Asking to borrow $10 that you know will never be paid back, and if it is paid back the money is borrowed from someone else, is being financially irresponsible.
The government can not pay its debt, and will never be able to pay its debt, but it wants to raise the amount of money it can borrow?
You got that right! And it's going the wrong way in a big hurry!Of course we can increase our debt forever. You realize that the net debt of the United States has increased nearly every year for the entirety of our country's existence, right? The issue is our debt/GDP ratio, not the debt as an absolute number.
You got that right! And it's going the wrong way in a big hurry!
Of course we can increase our debt forever. You realize that the net debt of the United States has increased nearly every year for the entirety of our country's existence, right?
What do you think will happen if we don't raise the debt limit this time?
That is simply not true.
There was no national debt under Andrew Jackson. He abolished the central bank and took control of our money. As a result there was no national debt.
Asking to borrow $10 that you know will never be paid back, and if it is paid back the money is borrowed from someone else, is being financially irresponsible.
I said nearly every year for a very specific reason. Regardless, we can absolutely roll our debt over forever, which was the point. I mean that too... forever. (well, until the sun consumes the earth at least)
What you want to do-
You then tell them you don't want to pay them because you don't want to spend any more money. Even though you have the ability to pay them.
That sounds like a good idea.
I think I am going to apply for some credit cards, max the master card, then pay the debt off with the visa.
When visa wants their money I pay it off with a discover card,,,,.
I will just keep that debt revolving until I die and then it will my kids problem.
We do not have the money to start with.
Your analogy is like starting to build a home, then asking the bank for a loan. Shouldn't you have got the loan before starting the home?
We do not have the money to start with.
Your analogy is like starting to build a home, then asking the bank for a loan. Shouldn't you have got the loan before starting the home?
Asking to borrow $10 that you know will never be paid back, and if it is paid back the money is borrowed from someone else, is being financially irresponsible.
The government can not pay its debt, and will never be able to pay its debt, but it wants to raise the amount of money it can borrow?
And that right there is why you don't understand the debt limit issue.
We are not raising the debt limit so that we can initiate new spending.
We are raising the debt limit to pay for things we've already bought. The money we spent covered by a debt limit increase today was spent five or ten years ago. It's just that the bill is coming due now.
What happens when you run out of credit cards and you have to pay the bill? Do you just say you aren't going to pay?
That sounds like a good idea.
I think I am going to apply for some credit cards, max the master card, then pay the debt off with the visa.
When visa wants their money I pay it off with a discover card,,,,.
I will just keep that debt revolving until I die and then it will my kids problem.
Things bought on credit, which is going to be paid for by credit.
How long can the government continue to spend money out of thin air?
Make a new credit card and charge the bill to that one.
So in your world, you wouldn't just stop spending or adjust your budget, you would just find a new credit card, WELCOME TO HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WORKS! Not only does the government never have to pay their bills in full but they can also continue spending in perpetuity, so long as they can continue getting credit. Since your own personal solution is to simply "revolve" the debt and you see no need to figure out how to pay the debt off, it should be assumed that you don't support anything that would hurt your chances or the countries chances of getting new credit.
The CNBC poll reported that by a 59-19 percent margin, respondents opposed linking defunding of "Obamacare" to a possible shutdown starting on October 1, or to a failure to raise the government's borrowing authority, meaning Washington may not be able to pay all of its bills by sometime in October or early November.
-snip-
Take a look at it from the outside, as if you weren't American. Who stands to win from a shutdown, from welching on US govt obligations?
Holders of US securities, that's who. They're the safest investment in the world, and the backbone of nearly every great portfolio in existence. OTOH, yields are currently dismal, driven by strong demand for them. Every rollover of old bonds for new gives lower yields.
What to do? Create a situation where their safety is brought into question, forcing yields up. Better yet, do so under false pretenses of defunding the ACA, a proposition driven by the ideology of smaller govt at any cost. You have an army of such idiots at your disposal, so keep 'em whipped up in an emotional & ideological froth. You also have the fact that the Repub leadership is scared to death that the ACA will actually work & be popular. They're very, very heavily invested in preventing that from happening. It would body slam their whole ideological premise into the dirt.
Oh, yeh- Use derivatives to bet on failure, even as you force it to happen, and nobody will be the wiser, either.
The Republicans want to shut down the government because they oppose Obamacare. However, they have completely failed to present a solution to our nation's health care problem. It would be nice if they could step up and say, "Obamacare is a bad plan, we have a better idea!" However, all they have is, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick die quickly and quietly," and they don't have the cajones to publicly present that plan to the populace.
Wrong again. One of the things that makes trying to have a discussion with people like you so pointless is that you're incapable of processing new information. It's called cognitive dissonance. You start with your faith-based positions, and stubbornly shut out anything that challenges them. You posted multiple times in that very thread, yet a month later you're back to your original beliefs, your faith unfazed by reality.Originally Posted by Matt1970
The budget deficit for 2009 was $1.413 Trillion.
The budget deficit for 2012 was $1.087 Trillion.
Even the most optimistic predictions for 2013 do not put it below half of when he started.
It's not disingenuous...it's downright dishonest to use 2009 as a baseline to favorably compare future spending deficits.Isn't it just a little disingenuous to start with the 2009 budget when that year included a one time charge of about $800 Billion? (The stimulus package)
Fern
The Republicans can't even get a real coalition to defy Obamacare.
In politics it's much much easier to get a coalition to oppose something than it is to get one for a solution. This country's been working on this problem for decades and no agreed upon solution has been found yet. (The one we now have, Obamacare, isn't even agreed upon. It's just the best Dems themselves could cobble together while having unprecedented control of Washington DC.)
And the Repubs came out with a plan, they would mobilize all kinds of groups/lobbyists against it. Unlike Obamacare which is a boon to private insurers, a real solution is going to gore somebodies ox.
If the Repubs can't fight against Obamacare, which is unpopular, they sure as heck can't successfully fight for something.
I.e., your demand is unreasonable.
Fern
It's not disingenuous...it's downright dishonest to use 2009 as a baseline to favorably compare future spending deficits.
Wait so now we can't even ask the Republicans to come up with an idea? Forget passing a law, forget implementing a fix, we aren't even allowed to ASK FOR AN IDEA.
Serious question. If you were to set out with the goal of purposefully making the bar for acceptable behavior as low as humanly possible, how would you go about setting it lower than you just did?
You're being purposefully obtuse, if not downright silly.
You know the pragmatic realities of politics.
And, BTW, now that we've gotten a little better idea of what Obamacare is it IS an idea to say let's dump and go back to what we had before.
Fern