Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 82 of 82

Thread: Moody's offers different view on debt limit

  1. #81
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Moody's offers different view on debt limit

    Quote Originally Posted by NIMBY View Post
    Repub ratings on women's issue is another point Reince priebus noted that needs help..
    That's a perception change.

    The Repub Congressman who mentally abused a FEMALE ranger..
    That's a rediculous point given all the unabashed disrespect Democrats show to women. It's not like this Republican waived his weiner at her.

    If you haven't noticed a different tone to women than men from the GOP, .........
    I haven't. In fact I've seen more than a few women appointed to very senior positions under GOP administrations. Care to elaborate on this "tone"?
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,773

    Re: Moody's offers different view on debt limit

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    Moody's is correct. Refusing to raise the debt limit does not guarantee a default. They are not one and the same.
    No, it's doesn't. But what refusing to raise the debt ceiling (limit) will do is bring uncertainty to the markets. Again, we have to keep in mind what the debt ceiling truly does - allows the U.S. Treasury to borrow money, as needed, to pay its current debt (credit) obligations because it hasn't raised enough revenue to cover the expenditures. It's not about borrowing more money to pay for things Congress wants to appropriate or has appropriated most recently, i.e., within the last 2-5 years. It's about having the ability to pay for those things Congress has already said it would pay for and payments are now starting to come due.

    Now, I get what Spkr Boehner is saying here (even if it slips by most people including those who claim to know more about government finances than I do). Boehner has stated he would not bring a clean debt limit bill before the House unless it came with a condition not to "reprioritize debt". What he's really saying is "Treasury Sec, you can't keep putting off payments further down the line. Pay the debt the government owes." Problem: NOT ENOUGH REVENUE TO COVER THE COST in the short-term! This is why both the President and conservative Republicans have been seeking a long-term budget solution. Of course, we'll never get there if Republicans aren't willing to give on raising revenue (tax increases or the elimination of some hefty tax credits beloved by the wealth-class) and Democrats aren't willing to reform some entitlement programs.

    If this country is ever going to resolve it's financial problems, BOTH SIDES NEED TO GIVE! And in the event that they don't, we, the people need to get smarter which means learning more about the issues from more than just from our own partisan points of view and vote for candidates who will seek more from within the middle-ground.

    Third Party candidate anyone?
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •