbot & Costello, etc)
> 
> 2)  The United States pays roughly $18 Billion a Month to service its Debt.
> 
> 3)  The United States, RIGHT NOW, takes in roughly $227 Billion in Taxes every Month.
> 
> 4)  Do the math.
> 
> 5)  Idiots



Infrastructure, science and tech has been around the same percent of the gdp for the past 60 years. What charged? SSI, Medicare, food stamps, massive bail outs and wars...That's what charged. You're going to slice the wrong areas and ignore the areas that do need to be cut.


----------



## Stephanie

another thread started for nothing but hate on something someone MADE UP and is a lie

no links, NO NOTHING


----------



## Edgetho

Stephanie said:


> another thread started for nothing but hate on something someone MADE UP and is a lie
> 
> no links, NO NOTHING



dimocraps lie.

It's what they do.

ALL of them


----------



## Seawytch

idb said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party unmoved by threat of US default - FT.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's not a default
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
Click to expand...


Bumping this for Stephanie...apparently she missed it.


----------



## Stephanie

Seawytch said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's not a default
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bumping this for Stephanie...apparently she missed it.
Click to expand...


yeah ok, you believe whatever you want...it's apparent some of you people don't do anything but worry over it

how noble or just goofy take your pick


----------



## Mac1958

.

While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.

That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.

I *have *to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly *don't *understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I *thought.*

.


----------



## Stephanie

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go..
> 
> For Ted Yoho, government shutdown is ?the tremor before the tsunami? - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we&#8217;re] going broke,&#8221; Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn&#8217;t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. &#8220;I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,&#8221; since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.
> For Ted Yoho, government shutdown is ?the tremor before the tsunami? - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the most ludicrous thing I ever heard.
> 
> Rand Paul: ?We Are Winning? Like Charlie Sheen | Video Cafe
> 
> So please..
Click to expand...


good ole washingtonCompost, pumping out the propaganda just for people like you all

one article and that make's all the PEOPLE in the Tea party

please people, get a grip on life


----------



## zeke

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.
> 
> That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.
> *
> I have to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly don't understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I thought.
> *
> .




Why do you find this so hard to believe? I mean this is EXACTLY what they said they would do. Right?

So either they lack the understanding that you fear they do or they are out and out liars.

Either way, it's a problem for the rest of us.


----------



## KissMy

Matthew said:


> I heard that 4% of our gdp will be destroyed with defaulting. At least.



Countries with either positive GDP, Job Growth, rising wages, low inflation & interest rates or shrinking deficit should not default. The USA is currently positive in all categories. It is retarded that so many feel we should default. Our positive +3% GDP will fall to negative -4.6% creating an instant recession if we do it without missing any debt payments.


----------



## Darkwind

Matthew said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose you could actually quote someone saying that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff?
> 
> It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal of 2014 should be directed towards removing radicals.
Click to expand...

I agree.  To that end, we need to remove at least 20 Senate Democrat seats and replace them with Senators who have sound finanical backgrounds so that we can begin to move toward a sane budget for this country.


----------



## Sarah G

Two Thumbs said:


> Do you have a link for this claim?



Tom Colburn just said it on a clip on Morning Joe.  There has already been a huge drop in consumer confidence.  -15 points.

This isn't a damn game, Boehner..  Get government open ya idiot.


----------



## Sarah G

Darkwind said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff?
> 
> It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of 2014 should be directed towards removing radicals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  To that end, we need to remove at least 20 Senate Democrat seats and replace them with Senators who have sound finanical backgrounds so that we can begin to move toward a sane budget for this country.
Click to expand...


I actually understand how you can be so confident here.  You all were extremely confident that you were doing nothing wrong in 2012 and Romney would win the election in a landslide.  

Wrong headed thinking but I understand it coming from you and your party.


----------



## Stephanie

> This isn't a damn game, Boehner..  Get government open ya idiot.


[/QUOTE]


cool, Obama gave his job up to Boehner ?

first order of business he should lay Obama off, he's just taking up space not LEADING A COUNTRY


----------



## PredFan

Love how the liberals search the internet to find a politician that says what they want to hear, then calling him the leader of the Tea Party movement.

The funny thing is that you morons actually think it has meaning at all.


----------



## Edgetho

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.
> 
> That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.
> *
> I have to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly don't understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I thought.
> *
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you find this so hard to believe? I mean this is EXACTLY what they said they would do. Right?
> 
> So either they lack the understanding that you fear they do or they are out and out liars.
> 
> Either way, it's a problem for the rest of us.
Click to expand...


Let me run this by our dimocrap pals one more time......

Our Debt costs us between 18 and 19 Billion a Month.

National Debt Interest Payments Dwarf Other Government Spending [CHART] - US News and World Report

We take in an average of roughly 227 Billion a Month... (actually more, I'm being Conservative)

U.S. Posts Widest Monthly Surplus Since 2008 on Revenue - Bloomberg

US Monthly Treasury Receipts

With no deficit spending, that leaves us WELL over 200 Billion Dollars AFTER we pay our interest on the debt with which to run the Country.

Is it enough?  No, it is not.  

But it's WAY past time we had a serious discussion about what to cut and where.

What's going on now is the scumbag-in-chief is showing us, in REAL TIME what it is he will cut if we force him into a corner.

Veterans Benefits, Military Benefits, National Parks....  Anything that will hurt Conservatives, he'll cut.

While catering to dimocrap scum like he did with allowing the illegal beaners to demonstrate on the National Mall....

Which segues into another point....

Why aren't dimocrap scumbags, here and everywhere, screaming about how, "It's the LAW!!  It's SETTLED Law!!  Immigration Law is SETTLED!!!  The House, The Senate and the president signed off on it!!  It's the LAW!!!  The SCOTUS ruled on it!!!  It's the LAW!!!  It's the LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!"

scumbag motherfuckers


----------



## Geaux4it

Sarah G said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Colburn just said it on a clip on Morning Joe.  There has already been a huge drop in consumer confidence.  -15 points.
> 
> This isn't a damn game, Boehner..  Get government open ya idiot.
Click to expand...


I learned something this morning...

Somebody actually watches Morning Joe

-Geaux


----------



## ScienceRocks

Geaux4it said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Colburn just said it on a clip on Morning Joe.  There has already been a huge drop in consumer confidence.  -15 points.
> 
> This isn't a damn game, Boehner..  Get government open ya idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned something this morning...
> 
> Somebody actually watches Morning Joe
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


It is one of the few reasonable shows on msnbc


----------



## Faun

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy brah...
> 
> Touchy aren't we?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Bored. So many of you just don't get shit. It is like talking to a toddler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK- I can dig it
> 
> Speaking of talking to the young
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


  

I hope you noticed ... only one of those presidents was actually speaking in front of children.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



if we default 

it means the president has broken the law


----------



## Edgetho

jon_berzerk said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if we default
> 
> it means the president has broken the law
Click to expand...


For the 53rd time


----------



## editec

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



We cannot DEFAULT.

Read the constitution Sec XIV ...*if Obama does not order the Treasury to pay its debt obligations, he will not be doing his duty as President.
*


----------



## jon_berzerk

editec said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot DEFAULT.
> 
> Read the constitution Sec XIV ...*if Obama does not order the Treasury to pay its debt obligations, he will not be doing his duty as President.
> *
Click to expand...


yuppers


----------



## Stephanie

editec said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot DEFAULT.
> 
> Read the constitution Sec XIV ...*if Obama does not order the Treasury to pay its debt obligations, he will not be doing his duty as President.
> *
Click to expand...


thank you, but I doubt that will stop this idiocy...how would they hate on the Tea Party?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Edgetho said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if we default
> 
> it means the president has broken the law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the 53rd time
Click to expand...


but only the ones he does not like

--LOL


----------



## Faun

editec said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot DEFAULT.
> 
> Read the constitution Sec XIV ...*if Obama does not order the Treasury to pay its debt obligations, he will not be doing his duty as President.
> *
Click to expand...


Since borrowing money is the responsibility of the Congress, how does failure to pay back that obligation fall on the president?


----------



## Sallow

Pauli007001 said:


> It's going to be horrific!!
> Worse than the sequester !!
> We all remember how terrible they said that was going to be.......
> What a joke!!



The Sequester was and is pretty bad.

Austerity is impacting, directly, job growth. As well as economic growth in general.

It's hit programs geared at feeding kids, cancer research, scientific research, education, infrastructure and a plethora of other things.

At some time, people are going to start saying "Why are we no longer the number one economy".

This..and maybe the default, will be the reason.


----------



## Sallow

Faun said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot DEFAULT.
> 
> Read the constitution Sec XIV ...*if Obama does not order the Treasury to pay its debt obligations, he will not be doing his duty as President.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since borrowing money is the responsibility of the Congress, how does failure to pay back that obligation fall on the president?
Click to expand...


It's quite a quandary.

The President is obligated to pay the debts and the congress is obligated to fund his requests.

This is what happens when you start playing games.

You cause this sort of "crisis".


----------



## Derideo_Te

Billy000 said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, its hard to get dumber than a tea bagger. No level of education will change their stubborn ignorance.
Click to expand...


Technically ignorance can be remedied by education. However stupidity is a lifetime affliction for which there is no known remedy.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Sallow said:


> Pauli007001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's going to be horrific!!
> Worse than the sequester !!
> We all remember how terrible they said that was going to be.......
> What a joke!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sequester was and is pretty bad.
> 
> Austerity is impacting, directly, job growth. As well as economic growth in general.
> 
> It's hit programs geared at feeding kids, cancer research, scientific research, education, infrastructure and a plethora of other things.
> 
> At some time, people are going to start saying "Why are we no longer the number one economy".
> 
> This..and maybe the default, will be the reason.
Click to expand...


Sadly you're very right...
-WE're no longer number one in education
-WE're coming close to losing our edge in science
-We're no longer number one in infrastructure

In all these ways the tea party reminds me of the Muslim brotherhood.


----------



## BlindBoo

CrusaderFrank said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party says you're a liar; but then, being a Progressive means that you're a liar
Click to expand...


Sure Frankie,  the Tea Party tells us now that it will be good for the country and a stabilizing factor in the Global Economy.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.
> 
> That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.
> 
> I *have *to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly *don't *understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I *thought.*
> 
> .



Given what the Tea Party have been saying it is readily apparent that they don't have any comprehension of the ramifications of what they are doing.

If they get their way we are all screwed, including the Tea Party.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

What they are saying is that _we aren't going to default_... even if we don't raise the debt ceiling, there will be enough coming in to service the debt.

Obama is lying when he says that not raising the debt ceiling will cause us to default.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Derideo_Te said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.
> 
> That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.
> 
> I *have *to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly *don't *understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I *thought.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what the Tea Party have been saying it is readily apparent that they don't have any comprehension of the ramifications of what they are doing.
> 
> If they get their way we are all screwed, including the Tea Party.
Click to expand...


The tea party wants to take us back to 1791. Or at least before the civil war with far more state power and limited government....

Which will mean that America isn't a super power....Do realize America would of never been a super power if such ideas remind.


----------



## billyerock1991

Just like nothing happen the last time right ???


----------



## billyerock1991

Sallow said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe isn't it?
> 
> Military foundation steps up to cover 'disgusting' delay in payments for families of fallen - U.S. News
> 
> It's not like there isn't an ongoing war or anything..
Click to expand...


what happens when you don't pay on your debt the interest goes up ... these guys are clueless at best the tea party needs to be voted out at all cost


----------



## Derideo_Te

Darkwind said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff?
> 
> It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of 2014 should be directed towards removing radicals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.  To that end, we need to remove at least 20 Senate Democrat seats and replace them with Senators who have sound finanical backgrounds so that we can begin to move toward a sane budget for this country.
Click to expand...


Except that the math doesn't work that way. Only 10 Dem seats are up and 24 Republican  seats. Of those 24, 7 GOP seats are in states carried by Obama in 2012. At the rate the Tea Party is going with the current government shutdown those 7 seats might end up changing sides in 2014. There needs to be a resolution to the current crisis now or those 7 Senate seats could be history.


----------



## KissMy

Sarah G said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Colburn just said it on a clip on Morning Joe.  There has already been a huge drop in consumer confidence.  -15 points.
> 
> This isn't a damn game, Boehner..  Get government open ya idiot.
Click to expand...


Yup! - Consumer confidence has fallen off the cliff!


----------



## Toro

idb said:


> From the same link
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.
Click to expand...


That guy's a moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Short term borrowing interest has doubled.

The TPM will seriously hurt the economy if we default.


----------



## Edgetho

Derideo_Te said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of 2014 should be directed towards removing radicals.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  To that end, we need to remove at least 20 Senate Democrat seats and replace them with Senators who have sound finanical backgrounds so that we can begin to move toward a sane budget for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the math doesn't work that way. *Only 10 Dem seats are up and 24 Republican  seats.* Of those 24, 7 GOP seats are in states carried by Obama in 2012. At the rate the Tea Party is going with the current government shutdown those 7 seats might end up changing sides in 2014. There needs to be a resolution to the current crisis now or those 7 Senate seats could be history.
Click to expand...


Wow....

When dimocraps bring the stupid....  They really bring the stupid

United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Among the seats up for election in 2014, currently, there are 21 held by Democrats and 14 held by Republicans with the seat in New Jersey pending a special election without the incumbent running.


----------



## Stephanie

PredFan said:


> Love how the liberals search the internet to find a politician that says what they want to hear, then calling him the leader of the Tea Party movement.
> 
> The funny thing is that you morons actually think it has meaning at all.



yep, integrity and honesty is not in them

it's pretty sad


----------



## Edgetho

Senate Democrats face a very tough 2014 map


----------



## Katzndogz

Democrats are going to claim that republicans will be wiped out in 2014 until the election.  Then if republicans gain, they can say all the elections were rigged.   See how that works.

Democrats say that the people are behind obama whose approval is rising as republicans are dropping.  The reality is that obama's approval is now 37% and still falling.  

obama has only one problem, he isn't a leader.   He can't lead.  He thinks demanding is the same as leading.  He demands, his demands are met and that's leadership.  That's why he is failing so badly in foreign policy.  He does the same thing with the leaders of other countries.  He demands, the demands aren't met and his stomps his feet.

The current impasse isn't that much different that obama's demand that Russia turn Edward Snowden over.   What did obama do?  He refused to talk to Russians and said he should have to talk to them, they should call him instead.  There are international "norms" where there is no treaty.  Russia should do what they are told.    This is no different.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Obama 37% with the GOP about half of that

Congress 5%

I know that inconvenient facts bother the far right reactionaries.


----------



## Katzndogz

billyerock1991 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe isn't it?
> 
> Military foundation steps up to cover 'disgusting' delay in payments for families of fallen - U.S. News
> 
> It's not like there isn't an ongoing war or anything..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what happens when you don't pay on your debt the interest goes up ... these guys are clueless at best the tea party needs to be voted out at all cost
Click to expand...


If obama doesn't pay on the debt, it's deliberate.   The income of the US is approximately 220 billion a month.  The payment on the interest and principle is not quite 25 billion a month.   There might not be money for 100 million dollar vacations, but there's enough to pay the debt and run the government.


