26
   

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

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:07 am
@H2O MAN,
NO, I think most people are realizing that the only thing the GOP is about is destroying this country , so Obama will probably have an easy victory in 2012.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:11 am
@roger,
A balanced budget amendment will cut many ways. It would NOT allow the exhorbitant tax cuts of the Bush years and it would NOT allow foreign adventures like Iraq to deplete our treasury (without even being on the budget)

A balanced budget amendment would constrain the govt from the "TAx Cut" side as well as the spending side. The Teabagger supporters fail to recognize that fact.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:17 am
@farmerman,
As proposed it wouldn't cut both ways.
They can cut spending with a 50% vote but it would require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. While it would still have to balance, the only realistic way to balance it would be to cut spending as we see by how hard it is to get even 50% to agree on cuts and no way would 2/3 ever agree on raising taxes. Every time we would have a surplus, they would cut taxes and every time we have a deficit we would cut spending. It would be a downward spiral that had only one outcome.

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:40 am
In the New York Review of Books, Ronald Dworkin concludes that the 14th-Amendment option is legally sound.

Ronald Dworkin wrote:
The “debt shall not be questioned” clause was added to the Fourteenth Amendment for a specific and immediate purpose: to prevent the new Southern members of Congress, should they gain a majority, from cancelling the debt the Union had incurred in the war. But constitutional interpretation is not a catalogue of historical anecdotes; it is a matter of principle and we are therefore required to identify the principle on which the authors of the clause had to rely. As Chief Justice Hughes said of the clause in 1935, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, “While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle … ” [...]

Of course the principle does not prevent Congress from refusing to authorize new obligations. Obviously, Congress may modify or even extinguish the Social Security or Medicare programs prospectively. But the Republican majority in the House now refuses to permit the country to meet debts duly authorized in the past that remain duly authorized now, unless the Democrats and the President agree to a radical reduction in essential public services that they would never otherwise accept. That is playing blackmail with the nation’s honor. It threatens exactly the kind of forced default that the principle behind the debt clause declares it has no authority to inflict. I believe the best, principled, interpretation of the clause gives the president authority to ignore that blackmail and to borrow enough to meet the nation’s standing legal obligations.

Source: New York Review of Books

Dworkin is one of America's leading constitutional lawyers. If "the constitutional argument" is good enough for him, it's good enough for Obama to invoke, should push come to shove.
revelette
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 07:58 am
@Thomas,
I agree, and wouldn't that take the wind out their sails? Think they are counting on it and will try to use it against him in the election year? I personally don't think it can hurt Obama to use it and will show him as being responsible in a sea of enormously irresponsible people.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 08:34 am
@revelette,
I think the House would probably vote to impeach him (or at least try to) if he does that. I think it's more likely that we'll see a standalone one page bill to raise the debt ceiling that's decoupled from the deficit reduction debate approved by both houses sometime late Tuesday. Whether it's a 2-day, 5-month or 2-year increase remains to be seen. I don't see how any compromise bill that deals with both the debt ceiling and deficit reduction will make it out in time.
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 08:40 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I think the House would probably vote to impeach him (or at least try to) if he does that

Let them! Let them impeach Obama for refusing to let the country go to hell. The impeachment hearings, broadcast on live TV, would wake up public opinion to what was really going on in this hostage crisis. Obama couldn't buy better publicity for all the campaign contributions in the world.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 08:44 am
@Thomas,
I agree
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 08:49 am
@Thomas,
I agree with you in principle. I don't think this country needs the distraction of an impeachment process right now. I don't think Boehner will let the clock run out. He a regular pol who has been sucked into this fight by a faction of his party that doesn't give a crap about politics as usual. I think he's doing exactly what he needs to do to get a standalone debt ceiling bill passed by both houses just the way it's been done for decades. I also think much of this was scripted behind closed doors by the leaders of both houses and the pres.

The first scene of the script required Boehner's bill to pass. Now we're in scene two which requires a last minute bill to come out of the Senate that is either a) G6 or b) R/M with enough of an increase to get to 2013. I'm thinking they may actually push G6 out which will NEVER get through the House in one vote in one day. So the one-pager comes out at midnight on Tuesday and the debate goes on. I said earlier that the TPers needed to be thrown under the bus eventually. I'm still saying that.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:36 am
@Thomas,
It's my belief that Obama should approve the debt ceiling, and let the Supreme Court decide its validity.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:38 am
@Thomas,
Yea, that sounds about as stupid when the republicans impeached Clinton for a non-government issue.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:40 am
@JPB,
That doesn't sound right to this observer. After the House vote, Boehner was out there telling the American public that Democrats refused to offer any compromise.

His brain is all screwed up!
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 09:49 am
@roger,
roger wrote:

I will only say my definition of terrorist differs from yours. Even fearmongering like raising the possibility of suspension of Social Security payments doesn't get there for me.

