Latest crazy plan from the USA

Page 3 of 6  


100T Weimar Mark is closer to the truth.

Order in the next ten minutes and get a *SECOND* bill, for only the cost of shipping and handling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01-10-2013 09:13, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

One article said it was proposed sarcastically in response to Congressional inaction, only to lament that some of the idiots took it seriously.
--
Wes Groleau

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:24:44 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9784898/US-seriously-considering-1-trillion-coin-to-pay-off-debt.html
Not as crazy as this:
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:50:41 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

$800 billion over 12 years? Chump change. Obama has borrowed more than that EVERY YEAR HE WAS IN OFFICE. We are currently running a deficit around a trillion and a half each year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 10, 11:50am, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

At least the spending on the Iraq war has slowed down to just a trickle. And if you account for the $800bil over 10 years, it's $80bil a year. The current deficit this year, with the Iraq war long over, is $1tril. Clearly the Iraq war is *not* the spending problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

dont forget the afghanistan war
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Chump change.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There was something on the box about that the other day. Apparently the USA is deploying troops to 35 African countries. USA worried about Chinese activities there.
http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/global-warfare-deploying-troops-35-african-countries /
More expense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Chinese are moving into Africa in a big way. They are after minerals and oil. This has been going on for thirty years but now accelerating. Bit here on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa%E2%80%93China_relations#Contemporary_relations
http://www.businessinsider.com/map-chinese-investments-in-africa-2012-8
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 10, 4:50pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

You would think that cost would be falling right now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are. That misleading graph is the CUMULATIVE cost of the Iraq war. It's leveled out at about $800bil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/9/2013 12:24 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9784898/US-seriously-considering-1-trillion-coin-to-pay-off-debt.html
First of all, it's not a serious plan.
Second, the only reason for these bizarre ideas is a handful of terrorists in the House of Representatives that believe in agreeing to a budget with specific spending plans then saying, "oh, by the way, we're not going to let you spend the money we agreed that you should spend."
The best plan would be the deportation of the tea party terrorists in congress. They are as much terrorists as those that attack our embassies.
The better plan would be for Obama to simply obey the constitution, the same constitution that the tea party always complain that is not being adhered to (at least not being adhered to the parts of it that they like). In fact he not only should obey the constitution, he's required to obey it if there is no action to raise the debt ceiling by Congress.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Even though this part of the 14th amendment was to address issues during the civil war, it's still valid, and legal scholars agree that it would probably be upheld in court should there be a lawsuit (and they also agree that it's unlikely that any lawsuit would even be allowed to proceed at all). The more likely scenario is that if Obama invoked the 14th amendment that the House of Representatives would try to impeach him, but he would never be convicted in the Senate, and the last time the Republicans tried to impeach a Democratic president it went poorly for them. Imagine the tea party Republicans insisting that a president be impeached for doing what the constitution says he must do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Authorized by law, is the part that is the sticking point. First of all, the debt ceiling can be construed as the amount of debt authorized by law. Secondly it seems clear that all the Amendment would authorize a President to do would be to **prioritize payment** so that interest payments on the debt would have priority over other payments. There is nothing in the amendment allowing to authorize the President to create entirely **new** debt despite the fact that the debt ceiling law explicitly stated that the Executive Branch could not do so.
The worst part though would be the months of uncertainty while it worked its way through the courts. Even if the Courts decided that no one had standing to sue (something which is VERY confusing when the constitution is involved so I won't argue that point) it will still take time for the Courts to rule.
This would tear up the REAL value of US Treasuries which is the full faith and credit of the United States. World markets believe that promise is the closest thing in finance to certainty. And in moments of extreme uncertainty investors have even been willing to essentially pay the US government to hold on to their money for them.
If youre buying US government debt, what if this particular auction is of Treasuries the sitting Congress says the Treasury Department isnt authorized to issue? There would be Court challenges filed immediately and for awhile, anyway, we essentially have two classes of Treasuries. Investors would must likely want some kind of premium to cover the legal risks.
At a minimum that means the government would blow a lot of money simply because of that added uncertainty. And as soon as you have two classes, at least some of the fixedness and clarity of what a US Treasury obligation represents would be blurred.
This would have the exact opposite effect that the Dems are suggesting. It would roil the markets while it is working through the Courts. The thing that brings people to invest in US Treasuries... the perceived stability... would be gone forever.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'd certainly think Congress, or even an individual congressman, would have standing but your parenthetical is a good one.

The treasury would simply buy them, shoveling wads of cash into the economy. That's all Obama wants (see: trillion dollar coin).

Democrats don't care! If they cared, we wouldn't be in this situation, at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Around these parts, we call those folks patriots. They realize that the country is on the path to becoming the next Greece and the Democrats don't want to do anything real to prevent it from happening. And most of the citizens either don't understand the grave peril, or prefer to just pretend it doesn't matter. You can't take national debt from $10 tril to $16tril in 4 years and just keep going on for much longer.
As to "agreeing to a spending plan" Congress has not been able to pass a budget for 3 years now. Obama could not even get the Democrats to vote for his proposed budget.

