"Tea Party GOP Drives US Towards Catastrophic Default, World Panic"

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Janky Red

 

You don't make sense. Let's add more debt instead of cutting costs. It's finance 101. Until the curtain falls, nothing will change. It has to fall in order for everyone to be on a level playing field. And yes, if you default, it is technically bankruptcy. It's people like you who promote debt that is the reason we are in this mess to begin with. It's called a budget and we do not have a balanced one. It has to balance, period. Without it we just keep doing the same things over and over. And yes, we have been here before, research it.

Are you pretending to be dumb?

You are promoting more debt, you are promoting instant debt, you are promoting an instant raid on the treasury.
You are proposing giving free money, potentially TRILLIONS in one day, to the bankers that have destroyed this country.

You can do more than one thing at the same time haarvik...

You want to add interest payments on top of interest payment on top of the debt.

What are you not understanding?

Are you done with America???

You want a new country?

Am I mis understanding you?

reply to post by Janky Red

There is no bankruptcy, you assume what happens to individuals will happen for the government. The outcomes are not the same... Why would you IMMEDIATELY tack on a much more expensive kind of debt to address debt? You really don't understand ....

On this you and I do agree ( SURPRISED???)

Here is what happens when a GOVERNMENT bankrupts:
It is the reason Iceland told the banksters to take a flying leap, the government was not going to bailout the PRIVATE banks with tax payer money. Nor was the government going to allow the banksters to place the blame on the government. (Seems some politicians actually grew some) See earlier post

Structural Adjustment Policies

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank. Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features....

SAPs generally require countries to devalue their currencies against the dollar; [ SDRs as new international currency cv] lift import and export restrictions; balance their budgets and not overspend; and remove price controls and state subsidies.

Devaluation makes their goods cheaper for foreigners to buy....

Balancing national budgets can be done by raising taxes, which the IMF frowns upon, or by cutting government spending, which it definitely recommends. As a result, SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most, because they depend heavily on these services and subsidies.

SAPs encourage countries to focus on the production and export....

By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result....

The term "Structural Adjustment Program" has gained such a negative connotation that the World Bank and IMF launched a new initiative, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiative, and makes countries develop Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). While the name has changed, with PRSPs, the World Bank is still forcing countries to adopt the same types of policies as SAPs.

A Brief History of Resistance to Structural Adjustment[/headline

In the dozens of countries where the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have imposed structural adjustment programs (SAPs), the people who have seen deterioration in their standards of living, reduced access to public services, devastated environments, and plummeting employment prospects have not been passive....
www.whirledbank.org...

Summer 1995
"Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind's eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. "

With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988.... www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

An update: IMF/World Bank Wreak Havoc on Third World by Davison Budhoo

Too bad that we and the citizens of every other country can not tell these vampires enough is enough and string them up.... I have rope and a horse.... feathers, anyone got tar????

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Janky Red

 

..I don't disagree with a single point of your sentiment... [to smallpeeps]

OK so we all agree on something the banksters (and the Bernanke is a hundred times worse that Greenspan) Are the real problem.


The emerging question, of course, is why the government should protect CDS bettors and not mortgage loan borrowers, shareholders or bondholders. ......

So any solutions?

Personally I would like to take EVERYONE involved in the mortgage bubble scam and drop them in the Atlantic trench.

Clinton, Bush, Bernanke......

Greeenspan is good?

I mean come on? are you $hitting us?

The man was busy greasing the system for this very outcome decades ago. You think this stuff happens
just like that?

Are you trolling now?

edit on 25-7-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

So my question to you of what YOUR solution is, is answered by an attack on me because I do not see Greenspan as being AS evil as Bernanke.

I answered why I think Bernanke is worse, so again:

WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION???

All I have seen from the democrats so far is increase the debt ceiling, increase taxes and increase SPENDING (Obamacare & Food Safety Modernization Act for example)

From the independents and Tea Party I see make CUTS on the spending of an over bloated central government and give the states back the authority that was taken from them.

Me, I want to kill the WTO and raise import taxes to bring them back to where they were. This taxes Corporations not people and raised import prices so domestic products can compete and therefore brings back jobs.
excise tax, see graph:




Look at the chart to see how we have been shafted!

Also not passing a budget has been done on several occasions. It DOES NOT lead to defaulting on the Federal Debt.

I found this interesting report: Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effect by Clinton T. Brass, Analyst in Government Organization and Management.