----------



## birddog

Obama and Reid should be horsewhipped for being the ones primarily responsible for partially shutting down the government!  Then, they have the nerve to lie and blame it on others!   Geeez!


----------



## bendog

If the gop doesn't take the senate, Reid should send roses to Cruz.


----------



## Stephanie

birddog said:


> Obama and Reid should be horsewhipped for being the ones primarily responsible for partially shutting down the government!  Then, they have the nerve to lie and blame it on others!   Geeez!



and then we get dishonest threads like this from their loyal sheep

it's embarrassing how they fall right in lockstep with them


----------



## Stephanie

You can BET if this had been BUSH you people wouldn't be on here blaming Dirty Harry Reid

you all are so predictable is shameful


----------



## Faun

Derideo_Te said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.
> 
> That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.
> 
> I *have *to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly *don't *understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I *thought.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what the Tea Party have been saying it is readily apparent that they don't have any comprehension of the ramifications of what they are doing.
> 
> If they get their way we are all screwed, including the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party Brotherhood shares this strategary with the ayatollah. Just as Iran has suggested a nuclear exchange with Israel would be a win for Iran since Israel is much smaller, thus making the damage that much greater in comparison to Iran -- the Teahadi's have decided they would emerge the winner in a destruction of the United States.


----------



## bravoactual

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



If the "*Debt Ceiling does not exist*", then why oh why did the Great Ronnie God, The Rectum God himself...the Great Eater of Jelly Beans....The Sage of Nap Takers RAISE THE DAMN DEBT CEILING *NINETEEN* (*19*) FRACKING TIMES?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Edgetho said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  To that end, we need to remove at least 20 Senate Democrat seats and replace them with Senators who have sound finanical backgrounds so that we can begin to move toward a sane budget for this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the math doesn't work that way. *Only 10 Dem seats are up and 24 Republican  seats.* Of those 24, 7 GOP seats are in states carried by Obama in 2012. At the rate the Tea Party is going with the current government shutdown those 7 seats might end up changing sides in 2014. There needs to be a resolution to the current crisis now or those 7 Senate seats could be history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow....
> 
> When dimocraps bring the stupid....  They really bring the stupid
> 
> United States Senate elections, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among the seats up for election in 2014, currently, there are 21 held by Democrats and 14 held by Republicans with the seat in New Jersey pending a special election without the incumbent running.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Mea culpa. I was looking at 2016 not 2014.


----------



## Katzndogz

The democrats fund propaganda, but won't fund science.   

Corporation for Public Broadcasting got $445 million on first day of government slimdown; calls funding 'indispensible' | Fox News

 Funding for clinical cancer trials and other life-saving research under the National Institutes of Health was cut off in response to the government slimdown, but it looks like the cookie monster will still be knee-deep in chocolate chips (or is it carrots now?)

According to the Daily Treasury Statement and first reported by CNS News, the administration dished out $445 million to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) on the first day of the slimdown, which means funds for the likes of PBS Newshour, NPR and &#8220;Sesame Street&#8221; are being spent before cancer research.

&#8220;It&#8217;s more than irresponsible, it is reprehensible. It&#8217;s an &#8216;in-your-face&#8217; move by the administration, blatantly picking winners and losers in this shutdown,&#8221; C. Edmund Wright, a columnist for Breitbart.com and American Thinker, told FOX411. &#8220;Public broadcasting is a staple of liberal propaganda.&#8221;

What's more important, Cancer treatment or liberal propaganda?


----------



## Derideo_Te

birddog said:


> Obama and Reid should be horsewhipped for being the ones primarily responsible for partially shutting down the government!  Then, they have the nerve to lie and blame it on others!   Geeez!



Threats of violence on top of extortion? Obviously democracy is not something you comprehend.


----------



## Stephanie

Faun said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> While I have virtually no faith or trust in professional politicians at this point, I refuse to believe that the Tea Party politicians don't understand the ramifications of even the HINT of a default.
> 
> That would mean they have *no* understanding of international economies and markets, *no *appreciation of America's role in international financial systems, *no* knowledge of how a weakened image of America's financial stability manifests as competitive governments and currencies sense blood in the water, *no* understand of the damage that can be done to an already terribly fragile domestic economy, *NONE *of it.
> 
> I *have *to believe they understand this and will not let this continue much longer.  If they truly *don't *understand what this means, we're in even worse shape than I *thought.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given what the Tea Party have been saying it is readily apparent that they don't have any comprehension of the ramifications of what they are doing.
> 
> If they get their way we are all screwed, including the Tea Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Tea Party Brotherhood shares this strategary with the ayatollah. Just as Iran has suggested a nuclear exchange with Israel would be a win for Iran since Israel is much smaller, thus making the damage that much greater in comparison to Iran -- the Teahadi's have decided they would emerge the winner in a destruction of the United States.
Click to expand...


oh brother..
goofy but expected from those so caring of others. as they like to crow they are

you get lovely stuff like this from them against their fellow countrymen and women


----------



## JoeNormal

Stephanie said:


> another thread started for nothing but hate on something someone MADE UP and is a lie
> 
> no links, NO NOTHING



Yeah we hate tea baggers.  You guys can't seem to understand why.  No links, no nothing?  Have you read this thread?  Jeezus, some people are really too stupid to argue with.


----------



## eflatminor

Interpol said:


> The Tea Party Says Nothing Will Happen If We Default



I noticed you didn't provide a link or any proof whatsoever for this claim.

You're full of shit, I understand.

Not raising the debt limit is NOT the same thing as "default".  Nobody's saying it's okay to default...so stop making shit up.

Meanwhile, you continue to argue that we should borrow more money on top of the trillions in debt we already have in order to employ non essential workers...


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> They argue the US Treasury department could comfortably prioritise debt payments over other obligations, thereby avoiding default.
Click to expand...


And they would be correct.

We take in PLENTY of tax revenues to pay the debt.  Hell, we take in enough tax revenue to fund the entire government operation we had WAAAAAAY back in 2008.

But oh God, wasn't that just horrible back then?!


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> From the same link
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.
Click to expand...


Because more debt is a good thing???  

"No generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence."  T Jefferson

But I'm sure YOU know better...


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> That's the most ludicrous thing I ever heard.



The most ludicrous thing I've ever heard is when you said we hadn't added to the debt under Obama!  

Tell us another story would you...


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go..
> 
> For Ted Yoho, government shutdown is ?the tremor before the tsunami? - The Washington Post
Click to expand...


So, not arguing for default.

Wow, you guys really need to get dictionary.

Again, we have PLENTY of money to pay the interest on the debt.  Nobody is arguing for default.  Default ain't gonna happen.  How about you stop the fear mongering???


----------



## eflatminor

Sallow said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to believe isn't it?
> 
> Military foundation steps up to cover 'disgusting' delay in payments for families of fallen - U.S. News
> 
> It's not like there isn't an ongoing war or anything..
Click to expand...


You do realize the Congress pass a law before the partial shutdown to ensure this didn't happen.  Your guys choose to ignore that law (typical) in order to fear monger.  Also typical.


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party unmoved by threat of US default - FT.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's not a default
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
Click to expand...


No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.

Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's not a default
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
Click to expand...


The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,

40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?


----------



## bendog

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,
> 
> 40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?
Click to expand...


Of course not, but it does give me a happy face thinking of the seniors' phone calls to TPM congressmen when the soc sec checks only get sent out 60% of the time.  And, I won't feel sorry for them because they elected these IDIOTS


----------



## bripat9643

DaGoose said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose you could actually quote someone saying that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff?
> 
> It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He didn't call my bluff, moron.  He failed to post a quote of a TEA Party member saying defaulting on our debt was not a problem. They said not raising the debt limit was not a problem.  Two entirely different things.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party Says Nothing Will Happen If We Default
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't provide a link or any proof whatsoever for this claim.
> 
> You're full of shit, I understand.
> 
> *Not raising the debt limit is NOT the same thing as "default"*.  Nobody's saying it's okay to default...so stop making shit up.
> 
> Meanwhile, you continue to argue that we should borrow more money on top of the trillions in debt we already have in order to employ non essential workers...
Click to expand...


Splitting hairs means that you are avoiding the issue that the GOP is going to be 100% responsible when the US defaults on debt obligations because the debt ceiling was not increased.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's not a default
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
Click to expand...


The only obtuseness being demonstrated here is by those Tea Party members who believe that you can still pay 100% of the debt obligations with only 60% of the income!


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,
> 
> 40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?
Click to expand...


If government spending was cut by 40 percent it would be great for the country.  Cutting it by 80 percent would be even better.


----------



## Derideo_Te

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,
> 
> 40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If government spending was cut by 40 percent it would be great for the country.  Cutting it by 80 percent would be even better.
Click to expand...


So you are all in favor of slashing military funding by 80%?


----------



## kiwiman127

I didn't realize we had so many right wing world class economist who post on these boards.
Do a Google search and see what real economists have to say.  Of course the far right will call them libtards because a huge majority of the world's economist disagree with their talking points.
Are these people real?


----------



## JoeNormal

kiwiman127 said:


> I didn't realize we had so many right wing world class economist who post on these boards.
> Do a Google search and see what real economists have to say.  Of course the far right will call them libtards because a huge majority of the world's economist disagree with their talking points.
> Are these people real?



I think a lot of Tea Partiers feel they owe the movement their undying loyalty and gratitude because it's the only group that's ever made them feel like they were anything but low grade morons.


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,
> 
> 40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?
Click to expand...


40% of everything else...yet we lived just fine back in 2008 on the current level of federal tax revenues.

Point is, I don't give a shit about the 40% of everything else.  Those are expenses we should not have incurred in the first place.  There is NO REASON we can't live on the current level of tax revenues (thereby incurring no deficit or further debt), just as we did in 2008.

Unaffected?  Fuck no.  I want to affect this out of control spending.

Again, I understand that fucks with your collectivist mind.


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party Says Nothing Will Happen If We Default
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't provide a link or any proof whatsoever for this claim.
> 
> You're full of shit, I understand.
> 
> *Not raising the debt limit is NOT the same thing as "default"*.  Nobody's saying it's okay to default...so stop making shit up.
> 
> Meanwhile, you continue to argue that we should borrow more money on top of the trillions in debt we already have in order to employ non essential workers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Splitting hairs means that you are avoiding the issue that the GOP is going to be 100% responsible when the US defaults on debt obligations because the debt ceiling was not increased.
Click to expand...


You can keep lying as much as you like.  It does not change reality.  Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default.  Far from it.  We have plenty of tax revenue to pay the interest on the debt.  PLENTY.

Your lies only make you look foolish...or maybe you're just ignorant.  Either way, it's pathetic.


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Party says so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only obtuseness being demonstrated here is by those Tea Party members who believe that you can still pay 100% of the debt obligations with only 60% of the income!
Click to expand...


My God, you really are ignorant.  Here, let me spell it out for you:  *Interest payments on the debt is covered by a factor of 10 times tax revenues.*

That's right, we bring in about TEN TIMES the revenue that it takes the cover the debt. 

The Federal Government Can?t, and Won?t, Default on Its Debt Obligations | Power Line


----------



## 007

NoNukes said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that 4% of our gdp will be destroyed with defaulting. At least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could effect the world economy and throw the world back into recession and effect the recovery made by some nations such as the UK.
Click to expand...


"Nations," plural, in UK have had recoveries? How about a link to that?


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the economic realities of how much tax revenue the federal government collects ensure there will be no default.
> 
> Are you really this stupid or are you just being obtuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,
> 
> 40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40% of everything else...yet we lived just fine back in 2008 on the current level of federal tax revenues.
> 
> Point is, I don't give a shit about the 40% of everything else.  Those are expenses we should not have incurred in the first place.  There is NO REASON we can't live on the current level of tax revenues (thereby incurring no deficit or further debt), just as we did in 2008.
> 
> Unaffected?  Fuck no.  I want to affect this out of control spending.
> 
> Again, I understand that fucks with your collectivist mind.
Click to expand...


The deficit was over 450 billion in 2008.  

You just agreed with the poster who said he wanted the federal government cut by 80%;  your credibility is zero.  You're a nut.  Go post on the nut boards.


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic realities of that revenue also ensure that if interest payments are made in full,
> 
> 40% of everything else cannot be paid.  Do you really think that's a scenario that the country can just stroll through, unaffected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40% of everything else...yet we lived just fine back in 2008 on the current level of federal tax revenues.
> 
> Point is, I don't give a shit about the 40% of everything else.  Those are expenses we should not have incurred in the first place.  There is NO REASON we can't live on the current level of tax revenues (thereby incurring no deficit or further debt), just as we did in 2008.
> 
> Unaffected?  Fuck no.  I want to affect this out of control spending.
> 
> Again, I understand that fucks with your collectivist mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The deficit was over 450 billion in 2008.
Click to expand...


Yes it was dumbshit...and guess what?  TODAY'S tax revenues would cover ALL the spending, including deficit spending, we incurred in 2008.

Walked right into that one...


----------



## Connery

*Moved to proper forum*


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't provide a link or any proof whatsoever for this claim.
> 
> You're full of shit, I understand.
> 
> *Not raising the debt limit is NOT the same thing as "default"*.  Nobody's saying it's okay to default...so stop making shit up.
> 
> Meanwhile, you continue to argue that we should borrow more money on top of the trillions in debt we already have in order to employ non essential workers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Splitting hairs means that you are avoiding the issue that the GOP is going to be 100% responsible when the US defaults on debt obligations because the debt ceiling was not increased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep lying as much as you like.  It does not change reality.  Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default.  Far from it.  We have plenty of tax revenue to pay the interest on the debt.  PLENTY.
> 
> Your lies only make you look foolish...or maybe you're just ignorant.  Either way, it's pathetic.
Click to expand...


The interest on the debt is only one of millions of bills that the government has a legal obligation to pay. Look up the definition of default. It means failure to meet a financial obligation. By failing to pay 40% of it's legal obligations the government will be in default.

The only person who looks foolish is the one who believes that the government doesn't have a legal obligation to pay the bills that it has already incurred.


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Splitting hairs means that you are avoiding the issue that the GOP is going to be 100% responsible when the US defaults on debt obligations because the debt ceiling was not increased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep lying as much as you like.  It does not change reality.  Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default.  Far from it.  We have plenty of tax revenue to pay the interest on the debt.  PLENTY.
> 
> Your lies only make you look foolish...or maybe you're just ignorant.  Either way, it's pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interest on the debt is only one of millions of bills that the government has a legal obligation to pay. Look up the definition of default. It means failure to meet a financial obligation. By failing to pay 40% of it's legal obligations the government will be in default.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.

You're making shit up.

We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.

God you're dumb.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep lying as much as you like.  It does not change reality.  Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default.  Far from it.  We have plenty of tax revenue to pay the interest on the debt.  PLENTY.
> 
> Your lies only make you look foolish...or maybe you're just ignorant.  Either way, it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interest on the debt is only one of millions of bills that the government has a legal obligation to pay. Look up the definition of default. It means failure to meet a financial obligation. By failing to pay 40% of it's legal obligations the government will be in default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.*
> 
> You're making shit up.
> 
> We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.
> 
> God you're dumb.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the law is readily apparent since you just conflated at will employment with legal contract obligations. Furthermore it is not my "fucked up definition" but the* legal definition* of the term default that you don't comprehend.

default legal definition of default. default synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.



