- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
An increasing number of Republicans do not believe the Obama administration's dire predictions of economic "catastrophe" if the debt limit is not increased. They argue a period of technical default can be managed without plunging markets into chaos.
If they don't raise the debt ceiling, it will literally be the stupidest (economic) thing that our Congress has done in 222 years. And that's not an exaggeration.
If they don't raise the debt ceiling, it will literally be the stupidest (economic) thing that our Congress has done in 222 years. And that's not an exaggeration.
Damn right, this would be the SMARTEST thing they could do. Force the damn gov't to live within it's own means. What a very CONSERVATIVE idea!
So it's stupid to make our gov't live within it's means? I think you, Don, are part of the problem, not the solution.
From Reuters:
http://www.reuters.c...E75700720110608
IMO, this would be a reckless move. First, the amount of spending reductions necessary to immediately balance the budget would wipe out economic growth, therefore, if sustained they would produce a significant self-inflicted national recession. Second, in theory, the Republicans might gain from a short default-large fiscal consolidation deal, but such a deal would not be very likely. A long default would cut against the Republicans. Raising the debt ceiling with little meaningful fiscal consolidation would be perilous, as Republicans would have to defend their fiscal credibility, but that would be a fight they could wage without inflicting harm on the nation. A short default followed by significant fiscal consolidation is not likely, precisely because the Republicans backing such a notion have repeatedly and widely displayed their cards. Hence, the Democrats know that there is a limit to how long they would hold out. As a result, they would not capitulate, and then the Republicans would be faced by a bad choice and an awful one: yield and receive blame for inflicting lasting damage on U.S. credit or persist and receive blame for damaging U.S. credit and engineering a steep recession, possibly of global magnitude.
To push the U.S. acros a line it has never before crossed will, despite the Druckenmiller hypothesis (which is not widely shared), damage U.S. credit. Once a red line is crossed, few would have reason to believe that political leaders might, when things become even more difficult, cross additional red lines. In effect, the psychological barriers that were assumed to exist and preclude U.S. default would be shattered as far as the markets are concerned. Those responsible for the reckless move will bear full accountability for its consequences. Their electoral prospects would very likely be severely damaged. Perceptions of their fitness to govern would be greatly undermined. They would be viewed as the persons who deliberately damaged American credit. All of those consequences would be deserved.
In the end, I do expect an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, because no responsible political leader would be willing to take the default course. I do worry that the deal will come with fiscal consolidation that is on the weak side. That will be a fair battle for the 2012 campaign. It will be far more responsible than pushing the U.S. across a red line into technical default on some of its obligations, even if debt payments are made on time.
I really don't think so...
I think Don gets the bigger picture, something he's quite good with I think, I think people too far one way or the other are the problem... Keep spending a **** load, or let the US default and collapse your economy and quite possibly the world economy...
That'd be grand
Bull****. The problem is Don CAN'T see the bigger picture. He fails to see that eventually our debtors will no longer by our debt. Then we are screwed.
Since when is spending within your means a bad idea? I'd love to hear mr independent explain that one.
Look, Dons a smart guy, read his post, instead of just looking at it, and his logic is sound.
I can only go off of what i see the people who know about this stuff, are saying, and what theyre saying is, not raising the debt ceiling would be disastrous.
I don't just come up with these positions out of thin air, ive looked at it, and logic would suggest that, that assertion is correct. i mean hell, do you think of republicans could get away with doing it, they wouldn't? If they thought it was a good idea, then why aren't they just sitting back and saying "we're just not going to raise it"?
Now, the other side of the coin, is this has never been done before by a country with an economy your size...
But i say, **** it.
Let's put you in charge el presidente, do it, and let's see what the outcome is :fueltofir:
Do
That's funny, because I've heard experts say not raising our debt would not be disastrous at all and we could still pay our debts because the gov't still has income. I did read his post, it's bull****, just like all the others I've read.
Let me ask you this boogiedude, what is the POINT of a debt ceiling if it's constantly raised when met? I mean, why not just lift it completely?
I really don't think so...
I think Don gets the bigger picture, something he's quite good with I think, I think people too far one way or the other are the problem... Keep spending a **** load, or let the US default and collapse your economy and quite possibly the world economy...
That'd be grand
Dontworrybehappy,
I'm trying to understand your side's position here. I understand the concept of living within your means - don't spend more than you earn. Despite my political lean, my family has lived this way for years. However, you said that "eventually our debtors will no longer buy our debt. Then we are screwed."
If that's the case, please explain how foreign investors purchasing our nation's debt fits into the debt ceiling debate and how not purchasing them can have such a devastating effect? Seems to be your argument against raising the debt ceiling relates more to "borrowing and spending" rather than "selling off assets and liabilities". How are the two different and how does each affect our national economy?
Damn right, this would be the SMARTEST thing they could do. Force the damn gov't to live within it's own means. What a very CONSERVATIVE idea!
So it's stupid to make our gov't live within it's means?
Swell...but that's not what failing to raise the debt ceiling does. Although I dislike equating the government's finances to personal finances, let's try an analogy: Suppose your family has a lot of bills each month, and you're finding it tough to make your payments. I think everyone would agree that you need to work on living within your means, but what is a better way to accomplish that?
A) Cut back on some of your expenses so that your bills are smaller in the future.
B) Stop paying the bills.
There are sensible ways to get spending under control, and irresponsible ways to get spending under control. The debt ceiling circus is a classic example of the latter.
If they don't raise the debt ceiling, it will literally be the stupidest (economic) thing that our Congress has done in 222 years. And that's not an exaggeration.
Aren't there a couple of things that everyone on both sides of the debate are missing here?
1. We are now, and have been for some time buying our own damned debt by printing, or "digitizing" money out of thin air.
That must stop right NOW!
2. We have a population where 47% are non liability voters, voting themselves money from the treasury, and giving NOTHING!
3. The fed reserve is corrupt!
These things need to be addressed IMHO before ANY real discussion of anything else can take place.
j-mac
It's better to have a recovering economy that has to increase it's debt then to have no economy at all. Raise the limit, it's the only smart move.
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?