US gubmint shutdown + default + subprime sequel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I hope that's his plan because he's leading from the back, way back, back with the logistic clerks and coffee machines. It would be nice to know he has a plan.

Banquo summed it up quite nicely. The whole process is embarrassing. The only party that wants to make much needed cuts started off blatantly political and now they can't manage themselves. The opposition doesn't want to play ball (maybe due to the farcical opening) and the chief executive is chillin' with his homies.

---

If we're all gonna get hoit, I'd rather be kicked in the butt than in the groin.

In historic terms, I would have hoped for a gracious retreat from 250 years of unadulterated growth and expansion instead of a head-on collision with reality.

I find myself miraculously in agreement with today's Berlingske, a conservative paper from Denmark:

Quote:

---

The best way of reducing the mountain of debt in the long term would be for the western world to strengthen its global competitiveness by introducing structural reforms. That would allow the necessary growth to be generated primarily through exports. ... This assumes, however, that consumers in Asia, for example, buy more goods and that the Asian countries' exchange rates reflect their new economic strength. We must now get used to the fact that reducing our debts - both state and private - will take a long time and that economic growth will be slowed down for years. People must change their expectations of the future accordingly. That will be very hard, but unfortunately there is no other way.

---

Real men take it in the Jimmy.

As in your article: Exports are nice but they need buyers. It's time for us to chill out for a while until the baby boomers pass from this life. This is the best course due to our structure and responsibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Lemur offering suggestions during meetings hardly constitutes a plan.

---

Making detailed offers in private meetings sounds like something you do when you're serious about reaching an agreement. Passing a bill that nobody but the Tea Party will support, on the other hand, is un-serious. Let's say President 44 wrote up all of the offers he has made to Boehner and put them out on the web in a PDF. Do you think that would change anything? Bring us any closer to a deal? Didn't think so. The republicans are fully aware of what compromises 44 is willing to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

He is the one who stormed out of these meetings* and neither he nor his mouthpieces have put forward a concrete budget proposal.

---

Re: storming, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to get into who has been more rude and impossible? 'Cause there's plenty of that to go around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Instead he is trying to scare old people by stating that we won't be able to pay social security

---

A sudden and unplanned 44% reduction in federal budget means many will have to do without. Debt service must be paid. Soldiers must be paid. So I don't know how unrealistic it is to eye Social Security and say, "You're going to have to wait a bit while this gets sorted out."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It's time for us to chill out for a while until the baby boomers pass from this life.

---

Wouldn't you rather wait until Venus is in conjunction to our Ascendant? The energy of Venus in conjunction adds grace to our undoing and stimulates our self-projection.

In other words, what are you on about?

AII

These people are adults, why is this happening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Making detailed offers in private meetings sounds like something you do when you're serious about reaching an agreement. Passing a bill that nobody but the Tea Party will support, on the other hand, is un-serious. Let's say President 44 wrote up all of the offers he has made to Boehner and put them out on the web in a PDF. Do you think that would change anything? Bring us any closer to a deal? Didn't think so. The republicans are fully aware of what compromises 44 is willing to make.

Re: storming, do you really want to go there? Do you really want to get into who has been more rude and impossible? 'Cause there's plenty of that to go around.

A sudden and unplanned 44% reduction in federal budget means many will have to do without. Debt service must be paid. Soldiers must be paid. So I don't know how unrealistic it is to eye Social Security and say, "You're going to have to wait a bit while this gets sorted out."

---

Again, offers, however detailed, do not constitute a plan. You've so much as admitted that the Republicans are the only side that has submitted a detailed plan. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. "Un-serious" is unconvincing.

Let the President write up not just his offers, but a comprehensive plan. As you stated, he has not. What I think it would change is irrelevant. If one side brings a soccer ball to a basketball game, mock them, and bring your own ball.

Again you reference a loony article that reflects your personal biases. Spare me the feigned outrage. As I recall, he made it quite clear during a speech that Social Security checks would not go out; likely in an effort to frighten the largest and most active voting block as a part of his "appeal to the people" (if he used those words).

You're unwilling do directly admit that as impractical as the Republican plan may be, that it is the only one out there. "Dead on arrival," proposals, and phone calls are as much of the game as the plan you despise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Wouldn't you rather wait until Venus is in conjunction to our Ascendant? The energy of Venus in conjunction adds grace to our undoing and stimulates our self-projection.

In other words, what are you on about?

AII

---

Once the old people die we'll have more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

These people are adults, why is this happening?

