Deal or default?

[stromboli]

Ted Cruz has already lost support in Texas. the Houston Chronicle has posted an article regretting their backing of him. I don't think the Tea Party faithful will change one whit, but now the Republicans see the danger of what they can do. If the Repubs want to stay solvent, they have to prove they can deal with the Dems. This will be a win for Obama, and that will rankle. They need to completely rethink their strategy. And they'll have to solve the problem with the Tea Party.

[Atheon]

I'm still waiting for the voluptuous opera singer to sing...

[Shiranu]

They need to completely rethink their strategy.

They have needed to do this since Bush and they have shown no sign of changing.

[mykcob4]

Looks like a kick the can down the road deal about to happen.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Technically they don't need to default.  All they have to do is control their spending .... ha ha ha ha!

But the government does bring in enough to pay the debt payments.  If they close the parts of the government that are open (drug war, NSA spying, etc) and open the parts that are closed (the parks) there will be plenty of money to make the payments.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You sound like a talking point puppet Jason. Just stop things you don't like and all is well.. :roll:

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You sound like a talking point puppet Jason. Just stop things you don't like and all is well.. :roll:

And you can tell me that there aren't any parts of the government that you think should be stopped?  Talk about talking points.

[mykcob4]

You sound like a talking point puppet Jason. Just stop things you don't like and all is well.. :roll:

And you can tell me that there aren't any parts of the government that you think should be stopped?  Talk about talking points.

Wow you sound so er uh teapartish.

[Shiranu]

Wut.

[LikelyToBreak]

mykcob4 wrote:

Wow you sound so er uh teapartish.

Jason, I think the Democrats really like the NSA spying, the seizure of property without having to go through the courts, and having 190 foreign military bases.  To the Democrats, the bigger the government, the better the government.

[Atheon]

Technically they don't need to default.  All they have to do is control their spending .... ha ha ha ha!

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about. It's about the ability of the government to pay debts already incurred (by a Republican-led congress, mind you), and has no connection to future spending policy.

[PopeyesPappy]

Technically they don't need to default.  All they have to do is control their spending .... ha ha ha ha!

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about. It's about the ability of the government to pay debts already incurred (by a Republican-led congress, mind you), and has no connection to future spending policy.

And that is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about or of what Jason said. The debt limit mearly sets an upper limit on the total amount the US government can borrow. Once they reach that limit they can not by law borrow more money. But the government has annual revenue without borrowing. For physical year 2014 revenue is expected to be about $3 trillion. Interest on the debt for the year is going to be about $450 billion. That leaves more than $2.5 trillion after we pay the interest on the debt. We are going to spend about $1.75 trillion on social security, medicare and medicaid for the year. That leaves about $775 billion. If the federal government could live on $775 billion (DoD is going to get $675 billion) the debt limit would not mean a thing because we wouldn't need to borrow more money to meet our obligations.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Technically they don't need to default.  All they have to do is control their spending .... ha ha ha ha!

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about. It's about the ability of the government to pay debts already incurred (by a Republican-led congress, mind you), and has no connection to future spending policy.

And that is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about or of what Jason said. The debt limit mearly sets an upper limit on the total amount the US government can borrow. Once they reach that limit they can not by law borrow more money. But the government has annual revenue without borrowing. For physical year 2014 revenue is expected to be about $3 trillion. Interest on the debt for the year is going to be about $450 billion. That leaves more than $2.5 trillion after we pay the interest on the debt. We are going to spend about $1.75 trillion on social security, medicare and medicaid for the year. That leaves about $775 billion. If the federal government could live on $775 billion (DoD is going to get $675 billion) the debt limit would not mean a thing because we wouldn't need to borrow more money to meet our obligations.

Hey, you're talking too sensibly for this thread.  People are going to accuse you of being an unintelligent tea partier using talking points if you keep explaining the debt limit in terms of what it actually is without use of talking points.

[JamesTheUnjust]

To bad the tea partiers are all in extreme safe seats. I almost rooted for default if for no other reason than to be done with them, but now they get to make the false claim they fought the good fight.

They knew from the beginning that the likely hood of this working was slim, but proceeded with it it anyways in order to please their fruit-cake base. I think they were hoping that the democrats would simply cave in and meet their demands. Thing is, the democrats were tired of always being knows as "the party of compromise" and decided they themselves needed to prove something to their base... that they have balls.

When things started going bad the TeaCunts resorted to the usual tactics including unlawful actions and using war veterans as political shields. But ultimately, it all failed in the end, and the political damage to the GOP is done. People are for once actually able to see that these are the people that play political more than anybody, and that they are willing to create damage that effects all of us in order to please their base.

I'm by no means a fan of the Democratic party. They are just like any group of politics: incompetent, lazy, and wasteful. But it's gotten to the point that the belief that "both parties are equally to blame" is becoming more and more an obvious untruth. The democrats have failed and created all kinds of fucked-up stupid policy but one can't compare them to the downright criminal actions of the right-wing and the people that support them.

[josephpalazzo]

Technically they don't need to default.  All they have to do is control their spending .... ha ha ha ha!

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about. It's about the ability of the government to pay debts already incurred (by a Republican-led congress, mind you), and has no connection to future spending policy.

And that is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about or of what Jason said. The debt limit mearly sets an upper limit on the total amount the US government can borrow. Once they reach that limit they can not by law borrow more money. But the government has annual revenue without borrowing. For physical year 2014 revenue is expected to be about $3 trillion. Interest on the debt for the year is going to be about $450 billion. That leaves more than $2.5 trillion after we pay the interest on the debt. We are going to spend about $1.75 trillion on social security, medicare and medicaid for the year. That leaves about $775 billion. If the federal government could live on $775 billion (DoD is going to get $675 billion) the debt limit would not mean a thing because we wouldn't need to borrow more money to meet our obligations.

But then you'd get fewer food inspectors to make sure you can eat safely, fewer NSA officers to make sure you can fly safely, fewer elementary teachers so you can learn science better, etc.

If you look at the historical graph, the government is spending less in terms of GDP than several decades ago. The problem is NOT spending but revenue. Obama's approach has been, and I hope he keeps it that way, a balanced approach: some spending cuts along with increases in revenue  - spending cuts affect the ordinary folks, tax increases affect the rich people. However, for the GOP, increasing government revenue, even in reforming the tax system, is taboo. Hence, we will not solve the problem until the GOP loses the House and is completely shut out of government.