Debt limit will be reached on Monday...government shut down

Anybody think the cons will raise the debt limit? BWAH HA HA! Not if the *********s can stop it. Only morons would think that defaulting on the debt is a good idea. That's what happened to Greece, and now their money is worthless. When it happens to the U.S. the whole global economy goes into chaos. Once this train goes off the track, there's no putting it back on.

 

Only a moron doesn't think the gov't needs a massive diet.

 

Ayuh,.... 'n there's proof positive, just above yer post....

 

but considering that's what the stupid left wingers want, it's no surprise. "Social justice" for all! Putin is laughing himself silly.

 

Wow, three cons that think default is a solution. Al Qaeda loves you.

 

That's not the way the system works in practice. There won't be a default on obligations to creditors. It just means that new debt obligations will not be originated by the US Treasury Dept. and purchased by the Federal Reserve Bank.

But it does mean that fat old Uncle Sam is going to have to figure out how to juggle his existing indebtedness around just like an overextended homeowner.

Uncle Sam's credit rating will decline and his debt service costs will increase. That will be a terrible burden on the old fellow. But it will teach him a very useful lesson about the wisdom of overextending himself ever again.

 

Oh great, there ya go, now the lefturds won't have any rhetoric to spew...sigh.

 

They could *gasp* cut spending......

 

Not raising the debt limit does not automatically mean you will default on your debt.

 

He isnt here for facts or honest debate.

 

(shhhhhh... "*********s" are the stupid ones! Somebody read it on hufprogmoveonpo!)

.

 

Wow, fiscal disconnect. We need a fiscally responsible president and senate majority leader, but we are stuck with spendaholic Democrats on a money-printing, debt ceiling raising orgy.

 

Only a moron thinks we can keep racking up 1.3 Trillion / year in new debt.


At some point, the decision is taken from U.S. when our foriegn creditors yank our credit line.


Since the Lefties are in charge, we can't cut spending, hence credit default is inevitable.


Maybe it will be a good thing, in the long run, that Obama voter fraud stole the 2012 election...


-

 

Monday will be Waterloo Day for Baggerism. The recalls will start and many of 'em won't survive to run again in 2014.

 

I am pretty sure that the Greek government didn't tighten the belt. Greek bonds had to steadily increase the return to attract investment. It was the lack of a wise spending reduction plan that led to the implosion.

 

Prove that the gov't DOES need a massive diet. I've been waiting for this.

 

I've been hearing the rightwing mantras for decades now, but NEVER the context. $1.3 trillion SOUND like a big number to you? Prove that it is.

 

I'm still waiting for my obamaPhone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&noredirect=1


Get ready for the next 4 years. Its going to be a heck of a ride.

 

I thought that consistently spending 1 trillion more than tax receipts was a fairly obvious indication. Either way, the burden of proof is on the spending supporting argument.

 

The Govt spends relative to GDP less than it did in some of the Reagan years. I agree it needs a diet, but no more of massive one than we needed under Reagan.

 

Obama has been the first president to actually cut spending, twice, in 6 decades. Last year the deficit decreased by the largest amount in history.

There have certainly been far more fiscally irresponsible presidents in recent history.

 

Government spending needs a diet, not so much "government".

 

Do you understand the difference between spending and deficits? It appears to me many conservatives do not understand the difference between the two.

 

Good point. Do something to address this problem and write your Tea Party representatives and tell them to compromise on a meaningful tax increase to get the deficits down.

 

This is just a pitiful debate tactic. I am not sure if you are smart enough to support the monetizing of the debt, but ignorant enough to not understand the negative effects that will bring, or if you are simply making an idiotic stab at a philisophical approach to an empirical subject. Your previous posts on this site make me think that you really don't know what argument you are trying to make, but simply trusting those whom you believe know better than you how to spend the wealth of the citizenry as a whole.