26
   

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well, I don't disagree with your position, but - as the Republicans run the House of Representatives - we are left with few options.

To say that Obama should threaten default rather than cut a compromise with them, is as irresponsible as those on the right-wing who say that they should threaten a default, rather than cut a compromise with Obama. I can't get behind such a position.

Quote:
Obama cannot negotiate with the GOP.


I say that not only CAN he negotiate with the GOP, he IS negotiating with them and winning the negotiations. You don't understand how harmful these last two weeks have been to the Republicans. Their extreme base sees any compromise as a huge, huge loss to Obama; so, forcing them to compromise is a giant win.

Go read some of their blogs. Republican Senators are attacking the House, each other, and the House members are fighting amongst themselves as well. They have no unified position. This is going to seriously harm them going forward. I'd say that Obama has, to this point, played this one just about as well as he could.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:30 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:

I reject that this is a fact. A default means that the US stops paying interest on her debt. That's all a default means.


Well, I should have been more specific. The US isn't going to 'default' on our debt interest payments. We would prioritize those payments, and cut back in every other area possible. Please read the following:

Quote:
Posted at 03:08 PM ET, 07/01/2011
What failure to raise the debt ceiling will look like
By Ezra Klein


(Mark Wilson - GETTY IMAGES) Ever wondered how many bills the federal government pays in a month? It’s not 100, or 1,000, or 10,000, or even 200,000. It’s 80 million. Every month. And according to a new analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center, if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by Aug. 2, the Treasury Department is going to have to figure out which 30 million of those bills should go unpaid.

The BPC’s analysis was led by Jay Powell, who served as undersecretary of the Treasury in George H.W. Bush’s administration. It’s not pretty. Powell and his team estimate that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, Treasury will only be able to pay 55-60% of the federal government’s bills in August.

The paper lays out a few scenarios for how that might go. In the “Protect Big Programs” scenario, Treasury pays bills related to interest on the debt, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, defense suppliers and unemployment insurance. That means it stops paying military salaries, gives up on the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control, cuts all funding for food stamps and education, shuts down air control, tells NASA to head home, freezes the paycheck of every federal employee, and much more. In another, the Treasury Department tries to protect the social safety net, but has to stop supplying the troops, sending out tax refunds, inspecting offshore oil rigs, etc.

This also leads to an extraordinary assertion of executive power. The executive branch carries out the laws enacted by Congress. Asking them to “prioritize” across different spending needs is asking them to selectively decide between different laws that Congress has passed.

Since the Treasury has never had to make these decisions before, no one quite knows how they’ll be made. The BPC estimates a 44 percent drop in federal spending, but can’t precisely estimate where that drop will happen. That means nobody else can, either. So as we get closer to doomsday, companies that contract with the federal government will start hoarding cash to tide them through a period in which they might stop being paid. Seniors and other Americans who rely on federal transfers would be wise to do the same. And then if we do pass the borrowing limit, the economy is going to have to absorb a sudden and sharp drop in federal spending, which will reverberate among businesses that don’t directly work with the government but sell to those who do.

But at least we’re leaving the bond market alone, right? Wrong. According to the BPC’s calculations, the federal government needs to roll over $500 billion of debt in August. If we’re in quasi-default, who will want to purchase that debt? What will they charge us when they do purchase that debt? A 10 percent premium would cost us $50 billion. A one percent premium would cost us $5 billion. And that’s only the direct cost. Because so many other kinds of debt benchmark against the rates the Treasury pays, you’ll see borrowing costs rising throughout the system. Mortgages, corporate borrowing, all of it. It won’t just be the federal government that pays. It’ll be the economy.

By Ezra Klein | 03:08 PM ET, 07/01/2011


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-failure-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling-will-look-like/2011/05/19/AGK9tvtH_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein

Going through a quasi- or full-default would cold **** our economy in a wide variety of ways. It's easy to be cavalier about that, but the reality is that we just don't know how bad it would be. I cannot find any meaningful reason to encourage such a situation.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That will only prove their point; that threats work. It must be stopped now.

