Ask Me Help Desk - Debt limit

This is why The One is so annoyed about no solutions yet... being president is interfering with his getting reelected. Poor thing.

Quote:

The debt showdown isn't just the dominant issue in Washington this summer — it's virtually the only one getting any attention in the nation's capital.

From the White House to Congress, the negotiations over raising the U.S. debt limit have overshadowed or halted work on everything from job creation to the military conflict in Libya to education reform. And the debt debate has hamstrung President Barack Obama's ability to hit the road to campaign and raise money for his re-election bid.

Speaking of pandering to the masses:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Speaking of pandering to the masses:

Hi NK,

A guess all visual media pander in that way.

Why I am so critical of Murdoch is the way he exploits our basic instincts.

With the News of the world it was a Peep Show into people's private lives. This is especially despicable when it comes to people who were victims of crime.

Fox exploits uncertainty, fear and anxiety. Sometimes it even creates anger towards certain sections of the community. It does this under the guise of news.

Back to topic.
We could double the debt ceiling for all the good it will do. The truth is that the market has already made the call. We had trouble selling our debt notes because the foreign investors don't want to eat a cr@p sandwich . That is why we had QE2. No one would buy our paper ,so the Fed set up a program for the Fed to purchase the debt with dollars that flew off Geithner's printing press.
We are already maxed out . If we try to sell more debt we will get QE3 .
But to make it more complicated.. the Fed does not buy direct from the Treasury . No indeed... they buy them through 3rd parties. And who are those 3rd parties?. the banks the Administration loves to demonize . Yup ;the Obots are making the Goldman Sachs of the world rich . They get the bonds at discount from the Treasury ,and flip them by selling them at a tidy increase in rate TO the Fed.

I guarantee that if the debt ceiling is increased then QE 3 will begin in earnest. In anticipation ;the price of gold shot up again today. Look for oil and all commodities to follow suit in these days of no inflation.

I agree Tom, with no jobs being created, revenues have to come from someplace, and either its grow business, or grow government, and guess what wins in that case, after all we bailed them out first. Now we wouldn't have to keep a weak economy going that way if political leaders put people back to work. We wouldn't be having this conversation because the money the government has so far spent, is from adding the off the books expenditures to what was spent on the recession, keeping our head above water, and giving the states as much support as possible, yeah we have a large deficit.

No other nation in the world has the tools we have to fight a global recession, and make no mistake, its global, and extremely important, as there can be no recovery until we get back to work, and put others back to work also. Yes I will say it, businesses will have to take a risk to create demand, GLOBALLY. The working man is what creates the kind of demand to circulate the money, and until he can get in the game, there will be no economic growth.

Now we can talk about the Markets, but unless there is demand, doesn't matter if the standard is the dollar, or gold, because unless its circulated more widely, there will be the rich, and there will be the poor, and a lot of the poor, and lets be real, who wins that election? We will see.

All that needs to be done is quit the posturing, and raise the limit, so scared rich people can stop screwing helpless poor people. It really is that simple you know. Too bad repubs have to katow to the tea party, or else we could have been much further down the road to recovery, heck if the goal was not to obstruct, but to govern, we probably would have had a much more robust economy.

The problem isn't spending, its obstructing the spending, and distracting us from the WORK that needs to be done, to get out of this hole we find ourselves in. Caused by the robbery that was done in '08. Should have sent them to jail because they didn't run very far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Speaking of pandering to the masses:

What can I say, conservatives love beautiful women, don't you? Anyway, that babe in the opening still image is Kiran Chetry and she has worked for for CNN for almost 4 1/2 years so your video is a little outdated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What can I say, conservatives love beautiful women, don't you?

I rest my case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What can I say, conservatives love beautiful women,

Hello again, Steve:

All I know, is I saw Lauri Duh's a$$, and I LOVED it. I LOVE Rachel Maddow too, but I don't want to see her a$$.

So, you still think there will be a deal?

excon

Speaker Bonehead will argue persuasively to his Reps that the Republicans only control 1/2 of Congress and they cannot impose their will . That will be the pretext for them to cave and give us milquetoast and call it victory .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

All I know, is I saw Lauri Duh's a$$, and I LOVED it. I LOVE Rachel Maddow too, but I don't want to see her a$$.

