(10-10-2013 07:03 PM)Smaug Wrote:  The gub'ment is still collecting taxes, yes?

We're not going to default.

(10-10-2013 07:42 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why would we default? only if it's a desired outcome of certain party's or persons. We bring somewhere around 250 BILLION a month on average, hardly a lack of income to the federal gubment, and the interest paid to avoid default is on the neighborhood of 20 billion, let's say.

Why on earth would we ever default, unless it's someone's specific intent?

(10-10-2013 08:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  "The devastation to the United States would be so severe that it would take decades to recover from the Depression caused by a default and the attendant dumping of trillions of dollars of U.S. Treasury securities on the global financial markets," banking analyst Dick Bove, at Rafferty Capital Markets, said in a report for clients.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/whats-worst-could-happen-7-debt-default-doomsday-scenarios-8C11366851

(10-10-2013 08:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Well that, at some level, would be an incorrect assumption. However, I am not a PhD, so that is correct.

Could bad things happen? Well sure, but only if they are intentionally done.

The "bad things" that are currently being done are being perpetrated by those with the biggest megaphone, the largest bully pulpit and the power of jawboning that are doing exactly what you reflect here.

Scaring the ever living sh!t out of people looking forward to retiring, scaring little old ladies about their pension checks or SS, like my own mother, or making needless threats about not being able to meet our obligations to creditors when it is simply unnecessary. Not only unnecessary but as far as I am concerned, deeply irresponsible and reprehensible.

This is akin to not picking up the tab for the fallen soldiers, or shutting down an Inn in North Carolina even though it receives NO federal monies and actually contributes to the largess in DeeCee.

It's intentional, it's deciding to NOT make priorities and is only done to "inflict the maximum amount of pain". How else could the WH Chefs or zerO's caddy still be considered "essential" while those at the NIH administering experimental cancer treatments to dying kids are not?

(10-10-2013 08:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 08:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Well that, at some level, would be an incorrect assumption. However, I am not a PhD, so that is correct.

Could bad things happen? Well sure, but only if they are intentionally done.

The "bad things" that are currently being done are being perpetrated by those with the biggest megaphone, the largest bully pulpit and the power of jawboning that are doing exactly what you reflect here.

Scaring the ever living sh!t out of people looking forward to retiring, scaring little old ladies about their pension checks or SS, like my own mother, or making needless threats about not being able to meet our obligations to creditors when it is simply unnecessary. Not only unnecessary but as far as I am concerned, deeply irresponsible and reprehensible.

This is akin to not picking up the tab for the fallen soldiers, or shutting down an Inn in North Carolina even though it receives NO federal monies and actually contributes to the largess in DeeCee.

It's intentional, it's deciding to NOT make priorities and is only done to "inflict the maximum amount of pain". How else could the WH Chefs or zerO's caddy still be considered "essential" while those at the NIH administering experimental cancer treatments to dying kids are not?

I won't play typing tennis on this but just say that the federal government does a lot of good things. I don't think picking winners or losers in regard to what will be cut and what will continue to be funded is no way to run a country. The shutdown has serious consequences even though many of them aren't easily observed. The possible default however is much more serious and has a much more long lasting negative affect.

(10-10-2013 08:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  "The devastation to the United States would be so severe that it would take decades to recover from the Depression caused by a default and the attendant dumping of trillions of dollars of U.S. Treasury securities on the global financial markets," banking analyst Dick Bove, at Rafferty Capital Markets, said in a report for clients.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/whats-worst-could-happen-7-debt-default-doomsday-scenarios-8C11366851

(10-10-2013 08:31 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 08:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 08:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Well that, at some level, would be an incorrect assumption. However, I am not a PhD, so that is correct.

Could bad things happen? Well sure, but only if they are intentionally done.

The "bad things" that are currently being done are being perpetrated by those with the biggest megaphone, the largest bully pulpit and the power of jawboning that are doing exactly what you reflect here.

Scaring the ever living sh!t out of people looking forward to retiring, scaring little old ladies about their pension checks or SS, like my own mother, or making needless threats about not being able to meet our obligations to creditors when it is simply unnecessary. Not only unnecessary but as far as I am concerned, deeply irresponsible and reprehensible.

This is akin to not picking up the tab for the fallen soldiers, or shutting down an Inn in North Carolina even though it receives NO federal monies and actually contributes to the largess in DeeCee.

It's intentional, it's deciding to NOT make priorities and is only done to "inflict the maximum amount of pain". How else could the WH Chefs or zerO's caddy still be considered "essential" while those at the NIH administering experimental cancer treatments to dying kids are not?

I won't play typing tennis on this but just say that the federal government does a lot of good things. I don't think picking winners or losers in regard to what will be cut and what will continue to be funded is no way to run a country. The shutdown has serious consequences even though many of them aren't easily observed. The possible default however is much more serious and has a much more long lasting negative affect.

Agreed. and totally and completely unnecessary. I'll even begrudgingly grant you that the Federal gov't does some good things, though it is easily argued that the private sector would perform them far better, but it can't do everything. Nor does it do everything it is trying to do, well.

if this default is such a concern, then what happens when we quite literally CAN'T borrow anymore because the creditors no longer see the US as a safe bet?
Say it can't or won't happen? We will have DOUBLED the size of the Federal debt in ten years, after having the entire accumulated debt we did since the founding of the Nation. 10 short years. That's no way to run a Country, it's good way to ruin a Country...

Something's gotta change.

(10-10-2013 09:18 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The government won't default. Very powerful GOP interests won't allow it and will put the neo-confederate Tbaggers in their place. Boehner is in a real jam. His time as speaker is coming to an end.

(10-10-2013 09:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:18 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  The government won't default. Very powerful GOP interests won't allow it and will put the neo-confederate Tbaggers in their place. Boehner is in a real jam. His time as speaker is coming to an end.

Well the problem with the Tea Party for the GOP is that they have very little leverage over them. I suspect that under normal circumstances Boehner wouldn't be a bad speaker, but he can't control the Tea party members. They threaten to primary anyone that doesn't go along. They don't get their money from the same places as other GOP candidates. They don't recognize seniority/protocol and they lack political experience. Hopefully the GOP and the Tea Party will go their separate ways. A Tea Party third party would be a positive all the way around. The business community will abandon the GOP if this keeps up. Perhaps a purge is in order?