This should be required reading

[fskimospy]

Anyone who advocates holding the debt ceiling hostage to extract political concessions or who thinks that breaching the debt limit won't be bad should read this:

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2778/must-read-bruce-bartlett-debt-limit

This is extremely thorough and well reasoned. It lays out principally how:
1.) Hitting the debt limit would be really bad.
2.) Prioritizing debt payments is not only likely impractical, but also likely illegal.
3.) Prioritizing any other payments is also similarly impractical/illegal.

I highly encourage reading this.

 

[xBiffx]

Trying to act like the threat to national security is only when we default is pretty silly. The debt level, regardless of default, is a threat. But hey, it gets more readers to your blog when you get to sensationalize things a bit.

Keep on increasing debt levels. Its no threat after all until we can't pay for things.

 

[fskimospy]

Trying to act like the threat to national security is only when we default is pretty silly. The debt level, regardless of default, is a threat. But hey, it gets more readers to your blog when you get to sensationalize things a bit.

Keep on increasing debt levels. Its no threat after all until we can't pay for things.

I think it's pretty clear you didn't read the whole thing. The part about national security is about 10% of the piece.

 

[xBiffx]

I think it's pretty clear you didn't read the whole thing. The part about national security is about 10% of the piece.

Actually, its about 100% of the premise. I read it.

 

[chucky2]

When do our first $5k sellout Spender checks arrive?

 

[Texashiker]

Anyone who advocates holding the debt ceiling hostage to extract political concessions or who thinks that breaching the debt limit won't be bad should read this:

Lost all creditability with this comment, and other comments about war,

And, lest we forget, the nation is still at war in Afghanistan.

If he thinks our debt affects a war with a nation that is in the stone age, he better hope we never go to war with a third world nation,,.

 

[SaurusX]

tl;dr

 

[nehalem256]

So isn't the article really supporting the idea that Republicans are brilliant for holding the debt ceiling hostage to extract political concessions?

After all it is pretty pointless to take low value targets hostage

tl;dr

Teahadists got Obama by the balls :thumbsup:

 

[chucky2]

This Teahadist term is sorta funny. Strangely I've never seen the people using it negatively use the term Spendhadist to balance the arguement on why we have "Teahadists" in the first place.

It would seem to me one would not exist if it wasn't for the other proceeding it (for decades on end).

 

[Doppel]

I am reading but its very first sentence is, at best disingenuous, since the country absolutely will not default. Texashiker's quote also struck a nerve. The USA is not a war at all. And if we are to pretend it is, well war as a qualitative state is no longer meaningful, for this is status quo now, so raising the point is also pointless if not also disingenuous.

It ought to go without saying that a default would firebomb the economy, but so too would a planet ending meteor strike. Neither are going to happen this month.

The author's penultimate paragraph is quite on point though.

 

[nehalem256]

This Teahadist term is sorta funny. Strangely I've never seen the people using it negatively use the term Spendhadist to balance the arguement on why we have "Teahadists" in the first place.

I think the funnier thing is that they are both playing a game of chicken with the debt ceiling where the crazier side wins.

Seems that the left is basically conceding that the "Teahadists" are the crazier side... way to screw your own negotiating leverage.

 

[chucky2]

I think the funnier thing is that they are both playing a game of chicken with the debt ceiling where the crazier side wins.

Seems that the left is basically conceding that the "Teahadists" are the crazier side... way to screw your own negotiating leverage.

Well, the "Teahadists" have a better starting position: They want Gov reigned in, so are willing to let it be reigned in. Where as The Left wants to expand Gov to their pet areas as much as possible, and then beyond. It's pretty easy to see why the Left needs to demonize the Tea Party as much as possible: Tea Party objectives are directly opposite their own.

At least the Reps that like to blow money we don't have on their pet areas can be reasoned with by the Left: "Hey man, look, why don't I compromise to blowing some money we don't have on your pet area, if you compromise to blowing money we don't have on my pet area? We can both claim a win, satisfy our compaign contributors, and get the masses that vote for us at least a little happy so we get re-elected." Righty: "Wow, great idea! Lets do it! Wait...the few actual conservatives in my party actually want us to live within our means, how will this work long term?" Lefty: "Work long term?! Haha! The US will never run out of money we don't have, we'll always be the top country in the world! This money train will never end! Don't worry about small details like that, we'll be done with our careers before anything bad happens anyways. See ya at Palm later for a steak?"

