• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House approves bill to end shutdown

you are going to effects of what happens, because of the not being able to borrow. ...i understand that

i am stating plainly.......we were never going to default..never. those were scare tactics of politicians in Washington.

going pass the 17th, the u.s. still has the money to meet its obligations, on the mandatory spending becuase of tax revenues.

however we would not be able to borrow any more money, .......so every dime of tax money for discretionary spending would have to be prioritized.

meaning we could meet our bills on things which government must do, however things which government does not have to do, would, ..........not likely be funded.........many things would be cut, its estimated the u.s. has 1 to 1 1/2 trillion dollars in unnecessary spending, it does not have to engage in.

from 1788 to 1995....it took the u.s. to reach the 1.5 trillion dollar budget mark, today just 18 years later........our budget is 3.5 trillion..in 18 years we have more than doubled the budget, then it took 207 years to reach.

Washington has the money to pay it constitutional obligations, but going pass the 17th, means no more pork, and uncontrolled spending, Washington would have to watch every dollar it spends.

except it was not just the people in Washington warning us, it was the entire world!
 
i do not know why simple math always fails........

Simple math is not sufficient!

the federal government collects taxes...many taxes..they dont stop...... they continue to flow into the government at a rate of over 250 billion a month.

Over the course of a year, yes. However, there is actually quite a bit of seasonal volatility with respect to tax collection.

interest on the debt is mandatory it must be paid...no matter what.

No doubt! The problem arises when investors no longer roll over their holdings and demand principal. Such an event could wipe out the treasuries ability to pay, and would be considered a default. As Don has pointed out, even if a massive computer programming project to prioritized treasury repayments occurs, a bug that delays payment -even for a few seconds- would be considered a default.

all revenues flowing into Washington would have to be prioritized to meet current spending.

This happens overnight?
 
you are going to effects of what happens, because of the not being able to borrow. ...i understand that

i am stating plainly.......we were never going to default..never. those were scare tactics of politicians in Washington.

Debt default involves failing to make debt service payments on time. Debt service includes maturing principal and interest. Your definition includes interest, alone. There was uncertainty as to whether the U.S. would continue to be able to borrow sufficient funds to meet its principal obligations. That level of uncertainty made it impossible to be certain that the U.S. would not default on its debt service. So, while one cannot say the U.S. would be assured of having defaulted on its debt service, one cannot say that the U.S. would "never" have defaulted on its debt service. However, the experience of countries that wound up in situations where they began to miss payments does not provide comfort.

going pass the 17th, the u.s. still has the money to meet its obligations, on the mandatory spending becuase of tax revenues.

The 17th was not the date on which the U.S. defaulted. It was the date on which the U.S. had no additional extraordinary measures available. The estimate was that it would have had $30 billion in cash on hand on that date giving it a narrow margin going forward. The CBO estimated that the cash balance would have been exhausted between October 22 and October 31.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44608-FederalDebt.pdf

its estimated the u.s. has 1 to 1 1/2 trillion dollars in unnecessary spending...

Whether spending is "necessary" or not is a matter of political and ideological view. That's entirely a different matter from how the government would have handled a situation under which its cash was eventually depleted and whether that situation would have led to its inability to roll over its maturing debt triggering a debt default.

from 1788 to 1995....it took the u.s. to reach the 1.5 trillion dollar budget mark, today just 18 years later........our budget is 3.5 trillion..in 18 years we have more than doubled the budget, then it took 207 years to reach.

Washington has the money to pay it constitutional obligations, but going pass the 17th, means no more pork, and uncontrolled spending, Washington would have to watch every dollar it spends.

One needs to put the those debt numbers into context by comparing them to the size of the nation's economy. The big fiscal challenge is in the longer-term, where the nation faces enormous imbalances. Reform--mandatory spending and tax policy--will be needed to address those imbalances. The U.S. still enjoys the flexibility to do so in a meaningful fashion without large-scale macroeconomic disruption. Any debt crisis that would have resulted from the failure to raise the debt ceiling on a timely basis would have been self-inflicted, not the result of an inability to meet those imbalances that still lie in the future.
 
It depends on what questions were submitted to be polled, who they polled, who commissioned the poll.

Poll numbers are nothing more than data to be manipulated, what results do you want.

More and more people every week seem to be going to the Tea Party meeting here in town every month.

Historically polls over all are very accurate. Good polls. And gallup and pew are some of the best out there.
 
Debt default involves failing to make debt service payments on time. Debt service includes maturing principal and interest. Your definition includes interest, alone. There was uncertainty as to whether the U.S. would continue to be able to borrow sufficient funds to meet its principal obligations. That level of uncertainty made it impossible to be certain that the U.S. would not default on its debt service. So, while one cannot say the U.S. would be assured of having defaulted on its debt service, one cannot say that the U.S. would "never" have defaulted on its debt service. However, the experience of countries that wound up in situations where they began to miss payments does not provide comfort.



