Do you concern with this?

7/27/2011 2:53:06 PM

Then who was phone?

7/27/2011 3:24:37 PM

oh God,

shoot, i love you, so for the sake of sweet baby jesus and all that is holy, PLEASE do not throw your hat into this rink.

youre one of the best posters on TWW- dont submerge yourself in the septic tank known as the soapbox.

but to answer your question...

obama will not win this one and it has caused irreparable harm to his chances for reelection.

mission accomplished republicans (at whatever cost).

7/27/2011 3:36:14 PM

The politically connected class wins.

The American people lose.

This is how it plays out nearly 100% of the time.

7/27/2011 3:49:48 PM

How does it matter my daily living? More taxes? More expensive goods?

7/27/2011 3:52:34 PM

More shouting.

7/27/2011 4:10:22 PM

^^definitely more expensive goods

also higher interest rates and fewer jobs and government services

you should be fine though because you had to have enough money available to support yourself without government or institutional aid IIRC

7/28/2011 8:31:36 PM

I don't care this. I have heard too much negative words since I came to US. My heart is too strong now.

7/29/2011 9:18:45 AM

This is simply a lot of political posturing, as usual, in my opinion. They will go back and forth, each side claiming that this will result in some kind of economic doomsday, but in the end both sides understand that they have too much to lose in political capital, no matter what the level of impact. See the "government shutdown" crisis of just a few months ago.

The economy will not tank if they don't raise the debt ceiling by Monday morning. Will it cause a few people problems? Sure. Will we descend into mass panic and civil war like the goons in Washington predict? I think not. This will be resolved by Tuesday morning because there is simply nothing to gain by letting it go into default.

7/29/2011 9:55:38 AM

Will it influence other countries, say China, Russia? Because in Great Depression 1930s, it seemed done some harms to China.

7/29/2011 10:00:38 AM

^^ which side has more to lose at the polls if we default? the answer to that question is a predictor of what may come in the next few days.

7/29/2011 11:11:25 AM

First of all we won't defaullt for months. Second of all,

Quote :

"both sides understand that they have too much to lose in political capital, no matter what the level of impact. See the "government shutdown" crisis of just a few months ago. "

both sides didn't do anything. The democrats simply decided to do what the republicans wanted at the last minute.

1.the republicans set their initial position as what they want
2. democrats set their initial position as a compromise
3. republicans battle each other over compromise or something more extreme
4. republicans compromise with the far right and democrats compromise their compromise at the last second to meet republicans at the right.

This time its different because the tea partiers actually WANT to default. This is not something they want to get done wheras they HAD to keep the tax cuts or they broke their promises. Tea partiers want to hold out as long as possible until they can get exactly what they want. They know that we won't default tuesday so they are calling everyones bluff.

The tea partiers are the only ones whoknow how to conduct stern negotiations. Everyone else is willing to concede important things too quickly. Obama has already lost.

If there is no deal and markets crash then its still getting blamed on obama because most people don't know how the government works and will blame the president for everything and the tea partiers will say "if the regular politicians would've just listened to the tea party and done what was best for america instead of politics as usual, this wouldn't have happened."

Its amazing how powerful 5 or 6 freshmen congressmen have become.

7/29/2011 11:20:56 AM

^ If this was settled to with a debt ceiling hike and we continue down this path, Is there any evidence it will work out in our favor? All I see is 1.3 GDP, 64% of the workforce utilized, 9.4% unemployment, the fed out of bullets, and trillions spent with nothing to show for it. This is not working, why insist we continue?

7/29/2011 11:55:02 AM

I agree. I just think tax cuts are part of that status quote that isn't working.

7/29/2011 12:00:43 PM

maybe the government should ask Apple for a loan.

they have more cash as of this morning.

oh yeah, obama hates the rich and would never kowtow to steve jobs (he prefers to do that to saudis, chinese, etc).

i predict nothing from a default besides a 3 day market stumble, a renewed cry to get cuts minus tax increases forced through, and obamas certain defeat in reelection.

zing!

[Edited on July 29, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : lets see him try that 14th amendment shit]

7/29/2011 12:11:12 PM

His own lawyers have already said they don't buy the 14th amendment argument and that he's not going that route. There was an interesting discussion about all this on NPR this morning (Diane Rehm show I think). Based on what I've heard, I still feel that this will be far from catastrophic no matter what they end up doing (or not doing). Paying bondholders is going to be priority #1 even if they don't borrow any more dough.

7/29/2011 8:54:33 PM

^ My understanding is that under current law, no one has the authority to prioritize payments. Debts have to be paid in the order they come in.