.... If interim or full-year appropriations are not enacted into law, the time interval when agency appropriations are not enacted is referred to as a “funding gap.”5 A funding gap also may occur any time a CR expires and another CR (or regular appropriations bill) is not enacted immediately thereafter. When a funding gap occurs, the federal government begins a “shutdown” of the affected activities, including the furlough of non-emergency personnel and curtailment of agency activities and services. Programs that are funded by laws other than annual appropriations acts (e.g., entitlements like Social Security) also may be affected by a funding gap, if program execution relies on activities that receive annually appropriated funding.....

I am an independent now convince me I should vote for the democrats....

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by TypeSH2001

 

Try voting for someone other than the professional politician then. You need only look in the mirror to see who is to blame for this mess. Once in a while we get a good one (Ron Paul) but normally we just keep renewing the same old fodder and wonder why it never gets fixed. It's our fault, and no one else's.

Actually i'm not to blame as i've never voted Democrat or Republican as i've always seen through the thin political B.S. paradigm along with the fact that both political factions (heads of the snake) work very hard and together, and spend a lot of money to ensure that a third party candidate has zero chance of getting elected.

I voted once in my life, and for Perot, not so much because I liked Perot but because the Bush's are as un-American as they get and Clinton, as I suspected, turned out to be about as bad (he ain't H.W. Bush's 'adopted' son for nothing, despite all the political talk and insults during their campaign 'battle' back yonder). The aggregate puppet gov't is as obvious as daylight and many are just realizing it - unfortunately for us all.

A big credit to most of you posting here in this thread.

I'm not saying who i agree with most but it's like a breath of fresh air to see people are starting to do research and not only think for themselves but have the guts to say what they think.

F]^k me if only half of our brain dead prostitues they called politicans were able to look ahead then we would not be on this path and if anyone is reading this and beleived this debt suddenly apeared as if by magic because no goverment experts pointed out the danger way back in 2002-4 then it's best you exit the room.

They can bring it on for me because i saw this coming years ago and stocked up on silver and the only reason i keep am eye on things is because i don't want to stock up on last minuite items after the shelves are empty.

Originally posted by Master_007

A big credit to most of you posting here in this thread.

[...]

i saw this coming years ago and stocked up on silver and the only reason i keep am eye on things is because i don't want to stock up on last minuite items after the shelves are empty.

Nice one Double oh Seven.

Sounds like you have a license to live. Haha, get it?

Handy things, those.

reply to post by TypeSH2001


If you only voted once in your life, then yes you too are to blame. You can't change things by opting out.

Why don't you people get off the rich bandwagon. The rich are not the problem in this country. The problem in this country is the officials we elected to serve us, not themselves. We have allowed them to spend out of control for too long. Taxing the rich isn't going to put a dent into this deficit. Only spending cuts, deep cuts, will fix it. It is time for our government to run like an efficient business and stop acting like money is endless. Cut things like foreign aid, stop waging war around the world, start auditing our expenses and eliminate $200 toilet seats! It's time to get real and trim down so we can have lasting financial success, not just so some idiot can get re-elected!

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by TypeSH2001

 

If you only voted once in your life, then yes you too are to blame. You can't change things by opting out.

Why don't you people get off the rich bandwagon. The rich are not the problem in this country. The problem in this country is the officials we elected to serve us, not themselves. We have allowed them to spend out of control for too long. Taxing the rich isn't going to put a dent into this deficit. Only spending cuts, deep cuts, will fix it. It is time for our government to run like an efficient business and stop acting like money is endless. Cut things like foreign aid, stop waging war around the world, start auditing our expenses and eliminate $200 toilet seats! It's time to get real and trim down so we can have lasting financial success, not just so some idiot can get re-elected!

The "rich v poor" propaganda only benefits the status quo in Wahington.. It's more of a tagline out of a TV commercial than a a viable economic approach that will help save our country. Defending or rebuking the whole rich v poor serves only to divert the public's attention from what the real problems are whence insuring nothing changes in Washington.

Ron Paul knows what the problem really is:



text from video:

Imagine you had a pesky neighbor who somehow took out a mortgage on his house in your name and by some legal trickery you were obligated to pay for it. Imagine watching this neighbor throw drunken parties, buy expensive cars, add more rooms to the house, and hire dozens of people to wait on him hand and foot. Imagine that he also managed to take out several credit cards in your name. One by one, he would max them out and then use your good name and credit to obtain another credit card, then another and then another. Each time, this neighbor would claim that he needed the new credit card to pay interest on the other maxed out credit cards. If he defaulted on those cards, your credit score would be hurt and when you wanted to buy something for yourself, it would be more difficult to get a loan and the interest you paid would be higher. Imagine that you mulled this over, and time after time, said nothing as he filled out more credit applications so he would not have to default on the other debt taken out in your name. Meanwhile, another shiny new Mercedes appears in his driveway. At what point do you think you might get tired of this game? And, even though you are left with no really good options, do you think you might eventually tell him to go ahead and default, just stop spending your money!

This analogy demonstrates the position we are in with our government and the debt ceiling. The government has run up a huge debt in the name of the American people, who are sick and tired of being on the hook for it. There are no really good options left. Defaulting on a portion of the debt may not be without costs, but it is better than handing the government yet another credit card.

The government is using the usual scare tactics to strong-arm the people into going along with more spending. Remember the rhetoric surrounding the big bailout of October 2008? We were told, not that this would be calamitous for the banks, but for the people, who would continue to experience massive job losses and foreclosures. We were told that the economy would sink into a deep recession if this money was not handed out to too-big-to-fail corporate cronies. So, after much hand-wringing, leaders from both parties, against unprecedented public outcry, agreed to shower money on the banks and increase the debt. The banks learned nothing, except that Washington will come to their rescue, no matter what. The people, however, continued to lose their jobs and houses anyway, and here we are, still in a deep recession.

link

I really hope the American people will wise up in time.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Okay, I have a plan. Legalize drugs. The poor have addictions. The better off have prescriptions.
Legalize, regulate and tax the billions of dollars that people in this country spend to get their private fixes.
Oh, gosh I forgot. The Mexican and Columbian cartels pay off our politicians to keep all of it illegal!

People in the USA have an insatiable appetite for drugs? Talk about outsourcing!

reply to post by crimvelvet


Far from helping Iceland, their actions have led to calamity.

Ongoing crisis - Read the entire thing. Iceland has applied for membership in the EU, and that helped them borrow a billion so they can stumble on...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Janky Red


Excellent post, among the many you have made.

Realize this, Only your willingness to embrace complete destruction in order to win can force your enemy to face his own destruction. If you are willing to die, you can do anything.

Originally posted by debbrown

Okay, I have a plan. Legalize drugs. The poor have addictions.

[...]

People in the USA have an insatiable appetite for drugs? Talk about outsourcing!

Actually the rich are the biggest market. Coke for example, is a rich fool's drug. Why not allow poor Americans to grow coca and sell it to the rich Americans? Damn its simple if you think about it.

But we don't even have any American brewers anymore, even the moonshine trade is over. Biggest terrorist of today? The Dukes of Hazzard.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

Only someone completely ignorant of history could make such claims.

Where ever you learned such nonsense, don't go there ever again. Those people are not your friends.

Regarding my claim that financially speaking Clinton was an irresponsible buffoon, who never once did a good budget. Where ever did I learn such nonsense? The US Treasury Department. You are absolutely right that the source of that information are not my friends and they should be avoided at all costs. Believe me, I'm taking what steps I can to do exactly that.

Clinton's term was 1993 to 2001. Now look at the debt by year from our source:
www.treasurydirect.gov...
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 (DEBT GOING UP DURING RECORD BOOMTIME, WHAT IDIODICY!)
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 (DEBT GOING UP, WHAT AN IDIOT)
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 (STARTING POINT)

Clinton began his term in 1993 with $4.4 trillion of national debt. Clinton ended his term in 2001. At the end of that year, the debt climbed to $5.8 trillion. Clinton is therefore a complete idiot because during the greatest financial boom the world has ever seen, Clinton never once said to anybody: "hey, maybe during our very best times it would be important to pay down the debt for rainy days". During that time people like Ron Paul and other free-market economists who understand economics (while YOU, poet1b, are clueless), were saying that a very strong recession is due ahead and the debt needs to be eliminated.

If you were in charge of the debt Poet, we'd be headed for a life-long disaster zone even worse than what you see today. Americans would be starving in the streets and you'd be to blame because you refuse to look at the simple facts of economics and would rather stuff your head in the sand. Free-market economics are absolutely proven to work in real life by all the numbers imaginable. But you refuse to look at them.

reply to post by civilchallenger


From your own source.

Under the hero of free market repubs everywhere, under that silver tongued con artist Reagan!

