U.S. debt impasse could be 'catastrophic'
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
The brats are only a concern if the mortgage is not paid. Anyone with debt will take the down ride, property values will plummet, foreclosures will happen. If I had a mortgage, I would sell, go back to university and live in student housing for a 4 year degree and then come out to see what's going on. The rich, those invested heavily in the stock market, will also take the down ride. Those without a mortgage and not investing anything they cannot afford to lose will probably ride it out. I'm not seeing any winners in this market except those that liquidate, but we know from the 30s that liquidation leads to economic collapse.
That reminds me of something my father said to me 26 years ago ... if there's nothing to eat, take this gift of food and let your husband eat cars (he had 6 cars including a vintage Volvo and a Porche) ... and the cupboards were bare.
When there is nothing left in the fancy restaurants, they will close and those people will also be out of work. When no one is working, everyone suffers. There was a real estate collapse in Japan a few years ago. People that had borrowed to buy real estate lost everything to the bank. People that are invested in the stock market and real estate will have heavy losses ... but that impacts people from every social class.
So you think there are going to be functional universities when the big melt down starts?????????? You are in for a big shock!
Educational institutions survive everything simply because children are a huge asset and a group to be socialized and educated. If education is abandoned, society has completely broken down so yes, I expect that a university and education will be possible. What exactly are you envisioning and why?
Its as much Boehner's fault as Obama's: they both inherited huge messes from their predecessors (and not just the immediate ones) that need to be dealt with. Obama didn't create the cash drains that are Iraq and Afghanistan. He didn't even start the whole bailout/stimulus spending crap. He got handed them. Yeah he took the job but the situation is as much Republican as Democrat in origin... and not the ones sitting in D.C.
The thing I see that makes the least sense to me is the absolute unwillingness of Republicans to close any tax loopholes when gov't revenue levels are as low as they are. Yes, spending cuts need to be made, but you have to increase revenue as well, and crap like not even being willing to budge on moving the depreciation period of private jets, but wanting to axe social spending that will affect senior citizens and veterans (not to mention education which is the basis for building the future of the country) is ludicrous and hypocritical, considering the who, why and when of the conflicts the US is involved in right now.
And there was not even a wee little bit of stereotyping of Americans in your post? I doubt those Americans willing to emigrate would be your typical American. Also, do you honestly believe those immigrants would be exempted from the immigration standards all others are subject to?
Again, seems like a little bit of opposition to US immigration in particular.
How would you feel about getting rid of agricultural subsidies, Eagle? There are many instances of so-called 'farmers' who receive money for nothing more than having land that is designated as being agricultural though not a single crop is grown on the land.
Agricultural Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government
4. Conservation Subsidies. USDA conservation programs dispense about $3 billion annually to the nation’s farmers. The largest conservation subsidy program is the Conservation Reserve Program, which was created in 1985 to idle millions of acres of farmland. Under CRP, farmers are paid not to grow crops, but to cultivate ground cover such as grass or trees on retired acres. A large share of land idled under the CRP is owned by retired farmers, thus one does not even have to be a working farmer to get these subsidies.10
I didn't say it was Boehner's fault, Eagle......... I simply feel that he is keeping his head in the sand if he thinks that cuts alone will solve the debt problem. As for Obama increasing the debt? What choice did he have when faced with the collapse of so many mortgage companies, banks, etc? Was he supposed to just stand aside as these companies went down the toilet? He inherited two wars. Was he supposed to stop supporting the troops - one of the biggest ticket items for the budget? Obama and his administration may have made some mistakes along the way, but to lay everything at his feet and fault him for increasing the debt when faced with the collapse of the entire system is, IMHO, a bit over the top.
There is so MUCH to cut and that does not even include the poor. Our government gives out so much money for useless stuff.
I do blame Obama for perpetuating this mess. Instead of making a high debt even higher he should have cut it and tried to spend it down. Instead he added even more trillions to the debt. How the heck did that help?