I don't want the GOP controlling our government because they have a majority in the House. They do not bring solutions to the table; only threats and innuendos. The democrats control the administration and the senate; why are they willing to forgo on their primary goals to satisfy the minority party based on threats?

We'll never see the end of threats unless their actions results in enough pain for everybody. We are at the point in our politics and country.

The "new" tea baggers with no more than a few months in office believe they can control this country's politics and politicians. They arrived thinking they had a mandate to cut expenses; but what they are doing is destroying our democracy.

As you said, most want a compromise. The GOP-teabaggers are not ready to compromise. Next step? Default on our government's commitments.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Go read some of their blogs. Republican Senators are attacking the House, each other, and the House members are fighting amongst themselves as well
AND there was just a study out yesterday or the day before that shows that self identified republican citizens dont have a lot of faith in republicans in Washington to fix the debt ceiling problem. Not that Democrats should gloat mind you, because Americans dont trust them to fix problems either. Congress has not worked very well for a long time, and now few Amercians can ignore any longer the fact that Washington overall does not work. Increasingly expecting those in Washington to get anything meaningful accomplished ranks right up there with expected Larry, Moe and Curly to get the job done.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Go read some of their blogs. Republican Senators are attacking the House, each other, and the House members are fighting amongst themselves as well.


Just want to expound on this. Today, McConnell is being attacked by everyone - called every name in the book by the base, weak, thin-skinned, an idiot et cetera. The blogs are out for his blood.

And it's absolutely and stunningly foolish of them, for that man is more responsible for stopping Obama from passing legislation than any other 10 members of the GOP. His leadership has been very, very effective in the Senate for the last several years.

This - watching the base destroy their leadership for doing a deal - is exactly what Obama wants. It's not just about one policy battle, or spending here or there; it's about 2012, and so far, this is working out exactly according to Obama's 2012 plan.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Not paying 100% on the government's obligations will impact our economy in many negative ways. That's a fact. If seniors don't get their benefits for any length of time, many will starve, and not be able to pay their necessary bills. Many are hardship cases, and that translates into those stores and supermarkets not getting consumers. Multiply that by tens of thousands, and you can begin to see the impact.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Not paying 100% on the government's obligations will impact our economy in many negative ways. That's a fact. If seniors don't get their benefits for any length of time, many will starve, and not be able to pay their necessary bills. Many are hardship cases, and that translates into those stores and supermarkets not getting consumers. Multiply that by tens of thousands, and you can begin to see the impact.


Well, that's what you WANT to happen by saying we shouldn't do a deal, so I don't know what else to say.

The only way to avoid the situation you lay out in the last post is to do some sort of deal with the Republicans. No two ways about it.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:43 pm
@JPB,


Timmy 'The Tax Cheat' Geithner, what an idiot!
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
That will only prove their point; that threats work. It must be stopped now.

I think that's the core of the matter. What Bill Clinton understands, but Obama apparently doesn't want to, is that compromise can only work between rational grown-ups. But the Tea-Party freshmen in the House aren't rational grown-ups. They're fanatics and hostage takers. Obama can't compromise with them. His only choices are (1) to escalate or (2) to cave in, paving the way for many more hostage crises to come. Escalation is an evil, but it looks like the lesser evil to me.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:47 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo, The bond part of the article is wrong. That's because China owns over $1.2 trillion of our bonds, and it's in their interest to make sure they help minimize any impact. If they don't, they will lose big time. Not only China, but Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and many other countries hold US bonds.

They can't easily sell those bonds on the open market, because if they do, the price will drop leaving them with less value.

Also, oil is traded in US dollars. If the US dollar loses value against all other currency, oil becomes more expensive to all.

