«

»

Snatching Defeat

The House failed to vote today on the Boehner debt ceiling bill. There are, apparently, too many Republicans holding out as well as all the Democrats. As a result, credit default swaps on US treasuries are at the highest they’ve been since the 2008 financial crisis.

I tweeted this some time ago and the more I watch this unfold, the more I’m convinced it’s going to happen. Three years ago, Congress failed to pass TARP. When they did, the financial markets freaked and nearly melted down. Congress then rapidly passed a TARP bill that was worse than the one they defeated.

This is going to go down the same way. Tomorrow or Monday, the markets are going to freak. They’ve been holding back, hoping for a deal. But until the freak, Congress is going to continue to fuck around, living in their little sound bite fantasy world. When they do finally get the message, we’ll get a rapid deal that will be far worse than what we could have gotten weeks ago. Such is the price of ideological purity.

The thing is, even passing a deal many not spare the rest of us from the pain. Interest rates will still go up — effectively erasing any budget cuts. Treasuries may even be downgraded. At this point, it feels like we’re just going to stave off disaster. We could have had much more.

43 comments

No ping yet

  1. West Virginia Rebel says:

    As I understand it, part of the problem is that Boehner simply didn’t have the votes for what the conservatives wanted-namely, things like the Balanced Budget Amendment. And Reid is out there saying that the GOP’s plan is DOA (but at least they had one.) At any rate, it looked like Boehner was at least trying to buy time for those votes.
    West Virginia Rebel recently posted..Bring Out Your Ration CardsMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. HARLEY says:

    If i understand this correctly, when the nation hits its credit limit, it will required,by law, to pay off the incurred debts first, that have come due. With less funds, the fed gov, will have to decide how to budget what funds it has left, and be forced to shut down nonessential government paid activities.
    This will last till a broad budget is written that reduces the government spending activities below the limit, or a expansion in the debt limit.

    Please someone, tell me how this is a massive crisis that will rock the markets, by law we will pay our debts. This just seems much like the budget talks this year when the dems refused to propose a budget, and everyone was worried about a government shutdown.

    The action of expanding our debt limit, and refusing to cut spending, is the problem, but it is not something that hits the wall next week.

    This sounds like a manufactured crisis to me.

    Or some one can explain where i am wrong on this?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Kimpost says:

    There is no unnecessary spending in the eyes of the market. If you have taken on a commitment, then you’ve signed a virtual contract. Defaulting on those contracts, regardless of how wasteful some of them might seem, is, to say the least, very bad.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    The reason it will rock the financial crisis is that it increases he likelihood of default and portrays a government that can’t even carry out its basic functions.

    Keep in mind also that a 40% reduction in government spending has serious consequences. The GOP says we should prioritize social security and military spending. That would mean all medicare and medicaid providers are not getting paid. It would mean public schools lose anywhere from 50% to nearly 100% of their funding — poor inner city kids would simply not be going to school. It would mean Pell grants, students loans and other aid dry up — half he kids in college can’t go back. It means no border security of federal prisons or FAA or TSA or anything like that.

    You can cut non-essential employees, fine. But when you put Social Security above the pay line, you’re blocking out almost everything else. That’s a recipe for disaster.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. AlexInCT says:

    I heard something completely different, but of course I doubt the media will report that. Boehner didn’t get the votes because most republicans demanded to see Harry Reid’s senate bill and got told no.

    The republicans got wind that what Reid planned to do was to simply take the Boehner bill, take out what he didn’t like, add in the tax hikes the democrats wanted, then have it be vote on in the Senate, where he was sure to have it pass on a purely partisan vote by the democrat majority. Once that was done, the two bills would have to undergo reconciliation, a process the democrats remain certain will allow them to keep the taxes they want and only whatever cuts are absolutely necessary to pretend they are making cuts, and then sent to back to a house for an up or down vote. Reid then would make Boehner have to vote down what the LSM will definitely tell people is Boehner’s own bill, neglecting to mention that after the Senate democrats had had their way with it that was no longer the truth, or simply playing down that angle, in order to give the democrats a political stick to beat the republicans with for the next election.

    Simply put, the democrats are far more interested in playing political games that help them set up for the next election, hammering our economy with taxes to keep growing the nanny state, and not at all interested in addressing the fiscal disaster that 5 or 6 decades of collectivist big government borrow & spend policies have left us with, and that’s what killed the bill. And I am glad it got killed.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  6. balthazar says:

    Thaks for that “sky is falling” interpretation Hal. Theres enough money to cover all essential services. All medicare and medicaid, military pay, the DOJ(even though i think they should be on furlough with how useless they are).

    School is out in the vast majority of the country right now so that isnt an issue, and you know what, maybe the universities should be forced to compete for students, cut thier fucking funding, make it a little tougher and some of the people who goto college for no reason other than to party, wont go. Too many people unfit or unsuited for college (either academically or otherwise) actually go and incur debts that are unneeded.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  7. AlexInCT says:

    Please someone, tell me how this is a massive crisis that will rock the markets, by law we will pay our debts. This just seems much like the budget talks this year when the dems refused to propose a budget, and everyone was worried about a government shutdown.

    It is being presented – and that’s the key thing here these crooks are threatening to do whatever they need to, to make it a crisis – as a massive crisis in the making because the democrats at the federal level have already made it clear that they will follow the pattern/strategy used by the democrats at the state and municipal levels, and cut essential services that will make the people feel the most pain possible first and foremost, in the hopes that this pain will then force these serfs to accept their demands for money from them instead of cuts to their meal ticket, Harley.

    As I already mentioned before in another post, since the house decides what gets paid and controls the purse, Boehner should already have pushed a bill through that delineates precisely what the priority items are that the US government will have to pay for if there is a default. Guarantee that the order is debt servicing, military and veteran pay, and social security checks, maybe even medicare, then leave the rest up for whatever is left or not. Once you take that weapon away from these crooks, that dog about a fiscal crisis won’t hunt. Even better, when most Americans see government shut down for a week or so, without any consequences to them of any significance, they will likely just want to keep as much of that shutdown as possible.

    Fuck these leftist twits, and fuck them hard. I say let it happen.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. AlexInCT says:

    Ditto what Balthazar said.

    This “crisis” is being hyped up by the people that hope to scare us into letting them keep doing more of the same shit that has gotten us on the edge of the precipice and on the way down a mile long drop onto the rocks. The markets will be just fine as long as the US government keeps servicing its debt, which it has to by law. The house has the power to basically decide how any money still coming in is spent – Obama’s claim that the executive will do that is ludicrous – and they can prioritize that as well. In the end this is going to be a far bigger disaster for the massive number of people drawing a paycheck at the expense of the productive sector without adding any real value and those that have gained massive power and wealth from support and growth of that special interest, than anyone else. Life will go on, and it will be fine.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Kimpost says:

    40% in immediate cuts is madness. Cut spending, but do it in a controlled way by discussing what to actually cut, how, and over which time frame. As it stands, all current programs are holy in the eyes of the market. They are already committed too. You can’t remove 1 dollar from a arts program in DC, if it’s already been committed too. Doing that, “because the government is forced to prioritize” due to a failure of raising the debt limit, would rock the foundation of the financial system.

    Economists all over the world are watching you guys now. Most of them, as far as I’ve been able to see, believe, that with your high deficit levels, you need to seriously cut spending and you need to raise taxes – and then you’ll need to hold the higher tax levels for decades.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Section8 says:

    When crunch time hits you’re always fine with the status quo. Why is this? What do you think is going to happen to the markets when this ponzi scheme of propping up the country with printing money and robbing Peter to pay Paul and robbing Mary to pay Peter comes to a head? When that happens we are finished, and ultimately that’s how this country will come to an end, and it will be within our lifetime because at the end of the day nothing changes, and no one wants anything to change until the shit hits the fan. I think most Americans will be fine with raising some taxes in the near future, but lets see if just once, just once the government can take the hit and manager its budget first, then we’ll talk about taking more out of our pockets.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Kimpost says:

    It’s not that. You can advocate a zero tax rate if you want, or for the closing of 90% of all government agencies. That would be fine in the eyes of the market. But you can’t do it by capping spending on current commitments. Not without consequences. If you don’t pay for let’s say, cleaning up national parks, then the market would regard that as defaulting on that commitment. Which means that US can’t be trusted.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. balthazar says:

    Talk about leaps, as long as the military, the debt, and law enforcement is paid, the markets will have very little reaction. Not paying for cleaning up a national park is NOT the type of commitments economists are worried about.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. Kimpost says:

    I wouldn’t take that to the bank. Anyway, cutting 40% wouldn’t mean defaulting an a small program or two. I would expect a stock- and bond market crash.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. AlexInCT says:

    It’s not that. You can advocate a zero tax rate if you want, or for the closing of 90% of all government agencies.