The tax cuts of former US President George W. Bush's administration, extended by Barack Obama, were attempts to "starve the beast." Bush said in 2001 "so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been."[5]
Former U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressly advocates the policy: "please [Congress], starve the beast, don't perpetuate the problem, don't fund the largesse, we need to cut taxes."[6] U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, states "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."[7]
"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2] to “(cut) the taxes that feed social spending” in an effort to “force the federal government to reduce wasteful spending." The assumption is that the government would not spend beyond its means (taxes). History has shown, however, that the US government - the beast - has instead borrowed money to feed its continued growth resulting in ever increasing United States public debt rather than reductions in the size of government.
Some empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."[10]
Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressly advocates the policy: "please [Congress], starve the beast, don't perpetuate the problem, don't fund the largesse, we need to cut taxes."[6] U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, states "you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."[7]
"Starving the beast" is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives[1][2] to “(cut) the taxes that feed social spending” in an effort to “force the federal government to reduce wasteful spending." The assumption is that the government would not spend beyond its means (taxes). History has shown, however, that the US government - the beast - has instead borrowed money to feed its continued growth resulting in ever increasing United States public debt rather than reductions in the size of government.
Some empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."[10]
Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am against those as well. Also giving money for ranchers to feed on geovernment land.
Cuts WILL save the debt problem. Deep cuts. The gravy trian must stop.
We're collapsing now. And all those banks and mortgage companies didn't hesitate to give their top Execs their 6 and 5 figure bonuses. I was behind him when he said that giving out bonuses was wrong and if they are receiving government money they should hold off on bonuses. They took the bonuses anyways and they did it again about 8 months later. Corporate welfare is an abomination.
As for the wars... yes he did. He also said he would end them which he didn't. Instead he gets us involved in a 3rd war.
Yes defense is a big ticket. If he ended at least the Iraq War he would have saved a bundle. Was getting involved in a 3rd war smart?
I am not laying everything at his feet. I have said over and over that he was left with a mess. He has done nothing to fix it. he has made it much worse. He should have cut government spending... but he did not want to mess with his constituency... the Progressives and US Liberals who think government should spend, spend, spend and support every silly program and every country. Cowboy Poetry Festivals... are they serious?
I guess the amount would come down to how much gold, steel and other anatomic support structures have been installed to keep one going while still alive and functioning.;-) No we are not all "replaced" or "transplanted " equally...;-)
Stereo typing , or whatever.. it is very concernin to watch the US go down hill, KNOWING it will affect Canada in an adverse way.
The reality is that they have stereo typed themselves. They have their own description of what "american " is...... and when analyzed . has no foundation or reality to it.
Now..... the CRITICAL part of this discussion is NOT what americanism is........but how they will solve the current
money / budget crisis without disastrous repercussions on other nations.
China might be a tad tense too. After all , it is THEIR money that has been mismanaged to the current state. They are left in a damned if they do and damned if they don't..........keep lending to keep the US from drowning.
What is scary is that the US is prone to very radical actions and over reactions. One has to hope that Obama keeps his head calm , logical and firm once a reasonable plan is in place. IF they can even agree on a plan.
It is way out of control. I am not even talking about welfare. So many people and groups get so much money that they have no business getting. Why go after ANYONE's money before they start cutting out those foolish programs?
VOTES... that's why.
Clearly there was nothing he OR Bush could do because they took their bonuses with the Bush bail-outs as well. Because both Administrations just gave them boatloads of cash. They saved themselves and took their bonuses. I bet they felt entitled to them as well.
It's not as bad. But I had to chuckle watching the so called "non-combat" troops fighting in the streets last March. I doubt they were cooks and clerks.
Me too.
If the Rebels win their new government is going to be looking for a lot of money. If the Rebels lose... we failed.
I agree 100%!
How do you cut debt by spending it down? That looks like you may have meant something else.
Do you think the recession would have gotten better by cutting spending? Your country still has a good credit rating, so deal with it now. Doing nothing would have meant a far deeper recession. Cut spending and increase revenues.