The only one who raised that possibility is Obama himself - Social Security is solvent for this year and several years to come. The fact is we hit the debt ceiling back on May 16 (better check the treasury link before reading any more hysterical blather such as you find here). The Treasury has since dipped into the trust funds and the exchange stabilization fund, but even so tax receipts that came in ensure there's enough money until at least Aug. 15. This is an Obama + Democrats charade; I hope the Republicans will only raise the debt ceiling in combination with a very-short-term extension. We're already over 100% debt-to-GDP ratio - aka all the numbers previously published by this administration were wrong, and their "stimulus", QEs, etc at best useless. >
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110806_WOC317.gif
Over 100% debt/GDP ratio, btw, is counting only federal debt; that puts us at about the status of Portugal. Adding debt of states and municipalities - as all international accounts are kept - we're close to the status of Greece. And that's before the actuarial unfunded obligations in Medicaid, Medicare, etc.

Repeat:
1. August 2 is a fictitious deadline.
2. Payments on federal debt - and all payments from Social Security - are safe for years.
3. There's enough money in the Treasury as of close of business yesterday to cover all expenses until at least August 15. This panicky charade is disgraceful!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:00 am
@High Seas,
Comparing Portugal to the US belongs on the laffer curve. The US has had the strongest economy in the world for many decades, and its ability to pay debt has been rated one of the highest - until now.

We didn't get to this point by one party; they must both learn to take responsibility for today's crisis.

The tea party is a new creation in this country that is ready to destroy it.

They have already destroyed trillions of wealth for people around the world. They are terrorists of the worst kind.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:14 am
Senate Democrats block Boehner debt ceiling plan after House approval

duh, I guess now the democrats gotta go through their vote tomorrow in the senate which does nothing at all. Why do they do this?

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:17 am

Quote:
Doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and pharmacies might not get paid for products and services if the federal government defaults on its debt next week.
Some physician groups, anticipating this scenario, have started to warn their members that a possible default means their Medicare paychecks may not get mailed.

The American Academy of Family Physicians, which has more than 100,000 members, alerted them this week that a default means the government will only have enough money to pay about half of its bills, resulting in a likely delay in Medicare payments to physicians.

In that scenario, the government would likely halt Medicare reimbursements to doctors until the debt ceiling issue is resolved, the group said.

"We felt it was important to tell our members for be ready for this," said Dr. Roland Goertz, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "It is highly likely that there will be some impact upon Medicare payments."
The American College of Surgeons sent out a similar alert via e-mail to its members this week, warning them that "if Congress and the president do not raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2, there is a chance that Medicare claims will not be paid."

In 2010, the federal government paid out $515.8 billion in total Medicare benefits to health care providers, including doctors, hospitals, nursing facilities, home health care centers and pharmacies.
Here's a breakdown of Medicare payments to those providers last year:
-- $168 billion to hospitals

-- $64.5 billion to doctors

-- $26.9 billion to nursing facilities

-- $19.1 billion to home health centers

-- $61.7 billion to pharmacies as part of Medicare's prescription drug programs.


source
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:23 am
@cicerone imposter,
Vast sums are always destroyed when asset bubbles burst; we're still living in the aftermath of the giant bubble that imploded in 2008. Not the first one Smile
Quote:
The big ten financial bubbles
1. The Dutch Tulip Bulb Bubble 1636
2. The South Sea Bubble 1720
3. The Mississippi Bubble 1720
4. The late 1920s stock price bubble 1927–1929
5. The surge in bank loans to Mexico and other developing countries
in the 1970s
6. The bubble in real estate and stocks in Japan 1985–1989
7. The 1985–1989 bubble in real estate and stocks in Finland, Norway
and Sweden
8. The bubble in real estate and stocks in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
and several other Asian countries 1992–1997
9. The surge in foreign investment in Mexico 1990–1993
10. The bubble in over-the-counter stocks in the United States
1995–2000


Prof. Kindleberger died shortly after he compiled that list, so he missed the tech stock bubble of 2000-2001 and the housing bubble of 2003-2007. You will be interested in his great classic "Manias, Crashes, and Panics", if you haven't read it already. Updated (by Prof. Aliber) 2005:
http://www.traders-library.com/download/Robert%20Aliber%20-%20Manias,%20Panics,%20and%20Crashes%20A%20History%20of%20Financial%20Crises.pdf
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:24 am
Quote:

Pity the federal worker. Washington won't.


FORTUNE -- The austerity consensus among policymakers in the debt ceiling debate has ensured that the federal workforce will face cuts -- just how much is still unknown. And as soon as next week, government employees could be asked to report for work with no certainty about when they'll actually receive their next paychecks.

That's because if lawmakers can't agree on a plan to extend the federal government's borrowing authority by Tuesday, the Treasury Department will start running short on the cash it needs to pay the nation's bills. And it will begin prioritizing payments, with interest on the debt likely at the top of that list.

What comes next isn't clear -- Treasury so far hasn't tipped its hand on its contingency plan -- but it's a relatively safe bet that checks to rank-and-file workers will place behind benefits owed through Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety net programs, pay to military personnel and vets, and education assistance as millions of kids get ready to ship off for college.


source
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:38 am
@cicerone imposter,
I can get more pissed off than I am and watch financial Armageddon unfold or I can subscribe to a conspiracy theory that prevents financial meltdown, allows the leaders to all save face and live to survive another election while at the same time exposing fanaticism for what it is.

