Tea Party the cause of debt default.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Bull frealkin' crap!

This stuff has been going on for years, so
HOW IN HELL CAN YOU BLAME THIS ON THE TEA PARTY?

Give blame where blame is due.
Blame it on the 535 so called leaders of our nation.

Some things never change.

Members of Congress

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine working at the following Company?

It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:

•29 have been accused of spousal abuse
•7 have been arrested for fraud
•19 have been accused of writing bad checks
•117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
•3 have been arrested for assault
•71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
•14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
•8 have been arrested for shoplifting
•21 are current defendants in lawsuits
•In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving
Can you guess which organization this is? Give up?

It's the 535 members of your United States Congress. The same group that perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line.

source - wilk4.com...

edit on 29-7-2011 by Alxandro because: (no reason given)

You are spot on. This isn't about parties, it's about the Congress as a whole. They, collectively, have failed us.

Originally posted by civilchallenger
I claim partial credit for the debt default. I have not been paying my share of the debt and will continue to reject my share for the foreseeable future. The socialists, Democrats, and neocons who like more debt and/or more taxation can pick up where I left off. Or they can default on it and not pay. I don't care that much. I decided that not only do I have zero interest in funding a crime syndicate, and I'm also not interested in pay off a debt load that I disagreed to take on in the first place and looked at as unethical.

So the government should be expecting a refund check from you to help split up the cost for the rest of us for the wonderful things you enjoy as an American citizen. It sounds really cool to reject paying for things that make the world go around all while sitting in your safe American home on your safe American computer.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
It is used to make people think you either have to take more debt on or default.

None of this has anything to do with taking on more debt. The debt ceiling is about debt we already have. Raising it only allows us to pay that debt, not incur more.

We've defaulted before, and survived.
We need to default again.
If the Tea Party is going to get the credit for actually saving America, then so be it.

But looking for a strawman in this budget battle is funny.

It feels oddly satisfying to be labeled the "Dr. Evil" of the world.

Originally posted by beezzer
We've defaulted before, and survived.
We need to default again.

When was that?

reply to post by Crapspackle

1933
Linky

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Crapspackle

 

1933
Linky

Why is that the only source I can find for that story?

Originally posted by sevensheeps
as a Dutch guy I would like †o tell every american, you are all to blame of your default.

Whatever, it was gonna happen sooner or later.

United states of debt.


And your two party system is one that I find baffling. How can you run a country with two parties that always disagree with each other?




Peace

edit on 29/7/11 by sevensheeps because: spelling

typical of a foreigner to blame every american for what the government does.

what about those of us that live within our means and didnt want bailouts? got any wisecracks for us too?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Crapspackle

 

1933
Linky

Oh, because it is made up maybe?

The U.S. has never defaulted? Reinhart and Rogoff observe that the U.S., Canada, New Zealand and Australia have never defaulted in the traditional sense, but they admit that at least the U.S. has defaulted in the form of currency devaluation. Specifically, they mention the abrogation of the gold clause in 1933, which meant that debt paid to American creditors (from 1928 to 1946 the US had no external debt) was repaid in paper currency rather than gold.

source

Wanna go source for source and see who runs out first?

reply to post by Crapspackle

Dunno. I'll check.
I googled "1933 U.S. defaults" and got a ton of hits.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Crapspackle

 

Dunno. I'll check.
I googled "1933 U.S. defaults" and got a ton of hits.

Me too!

Difference is that I actually read many of them. The ones that make the claim you make come in two forms. Blogs quoting that American Spectator article and websites quoting that American Spectator article. Is that really all the research you did was google and count hits?

You said the US defaulted before like you knew what you were talking about. Now you just googled it and saw some hits huh?

Originally posted by Crapspackle
Wanna go source for source and see who runs out first?

Nope. Because that won't determine the issue. Whether you agree to what a default is or not, similar issues have occured in the past.

And we survived.

Originally posted by beezzer
Nope. Because that won't determine the issue. Whether you agree to what a default is or not, similar issues have occured in the past.

And we survived.

Ran out already?

Now just do like a big boy and admit you were wrong. Otherwise, I am still waiting for any proof the US ever defaulted before like you claimed. Either we have or you are wrong. Which is it?

