I have been through 17 of these, this being the 18th. Ford 1, Carter 5, 7 Reagan, 1 under Bush the First and 2 under Clinton. These lasted anywhere from 1 to 21 days. All ended up being no big thing. In my opinion there is way too much hyperbole over this one coming from both sides.
Fact is most Americans are going about their daily business as usual as the government being shutdown isn't effecting them. Now from the political partisan die hards, you think the world has come to an end. If our politicians in Washington would start putting country over party, then perhaps our problems as a nation could get solved. But as long as it is more important to those in D.C. to be Republicans and Democrats instead of Americans, this country will flounder and soon give up its ghost.
You are sorely mistaken, there has only been one time the Nation approached default and that was under the same Speaker we have now. Default is not the same as Govt. shutdowns. If the debt ceiling is not raised we WILL default on our debt and it will cost us all BILLIONS.
So much for fiscal conservatives.
It is so when one is talking government shut down. I said nothing about the debt ceiling. There is plenty of revenue coming in to service the debt, to pay its interest plus, so if there is a default even without raising the debt ceiling, it will be because of the priority's the treasury secretary or whomever chose to pay first out of the pool of money coming in. this country takes in approximately 2.9 trillion a year, interest on the debt is around 420 billion a year.
As for government shutdown, the 18th is no better or worse than the other 17. Government shut down were the norm throughout the Carter and Reagan years, 12 in 12 years. No big deal. As far as I know, there has been no negotiations at all on the debt ceiling as everyone has been caught up in the government shutdown.
You left off the 'planet splits to the core' option.
...and none of the above
This is like a company saying that they will avoid bankruptcy because they'll pay 80% of their debts or a homeowner expecting the lights to stay on because they paid the gas bill.
It's a completely disillusion position. There is no middle ground here; there is no false equivalence. Going over the debt limit would be catastrophic.
The cost to finance our debt vs our GDP is near an all time low. The global recession made investors wary, which in turn lowered the return on TBills. Defaulting on ANY portion of our obligations would be equivalent to missing a credit card payment, or skipping your mortgage. Our credit rating will be downgraded. This will dramatically increase the cost to finance the debt, which in turn will further reduce our ability to pay. This will further reduce our credit rating which will further increase the cost to finance our debt.
See a pattern? Defaulting on the debt is like missing a credit card payment. The rate will explode and suddenly the amount we were paying comfortably just isn't enough. We can afford the debt we have now at the current rates. We CAN'T afford the debt at the rates we'd be forced to pay if we defaulted.
Oh I understand, but there still is plenty of money coming in to avoid the default if the service on the debt is paid first. In other words, make the credit card payment before buying another widescreen TV.
The scary thing is, when you put it that way, is that it would seem that there are tea party members who would think that other countries not lending us money would be a good thing because then we wouldn't take on so much debt. That would trump the grievous effect on the economy in their eyes.
Budget: Pays for things we will buy.
Debt Limit: Pays for things that we've ALREADY bought.
Making the credit card payment is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
I really want to see this calculation where you get 54 from, all the provinces spend vastly different amounts on healthcare and then you have account for the different types of equalization then the different tax levels within each province. If you want to go for per capita spent on healthcare we still blow you out of the water:
My associates check stubs, it is really sad, I pity them
Budget: Pays for things we will buy.
Debt Limit: Pays for things that we've ALREADY bought.
Making the credit card payment is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
The last I saw a check stub it didn't tell me what the tax dollars are spent on.
No, raising your credit card limit so that you can charge more and take on more debt is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
LMFAO! that is why you get ****ed over and over!
No, raising your credit card limit so that you can charge more and take on more debt is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
Curious that the poll ONLY allows NEGATIVE outcomes.
The choice noticeably missing is obvious: "The budget is reduced to above surpassing the debt ceiling."
NO it is like maxing it out and not paying your monthly bill. Try it and see what happens to your interest rates.
No, raising your credit card limit so that you can charge more and take on more debt is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
That's a common misconception held by 60% of the public. It's also extremely dangerous.
You didn't say anything which counters it.
Harshaw said:No, my analogy is correct. The bill can be paid. Not paying it is a choice.
No, raising your credit card limit so that you can charge more and take on more debt is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
I didn't say anything. But my post certainly contains a fairly compelling list of reasons.
Your entire argument is "I'm right because of this analogy" and "my analogy is right because I'm right."
No, raising your credit card limit so that you can charge more and take on more debt is exactly akin to raising the debt limit.
That's a common misconception held by 60% of the public. It's also extremely dangerous.
Money is spent during appropriations. Appropriations create legal obligations. This is akin to the agreement created between you and your credit card company when you buy something or you and your mortgage company when you buy a house. In both cases, you have made a legally binding agreement to pay a certain amount at a later date.
The Government also has these obligations. To meet these obligations uses tax dollars, and funds the rest by selling treasury bills. The debt limit is essentially a limit of the number of TBills the treasury can sell. TBills work by saying I'll give the government this much money now, and the US Government will give me more money at some later date. So some portion of TBills are continually coming due at any point in time. If the US were to run out of money for any reason, it would make it more difficult to sell TBills. Because the rates are so low now, even a small rate increase would result in a huge increase in the cost to finance our debt. So instead of spending 400B a year in debt finances, we'd have to spend something like 800 or a trillion to finance our debt. This makes balancing the budget IMPOSSIBLE.
Greece didn't run into trouble because they had too much debt. They ran into trouble because they couldn't pay for the debt that they had. This created a downward spiral of increased debt cost, and reduced ability to pay it.
It's like a homeowner with an ARM. They're fine when the interest rate is low, but when it blows up they can't pay, even though they owe less now than what they owed when they could pay.
You didn't say anything which counters it.
I didn't say anything. But my post certainly contains a fairly compelling list of reasons. Your entire argument is "I'm right because of this analogy" and "my analogy is right because I'm right."
Bravo.
Funny Little Brains - YouTubeYour post contained nothing which contradicted what I said.
That is not my argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?