Either way my role at this point is to watch. It's better for my blood pressure to pull out the tin hat for a few days.

The wheels on the bus go round and round...
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:39 am
@High Seas,
Quote:
The Treasury has since dipped into the trust funds and the exchange stabilization fund, but even so tax receipts that came in ensure there's enough money until at least Aug. 15. This is an Obama + Democrats charade

You seem to be somewhat alone in your view that this is a "charade". The implications of a default next Tuesday are all too real, and all too serious. Denial of this seems far less connected to reality than the "hysterical blather" you are trying to dismiss. While the U.S. might have enough money to meet some of its obligations until August 15th, it could not meet all of them.

Among other things at stake is the credit rating of the United States. A downgrade of that credit rating would also have a domino effect on the credit rating of the states and about 7,000 municipalities.
Quote:
Moody's says US should retain top credit rating
Posted: 6:21 p.m. yesterday
Updated: 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON &mdashMoody's Investors Service said late Friday that the United States should be able to keep its triple-A credit rating as long as Washington works out a deal that lets it continue to pay bondholders.

The credit rating agency said it thinks that even if the nation's $14.3 trillion borrowing limit isn't raised by Tuesday's deadline, the government would give priority to making interest payments on its debt and thereby avoid a default.

Moody's had warned July 13 that the country's credit rating was in danger of being downgraded because of the stalemate in Congress over raising the debt limit.

In its statement Friday, however, Moody's said that based on its current review it would likely rate the U.S. debt as triple-A but with a negative outlook. That would mean that there is a possibility of a downgrade in the future.

"If there were a default on a Treasury debt obligation, a downgrade would likely follow, even if the default were swiftly cured and investors suffered no permanent losses," Moody's said in its new report.

Credit rating agencies assess the riskiness of debt issued by companies and governments. The three major agencies — Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings — have all raised warnings in recent months that they might downgrade the U.S. government's triple-A rating.

Such a downgrade would send shockwaves through the financial system. The government has had the highest credit rating for nearly a century. That rating has allowed the United States to pay the lowest interest rates possible to finance Treasury debt.

Sherry Cooper, chief economist at BMO Financial Group, said the decision by Moody's to back away from its threatened downgrade was "great news" and would probably make a potential downgrade by S&P less of a threat as well.

"What is really important is that the likelihood of a Treasury default has fallen sharply as the prospects of a debt-ceiling hike in the next few days has increased," Cooper said. "The U.S. is now more likely to retain its Moody's triple-A rating as long as it does not default."

In its new report, Moody's said that it would consider the government in default only if it missed an interest or principal payment on its debt, not if the government had to delay payments in such areas as federal employee salaries, Social Security or bills from vendors.

"If the debt limit is not raised before Aug. 2, we believe that the Treasury would give priority to debt service payments and could thus postpone a potential default for a number of days," Moody's said. "Revenues would be more than adequate for some period of time to meet those payments, although other outlays would be severely reduced as a result."

Some private economists have estimated that the government could keep operating without defaulting on its debt payments perhaps as long as Aug. 15.

The announcement by Moody's on Friday followed favorable comments Wednesday by Deven Sharma, the president of Standard & Poor's. He told a congressional committee that some of the deficit-cutting plans Congress is considering would lower the U.S. debt burden enough to allow the country to retain its triple-A rating.

However, Sharma said that S&P would not make a final determination until it had a much clearer view of what package of deficit-cutting proposals Congress would be adopting as part of a deal to raise the debt limit.

However, he said that previous reports indicating that Congress would need to make $4 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years to retain a triple-A rating were not accurate. He declined during his testimony to be specific about the threshold, although he said the plan would have to make a credible attack on the U.S. deficit problems.
http://www.wral.com/business/story/9931024/

With very slow growth and high unemployment, a default would be a severe body blow to our still faltering economy. Pretending otherwise does not alter reality. Flirting with this sort of disaster, as the Tea Partiers have been doing, is not unlike terrorist tactics--and the potential victims would be not just the government, but the entire American public. There was a reason that the World Trade Center was struck on 9/11--it was a symbol of American financial strength, and the intended goal was to damage the American economy. That we now have Tea Party members of Congress moving toward that same aim, whether out of sheer stupidity or misguided ideologically zealotry, hardly makes them the "patriots" they claim to be.

The debt ceiling must be raised by August 2nd--these are obligations the U.S. already owes. The issue of how then to best reduce future debt can continue as a process of negotiation and compromise, without the reckless immediate threats to our country's economic stability that the Tea Partiers are now employing.
Significant cuts in spending have already been agreed to, neither side is really getting what they want, but, right now, with a deadline looming, the time has come to pass a bill to raise the debt limit ceiling and continue the negotiation process later.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 8.15 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 05:10:09