U.S. Gov debt tripled, over a 300% increase.

You, and the tea bagger wackos you support, are calling for more of the same that tripled our nations debt, while complaining about an increase in debt under Clinton, of less than 30%.

In relation to GDP, debt actually decreased under Clinton, while it shot up through the roof under Reagan, Bush I, and especially under Bush II.

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

year----------GDP-------Debt percent GDP
1980------2788.1--------32.60
1981------3126.8---------31.82
1982-------3253.2--------34.96a
1983-------3534.6--------38.81
1984-------3930.9---------39.80
1985-------4217.5---------43.09
1986-------4460.-----------47.54
1987-------4736.4---------49.53
1988--------5100.4---------51.00-
1989--------5482.1----------52.31
1990---------5800.5--------55.28
1991----------5992.1--------60.05
1992---------6342.3---------63.10
1993---------6667.4---------65.26
1994----------7085.2--------65.54
1995---------7414.7---------66.36
1996---------7838.5---------66.10
1997----------8332.4--------64.44
1998----------8793.5--------62.30
1999----------9353.5--------59.93
2000----------9951.5--------56.56
2001----------10286.2------56.09
2002----------10642.3------58.24
2003----------11142.1------60.67
2004----------11867.8------61.97
2005---------12638.4-------62.55
2006---------13398.9-------63.07
2007---------14061.8-------63.65
2008----------14369.1------69.5
2009---------14119----------84.11

Ah, but what happened when we had high taxes on the rich, and strong regulation during the fifities?

year----------GDP-------Debt percent GDP
1945---------223---------116.65
1946 --------222.2------121.96
1947 --------244.1------105.35
1948 --------269.1-------93.66
1949 --------267.2-------94.54
1950 --------293.7-------87.45
1951 --------339.3-------75.24
1952 --------358.3-------72.31
1953 --------379.3-------70.12
1954 --------380.4-------71.19
1955 --------414.7-------66.16
1956 --------437.4-------62.34
1957 --------461.1-------59.04
1958 --------467.2-------59.86
1959 --------506.6-------56.74
1960 --------526.4-------55.19
1961 --------544.8-------53.72
1962 --------585.7------51.72
1963 --------617.8-------50.23
1964 --------663.6-------47.63
1965 --------719.1-------44.82
1966 --------787.--------41.70
1967 --------832.4-------40.90
1968 --------909.8-------40.52
1969 --------984.4-------37.16
1970 --------1038.3-----36.69

So if you really cared about U.S. debt, then you would choose the policies that reduced the debt in relation to GDP, higher taxes for the rich, and stronger regulation of the economy.

That is if you are the kind of person who chooses to go with what works, rather than what has been proven to fail time and time again.

Let's give Obama his credit where it is due, since he is such a stand up, truth telling guy. Some facts for ya:

OBAMA'S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:

2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."

2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."

2008: " Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."

Wow, what a great leader! And you expect him to lower the debt?

reply to post by haarvik


And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

This is a fine example of the kind of ignorance you tea baggers cling to.

I for one have no problem with the whole broken system collapsing, i've known my entire life that it will and it has no relation to optimism or pessimism.
I believe that people deserve what they get and what's coming is deserved; you know that statement about when good does nothing in the face of evil...
Let Russia and China fight it out for sole Superpower status and good luck to them.
I only wish that I was born at an earlier time to have lived in the country when people had more respect for others and themselves.

The Phoenix lives again and again...it's a pervasive concept in all ancient cultures.

reply to post by haarvik


reply to post by robyn


You just proved my point!
Good luck to you (not really) because you're going to need it!

reply to post by poet1b


It's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault! That's what he says, when in reality he should be saying "It's my fault, it's my fault"! Blame everything on everyone else. By the way, did you see Obama's plan for raising the debt ceiling?

Neither has anyone else!

reply to post by haarvik


The fault lays squarely on all the morons who continue to support free market economics after they have been proven to fail so consistently.

Instead, you continue to make foolish claims. Yes, Obama has his own budget plan.

www.scoop.co.nz...

Obama's favoured approach is a budget plan that lifts the US$14.3 trillion debt ceiling, and sheds US$4. Trillion of US Federal Government expenditure... overtime.

This has been the same plan Obama has been proposing the while time.

Why do you continue to wallow in such complete ignorance. It is like you located the nearest pig pen, climbed in, and did a breast stroke through the muck.