> *default* 1) n. failure to respond to a summons and complaint served on a party in the time required by law. If a legal answer or other response is not filed, the suing party (plaintiff) can request a default be entered in the record, which terminates the rights of the defaulting party to defend the case. *2) the failure to make a payment when due*, which can lead to a notice of default and the start of foreclosure proceedings if the debt is secured by a mortgage or deed of trust. 2) v. to fail to file an answer or other response to a summons and complaint, or fail to make a payment when due.



That you feel the need to resort to foul language indicates that you are in a state of denial.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40% of everything else...yet we lived just fine back in 2008 on the current level of federal tax revenues.
> 
> Point is, I don't give a shit about the 40% of everything else.  Those are expenses we should not have incurred in the first place.  There is NO REASON we can't live on the current level of tax revenues (thereby incurring no deficit or further debt), just as we did in 2008.
> 
> Unaffected?  Fuck no.  I want to affect this out of control spending.
> 
> Again, I understand that fucks with your collectivist mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deficit was over 450 billion in 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it was dumbshit...and guess what?  TODAY'S tax revenues would cover ALL the spending, including deficit spending, we incurred in 2008.
> 
> Walked right into that one...
Click to expand...


Whose numbers are you using?


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep lying as much as you like.  It does not change reality.  Not raising the debt ceiling does not equal default.  Far from it.  We have plenty of tax revenue to pay the interest on the debt.  PLENTY.
> 
> Your lies only make you look foolish...or maybe you're just ignorant.  Either way, it's pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interest on the debt is only one of millions of bills that the government has a legal obligation to pay. Look up the definition of default. It means failure to meet a financial obligation. By failing to pay 40% of it's legal obligations the government will be in default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> You're making shit up.
> 
> We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.
> 
> God you're dumb.
Click to expand...


Default by definition entails more than just not paying the interest on a loan.


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interest on the debt is only one of millions of bills that the government has a legal obligation to pay. Look up the definition of default. It means failure to meet a financial obligation. By failing to pay 40% of it's legal obligations the government will be in default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.*
> 
> You're making shit up.
> 
> We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.
> 
> God you're dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the law is readily apparent since you just conflated at will employment with legal contract obligations. Furthermore it is not my "fucked up definition" but the* legal definition* of the term default that you don't comprehend.
> 
> default legal definition of default. default synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *default* 1) n. failure to respond to a summons and complaint served on a party in the time required by law. If a legal answer or other response is not filed, the suing party (plaintiff) can request a default be entered in the record, which terminates the rights of the defaulting party to defend the case. *2) the failure to make a payment when due*, which can lead to a notice of default and the start of foreclosure proceedings if the debt is secured by a mortgage or deed of trust. 2) v. to fail to file an answer or other response to a summons and complaint, or fail to make a payment when due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you feel the need to resort to foul language indicates that you are in a state of denial.
Click to expand...


Bullshit again.  Congress failing to pay for expenses incurred by laws pass by Congress does not mean the government is in default.  Default is failure to pay back a LOAN.  

Hell, even Wiki understands this:


> National default refers to the idea of an entire government unwilling or unable to pay a required national debt.



Default (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not paying for some damn federal organization that probably has no right to exist under the Constitution in the first place is NOT default.

Last time we failed to pay interest on the debt was under Carter in 1979...and yet we managed to survive.  Today, we have PLENTY of money to cover the debt payments which means WE WILL NOT DEFAULT.

I understand that as a collectivist you'd like to see as much damage as possible in the face of any attempts to reign in the growth of government, but you don't get to change the meaning of a government default.


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deficit was over 450 billion in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was dumbshit...and guess what?  TODAY'S tax revenues would cover ALL the spending, including deficit spending, we incurred in 2008.
> 
> Walked right into that one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose numbers are you using?
Click to expand...


The government statistics on federal spending and tax revenue.


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interest on the debt is only one of millions of bills that the government has a legal obligation to pay. Look up the definition of default. It means failure to meet a financial obligation. By failing to pay 40% of it's legal obligations the government will be in default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> You're making shit up.
> 
> We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.
> 
> God you're dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Default by definition entails more than just not paying the interest on a loan.
Click to expand...


No, it does not.  Even if you REALLY wish it did.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was dumbshit...and guess what?  TODAY'S tax revenues would cover ALL the spending, including deficit spending, we incurred in 2008.
> 
> Walked right into that one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose numbers are you using?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government statistics on federal spending and tax revenue.
Click to expand...


And you won't actually produce them because...

...you're lying?  or you're trolling?  Or both?


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> You're making shit up.
> 
> We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.
> 
> God you're dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Default by definition entails more than just not paying the interest on a loan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not.  Even if you REALLY wish it did.
Click to expand...


So I can't default on a mortgage as long as I just send in the interest portion of my monthly payment?

Are you sure about that?  Can you link to proof of that?


----------



## LoneLaugher

These nutters knew zero about this subject two days ago.  They are getting ALL of their info from the same sources who convinced them that Romney ws going to win in a landslide. 

It is sad. The lack of info.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bullshit.  The ONLY way to officially default is to fail to pay the interest on the debt.*
> 
> You're making shit up.
> 
> We're not paying all those "non essential" federal workers right now.  So by your fucked up definition, we're currently in default.
> 
> God you're dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the law is readily apparent since you just conflated at will employment with legal contract obligations. Furthermore it is not my "fucked up definition" but the* legal definition* of the term default that you don't comprehend.
> 
> default legal definition of default. default synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> That you feel the need to resort to foul language indicates that you are in a state of denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit again.  Congress failing to pay for expenses incurred by laws pass by Congress does not mean the government is in default.  Default is failure to pay back a LOAN.
> 
> Hell, even Wiki understands this:
> 
> 
> 
> National default refers to the idea of an entire government unwilling or unable to pay a required national debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Default (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Not paying for some damn federal organization that probably has no right to exist under the Constitution in the first place is NOT default.
> 
> Last time we failed to pay interest on the debt was under Carter in 1979...and yet we managed to survive.  Today, we have PLENTY of money to cover the debt payments which means WE WILL NOT DEFAULT.
> 
> I understand that as a collectivist you'd like to see as much damage as possible in the face of any attempts to reign in the growth of government, but you don't get to change the meaning of a government default.
Click to expand...


Your bizarre Tea Party interpretation of the term default is at variance with the law and every other sane person who understands the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Failure to pay a legal obligation is defaulting. You can hold your breath until you are blue in the face but you won't convince a single Wall St Brokerage house to buy your BS.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tea Party definitions do not replace definitions used by business, industry, government, military, government, etc.

eflatminor, nuttiness does not count in legal and political matters except in your world.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

DaGoose said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> 
> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose you could actually quote someone saying that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the same link
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Yoho, a first-term Tea Party congressman from Florida, went even further last week, telling the Washington Post that not raising the debt limit would bring stability to the world markets by assuring investors the US was curbing its $16.7tn debt load.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how quickly Bripat ran away weeping when you called his bluff?
> 
> It's easy to see that the Tea Party is firmly in control of the GOP and calling the shots. The *true* Speaker is now Ted Cruz.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Called his bluff?

His challenge still stands.

No one in the Tea Party said "nothing will happen if we default".  They plainly said we will NOT default.


----------



## NYcarbineer

I guess eflatminor has embarked on an Indiana Jones style expedition...

...to try to find one ounce of evidence to support his ridiculous claims in this thread.

What is it with you people???


----------



## NYcarbineer

70% of government spending is mandatory.  It has to be, by LAW, funded, unless the LAW is changed.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling, if it forces the government to default on spending that by LAW it is required to do, aka mandatory spending,

should be considered unconstitutional, since it conflicts with those same federal laws.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> I guess eflatminor has embarked on an Indiana Jones style expedition...
> 
> ...to try to find one ounce of evidence to support his ridiculous claims in this thread.
> 
> What is it with you people???



We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> *70% of government spending is mandatory*.  It has to be, by LAW, funded, unless the LAW is changed.
> 
> Failure to raise the debt ceiling, if it forces the government to default on spending that by LAW it is required to do, aka mandatory spending,
> 
> should be considered unconstitutional, since it conflicts with those same federal laws.



Source?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess eflatminor has embarked on an Indiana Jones style expedition...
> 
> ...to try to find one ounce of evidence to support his ridiculous claims in this thread.
> 
> What is it with you people???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.
Click to expand...


Failure to pay 40% of the obligations of the US government when due meets the legal definition of defaulting.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess eflatminor has embarked on an Indiana Jones style expedition...
> 
> ...to try to find one ounce of evidence to support his ridiculous claims in this thread.
> 
> What is it with you people???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Failure to pay 40% of the obligations of the US government when due meets the legal definition of defaulting.
Click to expand...


I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level. 

Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].

Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.

The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default


----------



## R.C. Christian

Default will devolve the credit rating hurt the petrol dollar reducing the empires ability run massive debts for the empire. Absolutely what needs to happen.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

R.C. Christian said:


> Default will devolve the credit rating hurt the petrol dollar reducing the empires ability run massive debts for the empire. Absolutely what needs to happen.



Oh brother, another idiot that thinks the US is going to default.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to pay 40% of the obligations of the US government when due meets the legal definition of defaulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level.
> 
> Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or *perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation* (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default
Click to expand...


What about all of the contractual obligations that the US government must abide by or be deemed to be in default by your own link's definition of the term? Where does your link say that contractual obligations are exempt? If your company had a contract with the government for services would the government be in default if you performed those services and the government failed to pay you?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to pay 40% of the obligations of the US government when due meets the legal definition of defaulting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level.
> 
> Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or *perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation* (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about all of the contractual obligations that the US government must abide by or be deemed to be in default by your own link's definition of the term? Where does your link say that contractual obligations are exempt? If your company had a contract with the government for services would the government be in default if you performed those services and the government failed to pay you?
Click to expand...


What about it?

Tell me how much are our "contractual obligations"?

And please use a credible source.

It has been explained to you or rather would have if you had taken the time to read the link or even do your own research that matter. Our revenue, ( you do know what that is right ?) is over 2 trillion dollars a year, our debt service is around 420 billion dollars a year. So how can we ever default?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Lonestar_logic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *70% of government spending is mandatory*.  It has to be, by LAW, funded, unless the LAW is changed.
> 
> Failure to raise the debt ceiling, if it forces the government to default on spending that by LAW it is required to do, aka mandatory spending,
> 
> *should* be considered unconstitutional, since it conflicts with those same federal laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...


It was purely an opinion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to pay 40% of the obligations of the US government when due meets the legal definition of defaulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level.
> 
> Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].
Click to expand...


Government programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, which are examples of mandatory spending,

have to be funded, by law.  Their funding is a legal obligation.  To create a situation, such as freezing the debt ceiling, that prevents their funding,

is causing the government to default on those obligations well within the definitions you posted.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Lonestar_logic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess eflatminor has embarked on an Indiana Jones style expedition...
> 
> ...to try to find one ounce of evidence to support his ridiculous claims in this thread.
> 
> What is it with you people???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.
Click to expand...


You and others are talking about only one aspect of default.

Question:  Does the Treasury have the authority to pick and choose which bills it pays?  If so, where does it get that authority?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level.
> 
> Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or *perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation* (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about all of the contractual obligations that the US government must abide by or be deemed to be in default by your own link's definition of the term? Where does your link say that contractual obligations are exempt? If your company had a contract with the government for services would the government be in default if you performed those services and the government failed to pay you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Tell me how much are our "contractual obligations"?
> 
> And please use a credible source.
> 
> It has been explained to you or rather would have if you had taken the time to read the link or even do your own research that matter. Our revenue, ( you do know what that is right ?) is over 2 trillion dollars a year, our debt service is around 420 billion dollars a year. So how can we ever default?
Click to expand...


Unless you have a "credible source" that can definitely establish that the government is making payments without a legal obligation to make those payments the assumption must be that all payments are legal. If you want a "credible source" I suggest that you refer to the Treasury website itself.


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Default by definition entails more than just not paying the interest on a loan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.  Even if you REALLY wish it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I can't default on a mortgage as long as I just send in the interest portion of my monthly payment?
> 
> Are you sure about that?  Can you link to proof of that?
Click to expand...


My God you're ignorant.  No, if the terms of your loan are 'interest only', you cannot default as long as you send that in every month.

The federal government pays the interest only, rolling over the principal.  As long as they pay that interest, there is no default.


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose numbers are you using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government statistics on federal spending and tax revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you won't actually produce them because...
> 
> ...you're lying?  or you're trolling?  Or both?
Click to expand...


Here you go dumbass:

*2008 Total Federal Spending, $2.98 Trillion*
Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts Tables History
*Current year total Federal Revenues, $3.03 Trillion*
Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables

You were saying something about lying???

Now will you admit that we're taking in enough revenue to fund the entire government's spending we had in 2008?

If you have the decency to do so, tell us, what we be so damn bad about living within our means?  We managed just fine in 2008.


----------



## KissMy

*ARTICLE VI. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE AND OTHER REMEDIES*

*Section 6.1 General Events of Default.*

In the event that either:
(a) any representation, warranty, certification, assurance or any other statement of fact contained in this Agreement or the Application of the Participating State including, but not limited to, the Assurances (Non-Construction) contained as part of the Application, or any representation or warranty set forth in any document, report, certificate, financial statement or instrument now or hereafter delivered to Treasury in connection with this Agreement, is found to be inaccurate, false, incomplete or misleading when
made, in any material respect;
or
(b) the Participating State materially fails to observe, comply with, meet or perform any term, covenant, agreement or other provision contained in this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Participating State&#8217;s failure to submit complete and timely quarterly reports or annual reports, or the Participating State ceases to use the Allocated Funds to undertake the activities authorized in Annex 1 attached hereto;

Treasury, in its sole discretion, may find the Participating State to be in default.

*Section 6.2 Discretionary Remedies.*

If Treasury finds the Participating State to be in default under Section 6.1 of this Agreement, Treasury may, in its sole discretion, take any one or more of the following actions, subject to Section 6.6 of this Agreement:

(a) withhold Disbursements pending the Participating State&#8217;s correction of the default;
or
(b) wholly or partly reduce, suspend, or terminate the commitment of Treasury to make Disbursements to the Participating State under this Agreement, whereupon the commitment of Treasury to make Disbursements to the Participating State under this Agreement will be reduced, suspended, or terminated, as the case may be. 

*Section 6.3 Specific Events of Default*

In the event of a Treasury Inspector General audit finding of either:
(a) intentional or reckless misuse of Allocated Funds by the Participating State;
or
(b) the Participating State having intentionally made misstatements in any report issued to Treasury under the Act; Treasury shall find the Participating State to be in default.

*Section 6.4 Mandatory Remedies.*

If Treasury finds the Participating State to be in default under Section 6.3 of this Agreement, Treasury shall take the following actions:
(a) in the case of an event of default under Section 6.3(a), recoup any misused Allocated Funds that have been disbursed to the Participating State;
or
(b) in the case of an event of default under Section 6.3(b), terminate the commitment of Treasury to make Disbursements to the Participating State under this Agreement, and find the State ineligible to receive any additional funds under the Act, whereupon the commitment of Treasury to make Disbursements to the Participating State under this Agreement will be terminated and the State will be ineligible to receive any additional funds under the Act.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government statistics on federal spending and tax revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you won't actually produce them because...
> 
> ...you're lying?  or you're trolling?  Or both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go dumbass:
> 
> *2008 Total Federal Spending, $2.98 Trillion*
> Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts Tables History
> *Current year total Federal Revenues, $3.03 Trillion*
> Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables
> 
> You were saying something about lying???
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Thank you for trying.