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Crapspackle

 

Dunno. I'll check.
I googled "1933 U.S. defaults" and got a ton of hits.

Me too!

Difference is that I actually read many of them. The ones that make the claim you make come in two forms. Blogs quoting that American Spectator article and websites quoting that American Spectator article. Is that really all the research you did was google and count hits?

You said the US defaulted before like you knew what you were talking about. Now you just googled it and saw some hits huh?

I didn't realize I was talking to an economist.

Why not explain instead of making wee.

Are you denying that a default took place? Or are you denying the source I used? I'm simply pointing out that the U.S. defaulted on their obligations before.

Do you deny that it took place? Or are you just making noise.

reply to post by beezzer


economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

making noise myself

reply to post by neo96
Nice find!

On an aside. . . . I wonder if they'll blame the Tea Party for those 2 times as well.

Originally posted by beezzer
I didn't realize I was talking to an economist.

Why not explain instead of making wee.

Explain what? Are you not able to read the links and quotes I am providing where you provid none?

Are you denying that a default took place?

Yes.

Or are you denying the source I used?

Yes.

I'm simply pointing out that the U.S. defaulted on their obligations before.

I am simply proving you wrong on that.

Do you deny that it took place? Or are you just making noise.

Are you really unclear or is this your way of buying time? I think it is pretty clear I have called your one blog article false. Why did you need to ask if that is what I thought?
I actually provided links explaining all this to you. Maybe you can ask me about the parts that made you confused.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by beezzer

 

economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

making noise myself

Your noise has been debunked and you do realize you are saying Bezzer is wrong too, right? I hope he gave you a star for that. He did not give me one for pointing out he was wrong.

The 1790 Default. Shortly after the formation of the first United States federal government under the Constitution of 1787, Congress passed and President Washington signed the Funding Act of 1790. This act directed the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, to assume the Revolutionary War debts of the states, allowing creditors to exchange the state-backed war debt with bonds issued by the US Treasury. The interest on the bonds was deferred until 1801. A total of $21.5 million dollars was assumed.

Prior to the passage of the Funding Act, much of the debt was expected to default. It traded at deep discounts to face value. Once the act was passed, the value of the debt skyrocketed—because bondholders were sure they would be repaid by the new federal government. In fact, quite a lot of money was made by people who bought the state debt in anticipation of the Funding Act or with early notice that it had passed. Even at the time of the Founding, traders were profiting from informational asymmetries.

The Act also provided that the debt securities issued by the Confederation government that existed prior to the federal government would be converted into new federal bonds. The interest on one third of the value of the converted bonds was deferred until 1801.

So why is this described as a default by Reinhart and Rogoff? It’s pretty clear that the federal government was not defaulting on its own obligations. Instead, it was modifying obligations incurred by the states—either directly or through the Confederation—and assuming them.

This was almost the opposite of a default, since it made payment much more likely. That’s why the bonds rallied after the passage of the act.

The 1841-1842 Defaults. This was actually a series of defaults by nine state governments, including three states that repudiated their debt altogether. The federal government was not involved.

The 1873-1884 Defaults. Another series of defaults by states and cities. In total 10 states defaulted. West Virginia, the worst of the state financial basket cases, was still working out its debt with creditors by 1918. There wasn’t a federal government default, however.

The 1933 Default. In the summer of 1933, Congress passed the “Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value to the Coins and Currencies of the United States” which declared invalid and provisions of obligations of the federal government which were “purported” to give the creditor the right to require repayment in gold. The Roosevelt administration wanted to depreciate the paper currency, and thought the “gold clauses” contained in various bonds were an obstacle.

This is arguably the closest the US government came to defaulting. But this is more like monetizing debt than defaulting. It is closer to having the Federal Reserve inflate our way out of debt than what Rep. Ryan is proposing.

So no history of defaults?

source

Your noise was pretty low. Mine was louder.

reply to post by Crapspackle

Well, you're wrong. On all counts. But that's okay, puddin. We're all here to learn.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96

 

Nice find!

On an aside. . . . I wonder if they'll blame the Tea Party for those 2 times as well.

Um...his article claims 4 defaults including the 1933 one you are both wrong about. So counting is not your stong suit.