<p>I’m keeping my mouth shut as well, Consolation. I would not compare this to Y2K. Y2K was a purely technically fixable problem without (too much) politics involved.</p>
<p>I need a “Debt Ceiling for Dummies” summary of what is going on and being proposed. A personal flaw I have is not keeping up with the news… :(</p>
<p>LOL abasket! I am sure there is one being written as we speak!
Re: Y2K, 9/11…what I do remember about those times was a lot of uncertianty, mass confusion, and pockets of mass hysteria that could lead to bigger problems (like runs on banks). And yes, I also remember needing plastic sheeting for painting and none being available because the gov’t told everyone to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape in case of a chemical attack. </p>
<p>So it is hard to tell what will happen. A little planning to prevent chaos in your own house is not a terrible thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about making the paychecks of our politicians the last to be sent? Surely there are a few of them who are not so wealthy that they are not looking for their paycheck.</p>
<p>I think that whether we lean left or right we should let our politicans know that they have been elected to cooperate, compromise, and come up with solutions. I for one am tired of the grandstanders who proclaim: “I was elected to [blah, blah, blah–fill it in]…” Most politicians have at least as many voters in their districts who voted against them or didn’t vote at all as those who did vote for them–and that goes for both sides.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding. Take the next one, the “12-21-2012”. I think it is the biggest bunch of baloney! But if there are enough lemmings to start a stampede, I’d better have a stash of toilet paper and other staples…</p>
<p>MDMom, that’s exactly what I think! I remember when a company DH worked for was really short on cash. The management made sure that every worker got paid before they got their own paychecks. Sort of like the captain leaving the ship last… Unfortunately, for many of them having no paycheck will not make even a slightest dent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they can’t pass a balanced budget, they shouldn’t receive a paycheck at all! It’s time the voters demand that these legislatures (both state and federal) pass the balanced budget during the regular session. If they don’t, they should have to PAY US each day of special session it takes to pass the budget.</p>
<p>Markets seem to have shaken off the issue for now.</p>
<p>It is a non -event</p>
<p>Fwiw, i am currently,and have been short the market,so a panic would make me some money,though i don’t expect the debt ceiling to be the catalyst</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why there is opposition to increasing the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling only reflects money already committed to by actual, existing legislation. It’s as if we were a family with a mortgage on our house. We committed to pay the mortgage, we signed the papers. Now some people have suddenly decided not to pay it because someone says we committed to a monthly bill that’s too high.</p>
<p>We should argue budget when it’s budget time. We should argue the cost / benefit of a bill before it’s passed. Or you can argue changing existing laws in a rational, non-emergent way. But we should not argue whether to pay bills which arise out of budgets and bills that are on the books right now, and which are due.</p>
<p>I agree with dstark post #19.</p>
<p>I would add that I am hoping everyone sells their stocks so I can guy the good ones I missed at a lower rate. Obama will pay seniors and the debt holders and the “crisis” will only last a few days or weeks, if that long. Once it ends, the market will resume to normal and if the cuts are actually significant and not accounting tricks, the market will go up substantially.</p>
<p>The greatest impediment to our long term growth is these gigantic deficits we are facing.</p>
<p>I think if we had significant cuts that affect the economy over the next few years the market would go down…(excluding cutting wars costs which would be bullish).</p>
<p>But…I don’t think we will have significant budget cuts…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm… if we have no balanced budget, it’s always “budget time.” It’s time we quit spending and start paying the bills we already have!</p>
<p>Nothing but smoke and mirrors imo. This is about a power struggle and nothing more. I call it a show off show down. Let the politicians fight it out. Keep them at it a good long time. </p>
<p>Besides we need to do something about Social Security now becuase it will be too late to do it later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I assume you agree with raising the debt ceiling? Because we can’t pay the bills we already have unless we increase the debt ceiling.</p>
<p>I’m going to try to write Debt Ceiling for Dummies and not be political:</p>
