Boehner prepares to let the US default

thesaneone
reply to post by darkbake

 

My wife's aunt has a sams club card and we are going to take her there this weekend so we can stock up on some rice, beans, powder milk and restock our first aid kit and restock on some vitamins.

I had a poster (I won't name, names) say that I was over-reacting to going out this weekend and picking up water, rice, beans and such. I was in awe of self-ignorrance, I'm not breaking the bank by any means. I'd rather be semi-safe that up chits creek with no paddle.

best regards~

NotAnAspie

I mean, seriously... I have no idea where any of that came from. I know people disagree but those were really just done to get a rise out of me, I do believe. I just wanted them to be aware how obvious it was... and well, started getting into it I suppose.

edit on 4201331PM10PM50p21America/Chicago by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)

bold emphasis mine

and ya fell for it. 'let 'them get you goat', per se.

we like to think of our Members as being 'better than that' ..... able to 'rise above' the partisan/ideological nonsense posted merely to incite like kind responses, replies and rhetoric.

back to the topic,
Boehner's simply stating what he sees as the obvious and inevitable .... if somebody(s) don't do a rethink of where this could lead if allowed to 'prevail' and propogate further.

must be a slow news day, when the obvious is the headline sNewZe.

though, I do find it interesting that his arch opposite, plastic nancy, seems oddly 'quiet' here of late. (?)

xuenchen
Current revenues are around $2.7 trillion.

I bet we could easily survive on that.

Just stop some imports and open production right here at home, and cut unnecessary binge spending.

Unemployment goes down and revenues increase.

And put some of the foreign debt holders *on hold* for a while.

Simple.

American should be pretty tired of going broke for the benefit of foreign interests by now.

We can't survive on that without budgeting for it in advance. Entities get money and plan yearly budgets assuming they get that money, if it suddenly dries up they don't have extra sitting in their accounts. Instead we suffer a huge economic contraction. If everyone knows large cuts are coming up and they're preferably slowly phased in, they can be handled with no problem. The solution is that in order to stave off what would spark a depression bank accounts would be confiscated like in Greece. Also, we can not put foreign debt holders on hold. It just doesn't work that way, such a move would make our government bonds junk status overnight and effectively destroy the country. We won't default even if the credit limit isn't increased because we have options available to us but those options aren't economically sound... they just happen to be better than the alternatives.

As for reinvesting in the nation... I would love nothing more than that. Obama tried it once though at the beginning of his first term and it didn't work out, there was massive corruption and very little got rebuilt. Maybe a more bipartisan attempt would work. New power plants, road corridors that let us get rid of the ridiculousness of poles and cables strung in the air, bridges that aren't graded D-, making homes more energy efficient, putting a real fiber optic network down in the country, and all the rest. It needs to happen. Now is the time, but it's expensive. I don't know that it would do much to unemployment though, the only way we're going to fix that is if we bring permanent jobs back to the country and that means forcing corporations to set up offices here if they want access to the American market.

beezzer
Solutions?

Prioritise spending.
Work within a budget.
No new entitlement spending.
Bring home everyone in Afghanistan.
No more multi-billion dollar foreign aid packets.
Disband the department of education, turn it over to state levels.
Stop implementation of Obamacare.
Stop funding to the "arts".
Cancel funding to PBS, NPR.
Create a heavy import tax on foreign goods and bring back manufacturing to the US.
Drill for oil in the US, stop buying foreign oil.
No amnesty for illegal immigrants.

. . . . just off the top of my head. . .

Sorry, this is long.

Prioritize spending - Prioritize what? I'm all for that in theory but in practice we all have a lot of different priorities. This is where negotiation and compromise come in but neither party is willing to do that currently. Both sides want capitulation not negotiation.