There's been some talk about Congress passing a law to change that, but I haven't heard of any progress along that line.

7/29/2011 9:07:28 PM

There is no law requiring that they be paid as they come in. it has been left to the discretion of the treasury secretary, which often delays payment when appropriate, such as a contractor late on their work. Interesting fact: the treasury stopped making payments towards federal employee pensions a month ago.

[Edited on July 29, 2011 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/29/2011 10:19:02 PM

Quote :

"Officials have said repeatedly that Treasury does not have the legal authority to pay bills based on political, moral or economic considerations. It cannot, for instance, set aside invoices from weapons companies to preserve money for children’s programs. The implication is that the government will need to pay bills in the order that they come due. President Obama has warned as a result that the government “cannot guarantee” payments of Social Security benefits or other popular programs. Officials also have disputed the assertion of some Republicans that the government could prioritize interest payments."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/business/economy/treasury-to-weigh-which-bills-to-pay.html

Quote :

"which often delays payment when appropriate, such as a contractor late on their work."

You mean people who don't do their work don't get paid? I don't think that parallels the current situation very well (unless we're talking about Congressional paychecks).

7/29/2011 10:35:44 PM

^ It means treasury is not required by law to write checks they don't feel like writing. That you or I would agree the reason was a good one (no payment for work not done) is irrelevant.

The following is from http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-what.html

Fears of a default have caused the prices of US Treasury bills to skyrocket.

No, wait, you are not paying attention, look at that again: P*R*I*C*E*S*. Not yields. If prices go way up, yields go way down (though not below zero, really).

So, the market is still predicting zero chance of a default on t-bonds. All the market is predicting is that there will be a shortage of new t-bonds after we hit the debt ceiling. The anticipated shortage is driving prices up.

If we expected a default, or inflation there would be a sharply rising term structure in t-bonds. But if anything the terms structure is falling and getting flatter.

What kind of world do we live in? Nobody in the financial world is worried that the US will not pay its t-bonds. They are only worried that, if we hit the debt ceiling, there won't be enough new debt manufactured by our government to meet demand. Debt is our chief export, the only thing that balances our trade balance with China.

Professional wrestling, by comparison, has some elements of realism. NO ONE BELIEVES DEFAULT IS POSSIBLE.

7/29/2011 11:05:21 PM

those might be the people jumping out of buildings and shooting themsleves on wall street come tuesday afternoon.

7/30/2011 2:22:37 AM

I feel like Obama has actually handled this one pretty well. From what I keep reading in articles and from people that I talk to it seems like the Republicans are being labeled the assholes on this one.

7/30/2011 4:51:55 AM

Quote :

"OBAMA ACTUALLY HANDLED"

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 6:24 AM. Reason : ...............]

7/30/2011 6:24:32 AM

Quote :

"Republicans are being labeled the assholes"

7/30/2011 8:49:53 AM

What seems odd to me is everyone demanding the republicans to compromise, with the implication being on taxes. We've had republican government, while they may be good on taxes they love spending too. As such, asking Republicans to cut spending IS a compromised position.

It seems down-right strange that democrats don't seem to care what the money is spent on, as long as it keeps being spent. I guess everyone in Washington really is in the pocket of the Federal Employee Union. Trying to make the debate about taxes distracts from the real debate over what the damn money they have should be spent on. A debate no one seems to want to have, not the republicans nor the democrats.

7/30/2011 10:03:23 AM

Quote :

"It means treasury is not required by law to write checks they don't feel like writing. That you or I would agree the reason was a good one (no payment for work not done) is irrelevant."

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between paying for services rendered and paying for services not rendered. Which, in any case, is a distinctly different question from "I have two valid debts--which do I pay first?"

Also, I don't think you know what compromise means.



[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

7/30/2011 10:24:59 AM

I see the difference. I just don't believe the law sees a difference in the short term.

Look, let us assume you are 100% correct. What do you think happens if the Treasury refuses to pay you for whatever reason, be it a good one (legal) or a bad one (illegal)? Your only recourse is to sue in court, what everyone has done throughout the centuries when the Treasury refuses to write them a check for whatever reason. It will take many months perhaps a year before it gets before a judge able to force the treasury's hand. Long before then the whole fiasco will have been resolved. As such, if the Treasury stops writing checks to quite a lot of people, I doubt any of them would bother to sue. Every last one of them will accept the argument "I will pay you later with statutory interest!"

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/30/2011 10:52:19 AM

Are you saying you believe the Treasury should prioritize payments regardless of legality?

