Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Warming up for an executive order as planned and enabled by harry reid.
People's repsresentatives on the way out.
That what you get for ignoring ethical behavior. It isn't so irrelevant when you see what transpires in politics.
If Obama could allow it, he could stop it. He won't negotiate. So he will intentionally ensure a shutdown and he will take executive action.
The entire O adim has been about creating straw dogs to precipitate action.
Warming up for an executive order as planned and enabled by harry reid.
People's repsresentatives on the way out.
That what you get for ignoring ethical behavior. It isn't so irrelevant when you see what transpires in politics.
If Obama could allow it, he could stop it. He won't negotiate. So he will intentionally ensure a shutdown and he will take executive action.
The entire O adim has been about creating straw dogs to precipitate action.
What compromise are you talking about? Republicans offer reducing the draconian sequester, which Republicans and Democrats both want, in return for permanent Medicare and/or Social Security cuts, which only Republicans want and postpone the debt ceiling crisis for six weeks -- setting the stage for future extortion attempts.
Basically, Republican compromise is you give me something, I give you nothing, and I don’t threaten the country again for six week.
Obama shouldn't negotiate with extortionists because it only encourages future extortion.
US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate - “There is no plan other than raising the debt limit"..."The automated system pays roughly 80 million checks a month”..."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.“Prioritization is just default by any other name,” Lew said. The legal authority to pick and choose payments is not “clear at all” and that even if it wanted to do so, technologically it may not be possible.
If no more money can be borrowed, the executive branch will not have enough money to spend all the money they are currently spending. That means the President has a choice; using Democrats' terms here, he can either pay most of the bills or he can pay no bills at all. I'd say the first is the better option and it better complies with the law and the will of Congress. The first also implies prioritization will have to be done, and it is imperative the debt payments be paid first to avoid a default. After that Social Security can come next, and so forth and so forth.
Keep in mind that not paying Social Security payments does not constitute a default on a debt obligation, which is what normal people think of when they hear "default", not this "not paying all the bills you're paying now" claptrap the Democrats spew out. Social Security and Medicare are not debts, would not affect the bond market (which is the primary concern), and the Supreme Court even ruled that there is no property right to Social Security benefits. Besides, even if it did constitute a default, there is enough money coming in each month to pay Social Security, other checks, and debt payments. Whether spending on education or energy is carried out is of far lesser importance, but the bottom line is if you don't have any more legal authority to borrow, you have to make the best of what you've got. A nice side effect of no more borrowing authority would be an instantly balanced budget, assuming that the priorities are structured correctly. There should have been more contingency planning for this scenario, though, but as the Obamacare rollout demonstrates, the federal government sucks when it comes to managing technology.
Of course, if Congress had passed the Full Faith and Credit Act, which would have explicitly authorized prioritization, and would have removed any link between the debt ceiling and default, we would not have these problems now. They had two years to pass it, and two years to change the payment systems, but Obama and Reid refused to take it up because they're more eager to use the threat of default to hold the American people hostage than they are to actually fix the problem. How anyone can fault the Republicans for trying to protect the creditworthiness of the U.S. government is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
False, recent years deficits are mostly due to lower revenue. Spending has been flat for years.
But at extremely high levels well in excess of $3 trillion, which was never seen before the late Bush years. Even if revenues return to historical norms (or even more than that), it wouldn't even come close to being able to pay for all the spending, and due to four years of trillion-dollar deficits the total debt is extremely high and still growing at a very rapid clip, in excess of half a trillion dollars a year, with the same or bigger deficits projected to continue for decades if spending isn't reined in.
Let those RWNJ loonies take this country DOWN. They've been trying to do it for four years. Just do it; I honestly do not know how he deals with the knuckle draggers that he is forced to deal with.
Let those LWNJ loonies take this country DOWN. They've been trying to do it for four years. Just do it; I honestly do not know how Congress deals with the knuckle draggers that they are forced to deal with.
Basically we will not default on our debt even if debt ceiling is not raised as its like raising our credit card limit to buy what we want not just need. Certainly Obama thought that when he voted no on raising it under bush to make bush cut back on war spending .He even held his vote unless Bush agreed to pull out of Iraq like many other democrats; then voted no; so this is nothing but politic as usual o both sides. The truth is its the same spending debate on reforms that has gone on forever and gets us deeper from kicked down the road.
fy 2009,2010,11,12,13, and now 2014 deficit all over 1 trillion
obozo has added 7 trillion dollars worth of debt in 4.5 years
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