<p>The most important issue to understand is that we need to raise the debt ceiling to pay for things we have already bought. It’s not that if the debt ceiling is raised, the White House can go out and spend on new things. The power of the purse is in Congress; Congress has already authorized the expenses, and now we have to pay for them. </p>
<p>It’s as if you went out to dinner, and got a nice meal, and now that the bill comes, you say you need to go on a diet. Well, maybe you do, but you still have to pay for the meal you already ate!</p>
<p>Let’s suppose Congress fails to act, and the debt ceiling is reached. We wouldn’t even have enough money to pay for interest payments, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. We would have nothing for any other part of the government: no FBI, no Homeland Security, no FAA, no paying government contractors for services already rendered, nothing. We wouldn’t be able to pay our bills. </p>
<p>If you can’t pay your bills, the next time you borrow, your interest rate goes up because lenders don’t want to lend to deadbeats. That would happen, and would cause a permanent hit to GDP. A permanent hit.</p>
<p>Here’s a simple explanation from Republican Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the director of the Congressional Budget Office under Bush, and a top campaign advisor for John McCain:</p>
<p>[Eakinomics:</a> Raising the Debt Limit - YouTube](<a href=“Eakinomics: Raising the Debt Limit - YouTube”>Eakinomics: Raising the Debt Limit - YouTube)</p>
<p>I believe that one major expense (and it seems to be forgotten by members of both parties) has not been given enough discussion. We have never really budgeted for the expenses of the war for many years. Congress tended to pass the war spending bills as separate items. It worked well politically, but those numbers have added to this current budget imbalance. This is NOT a pro-war/anti-war post, and I will not blame either party.</p>
<p>When the war started we could have 1) raised taxes in order to pay for the military actions; 2) kept the tax base the same and made cuts to domestic spending and closed loopholes; 3) lowered taxes to increase personal wealth in the hopes that it would stimulate job creation. We chose 3 and decided not to factor war spending into the overall budget. </p>
<p>It is possible that if we brought the cost fo the war (past, present andfuture expenditures) into the talk, we could get both side to agree to adding revenue. After all, in all other times of war, the US knew that shared sacrifice was necessary to support our troops. As it is now, if Congress chooses not to raise the debt ceiling, defense expenses shoudl be on the table along with Social Security, Medicare, etc.</p>
<p>Should defense spending be on the cutting board? Absolutely. But I think we have to be careful to not cut too much from their budget because we have to maintain and continue to upgrade our military. The last time the military faced major cuts in the 1990s it came back to bite us in the rear end in the 2000s.</p>
<p>There are plenty of places to cut in the budget, but the politicians won’t do that.</p>
<p>Why not put a compromise in that allows for adding revenue (higher taxes) for military spending (in order to take that part of the deficit)? It would make the Republicans still look tough on the budget negotiations without abandoning the soldiers that were deployed under their administration, and the Democrats could work on negotiating without the fear that all the budget cuts were going to ride on the backs of the “sick, aged and poor”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand your point, but the reality is that we have ample money to pay for things we have already bought, namely the debt. We can pay the interest expense easy. It’s all the other stuff we cannot pay and the interest on the debt is increasing at a ridiculous pace as we pay interest on the money borrowed to pay the interest on the original debt. And so on. </p>
<p>speaking of the military. Can someone explain to me why we need to have massive bases in europe paid for by our children now that the commies are gone? Can someone explain to me why we have troops in South Korea instead of letting them defend themselves? Can someone explain to me why we have troops in Afghanistan now that bind laden is dead? Can someone explain to me why we have troops in Iraq? Can someone explain to me why our children have to pay for all this crap instead of us paying for it?</p>
<p>From a military perspective, the bases throughout Europe are their for our convenience. We don’t know where the next threat will be and we need to be able to move manpower and equipment to different parts of the world quickly. If something goes down in Asia, you will be glad that we have South Korea bases, as well as the bases in Japan. Without our bases in Germany, our troops would have to travel much farther for the medical care that is not feasible in a combat situation. As for Iraq, we are getting out of there according to schedule. Afghanistan remains a cluster%^%&, and I would not begin to be able to discuss this without being absolutely political, which is not allowed.</p>