- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
House Republicans Oppose $100B New Line of Credit for IMFRepublicans in the House are lining up to oppose an almost $100 billion war-funding bill if Democrats insist on including in it a new line of credit for the International Monetary Fund.
Democrats may have to scramble to pass the bill in the House, where GOP votes are likely to be needed to make up for about 50 anti-war liberal Democrats who opposed it last month.
At the core of the $98.8 billion House-Senate measure is $79.9 billion for the Pentagon, a figure that's also rankling House Republicans since it represents an almost $5 billion cut from the version that passed the House last month. That measure did not include funding for the IMF.
Responding to media reports that House Democratic negotiators have agreed to include a new $100 billion line of credit to the IMF -- a top priority of President Obama -- the top Republican in the House said Tuesday he would oppose the bill.
"Let's be clear: a troop-funding bill should fund our troops, period," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Weighing down this critical legislation with nondefense spending will only drag this process out further and cost it essential Republican support needed for passage."
Obama promised the IMF money at April's G-20 summit to help developing countries deal with the troubled global economy. About $8 billion for an earlier commitment for the IMF will be included.
The actual U.S. costs for the IMF contribution are far less -- $5 billion is the Congressional Budget Office estimate -- since the U.S. government is given interest-bearing assets in return. Still, U.S. debt would have to be issued to provide the money at a time when government borrowing has exploded.
"There is absolutely no reason for the Democrat majority to complicate a bill intended to fund our troops by larding it up with over $108 billion in borrowed money for the IMF," said House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.
Moderator's Warning: |
Methinks that most of the people who reflexively oppose this have absolutely no idea what the IMF is, or what it does. They just think "Internationalism bad. Tax cuts good. I make fire."
Why shouldn't the IMF go to the nation loaning the money to the US directly, instead?
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).What has the US's ROI on the IMF been?
1) all charities have problems getting loans
2) this particular charity isn't popular enough to function as an actual charity
3) people that feign to be smarter then you deemed this charity is too important to fail, making your opinion moot
What has the US's ROI on the IMF been? I'm betting pretty huge. At least double digits on average annually.
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).
If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?
If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).
If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?
If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.
ROI means "Return On Investment." It means money is coming back to the investor (that's us, in this case).
If the IMF is so damn good that we're getting money back, why do they need more funding?
If we're plowing more money into the IMF, the ROI is necessarily negative, not positive.
If it's that profitable, why isn't private industry demanding to take it over?
That makes absolutely no sense. If profitable institutions never needed money, then venture capitalism wouldn't exist. The stock market wouldn't exist. Bank loans wouldn't exist. Etc, etc.
What bank have you heard of that makes routine $30 billion loans with much thinking? .
Well, we've established your ignorance of corporate finance, at least.That makes absolutely no sense. If profitable institutions never needed money, then venture capitalism wouldn't exist. The stock market wouldn't exist. Bank loans wouldn't exist. Etc, etc.
I swear, maybe 5 people here understand finance. And it's not the hard righties.
Do you think they realize that profitable institutions are some of the biggest consumers of financing?
I swear, maybe 5 people understand the differences among lines of credit, commercial paper, bonds, preferred stock, and common stock.I swear, maybe 5 people here understand finance. And it's not the hard righties.
Do you think they realize that profitable institutions are some of the biggest consumers of financing?
The federal reserve made that in excess interest alone in 2005.
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?