Entitlement spending - Safety nets are good and we're in the middle of a bad economic situation which is when safety nets are both most needed and most expensive. Most of this tends to be summed up as welfare but welfare to individuals only accounts for 8%, 92% of it goes to corporations. I'm all for stopping things like giving the top 10 banks 83 billion a year in bonuses just for being such a large bank, and I'm for eliminating the 4 billion we give Walmart annually in payroll subsidies. It's not that easy though because ultimately all individual assistance becomes a form of corporate assistance as the money is spent. Cutting this funding just makes people go without food and shelter which dramatically increases crime, but not cutting it will eventually destroy us as it gets too expensive.

Afghanistan - Completely agree.

Foreign Aid - We spend about 50 billion per year on foreign aid, which amounts to about 1.61% of spending. In return for that spending we get to feel good about ourselves, but more importantly we get financial interest in a country which turns into diplomatic pressure which in turn translates into favorable contracts for our corporations. It's money that improves peoples lives and that we are largely see given back in the private sector.

Education - Disbanding it doesn't do anything, we simply change from paying for it on our federal taxes to our state taxes. At the same time we lose uniform education throughout the country so that poor states like Mississippi that do worse on tests end up with even lower education standards than they currently have, while richer states have the students that colleges will accept. Instead I think we need to repeal No Child Left Behind as it's leading to massive corruption and a lack in student learning. Also we need to fund schools equally based on their number of students rather than set up situations where property taxes in good neighborhoods give those lucky kids a huge advantage while poor neighborhoods get schools that are worthless.

Obamacare - I disagree here. It should be implemented. I'll be the first to admit that Obamacare isn't great but it is better than the previous system. I tend to take a Benjamin Franklin view towards legislation as well. You know a compromise is successful when neither side is happy with the end result. I think that sums up Obamacare perfectly. I take the view that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I also think a lot of the outrage is just manufactured for the partisan hype/spin machine as Obamacare is essentially the Republican plan that was proposed and supported from 1988 until after the 2008 election. Such a reversal on what is a largely conservative plan is just based on politics rather than facts (unless the argument is that the Republicans have been wrong on healthcare for the past 25 years).

Arts - One of the things that sets us apart as a nation of innovators rather rather than a nation of people that can only regurgitate is arts funding. Look at nations like Japan and China that focus entirely on facts and figures. Their standardized tests are higher but when it comes to being creative, problem solving, and creating new products they just can't compete. Art is all about creating abstract logic systems and then conveying an idea according to that logic system. That process is directly linked to creativity which is the underlying necessity of all innovation. That innovation is what allows us to be competitive in a global marketplace as our cost of living prevents us from competing on a price basis. I think that to cut arts funding is to severely undermine Americas future. This whole thing goes back to spending priorities, which while on the topic we spend under 200 million annually on the arts It's not even 1/15,000 of national spending yet there are large returns for what we do get.

NPR/PBS - I'm on the fence on these. NPR is a little too partisan to receive national funding in in my opinion but I think both serve an important purpose and they only cost $445 million combined. I do admit that it's another hit in the nickel and diming that leads to financial instability but if the budget were $100 both of them combined don't cost us a nickel, proportionally they cost us about a penny and a half.

Import tax - I completely 100% agree, and I would take it a step further. If a company wants to sell their products in the US they must employ people in the US.

Oil drilling - Again I completely agree, to an extent. I used to be a (as Sean Hannity puts it) all of the above type of person on energy but I've revised my position. After the complete inability to clean up Fukushima I'm less enthralled with the nuclear option. I would still support Thorium nuclear reactors but I think we need to move away from Uranium in most land based power plants. Nuclear powered naval vessels I remain 100% in favor of. I'm also not too thrilled with fracking. The sinkhole problem and damage to water tables is what does it for me. What good is having energy if our water is poisoned or our land is destroyed? If these problems could be fixed I would wholly embrace fracking. Other drilling and even deep water drilling I'm perfectly fine with. As BP showed, even deep water drilling is relatively safe... there was a problem and it certainly damaged the environment but we were able to stop the leak. The same can't be said for say... Fukushima. What I would really like to see when it comes to domestic energy supplies though is geothermal. We have great geothermal reserves in the country, particularly in the western US and it's a clean strong proven energy source that can be utilized with existing technology. All that said, I am in favor of doing anything necessary... even fracking temporarily to eliminate dependence on foreign oil.