With Spendhadists like this running the country for decades, who needs enemies?

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

I am reading but its very first sentence is, at best disingenuous, since the country absolutely will not default. Texashiker's quote also struck a nerve. The USA is not a war at all. And if we are to pretend it is, well war as a qualitative state is no longer meaningful, for this is status quo now, so raising the point is also pointless if not also disingenuous.

It ought to go without saying that a default would firebomb the economy, but so too would a planet ending meteor strike. Neither are going to happen this month.

The author's penultimate paragraph is quite on point though.

While I share your hope that we won't default, I don't think you can just categorically state that we won't. I think it is unlikely, but absolutely a possibility.

I agree that the US is not at war in Afghanistan in any significant way, but that's a small part of the piece. The piece itself focuses far more on the consequences of default and the ability (or lack thereof) of the federal government to manage the consequences of it. That to me is what made this piece interesting.

 

[Anarchist420]

I'd like repudiation if the govt didn't try to reinflate the money supply. It would cut down spending and future debt while it would vastly strengthen the dollar. A lot of stupid people like me will be gatted down in the streets, sure, but it's going to happen eventually and if we do it sooner, it will be less painful than it would be later.

Look at how low interest rates still are on mortgages. My parents are going to mortgage their next home if the interest rates are still low, the market will correct the rates, and then we'll wind up homeless or in a shittier house.

That said, I don't know why the O.P. wants everyone to be even more indebted. Recessions don't last forever and they last longer when the govt hogs all the credit. After Jackson ended payment in fiat money (i.e., went from paper to hard money for the first time in American history) and guess what, the depression was over in 4 years. The panic of 1857 didn't even last 18 months. The panic of 1819 didn't last more than 2 years... Rothbard had dominant extraverted intuition meaning that he saw the big picture all sides of it, while Keynes could only simplify what the knowledge he had. The Great Depression, on the other hand, lasted more than 10 years with a shitload of regs, inflation, and public spending.

Lastly, the thing that is more fucky than KentuckY9 is that Keynesians favor empirical evidence even though empirical evidence is not on their side.

 

[Fern]

In a few weeks, the debt limit will be breached as all of the Treasury’s “extraordinary” measures are exhausted and there will be insufficient cash to pay all of the government’s expenses as they come due. These include payments of principal and interest on the debt. Therefore, default on the debt is almost inevitable unless the debt limit is raised in a timely manner.

First paragraph, I stopped at the bolded sentence because it's BS.

We don't need cash to pay off expiring debt. We merely roll it over (as has been previously under these circumstances).

Interest on debt is remarkably low, as Democrats love to point out at all other times. IIRC, interest on debt accounts for only about 10% of cash receipts (not total spending, but cash receipts). Therefore payments due on interest can easily be met.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

First paragraph, I stopped at the bolded sentence because it's BS.

We don't need cash to pay off expiring debt. We merely roll it over (as has been previously under these circumstances).

Interest on debt is remarkably low, as Democrats love to point out at all other times. IIRC, interest on debt accounts for only about 10% of cash receipts (not total spending, but cash receipts). Therefore payments due on interest can easily be met.

Fern

Maybe you should go read the rest of it. If you hadn't stopped reading you probably wouldn't have made a dumb post.

 

[PokerGuy]

haha, sounds like it's really important then for the bummer and his minions to come to the table. If they don't there's going to be all sorts of doom and gloom. Looks to me like the tea party has some good leverage, obummer will go down in history as the first president to preside over a default on our obligations.

 

[cubby1223]

I wish people in gov't would stop vilifying each other.

But that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

So debt ceiling negotiations it is.

It's not my fault people voted in politicians based on who hated dubya most, then voted in politicians based on who hated the first set of politicians the most. We have the leadership you guys voted for.

 

[Texashiker]

I wish people in gov't would stop vilifying each other.

For the two major parties to stay in power they have to keep the people divided.