doublegunshop.com - home Forums The truth about the left.

King, on one hand you say the default will be devastating. On the other hand you encourage unbridled spending, far in excess of their income.

If the US government does as you say, the devastating default is inevitable.

Please make sense of your positions for me as they seem to be what I would consider to be mutually exclusive ideas for one man to hold.

King,

once again-there is NO way they could default;

More the enough funds(Revenues flowing into the federal coffers EXEED our debt payments 12 to 1 !)/

Obama/this administration is required Constitutionally to pay the debt first (The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4)

What it will do-and I hope the house does not pass the bill they are currently putting together if it has any reduction in the Sequester cuts ( Law of the Land),is force Obama to negotiate with congress as the constitution intends and not as the dictator he is playing now !


This is the chart of the debt form the CBO-note the deficit expansion since 2009-2010 (when the Dems had total control of congress)



Obama�s Legacy: Debts And Deficits
http://catosdomain.com/?p=18316

Please let me clarify that when I use word "default" in the long term sense, I am not specifically referring to a technical default in the financial markets, but an inability of the US government to meet BOTH it's obligations for servicing it's debt AND it's undertakings of services to it's citizens.

I may err in retrospect---and I don't have the time to go back through posts---but I must ask when have I ever encouraged "unbridled spending"?

It's not my nature. Members are aware of my take on consumerism. Drew shops it on his posts. The US is too generous, and war costs are paid by taxes.

You may have mistaken my opinion of debt (as the Tea Party ostensibly makes it to be) as approval of spending more than you're making but that's crazy.

The US is rich and powerful and will be for a long time. The issue is a radical rump running the country that believes default is a breeze.

The entire world is laughing at that one. Or crying.

Well, it's possible I have erred, or exaggerated your position regarding spending. But given the size of the deficits the US is running under the leadership of your man Obama, I consider encouragement to NOT meaningfully discuss spending control measures and instead, choose to add additional spending measures as "unbridled spending".

I might also make the observation that I don't think anyone here (Dave) is minimizing the potentially damaging effects of a default. What I read is some are pointing out that the risk of default in the near term is exceeding low, and posting the reasons why.

You are correct, default in the near term is only possible if Obama continues to use "the make it hurt" as he has with closing the WWII memorials-using more costs then running them,and unbelievably using the families of dead heroes as pawns by keeping death benefits on hold !

The spending must be slowed,the "stimulus" (money laundering to political allies) ,massive increases in disability (over half is been determined fraud),welfare-EBT cards and Obamacare will by 2020 put this country on a path to massive default and depression.

Could it be the unapologetic support of bo because ethnicity not the clear policy, which has been discussed here, of reckless spending. Could it be the belittling of legitimate dissenting political positions with colorful and misleading words and phrases.

When misogyny is mentioned, is it in the context of true hate or is it in reference to questioning any unbridled 'womens' spending issue. When asked if the next generation would be hurt by the debt, the position is, I pay taxes, my kids pay taxes and my grand kids all gladly pay taxes. No reference to the responsible use of that revenue, but intentional mention that we're all doing just fine in life. There have been comments, off topic which is fine, bashing Republicans for hating the poor around the lead in to sequester because it was a dem talking point of the day.

Quantitative easing is generally a topic you'll ignore, but you'd think printing eighty-five billion dollars a month could be a nice supplement to the mentioned 12 to 1 revenue to debt ratio. Yet, it's not enough and you advocate for increasing the debt limit, I guess for world perceptions.

The concept of healthcare is identified as an underlying ideological conflict, but there is never any mention of the unbridled cost of the new entitlement or acknowledgement of the large percentage of the US economy that'll be taken over by the relatively few. Energy policy and it's effect on the day to day cost of living of the poor is ignored. Consumerism, always seems necessarily linked to the government in the context of lost revenue, not the valid attracting or creating of jobs. Whew, gotta come up for air or go lay out the duck hunting gear and give it a looking over.

Yeah, I'm laying back from duck hunting for a different reason. The ducks are here, and the mosquitoes, and the ducks are filled with pinfeathers. The ginks who do all their hunting in warm weather are blasting away at the easy ones including birds of the year but none of the seasoned gunners hereabouts. We can wait.

As for our conversations, our different takes on the situation, I can wait for the denouement or otherwise, too. What's likely to happen is the Washington ginks will kick it down the road to mid-January, refusing to come to grips with reality, with the world as it is and not what they want it to be, and we'll go through the whole thing again. The ginks have it down to a science.

Why the US allows it is beyond me. Canada's conservative government will set out tomorrow in a Throne Speech what it will do in the new session, a re-set to help it get through a senate spending scandal. What it proposes will be implemented because it has a majority, and the opposition parties will go along where they have been proposing similar action.

The government earned its majority and right to make legislation in a House of Commons representing citizens from coast to coast to coast. In the US a minority within a major party can stop governance in its tracks, in the current case ostensibly on increasing deficit ceiling but everyone knows it's really about Obamacare. The pity is that world economies may go in the ditch.

Agree, Dave. The US isn't pulling in from its world empire military outposts because it has become Quakers all of a sudden. It's asking its allies to start paying for their share of heavy lifting required for decent world leadership because of burdens you've mentioned at home as well. It is time all countries lived within their means. The US government, however, is saying the country can afford a healthcare program that is less expensive and encompassing than what is common to other countries.

A minority within a great old party said no. Congress approval now is zilch. The ginks will kick it down the road for another day.The country's handling of Katrina gave our mutual enemies a propaganda nuclear bomb that we're paper tigers. The current governance has handed them an atomic one. Who's afraid of people who can't run their own country without putting the world economy at risk?

A MAJORITY in the GOP think NO(in fact NONE voted for it), as well as a MAJORITY(over 60% DON"T want obamacare) of the public who are getting forced into the costly obamacare,which by all definition is disaster ( You Didn't build That Mr. O )