    Who’s advocating any of that? Why is it that you leftists immediately assume that those of us that want small government want “no government”? I am not an anarchist – that’s a belief mostly held by leftists anyway – in any way shape or form. What I want to stop is the welfare state. Yes, government should help people, but only those in extreme situations, and then only when they didn’t cause it themselves. The best way to stop poverty and the need for the welfare state after all is to provide an economic situation where people can get jobs and work to improve their lot. Government handouts do nothing but prevent that.

    That would be fine in the eyes of the market. But you can’t do it by capping spending on current commitments.

    Why not? Change the commitments.

    Not without consequences.

    Any you think spending like they are currently doing has no consequences? Kicking the can down the road is not a solution anyone should want at the point we are now. We did it in the late 70s, then in the 80s, and the 90s, and even in the first decade of the 21st century, but we can not do that again and not realize that the next time we come to the same junction – and have no doubt that it will happen sooner than later the way we are going – it will cost so much that it will simply implode the world’s economy.

    If you don’t pay for let’s say, cleaning up national parks, then the market would regard that as defaulting on that commitment.

    LOL! Which fucking market is that? The one that believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and AGW? Kimpost that was priceless.

    Which means that US can’t be trusted.

    Right… Because just borrowing more and spending what you don’t have is better than basically reaching a point where that practice ends. After all, you still have people with wealth you can fleece, erm I mean get revenue from to pay whatever you want to spend. After all, if government isn’t doing it, then it is not worth being done.

    Seriously, if what you say is true, I want the default to happen, in such a way that it leads to the entire world economy collapsing, because we have reached a point where we deserve it. We are headed that way for sure anyway if we keep doing what we are doing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. AlexInCT says:

    Go ahead and put your money on that expectation then Kimpost. You are going to be disappointed. The more likely collapse or crash will come if we keep going the way we are.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. sahrab says:

    Lets get this straight; immediate cuts are madness, but immediate increases are good?

    I am in no way approving of either Reid or Boehner plans, and heres why:

    Both plans raise the Debt Limit immediately (Reid=2.2 trillion, Boehner=1 trillion). This is an immediate increase in spending (why raise the debt plan if not spending?)

    Both plans include spending cuts (there is dispute about the quality of the cuts, as they may include items that would end anyways) but these cuts are spread out over 10 years.

    Both plans recognize cuts are needed, do those immediately and then you wont need to raise the debt limit (basic Econ 101)

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  17. richtaylor365 says:

    There is a huge fallacy floating around (some here have even parroted it) that the credit grades given by S&P and Moody’s is determined only on if the debt ceiling can be raised to meet the obligations, if it is raised then all will be right with the world and we keep our stellar grade, if it is not then Armageddon, we drop off a cliff into the abyss. And this is all nonsense. Section8 hinted at this above, the rating is determined ONLY on the opinion of those agencies wrt how credit worthy we are, and running up huge deficits makes us not very worthy at all. Raising the debt ceiling without tacking on huge spending cuts will cause those agencies to lower our rating even quicker then if we do not raising the debt ceiling at all.

    You can’t remove 1 dollar from a arts program in DC, if it’s already been committed too.

    Sure you can, individual house holds do it all the time ,”Timmy, I’m sorry but remember when I promised you that new xbox for your birthday, well, money is tight this month, sorry, let’s look at where we are next month, OK?”

    Doing that, “because the government is forced to prioritize” due to a failure of raising the debt limit,

    Yeah, we don’t want them prioritizing, hell, they have had a blank check all these years and it’s worked out just peachy, let’s keep doing that.

    Economists all over the world are watching you guys now

    Yes, they are, and what they are watching for it to see if anyone in D.C. will gain just a little sanity and come to terms with the rising debt level. The debt ceiling rise debate, that is just the cartoon before the main feature, the already accumulated debt, that is the problem, that is the the world is watching, how we deal with that is what got the world’s attention.

    If you don’t pay for let’s say, cleaning up national parks, then the market would regard that as defaulting on that commitment. Which means that US can’t be trusted.

