govt shutdown looms

dellinger63 · #1 10-09-2013, 01:54 PM

Amazing how well we're doing with the country shut down?

Granted we need to pay the bills we owe. We don't have to incur any new ones. And as the past week has shown us we can do just fine w/o the majority of government in operation despite Chicken Little's prediction of the sky falling.

BTW We need to stop considering Social Security as an entitlement unless we change SS withholding to Entitlement Withholding on everyone's check.

jms62 · #2 10-09-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Amazing how well we're doing with the country shut down?

Granted we need to pay the bills we owe. We don't have to incur any new ones. And as the past week has shown us we can do just fine w/o the majority of government in operation despite Chicken Little's prediction of the sky falling.

BTW We need to stop considering Social Security as an entitlement unless we change SS withholding to Entitlement Withholding on everyone's check.

Dude we do not know the impact of a default. It could be financial Armageddon. This is no video game where we hit reset and get a do over if in fact it is

dellinger63 · #3 10-09-2013, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

Dude we do not know the impact of a default. It could be financial Armageddon. This is no video game where we hit reset and get a do over if in fact it is

We don't need to re-start the entire government to prevent default, we only need to pay our bills. Hence my point of SS not being an entitlement but rather a bill.

Let's pay our bills while we balance the budget. Until then everything else can wait. You'll see it get done but not until the money train is stopped.

jms62 · #4 10-10-2013, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

We don't need to re-start the entire government to prevent default, we only need to pay our bills. Hence my point of SS not being an entitlement but rather a bill.

Let's pay our bills while we balance the budget. Until then everything else can wait. You'll see it get done but not until the money train is stopped.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/what...ios-8C11366851

Danzig · #5 10-10-2013, 06:52 AM

jms, it boggles the mind that some in congress, and elsewhere, think default is no big deal...or that people in congress, who are supposed to know better, think we can just pay some things....so, here's why you can't prioritize bill paying, and anyone who thinks we can just pay some bills while balancing the budget (what a laugher) take note of the first reason why:

This is what's known among debt ceiling junkies as "payment prioritization"—you use cash on hand to keep paying interest and rolling over the principal on the national debt, while letting Medicare reimbursements or salaries for FBI agents slide. Here are four problems with the idea, according to the Treasury Department:

1. It's illegal: Treasury is not authorized to unilaterally decide to pay certain bills and not others. If it were, the constitutional order would completely collapse. Obama could just not cut the checks for farm subsidies or missile defense programs he opposes. Then in a few years President Ted Cruz could refuse to pay SNAP benefits.

2. It's also impossible: Because payment prioritization is illegal, Treasury's payment system is not designed to allow prioritization to happen. Cardiff Garcia has an in-depth roundup of coverage of this angle, but the best simple explanation comes from the Treasury inspector general, who explains that on a technical level, the systems "are designed to make each payment in the order it comes due." Of course systems could always be changed. But look at all the problems Health and Human Services is having in getting the Affordable Care Act computer systems to work. They can't just whip up an entirely new computer system in the next two weeks. (And, of course, given the government shutdown, it would be illegal for them to hire someone to try.)

3. The timing doesn't work: Over a given year, the Treasury certainly collects more in taxes than it pays in interest. But that's not necessarily true on any given day. Most days the Treasury doesn't pay any interest. Then on some days large interest bills come due. To prioritize interest payments, you would need to not pay certain bills the Treasury does have enough cash on hand to pay in order to stockpile money for future interest payments. That further exacerbates problem Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Prioritization doesn't solve the problem: Even if all these problems could be waived away, you're not really solving the underlying problem. Yes, bondholders would still get their money. But nobody in the future could seriously treat U.S. government debt as a risk-free information-insensitive asset. It would become just another speculative play whose odds of working out would depend on your assessment of the ups and downs of American politics. Making the interest payments would somewhat mitigate the ensuing financial crisis, but would by no means eliminate it.

dellinger63 · #6 10-10-2013, 07:47 AM

Looks like they may have a deal on the table. 6-weeks worth of expense money and leaving the government shut-down while 'discussing' the budget.

Problem is they need to balance it not discuss it.

Meanwhile U.S. embassies all over the world will be toasting using brand new expensive wine glasses.

Danzig · #7 10-10-2013, 09:45 AM

have gotten caught up at work, and have started looking over what new news is out there regarding the gop in govt. playing with our economic present and future. obama has a meeting scheduled with some gop leaders at the white house; i wish him luck.

and this little tidbit, from a story about the meeting:

'The game of Washington chicken over increasing the debt limit — required so Treasury can borrow more money to pay the government's bills in full and on time — already has sent the stock market south, spiked the interest rate for one-month Treasury bills and prompted Fidelity Investments, the nation's largest manager of money market mutual funds, to sell federal debt that comes due around the time the nation could hit its borrowing limit.'

boehner is letting a small group of tea partiers simultaneously hamstring the gop, and the govt, and kick a growing economy in the teeth.

on a related note-why hasn't congress passed a budget in years? and did you guys know that there's no penalty for not having a budget? no one has standing to force the issue. this is why we keep having continuing resolutions-well, til now.

bigrun · #8 10-09-2013, 02:15 PM

War criminals toast each other over jokes, as America burns.

Quote:

Talk about torture.