Was Obama a terrorist when as a Senator he did the exact same thing, refusing to vote for a debt limit increase, calling Bush unpatriotic because Bush was asking for an increase in the debt limit? An increase that was nothing like what Obama has been getting, year after year?
And despicable comparison of the Tea Party to terrorists, noted. Patriots that simply believe we can't go on recklessly spending, adding to our debt. That a growing govt, sucking the life out of the economy and the people, is a threat to our freedoms.

The US is currently borrowing 40% of what it spends. If the debt limit is not passed, it still has the other 60% coming in. The debt service is 7% of current spending. So, there is no direct default on the debt payments. The govt would just have to put them ahead of other payments. Kind of like what a family has to do. But then they live in the real world.


Show us where it says in the Constitution that the debt payments cannot be paid with the 60% of federal revenue that isnt' borrowed.
And here's another novel idea. Where are the SPENDING CUTS? Far from being terrorists, the Republicans pretty much gave Obama what he wanted. They raised taxes. Where oh where are the SPENDING cuts that the Democrats keep promising? And if we can't get them now, when will we? THAT is why the Republicans need to use the debt limit increase as a bargaining measure. It is the only thing left. Yet, in the face of this, instead of the Democrats coming up with some real spending cuts, ANY cuts, they refuse to do so. Have you heard ANY proposal from them at all?
And one final thing. I'm tired of hearing the Democrats say the election is over. The people decided, they voted for OBama. Yeah, and following the exact same logic, they also voted the Republicans back into conrol of the House. Why the hell should they be any less entitled to use an election to justify what they are doing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nowhere. But the debt ceiling puts the president in a constitutional box. He *must* violate some part of it. He *must* spend the money authorized by Congress. That money exceeds revenue. He *can't* borrow money unless authorized by Congress. The debt ceiling caps that. So he has to violate one clause or the other.

Good question. In late December, the fight seemed to be over the amount of the cuts with the Dems talking about $800B over 10 years and the Reps talking about $1,200 B. Either would have been better than none, but all of that vanished in the final proposal.

Sure. Lots of them. Obama's 2013 budget proposal included a wide variety of cuts. It died because it included tax increases, but it did include cuts to the military, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, and a bunch of smaller cuts to lots of agencies.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's an interesting point. Still I think the far more reasonable action is that if Congress doesn't raise the debt limit, then the president just doesn't spend the money. Congress did indeed say to spend it, but then they didn't provide the means to do so, so the money doesn't get spent. The next obvious problem is assuming Congress doesn't pass some clarification, the president would then have to decide which spending would be cut and by how much. I think he'd be on solid ground there under executive authority, as long as it was any generally reasonable approach. The problem of course is that cutting 40% of spending is just an incredible amount. But then so is to continue borrowing 40% and bankrupting the country.

And in the last big attempt at this, where Boehner and the president had some part of a deal a couple years ago, wasn't it $4bil with like 3:1 spending cuts, versus tax increases? Yet we got $600bil in tax increases and nothing in spending cuts. Why am I not surprised?

Sure it did. What was the net result? The budget was still bigger than the 2012 budget. Some cuts. You must be listening to some very special Democrats. Because I've heard a lot of them lately. They've been bitching about raising taxes. They've been bitching about assault weapons. But I haven't heard a single one calling for spending cuts. Not Obama, not the Democratic leadership. And had they been willing to cut anything, why was it not done? The Republicans wanted it. Answer: they had no proposal and the Democrats don't care if they bankrupt the country. They want even more spending and more big govt. It's in their DNA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/13/2013 10:59 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Reagan wanted the line item veto, but the Supreme Court struck it down. The president can't decide which spending to cut and which to keep. That's the job of congress.
As long as we have the tea party terrorists in congress that require the money in the budget to be spent, but that won't raise the debt ceiling or agree to revenue increases, or agree to cut corporate welfare, the president, no matter who it is, is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Slight nit. While he wanted it, it was Clinton that finally got it, AFTER he was in office.

Interesting that nowhere in your diatribe above is there any mention at all of spending cuts. VERY intersting.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did anyone listent to Obama today? Lie after lie.
Just some of the whoppers:
Today spending as a percent of GDP is lower than it's been in a generation.
truth: its currently at 25.5%, in 2000 it was 19% It's higher now than it was in 1945 when we paid for WWII.
We've already cut the deficit by half.
truth: The deficit in 2008 was $460 bil. This year it's $1tril.
The country is being held hostage by Republicans who have used the debt limit time and time again to get 100% of what they want.
truth: just last month the president got a $600bil increase in taxes, the Republicans nothing.
Then he says, if the Republicans want to have a conversation about deficit reduction, I'm willing.
WTF? The only reason the Republicans have to use the debt ceiling is that there has been no other way to get any spending cuts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.