Ronald Reagan's budget director has been calling out both of your political parties on their unwillingness to be serious:
Stockman Calls Out Both Parties on ‘Failed Fiscal Policy’ - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Wrong choice of words. He should have cut government spending. That is all I am saying.
Yes... Obama inherited a big debt. Instead of cutting he increased spending and that was a huge mistake. Now the hole is even deeper.
Yes... both parties failed. I am not disputing that. But the time for continuously blaming Bush is over. Even if Obama gets another four years in the WH they will still blame Bush for the countries woes. I digress.
The recession is ongoing because investors and businesses are still shaky. They are unsure.
By increasing revenues you mean raise taxes. No... I say no. They need to cut deeply first and get rid of all this government waste. I am sick of people with their hands out and I am not even talking about the poor.
The Democrats had four years in complete control of both Houses of Congress. The GOP could not do a thing to stop whatever they wanted to do.
Obama and the Democrats had two years with complete control of the Federal Govt.
They made things worse.
And the President said he could fix all this.
Moody's to review US triple-A debt rating
Continue reading the main story
Ratings agency Moody's has warned it may cut the US AAA debt rating because it is increasingly likely its debt ceiling will not be raised in time to avoid a default.
BBC News - Moody's to review US triple-A debt rating
Putin Slams US
By Pak Alert
July 13, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- -- In a withering speech before members of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow, Prime Minister Putin branded the United States current monetary policy as “hooliganism” and stated, “We, thankfully or not, cannot print a reserve currency. But what are they (the Americans) doing? They simply spit nails, turn on the printing press and throw money to the world, in order to resolve their urgent problems.”
The United States printing of money out of thin air is called Quantitative Easing (QE) and is an unconventional monetary policy tool used to stimulate their national economy since conventional monetary policy has become ineffective. The US Federal Reserve began their policy of Quantitative Easing by purchasing financial assets from banks and other private sector businesses with new money that it had created electronically, but which has no hard assets backing it up.
Though the US began the practice of creating money out of thin air after the Great Economic Collapse of 2008, it has not been alone as the Bank of England, The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have, likewise, over the past nearly 3 years printed in excess of over $4 Trillion in currency that when joined with the $5 Trillion printed by the Americans have left our world awash in paper money that has near worthless value.
*************
***** :***** Information Clearing House: ICH
************
Meanwhile little to no progress re: coming to a reasonable compromise about a pragmatic plan that would start to deal with the crisis.
Moody's to review US triple-A debt rating
Ben Bernanke said the Fed expects to keep interest rates near zero "for an extended period"
Continue reading the main story
Ratings agency Moody's has warned it may cut the US AAA debt rating because it is increasingly likely its debt ceiling will not be raised in time to avoid a default.
BBC News - Moody's to review US triple-A debt rating
Putin Slams US
By Pak Alert
July 13, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- -- In a withering speech before members of the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow, Prime Minister Putin branded the United States current monetary policy as “hooliganism” and stated, “We, thankfully or not, cannot print a reserve currency. But what are they (the Americans) doing? They simply spit nails, turn on the printing press and throw money to the world, in order to resolve their urgent problems.”
The United States printing of money out of thin air is called Quantitative Easing (QE) and is an unconventional monetary policy tool used to stimulate their national economy since conventional monetary policy has become ineffective. The US Federal Reserve began their policy of Quantitative Easing by purchasing financial assets from banks and other private sector businesses with new money that it had created electronically, but which has no hard assets backing it up.
Though the US began the practice of creating money out of thin air after the Great Economic Collapse of 2008, it has not been alone as the Bank of England, The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have, likewise, over the past nearly 3 years printed in excess of over $4 Trillion in currency that when joined with the $5 Trillion printed by the Americans have left our world awash in paper money that has near worthless value.
*************
***** :***** Information Clearing House: ICH
************
Meanwhile little to no progress re: coming to a reasonable compromise about a pragmatic plan that would start to deal with the crisis.
Really, really scary.........isn't it. A fragile house of cards tinkering on the brink of total collapse.