Amnesty - I really don't know the solution here. The first step is to build a fence, and I hate that it has been promised multiple times and never happened. The illegals are here though and we're never going to find them all. We can't simply ignore them and send them back as they're caught and as long as they're here I think they should have to pay taxes to contribute which can only happen as long as they're in the system. I don't like the idea of amnesty as it's essentially a reward for coming here illegally but the pragmatic side of me feels like the nation is stronger if they're paying taxes.

Well the USA is about to join Russia, UK, France, Spain and Mongolia ect in the history of past superpowers.

Bye bye USA!

crazyewok
Well the USA is about to join Russia, UK, France, Spain and Mongolia ect in the history of past superpowers.

Bye bye USA!

don't think you'll see that anytime soon .... but... if this type shyte continues, it's probably not out of the question, in the 'long game'.

the 'high and mighty', throughout history, have always seemed to find a way to hoist themselves on their own petard, eventually.

i'd liken it mOar to bottom of the sixth, a man on third. One run down and the batter has a count of 2-3.

could go either way.



stop right there!

every ride has to end..... some time...

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Well if the USA defaults then there is always the chance Obama will start WW3....A world war storted the last depression out....

reply to post by crazyewok


I'd venture to say he'd have to wade through the riots in the streets before that would come to pass.

12m8keall2c
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I'd venture to say he'd have to wade through the riots in the streets before that would come to pass.

He may not be the one to start it. If North Korea or China smell weakness or If china econemy goes down the crapper with the USA then they might and the USA gets sucked in.

crazyewok
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

Well if the USA defaults then there is always the chance Obama will start WW3....A world war storted the last depression out....

No nuclear power will directly fight another nuclear power. It's better to be broke than dead (though people in low standard of living areas often disagree).

reply to post by crazyewok


why would china even consider killing their golden goose....

THAT... and they really don't have the means to launch any sort of sustained 'campaign' against the continental US

NK ... you're joking, right!?

reply to post by darkbake


Neither Boehner nor Obama can Default on the U.S. Debt , it is Unconstitutional to do so . This Drama will end before that ever happens .

12m8keall2c
reply to post by crazyewok

 

why would china even consider killing their golden goose....

THAT... and they really don't have the means to launch any sort of sustained 'campaign' against the continental US

NK ... you're joking, right!?

The USA wont be a golden goose if its in a depression and isnt paying its debts off to China. Nor buying its products anymore. I mean who wants a cheap Iphone when you can barely afford enough food to stop starving.

And who said sustained 'campaign' against the continental US?

Im talking about those nice jucy islands near Japan they have there eye on full of needed resources.

Then there is Taiwan

And NK? SK. What better time when the USA is at its weakest.

All those expensive planes and ships wont be much use when the USA will barely be able to put fuel into them let alone afford the maintience. And if the USA military budget inst cut when 50% will be out of work and being kicked out of there homes in to 1930's style slums there really will be riots.

South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Isreal, they may end up haveing to reley mostly on there own with only token US support.

Of course the USA could go for a total war style econemy like in WW2 to sustain its military but you will need a war for that.

reply to post by crazyewok


I get what you're saying and where you're coming from, but there's just Far too many other global and economic variables for them to consider prior to any such type actions or efforts coming into play, with regards any sort of strike on the US.

they'd be cutting off their hand just to spite their fist, so to speak, IMHO.

and to North Korea....

i don't think even L'il kim would risk his own, most certain demise, by outwardly striking the South.

One's thing's for certain, any one nation who thinks they can take a potshot at the US because 'she's dopwn'.... is in for one hell of a Big Surprise - read: retaliation.

The monies to fund such would POUR IN/ 'be made available' almost as fast as it happens.