---

Likely for power and influence. That's how adults play.

oops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

"Un-serious" is unconvincing.

---

Okay, here's my "detailed plan": you give me all of your worldly possessions and become my manservant for life without pay. There. That's a detailed plan. Is it serious, or a joke? Have you ever attended a real negotiation in your entire life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Okay, here's my "detailed plan": you give me all of your worldly possessions and become my manservant for life without pay. There. That's a detailed plan. Is it serious, or a joke? Have you ever attended a real negotiation in your entire life?

---

No but I have been a manservant and service is its own reward. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Right, we're all going into poverty. I don't buy the doomsday scenario. I want spending cuts of 20 to 30 percent of government. We could just steam roll out of iraq and afghanistan, slash federal employee wages, sell off land which the government owns. My personal credit is perfect, literally. I have no respect for the debt obligations incurreds hundreds of miles away by individuals who do not represent my interests. Don't bring religion into this. Floating a deficit of 44% to pay for crap we don't need on the backs of our children isn't the most ethical choice.

---

44% cut Tuff, on August 3rd. What do you think they'll cut? Social Security? Health Care? The Federal support that keeps the likes of Alaska and California afloat?

Maybe they'll cut the army by 44%, that would be fun, all those PTSD'd GI's without jopbs or prospects.

The decifit is not 44% though, it is 11%, 44% is just the money that the Fed won't have if it can't borrow to meet costs. I agree that you need to restructure but if the US cannot service it's debts it will be unable to borrow next year at anything like sensible rates, its world standing will be trash and on the level of a Bannana Republic.

The defecit will go up, there will be deeper cuts, more people will lose their jobs, tax revenue will fall, there will be more cuts, people will lose their jobs...

If you want to know what happens when you can't service your debts ask Greece.

If you want to know what a sudden "rebalancing" of the economy causes for those with the rug pulled out from under them, ask the North of England.

As far as religion goes, the Tea Party brings it into everything so I feel justified in calling it. By the by, abandoning the poor and vulnerable to their fate is also immoral and explicitely un-Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Once the old people die we'll have more money.

---

Are your parents dead yet?

AII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Are your parents dead yet?

AII

---

I'm a baby boomer and filthy rich. I am unsure as to whether I should live or die for the Vladimir plan to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm a baby boomer and filthy rich. I am unsure as to whether I should live or die for the Vladimir plan to work.

---

:laugh4: No I don't wish for anyone to die. ~;)

Depends. I'm really interested to see the numbers on baby boomer's contribution to growth and revenue vs. burden on the economy. The Social Security crunch, rising costs for Medicare, and rising health care costs can be attributed to the aging boomer population. I know boomers contributed a great deal to growth, prosperity, and scientific achievement for the last several decades. To not veer too sharply off topic, these costs are part of the reason for the current budget crunch and I wonder what the budget situation will look like once they've passed. Or, even the economy for that matter. I don't know how much death taxes will contribute to federal revenue but they may mask the true economic picture.

My boomer parents are still alive. I have a lot of respect for my father's work ethic but he often expressed a belief that just because he was an American he was entitled to a certain standard of living. He's a retired steelworker, which, is a great profession that paid well but became less competitive over time.

BTW: I'm kinda honored that you two replied in tandem to my post. :jumping:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Federal support that keeps the likes of Alaska and California afloat?

---

Not to nit pick, but California pays more to the federal government than it receives from it.

http://www.lazlow.com/uploaded_image...2_o-748920.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

:laugh4: No I don't wish for anyone to die. ~;)

---

Thank goodness, I was afraid we would have to say goodbye to Banquo's Ghost in orde to cash in on that ancestral estate, those old socks full of guineas hidden underneath his drinks cabinet and the Columbian gold stashed behind Arnold K. Toynbee's 12-volume A Study of History in the blue room.

AII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

These people are adults, why is this happening?

---

Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Because a significant number of them live in a fantasy world where tax hikes in a stagnant economy are a good idea.

---

Just like Lowering Taxes during wartime is a good idea.

Frankly, it looks like we're already headed towards a double-dip recession. The first quarter growth was just revised down to 0.4%. The second quarter initial numbers are a tepid 1.3% and likely to be revised down later as well. If you think raising taxes is the solution to this problem.... see my earlier post. Higher taxes would further damage the economy and likely result in lower tax revenue. I'm afraid you're going to have to hold off on your redistribution of wealth until we're in better economic times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samurai Waki

Just like Lowering Taxes during wartime is a good idea.