As the nation is dragged toward a debt-ceiling crisis by a band of radical Republicans determined to invalidate laws they don’t like but don’t have the power to repeal, party elders got together for a lighthearted roast of accused war criminal Dick Cheney in New York Tuesday night. The ad in Commentary read:

He was White House chief of staff. He was House minority whip. He was secretary of defense. He was vice president of the United States. Now … he will be the main course.

Quote:

The former vice president and his neocon buddies couldn’t get together to reminisce about their war service, because they all ducked the military — Cheney most famously with five deferments during the Vietnam War (which of course he supported). In fact, that’s their hallmark: You might be a neocon if … you never met a war you didn’t like, and never met one you would fight in, either. Instead, at the roast, they mocked a man who did serve, Gen. Colin Powell.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/war_...america_burns/

Danzig · #9 10-09-2013, 02:32 PM

gop's favorability hits all-time low:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ther_part.html

bigrun · #10 10-09-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

gop's favorability hits all-time low:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ther_part.html

I'm shocked, who woulda thunk it

Be sure to watch last nite's daily show...the repukes had nothing to do with the shutdown

..then he nails boner with a clip of interview with Stephanopoulos...and his guest is Malala

Danzig · #11 10-09-2013, 03:19 PM

yeah, i haven't watched the last few episodes of that, or colbert. will have to do some catching up.
i'd like to see malala get a nobel. that girl can teach many people a lesson-well, more than one lesson. and the taliban still says they're gonna get her. so threatened by a girl! and one daring to get an education at that!

gee, i hope her ovaries are ok.

bigrun · #12 10-09-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, i haven't watched the last few episodes of that, or colbert. will have to do some catching up.
i'd like to see malala get a nobel. that girl can teach many a lesson-well, more than one. and the taliban still says they're gonna get her. so threatened by a girl! and one daring to get an education at that!

gee, i hope her ovaries are ok.

I do also..that would really frost the taliban's lower parts

Kid is very good interviewee, sharp and clear beyond her years..
Diane Sawyer showed a short bit from her interview last nite and i think she might be on tonites eve news...and i think she will be on a 20/20 segment.

Danzig · #13 10-10-2013, 11:52 AM

so...much hand-wringing is going on, and i just had a client come by and mention that social security checks could stop coming. so, i looked into it-sure enough, if the govt defaults, ss would be affected. so, some reading turned me to other subjects, other articles, and finally, i wondered....why is there a debt ceiling? when was it put in place? so, of course, i asked the mighty google god...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fecd_blog.html

The article notes that the debt limit generally was raised without controversy until a White House request to raise the limit in 1953 was sidetracked in the Senate, “where the ceiling was viewed as an instrument for forcing economy on the executive branch of the government.”

Hmm, that sounds familiar.

and the last of the article:

The debt limit was originally conceived as a way to make things easier for Congress, because lawmakers were tired of having to issue bonds for specific purposes. (Congress, after all, had already decided to spend the money.) But then Congress often finds a way to make the easy stuff harder.

Indeed, when he was a senator, President Obama also refused to approve a debt-limit increase in 2006 without a plan to reduce the deficit. The president now acknowledges that was a “political vote, as opposed to doing what was important for the country — which he regrets.

Danzig · #14 10-10-2013, 11:53 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ling_increases

A statutorily imposed debt ceiling has been in effect since 1917 when the US Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act. Before 1917 there was no debt ceiling in force, but there were parliamentary procedural limitations on the level of possible debt that could be held by government.

US government indebtedness has been the norm in United States financial history, as well of most Western European and North American countries, for the past 200 years.

The US has been in debt every year except for 1835.
Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly report on the amount of the debt ($75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791).
Every President since Herbert Hoover has added to the national debt expressed in absolute dollars.

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1962,[1] including 18 times under Ronald Reagan, eight times under Bill Clinton, seven times under George W. Bush, and three times under Barack Obama.

Danzig · #15 10-10-2013, 11:57 AM

i love history, i'm such a geek:

Prior to the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the debt ceiling played an important role since Congress had few opportunities to hold hearings and debates on the budget.[8] James Surowiecki argued that the debt ceiling lost its usefulness after these reforms to the budget process.[9]

In 1979, noting the potential problems of hitting a default, Dick Gephardt imposed the "Gephardt Rule," a parliamentary rule that deemed the debt ceiling raised when a budget was passed. This resolved the contradiction in voting for appropriations but not voting to fund them. The rule stood until it was repealed by the Republican Congress in 1995.

now, that gephardt rule makes complete sense. how could it not? too bad it was repealed...not that it matters, we haven't had an actual budget in YEARS.

Danzig · #16 10-10-2013, 12:01 PM

[b]In 2011, Republicans in Congress attempted to use the debt ceiling as leverage for deficit reduction. The delay in raising the debt ceiling led to the first ever downgrade in the federal government's credit rating. The credit downgrade and debt ceiling debacle contributed to the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 2,000 points in late July and August. Following the downgrade itself, the DJIA had one of its worst days in history and fell 635 points on August 8.[14] The GAO estimated that the delay in raising the debt ceiling raised borrowing costs for the government by $1.3 billion in 2011 and noted that the delay would also raise costs in later years. The Bipartisan Policy Center extended the GAO's estimates and found that the delay raised borrowing costs by $18.9 billion over ten years.[/B]

f***ing brilliant. raised borrowing costs by 18.9 billion.... and of course, those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

any guesses on the next downgrade? what it'll cost? that they only extend by six weeks, so we can keep arguing while solving nothing?