7/30/2011 12:21:05 PM

The only winners here are big oil who will continue to get huge tax breaks meanwhile small businesses and middle class and working class families will suffer! It's time for Republicans to stop playing politics while average Americans suffer. Such crass partisanship is unthinkable at such a time!

At least that's what some asshole Democratic congressman from Rhode Island said earlier today during his 1 minute of talk time during yet another pointless House session.

Unfuckingbelievable. Once, just once I'd like to see these fuckers make a tough decision. Yes, there needs to be massive spending reform in the short term. Yes, there probably needs to be short term tax hikes to fund programs we have already committed to. Not only that, but in the long term there needs to be something to force congress to spend within its means, sadly they have managed to prove that barring an actual constitutional amendment neither D or R controlled government will do this on their own. Hell, right now they aren't even debating on spending cuts, just on a cap on growth in spending! The first sane proposal I've heard for actual spending reform came last night when Connie Mack was talking about freezing spending at current levels and then cutting 1% across the board each year for the next 6 years to reduce it to an eventual surplus level where we could actually pay down the debt. Holy fuck... what a proposal! Spend less than or equal to revenue... why it's actually what every fiscally responsible person or family in America does every single fucking day.

7/30/2011 3:15:29 PM

"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." Richard M. Nixon

Delaying any payment ordered by law is illegal. Making payments without deposits in the federal reserve is illegal. Borrowing in excess of the debt limit is illegal. In the event Aug 2nd is the day, which I doubt, then the law is being broken regardless of how you prioritize payments. First come first served is an arbitrary prioritization which is decidedly illegal. As such, given that prioritizing to minimize damage is equally illegal, the treasury should definitely do that.

What I said is exactly true: when the Treasury does something illegal, then the only available recourse is to sue in court, which could take a year and get you nothing you won't get anyway when normalcy returns. The only other option is for either the President to fire or Congress to impeach the Treasury Secretary. But the only scenario I can think of that being appropriate is if the Treasury Secretary was an asshole and took this opportunity to default on the nation's debt first.

7/30/2011 3:17:06 PM

lol, you're quoting the Milhous(e).

You started out at there are no laws requiring that anyone be paid; it's up to the "discretion of the treasury secretary." Now you're saying it's all illegal?

First-come-first-serve is not an arbitrary prioritization. Anything other than first-come-first-serve would be arbitrary.

7/30/2011 3:40:33 PM

Altering terms. "illegal" in the old sense meant you were likely to get punished for it. As the Treasury Secretary would be doing his best to follow contradictory laws, I'd say his behavior is perfectly legal in this sense.

But you insisted on using "illegal" to mean devoid of technicalities, which it is not. One law says it must be paid. Another law says it must not be paid.

What do you mean by first come first serve (FCFS)? Prioritize based upon when the law was passed? I suspect the law paying interest on the debt was passed back in the 60s. What date the law says the payment should be made? Many laws don't say when. When the creditor shows up to demand payment? Many creditors aren't set up to do that. In order by which laws received the most votes in Congress? Whatever prioritization is used will have been a judgement call by the secretary, be it FCFS or Minimizing Damage. What I will say is FCFS would be terrible policy and there is no legal or moral grounds upon which to choose it. Everyone will complain that some got paid and others did not. But, as long as the president or Congress doesn't throw the secretary under the bus, they will not get in any trouble. However, I suspect a secretary choosing not to pay the debt so they can make transfer payments to the states would find himself under that bus.

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/30/2011 4:01:33 PM

Democrats will win this battle. The Senate will take Boehner's plan and alter it to what they want and send it back to the House on Monday with stipulations that Republicans disagree with. The House won't have enough time to battle the bill and will have to choose between sticking to their policy guns and ending up with a default (R lose; they get blamed with the default since they had a bill), or accepting the bill and saving the default (D win; it was their bill).

Obama is off on the sidelines and gets to point fingers, fear monger, and play "us versus them" while he splits the nation in two if there is any resistance or a default without taking any blame, since he wasn't involved in the bill creation. If a bill passes, he takes credit because it was he that signed it and his Democrat party that rallied and forced a bipartisan bill to save the planet. Yes, the planet. Then the next day he parties either way and gets more money for his reelection campaign.

Fuck politics.

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM. Reason : lkj]

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 4:27 PM. Reason : lkj]

7/30/2011 4:25:12 PM

^^ Not in violation of the law is some technicality I shouldn't be using?

First-come-first-serve as in whoever tenders their debt to the Treasury for payment first gets paid first. First-come-first-serve as in what the Treasury said they'll do.

I'm not saying first-come-first-serve is the best 'policy'. I'm not arguing what the policy should be, or what I'd like to see. I'm simply stating the 'policy' the Treasury is going to follow.

