TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:At some point the country is going to face a day of reckoning when it comes to our debt. Is is better to man up and take care of it now or leave it for our kids and grandkids to deal with it?

Define man up and take care of it.

You asking that question is very telling.

Defaulting on the debt is not "manning up" it is going bankrupt.

Did I say that? Where?

Making the hard decisions needed in order reduce our spending.

The issue is the debt ceiling. If you don't raise the debt ceiling the government defaults. You can't raise taxes (and taxes will be raised ladies and germs) fast enough and quickly enough to avoid a default. Its a simple matter of the world's largest liquidity crisis.

Reduce spending, balance the budget. All these things can be done. They can't be done overnight. It takes orderly decisioning, and timing for revenues to increase and spending to decrease.

Again its simple math.

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:At some point the country is going to face a day of reckoning when it comes to our debt. Is is better to man up and take care of it now or leave it for our kids and grandkids to deal with it?

Define man up and take care of it.

You asking that question is very telling.

Defaulting on the debt is not "manning up" it is going bankrupt.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

Unless they have the military might of the United States. "Those with the guns make the rules" is a truism, like it or not, and I happen to love it.

Chas.

No actually. If you default on the debt your economy crashes, utterly and completely. Military is irrelevant. Enjoy the toys though, because there won't be any more stealth fighters coming off the assembly lines in the US for a couple of decades if you default.

Yes, actually. The debt default will be on foreign debt first and that will be sufficient to shore up the U.S. economy. There is nothing that the U.S. needs that we don't have or cannot take. I know as a "moderate Democrat" you don't like hearing that, but that's a fact.

Chas.

Thats not how it works. There is no debt marked "foreign owned debt, default on them first." Default on one issuance and the remainder will lose value quickly, and it will spiral. Want to borrow more debt? Be prepared to pay multiple digit interest.
Everyone who owns bonds will watch the value of those bonds plummet. Municipal and state bonds would also be hit hard, including the ability to reborrow.

Further, if its a hard snap this could trigger a liquidity crisis not only in the government but in the banking sector in similar fashion to 2008.

Again this isn't speculation. This is history. And there's no reason for it. Most people can balance their books without going bankrupt.

mojo84 wrote:At some point the country is going to face a day of reckoning when it comes to our debt. Is is better to man up and take care of it now or leave it for our kids and grandkids to deal with it?

Define man up and take care of it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:. . . but if this entangles the debt ceiling issue and creates a default scenario then thats an excellent way to implode the economy ala Argentina.

The debt ceiling is far different from Obamacare. The Republicans absolutely should hold the line and force the Democrats to reduce spending. This is an issue that far more people on both sides of the isle are concerned about and it's a loser for Obama and the Democratic Party.

Chas.

You can hold the line on spending, but if you default on the debt everything gets hammered. Thats reality and history. Other countries have made that mistake and failed as a result. Further, if we implode the rest of the world gets hammered to.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

Unless they have the military might of the United States. "Those with the guns make the rules" is a truism, like it or not, and I happen to love it.

Chas.

No actually. If you default on the debt your economy crashes, utterly and completely. Military is irrelevant. Enjoy the toys though, because there won't be any more stealth fighters coming off the assembly lines in the US for a couple of decades if you default.

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So much for the predicted stock market crash due the "government shutdown". Dow is UP 45 points so far. Maybe the government should have sent home the "nonessential" employees long ago.

Manufacturing reports came in with manufacturing at the highest level since early 2011. Sorry.

What are you sorry for, crying wolf? That is a great thing that many's doomsday predictions didn't come true. It goes to show the country can continue with less government.

If they are "nonessential" employees, why are they on the payroll in the first place?

I'm sorry that the reason is not because of the shutdown but in spite of it.

Now this is all fun and games but if this entangles the debt ceiling issue and creates a default scenario then thats an excellent way to implode the economy ala Argentina. Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

Bottom line, the sky didn't fall and the sun still came up in spite of all the dire predictions.

Agreed. Somehow despite the MsM prediction of torandoes, hurricanes, no power, cats and dogs living together, I was still able to make some nice coffee this morning, and may make it long enough to have a last meal of TexMex for lunch before the world cracks in two.

mojo84 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So much for the predicted stock market crash due the "government shutdown". Dow is UP 45 points so far. Maybe the government should have sent home the "nonessential" employees long ago.

Manufacturing reports came in with manufacturing at the highest level since early 2011. Sorry.

What are you sorry for, crying wolf? That is a great thing that many's doomsday predictions didn't come true. It goes to show the country can continue with less government.

If they are "nonessential" employees, why are they on the payroll in the first place?

I'm sorry that the reason is not because of the shutdown but in spite of it.

Now this is all fun and games but if this entangles the debt ceiling issue and creates a default scenario then thats an excellent way to implode the economy ala Argentina. Countries that default on their debt take generations to recover, if ever.

mojo84 wrote:So much for the predicted stock market crash due the "government shutdown". Dow is UP 45 points so far. Maybe the government should have sent home the "nonessential" employees long ago.

Manufacturing reports came in with manufacturing at the highest level since early 2011. Sorry.

So whats the end game for the Republicans now?

Lets assume that the Senate and Obama approve nothing but a clean CR.

What happens now?

atticus wrote:Hey CPD, It's sure a drag to read stuff you write that mischaracterizes what someone else writes. Who said Cruz led the 2010 election movement? Not me. Geez, you get tiresome. Behave yourself.

No.

Also, then don't intone that Cruz helped lead that turn around.

He didn't.

But he may have helped kill it.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Chas who said it better than I.

bdickens wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Lots of Republicans get free stuff off the government too. Every government contract out there is someone's meal ticket.

Equating businesses that make money providing goods and services to the .gov with professional couch potatoes getting a paycheck (welfare) for doing nothing but sucking up other people's oxygen is just silly.

They both take money from me without consent and minimal color of law thank you.

atticus wrote:Charles,
If you are suggesting that Ted Cruz will be responsible for losing the House to democrats, I would point out the 2010 election that took the House away from the democrats. It was a similar wave of conservative enthusiasm that resulted in Cruz defeating Dewhurst in the primary last year. Without the base that elected Cruz, where will the Republican party be in 2014?

Cruz didn't lead the 2010 Republican win. That was us. He just took advantage of it.

BUT this theater may lead to the fall of the House, with no victory.

TexasCajun wrote:Then hang your hat on your president. You've taken this thread beyond the theater of the absurd. If you can't/won't distinguish between the leeches living off the hardworking taxpayers, political payola, and companies that provide critical product and/or services; there's not much that I can say that will get through to you.

Evidently you're not familiar with the terms nepotism and crony capitalism I take it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The key word here is "Products." People living institutionally on welfare, using obamaphones, and getting their healthcare paid for by the fines assessed against people like me, are not making any products that benefit society in any way whatsoever. At least overpaid bidders for government contracts have to actually produce and deliver a product or they can go to jail for fleecing the rest of us. Nobody is throwing welfare recipients in jail for fleecing the rest of us.

Not disagreeing with you there.