As with any 'family'. we may fight, bicker, argue and be counter-productive with ourselves, but just you Let Any outside nation attempt to influence or infiltrate that in-fighting, and you can bet your backside you'll see a whole 'nother side of the US of A

not that I'm blinded by the stars 7 stripes, patriotism or anything of that kind.

that's just the way we are.

we may seem/be as a 'dysfunctional family', but just you let any outsider try to dictate or take the reins - you'll have a fight on your hands the likes of no other.

not false bravado. those planes, warships, missiles and munitions would be readied at a moment's notice.

...... if the situation required such.

and i truly believe there's not a nation at the moment willing to truly 'test' that possibility.

we might see a head popup from time to time, like l'il kim, crying for relief efforts, but you can pretty much bet your backside that no nation is going to risk rattlin these 'blades of grass' in a direct confrontation, anytime soon.

as for:

crazyewok
I mean who wants a cheap Iphone when you can barely afford enough food to stop starving.

the US

*sad fact*

reply to post by crazyewok


" All those expensive planes and ships wont be much use when the USA will barely be able to put fuel into them let alone afford the maintience "

With " Black Budgets " Numbering in the Trillions of Dollars , and Domestic Oil Resources Numbering in Trillions of Barrels , the U.S. could sustain Numerous Military Conflicts around the Globe Indefinately if it wish to , otherwise the U.S. would not even Exist Right Now . The " Shadow Goverment " has All it's Bases Covered I am Affraid.........

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Yes IF you attacked the USA proper.

But if China or North Korea attacked Japan or South Korea how willing would you be to back your allies up when you are sick of war and won’t be able to food on table let alone afford shelter?

I mean look at WW2, the USA was broke. It had bad memories from the last world war. Yet its close allies of France and UK were attacked and the USA did nothing except give a few token gestures as well as sell arms to make a quick few bucks........not until Japan went down with a case of stupidity and attacked pearl harbour.

Now that bring me to you second point.
Year once you attack the USA crap hits the fan and you go warcrazy and don’t stop till the person who attacked you is a burning crater. In the case of japan Literally!

But thing is people don’t learn. Most of the Japanese high command knew that was likely the end result and did it anyway. Who to say another country won’t make the same miscalculation?

You might end up in a very similar situation like before WW2 were your close allies are attacked due to the fact your enemy’s think your too busy tied up with your own economic problems and your own people will put too much pressure on the government to keep out due to it not being there business. Well until something like it always does to bring you in half way.

reply to post by crazyewok


[to add]

china is certainly not about to go bombing or barricading the US infrastructure THEY actually own. hundreds, if not thousands of miles, of tollways, highways, etc.

they may attempt to 'take physical ownership' of the same, but they're not about to go destroying ASSETS the likes of those.

interstates, tollways, throughways, highways, etc.

it's be like bombing the airfields and runways of your allies... your 'new development'.

what developer would attempt to destroy recently purchased property(s) because their client 'defaulted' on the payment(s)?

you don't bulldoze an entire neighborhood simply because some of the homes aren't paid for or satisfying their loans....

you invest further in the infrastructure, utilities and the like to bring up the value of the homes.... effectively negating the defaults.

???

[eta]

at least on your bottom line

on paper wealth doesn't always directly equate to actual wealth.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


As I said. I doubt anyone will attack the USA.

Its its vunrable allies that should be worried.

South Korea
Taiwan
Japan
Isreal
Saudi Arabia

They are the ones at risk.

If the USA is desistute like before WW2 then its people may be less inclined to spend money protecting them. Not when they cant put food in there bellies and a roof over there head.

A power eyeing them up may count on that and take the risk. Especialy if there own econemy has gone to pot and a excuse to gear up for total war may be the only thing able to keep the reguime proped up.

Thats were the spark for the next major may come from.

reply to post by crazyewok

As I said. I doubt anyone will attack the USA.

Its its vunrable allies that should be worried.

South Korea
Taiwan
Japan
Isreal
Saudi Arabia

They are the ones at risk.

Maybe it's time to re-think.

Americans are tired of supporting something that yields no returns.

We are going broke.

Many say let the others fend for themselves.

'The Others' seem to be doing *THAT* to us.

Who's going to *help* America ??