US to avoid default as Senate backs debt ceiling rise

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jak
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 104
  • Views Views 9K

Jak

Member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
6,655
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The US Senate has passed a deal struck between Republicans, Democrats and President Barack Obama to increase the US debt ceiling and avert a default.
BBC News - US to avoid default as Senate backs debt ceiling rise

Have people been following this situation? Been quite interesting really. Being half American myself and being in America right now was interesting to see what people thought and the media coverage too. It's a start but definetly not a permanent solution. Think Joel will probably have an opinion on this.... ;)
 
i also saw this on tv. interesting and debt free .... ?
 
Well, it had to be done, or the worldwide markets would've been hit pretty hard. Only viable option. I think anyway. Like you said, Joel will have an opinion, and it'll be a lot more detailed. I await with anticipation. While I wait, I shall look up any potentially big words that may be used lol
 
It amuses me how the republicans tried to take a greasy pole to the American and World economy to try and get one over the democrats.

I hear their debt rating's most likely going to get downgraded as well anyway. Everyone who cries about the cuts in the UK should take a good hard look at this and realise cuts > debt rating downgrade.
 
Well, it had to be done, or the worldwide markets would've been hit pretty hard. Only viable option. I think anyway. Like you said, Joel will have an opinion, and it'll be a lot more detailed. I await with anticipation. While I wait, I shall look up any potentially big words that may be used lol

Something had to be done yes but it doesn't solve the problem, just gives more time for a better solution to be found. Oh yes Joel will use the technical terms (being the economics guru he is :P). Would be surprised if curtis didn't grace us with his presence and post a page full post :P
 
It's a start but definetly not a permanent solution. /QUOTE]

yeah...uhm It's not a start. Obama already raised the debt limit to world record high's in his first year. And here we are doing it again.

Nobody in Washington really gives a **** about a "solution"
 
It's a start but definetly not a permanent solution. /QUOTE]

yeah...uhm It's not a start. Obama already raised the debt limit to world record high's in his first year. And here we are doing it again.

Nobody in Washington really gives a **** about a "solution"

I mean the cuts to save $2.1tn is a start to cut the debt but obviously is not a solution. Indeed raising the debt limit is not good but it beats having to default.
 
Every president raises the debt ceiling, it's a natural progression

_54368013_us_debt_464.gif


---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------

Officially law now:

BBC News - US avoids default as Obama signs debt bill into law
 
so 30 years of presidents is now "every" president?

You also don't notice the out of control spending within a 5 (6) year period?

The wars in the middle east have turned out to be much much more harmful to the USA than the terrorists could have realized. And I'm a war hawk and am very close to joining the army.

But this is not the place nor the time for that discussion.
 
so 30 years of presidents is now "every" president?

You also don't notice the out of control spending within a 5 (6) year period?

The wars in the middle east have turned out to be much much more harmful to the USA than the terrorists could have realized. And I'm a war hawk and am very close to joining the army.

But this is not the place nor the time for that discussion.

So you'd rather not spend anything so you don't need to borrow money? Pretty much every major economy runs a budget deficit and thus requires to borrow money from others. In an ideal world, they wouldn't have a deficit but they're required. If you borrow money it's natural you need to continually raise the level of debt due to factors such as inflation, bond yield rates and overspending (Last few years). There's nothing wrong with a country having a debt, it's when you have too much from overspending and you can't afford to have so much (a la Greece.)

Obama had to raise the debt ceiling because there was a rather large recession going on, and he had to spend to get out of it like every other nation did. Now they need to cut back because their deficits are far too high. The problems with the UK, US etc. are nothing to do with current policy by the government, it's the fact their predecessors all spent vast sums and lowered taxes during a boom, which meant when the recession hit there was nothing left to spend which required even greater borrowing. I'm not sure how you can complain about your country not defaulting on its debts, what's your issue with it?
 
So you'd rather not spend anything so you don't need to borrow money? Pretty much every major economy runs a budget deficit and thus requires to borrow money from others. In an ideal world, they wouldn't have a deficit but they're required. If you borrow money it's natural you need to continually raise the level of debt due to factors such as inflation, bond yield rates and overspending (Last few years). There's nothing wrong with a country having a debt, it's when you have too much from overspending and you can't afford to have so much (a la Greece.)

Obama had to raise the debt ceiling because there was a rather large recession going on, and he had to spend to get out of it like every other nation did. Now they need to cut back because their deficits are far too high. The problems with the UK, US etc. are nothing to do with current policy by the government, it's the fact their predecessors all spent vast sums and lowered taxes during a boom, which meant when the recession hit there was nothing left to spend which required even greater borrowing. I'm not sure how you can complain about your country not defaulting on its debts, what's your issue with it?

I've never once said id "rather not spend anything" There have been times in the US history where the debt has been minimal or even completely paid off.