Now let's stay mature while I make a couple points about your numbers.


1.  Your number is not adjusted for inflation, which we have to do in order to compare different years.

The OMB, which gives the same 3 trillion estimate in current dollars, puts that estimate at 2.5 trillion when adjusted for inflation,

which is 200 billion lower than the 2008 spending number of 2.7 trillion, adjusted for inflation.

2.  You give a 2014 number which of course has to be estimated.  Estimations are based on assumptions,

and I guarantee you the assumptions in your number do not include cutting back government spending to 2008 levels.

Why would that matter?  Because the government is the country's biggest employer, and if you cut back spending to 2008 levels you are going to lay off hundreds of thousands of Americans,

whether they are government employees or whether they are in the private sector doing work for or with the government.

You forgot about that part didn't you?


----------



## Geaux4it

The only ones that care about default are the leftist leeches on our bank accounts. They need to keep us working

-Geaux


----------



## eflatminor

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you won't actually produce them because...
> 
> ...you're lying?  or you're trolling?  Or both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go dumbass:
> 
> *2008 Total Federal Spending, $2.98 Trillion*
> Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts Tables History
> *Current year total Federal Revenues, $3.03 Trillion*
> Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables
> 
> You were saying something about lying???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for trying.
> 
> Now let's stay mature while I make a couple points about your numbers.
> 
> 
> 1.  Your number is not adjusted for inflation, which we have to do in order to compare different years.
> 
> The OMB, which gives the same 3 trillion estimate in current dollars, puts that estimate at 2.5 trillion when adjusted for inflation,
> 
> which is 200 billion lower than the 2008 spending number of 2.7 trillion, adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...


Fine, let's go with only 200 billion of deficit spending this year.  Deal?

Didn't think so.



> 2.  You give a 2014 number which of course has to be estimated.  Estimations are based on assumptions,
> 
> and I guarantee you the assumptions in your number do not include cutting back government spending to 2008 levels.



No shit Sherlock.  They're government estimates.  What's pathetic is that you think growing government is good the economy.  My God, you would have been right at home with Stalin or any other other central planners that were just sure they knew what was best for everyone.



> Why would that matter?  Because the government is the country's biggest employer, and if you cut back spending to 2008 levels you are going to lay off hundreds of thousands of Americans,
> 
> whether they are government employees or whether they are in the private sector doing work for or with the government.
> 
> You forgot about that part didn't you?



Ah yes, all those "non essential" employees.  By your logic, we should pay people to dig ditches then fill them back up.  After all, it's employment.

Your the biggest collectivist nanny state suck up I've ever encountered.  You have no understanding of the concept of free will, free markets or voluntary choice.  It's really pathetic.

Bottom line, you look ridiculous.  We lived just fine with FAR less spending than we are doling out today, but you and Pelosi are just sure the cupboard is bare.  Fucking ludicrous.


----------



## Trajan

Two Thumbs said:


> Do you have a link for this claim?



apparently he doesn't know what a default entails either...let it go, its just more idiocy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eflatminor said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go dumbass:
> 
> *2008 Total Federal Spending, $2.98 Trillion*
> Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts Tables History
> *Current year total Federal Revenues, $3.03 Trillion*
> Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables
> 
> You were saying something about lying???
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for trying.
> 
> Now let's stay mature while I make a couple points about your numbers.
> 
> 
> 1.  Your number is not adjusted for inflation, which we have to do in order to compare different years.
> 
> The OMB, which gives the same 3 trillion estimate in current dollars, puts that estimate at 2.5 trillion when adjusted for inflation,
> 
> which is 200 billion lower than the 2008 spending number of 2.7 trillion, adjusted for inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, let's go with only 200 billion of deficit spending this year.  Deal?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


Even if I gave you that number, which I won't, we can't have it, remember?  Because you're freezing the debt ceiling.

You can't run ANY deficit once the debt ceiling is hit.



> 2.  You give a 2014 number which of course has to be estimated.  Estimations are based on assumptions,
> 
> and I guarantee you the assumptions in your number do not include cutting back government spending to 2008 levels.





> No shit Sherlock.  They're government estimates.  What's pathetic is that you think growing government is good the economy.  My God, you would have been right at home with Stalin or any other other central planners that were just sure they knew what was best for everyone.



I'm just pointig out what's wrong with your plan.  You go back to 2008 spending levels and hundreds of thousands lose their jobs.  They stop paying taxes, there goes your revenue estimate;  they start drawing government UE benefits etc.;  there goes your spending estimate.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to pay 40% of the obligations of the US government when due meets the legal definition of defaulting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level.
> 
> Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, which are examples of mandatory spending,
> 
> have to be funded, by law.  Their funding is a legal obligation.  To create a situation, such as freezing the debt ceiling, that prevents their funding,
> 
> is causing the government to default on those obligations well within the definitions you posted.
Click to expand...


And all that can easily be paid for as well as our debt obligation with the revenue we bring in. So what is your point?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess eflatminor has embarked on an Indiana Jones style expedition...
> 
> ...to try to find one ounce of evidence to support his ridiculous claims in this thread.
> 
> What is it with you people???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bring in $250 billion in taxes every month, our interest payment is $20 billion. Tell me why we would ever default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and others are talking about only one aspect of default.
> 
> Question:  Does the Treasury have the authority to pick and choose which bills it pays?  If so, where does it get that authority?
Click to expand...


I'm talking about defaulting on our debt. What the hell are you talking about?


Constitutional Scholar: Treasury Can Pick and Choose What Bills to Pay If We Crash Into Debt Ceiling


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about all of the contractual obligations that the US government must abide by or be deemed to be in default by your own link's definition of the term? Where does your link say that contractual obligations are exempt? If your company had a contract with the government for services would the government be in default if you performed those services and the government failed to pay you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Tell me how much are our "contractual obligations"?
> 
> And please use a credible source.
> 
> It has been explained to you or rather would have if you had taken the time to read the link or even do your own research that matter. Our revenue, ( you do know what that is right ?) is over 2 trillion dollars a year, our debt service is around 420 billion dollars a year. So how can we ever default?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you have a "credible source" that can definitely establish that the government is making payments without a legal obligation to make those payments the assumption must be that all payments are legal. If you want a "credible source" I suggest that you refer to the Treasury website itself.
Click to expand...


I never mentioned the word "legal".


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you won't actually produce them because...
> 
> ...you're lying?  or you're trolling?  Or both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go dumbass:
> 
> *2008 Total Federal Spending, $2.98 Trillion*
> Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts Tables History
> *Current year total Federal Revenues, $3.03 Trillion*
> Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2014 - Charts Tables
> 
> You were saying something about lying???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for trying.
> 
> Now let's stay mature while I make a couple points about your numbers.
> 
> 
> 1.  Your number is not adjusted for inflation, which we have to do in order to compare different years.
> 
> The OMB, which gives the same 3 trillion estimate in current dollars, puts that estimate at 2.5 trillion when adjusted for inflation,
> 
> which is 200 billion lower than the 2008 spending number of 2.7 trillion, adjusted for inflation.
> 
> 2.  You give a 2014 number which of course has to be estimated.  Estimations are based on assumptions,
> 
> and I guarantee you the assumptions in your number do not include cutting back government spending to 2008 levels.
> 
> Why would that matter?  Because the government is the country's biggest employer, and if you cut back spending to 2008 levels you are going to lay off hundreds of thousands of Americans,
> 
> whether they are government employees or whether they are in the private sector doing work for or with the government.
> 
> You forgot about that part didn't you?
Click to expand...


You can only estimate 2014 dumbass!!

And his numbers come straight from your beloved government.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> Tell me how much are our "contractual obligations"?
> 
> And please use a credible source.
> 
> It has been explained to you or rather would have if you had taken the time to read the link or even do your own research that matter. Our revenue, ( you do know what that is right ?) is over 2 trillion dollars a year, our debt service is around 420 billion dollars a year. So how can we ever default?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you have a "credible source" that can definitely establish that the government is making payments without a legal obligation to make those payments the assumption must be that all payments are legal. If you want a "credible source" I suggest that you refer to the Treasury website itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never mentioned the word "legal".
Click to expand...


A contract is a legal document. So is legislation that is passed and signed authorizing the spending of taxpayer funds. Failure to make payments when due on any of these legal obligations means that the government would automatically be in default. This would apply irrespective of the amount and/or the party involved that is due the payment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Far right reactionary definitions are not acceptable, period.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Lonestar_logic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. Thanks for clarifying that you have no knowledge about how our system works at the federal level.
> 
> Blacks law dictionary has this to say about default: The omission or failure to fulfill a duty, observe a promise, discharge an obligation, or perform an agreement [or observe a promise or discharge an obligation (e.g. to pay interest or principal on a debt when due ].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, which are examples of mandatory spending,
> 
> have to be funded, by law.  Their funding is a legal obligation.  To create a situation, such as freezing the debt ceiling, that prevents their funding,
> 
> is causing the government to default on those obligations well within the definitions you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all that can easily be paid for as well as our debt obligation with the revenue we bring in. So what is your point?
Click to expand...


Mandatory spending is 70 to 80% of the budget.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

NYcarbineer said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, which are examples of mandatory spending,
> 
> have to be funded, by law.  Their funding is a legal obligation.  To create a situation, such as freezing the debt ceiling, that prevents their funding,
> 
> is causing the government to default on those obligations well within the definitions you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that can easily be paid for as well as our debt obligation with the revenue we bring in. So what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mandatory spending is 70 to 80% of the budget.
Click to expand...


Source?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you have a "credible source" that can definitely establish that the government is making payments without a legal obligation to make those payments the assumption must be that all payments are legal. If you want a "credible source" I suggest that you refer to the Treasury website itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned the word "legal".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A contract is a legal document. So is legislation that is passed and signed authorizing the spending of taxpayer funds. Failure to make payments when due on any of these legal obligations means that the government would automatically be in default. This would apply irrespective of the amount and/or the party involved that is due the payment.
Click to expand...


You still haven't explained how we can take in 2.5 trillion and not be able to pay our 420 billion dollar debt obligation.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned the word "legal".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A contract is a legal document. So is legislation that is passed and signed authorizing the spending of taxpayer funds. Failure to make payments when due on any of these legal obligations means that the government would automatically be in default. This would apply irrespective of the amount and/or the party involved that is due the payment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how we can take in 2.5 trillion and not be able to pay our 420 billion dollar debt obligation.
Click to expand...


We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations. If We the People fail to pay *ALL* of our obligations we go into default.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> A contract is a legal document. So is legislation that is passed and signed authorizing the spending of taxpayer funds. Failure to make payments when due on any of these legal obligations means that the government would automatically be in default. This would apply irrespective of the amount and/or the party involved that is due the payment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how we can take in 2.5 trillion and not be able to pay our 420 billion dollar debt obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations. If We the People fail to pay *ALL* of our obligations we go into default.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

How about providing a source.

You libs are all the same. you throw out bullshit numbers without anything to support it.


----------



## Sarah G

Nobody ever accused these people of actually knowing what they are talking about..


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Sarah G said:


> Nobody ever accused these people of actually knowing what they are talking about..



Wow... another idiot that believes liberal lies.

The US will not default stupid. But hey, don't let a little thing like facts stand in the way of your idiocy.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how we can take in 2.5 trillion and not be able to pay our 420 billion dollar debt obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations. If We the People fail to pay *ALL* of our obligations we go into default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> How about providing a source.
> 
> You libs are all the same. you throw out bullshit numbers without anything to support it.
Click to expand...


Current Issue: Monthly Treasury Statement: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

You will all of the details in this PDF that is on the Treasury site above.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.pdf


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations. If We the People fail to pay *ALL* of our obligations we go into default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> How about providing a source.
> 
> You libs are all the same. you throw out bullshit numbers without anything to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Current Issue: Monthly Treasury Statement: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
> 
> You will all of the details in this PDF that is on the Treasury site above.
> 
> http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.pdf
Click to expand...



Thanks.

I knew you were full of shit and you just proved it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> How about providing a source.
> 
> You libs are all the same. you throw out bullshit numbers without anything to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current Issue: Monthly Treasury Statement: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
> 
> You will all of the details in this PDF that is on the Treasury site above.
> 
> http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I knew you were full of shit and you just proved it.
Click to expand...


So given that you could not refute anything in the provided links and have resorted to name calling vulgarities instead I will take that as you tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Current Issue: Monthly Treasury Statement: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service
> 
> You will all of the details in this PDF that is on the Treasury site above.
> 
> http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0813.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I knew you were full of shit and you just proved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So given that you could not refute anything in the provided links and have resorted to name calling vulgarities instead I will take that as you tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Hey idiot what you showed was a total budget cost.

And your claim was we HAD to have over 3 trillion just to meet our obligations.


Tell me, did you keep a straight face while posting that bullshit?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I knew you were full of shit and you just proved it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So given that you could not refute anything in the provided links and have resorted to name calling vulgarities instead I will take that as you tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey idiot what you showed was a total budget cost.
> 
> *And your claim was we HAD to have over 3 trillion just to meet our obligations.*
> 
> 
> Tell me, did you keep a straight face while posting that bullshit?
Click to expand...


Perhaps if you read what I actually posted you might not be so confused.



> *We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations.* If We the People fail to pay ALL of our obligations we go into default.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> So given that you could not refute anything in the provided links and have resorted to name calling vulgarities instead I will take that as you tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot what you showed was a total budget cost.
> 
> *And your claim was we HAD to have over 3 trillion just to meet our obligations.*
> 
> 
> Tell me, did you keep a straight face while posting that bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you read what I actually posted you might not be so confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations.* If We the People fail to pay ALL of our obligations we go into default.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Yea and what you posted is utter bullshit.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot what you showed was a total budget cost.
> 
> *And your claim was we HAD to have over 3 trillion just to meet our obligations.*
> 
> 
> Tell me, did you keep a straight face while posting that bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you read what I actually posted you might not be so confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations.* If We the People fail to pay ALL of our obligations we go into default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yea and what you posted is utter bullshit.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you might try sharing your feelings with the Treasury dept. They will be thrilled to learn that there is some Tea Party magic way to pay all 3.2 trillion of their legal obligations with only 2.5 trillion of income.


----------



## KissMy

The United States defaulted on some Treasury bills in April 1979 we paid a steep price for stiffing bondholders, because the interest rates doubled. They went from 8% to 16% & it took 8 long years before rates came back down to 8%. This would destroy the US economy if it happened today. Yet we now are intentionally going to default. Bondholders will certainly be more pissed about that than they were for the mistake in 1979.

Treasury blamed it on the failure of Congress to act in a timely fashion on the debt ceiling legislation in April 1979. The bond holders had to join a class action lawsuit & sue the Federal Government to get the rest of their money.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you read what I actually posted you might not be so confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea and what you posted is utter bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might try sharing your feelings with the Treasury dept. They will be thrilled to learn that there is some Tea Party magic way to pay all 3.2 trillion of their legal obligations with only 2.5 trillion of income.
Click to expand...


