Okay, if they don't raise the debt ceiling by August something or other, the U.S.A. won't be able to legally borrow any more money. Why is the media claiming that it means we will start defaulting on our bills?
OUr family has a couple credit cards. If the credit card people tell us we can't use them anymore, does that mean we stop paying our bills? It just means we can't borrow anymore money. (We don't owe anything, they're just for emergencies.)
So if the debt ceiling isn't raised, we will have to tell the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that we can't send them any more money. We'll have to tell the biofuels people, "no more subsidies, you're on your own." There would be lots of disappointed people of course and screams of anguish from the liberal media. But we would have to ignore that. We would still have to provide unemployment compensation for the employees of the Dept. of Education while they look for new jobs, but it would be less than their salaries.
Don't get me wrong, I would feel their pain, but one should be prepared for such events in an economic downturn. With everyone else cutting back, there is no reason why it should be business as usual for the government.
The deficit spending is going to have to end at some point. We'll be better off if we end it now when we can be more flexible in our cutbacks.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
Last week in the WSJ was a good article on how they could strecth things out a little more. If they pay off the SS T bills and pay the old farts, that will free up some more borrowing abilty in the treasury. So Obama is very very wrong claiming he can't guarantee the old farts won't get their checks.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Last week in the WSJ was a good article on how they could strecth things out a little more. If they pay off the SS T bills and pay the old farts, that will free up some more borrowing abilty in the treasury. So Obama is very very wrong claiming he can't guarantee the old farts won't get their checks.
Of course they'll pay out the social security money. Obama and the Dems are just trying to create some kind of panic to justify more government control. It's no different than all the "global warming," aka "climate change" propaganda.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
I'm with you, Sachiko, but I think I understand their language. Let me try to explain.
Remember, this is coming from the people who worshiped at the feet of Bill Clinton, the man who said "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' . . . is."
If we don't pay our bills, according to these people we default on our bills. What are our bills? Anything that we have said we are going to pay for can be construed as a bill, right? Thus, if we have decided we are going to spend $200,000,000 on enumerating all the possible endangered insect species, plant species, fish species, reptile species, etc., if we then DO NOT spend that money, we are defaulting on that bill or promise. Note a subtle point here, oh you careless readers, I'm not talking about doing the work first and then paying, I'm talking about delivering the money but before the work is done would be viewed as not paying our bill. Personally, I would call that changing my mind. "You know, I test drove that Hummer, loved it, was ready to bring in my $75,000 to close the deal, but my wife just divorced me and money is tight, I guess I'll back out of that deal." Now, the Washington Post would call that defaulting on my bill . . . even though in fact I had not yet incurred any bill. As another example, if we have decided we are going to provide $450,000,000 in aid to foreign governments and we don't send that money to those people, we are defaulting on that bill or promise.
It is word smithing. If I can't pay my mortgage payment when it is due on August 1, my bank is not going to call me on the phone on August 2 and tell me that I'm in default. I'm going to be late on my payment. I won't be declared in default, I would reckon, for at least three months. Those who have gone down this path before can correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't know, I've never defaulted on a debt before.
Is this alarmism promoted by the news media? Yes, of course. Is it as dire as promoted? No, of course not. What needs to be paid will be paid, others will have to wait for payment. They may be given some fraction now and the remainder later. Could government workers such as workers in the US Department of Transportation receive 50% of their normal checks and be told they would receive the remainder later? I don't see why not.
But why the sense of betrayal and irritation on the part of the news media? Haven't the Democrats operated without a passed budget for two years? No freakin budget?!!! Was it not known the debt ceiling was coming up? Reminds me of that scene in the Austin Powers movie where the guard stands in front of the very slowly moving steam roller and screams as it barrels down on him from 15 feet away . . . for 20 seconds before running him over. Debt ceiling coming, better curtail spending. Why is it a foregone conclusion that the debt ceiling has to be raised? What about curtailing spending?
The Republicans control the house. The house MUST originate tax bills. Thus, the no new taxes stand is pretty much in the control of the Republicans. Raising the debt ceiling, too, has to be approved by the house, so again the Republicans have something to do with that. The status quo is . . . the debt ceiling as it now stands. The Republicans, contrary to what the mainstream media and Democrats seem to indicate, hold a lot of cards. Additionally, their constituents have pretty clearly indicated where they want their representatives to go on this issue. If Boehner cuts some sort of flakkey deal, he is liable to experience a humiliating failed vote on the part of his own Republican house members. I mean, these guys have to stand election EVERY election cycle, and many won't be reelected if they don't cut spending as they promised they would do when elected in 2010. And without new taxes. And I don't think anyone is respecting and taking guidance from the clown in chief on economic issues any longer.
Alsatian,You the man!! That is exactly correct. The marxist media srikes again.And let's not forget that FOX is spouting the same tripe as CNN on this subject.
__________________
"GUNS HAVE ONLY TWO ENEMIES,RUST AND POLITICIANS"
Which all stems from the major fall out of the housing market from Clintoons revising of the "community reinvestment act".
Bush nor Obama has done anything to fix it other than throw billions upon billions of dollars in the trash trying to bail every one out from it.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
I don't know what is worse....seeing Obama trying to act tough or Boehner with his dark look threatening to bring everyone down because of the other guy. Fact is our government has put us all into this mess and are blaming everyone else other than themselves. Dem or GOP they are all losers and are not doing the job. Partisan politics has migrated from a simple check and balance to nothing except gridlock. That system needs to end and term limits would IMHO would be a good start. There needs to be a grass roots internet movement to throw them all out as soon as they come up for election. Every one of them...... since most are either the leaders of the problem or lemmings who can't force themselves to work for the people due to the fear that they will be blackballed by their party. If the government doesn't pay their bills then I guess there is no reason for all of us to pay income taxes. There shouldn't be any need for the IRS if there isn't money going out or coming into the treasury. Pretty good place right there to decrease the size of government. If our government were a business all those leaders would have been fired. As it stands, they all get re-elected and will enjoy a lifetime of pay/ retirement and benefit package that comes off the backs of the working people. In my opinion it puts them at just about at the same level as the British royalty…only they don’t have the fancy hats.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
What's with this "default" nonsense?
