Let the nation default?

[thereisnospoon]

Do you make up all of you own bullshit? Or do you have help? Better yet, do you believe all your own bullshit? I hope not.

BTW, you need to make up your mind. Is an increase a decrease if the increase is not as much as planned? You know, like your idea above.

But I will tell you what is scary. The stupidity of people like you who want to use the governments ability to function and pay our bills as a negotiating chip to change or remove existing law.

How you gonna like it when the Dems shut the government down and refuse to pay our bills if the ultra wealthy don't get a 5% tax increase. Or how about shut er down if assault weapons are not banned. There are a LOT of things the Dems might want to use the shut down for. Won't it be great when the Dems do it?

One day the Dems will be in the majority in the House. You sure you want this idea of default and shutting down the government to be used against Repugs in the future?

First. There is no need to make this personal. So cut the insults. I will not tolerate it.
Now, you have deftly sidestepped the point.
Baseline budgeting is the method by which our federal departments are funded. That includes discretionary spending.
All budgets are increased on a yearly basis by a certain percentage based on the fiscal requirements of each department.
The idea is to reduce the amount of increase each fiscal year until the federal government can cease running deficits to operate at full capacity.
Each time this idea is introduced, howls of protest come from the political left. The message given to the people is "they are cutting your( name the entitlement)....When in fact there is no cut at all. It is simple a reduction in the budget increase.
This tactic to not fund Obamacare is nothing new. These types of deals have been part of how our government works from the beginning.
For example, do you really think the Electric Boat Company where all of our nuclear submarines are built has been in Groton, CT because it is THE ideal place to do this work?
The subs are built there because powerful legislators have made deals to insure the work is kept in this otherwise small Connecticut South Shore town.
This deal with Obamacare is nothing new. It's just on a more grand scale.
Laws are changed all the time. For the most part new legislation is written to make the existing law no longer valid.
Where do you people get the idea that once a law is passed and signed it is sacrosanct?
The wealthy DID get a tax increase. So did everyone else.
BTW, there was no continuing resolution or any spending measure tied to the tax increase.
The gun thing is not going to happen. First, that is an issue for the states. Second, many states have passed laws restricting the use or ownership of certain weapons. They have done this without breaching the 2nd Amendment.
Your emotion filled post used two very poor examples of how you see this as a tit for tat issue.
That's scary.
Here we have a program, Obamacare, which offers nothing in resemblance to what we were told, will cost THREE times the original figure. That is based on the report from the CBO. Has caused premiums to skyrocket for those who choose to stay with their current carrier.
What else is there to say. ACA is a bad law and it needs to be changed dramatically or not funded in its current form.
This fight is not about health insurance or medical care. This impasse is the work of the President who is concerned more with his legacy and a democrat faction willing to carry the water for the President.
The words "I will not negotiate" are not those of an elected governing executive. Those are the words of ruler.

What the fuk are you gonna do about it? Put me on ignore. Oh I know, NEG REP. OMG. Not that. But if you didn't put me on ignore, talk about deft dodge. You da man.

You never did answer my question. You want the Dems to do the same thing with the funding of government and paying our bills, as the Republicans are doing right now?

And if you are not smart enough to figure out what subjects (guns and taxes) that the Dems might choose to use this tactic on, well it just goes to prove again how short sighted people like you are.

I have sent my couple of e mails to the WH urging the President not to enter negotiations with the terrorist rethugs in Congress.

Lets bring this to a head and find out just where we are going with this bull shit.

Terrorist thugs....You just lost any credibility you may have had.
I read your question. A deliberate attempt to draw into a pissing contest. Futile on your part.
I have no problem insulting the shit out of you.
I simply am giving you the opportunity to have a civil debate. Did I insult you in anyway?
Did I use nasty language toward you?
No, I simply presented another idea. With that you got pissed and hurled an insult my way. Why would you do that? Just because I am not in lockstep agreement with you?
Is that how it works on your side?

 

[thereisnospoon]

this is why we are in this mess, dems/liberals actually believe this stuff, they believe their political opponents are terrorists and should be arrested.

that alone, says much about the left wing....

ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The definition of terrorism describes the teabaggers perfectly.

give specific examples

Those definitions are so vague they can be left to wide open interpretation. So much so that to the extent where any adversarial negotiation can be defined as "terrorism"..
The use of this term by the lefties is typical laziness and alarmist.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As of 4 PM Atlantic time today, I don't give a rat's ass what the republicans do. I sold every stock I own. I plan to buy them all back at bargain prices after the Tea party suceeds in causing another recession.

 

[Geaux4it]

We will not default. More boogey man stuff from Obama.

Now he's pushing granny off the cliff

-Geaux

 

[kaz]

They should be, not to mention for domestic terrorism.

Jesus, can you guys put a sign up before you start a circle jerk? It's disgusting to walk into one of these...

That's called the sound of freedom ringing, something the GOP hates more then anything

Is that what your jerk off sounds like to you? Ringing? Actually it just sounds like a jerk off.

 

[Yurt]

If someone calls you and threatens to ruin your credit, if you don't do what they want you to do, they can be arrested for extortion.

So can the FBI arrest House Republicans for extortion?

They should be, not to mention for domestic terrorism.

cite specific examples, you've been claiming this all day yet have not provided a single example

X2

 

[KissMy]

This political stunt wasting $300 million of our taxes a day with this stupid shutdown. It cost way more to shutdown the government than to keep it running. We are paying more & getting less in return. All government employees will get back pay for this vacation & overtime to catch up on the backlog being created at witch time more paper, toner, postage, power etc will be used. All government income has stopped from things like National Parks but we still will pay all those Park Employees back pay for their time off. It cost $110 Billion a year more to shut down the US Government than to keep it running. Government always takes care of their own.

House votes to give furloughed federal workers back pay: "A bill that provides back pay for furloughed Federal workers during the government shutdown unanimously passed the House during a rare Saturday session on Capitol Hill... Retroactive pay is guaranteed under the bill, but federal workers can't expect their paychecks until after the government shutdown ends and Congress reaches a resolution on the budget."

 

[Flopper]

You have to love it how the left is lying as always - not raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with not paying our bills on the debt.

if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we can no longer pay all of our financial obligations.

that will cause a default.

I think that's a true statement although I'm pretty confident congress will raise the debt ceiling before that happens. However, if the debt ceiling is not raised the government would have to eliminate the deficit in one year and that would not happen so we would default on some of our obligations.

 

[EriktheRed]

Displays such as this little message only make your side appear desperate.

Pointing out what a sorry excuse for a House Speaker John Boehner is is a sign of "desperation"?

 

[Geaux4it]

You have to love it how the left is lying as always - not raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with not paying our bills on the debt.

if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we can no longer pay all of our financial obligations.

that will cause a default.

Um, no it won't.

-Geaux

 

[Chris]

Put it to a vote, Mr. Boehner.

Why do Republicans hate democracy?

 

[TooTall]

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/usgs_line.php?title=Federal%20

Someone else who can't read a graph. Don't they teach this in school anymore?
The debt to GDP ration (the only one that really counts) is enormous. It was bigger than this only in WW2 and that was a time limited event. This time Obama has ramped up spending to a permanent high. It looks better now because the Feds have been collecting increased taxes to pay for Obamacare for 2 years without expending anything in benefits. Here on in the benefits bill becomes due.
It is unsustainable. If we dont do something to scale back entitlement growth we will be the next Greece.[/quote]

Obama was not president when spending went through the roof. But we did have Democrats in control of congress during a big part of it.[B] Bush prescription drug healthcare explosion was also a big problem[/B].[/QUOTE]

Not really, but if Obama gets his way it will be.

[quote]One program that has been successfully working for ten years is Medicare Part D. Part D is a widely popular, bipartisan program that has been saving Americans money since its inception in 2003, when it was created as part of the Medicare Modernization Act to cover the drug coverage gap that that existed in Medicare’s plan. Under Part D, which is run on a free enterprise model, seniors choose from a wide variety of privately run drug plans that negotiate individually with drug makers.

[B]Part D is the most cost-effective and successful entitlement program the federal government runs. [/B]The Part D prescription drug benefit has subsidized costs of prescriptions drugs for millions of seniors and Americans with disabilities. In fact, it was recently announced that more than 6.6 million people with Medicare have saved more than $7 billion on prescription drugs as a result of Part D – or about $1,000 per Medicare recipient.
This news marks just the latest indication of the program’s ongoing success, and was followed by a USA Today article published last week, which revealed that Medicare Part D premiums will remain stable, and the deductible will fall from $325 to $310 in the upcoming year.

