jhay78;879603 wrote:If you think that by not extending the debt ceiling, the US government would've defaulted to its creditors, you might be the simplest of the simple-minded. Most of the wacko Tea Partiers and Mrs. Bachmann stated clearly that interest on the debt should be paid first (meaning no default). Monthly revenues to the federal government are more than enough (about 10 times in fact) to service US debt. Obviously not all government obligations would have been met, but default was not an option.

Correct, of all the lies told surrounding the debt ceiling "crisis", saying that without an increase, a default was unavoidable was probably the most heinous.

stlouiedipalma;879174 wrote:Almost right about the Tea Party. They want to pay the bills, but only those bills they feel are important to their ideology. They and their de facto leader, Ms. Bachmann, were strongly in favor of default by not extending the debt ceiling, and that's a fact.

Perhaps we should leave it all up to the Tea Party and their idiot supporters. Before that happens, however, I will want to liquidate my investments and savings to prepare for the financial nuclear winter which will follow their misguided and amateurish fiscal policies. You folks seem to think it is all so simple. It is, if you are simple-minded and follow fools like Bachmann, Perry et al.

To be honest I don't have a clue to what you're talking about but far be it for me to "let a good crisis go to waste."

First, I thought you ultra-lefties thought Palin was the de facto leader of the Tea Party? :rolleyes:

Second, the Tea Party Repubs in Congress didn't favor default because they were opposed to raising the debt ceiling. They simply wanted far more spending cuts than the Dems would allow. If they held out for more cuts at the risk of default, they were simply leveraging their power. Keep in mind that your liberal Congressional bed buddies had near Super Majority status and couldn't come up with even a simple budget plan. PLUS you still control the WH and the Senate. WOW...Put a few adult "Tea Baggers" in the mix and you lefties cry like babies.

Third, "misguided and amateurish fiscal policies"? Really? Are you saying ObamaKare, $800 billion in porkulus spending, etc. are examples of sound, professional fiscal policy for example? LMAO

We should have defaulted....much, much better in the long run. Better yet, we should just repudiate the national debt...at least certain segments of it. What's China gonna do if we tell them to go pound salt? Stop importaing their junk? Bwahahaha...we don't need to be buying their junk with our credit cards anyhoo.

Footwedge;879675 wrote:We should have defaulted....much, much better in the long run. Better yet, we should just repudiate the national debt...at least certain segments of it. What's China gonna do if we tell them to go pound salt? Stop importaing their junk? Bwahahaha...we don't need to be buying their junk with our credit cards anyhoo.

Works for me. :thumbup:

queencitybuckeye;879637 wrote:Correct, of all the lies told surrounding the debt ceiling "crisis", saying that without an increase, a default was unavoidable was probably the most heinous.

I guess if they just repeat it enough times, it automatically becomes true. :thumbdown:

fish82;879581 wrote:Dude, I get calls from Obamabots every week asking me to help bring down Boehner before he sets the planet on fire or some such crap.
Everyone works off the same call lists.

It must be frustrating for you that these idiot teabaggers are kicking the shiznit out of you people on a daily basis.

Actually, fish, this is the first time I've been contacted by either political party.

I suppose my view of the Tea Party might be a little biased, since the only people I know who agree with the Tea Party are more interested in NASCAR and the next tailgate party than anything the government does.

jhay78;879603 wrote:If you think that by not extending the debt ceiling, the US government would've defaulted to its creditors, you might be the simplest of the simple-minded. Most of the wacko Tea Partiers and Mrs. Bachmann stated clearly that interest on the debt should be paid first (meaning no default). Monthly revenues to the federal government are more than enough (about 10 times in fact) to service US debt. Obviously not all government obligations would have been met, but default was not an option.

When you cannot meet your contractual obligations to pay your creditors, that's default. You see, the problem with you and the Tea Party is that you feel that you can pick and choose what gets paid. Try that with your personal creditors and see where that gets you.

stlouiedipalma;880702 wrote:When you cannot meet your contractual obligations to pay your creditors, that's default. You see, the problem with you and the Tea Party is that you feel that you can pick and choose what gets paid. Try that with your personal creditors and see where that gets you.

See, the problem with you and others who mindlessly bash the Tea Party is that you parade the term "default" for any and all instances where the government can't meet its obligations. The backwardness of that idea is that the Department of Agriculture, Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs, etc. are not our creditors, meaning that if we fail to satisfy those obligations we don't face higher interest rates, credit downgrades, etc.

Nobody was saying there wouldn't be unpleasant consequences for failure to pay certain items in the budget (which would be akin to a temporary government shutdown), but that's not the same as defaulting to people who let us borrow money (you know, creditors). The dreaded "brink of default" would have come if the interest on the debt were not paid, not if some other obligations were temporarily delayed after Aug. 2nd.

But why use sound reason and logic when you can score political points by scaring the crap out of people?