You people are seriously stupid.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea and what you posted is utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might try sharing your feelings with the Treasury dept. They will be thrilled to learn that there is some Tea Party magic way to pay all 3.2 trillion of their legal obligations with only 2.5 trillion of income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people are seriously stupid.
Click to expand...


Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.


----------



## KissMy

ISDA considers a credit event a 3 day delinquent payment on market rate bonds. They don't consider SS trust fund default a credit event.

However, the US Treasury does not currently have the ability to prioritize payments. So a credit event will happen just like in 1979 because we flirted with default to close to the deadline.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might try sharing your feelings with the Treasury dept. They will be thrilled to learn that there is some Tea Party magic way to pay all 3.2 trillion of their legal obligations with only 2.5 trillion of income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people are seriously stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
Click to expand...


There will not be a default on our debt. There never has been and there never will be regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. You people can't even do simple math.

There is 0% chance that the US will be forced to default on the debt.

The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. Alan Greenspan

In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets. Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR

In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default. Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser

There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency. Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial

There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spendingWhen the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate. Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund

As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts  something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks. L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are seriously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will not be a default on our debt. There never has been and there never will be regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. You people can't even do simple math.
> 
> There is 0% chance that the US will be forced to default on the debt.
> 
> The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. Alan Greenspan
> 
> In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets. Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR
> 
> In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default. Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser
> 
> There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency. Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial
> 
> There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spendingWhen the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate. Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund
> 
> As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
> 
> A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts  something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks. L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute
Click to expand...


So your Tea Party "magic solution" is Hyper Inflation instead? That will send currency markets reeling, wipe out the savings that the elderly depend upon, destroy the purchasing power of the average consumer and cause another massive recession. Causing that much harm to America sounds like an Al Queda wet dream to me.


----------



## Geaux4it

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will not be a default on our debt. There never has been and there never will be regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. You people can't even do simple math.
> 
> There is 0% chance that the US will be forced to default on the debt.
> 
> The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. Alan Greenspan
> 
> In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets. Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR
> 
> In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default. Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser
> 
> There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency. Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial
> 
> There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spendingWhen the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate. Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund
> 
> As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
> 
> A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts  something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks. L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your Tea Party "magic solution" is Hyper Inflation instead? That will send currency markets reeling, wipe out the savings that the elderly depend upon, destroy the purchasing power of the average consumer and cause another massive recession. Causing that much harm to America sounds like an Al Queda wet dream to me.
Click to expand...


85 billion a month in funny money printing will do the same, but sooner

-Geaux


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will not be a default on our debt. There never has been and there never will be regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. You people can't even do simple math.
> 
> There is 0% chance that the US will be forced to default on the debt.
> 
> The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. Alan Greenspan
> 
> In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets. Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR
> 
> In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default. Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser
> 
> There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency. Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial
> 
> There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spendingWhen the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate. Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund
> 
> As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
> 
> A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts  something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks. L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your Tea Party "magic solution" is Hyper Inflation instead? That will send currency markets reeling, wipe out the savings that the elderly depend upon, destroy the purchasing power of the average consumer and cause another massive recession. Causing that much harm to America sounds like an Al Queda wet dream to me.
Click to expand...


No, my solution is for our government to STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!!

You liberals want big government and that means more of your tax dollars are needed to fund it. 
And you people are too stupid to see that the government is not the answer, they're the problem!!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There will not be a default on our debt. There never has been and there never will be regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised or not. You people can't even do simple math.
> 
> There is 0% chance that the US will be forced to default on the debt.
> 
> The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. Alan Greenspan
> 
> In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets. Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR
> 
> In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default. Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser
> 
> There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency. Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial
> 
> There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spendingWhen the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate. Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund
> 
> As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
> 
> A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts  something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks. L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your Tea Party "magic solution" is Hyper Inflation instead? That will send currency markets reeling, wipe out the savings that the elderly depend upon, destroy the purchasing power of the average consumer and cause another massive recession. Causing that much harm to America sounds like an Al Queda wet dream to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my solution is for our government to STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!!
> 
> You liberals want big government and that means more of your tax dollars are needed to fund it.
> And you people are too stupid to see that the government is not the answer, they're the problem!!
Click to expand...


In which case your Tea Party "magic Hyper Inflation solution" won't work for two obvious reasons. Firstly printing additional currency doesn't reduce spending and secondly it gives the government the power go on an unlimited spending spree since it can just print whatever money it needs whenever it passes new legislation.

Better come up with another strategy because so far everything you have proposed only makes everything worse, far far worse than it is currently.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your Tea Party "magic solution" is Hyper Inflation instead? That will send currency markets reeling, wipe out the savings that the elderly depend upon, destroy the purchasing power of the average consumer and cause another massive recession. Causing that much harm to America sounds like an Al Queda wet dream to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my solution is for our government to STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!!
> 
> You liberals want big government and that means more of your tax dollars are needed to fund it.
> And you people are too stupid to see that the government is not the answer, they're the problem!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In which case your Tea Party "magic Hyper Inflation solution" won't work for two obvious reasons. Firstly printing additional currency doesn't reduce spending and secondly it gives the government the power go on an unlimited spending spree since it can just print whatever money it needs whenever it passes new legislation.
> 
> Better come up with another strategy because so far everything you have proposed only makes everything worse, far far worse than it is currently.
Click to expand...


The US will not default no matter how many times you say we will.

You're only scaring yourself.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my solution is for our government to STOP WASTING OUR MONEY!!
> 
> You liberals want big government and that means more of your tax dollars are needed to fund it.
> And you people are too stupid to see that the government is not the answer, they're the problem!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case your Tea Party "magic Hyper Inflation solution" won't work for two obvious reasons. Firstly printing additional currency doesn't reduce spending and secondly it gives the government the power go on an unlimited spending spree since it can just print whatever money it needs whenever it passes new legislation.
> 
> Better come up with another strategy because so far everything you have proposed only makes everything worse, far far worse than it is currently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US will not default no matter how many times you say we will.
> 
> You're only scaring yourself.
Click to expand...


I prefer *REALITY* over your Tea Party fantasy that everything will be just peachy keen after you push the nation into an economic abyss.


----------



## NYcarbineer

KissMy said:


> The United States defaulted on some Treasury bills in April 1979 we paid a steep price for stiffing bondholders, because the interest rates doubled. They went from 8% to 16% & it took 8 long years before rates came back down to 8%. This would destroy the US economy if it happened today. Yet we now are intentionally going to default. Bondholders will certainly be more pissed about that than they were for the mistake in 1979.
> 
> Treasury blamed it on the failure of Congress to act in a timely fashion on the debt ceiling legislation in April 1979. The bond holders had to join a class action lawsuit & sue the Federal Government to get the rest of their money.



That's an interesting theory but the real reason interest rates went up precipitously from late 1979 on was that Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed and he promptly began jacking up Fed fund rates and the like,

to kill the inflation spiral.


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you might try sharing your feelings with the Treasury dept. They will be thrilled to learn that there is some Tea Party magic way to pay all 3.2 trillion of their legal obligations with only 2.5 trillion of income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people are seriously stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
Click to expand...


We will not default and only idiots think we will.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are seriously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will not default and only idiots think we will.
Click to expand...


More irony from the same Tea Party source that believes in "magic Hyper Inflation" as the solution to extortion.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from those who believe that there won't be a default if the debt ceiling is not raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will not default and only idiots think we will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More irony from the same Tea Party source that believes in "magic Hyper Inflation" as the solution to extortion.
Click to expand...


Get back to me when we default, until then history nor facts are on your side.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will not default and only idiots think we will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irony from the same Tea Party source that believes in "magic Hyper Inflation" as the solution to extortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get back to me when we default, until then history nor facts are on your side.
Click to expand...


I suggest that you try reading through the thread again. The last time there was a default was posted with all of the links and facts and it proved that defaulting will have a negative impact on the interest rates for borrowing. 

The Republican caused default begins 3 days from now.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> More irony from the same Tea Party source that believes in "magic Hyper Inflation" as the solution to extortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me when we default, until then history nor facts are on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest that you try reading through the thread again. The last time there was a default was posted with all of the links and facts and it proved that defaulting will have a negative impact on the interest rates for borrowing.
> 
> The Republican caused default begins 3 days from now.
Click to expand...


Again learn the facts.

The 1790 "default" on the national debt was actually orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. It resulted in the deferment of debt payments for 10 years and a restructuring of the national debt.


The 1933 default on the national debt was sparked by the nation's abrogation of the gold clause, which allowed investors who purchased U.S. bonds to help finance World War I to be repaid in gold coin.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me when we default, until then history nor facts are on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you try reading through the thread again. The last time there was a default was posted with all of the links and facts and it proved that defaulting will have a negative impact on the interest rates for borrowing.
> 
> The Republican caused default begins 3 days from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again learn the facts.
> 
> The 1790 "default" on the national debt was actually orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. It resulted in the deferment of debt payments for 10 years and a restructuring of the national debt.
> 
> 
> The 1933 default on the national debt was sparked by the nation's abrogation of the gold clause, which allowed investors who purchased U.S. bonds to help finance World War I to be repaid in gold coin.
Click to expand...


Did you miss post #167? The default in April 1979 that caused the doubling of the borrowing rates? Or are you selective in what constitutes a "default"?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that you try reading through the thread again. The last time there was a default was posted with all of the links and facts and it proved that defaulting will have a negative impact on the interest rates for borrowing.
> 
> The Republican caused default begins 3 days from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again learn the facts.
> 
> The 1790 "default" on the national debt was actually orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. It resulted in the deferment of debt payments for 10 years and a restructuring of the national debt.
> 
> 
> The 1933 default on the national debt was sparked by the nation's abrogation of the gold clause, which allowed investors who purchased U.S. bonds to help finance World War I to be repaid in gold coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss post #167? The default in April 1979 that caused the doubling of the borrowing rates? Or are you selective in what constitutes a "default"?
Click to expand...


The reason that happened was because the treasury didn't get the checks out on time after Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling.  As Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center explains, the Treasury got swamped with an inordinately high demand for Treasury bills, which it couldn't meet due to a word-processing error. So we defaulted on some of them.

The government eventually paid back everyone what it owed with interest, but that didn't erase this accidental default from the market's memory.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again learn the facts.
> 
> The 1790 "default" on the national debt was actually orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. It resulted in the deferment of debt payments for 10 years and a restructuring of the national debt.
> 
> 
> The 1933 default on the national debt was sparked by the nation's abrogation of the gold clause, which allowed investors who purchased U.S. bonds to help finance World War I to be repaid in gold coin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss post #167? The default in April 1979 that caused the doubling of the borrowing rates? Or are you selective in what constitutes a "default"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason that happened was because the treasury didn't get the checks out on time after Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling.  As Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center explains, the Treasury got swamped with an inordinately high demand for Treasury bills, which it couldn't meet due to a word-processing error. So we defaulted on some of them.
> 
> The government eventually paid back everyone what it owed with interest, but that didn't erase this accidental default from the market's memory.
Click to expand...


The imminent malicious Republican Default will be deliberate and have far greater negative consequences.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss post #167? The default in April 1979 that caused the doubling of the borrowing rates? Or are you selective in what constitutes a "default"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that happened was because the treasury didn't get the checks out on time after Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling.  As Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center explains, the Treasury got swamped with an inordinately high demand for Treasury bills, which it couldn't meet due to a word-processing error. So we defaulted on some of them.
> 
> The government eventually paid back everyone what it owed with interest, but that didn't erase this accidental default from the market's memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The imminent malicious Republican Default will be deliberate and have far greater negative consequences.
Click to expand...


Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that happened was because the treasury didn't get the checks out on time after Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling.  As Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center explains, the Treasury got swamped with an inordinately high demand for Treasury bills, which it couldn't meet due to a word-processing error. So we defaulted on some of them.
> 
> The government eventually paid back everyone what it owed with interest, but that didn't erase this accidental default from the market's memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The imminent malicious Republican Default will be deliberate and have far greater negative consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...


The stench of fear coming off the Republican Caucus right now is enough to have the entire nation holding their noses.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The imminent malicious Republican Default will be deliberate and have far greater negative consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stench of fear coming off the Republican Caucus right now is enough to have the entire nation holding their noses.
Click to expand...


Stop projecting. Liberals are the ones scared and the ones crying about a default.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stench of fear coming off the Republican Caucus right now is enough to have the entire nation holding their noses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop projecting. Liberals are the ones scared and the ones crying about a default.
Click to expand...


The GOP approval is down to 24% already. That is rock bottom. Wall St is threatening to pull funding from the RNC for the next election. Donors have already closed up their check books and said not a penny more until you rein in the Tea Party. The GOP knows that it needs to cut a deal now or face a major loss in 2014. So there is no need to project when the facts are all showing that Republicans are about to suffer a major setback one way or the other.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stench of fear coming off the Republican Caucus right now is enough to have the entire nation holding their noses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting. Liberals are the ones scared and the ones crying about a default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP approval is down to 24% already. That is rock bottom. Wall St is threatening to pull funding from the RNC for the next election. Donors have already closed up their check books and said not a penny more until you rein in the Tea Party. The GOP knows that it needs to cut a deal now or face a major loss in 2014. So there is no need to project when the facts are all showing that Republicans are about to suffer a major setback one way or the other.
Click to expand...


So? It's not like Congress has enjoyed high approval ratings in recent history.

All you have is speculation.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Interpol said:


> They say it's all a hoax being perpetuated on us like global warming.
> 
> But if the Default does affect us and it does a lot of harm to our economy, do you suppose the Tea Party will take responsibility for making a bad prediction, or do you suppose they'll then blame President Obama for it?



I BELIEVE that what the "Tea Party" and many others are saying is simply that we take in a shit load of money every fucking month and when the "bill" comes due for payments on our debt, we CAN readily pay the interest and maybe even a tiny bit of principle every fucking month with or without raising the fucking DEBT CEILING.  

Of course that WOULD require that we prioritize what ELSE we choose to fund.  But refusal to raise the debt limit does most assuredly NOT require that we default on the payment of ANY of our actual debt obligations.

If the latter happens, it WILL BE the fault of the President and it would be completely irresponsible and intentional.

So, yeah.  You're  damn skippy the President will get the blame --

and if it happens, he will deserve it.  Indeed, if he makes THAT choice, he will deserve impeachment and removal from office.  Not that THAT will happen.  Politics being what it is.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop projecting. Liberals are the ones scared and the ones crying about a default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP approval is down to 24% already. That is rock bottom. Wall St is threatening to pull funding from the RNC for the next election. Donors have already closed up their check books and said not a penny more until you rein in the Tea Party. The GOP knows that it needs to cut a deal now or face a major loss in 2014. So there is no need to project when the facts are all showing that Republicans are about to suffer a major setback one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? It's not like Congress has enjoyed high approval ratings in recent history.
> 
> All you have is speculation.
Click to expand...