7/30/2011 4:27:47 PM

Quote :

"Not in violation of the law is some technicality I shouldn't be using?"

Not when on Aug 2nd, if that is the date, we find ourselves well beyond literal legality. A law said it must be paid, another law says it must not be paid. Explain to me how first-come-first-serve is perfectly legal when it leaves bills passed by congress and signed by the president unpaid?

Quote :

"First-come-first-serve as in what the Treasury said they'll do."

Who in the treasury said that? Keep in mind, the democrats in the white house want this to seem like a huge deal. But what some guy said a week ago is not a suicide pact binding the country.

Quote :

"I'm simply stating the 'policy' the Treasury is going to follow."

And you are wrong.

7/30/2011 4:45:21 PM

Quote :

"Who in the treasury said that?"

As I posted before:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/business/economy/treasury-to-weigh-which-bills-to-pay.html

This was Thursday. Not last week.

Quote :

"And you are wrong."

You keep saying that, but all you've done is post what you want to happen.

7/30/2011 4:53:05 PM

Democrats are saying this will be the first time EVER that the US has defaulted on bills. Isn't that false? I thought Ron Paul said we've done it three times.

Well, maybe not the same kind of default I guess:

Quote :

"The U.S. government defaulted at least three times on its obligations during the 20th century. -- In 1934, the government banned ownership of gold and eliminated the right to exchange gold certificates for gold coins. It then immediately revalued gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35, thus devaluing the dollar holdings of all Americans by 40 percent. -- From 1934 to 1968, the federal government continued to issue and redeem silver certificates, notes that circulated as legal tender that could be redeemed for silver coins or silver bars. In 1968, Congress unilaterally reneged on this obligation, too. -- From 1934 to 1971, foreign governments were permitted by the U.S. government to exchange their dollars for gold through the gold window. In 1971, President Richard Nixon severed this final link between the dollar and gold by closing the gold window, thus in effect defaulting once again on a debt obligation of the U.S. government. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/default-now-or-suffer-a-more-expensive-crisis-later-ron-paul.html

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM. Reason : ron paul]

--

Anyway, this political shit is not helping at all

Quote :

"Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning. Republicans offered to let the vote happen Friday night, just minutes after the chamber voted to halt a House Republican bill. All sides expect Democrats' bill will fail too, and the GOP said senators might as well kill both at the same time so that negotiations could move on to a compromise. "We would be happy to have that vote tonight," Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republicans' leader, offered. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected, even though the vote would occur on his own bill. He instead said the chamber would have to run out the full procedural clock, which means a vote in the early hours Sunday morning. He said he would be willing to move up the vote if Republicans didn't insist on a 60-vote threshold, which has become traditional for big, controversial items to pass the Senate. But the GOP held firm on that demand, so Mr. Reid said he would insist on the full process, which he said would show the country that Republicans were being obstructionist."

"I'm see your obstructionist and raise you more obstructions!"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/

[Edited on July 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : Fuck politics]

7/30/2011 5:54:39 PM

Obama wins, GOP has so much infighting all the dems have to do is just sit....and remember how it was when they had the House and all the infighting that occurred while the GOP was united in NO. Now it looks like the dems are united in NO and the GOP can't figure out what they want.

7/30/2011 7:51:29 PM

lol.

obama isnt king- a lot of things arent his fault.

however, he is symbolic. he is an easy target. he is a figurehead that angry americans will go after.

such is the fate of presidents.

7/30/2011 8:48:28 PM

The fate of presidents is to be reelected unless they do a spectacularly terrible job.

Even if they do a really really crappy job (see GWB) they tend to get reelected.

7/30/2011 10:08:07 PM

Quote :

"First-come-first-serve as in what the Treasury said they'll do."

I figured you must have had more references, as the one you linked says no such thing. You really need to read more critically. When the article says "The implication is that the government will need to pay bills in the order that they come due", that is not a quote, it is not a rephrasing of anything said by anyone at the Treasury, this is a statement by the reporter stating his opinion. Such a statement should carry some weight on a less important issue where material is hard to come by. However, on something as important as this issue, if this was actually the case the reporter wouldn't need to be stating his opinion, he would do the foot-work and find someone to apply the statement too (Geithner today said...) or a down-right quote. But, he could not find any statements after days of press conferences remotely supporting such a position, so he in effect quoted himself. Per the rules of Journalism 101, on such an important issue I call this strong evidence that his opinion is incorrect.