The 17th was not the date on which the U.S. defaulted. It was the date on which the U.S. had no additional extraordinary measures available. The estimate was that it would have had $30 billion in cash on hand on that date giving it a narrow margin going forward. The CBO estimated that the cash balance would have been exhausted between October 22 and October 31.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44608-FederalDebt.pdf



Whether spending is "necessary" or not is a matter of political and ideological view. That's entirely a different matter from how the government would have handled a situation under which its cash was eventually depleted and whether that situation would have led to its inability to roll over its maturing debt triggering a debt default.



One needs to put the those debt numbers into context by comparing them to the size of the nation's economy. The big fiscal challenge is in the longer-term, where the nation faces enormous imbalances. Reform--mandatory spending and tax policy--will be needed to address those imbalances. The U.S. still enjoys the flexibility to do so in a meaningful fashion without large-scale macroeconomic disruption. Any debt crisis that would have resulted from the failure to raise the debt ceiling on a timely basis would have been self-inflicted, not the result of an inability to meet those imbalances that still lie in the future.

do you believe the u.s. would have defaulted on its debt, even if we never raised the debt ceiling?
 
i dno't think it is possible to manipulate the machines that process our payments on the fly.

oh, not raising the debt ceiling will create problems. however, those problems can be solved, but Washington, does not have the guts to do that, nor the will
 
do you believe the u.s. would have defaulted on its debt, even if we never raised the debt ceiling?

I don't know for sure in the short-run, but the longer such a situation persisted, the more likely default would have grown. There was real risk or probability of debt default. It was not zero and over a sufficient period of time, such risk would almost certainly have grown more likely than not.

Some pundits and political leaders tried to suggest that there was essentially no risk. That's incorrect. Their benign scenario requires the following proposition:

Debt default would occur only when Revenue < Interest Payments for a sufficient time to deplete cash on hand.

The correct scenario includes both elements of debt service (maturing principal and interest). Under that approach, debt default would occur when Revenue < ∑ Maturing Principal and Interest Payments for a sufficient time to deplete cash on hand.

There was no assurance that this situation could have been avoided even under a prioritization of payments. If Treasury prices fell, interest yields would rise. As October 17 approached, short-term Treasury yields were rising, indicating waning demand for those securities. Shorter-duration Treasury securities need to be rolled over more quickly than long-term ones. Rising interest yields could further undermine demand for Treasury securities via changing risk perceptions, leading to further declines in Treasury prices and further increases in interest rates. A self-reinforcing cycle between falling Treasury prices and rising yields would trigger a situation where revenue eventually fell below the sum of maturing principal and interest payments wiping out cash on hand and, thereafter, producing a debt default. Moreover, even under prioritization, there would be a significant macroeconomic hit. That macroeconomic shock would reduce incoming tax revenue, further narrowing the Treasury's ability to ward off the risk of debt default.

There is no empirical evidence that the U.S. would somehow be immune to the kind of sequence of events that have culminated in other countries defaulting or being rescued from imminent default via the IMF and others. The U.S., of course, is of a scale that makes an IMF or international community rescue all but impractical. Certainly, the U.S. has not been immune to other financial crises (2008 providing the most recent example), so to assume that it would somehow be immune to a debt crisis is almost certainly unrealistic. Moreover, unlike with the Fed's extraordinary financial crisis interventions, the Fed really had no good cards to play. The Fed's stepping in to buy maturing Treasury securities to assure that they were rolled over would amount to the kind of large-scale debt monetization that has been behind currency crises in other countries (with significant macroeconomic consequences).

In short, no responsible Senator or Representative could deliberately risk such an outcome. The consequences of either a debt and/or currency crisis were too great. Those who voted against what is an imperfect deal, but one that avoided the finite but difficult-to-quantify risk of debt default or currency crisis were the Fed to have tried to step in, were deliberately risking that destructive outcome. That's extreme recklessness. It is not principled leadership by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
We weren't at risk for default but we were on a downgrade watch...and were downgraded last time the debt ceiling was used as a political tool.

sure, it makes sense for the ratings agencies ot put us on watch... you never know when some numbskull is going to purposefully default on debt payments to prove a political point..
I don't put it past any of the congresscritters or anyone in the administration to be a numbskull.. it's not like we are talking about honorable, honest people here.

the simple fact remains, we were not going to default ( unless someone went full numbskull)... it was a fearmongering tactics meant to sway public opinion.... and it worked.
 
I think the Republicans are smarter than that..... they don't want to have this happen again, even closer to the election. They played out the hand and lost. The Obama care debate is now substantially behind us.

Really? Democrats unanimously voted for a Sequestration level budget, I don't consider that a loss...I consider that Dems getting played without even realizing it.
 
