As a capitalist I find it odd that Republicans want to disrupt global financial markets just to satisfy their loony base. As an American I find it entirely in line with a Republican party that has gone completely off the rails in an attempt to maintain the last vestiges of power.
I think in the end, the corporate puppet masters understand the point in your first sentence. The question is whether the off the rail loons have successfully cut the few strings remaining that attach the party to anybody with a stitch of sanity.
We will not default on the debt if the debt ceiling is not raised. We do not need to raise the debt ceiling to pay for debts already occurred. (looking at you MAOHS- you're dead wrong) We will under the Constitution pay our debts as is required as the Federal government pulls in enough tax money to service the debts it owes. The President is lying when he says we will default if the ceiling is not raised. He's also lying when he says Social Security checks will not go out. In order for both to happen the President would have to willfully violate the Constitution and Federal Law to do it. And the way this idiot acts it honestly would not surprise me if he tried and needed to be smacked by the courts. There are only two ways that America would default on the debt: #1 The President violates the Constitution and the law and #2 Our debt grows so large that it outstrips our ability to service it. This is a link to Mark Levin's radio show. He's a Constitutional lawyer who actually knows what he's talking about unlike the leftists on this board. He explains in the first 30 minutes why we won't default on Oct 17 if the debt ceiling is not raised. He also explains how Social Security checks will still be sent out no matter what the President is currently saying. He explains how the Constitution and the 14th Amendment figure into this and how the left is dead wrong on both. I tried to find a transcript but I couldn't so take the time to actually listen to what he's saying. http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts&id=191&is_corp=0 It's the one marked 10/8/2013 Mark explains that the government won't default unless President Obama violates the Constitution and federal law and ends up imposing one on the nation You don't have to listen to the whole show if you don't want to but the chunk on the debt ceiling, default, and Social Security stuff is in the first 30 minutes. No commercials.
The government pulls in enough money per month in taxes to service the debts and to ensure that Social Security is paid. Even if the debt ceiling is not raised. If you click the link I provided Levin explains it.
Who do I trust...... Gul a gullible leftist or Mark Levin, Constitutional Lawyer whose foundation actually fights and wins lawsuits against this administration in courts. Someone who knows the law and how the law works. Geeeeee......... I wonder...........
Doesn't look like the post I tried to make from my phone stuck. Anc's burning down the house metaphor is interesting, but backwards. It is like Obama and his Democrats really, REALLY wants to burn our house down and the House (no pun intended) is saying, "let's not burn our house down." Then the Senate is like "fuck it. I want to burn the fucker. I'm entitled to." So the House asks if we could at least wait a year on it and the Senate says "fuck you, I've got the lighter and kerosene all ready. I don't want to wait around." Shit, remember when The Obama took office? We were all set to switch to digital television. All he had to do was...absolutely nothing. A potted fern could have made the switch. He postponed it because we "weren't ready." But we couldn't possibly postpone this mess. Oh, no.
I never said it was for debts already occurred. I said it was to pay for things we've already bought but haven't yet paid for ETA: Oops, you're right I did. I misspoke. I meant to say "obligations" instead of "debt". My bad.
(Edit: To @Zombie: ) So what don't you pay in this scenario that you would use the additional debt for in the original plan?
I'm more respectful of the arguments made by economists than those made by lawyers. Here's the thing. In theory, we can manage the maturing debt by issuing new bonds (new debt against retired old nets to zero, no debt limit issue). But when we do that, we still need to make good on the accrued interest, which has to be funded by cash flow. Mark Levin thinks this is a simple matter. It's not. The Fed (run by economists) believes they will run in to trouble on the interest payments due to short term cash flow realities. Remember, we hit the debt ceiling on May 19th. We've gone several months via creative bookkeeping. At some point (and rather soon), a payment will come due that cannot be handled either by rollover or by current receipts. That is a definition of default.
The State of Maryland, you mean. Is that wording consistent across all 50 states? No, you say? Or, really, you say "I'm too fucking lazy to look. Google it yourself!" Is that wording found in the text of the ACA itself, available in my sig for even the "WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S IN IT!!11!" to read? No, you say? If the citizens of Maryland are concerned about that wording, they need to address it at the state level. If you want to help them, write to their legislators.
Vis a vis the debt limit: What the idiots in the Tea Party don't seem nor want to get, is once you stop paying one kind of creditor(domestic or foreign or whatever), no matter whom, what every other one starts to think is "I'm next to not get paid." That is what will touch off a global economic catastrophe if the suicidal minority of the minority party gets its way. This sums up the far right and health care. It's still shocks me they think anybody should give them the time of day when it comes to healthcare reform:
The debt was only authorized so long as total debt remains under the ceiling. If the ceiling is not raised, the U.S. cannot incur new debt, even for programs already authorized.
There's a simple explanation: They don't care. Michelle Bachmann's told them these are the End Times, so they're trying to hurry things along.
What's the quote I'm looking for... "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." --Frédéric Bastiat And that's how we know you for what you truly are. Despite all your denials, despite your chronic rebranding of yourselves and your causes; we know what you are because we hear what you say and we see what you do.
Yes as if the echo chamber you listen to is any better. Levin is unique in that he does argue cases in court. He does know the law. If the man states the law says X you'd better believe I'd believe it before I'd believe anything coming from a leftist.
And Dave Reichert (R WA) has come out this morning and said he would vote for a clean CA if it was put before him. The pressure is getting to those Rs that are in contested districts. Looks like the Rs are finally caving to reality. I'm hearing a short term extension and government reopening package without strings is looking likely.
Plenty of Republicans have been saying stuff like that, but when push has come to shove, they don't actually act upon that.
It's my understanding that the numbers are there to pass the thing but that Boehner won't allow a vote.
He hasn't. Just the day earlier he was sending out emails talking about how Obama had to negotiate. Democrats have been making the claim (and I believe it) that if there were a vote the votes are there, but there aren't enough Rs who've publicly said they will vote for it. That's how Boehner can get away saying 'I don't think the votes are there.' The more the non-crazies come out, the less tenable Boehner's position. The Rs will cave.
It's not even for programs already authorised...it's ONLY for programs already authorised. In other words, raising the debt limit isn't about getting more money so that the government can go shopping for more stuff. It's about getting more money so that they can pay the bills on stuff we've already bought.
I hear and understand. It doesn't matter. You can't continue to charge stuff on the credit card when your limit is reached; IT DOESN'T MATTER that it was for stuff you earlier promised you would pay for.
Except it's not a credit card limit. It's a self imposed limit set by the same assholes who keep buying more stuff. If you want to talk about cutting spending in the future, fine...but pay the bills already owe in the present first.
And I have little doubt they will. For all the posturing, I'm pretty sure a default is not in the cards. Even if the current issue over Obamacare isn't resolved, Congress will pass some short-term increase in the debt-limit to give them breathing room.
So now you're saying they're going to do the same thing you've been going on and on about what they can't do?