Laurie Dhue? She looks good from any angle.

Quote:

So, you still think there will be a deal?

I don't know, the president seems intent on increasing deficit spending AND raising taxes while ignoring every other plan including that of his own debt commission. By the way, while he's claiming that 80 percent of Americans want to pay more in taxes, they're actually wanting spending cuts - by a wide margin.

Quote:

Americans continue to express a strong desire that any agreement that is reached include plans for major cuts in future spending. Americans now by a 20-point margin -- 55% vs. 35% -- say they worry more that the government would raise the debt ceiling without plans for major spending cuts, than that the government would not raise the ceiling and an economic crisis would ensue.

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?

Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

By the way, while he's claiming that 80 percent of Americans want to pay more in taxes, they're actually wanting spending cuts by a wide margin.

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size

Hello again, Steve:

Well, of course, when the question is framed like that, the answer is a foregone conclusion.. But the premise is wrong - I'll bet purposely so. The ACTUAL proposal is for taxes to be raised on ONLY the top 5% of wage earners. Nobody else's taxes will be raised. When asked CORRECTLY, they overwhelming support it, ALONG with spending cuts.

I'll go along with suspending our study of gay men, as long as you agree to end the war in Afghanistan TODAY and bring the troops home. See?? That's how negotiations go. You give a little, then I give a little.. Frankly, my Afghanistan demand is getting traction among you guys.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.

It's called wasteful spending which is extremely relevant to a discussion on the federal debt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I'll go along with suspending our study of gay men, as long as you agree to end the war in Afghanistan TODAY and bring the troops home. See??? That's how negotiations go. You give a little, then I give a little.. Frankly, my Afghanistan demand is getting traction among you guys.

I'm asking a little, you're asking a lot. Frankly, I don't know what to feel about Afghanistan. Our president said it was a "war of necessity" but he approaches it halfheartedly, so what's the point if we aren't in it to win it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

... so what's the point if we aren't in it to win it?

How is "win" measured?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

so what's the point if we aren't in it to win it?

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what winning is..

If it's to make sure that Al Quada DOESN'T re-enter to use it as base to launch attacks on us, you'd have to presume that Al Quada is just OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, sitting on the sidelines, WAITING till they get back in, so they can attack us, because they CAN'T attack us from, say, Somolia.

I don't believe that.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

How is "win" measured?

Defeat the enemy for starters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I don't know what winning is..

You do know what trying is don't you? You can't go campaign on a war of necessity and finishing the job, then approach it with apathy and uncertainty and expect anything close to a "win."

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Defeat the enemy for starters.

I agree, But who is the enemy to the United States there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You can't go campaign on a war of necessity and finishing the job, then approach it with apathy and uncertainty and expect anything close to a "win."

Hello again, Steve:

If you expect me to support Obama/Bush on steroids, war policy, you're barking up the wrong tree. IF that war COULD have been won, the opportunity was squandered when George Bush got sidetracked. You CAN'T go back into a war after you've ignored it for YEARS and expect to WIN. Wars don't happen like that.

But, in terms of money, make me a counter offer to the BILLIONS I just cut. That's right, I've got the Iraq war in my back pocket too.

excon

I have no problem in cutting defense spending period, so long as it doesn't jeopardize national security. I don't believe $2 trillion is wise to spend on Obamacare, a billion plus a year to the UN is too much and I darn sure bet we can reduce the federal payroll, which seems to be the only place where jobs are being created. Oh, and buying all those Chevy Volts? Put 'em in a base Ford Fiesta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I don't believe $2 trillion is wise to spend on Obamacare, a billion plus a year to the UN is to much and I darn sure bet we can reduce the federal payroll,

Hello again, Steve:

Whether you believe it or not, Obamacare is LAW and it WON'T be repealed. If you want to TALK, talk to me about something that we can ACTUALLY cut. You guys are good at symbolism, ala your cut, cap and balance. That's NOTHING more than a symbol, in that it has nothing to do with CUTTING.