What I have are facts. This is the lowest ever recorded approval rating for the GOP. Wall St and the donor base pulling out are reported in the media. The latest offer of the CR without strings means that the Republicans are caving. They have a choice to make. They can take a humiliating defeat now on the government shutdown and default followed by a beating in 2014 by the voters or they can give in to the Dems now and try to salvage whatever they can for 2014.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP approval is down to 24% already. That is rock bottom. Wall St is threatening to pull funding from the RNC for the next election. Donors have already closed up their check books and said not a penny more until you rein in the Tea Party. The GOP knows that it needs to cut a deal now or face a major loss in 2014. So there is no need to project when the facts are all showing that Republicans are about to suffer a major setback one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? It's not like Congress has enjoyed high approval ratings in recent history.
> 
> All you have is speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I have are facts. This is the lowest ever recorded approval rating for the GOP. Wall St and the donor base pulling out are reported in the media. The latest offer of the CR without strings means that the Republicans are caving. They have a choice to make. They can take a humiliating defeat now on the government shutdown and default followed by a beating in 2014 by the voters or they can give in to the Dems now and try to salvage whatever they can for 2014.
Click to expand...


^ wrong.

The actual choice is to cave in, as you propose, or to stand firm and compel the government to start acting responsibly.

If I had to guess, I would speculate that they will fold like a cheap suit.

But that doesn't mean they should.


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? It's not like Congress has enjoyed high approval ratings in recent history.
> 
> All you have is speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I have are facts. This is the lowest ever recorded approval rating for the GOP. Wall St and the donor base pulling out are reported in the media. The latest offer of the CR without strings means that the Republicans are caving. They have a choice to make. They can take a humiliating defeat now on the government shutdown and default followed by a beating in 2014 by the voters or they can give in to the Dems now and try to salvage whatever they can for 2014.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ wrong.
> 
> The actual choice is to cave in, as you propose, or to stand firm and compel the government to start acting responsibly.
> 
> If I had to guess, I would speculate that they will fold like a cheap suit.
> 
> But that doesn't mean they should.
Click to expand...


I agree that they should start acting responsibly, Ilar, but causing a default is irresponsible at this juncture since it will do more harm than good.

What is needed is to take the findings from all of the bipartisan committees that have come and gone regarding spending cuts and increased taxation and to pass that ASAP. Both sides won't be happy with that compromise but it is the responsible thing to do for the good of the nation.

And yes, you are right that they are folding like a cheap suit. Like all politicians they are spineless liars who really only give a hoot about themselves.


----------



## Toro

As I understand it, now it's the two Senate leaders talking about spending, and that Sequester 2.0 is looming, which will occur if Congress does nothing.  If this is true - and if it's not, somebody please let me know - I'm all for the Republicans holding firm BUT allowing an increase in the debt ceiling.

So Obama says he won't negotiate the debt ceiling, OK fine, raise it.  Then, the Republicans don't have to budge on the Sequester.  That puts the ball back into the Democrats court.  They can't blame the GOP for not raising the debt ceiling if the GOP unilaterally allows it to increase.  Then, the GOP can dig in it's heels and stand firm on the Sequester and spending.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I have are facts. This is the lowest ever recorded approval rating for the GOP. Wall St and the donor base pulling out are reported in the media. The latest offer of the CR without strings means that the Republicans are caving. They have a choice to make. They can take a humiliating defeat now on the government shutdown and default followed by a beating in 2014 by the voters or they can give in to the Dems now and try to salvage whatever they can for 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ wrong.
> 
> The actual choice is to cave in, as you propose, or to stand firm and compel the government to start acting responsibly.
> 
> If I had to guess, I would speculate that they will fold like a cheap suit.
> 
> But that doesn't mean they should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that they should start acting responsibly, Ilar, but causing a default is irresponsible at this juncture since it will do more harm than good.
> 
> What is needed is to take the findings from all of the bipartisan committees that have come and gone regarding spending cuts and increased taxation and to pass that ASAP. Both sides won't be happy with that compromise but it is the responsible thing to do for the good of the nation.
> 
> And yes, you are right that they are folding like a cheap suit. Like all politicians they are spineless liars who really only give a hoot about themselves.
Click to expand...


There is no "causing a default."

It is a dishonest alarmist TACTIC and nothing more.

Without raising our irresponsible debt "ceiling" another irresponsible farthing, there is still not one honest or valid reason why we could not pay our debts on time as and when due.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

On an OT side note:

PROPS to Derideo_Te for his present avie.

Good stuff.


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ wrong.
> 
> The actual choice is to cave in, as you propose, or to stand firm and compel the government to start acting responsibly.
> 
> If I had to guess, I would speculate that they will fold like a cheap suit.
> 
> But that doesn't mean they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they should start acting responsibly, Ilar, but causing a default is irresponsible at this juncture since it will do more harm than good.
> 
> What is needed is to take the findings from all of the bipartisan committees that have come and gone regarding spending cuts and increased taxation and to pass that ASAP. Both sides won't be happy with that compromise but it is the responsible thing to do for the good of the nation.
> 
> And yes, you are right that they are folding like a cheap suit. Like all politicians they are spineless liars who really only give a hoot about themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "causing a default."
> 
> It is a dishonest alarmist TACTIC and nothing more.
> 
> Without raising our irresponsible debt "ceiling" another irresponsible farthing, there is still not one honest or valid reason why we could not pay our debts on time as and when due.
Click to expand...


How do you pay about 3.2 trillion of legitimate expenditures with only 2.5 trillion of income, Ilar?

And thanks for the OT


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that they should start acting responsibly, Ilar, but causing a default is irresponsible at this juncture since it will do more harm than good.
> 
> What is needed is to take the findings from all of the bipartisan committees that have come and gone regarding spending cuts and increased taxation and to pass that ASAP. Both sides won't be happy with that compromise but it is the responsible thing to do for the good of the nation.
> 
> And yes, you are right that they are folding like a cheap suit. Like all politicians they are spineless liars who really only give a hoot about themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "causing a default."
> 
> It is a dishonest alarmist TACTIC and nothing more.
> 
> Without raising our irresponsible debt "ceiling" another irresponsible farthing, there is still not one honest or valid reason why we could not pay our debts on time as and when due.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you pay about 3.2 trillion of legitimate expenditures with only 2.5 trillion of income, Ilar?
> 
> And thanks for the OT
Click to expand...


Show us the real numbers.

The debt consists of principle and interest payments.  The principle is not fully due on any given month.  The interest due on any given month is just a fractional number of a fractional number.

The "solution" is actually pretty straightforward and damn simple.

*PAY the interest due, as due, as the first order of business.*

*NEXT, when possible, pay down the principle at least a tiny portion every time you make a payment.*

*THEN, with what is left, attend to the other legitimate expenditures.*

*In order to do the last part, one might have to start cutting spending.*

I am gonna go WAY the fuck out on a limb here and suggest (with all due respect to the Congress-hacks) that there are innumerable areas of government that can and should be cut -- post haste.  Like, to get things rolling:  a federal department of education.  Slash and burn it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "causing a default."
> 
> It is a dishonest alarmist TACTIC and nothing more.
> 
> Without raising our irresponsible debt "ceiling" another irresponsible farthing, there is still not one honest or valid reason why we could not pay our debts on time as and when due.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you pay about 3.2 trillion of legitimate expenditures with only 2.5 trillion of income, Ilar?
> 
> And thanks for the OT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us the real numbers.
> 
> The debt consists of principle and interest payments.  The principle is not fully due on any given month.  The interest due on any given month is just a fractional number of a fractional number.
> 
> The "solution" is actually pretty straightforward and damn simple.
> 
> *PAY the interest due, as due, as the first order of business.*
> 
> *NEXT, when possible, pay down the principle at least a tiny portion every time you make a payment.*
> 
> *THEN, with what is left, attend to the other legitimate expenditures.*
> 
> *In order to do the last part, one might have to start cutting spending.*
> 
> I am gonna go WAY the fuck out on a limb here and suggest (with all due respect to the Congress-hacks) that there are innumerable areas of government that can and should be cut -- post haste.  Like, to get things rolling:  a federal department of education.  Slash and burn it.
Click to expand...


Firstly let me clarify that my figures are only estimates because the 2013 budget shows 3.9 trillion in expenditures vs 2.9 trillion income. Deficit of 0.9 trillion. However that does not account for the sequester which cut spending by about 10% across the board.

Future spending can most definitely be cut and there is no argument there. The problem is the current spending already on the books for which the bills are due. Failure to pay when a legal amount owed is due meets the definition of default. If you had a business providing services to the government and they failed to pay you per the contracted due date they would legally be in default. Those dates cannot be moved. At some point there is simply no money to pay those bills and the nation goes into default.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP approval is down to 24% already. That is rock bottom. Wall St is threatening to pull funding from the RNC for the next election. Donors have already closed up their check books and said not a penny more until you rein in the Tea Party. The GOP knows that it needs to cut a deal now or face a major loss in 2014. So there is no need to project when the facts are all showing that Republicans are about to suffer a major setback one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? It's not like Congress has enjoyed high approval ratings in recent history.
> 
> All you have is speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I have are facts. This is the lowest ever recorded approval rating for the GOP. Wall St and the donor base pulling out are reported in the media. The latest offer of the CR without strings means that the Republicans are caving. *They have a choice to make. They can take a humiliating defeat now on the government shutdown and default followed by a beating in 2014 by the voters or they can give in to the Dems now and try to salvage whatever they can for 2014*.
Click to expand...



Mere speculation.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you pay about 3.2 trillion of legitimate expenditures with only 2.5 trillion of income, Ilar?
> 
> And thanks for the OT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the real numbers.
> 
> The debt consists of principle and interest payments.  The principle is not fully due on any given month.  The interest due on any given month is just a fractional number of a fractional number.
> 
> The "solution" is actually pretty straightforward and damn simple.
> 
> *PAY the interest due, as due, as the first order of business.*
> 
> *NEXT, when possible, pay down the principle at least a tiny portion every time you make a payment.*
> 
> *THEN, with what is left, attend to the other legitimate expenditures.*
> 
> *In order to do the last part, one might have to start cutting spending.*
> 
> I am gonna go WAY the fuck out on a limb here and suggest (with all due respect to the Congress-hacks) that there are innumerable areas of government that can and should be cut -- post haste.  Like, to get things rolling:  a federal department of education.  Slash and burn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly let me clarify that my figures are only estimates because the 2013 budget shows 3.9 trillion in expenditures vs 2.9 trillion income. Deficit of 0.9 trillion. However that does not account for the sequester which cut spending by about 10% across the board.
> 
> Future spending can most definitely be cut and there is no argument there. The problem is the current spending already on the books for which the bills are due. Failure to pay when a legal amount owed is due meets the definition of default. If you had a business providing services to the government and they failed to pay you per the contracted due date they would legally be in default. Those dates cannot be moved. At some point there is simply no money to pay those bills and the nation goes into default.
Click to expand...


Fallacy number 1:

We have no budget.

Harry Reid hasn't permitted us to even HAVE a budget for years.

And I repeat:

SHOW me the figures.  Links and e'ething.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.

But many of the folks at FORBES are.

Let us see what they report:



> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.


    EXCERPTED from:  
The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes


----------



## Lonestar_logic

IlarMeilyr said:


> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
Click to expand...


I posted that very link and he ignored it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Lonestar_logic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted that very link and he ignored it.
Click to expand...


Sorry I missed your post the first time.

I am interested in seeing some kind of validation for the alarmist chatter that a refusal to raise the debt ceiling somehow equates with "default."  

It appears not to be at all true.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

IlarMeilyr said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted that very link and he ignored it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I missed your post the first time.
> 
> I am interested in seeing some kind of validation for the alarmist chatter that a refusal to raise the debt ceiling somehow equates with "default."
> 
> It appears not to be at all true.
Click to expand...


That's what I've been saying from the start but de tiaria (sp) doesn't want to hear the truth.

He's comfortable repeating the same liberal lies.


----------



## eflatminor

Interpol said:


> The Tea Party Says Nothing Will Happen If We Default



Why in the world would we default when tax revenues are more than 10 times that which is necessary to make our interest payments on the federal debt?


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the real numbers.
> 
> The debt consists of principle and interest payments.  The principle is not fully due on any given month.  The interest due on any given month is just a fractional number of a fractional number.
> 
> The "solution" is actually pretty straightforward and damn simple.
> 
> *PAY the interest due, as due, as the first order of business.*
> 
> *NEXT, when possible, pay down the principle at least a tiny portion every time you make a payment.*
> 
> *THEN, with what is left, attend to the other legitimate expenditures.*
> 
> *In order to do the last part, one might have to start cutting spending.*
> 
> I am gonna go WAY the fuck out on a limb here and suggest (with all due respect to the Congress-hacks) that there are innumerable areas of government that can and should be cut -- post haste.  Like, to get things rolling:  a federal department of education.  Slash and burn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly let me clarify that my figures are only estimates because the 2013 budget shows 3.9 trillion in expenditures vs 2.9 trillion income. Deficit of 0.9 trillion. However that does not account for the sequester which cut spending by about 10% across the board.
> 
> Future spending can most definitely be cut and there is no argument there. The problem is the current spending already on the books for which the bills are due. Failure to pay when a legal amount owed is due meets the definition of default. If you had a business providing services to the government and they failed to pay you per the contracted due date they would legally be in default. Those dates cannot be moved. At some point there is simply no money to pay those bills and the nation goes into default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy number 1:
> 
> We have no budget.
> 
> Harry Reid hasn't permitted us to even HAVE a budget for years.
> 
> And I repeat:
> 
> SHOW me the figures.  Links and e'ething.
Click to expand...


We do have a budget. A CR is simply a way of taking the exact same budget from the previous year and repeating it for the current year. We don't have a "new" budget but we most definitely have a budget.

2013 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Total revenues and spending[edit]
> 
> The Obama administration's February 2012 budget request contained $2.902 trillion in receipts and $3.803 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $901 billion.[38] The budget projects a reduction in the deficit to $575 billion by 2018 before rising to $704 billion by 2022.[39]
> Total receipts (in billions of dollars)::
> Item	Requested[38]
> Individual income tax	1,359
> Social Security and other payroll tax	959
> Corporate income tax	348
> Excise tax	88
> Customs duties	33
> Estate and gift taxes	13
> Deposits of earnings and Federal Reserve System	80
> Other miscellaneous receipts	21
> Total	2902
> Total outlays by agency (in billions of dollars):
> Agency	Discretionary	Mandatory	Total
> Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations	666.2	6.7	672.9
> Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid	80.6	860.3	940.9
> Department of Education	67.7	4.2	71.9
> Department of Veterans Affairs	60.4	79.4	139.7
> Department of Housing and Urban Development	41.1	5.2	46.3
> Department of State and Other International Programs	56.1	3.4	59.5
> Department of Homeland Security	54.9	0.5	55.4
> Department of Energy	35.6	0.6	35.0
> Department of Justice	23.9	12.7	36.5
> Department of Agriculture	26.8	127.7	154.5
> National Aeronautics and Space Administration	17.8	0.02	17.8
> National Intelligence Program	52.6	0	52.6
> Department of Transportation	24.0	74.5	98.5
> Department of the Treasury	14.1	96.2	110.3
> Department of the Interior	12.3	1.2	13.5
> Department of Labor	13.2	88.4	101.7
> Social Security Administration	11.7	871.0	882.7
> Department of Commerce	9.5	0.5	9.0
> Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works	8.2	0.007	8.2
> Environmental Protection Agency	9.2	0.2	8.9
> National Science Foundation	7.4	0.2	7.5
> Small Business Administration	1.4	0.006	1.4
> Corporation for National and Community Service	1.1	0.007	1.1
> Net interest	246	0	246
> Disaster costs	2	0	2
> Other spending	34.0-	61.7	29.5
> Total	1,510	2,293	3,803


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
Click to expand...


Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt. 

A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.

The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming &#8220;prioritization of payments&#8221;.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
Click to expand...


What bills which are due and owing will be left unpaid?  Be specific.  Links required.

And which "bills" (other than debt servicing payments due) cannot be paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling limit?

And why would there not be other options available to us other than defaulting on such payments?  

We can't cut whole departments and/or programs?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inconvenient as they may be, some facts are in order. The fiscal 2013 debt service for the twelve months ending September 30 will be somewhere around $420 billion. (Per the Bureau of Fiscal Service the actual figure of 11 months through August was just under $396 billion). IRS revenues for the calendar 2012 tax year will probably be around $2.3 trillion. That equates to over a five and a half times debt service coverage. So having enough money is not even close to the issue. There has been some discussion of what some are naming prioritization of payments.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
Click to expand...


This entire thread was about defaulting on the debt. You made it into an entirely different argument that no one but you is making.


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bills which are due and owing will be left unpaid?  Be specific.  Links required.
> 
> And which "bills" (other than debt servicing payments due) cannot be paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling limit?
> 
> And why would there not be other options available to us other than defaulting on such payments?
> 
> We can't cut whole departments and/or programs?
Click to expand...


You can't refuse to pay your electricity bill after you have already used the electricity, Ilar. That service has already been rendered and you have a legal obligation to pay for what you received. If you don't pay it on time you are in default. 

The same principle applies to 100% of all of the bills in the budget. They are legal obligations. Failure to pay a single one is a default. Which bills won't be paid is yet to be determined. The Treasury sends out millions of payments. Which ones won't be paid after the money runs out will depend upon the order in which they are processed but there is no way to selectively pay some and not others. The system isn't set up that way.

The other option would be to print money to pay the bills. That would cause Hyper Inflation and crash the currency markets. The savings of the elderly would be wiped out and consumers would lose their purchasing power as salaries failed to keep up with inflation. The economy would fall into a severe recession.

Yes, we can cut "whole departments and/or programs" but that is *FUTURE* spending. CURRENT spending is a legal obligation that must either be paid or the nation goes into default. There is no way around that as a "short term fix".


----------



## Derideo_Te

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll grant you, I am not an economist.
> 
> But many of the folks at FORBES are.
> 
> Let us see what they report:
> 
> EXCERPTED from:
> The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entire thread was about defaulting on the debt. You made it into an entirely different argument that no one but you is making.
Click to expand...


You inability to comprehend what default means is duly noted. Have a nice day.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What bills which are due and owing will be left unpaid?  Be specific.  Links required.
> 
> And which "bills" (other than debt servicing payments due) cannot be paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling limit?
> 
> And why would there not be other options available to us other than defaulting on such payments?
> 
> We can't cut whole departments and/or programs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't refuse to pay your electricity bill after you have already used the electricity, Ilar. That service has already been rendered and you have a legal obligation to pay for what you received. If you don't pay it on time you are in default.
> 
> The same principle applies to 100% of all of the bills in the budget. They are legal obligations. Failure to pay a single one is a default. Which bills won't be paid is yet to be determined. The Treasury sends out millions of payments. Which ones won't be paid after the money runs out will depend upon the order in which they are processed but there is no way to selectively pay some and not others. The system isn't set up that way.
> 
> The other option would be to print money to pay the bills. That would cause Hyper Inflation and crash the currency markets. The savings of the elderly would be wiped out and consumers would lose their purchasing power as salaries failed to keep up with inflation. The economy would fall into a severe recession.
> 
> Yes, we can cut "whole departments and/or programs" but that is *FUTURE* spending. CURRENT spending is a legal obligation that must either be paid or the nation goes into default. There is no way around that as a "short term fix".
Click to expand...


Nobody is contending that we can refuse to pay our utility bills.

What I have repeatedly asked you is to back up what you are claiming.

There is no official US budget.  (Fucking Reid.)  So where do you get your figures?

Link us up.

I'd like it broken down a little tiny bit.  Maybe two links: one for borrowing debts with principle and interest.  And another for all the other obligations we owe on a monthly basis.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire thread was about defaulting on the debt. You made it into an entirely different argument that no one but you is making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You inability to comprehend what default means is duly noted. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


You've proven several pages back that you don't know the difference in defaulting on the debt and defaulting on the other BS you brought up. And you still haven't proved that we are going to or even would default on anything much less the debt.


All you have is speculative bullshit!!!


You're dismissed!


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Derideo_Te said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges, Ilar. Furthermore LS failed to comprehend my response which is not the same thing as ignoring it. No one is arguing about the ability to pay the interest on the debt.
> 
> A default will occur if a single legitimate bill fails to be paid when due. In other words the CR that extended the budget into 2013 requires that all money in the budget must be paid in accordance with the due dates. Missing a single payment, no matter how small is a default. There is simply no way to get around the fact that the amounts that must be paid is for goods and services already provided to the US government.
> 
> The excerpt from Forbes is misleading because is only talks about the interest on the national debt. Even if that is paid in full it won't prevent the US from falling into default on the remaining legal obligations in the budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entire thread was about defaulting on the debt. You made it into an entirely different argument that no one but you is making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You inability to comprehend what default means is duly noted. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


That's not fair.

There are debts owed due to borrowing (requiring the payment of principal and interest) and other kinds of debts, such as the duty to pay pursuant to contractual obligations.

That bastion of subsidized modern American liberalism, National Public Radio (NPR) addresses the topic of "default" in a very specific way (along the lines of the doom-saying preached by the Obama Administration and the shrill liberal Democrats):




> Here are questions and answers about the government's borrowing limit:
> 
> Q. What exactly is it?
> 
> A. The borrowing limit is a cap on how much debt the government can accumulate to pay its bills. The government borrows in most years because its spending has long exceeded its revenue. The first borrowing limit was enacted in 1917. Since 1962, Congress has raised the borrowing limit 77 times. It now stands at $16.7 trillion.
> 
> Q. When will we reach the limit?
> 
> A. The national debt actually reached the limit in May. Since then, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has made accounting moves to continue financing the government without further borrowing. But Lew says those measures will be exhausted by Thursday. The government will then have to pay its bills from its cash on hand &#8212; an estimated $30 billion &#8212; and tax revenue.
> 
> Q. So what happens after Thursday?
> 
> A. The government could pay its bills for a few days. But sometime between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, the cash on hand and tax revenue wouldn't be sufficient, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The date isn't exact because it's impossible to foresee precisely how much revenue the government will receive and when.
> 
> Q. When it runs out of cash, does the government default?
> 
> A. No, not right away. A default would occur if the government fails to make a principal or interest payment on any of its Treasurys. The first interest payment after Thursday's deadline is a $6 billion payment due Oct. 31.
> 
> Many experts think that to avoid a default, Treasury would make payments on the debt its top priority.
> 
> "We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact," says Moody's Investors Service, a credit rating agency.
> 
> But that is the subject of intense dispute in Washington. The House has approved a bill to require such "prioritization." The Senate hasn't passed it, though. And President Barack Obama has threatened to veto it.
> 
> Without an increase in the borrowing limit, the government couldn't pay other obligations on time, such as Social Security benefits, bills from government contractors and Medicare reimbursements. Those payments are also legal obligations, Lew argues, and failure to pay them would essentially be equivalent to a default.
> 
> In any case, making some payments and not others is harder than it might sound. Treasury makes roughly 100 million payments a month. Nearly all are automated. Lew says the Treasury's computer systems aren't equipped to choose some and not others among all those outgoing checks.
> 
> And without cash in reserve, any minor glitch could cause Treasury to miss a debt payment &#8212; and default.
> 
> "Treasury would do everything in their power to not miss a debt payment," says Donald Marron, an economist at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush. "But when you're in untested waters under a great deal of stress, bad things happen."
> 
> Q. What other problems might be raised by prioritization?
> 
> A. Consider the legal and political obstacles. The government is legally obligated to pay its contractors. If not, the contractors could sue for non-payment. And how long would members of Congress stand by as Treasury holders in China and other nations were paid interest, while payments to U.S. veterans and Social Security recipients were delayed?
> 
> Q. How would investors react if the government made its interest payments but fell behind on other obligations?
> 
> A. Badly, most economists say. If the government couldn't pay veterans' benefits, federal employee salaries or other bills, investors would almost certainly demand higher interest rates at future Treasury auctions. That would drive up the cost to taxpayers of servicing the government's debt.
> 
> A failure to pay any obligation "would severely damage perceptions of our creditworthiness," says David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds.


Q&A: What Happens If US Breaks Borrowing Limit? : NPR

^ NOTE:  they do get around (eventually) to including the "other" obligations (like paying contractors), but they spent the lion's share of their time, up front, discussing the other kind of debt (borrowing and principal and interest).  And they sure as heck DID focus primarily the borrowed kind of obligation.  And they do make more than a passing mention of "prioritizing" the debt.

All in all, it makes for a compelling argument that the President should stop attempting to make a political game of this serious business.  Of course, they would be the first to deny that implication.


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What bills which are due and owing will be left unpaid?  Be specific.  Links required.
> 
> And which "bills" (other than debt servicing payments due) cannot be paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling limit?
> 
> And why would there not be other options available to us other than defaulting on such payments?
> 
> We can't cut whole departments and/or programs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't refuse to pay your electricity bill after you have already used the electricity, Ilar. That service has already been rendered and you have a legal obligation to pay for what you received. If you don't pay it on time you are in default.
> 
> The same principle applies to 100% of all of the bills in the budget. They are legal obligations. Failure to pay a single one is a default. Which bills won't be paid is yet to be determined. The Treasury sends out millions of payments. Which ones won't be paid after the money runs out will depend upon the order in which they are processed but there is no way to selectively pay some and not others. The system isn't set up that way.
> 
> The other option would be to print money to pay the bills. That would cause Hyper Inflation and crash the currency markets. The savings of the elderly would be wiped out and consumers would lose their purchasing power as salaries failed to keep up with inflation. The economy would fall into a severe recession.
> 
> Yes, we can cut "whole departments and/or programs" but that is *FUTURE* spending. CURRENT spending is a legal obligation that must either be paid or the nation goes into default. There is no way around that as a "short term fix".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is contending that we can refuse to pay our utility bills.
> 
> What I have repeatedly asked you is to back up what you are claiming.
> 
> There is no official US budget.  (Fucking Reid.)  So where do you get your figures?
> 
> Link us up.
> 
> I'd like it broken down a little tiny bit.  Maybe two links: one for borrowing debts with principle and interest.  And another for all the other obligations we owe on a monthly basis.
Click to expand...


I provided the budget link in post #210. It is broken down by income and expenditures. Line items for all agencies and the net interest on the debt.

FYI we don't pay down any principle on the debt.


----------



## Derideo_Te

IlarMeilyr said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire thread was about defaulting on the debt. You made it into an entirely different argument that no one but you is making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You inability to comprehend what default means is duly noted. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not fair.
> 
> There are debts owed due to borrowing (requiring the payment of principal and interest) and other kinds of debts, such as the duty to pay pursuant to contractual obligations.
> 
> That bastion of subsidized modern American liberalism, National Public Radio (NPR) addresses the topic of "default" in a very specific way (along the lines of the doom-saying preached by the Obama Administration and the shrill liberal Democrats):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are questions and answers about the government's borrowing limit:
> 
> Q. What exactly is it?
> 
> A. The borrowing limit is a cap on how much debt the government can accumulate to pay its bills. The government borrows in most years because its spending has long exceeded its revenue. The first borrowing limit was enacted in 1917. Since 1962, Congress has raised the borrowing limit 77 times. It now stands at $16.7 trillion.
> 
> Q. When will we reach the limit?
> 
> A. The national debt actually reached the limit in May. Since then, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has made accounting moves to continue financing the government without further borrowing. But Lew says those measures will be exhausted by Thursday. The government will then have to pay its bills from its cash on hand  an estimated $30 billion  and tax revenue.
> 
> Q. So what happens after Thursday?
> 
> A. The government could pay its bills for a few days. But sometime between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, the cash on hand and tax revenue wouldn't be sufficient, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The date isn't exact because it's impossible to foresee precisely how much revenue the government will receive and when.
> 
> Q. When it runs out of cash, does the government default?
> 
> A. No, not right away. A default would occur if the government fails to make a principal or interest payment on any of its Treasurys. The first interest payment after Thursday's deadline is a $6 billion payment due Oct. 31.
> 
> Many experts think that to avoid a default, Treasury would make payments on the debt its top priority.
> 
> "We believe the government would continue to pay interest and principal on its debt even in the event that the debt limit is not raised, leaving its creditworthiness intact," says Moody's Investors Service, a credit rating agency.
> 
> But that is the subject of intense dispute in Washington. The House has approved a bill to require such "prioritization." The Senate hasn't passed it, though. And President Barack Obama has threatened to veto it.
> 
> Without an increase in the borrowing limit, the government couldn't pay other obligations on time, such as Social Security benefits, bills from government contractors and Medicare reimbursements. Those payments are also legal obligations, Lew argues, and failure to pay them would essentially be equivalent to a default.
> 
> In any case, making some payments and not others is harder than it might sound. Treasury makes roughly 100 million payments a month. Nearly all are automated. Lew says the Treasury's computer systems aren't equipped to choose some and not others among all those outgoing checks.
> 
> And without cash in reserve, any minor glitch could cause Treasury to miss a debt payment  and default.
> 
> "Treasury would do everything in their power to not miss a debt payment," says Donald Marron, an economist at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush. "But when you're in untested waters under a great deal of stress, bad things happen."
> 
> Q. What other problems might be raised by prioritization?
> 
> A. Consider the legal and political obstacles. The government is legally obligated to pay its contractors. If not, the contractors could sue for non-payment. And how long would members of Congress stand by as Treasury holders in China and other nations were paid interest, while payments to U.S. veterans and Social Security recipients were delayed?
> 
> Q. How would investors react if the government made its interest payments but fell behind on other obligations?
> 
> A. Badly, most economists say. If the government couldn't pay veterans' benefits, federal employee salaries or other bills, investors would almost certainly demand higher interest rates at future Treasury auctions. That would drive up the cost to taxpayers of servicing the government's debt.
> 
> A failure to pay any obligation "would severely damage perceptions of our creditworthiness," says David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q&A: What Happens If US Breaks Borrowing Limit? : NPR
> 
> ^ NOTE:  they do get around (eventually) to including the "other" obligations (like paying contractors), but they spent the lion's share of their time, up front, discussing the other kind of debt (borrowing and principal and interest).  And they sure as heck DID focus primarily the borrowed kind of obligation.  And they do make more than a passing mention of "prioritizing" the debt.
> 
> All in all, it makes for a compelling argument that the President should stop attempting to make a political game of this serious business.  Of course, they would be the first to deny that implication.
Click to expand...


That comment was directed at LS, Ilar. 