[Edited on July 31, 2011 at 1:54 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/31/2011 1:54:15 AM

Jesus fuck

The latest deal being worked on involves a $2.4 trillion debt limit increase through 2013 in two stages along with $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade in the first stage

We're solving absolutely nothing

7/31/2011 2:20:44 AM

That is always fascinating. As one Congress cannot bind a future Congress to anything, it is absurd to talk about cuts over a decade, as with a 50% + 1 vote they can just do whatever they want.

7/31/2011 8:28:25 AM

^^^ How else would one interpret this:

Quote :

"Officials have said repeatedly that Treasury does not have the legal authority to pay bills based on political, moral or economic considerations. It cannot, for instance, set aside invoices from weapons companies to preserve money for children’s programs."

Quote :

" I call this strong evidence that his opinion is incorrect."

Your evidence the reporter is wrong is...you think he's wrong.

7/31/2011 9:17:39 AM

Yes, me as a rational thinking human being looked at the information provided and came to a different conclusion.

The only information in the article we can rely upon is "Officials have said repeatedly that Treasury does not have the legal authority to pay bills based on political, moral or economic considerations." This is the only fact present, given the wording. Given these facts, it does not follow that we can assume "The implication is that the government will need to pay bills in the order that they come due" is true. He concludes they must be paid in the order they come due because that would be morally fair to all parties, but as they don't have the legal authority to pay bills based upon moral considerations, the implication is negated by the facts.

As I said, whatever they do is illegal, so do whats in the best interest of the country and they won't find themselves a political casualty.

7/31/2011 11:42:53 AM

Quote :

"He concludes they must be paid in the order they come due because that would be morally fair to all parties, but as they don't have the legal authority to pay bills based upon moral considerations, the implication is negated by the facts."

The author came to that conclusion because it's "morally fair"? How did your super awesome rational thinking human being critical reasoning skills determine that?

You've assumed a basis for the conclusion other than that given in the article, and then you've 'refuted' it.

7/31/2011 11:56:14 AM

Quote :

"You've assumed a basis for the conclusion other than that given in the article, and then you've 'refuted' it."

No basis was given in the article. The author specifically said "The implication is...", meaning he is jumping to a conclusion. This is not that complicated.

Why FCFS? Because a reporter said so. Ok, where do you think he got it? He clearly didn't get it from the Treasury, otherwise he would have said so. He jumped to the conclusion he believed would be fair to all parties, ignoring "fair" is a moral consideration which the treasury is forbidden from considering.

The statement "First-come-first-serve as in what the Treasury said they'll do" is indefensible, you must see that. You can continue arguing the reporter drew the right conclusion, but you cannot pretend anyone at the Treasury said such a thing.

[Edited on July 31, 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/31/2011 12:15:49 PM

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that this:

Quote :

"Officials have said repeatedly that Treasury does not have the legal authority to pay bills based on political, moral or economic considerations."

plus this:

Quote :

"President Obama has warned as a result that the government “cannot guarantee” payments"

plus this:

Quote :

"Officials also have disputed the assertion of some Republicans that the government could prioritize interest payments."

can never ever equal this:

Quote :

"the government will need to pay bills in the order that they come due."

7/31/2011 12:24:53 PM

"cannot make the following behavior legal:"
Fixed that for you. Then for reasoning sake, let us fix some other things:

"Officials also have disputed the assertion of some Republicans that the government could [legally] prioritize interest payments."

Quite true. I suspect they would also have disputed an assertion that "the government could legally prioritize payments by arrival (or due date)."

None of the quotes or referenced statements say what they will do, only what they cannot legally do. It is almost enough to conclude they government must just shut down to avoid breaking any laws, except shutting down would break the law (Congress passed a law ordering the treasury to pay!).

So, let me say it again, Nothing the treasury does come that day will be strictly speaking legal, nothing in the article you link says otherwise, so they might as well do what is in the interest of the nation.

Just a reminder, even more than a month has passed since the Treasury suspended payments (debt suspension period) to the Civil Service retirement fund, technically breaking the law, although the payment came due quite awhile ago. You see, the treasury secretary manages the pension and is not about to complain that he stopped making payments to himself. In effect, he is already prioritizing payments in order of least damage. I would say the treasury secretary's behavior speaks louder than some journalist at the New York Times' assertions.

[Edited on July 31, 2011 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/31/2011 12:45:18 PM

Moody's said new proposed Can kicking plan would be enough to avoid a credit downgrade. That is awsome, I wanna go work at Moody's. It seems you can be wrong for a decade and get paid big coin to stamp your seal on ponzi schemes. This is the same feedback loop we had in the housing market.

7/31/2011 1:09:02 PM