---

And how does re-arguing this solve anything? Not very "adult", I must say....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

A mature response

---

Telling the truth is very mature. Little kids fib all the time, not adults, except when it comes to spouses and cops.

A) His characterization of "tax hikes" is completely wrong.
B) He is clearly attacking the Democrats for "living in a fantasy land" when the Republicans are asking for a Constitutional Amendment in order to America to not get downgraded.
C) It comes out of no where to what I saw as a facetious comment from Strike (I don't think he really just called Congress a bunch of adults), so I can only assume it came from partisan frustration.


The American system was designed by the founders to be a place of compromise, it's what allowed the Constitution to be approved in the first place. The Republicans, specifically the Tea Party branch is acting antiamerican by outright refusing to compromise, choosing instead to sabotage the standing and strength of the nation for ideological purity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Frankly, it looks like we're already headed towards a double-dip recession. The first quarter growth was just revised down to 0.4%. The second quarter initial numbers are a tepid 1.3% and likely to be revised down later as well. If you think raising taxes is the solution to this problem.... see my earlier post. Higher taxes would further damage the economy and likely result in lower tax revenue. I'm afraid you're going to have to hold off on your redistribution of wealth until we're in better economic times.

---

Except they were not raises on individual tax rates. Obama's proposal had all revenues coming from closing corporate and individual tax loopholes. No rates were raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Gutmensch

The American system was designed by the founders to be a place of compromise, it's what allowed the Constitution to be approved in the first place. The Republicans, specifically the Tea Party branch is acting antiamerican by outright refusing to compromise, choosing instead to sabotage the standing and strength of the nation for ideological purity.

---

Hillary Clinton wants to talk to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hillary Clinton wants to talk to you.

---

Complete strawman. This isn't a matter of them disagreeing and arguing. Tea Party is refusing to vote for anything. Boehner walks out 3 times. OBama gives a plan with a money ration of 3 cuts to 1 increase in revenue and gets walked out on.

This is playing the "starving the beast" tactic to the utmost extreme. And you need to do better if you want to be in the right.

EDIT: Alright, I gotta stop being an ass.

Let's take a step back shall we? Boehner's plan roughly cuts $900bn over the course of ten years for an equivalent, but immediate increase in the debt ceiling. Do you realize that if all those cuts were made immediately, -this year- we would still be running a deficit for the year? So, at best case, he's talking about trimming a 10th of our current annual deficit. Do you also realize that the "down the road" cuts are non-binding because the current Congress can't pass legislation that ties the hands of subsequent ones.

So basically, what you have is $22bn of cuts in the 2012 budget, in return for a $900bn increase in the debt ceiling. Obama and Reid have called that "dead on arrival". You call him "antiamerican" for proposing it. Who's being unreasonable and unwilling to compromise? When it comes to cutting the deficit, Boehner's plan barely even registers yet the Democrats would have you think they want to throw grandma off a cliff.

Ready for a conspiracy theory?

I thought so. Pull up a chair.

The gov't is going to pull a GM style restructuring. Social Security is actually cash-flow positive as long as the gov't pays interest on the bonds it holds as securities. A "technical default" will necessitate hard decisions; since not paying interest to foreign holders would be catastrophic the gov't will short shrift domestic holders (not all of course). As gov't programs become cash starved due to missing interest payments, the "weak cash sucking programs" will be restructured any way the gov't likes. The burden of adjustment will come to rest where it always ought to. On the poor, elderly, and most needy of the population.

Just my humble opinion ;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Let's take a step back shall we? Boehner's plan roughly cuts $900bn over the course of ten years for an equivalent, but immediate increase in the debt ceiling. Do you realize that if all those cuts were made immediately, -this year- we would still be running a deficit for the year? So, at best case, he's talking about trimming a 10th of our current annual deficit. Do you also realize that the "down the road" cuts are non-binding because the current Congress can't pass legislation that ties the hands of subsequent ones.

So basically, what you have is $22bn of cuts in the 2012 budget, in return for a $900bn increase in the debt ceiling. Obama and Reid have called that "dead on arrival". You call him "antiamerican" for proposing it. Who's being unreasonable and unwilling to compromise? When it comes to cutting the deficit, Boehner's plan barely even registers yet the Democrats would have you think they want to throw grandma off a cliff.