Exponential growth of debt (which is evident from past 5-6 years) is a huge concern, especially when most of that invested money shows very little return (irresponsible spending).

You don't get out of debt with record spending levels that mostly go to expanding government.

Again, as I mentioned, I'd have to say the wars caused quite a bit of financial harm.

Where exactly do we stop increasing the debt? Never?
 
so 30 years of presidents is now "every" president?

You also don't notice the out of control spending within a 5 (6) year period?

The wars in the middle east have turned out to be much much more harmful to the USA than the terrorists could have realized. And I'm a war hawk and am very close to joining the army.

But this is not the place nor the time for that discussion.

Military operations cost what, 700$ billion dollars a year? Military spending has risen (from around half), but it's not what's caused the debt. The Fed printing 16$ trillion in secret bailouts (not including the bailouts that went to Gadaffi) then the 11$ trillion spent on the other bailouts that's what causes it (you know, the money that was supposed to stop the recession). Sauce - CNN, Fed audits.

Addendum - the debt ceiling is more like a debt goal and how quickly they can reach it.
 
"We're all living in Amerika, Coca-Cola, sometimes war^^"

I wonder when it will all blow up....
 
I've never once said id "rather not spend anything" There have been times in the US history where the debt has been minimal or even completely paid off.

Exponential growth of debt (which is evident from past 5-6 years) is a huge concern, especially when most of that invested money shows very little return (irresponsible spending).

You don't get out of debt with record spending levels that mostly go to expanding government.

Again, as I mentioned, I'd have to say the wars caused quite a bit of financial harm.

Where exactly do we stop increasing the debt? Never?

Won't happen again for a long time.

But that was before Obama's administration, I've made my feelings known many times about how stupid, incompetent and reckless Brown's spending was, so I agree with you on that point. I thought you were disagreeing with raising the debt ceiling, but there was no other viable option.

Agreed again and again.

There's been much fiscal damage done, so it'll be a **** of a long time. But cuts are at least a start, although I think you should have had tax rises to supplement the cuts, from what I heard most on wall street don't think the cuts have been deep enough by themselves.
 
Military operations cost what, 700$ billion dollars a year? Military spending has risen (from around half), but it's not what's caused the debt. The Fed printing 16$ trillion in secret bailouts (not including the bailouts that went to Gadaffi) then the 11$ trillion spent on the other bailouts that's what causes it (you know, the money that was supposed to stop the recession). Sauce - CNN, Fed audits.

Addendum - the debt ceiling is more like a debt goal and how quickly they can reach it.

Brown University estimated the wars to cost about 3-4 trillion, and I'm not even sure if that includes funding of research and projects.

but yes you did hit on the "out of control spending" that I alluded to.

But basically our plan is to increase taxes and take away from the citizen, and then spend even more money on fruitless (pork) programs without cutting spending to anything.

We've been hoodwinked, and a lot of people regardless of political affiliation realize it.

---------- Post added at 11:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------

Won't happen again for a long time.

But that was before Obama's administration, I've made my feelings known many times about how stupid, incompetent and reckless Brown's spending was, so I agree with you on that point. I thought you were disagreeing with raising the debt ceiling, but there was no other viable option.

Agreed again and again.

There's been much fiscal damage done, so it'll be a **** of a long time. But cuts are at least a start, although I think you should have had tax rises to supplement the cuts, from what I heard most on wall street don't think the cuts have been deep enough by themselves.

What was it, like 40 billion in cuts? Basically we gave the politicians a couple more years of uncontrolled spending (and palm greasing)
 
Brown University estimated the wars to cost about 3-4 trillion, and I'm not even sure if that includes funding of research and projects.

but yes you did hit on the "out of control spending" that I alluded to.

But basically our plan is to increase taxes and take away from the citizen, and then spend even more money on fruitless (pork) programs without cutting spending to anything.

We've been hoodwinked, and a lot of people regardless of political affiliation realize it.

---------- Post added at 11:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------



What was it, like 40 billion in cuts? Basically we gave the politicians a couple more years of uncontrolled spending (and palm greasing)

Seems about right - I was talking about per annum. However, it's more of an investment, as you'll have access to oil that won't be OPEC oil, essentially meaning you lower the price. A few friends of Bush did get filthy rich though...

Imho, if the US cut the spending drastically, then lowered taxes to prevent economic stagnation, it would pull out. There's too much power in the hands of too few - remove the power and you remove the ability to abuse the system.
 
Last edited:
Brown University estimated the wars to cost about 3-4 trillion, and I'm not even sure if that includes funding of research and projects.

but yes you did hit on the "out of control spending" that I alluded to.

But basically our plan is to increase taxes and take away from the citizen, and then spend even more money on fruitless (pork) programs without cutting spending to anything.

We've been hoodwinked, and a lot of people regardless of political affiliation realize it.