Federal payroll?? Cool! Let's start with the DEA followed by the NSA, not forgetting the TSA, and let's throw in the prison guards as a bonus... If you want to trade the welfare to the UN, and the Education & Energy Department's, I'll go for it.

Yes, I STILL have the Iraq war in my back pocket, but I may not have to throw it in because I'll betcha we're getting close to being in balance.

excon

I'm all for scrapping the Education and Energy departments so see, compromise is possible. We can cut back on the EPA, the IRS and yank most government credit cards and make them go back to getting competitive bids on darn near everything they buy.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?
...
Not sure how you always end up finding these oddities but it's irrelevant.

That's just speech being a 'science denier' again.

This thread has descended into the rehlms of fantasy

Stick around to see the convoluted pretzel twist that Congress eventually uses to solve this "crisis" . It will be the typical deception that the Republics in Congress usually falls for... tax increases now... spending "cuts" (if the rate of spending is targeted for 8% increase and it only goes up 6% it will be called a 2 percent cut) on some future undetermined date .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

stick around to see the convoluted pretzel twist that Congress eventually uses to solve this "crisis" . It will be the typical deception that the Republics in Congress ususally falls for .......tax increases now ....spending "cuts" (if the rate of spending is targetted for 8% increase and it only goes up 6% it will be called a 2 percent cut) on some future undetermined date .

You mean they haven't decided to just not adjust budgets for inflation, or agree on a no new hires in the public service policy, not very inventive these yanks. There are many ways to provide a cut without pain but then we have been doing it for years so we are ahead of the game

I guess you don't have low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives, where you live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I guess you don't have low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives, where you live.

Of course we do, but we have taken some of their options out of the equation, we also have environmental loonies that I doubt you have to contend with. We have a convention in our Parliament where neither side restricts supply, because it means it would quickly be taken to a double dissolution and everyone is out on their ear and have to face the electorate. That can mean a massive shift in the balance of power. I think because of this we have generally some more reasonable people willing to settle for some gains.

What I see is you have developed some sort of double standard where it is okay to say we can have statutes on the books, we have budgets, we have programs but we can stop supply without repealing any of that

We have those who are not interested in the common good, just there own good, but no worries, just because its exciting doesn't mean America will NOT handle its business, and do the right thing for itself.

I wouldn't bet against her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I wouldn't bet against her.

At this stage I would refrain from betting the odds are too short

Quote:

low information uncompromising, no negotiating conservatives

Don't worry... the way this debate is shaping I see this country being run by 2 statist parties ;one of leftist progressives v a party of left of center Repubics who's only claim to legitimacy is their contention that they can be better managers of the nanny-state. The Gag of 8 is planning to rubber stamp the President's hand selected deficit commission's recommendations .

Hobson's choice then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Can we at least start with cutting out the stupid stuff, like studying gay men's penis size?

Oh, by the way that study was funded under Bush:
Gay Men Penis Size Study Funded By Taxpayer Dollars

Quote:

The National Development and Research Institute received money from the NIH to conduct the study which began in 2006.

:D

Does it matter who began the study ? It's a complete waste of money . No doubt it was a pork rider for some piece of legislation that was too important not to pass.

Quote:

Hobson's choice then?

Yes a Hobson's choice and a Hobbes Choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

does it matter who began the study ? It's a complete waste of money .

Hello again, tom:

You'll excuse me if I DON'T support YOUR idea of what's good science...

excon

You are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

you are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

Is this better?

Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen A Day Of Service

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

you are excused if you believe that spending tax payer's money for scientists to study penis sizes is a good investment .

Hello again, tom:

I'm not a scientists. I don't know what they hope to find by studying gay dongs...

But, I DO know that somebody who DENIES the existence of evolution ISN'T the guy to get ANY scientific information from.

excon

Yeah that's more brilliance. Since the 1990s the navy stopped building nuke powered surface ships except Carriers. That means there will be more demand for refueling capability . What is significant is that new standards call for 2 hulls for tankers ,and these ships were built single hulled before the standards were revised.
I say sell them to another country .A quick repaint of an emblem and they'd be good to go.