---

The Republicans are still being the unreasonable ones. Obama and the Democrats are justified in calling it dead on arrival. Here is the problem. Boehner's plan would have the debt ceiling only extended for the equivalent of a few months. It will become an issue again just in time for the 2012 election. Obama wants a plan that will at least extend the debt ceiling past the 2012 election so that this issue does not become a campaign issue and so a longer term plan can be implemented.

Moody's has been saying that neither the Republican plan nor Reid's own plan would stop Moody's from going ahead with a credit downgrade for the US because they are not comprehensive enough.

The youtube video you linked to seems to be about Paul Ryan's plan, not the current plan proposed by Republicans, so I don't see how that is relevant to the statement you imbedded it in.

Obama's plan had 1.6 trillion dollars in cuts. 700 billion more than Boehner's plan, and in return he wanted to close loopholes. Not increase taxes, but close loopholes. This is a solid, very long term and much more important conservative plan since the revenues would only amount to 1.2 trillion. Tea Party said no because it was Obama plain and simple. They won't work with Obama and they have made it their mission statement to make a blanket opposition to everything he does and says. Again, this is not how the government was envisioned to work. The minority power is to force a compromise that will make sure that the will of the minority is not trampled upon. The will of the minority is not being trampled upon because obama gave 1 trillion in discretionary cuts and 680 billion in cuts to social programs, the programs that conservatives want cut the most. To continue to refuse, reject and hold the economic standing as a hostage is anti-american because it goes against what the system was designed for.

The Boehner plan is simply political fodder that they know is not meant to be legitimate. The goal of the plan is to have it pass the house, let the democrats kill it and give themselves the ability to say, "we tried" to their constituents and the country. Even then, the Tea Party was giving them hell because they didn't want any sort of plan passed because they want the default to come to force massive cuts to fulfill their ideological purity.

What they could have done is have Boehner and Reid both pass their plans, then go about with the process of "reconciliation" to work out the details and merge the two bills. But they didn't, after the Boehner bill barely passed by 8 votes, they went and immediately killed the Reid plan to egg him on to kill Boehner's plan in the Senate.

This has been the plan and it shows how much of a joke the Republican's have been "trying".

1. Obama gives plan.
2. Boehner walks out and flat out rejects it.
3. Boehner comes up with his own plan that he knows is not good enough for the health of the country because Moody's and other credit rating agencies says it isn't good enough.
4. Boehner says he wants his plan done or the US will default.
5. Boehner gets his plan passed in the one place he knows he can get it passed.
6. Boehner then provokes the Democrats into killing his bill.
7. Republicans ride the frustration of the default to power by saying they were the only ones with a plan.

The Republicans are playing politics pure and simple and they are acting as the victims when it is clear they are the aggressors.

If Obama and the Democrats were being the unreasonable ones here, why did the Republicans kill the Reid's plan instead of trying to merge it into a bipartisan plan. Why did the Republicans have to postpone Boehner's plan until today even though they have a 240 person majority in the house? They could have passed their own plan 3 weeks ago but they didn't.

The writing is on the wall.

Who cares. We can all pretend that we know what will happen, but none of us do. We know what will likely happen, but don't tell me you arnt a bit curious to see what a total collapse of civilization looks like. Get off of your high horses and let go a little bit. Especially if you don't have kids."The writing is on the wall" you sound like lemur talking about the united states turning into a 1 party democratic state when the republicans collapse and nobody votes with them any more unless they move left. And then the tea party stuff went nuts and republicans took back the house. Literally a year and a half after that prognostication. Nobody on here knows what they are talking about. The democratic plan is to keep borrowing until we magically figure out how to be the most promising country on earth again. Hot potato is over, were all holding a potato.

the plan just passed in the house.

and then the senate voted it down i believe.

Edit: damn conflicting news

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Who cares. We can all pretend that we know what will happen, but none of us do. We know what will likely happen, but don't tell me you arnt a bit curious to see what a total collapse of civilization looks like. Get off of your high horses and let go a little bit. Especially if you don't have kids.

---

No, I want a future. I want an education. I want a job. None of this will happen if civilization collapse. Do you realize that the state of nature is actually the most vicious state of humanity? Kiss your rights goodbye.

Don't be so melodramatic. I mean my god the collapse of civilization........... lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Don't be so melodramatic. I mean my god the collapse of civilization........... lol.

---

I don't really think civilization will collapse lol. US at most will just have to decide what it can pay and ditch the rest. Which isn't good but it isn't world ending.

I am just saying he really doesn't know what he is talking about when he says he wants to see the world burn. Unless TSM is The Joker....