There are some protections, but not when the US economy continues to contract.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Ezra Klein describes one way a default could play out. He isn't describing the only scenario it could play out. It is possible to default just on the interest payments, and maybe on the debt that's supposed to roll over, and leave the rest of the federal government alone. At least Klein presents no reason why this is not possible.

But as hawkeye and JPB pointed out, default isn't the only way to escalate. Another way is that Obama ignore the debt ceiling, instruct the treasury to keep paying, and dare the Republicans to make the courts stop him. I agree that this is the best way to go, but doubt that Obama has the guts.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Of the actual debt that is monetized, China , Japan, UK, and the OPEC countries own about 3 trillion. Wheres the other 11 gone?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:57 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Ezra Klein describes one way a default could play out. He isn't describing the only scenario it could play out. It is possible to default just on the interest payments, and maybe on the debt that's supposed to roll over, and leave the rest of the federal government alone. At least Klein presents no reason why this is not possible.


Well, top officials in the WH and treasury say that they won't do this, and that the results would be disastrous if they did so, as ALL scenarios before the gov't call for extended borrowing in the known future, which your plan would make far more expensive; so, I think that the thought is that, while your scenario is possible, it's highly unlikely to happen.

Quote:
But as hawkeye and JPB pointed out, default isn't the only way to escalate. Another way is that Obama ignore the debt ceiling, instruct the treasury to keep paying, and dare the Republicans to make the courts stop him. I agree that this is the best way to go, but doubt that Obama has the guts.


It would definitely cause a constitutional crisis heading into next year's election. With the SC having the makeup it currently does, it isn't at all clear that Obama would win such an argument; and it would play right into the hands of Republicans for him to do so, who would argue that he's a tyrant, who ignores the law AND the recommendations of his own treasury.

The politics of your recommendation suck.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The politics of your recommendation suck.

Don't hold back, now. Tell me how you really feel! Smile
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 04:02 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The politics of your recommendation suck.

Don't hold back, now. Tell me how you really feel! Smile


Dunno what else you want me to say. It's indefensible politically to take the actions you recommend. The alternative - which Obama is currently pursuing - is highly advantageous politically, and has the added benefit of not threatening to crash our economy.

I can't get behind a plan with huge real downsides and only theoretical upsides. And I believe it would be highly irresponsible to gamble that way.

Cycloptichorn
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 04:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't know what more to say to you, either. Let's agree to disagree.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 04:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
It would definitely cause a constitutional crisis heading into next year's election
So what? The next election will not change much, they never do, and there will be another election after that....I would rather be dealing with a Constitutional crisis than a global economic meltdown crisis, and short of a deal that both reds and blues willingly sign onto them are the options.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 04:07 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

I don't know what more to say to you, either. Let's agree to disagree.


Fine with me; we disagree as to what the best action to take would be.

That being said - I can rest comfortably in the knowledge that my preferred course of action at this point - a deal - is by far the most likely one TO happen, and has the added bonus of politically benefiting Obama and the Dems, while throwing their opponents into disarray.

I'm perfectly fine with never knowing whether or not a default would be 'healthy' for our economy for sure.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 04:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It would definitely cause a constitutional crisis heading into next year's election
So what? The next election will not change much, they never do, and there will be another election after that....I would rather be dealing with a Constitutional crisis than a global economic meltdown crisis, and short of a deal that both reds and blues willingly sign onto them are the options.


Yeah, but Hawk - c'mon. You're not the guy people look to for good solutions for problems. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So whatever you say you'd 'rather deal with,' in a situation, it's usually a good sign that the opposite solution would be far preferable.

A question for you - say we do default, and military pay is cut to the bone in order to cover other bills. You really don't care about that?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 04:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fine with me; we disagree as to what the best action to take would be.

If you're fine to agree to disagree, please stop misrepresenting what I say. I never said a default would be healthy. I said it's the lesser evil. Please note: lesser, but still evil. That's far from " healthy".
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/13/2025 at 03:48:15