Consequences of a US default

[heironymouspasparagus]

Never said it was all Bush's fault.  He just had the biggest hand in it.  The previous residents of 1600 at least had a minimal understanding concerning the use of tax cuts/hikes.  Baby Bush was too busy being drunk in public to listen to his advisors - if he had any.

[Gaspar]

Never said it was all Bush's fault.  He just had the biggest hand in it.  The previous residents of 1600 at least had a minimal understanding concerning the use of tax cuts/hikes.  Baby Bush was too busy being drunk in public to listen to his advisors - if he had any.

You rock!

[Gaspar]

[DolfanBob]

Never said it was all Bush's fault.  He just had the biggest hand in it.  The previous residents of 1600 at least had a minimal understanding concerning the use of tax cuts/hikes.  Baby Bush was too busy being drunk in public to listen to his advisors - if he had any.

No ! No ! That wouldnt be prudent....At this Juncture !

[Conan71]

No ! No ! That wouldnt be prudent....At this Juncture !

Classic!

[nathanm]

How about I tell you why the obstructionist point of view is full of it? We have to roll over around $500 billion in debt in the next two months. You got $500 billion laying around? I don't. The government doesn't. So it has to borrow temporarily. If it can't borrow, it can't pay off the maturing bonds, thus the default.

Apparently reason is incapable of reason these days. They don't understand the difference between personal and sovereign (or even corporate) finance. Or that unexpectedly high tax receipts earlier in the year have enabled us to go longer without being flat broke. Or that the Treasury has been raiding pension funds and the like for months now.

So if you intended to post something for us to all point and laugh at, it was complete pwnage. If not, that was one of the failingest failboat fails I've seen in a long time.

[guido911]

How about I tell you why the obstructionist point of view is full of it? We have to roll over around $500 billion in debt in the next two months. You got $500 billion laying around? I don't. The government doesn't. So it has to borrow temporarily. If it can't borrow, it can't pay off the maturing bonds, thus the default.

Apparently reason is incapable of reason these days. They don't understand the difference between personal and sovereign (or even corporate) finance. Or that unexpectedly high tax receipts earlier in the year have enabled us to go longer without being flat broke. Or that the Treasury has been raiding pension funds and the like for months now.

So if you intended to post something for us to all point and laugh at, it was complete pwnage. If not, that was one of the failingest failboat fails I've seen in a long time.

Lemme translate that. "Reason TV is not advocating tax increases=fail". I thought it was a very reasonable view of this problem. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its wrong.

[nathanm]

Lemme translate that. "Reason TV is not advocating tax increases=fail". I thought it was a very reasonable view of this problem. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its wrong.

You might want to brush up on your translation skills.

[we vs us]

As usual he pontificated about broad strokes, but when it came down to it was not able to offer a single thing he would be willing to put his name on.

You must not understand politics.  He's put his name on all of it.  He's put his name on $4T in deficit reduction, to be a mix of spending cuts and tax increases.  That's a massive amount of cabbage to throw out there. 

Unfortunately for you and for me, we won't get to know which lines they cross out and which ones they don't until after it happens.  That's representative democracy for you. 

[we vs us]

To date, what has the president done in the way of trade negotiations or offering incentives for companies to hire more Americans to take them off of "income security" programs?

Well, he loaned billions of dollars to the American auto industry, and they are, only a couple of years later not only solvent but all almost totally free of government funding/ownership.  That saved a ton of jobs right there.  He's repeatedly tried to reduce payroll taxes but the GOP has vetoed each one of his bills.  ARRA had about $300B in it for infrastructure upgrades, keeping construction people in work.  He's put packages for green infrastructure, small business lending, rural entrepreneurship, manufacturing, minority and women owned business, and R&D out there. 

What sort of incentive are you envisioning?  Because giving out further tax cuts across the board is flat ridiculous (though that wouldn't stop Obama from doing it, if the Republicans would let him.) 

[Red Arrow]

He's repeatedly tried to reduce payroll taxes but the GOP has vetoed each one of his bills. ...  He's put packages for green infrastructure, small business lending, rural entrepreneurship, manufacturing, minority and women owned business, and R&D out there. 

SS is in financial difficulty and you want to reduce revenue?

The company I work for is often compelled to buy from minority owned businesses and we have to pay a premium to do so.  Since we do defense work, you pay for it.  OK if that's what "we" want to do but just be aware it is not cost free.

[Breadburner]

[we vs us]

Hilarious!  

Though it should read more like this:  

GOP:  Do something Barry!

Barry:  Ok, 2 trillion in cuts!  

GOP:  Do something else, Barry!

Barry:  4 trillion in cuts!

GOP:  Do something else, Barry!

Barry:  Um, 2 trillion in cuts?

GOP:  Do something else, Barry!

etc.

[Gaspar]

Hilarious!  

Though it should read more like this:  

GOP:  Do something Barry!

Barry:  Ok, 2 trillion in cuts!  

GOP:  Do something else, Barry!

Barry:  4 trillion in cuts!

GOP:  Do something else, Barry!

Barry:  Um, 2 trillion in cuts?

GOP:  Do something else, Barry!

etc.

The funnier part is that no one can name a single cut that President Barry Soetoro has established.  You see, the president never said he would be willing to cut 4 trillion.  That number was part of a series of leaks targeted at MSNBC and CBS rehashing old numbers that the president threw out in a speech in April.  Now, when asked, the president will not mention a single cut. 

The $4 Trillion number came from a budget speech back in April (April 13th), where he alluded to a reduction OVER 12 YEARS that wouldn't start until 2014 (after Obamacare becomes irreversible). The speech was in response to the GOP's call for a $6.2 Trillion dollar cut to include many of the Obamacare outlays.

If you remember, this was another speech (like his February budget outlay) that frustrated the republicans, and the CBO because there were again no specifics and the impact was incalculable and in-actionable.  Much like your bowls after a meal at Chipotle, this president will not present anything solid.

[nathanm]

The funnier part is that no one can name a single cut that President Barry Soetoro has established.  You see, the president never said he would be willing to cut 4 trillion.  That number was part of a series of leaks targeted at MSNBC and CBS rehashing old numbers that the president threw out in a speech in April.  Now, when asked, the president will not mention a single cut. 

Watch out, the New World Order is coming to getcha!