---------- Post added at 11:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:15 PM ----------



What was it, like 40 billion in cuts? Basically we gave the politicians a couple more years of uncontrolled spending (and palm greasing)

$2.1tn over 10 years in the deal that just went through I think.
 
I don't understand how the Republicans and the 'tea party' get support?

IF the US defaulted as the right wing in congress wanted they do realise that their economy would be on it's knees and we would be talking about severe stock fire sales on wal street?

How do they get support when if they got their wish of 3 Trillion pounds of savings and cuts WITHOUT stimulus from revenue going back into areas of government then how the **** can the 'average joe' support them?

If they had their way there would be so many more job cuts and losses it would be unbelievable.

I just can't see what morons watch fox news/vote for Palin/vote for the 'tea party'. They are complete morons with 'constitutional fundamentals' that may have worked as a policy, oh I don't know, 200 years ago.

Saddens me when I see the republicans and fox news having so many morons on their side, they blame Obama for the job figures yet if they were in the white house they promised ALOT more severe cuts. Fiscal responsibility can either be stimulus based or 'cut, cap and balance' based and Obama went down the stimulus route to keep the voters on side but the Republicans WHO ARE THE REASON FOR 70% OF THE DEFICIT because of their policies the US would have alot higher unemployment figures.

US Politics is baffling, who the *ck votes for these people?

And the scariest part is people believe that drivel Fox News put out and American's think Palin is a suitable candidate.

It's genuinely scary, I can see no spin on this that is good for the Republicans yet their approval rating continues to fly.

They just nearly sent half the worlds economies down the plug hole, nearly crippled their own economy for the sake of wanting to use it again as a political tool come next years presidential election?

Sickening.
 
lol, the right wing didn't want the US to default....

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

They wanted spending cuts. If the dems had their way, there would be not cuts, increased tax on businesses (yes let's drive MORE companies under) and an increased debt limit.

It would be like giving a 17 year old girl a credit card, and when she racks it up to the limit on lip gloss and stilettos, you increase her credit limit...........

....and when she reaches the limit...increase it again...and again....and again.

Where does responsibility come into play?
 
I don't understand how the Republicans and the 'tea party' get support?

IF the US defaulted as the right wing in congress wanted they do realise that their economy would be on it's knees and we would be talking about severe stock fire sales on wal street?

How do they get support when if they got their wish of 3 Trillion pounds of savings and cuts WITHOUT stimulus from revenue going back into areas of government then how the **** can the 'average joe' support them?

If they had their way there would be so many more job cuts and losses it would be unbelievable.

I just can't see what morons watch fox news/vote for Palin/vote for the 'tea party'. They are complete morons with 'constitutional fundamentals' that may have worked as a policy, oh I don't know, 200 years ago.

Saddens me when I see the republicans and fox news having so many morons on their side, they blame Obama for the job figures yet if they were in the white house they promised ALOT more severe cuts. Fiscal responsibility can either be stimulus based or 'cut, cap and balance' based and Obama went down the stimulus route to keep the voters on side but the Republicans WHO ARE THE REASON FOR 70% OF THE DEFICIT because of their policies the US would have alot higher unemployment figures.

US Politics is baffling, who the *ck votes for these people?

And the scariest part is people believe that drivel Fox News put out and American's think Palin is a suitable candidate.

It's genuinely scary, I can see no spin on this that is good for the Republicans yet their approval rating continues to fly.

They just nearly sent half the worlds economies down the plug hole, nearly crippled their own economy for the sake of wanting to use it again as a political tool come next years presidential election?

Sickening.

The Tea Party are complete imbeciles, but they didn't want to default. Both sides wanted a solution, but the republicans took it as an opportunity to try and embarrass Obama, which is just idiotic because if no compromise was reached I'm sure the voters would have remembered how dickish the republicans acted.

What's the point in making spending cuts and then having a stimulus? They cancel each other out. Cuts are needed, there's no two ways about it. People can whine how it's affecting people, but not one person offers a plausible alternative. The UK, US and many EU economies spent way above their means, and the only possible way to begin to sort it out is spending cuts for the next few years. Why would wal street have fire sales because of cuts? They wanted them. Many of the traders were saying the current deal isn't enough, America is perilously close to being downgraded by the borrowing agency which would be a complete DISASTER. There's no two ways about it, most of the major economies are in a financial mess, like it or not austerity is going to be needed in pretty much every major economy including the UK and US.

Obama went the stimulus route because the world was in recession, and the way you escape recession is spend your way out of it.

Unemployment figures can be deceiving. For instance, in the UK tonnes of jobs were needlessly created in the public sector, they add nothing economically and just add strain to the private sector. Public sector employment essentially pays no income tax, since that's what pays them in the first place. So the private sector which is already facing a struggle, has to then support needless consultancy and bureaucracy. Labour is also responsible for the majority of our deficit, by the way.

Rednecks and evangelical Christians vote for them. ;) They know how to spin propaganda and appeal to certain voters very well.
 
Back
Top