Really? Democrats unanimously voted for a Sequestration level budget, I don't consider that a loss...I consider that Dems getting played without even realizing it.

On one hand you are correct, sequestration level spending is a win for the Cons. On the other hand, it isn't a win because they could have had that two weeks ago, passed a clean CR and declared victoryInstead, they went for what was behind door #2, which was not attainable and, as expected they fell short, costing the US economy $24B in the process and embarrassed themselves. So, the net-net, is the Cons snatched defeat from the jaws of victory; which they are so good at (Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, Richard Murdock, control of the US Senate).

Good judgment and knowing when to quit are lacking on the right side of the aisle.
 
On one hand you are correct, sequestration level spending is a win for the Cons. On the other hand, it isn't a win because they could have had that two weeks ago, passed a clean CR and declared victoryInstead, they went for what was behind door #2, which was not attainable and, as expected they fell short, costing the US economy $24B in the process and embarrassed themselves. So, the net-net, is the Cons snatched defeat from the jaws of victory; which they are so good at (Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, Richard Murdock, control of the US Senate).

Good judgment and knowing when to quit are lacking on the right side of the aisle.

Sounds right to me. I called this shutdown needless and the GOP totally lacking of common political sense. All the Republicans had to do was look across to the other side of the Capital Building to see where the Democratic controlled Senate was to know defunding the ACA was a political impossibility. If they needed further evidence of the impossibility, all they had to do was took at who controlled the White House and his veto pen. My, My, My.
 
oh, not raising the debt ceiling will create problems. however, those problems can be solved, but Washington, does not have the guts to do that, nor the will

It's also a really, really, really stupid way to address the problem.

The sudden massive drop in spending would have effects throughout the globe. There would every potential for hundred of thousands to be thrown out off work, at home and abroad. We may be suddenly compelled to rapidly scale back our military. Foreign governments that are dependent (right or wrong) on our aid may collapse. It would become catastrophic for many people very quickly.

You are clinging to the "impossible to default" mantra like the debt interest is the important spending. It's a technicality.

We may have spending problems, but slamming the brakes on government spending would make things worse. There are better and smarter ways to do this that don't require all that turmoil.

The GOP just needlessly threatened to roll the dice with their futures, and the future of their families. There was no need to do it, and the outcome was completely predictable.

Some people will forget that and some won't. It'll matter on election day.
 
On one hand you are correct, sequestration level spending is a win for the Cons. On the other hand, it isn't a win because they could have had that two weeks ago, passed a clean CR and declared victoryInstead, they went for what was behind door #2, which was not attainable and, as expected they fell short, costing the US economy $24B in the process and embarrassed themselves. So, the net-net, is the Cons snatched defeat from the jaws of victory; which they are so good at (Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, Richard Murdock, control of the US Senate).

Good judgment and knowing when to quit are lacking on the right side of the aisle.

They wouldn't have gotten it so easy two weeks ago. They also gained some other concessions, without a "clean" cr. :shrug:
 
I think the american people were played... again.

the math doesn't add up to a default... it never did.
well, unless the administration were to purposefully default... but i don't think they would do that.

I think this was just the creating of a bigger showdown had it continued. Basically a battle over piecemeal funding over full funding of the government with the house arguing which programs they wish to fund and which ones they refuse to fund.
 
When you furlough contracted workers you are defaulting on payment.

defaulted on our debt.........meaning...... those we borrow from...china, investors.

the if the u.s. had defaulted on those lenders....if would be be able to borrow or it would have to pay very high rates to do so.

however the u.s has enough revenue coming in very month to cover its mandatory spending, also it has the ability to cut its budget, and to sell assets it has...the federal government has billions of dollars worth of property.
 
sooooo glad this shutdown ended. I was sweating bullets. The company where I work sells quite a bit to Los Alamos National Labs which was shutting down on Friday and they resolved this Thursday night.
 
defaulted on our debt.........meaning...... those we borrow from...china, investors.

the if the u.s. had defaulted on those lenders....if would be be able to borrow or it would have to pay very high rates to do so.

however the u.s has enough revenue coming in very month to cover its mandatory spending, also it has the ability to cut its budget, and to sell assets it has...the federal government has billions of dollars worth of property.

Either way you are supposed to pay your debts. The only point you made is that defaulting on the little guy is just a-ok.
 
Either way you are supposed to pay your debts. The only point you made is that defaulting on the little guy is just a-ok.

what I am saying it the u.s. would not have defaulted, on its debt obligations, thru borrowing.

which is the fear that was being discussed, because to default on that would mean the endless borrowing the u.s. has been doing would come to an end.

the u.s. has the ability to cut government and sell billions of dollars of property it holds, to continue operations of government, but those needed, not those for convenience.
 
Back
Top Bottom