    Total nonsense, how else do you cut spending (isn’t that the ultimate goal here?) if you have to pay every dollar to every one that has already been committed? That is called spending cuts. Every year you commit a certain amount of money to schools, to infrastructure, to varies government agencies, but now those commitments have to be reevaluated, and probably reduced, that is what life looks like in Greece, and that is what it has to be here, for a while.

    As far as the stock market goes, it does not like uncertainty, that is what drives volatility, and there is no certainty about anything wrt to debt management, accept volatility, it is going to happen.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  18. Kimpost says:

    You are talking about a plan, albeit not one of the ones on the table. Assuming that your plan would cut 40% immediately (no transition period), and that your plan would pass both houses of Congress and the White House, then I would imagine that the markets would like it.

    Not acting on a plan, but rather picking and choosing between which bills to pay, because there is no money, and none are allowed to be borrowed (no debt ceiling raise), would be very different. That would be defaulting on your obligations.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. Kimpost says:

    You should cut in an orderly manner, not by defaulting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  20. richtaylor365 says:

    Oh, forgot this part:

    you need to seriously cut spending and you need to raise taxes

    Let me fix that for you:

    You need to seriously cut spending and you need to raise tax revenues (which does not mean raising the marginal tax rate).

    There, much better.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  21. richtaylor365 says:

    You should cut in an orderly manner, not by defaulting.

    Let me ask you this, you stated that we are obligated to pay for all of our commitments, what to do call lay offs? We made a commitment to hire and employ them, right? So in your world no government agency is allowed to lay off anyone?

    The government makes “commitments” all the time that it does not honor. In Knuckle CreeK Iowa, in last year’s budget it promised the local post office that it would build a new parking lot, buy 6 new mail sorting automation machines, buy 8 new postal vehicles, hire another janitor, and hire 3 new postal workers. but guess what? upon reflecting on the budget, the deficit, and what funds we now have to play with, we can’t do any of those things, sorry, maybe next year we can look at it. This is how government works, not every commitment is written in stone.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. Hal_10000 says:

    It’s August, Balthazar. Schools are already open and ramping up. I believe in Tennessee, they are already tellings kids not to come to school because the state is not releasing funding.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Kimpost says:

    :) I’d be OK with that. If the needed revenue can come from closed loop holes, reduced deductions, grand tax reform or even from general growth, then all the better.

    I’ve actually seen a couple of interesting ideas floating around here. Someone spoke about a small tax increase, which would be entirely dedicated to paying off the debt. Might be cool. I like it because it kind of sounds like a project, like the Apollo project. Another idea would be to link war and taxes. Was it Hal who aired that idea? If a future president wants to go to war, why not fund it with a war specific tax?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Kimpost says:

    That would depend on the nature of the commitment. Laying people off would probably be fine in many cases. But again, the markets would very much prefer lay offs as a result of orderly cuts, over lay offs following a default.

    The debts ceiling should be raised immediately. But outside of that, you are also right in that the US needs to deal with its finances long term. I might be naive, but I actually think that both parties in the US acknowledges as much. The Republicans might want more cuts, and no tax hikes. That’s fine. They should present that platform to voters in 2012. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d win on it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. AlexInCT says:

    You should cut in an orderly manner, not by defaulting.

    Whose defaulting on anything Kimpost? You have been getting all your news from the people whom have a vested interest in creating a panic about a default. There won’t be any kind of default if the debt ceiling is not raised.

    You think that the government will suddenly stop getting revenue the month after they fail to raise the debt ceiling? Seriously, they are taking in between $200 and $240 billion each month, I just saw them rip me off in the paycheck I got today, and unless they wreck the economy some more, that number will still be there, coming in each month.

    That’s a lot of god damned money. More than enough to meet the obligations they should be keeping right now while cutting waste and being forced to take entitlement reform seriously. The debt will be serviced, so the only chance of default is if Obama somehow pulls a coup or does something else that tramples the constitution, and that action prevents congress from paying for it.

    BTW, the reason they want the panic is that they hope once they get the debt ceiling raised they can go back to ingoring the spending problem for another year or two, which coincides with the election, and spend a fortune again larding those that will turn around and give big cash to them instead of providing any meaningful action in the much needed entitelment reform sturggle we are facing right now. Fuck that. They have to have their feet held to the fire, or it will just be worse.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. Section8 says:

    If a future president wants to go to war, why not fund it with a war specific tax?

    We tried that already on a phone tax for the Spanish-American war, and it took over 100 years to get rid of it. Anyhow, there is plenty we can do right now, like getting out of NATO, and rework entitlements. Half the time what you hear as a budget cut isn’t one at all, it’s just not increasing the budget by a proposed amount for any given department.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  27. AlexInCT says:

    :) I’d be OK with that. If the needed revenue can come from closed loop holes, reduced deductions, grand tax reform or even from general growth, then all the better.

    Actually Kimpost, repealing Obamacare, getting the EPA off the backs of job creators, opening up the oil drilling industry again, and rolling back the majority of all those onerous government regulations designed to favor whomever it was that gave them a large amount of cash to put them in place – those loopholes they claim they want to close are just more of these – would do far more to fix the job situation and increase revenue, but that would also hurt these crook’s ability to control more of our lives and money, which in the end seems to be the sole top priority for most of the people in charge from the democratic party right now.

    I’ve actually seen a couple of interesting ideas floating around here. Someone spoke about a small tax increase, which would be entirely dedicated to paying off the debt. Might be cool.

    Not without a balanced budget amendmrnt that also caps spending so they just don’t spend us into more trouble while pretening to be paying debt.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Poosh says:

    There is no reason to raise taxes. Raise taxes on the very people who create jobs? Yeah, good luck with that.

    I really hope all your “rich” pack up and leave, or even worse, just STOP.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Section8 says:

    Not without a balanced budget amendmrnt that also caps spending so they just don’t spend us into more trouble while pretening to be paying debt.

    Exactly, it’s pointless to have a designated tax to pay off the debt with the right hand if the left hand is still racking up debt. This is just the same game, give us more money now and we promise to do the right thing later. They need to prove they can do the right thing now, and then we’ll talk about taxes if needed.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  30. AlexInCT says:

    That would depend on the nature of the commitment. Laying people off would probably be fine in many cases. But again, the markets would very much prefer lay offs as a result of orderly cuts, over lay offs following a default.

    Your premise falls apart because it is first assuming a default, when there is no need for one. Then it completely unravels because of the egregious assignment of honorable motives to those that just want to jack up the debt ceiling so they can go right back to ignoring the problem and spending, probably doing even more spending too to try and buy the coming election, leaving us with, in your hypothetical situation, zero layoffs, even more debt, and an even bigger problem.

    The demcorats have had power and control of the levers of power for 3 years now. During that time everything they did was designed to aggravate the situation. The don’t want to address the problem or touch the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us ina decade, tow if we are lucky. What they are doing is telling everyone that those that demand they reform entitlements aren’t doing so because they figured out we are soon going to have no entitlements or country, but because they want to throw gramma off a cliff. It’s all politics & power to them.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. Poosh says:

    This is a fantastic documentary about Britain’s debt and the liberals/socialists that cause it (and why they might want to continue) etc.

    The issues translate to the USA as well, though of course you don’t have a real Universal Healthcare system and you are no where near it. My understanding is Obamacare is more heading towards German/French healthcare than our brilliant/terrible NHS ( postcode Healthcare :P )

    He suggests its mostly a myth that “front line services” will suffer if you start cutting.

    And if Britain’s situation is bad, America is worse ….

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  32. balthazar says:

    In Tennesee, how many other states are actually in session? None in the NE. In fact most of the US is still out of session.

    This still has little bearing on the budget issue. The states can pay thier own schools for the short term. The federal government shouldnt be in the local education business anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. balthazar says:

    That an idiotic comment Kim. The first thiung that gets paid is DEBT SERVICE there will be no damn default at all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. Poosh says:

    Aren’t many of those ‘commitments’ actually legal contracts though?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. trade_pro says:

    I don’t reply much but think of this… The debt ceiling is like a credit card limit. If you max out your limit but pay your minimum payment amount (basically interest), you are not in default. The US can afford the interest currently, so therefore no default.

    In the meantime, the stock market may fall, even collapse. As we have seen back in late ’08 through early ’09, don’t count out a recovery especially if the Government ever decides to get out of the way of business and stops handling the finances like a 16 year old driving daddy’s Porsche.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  36. Kimpost says:

    Apparently defaulting on other obligations than the debt isn’t an issue to you. I think it is, and I think that the markets would agree.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. AlexInCT says:

    Actually the only issue that matters to me is that this government has gotten too big, on purpose, and is now trying to use that as a gun pointed against my head to force me to allow it to grow even more. You sure ass hell seem to share the sentiment too.