[B]And not only is Medicare Part D saving Americans money, the program has consistently come in under budget. Costs are now 45% below the program’s initial 10-year projection – the program will cost $340 billion less than original estimates. Even more impressive, Medicare Part D is helping to save costs in other ways: the Congressional Budget Office found every one percent increase in prescriptions filled has led to a .20 percent decrease in Medicare spending.[/B]The program’s success is reflected in the ratings beneficiaries have given it. Ninety-four percent of Medicare recipients say they are satisfied with their drug coverage, and 95% are confident that their level of coverage meets their needs.

Thus, it is clear that Democrats and Republicans should make sure this program stays out of the fray of upcoming budget negotiations, and enable this cost effective and continuously thriving [B]bipartisan program [/B]to successfully continue.

[B]Yet the Obama administration wants to change Medicare Part D by imposing mandatory government rebates on drug companies that participate in the program. Framed as a cost saver, these new rebates could have significantly damaging effects on the program.
The proposed rebates could ultimately contribute to higher premiums and copays and increased drug prices for private sector consumers, thus resulting in reduced access to critical medications. Because rebates would mean less funding for biopharmaceutical research, this policy could delay potential scientific and medical developments that could realistically change and save lives by making drugs more effective and safer to use. Mandatory government rebates to Medicare Part D would also translate into fewer jobs in the biopharmaceutical sector.[/B][/quote]

[url=http://www.forbes.com/real-time/]Forbes Real Time[/url]

 

[Geaux4it]

You have to love it how the left is lying as always - not raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with not paying our bills on the debt.

if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we can no longer pay all of our financial obligations.

that will cause a default.

I think that's a true statement although I'm pretty confident congress will raise the debt ceiling before that happens. However, if the debt ceiling is not raised the government would have to eliminate the deficit in one year and that would not happen so we would default on some of our obligations.

Default to ourselves?

The United States is the largest buyer of American debt thanks to the FED printing 85 billion a month. That's why they will never take their foot off the gas.

-Geaux

 

[Trajan]

Obama should have the radical right arrested for treason and terror attacks against the nation.

thats the ticket!! don't like their politics? arrest them.... what a tool.

 

[Lumpy 1]

As of 4 PM Atlantic time today, I don't give a rat's ass what the republicans do. I sold every stock I own. I plan to buy them all back at bargain prices after the Tea party suceeds in causing another recession.

We are in yet another Democrat induced recession already, sheesh..

 

[KissMy]

Default to ourselves?

The United States is the largest buyer of American debt thanks to the FED printing 85 billion a month. That's why they will never take their foot off the gas.

-Geaux

Missing a debt payment will be a disaster. It is a shock that will absolutely seize the global financial system, shutter banks, destroy the US credit rating, skyrocket interest rates, destroy jobs & the economy.

The Federal Reserve has been operating a controlled default. It buys debt from debt holders & sits on it at zero interest. It is the same as sterilization or monetizing debt.

 

[HenryBHough]

As of 4 PM Atlantic time today, I don't give a rat's ass what the republicans do. I sold every stock I own. I plan to buy them all back at bargain prices after the Tea party suceeds in causing another recession.

Wow!

Sold BOTH of them?

 

[Hoffstra]

Um, no it won't.

-Geaux

not being able to pay all of our financial obligations means we have defaulted.

 

[Hoffstra]

We will not default. More boogey man stuff from Obama.

Now he's pushing granny off the cliff

-Geaux

we will default if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

Treasury doesn't have the power to prioritize paying our debts over other spending.

 

[Hoffstra]

Why would we default?

Our service on the debt costs about 20 billion a month we currently collect more than 10 times that a month in tax revenue.

Even with no increase in the debt ceiling we should not have a problem servicing the debt.

default means more than just not paying interest on the debt.

it means not paying interest on the debt, not cashing out securities that are withdrawn, not paying bills that are owed to contractors, etc etc..

if we owe money (especially to non-Federal govt. entities) and don't pay it, we have defaulted.