The NPR article points out the problems inherent in not paying 100% of all incurred debt obligations irrespective of their origin.

There is an alternative solution that no one is talking about. It will mean that there is no need to raise the debt ceiling by a single dollar.

It also has no negative repercussions like the other problems we have discussed.

Do you want to explore that avenue?


----------



## Trajan

LoneLaugher said:


> The new talking point is that even if we hit the debt ceiling....and do not raise it....we will not default because we have plenty of money to cover our debts.
> 
> Everything is going to be just fine.



that first point is correct, but has a time limit. I'd prefer we didn't......I think the Collins compromise has merit.


----------



## KissMy

Fitch just put the USA on "Negative Watch"!!!
"KEY RATING DRIVERS In line with Fitch's previous statements, the RWN reflects the following key rating drivers and their relative weights: High - The U.S. authorities have not raised the federal debt ceiling in a timely manner before the Treasury exhausts extraordinary measures. The U.S. Treasury Secretary has said that extraordinary measures will be exhausted by 17 October, leaving cash reserves of just USD30bn. Although Fitch continues to believe that the debt ceiling will be raised soon, the political brinkmanship and reduced financing flexibility could increase the risk of a U.S. default. - Although the Treasury would still have limited capacity to make payments after 17 October it would be exposed to volatile revenue and expenditure flows. The Treasury may be unable to prioritise debt service, and it is unclear whether it even has the legal authority to do so."


----------



## eflatminor

KissMy said:


> Fitch just put the USA on "Negative Watch"!!!



Maybe it's time we live within our means?

Interesting fact:  We'll collect about the same amount of revenue this year that was required to fund all government operation in 2008...with NO deficit spending!

Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitch just put the USA on "Negative Watch"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe it's time we live within our means?*
> 
> Interesting fact:  We'll collect about the same amount of revenue this year that was required to fund all government operation in 2008...with NO deficit spending!
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
Click to expand...


Yup, raise taxes to cover corporate welfare and defense spending and the rest will be easy.


----------



## Trajan

its been pretty much buried......


----------



## Trajan

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitch just put the USA on "Negative Watch"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe it's time we live within our means?*
> 
> Interesting fact:  We'll collect about the same amount of revenue this year that was required to fund all government operation in 2008...with NO deficit spending!
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, raise taxes to cover corporate welfare and defense spending and the rest will be easy.
Click to expand...



taxes were raised, last January, we were supposed to be working on tax reform by now, what happened to that?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Trajan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe it's time we live within our means?*
> 
> Interesting fact:  We'll collect about the same amount of revenue this year that was required to fund all government operation in 2008...with NO deficit spending!
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, raise taxes to cover corporate welfare and defense spending and the rest will be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> taxes were raised, last January, we were supposed to be working on tax reform by now, what happened to that?
Click to expand...


Good question. When one side refuses to negotiate nothing is accomplished and we end up in a situation where if the debt ceiling is not raised then taxes will have to be increased to cover the shortfall. It is one or the other because neither side wants to deal with spending cuts to their own sacred cows.


----------



## Hoffstra

Tea Baggers are dangerous for the USA.

We need to treat them like Egypt treated the Muslim Brotherhood.

Illegalize them, sieze their party property, and arrest their leaders for treason.


----------



## Hoffstra

I have no problem reducing the deficit.

but we have to do it slowly but surely, in a way that causes the least harm and pain.


----------



## Faun

eflatminor said:


> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?



  

Well except for being in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history ... the collapse of our housing markets ... the destruction of our credit markets ... the near death of our economy ... on the way to 11 million people falling to under/unemployment ... on the way to a crashing stock market, losing some 60% valuation ... losing almost 5% of GDP ... Sarah Palin not becoming VP ................ 

.............. it was a great year!


----------



## Geaux4it

Hoffstra said:


> Tea Baggers are dangerous for the USA.
> 
> We need to treat them like Egypt treated the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Illegalize them, sieze their party property, and arrest their leaders for treason.



Why don't you step up and lead the charge?

-Geaux


----------



## koshergrl

Hoffstra said:


> Tea Baggers are dangerous for the USA.
> 
> We need to treat them like Egypt treated the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Illegalize them, sieze their party property, and arrest their leaders for treason.


 
Wow you sound so Nazish there!


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fitch just put the USA on "Negative Watch"!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe it's time we live within our means?*
> 
> Interesting fact:  We'll collect about the same amount of revenue this year that was required to fund all government operation in 2008...with NO deficit spending!
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, raise taxes to cover corporate welfare and defense spending and the rest will be easy.
Click to expand...


And you think that will INCREASE revenues to government coffers?


----------



## eflatminor

Hoffstra said:


> Illegalize them, sieze their party property, and arrest their leaders for treason.



Molon Labe, asshole.


----------



## eflatminor

Faun said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for being in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history ... the collapse of our housing markets ... the destruction of our credit markets ... the near death of our economy ... on the way to 11 million people falling to under/unemployment ... on the way to a crashing stock market, losing some 60% valuation ... losing almost 5% of GDP ... Sarah Palin not becoming VP ................
> 
> .............. it was a great year!
Click to expand...


And you think more federal spending would have fixed that?

God you're dumb.


----------



## Toro

Hoffstra said:


> Tea Baggers are dangerous for the USA.
> 
> We need to treat them like Egypt treated the Muslim Brotherhood.
> 
> Illegalize them, sieze their party property, and arrest their leaders for treason.



Don't forget the indefinite detention on trumped up charges after a kangaroo court plus torture!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained how we can take in 2.5 trillion and not be able to pay our 420 billion dollar debt obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations. If We the People fail to pay *ALL* of our obligations we go into default.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> How about providing a source.
> 
> You libs are all the same. you throw out bullshit numbers without anything to support it.
Click to expand...


That's you, actually, and Redfish.  Give us some numbers we can work with, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lonestar_logic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I knew you were full of shit and you just proved it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So given that you could not refute anything in the provided links and have resorted to name calling vulgarities instead I will take that as you tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey idiot what you showed was a total budget cost.  And your claim was we HAD to have over 3 trillion just to meet our obligations.  Tell me, did you keep a straight face while posting that bullshit?
Click to expand...


_You _are actually posting the above with a straight face?

Well, of course, you are.


----------



## KissMy

*US Treasury Secretary Prioritizing is not an option!*

US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate - &#8220;There is no plan other than raising the debt limit"..."The automated system pays roughly 80 million checks a month&#8221;..."I don't believe there is a way to pick and choose on a broad basis. This system was not designed to be turned off selectively. Anyone who thinks it can be done just doesn't know the architecture of our multiple payment systems. They are very complex. They were designed properly to pay our bills. They were not designed to not pay our bills."

Lew also told lawmakers that the legal issues regarding prioritization of interest and principal on debt are complicated.&#8220;Prioritization is just default by any other name,&#8221; Lew said. The legal authority to pick and choose payments is not &#8220;clear at all&#8221; and that even if it wanted to do so, technologically it may not be possible.


----------



## Geaux4it

I hope we finally cave the modern Roman Empire. And Barack Obama and his minions will be holding the bag. Only the strong survive which will essentially eliminate the recent 51% majority of fools

-Geaux


----------



## Vandalshandle

There is some truth to what the tea party is saying. If you live in a single wiide, and have a job holding a "slow" sign in the street at a construction site, don't have a savings account, and your wife gave you Palin's latest book for Christmas, and you make sure that you meet your cable payments because you are afraid you might miss Hannity and Fox News, as well as Duck Dynasty, then you really don't have anything to lose if everything shuts down.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have about 3.2 trillion in legal obligations. If We the People fail to pay *ALL* of our obligations we go into default.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> How about providing a source.
> 
> You libs are all the same. you throw out bullshit numbers without anything to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's you, actually, and Redfish.  Give us some numbers we can work with, please.
Click to expand...


I did you retarded fuck. Keep up with the discussion or stay out of it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> So given that you could not refute anything in the provided links and have resorted to name calling vulgarities instead I will take that as you tacitly conceding this point. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey idiot what you showed was a total budget cost.  And your claim was we HAD to have over 3 trillion just to meet our obligations.  Tell me, did you keep a straight face while posting that bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _You _are actually posting the above with a straight face?
> 
> Well, of course, you are.
Click to expand...


Go suck Obama's dick!!


----------



## IlarMeilyr

KarlaM said:


> *The Tea Party Says Nothing Will Happen If We Default*
> 
> That's because they can all see Russia from Sarah Palin's house.



Fruitbats like KarlaDuuh seem to think that Palin said that.  They can't distinguish between the partisan hack comic musings of SNL regulars and actual human beings whom they are parodying.

The lolberal fruitbats cannot distinguish between comic parody and reality.

And then, they think they are being smaht and clevuh when they repeat the comic.


----------



## Faun

eflatminor said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for being in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history ... the collapse of our housing markets ... the destruction of our credit markets ... the near death of our economy ... on the way to 11 million people falling to under/unemployment ... on the way to a crashing stock market, losing some 60% valuation ... losing almost 5% of GDP ... Sarah Palin not becoming VP ................
> 
> .............. it was a great year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think more federal spending would have fixed that?
> 
> God you're dumb.
Click to expand...

You're a prime example for why Conservatives shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our economy -- you're too stupid to understand that it was thanks to increased spending that our economy didn't completely flatline. The additional spending was the only thing keeping our head above water until the private sector got back on its feet.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Maybe it's time we live within our means?*
> 
> Interesting fact:  We'll collect about the same amount of revenue this year that was required to fund all government operation in 2008...with NO deficit spending!
> 
> Were things so bad in 2008 that we couldn't return that level of federal spending?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, raise taxes to cover corporate welfare and defense spending and the rest will be easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that will INCREASE revenues to government coffers?
Click to expand...


Do you think that everyone will just refuse to pay the taxes they owe?


----------



## eflatminor

Faun said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well except for being in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our nation's history ... the collapse of our housing markets ... the destruction of our credit markets ... the near death of our economy ... on the way to 11 million people falling to under/unemployment ... on the way to a crashing stock market, losing some 60% valuation ... losing almost 5% of GDP ... Sarah Palin not becoming VP ................
> 
> .............. it was a great year!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think more federal spending would have fixed that?
> 
> God you're dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a prime example for why Conservatives shouldn't be allowed anywhere near our economy -- you're too stupid to understand that it was thanks to increased spending that our economy didn't completely flatline. The additional spending was the only thing keeping our head above water until the private sector got back on its feet.
Click to expand...


Ah!  The "because I say so" retort.  Yea, pass.

If we are to let logic and reason have its moment, any rational person would question how forcibly taking money from businesses and our most productive citizens to be run through corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies would be good for the economy.  Central planners and nanny state suck ups, I understand, would prefer not to consider such realities.  After all, it's the _intention _that really counts!


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, raise taxes to cover corporate welfare and defense spending and the rest will be easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that will INCREASE revenues to government coffers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that everyone will just refuse to pay the taxes they owe?
Click to expand...


Wow, are you really that thick?  Do you not understand that the more taxes are raised, the less investments are made...and that can result in less economic activity and result in lower revenues to the government?

Apparently, you do not.

How sad.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that will INCREASE revenues to government coffers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that everyone will just refuse to pay the taxes they owe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, are you really that thick?  Do you not understand that the more taxes are raised, the less investments are made...and that can result in less economic activity and result in lower revenues to the government?
> 
> Apparently, you do not.
> 
> How sad.
Click to expand...


Too bad you cannot substantiate any of your allegations with credible facts. 

The reality is that when taxes were high the wealthy made more investments in order to increase their income. When they were just handed that same income on a plate by the Republican tax cuts they didn't need to take the same investment risks. 

The facts speak for themselves. When taxes were higher during the last decade of the prior century the economy was booming with investments. Contrast that to the anemic economy in this century as soon as taxes were lowered.

The wealthy have no incentive to invest and create jobs when taxes are low.


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> The reality is that when taxes were high the wealthy made more investments in order to increase their income.
> 
> The wealthy have no incentive to invest and create jobs when taxes are low.



Wow, just wow.

Words cannot describe how ignorant you sound.

Good luck with all of that...


----------



## KissMy

Today the Chinese credit-rating agency Dagong Global Credit cut its rating of the U.S. by one notch to A-minus from A. The agency said that the agreement in Washington between Democrats and Republicans to reopen the government and come to a temporary debt deal does not defuse worries in the long term. When the news broke, gold prices spiked about $40 higher.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that when taxes were high the wealthy made more investments in order to increase their income.
> 
> The wealthy have no incentive to invest and create jobs when taxes are low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> *Words cannot describe how ignorant you sound.*
> 
> Good luck with all of that...
Click to expand...


Ironic given your complete and utter inability to provide a coherent response!


----------



## eflatminor

Derideo_Te said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that when taxes were high the wealthy made more investments in order to increase their income.
> 
> The wealthy have no incentive to invest and create jobs when taxes are low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> *Words cannot describe how ignorant you sound.*
> 
> Good luck with all of that...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic given your complete and utter inability to provide a coherent response!
Click to expand...


You have capital to invest.  You can choose an environment with high taxation or one with lower taxation.  Which does any rational person choose???

If high taxes are an incentive to invest, why are companies and capital fleeing high tax states like California for lower taxed ones?  Hmm???

By your "logic" a business is MORE likely to invest in expansion when taxes are higher...even though they're assured a lower return compared to a low tax environment.  Think how ridiculous that sounds.  My God man, how about a modicum of logic and reason!


----------



## Faun

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that will INCREASE revenues to government coffers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that everyone will just refuse to pay the taxes they owe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, are you really that thick?  Do you not understand that the more taxes are raised, the less investments are made...and that can result in less economic activity and result in lower revenues to the government?
> 
> Apparently, you do not.
> 
> How sad.
Click to expand...


Too bad for your diatribe, you can only point to one time in U.S. history when taxes were increased and revenue fell. And that was due to the Great Depression and not the tax hike.


----------



## whitehall

For your own mental health, radical libs should stop relying on left wing web sites for information. The Tea Party ain't your enemy regardless of what Huffington says. Most conservatives who belong to the Tea party agree that the Country will not default if the debit ceiling is not raised regardless of what Hussein says.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eflatminor said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> *Words cannot describe how ignorant you sound.*
> 
> Good luck with all of that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given your complete and utter inability to provide a coherent response!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have capital to invest.  You can choose an environment with high taxation or one with lower taxation.  Which does any rational person choose???
> 
> If high taxes are an incentive to invest, why are companies and capital fleeing high tax states like California for lower taxed ones?  Hmm???
> 
> By your "logic" a business is MORE likely to invest in expansion when taxes are higher...even though they're assured a lower return compared to a low tax environment.  Think how ridiculous that sounds.  My God man, how about a modicum of logic and reason!
Click to expand...


Real investors look at ROI. Obviously you don't know much about them or you wouldn't be trying to conflate corporations looking for lower overheads with investors looking for new opportunities.


----------



## Derideo_Te

whitehall said:


> For your own mental health, radical libs should stop relying on left wing web sites for information. The Tea Party ain't your enemy regardless of what Huffington says. Most conservatives who belong to the Tea party agree that the Country will not default if the debit ceiling is not raised regardless of what Hussein says.



Right wing websites are notorious for disinformation.


----------

