Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by SubTruth
Remember when Obama was running the first time what he was saying about WAR. Do you also remember the patriot act. What about keeping wall street out of the white house.
What does that have to do with who authorizes spending programs? My thread has nothing to do with Obama's election promises. We can save that for another thread. My main point of the OP is congress is the only one responsible for writing the checks not the president.
You can complain about Obama Care, gun control, the war in Afghanistan, the patriot act, but your elected officials are the people who sign-off on these programs whether your like it or not. They control the check book, not the president.
Originally posted by TheComte
What a joke is this O'Reilly character. No mention of the Republicans refusal to roll back their tax cuts, their corporate tax cuts, or their corporate subsidies. And of course cutting military spending is off the table. These things must be continued at all costs, even if it means bringing down the country.
Nope. It is all Obama's fault for not cutting spending, don't you know.
edit on 21-1-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ipsedixit
Some poor countries have had their debts written off before by wealthy countries. Maybe portions of America's debts will be written off by grateful nations in Europe who were bailed out by America after WW2.
Maybe China will request a more open door immigration policy for Chinese immigrants into the US in exchange for a write down of debt. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an onerous burden of newcomers, like 200 or 300 million. It could be maybe only 50 million or so.
Canada will not stand by and see Americans go hungry. We grow more food than we can eat and would gladly share. I would hate to see Canada trying to profiteer on America's financial embarassment, but it would be nice if America would acknowledge that the Northwest Passage is Canadian territorial water. (It is.)
I hate to say it but an economic downturn in the US could very well represent a big opportunity for the narcotics trade. Drug lords in Mexico could well be unwilling to accept lower profits and anticipating an increase in the numbers of Americans who would rather get high than face reality, they could increase shipments to the US in order to make up in numbers what a drop in price might cost them in a depressed economic situation.
I hope that serious budgetary reallocations take place in the US. It is important that job and industry outsourcing be curtailed too. I hate to think of the acrimony that will develop if O'Reilly's worst case scenario happens. It's not going to be pretty.edit on 21-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Thanks O'riled up, but Ron Paul was saying this before 2002[...]
Originally posted by Observor
OK, so the US$ will collapse.
What does that mean? That there will be a hyperinflation domestically or that it will lose its value against other currencies? While the former will necessarily lead to the latter, the reverse is not true. A collapse of the US$ in international currency markets is not necessarily a bad thing, if not also associated with a domestic hyperinflation. It can lead to increase in US exports and fall in imports, spurring domestic economic growth.
However the likely scenario seems to be a domestic hyperinflation caused by monetising debt. When there are no takers for the new debt that the government looks for or old debt that needs to be rolled over, the Federal Reserve will end up buying it leading to introduction of new money into the system and consequent inflation.
The funny thing is this could have happened any time in the last four years, yet it didn't happen. The government has been able to successfully roll over old debts and make new debt. True the Federal Reserve has been introducing more money into the system through QE, but that doesn't seem to have caused the expected inflation which would have led to bond sell off and even more money into the system if the Federal Reserve ends up buying those bonds. It seems none of the bond holders want to precipitate the crisis by being the first to offload a major share of their bondholdings. So there is only one who can precipitate the collapse, the Federal Government, by attempting to raise debt for which there are no takers.
Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Observor
I think China might well say to the United States.
"Look, you've had your spending spree. You've conquered the Middle East. If you give us a break in Africa, we will find ways to ease you back into financial responsibility. Stop acting like farmboys liquored up on a Saturday night. The party's over. We like you. We want to be friends, but you have to get real. We can't continue to finance American mayhem. Get real. Make real deals and stop running amuck."