There won't be a default because there's no pressing need for one: aside from morons like Bachmann, most of the House and Senate know this is a vote that has to be taken, and while you're allowed a symbolic protest vote, casting such a protest vote is only allowed if you know, to a dead certainty, there are enough votes to pass the thing, because everyone knows we can't be allowed to default. Most of the debt ceiling raises are done in one of two ways: at the last second as a one-liner, or buried in the budget resolution for a particular year, a mechanism known as the Gephardt Rule. This year, it looks like it will be a last second deal. The only reason for all the drama is a bunch of freshman Reps who don't understand what they're voting for, much like the freshman Reps of 1995 under Clinton, who were whipped into a frenzy at that time by Gingrich. This time it's Cantor. (Notice that they don't bother Republican presidents about this, even though this vote comes up a lot more often under them, because Republicans are only ever interested in cutting taxes for the wealthy, and if that causes deficits and debt ceiling raises, they'll just look at you and say "deficits don't matter.") They passed it in 1995 and every time it's come up since then, and they'll pass it now. A good read on the bottomless stupidity of this worldwide feeding frenzy on debt, from an economist who's actually capable of logical thought: Debt and Delusion
even if they came up with a deal right now, the damage to confidence is made already. USA shouldn't be playing with fire here, US treasury bonds still holds a premium that may be lost if these Washington bastard keep playing. They don't realize that USA is luckily enough to pay such low rates (for now on) in such lousy economic and fiscal environment.
look your losing the faith, the Bush tax cuts were projected to pay off all of the federal debts by the year 2011,,the year isnt over yet, it will work, just ask arthur laffer, were destined to be debt free in the next few months,
from Mohamed A. El-Erian: "The world economy is hard-wired to the assumption of a strong America, and Americans benefit from this. But the more their politicians argue over the debt ceiling, the greater the risk that the wiring will become irreparably frayed."
The beginning of the end of a so called "super power". Only thing left for the US of A is the military super power status. Ever thought of the possibility that the US army is taking over power? Not possible in a "democracy"? Since when is the US of A a "democracy" ?
Excellent question. Though it has never been a true democracy in the sense, say, that India is, it has, in the past, been at least a somewhat democratic Republic. But where exactly was the tipping point? Was it as late as Gingrich and the K-Street gang, or was it far earlier, or possibly even recent with the "Patriot Act"? We're desperately in need real historians to weigh in on this question. The question being: what was the tipping point between democratic republic and fascist demagoguery? One could argue that the seed was sown with insufficient preciseness in drafting the first amendment, or perhaps its peculiarly broad, and recent, interpretation by the Court. Another possibility would be the ignoring of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment by the Court in the Bush vs Gore election*, and still another would be passing of the 1973 War Powers Resolution or its subsequent dismissing by the Clinton Administration. But these are later events, and surely there were others, much earlier, that are good candidates. Chances are, it seems, that there was no one tipping point at all, but a gradual convergence of these and other events that led to the present political structure of the U.S. Nation. _______________________ *This was a most curious event to me, never explained, and ignored by the media (totally, so far as I am aware). And even today, when Supreme Court Justices visit law schools they are seldom asked about this -- out of politeness I suppose -- and the Justices themselves are careful never to broach the subject. If it should come up in a later question and answer period, the Justices adroitly sidestep the question--a question without any reasonable answer, other than: "a mistake was made". Equally curious is why the Gore camp did not challenge on the basis of the 20th Amendment. Surely it would have been a slam dunk, as they say. I can only conclude that they were convinced they had, indeed, lost Florida. My personal conclusion is that Gore would have been an intolerably weak president, and this is confirmed by his accepting defeat without a constitutional challenge --though, sadly, I was forced to vote for him in light of the alternative.
if i owed the bank enough money I wouldn't pay the bank a nickel. unfortunately for the US, in spite of the patriotic nonsense by ET posters, it is not in that position. "you'd think somebody somewhere would be able to work together to avoid default, and avoid increasing the debt load." ever try to put a square peg in a round hole it is undoable. there is no middle ground. ps fyi I know that you are Canadian.
debt ceiling is overrated. national health is dependent on 2 variables. labor and resources... USA has too much of it.. last time i'll say it. all this bailout, debt, armageddon scenario is to save the uber rich and the banks.
I understand your point, but it would have been bad form. Nixon was in exactly the same position as Gore in 1960, right down to being the VP of a successful and popular Prez, and he accepted the result, despite widespread and probably true allegations of fraud in Illinois. Gore could do no less. That doesn't make what the SC did any less banana-republic worthy; Gore's behavior, I hope, shamed them.