    The only default that the US government can do is on the servicing of the debt, and by law they can not go there unless they have no more income to pay with. They have the income, the debt will be serviced. In fact, they have more than enough income to then pay a lot of other things, like the military, veteran’s benefits, and even though they should focus on reforming both Social Security & Medicare, more than enough income to pay those too. Especially since SS also already has its own tax that rakes in big cash.

    There are going to be a lot of other things the can pay for too. Then there will be those they can not. Your attempt to declare not paying those as a default is laughable, though Kimpost. Government is siphoning more than $2.75 trillion from our economy each year, and like a drunken sailor, spending close to $4 trillion. If they got their way, they wouldn’t just keep the spending there, but grow it, and the only thing they want to do is to grow how much they take out of our economy. That needs to end. If it takes this to force them to reform entitlements and to cut spending, real cuts and reform, not the shit they promise to do 10 years from now that they damned all well know will not happen when they claim to be meeting the other side across the isle, then I say let it happen.

    It’s time to act like adults and cut government spending, reform entitelment, and get rid of Obamacare while they are at it before it destorys our economy permanently. If they are wise enough to also make changes that will stimulate the private sector to go out and try and make profits – and they have to stop treating that as a dirty word – they might even see the economy turn around.

    Freeloaders and democrat politicians that lose power and /or end up out of work might not like the deal, but it will be great for the rest of us.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38. AlexInCT says:

    You mean like the ones that GM had with their bondholders and the demcorats simply ignored when they used tax payer money to bail out GM and give it to the unions, Poosh? Why are these contracts sacrosanct and not subject to the same lack of arbitrage, when in this case it actually serves a greater good? I was just being facetious.

    The point is that they have had no problems breaking legal contracts when it is convenient for them, so I feel no pain when they are now broken and incovenient for the left.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. richtaylor365 says:

    You can cut non-essential employees, fine. But when you put Social Security above the pay line, you’re blocking out almost everything else. That’s a recipe for disaster.

    If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will receive $172 billion in revenues between Aug. 3 and Aug. 31, but it is on the hook to spend $306 billion, leaving a shortfall of $134 billion. Now no one holding government debt is going to get stiffed, The $172 billion can pay the $29 billion interest charges on the national debt, Social Security benefits ($49 billion), Medicaid and Medicare ($50 billion), active duty military pay ($2.9 billion), Department of Defense vendors ($31.7 billion), IRS refunds ($3.9 billion), but only about a quarter of the $12.8 billion in unemployment checks due that month, that’s it.

    Whose defaulting on anything Kimpost?

    The definition of “default” is being used differently here, we will not default on our debt obligations to any debt holders but kimpost is using that word to describe the inabilty to cover all the other government commitments like unemployment insurance and non military government contracts to private vendors. let’s face it, someone is going to get stiffed without a debt ceiling increase.

    The debts ceiling should be raised immediately.

    I don’t think there is any question that it will be, maybe even past the deadline. The politics involved here is just atrocious and the president is not helping at all, we will know more later today.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Poosh says:

    Fair point! Twas just asking, so I could gain a deeper understanding of the issue!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. AlexInCT says:

    The definition of “default” is being used differently here, we will not default on our debt obligations to any debt holders but kimpost is using that word to describe the inabilty to cover all the other government commitments like unemployment insurance and non military government contracts to private vendors. let’s face it, someone is going to get stiffed without a debt ceiling increase.

    Stiffed ain’t no default. And, while I feel sorry for those people getting stiffed, well, most of those I guess, I am far more concerned about those of us getting shafted, and shafted/stiffed much harder while they are at it, by the massive spending, borrowing, and the assholes that think they should be allowed to cover the shortfall caused by their attempt to increase their own power and entrench themselves even deeper, with yet another raid on the wallets of productive sector.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. HARLEY says:

    Ok, So, if the Debit ceiling is not increased the FED GOV cant borrow more money to pay off promised obligations, that it made, knowing it could not meet without additional funds.
    If this does not come to pass, the FED GOV will have to shut down various operations, delay payments because it spent far beyond its means? and someone out there will have to take it in the ass. Well, thats what you get when you live beyond your means.
    Its sucks, but hey, they/we should have known better. Time to man up bitches, im ordering more ammo.

    I

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. balthazar says:

    just got my latest shipment on Fri!!!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.