Geithner's letter to Treasury: "raise debt limit or U.S. will default"

[The Freethinker]

Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary. Failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States. Default would effectively impose a significant and long-lasting tax on all Americans and all American businesses and could lead to the loss of millions of American jobs. Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades. Failure to increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible. For these reasons, I am requesting that Congress act to increase the limit early this year, well before the threat of default becomes imminent. (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/letter.aspx)

Hope y'all got guns, ammo, lots of food, water, heavy clothing, PMs, and other useful stuff.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWxV_5WYVH4&feature=uploademail



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AEihOX8Liw&feature=player_embedded

[Romulus]

We have already defaulted and Timothy knows it.

[specsaregood]

We have already defaulted and Timothy knows it.

I like how easily Dr. Paul explained it in a recent interview. "Everytime the debt ceiling is raised it is basically us being in default."

[Matt Collins]

Rand said he can't imagine voting for to raise it...






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vVLYtOoGac&feature=player_embedded

[rp4prez]

Hasn't the government shut down before? Did we have chaos as a result?
:rolleyes:

[polomertz]

What about 1933?

[hugolp]

If the USA does not raise its debt limit global warming will destroy the world.

[ctiger2]

These people are helpless. Raising the debt ceiling IS a default.

[oldsmobile98]

Hold on a sec. What is the diff between voting no (Ron's position) and voting yes IF AND ONLY IF we have a balanced budget rule (Rand's position, according to this article (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-and-rand-paul-disagee-over-how-to-fight-debt-ceiling-battle/))?

[YumYum]

Hold on a sec. What is the diff between voting no (Ron's position) and voting yes IF AND ONLY IF we have a balanced budget rule (Rand's position, according to this article (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-and-rand-paul-disagee-over-how-to-fight-debt-ceiling-battle/))?

"but between the two Pauls, its interesting to see that the less alarmist, more realistic and eager to compromise Paul is the one who just started work in Washington today."

Rand may be of the two, "less alarmist" and "eager to compromise", but he is not being the "more realistic".

[JoshLowry]

"but between the two Pauls, its interesting to see that the less alarmist, more realistic and eager to compromise Paul is the one who just started work in Washington today."

Rand may be of the two, "less alarmist" and "eager to compromise", but he is not being the "more realistic".

+1

Ron had wise words in this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWxV_5WYVH4

Is putting your vote up for sale the way Rand's team should be playing this game? It's gone on for decades. (I use the term 'for sale' lightly.)

What good is a tarnished voting record when they inevitably overturn any kind of cap on the debt ceiling?

[Romulus]

I too think Rand will be making a mistake voting on any compromise with raising the debt ceiling. I think this is one of those issues that you can NOT vote for.

Ron is right.. it amounts to 'peanuts'

[japes]

I keep hearing conservatives like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul (and pretty much everyone) talk about how we must raise the debt ceiling since the consequences of default are too severe. They also say they will only vote to raise the debt ceiling if there are concessions on reducing spending. There is absolutely no teeth in their arguments. There is no threat to the other side. The ceiling will be raised whether or not concessions are made because the stupid republicans have already showed their hand by saying the consequences are too severe if we don't raise the ceiling! Idiots!

We should use this opportunity "raze" the current monetary system IMO.

[low preference guy]

i think Rand is gambling that they're not going to offer the balanced budget amendment and the spending cuts he wants so he won't vote for it and at the same time prove that it's the other side's fault.

[georgiaboy]

"Raise the debt ceiling or else economic Armageddon" is surprisingly reminiscent of "Bailouts & TARP or else economic Armageddon" back in '08, under the Bush admin. Still haven't gotten over that one. And I don't buy either one of these fear-based ultimatums.

Guess what happened when my family's debt ceiling wasn't raised? We cut spending so we could still live and cover our debts. It was painful, but we're still alive, and there was no Armageddon.

[georgiaboy]

i think Rand is gambling that they're not going to offer the balanced budget amendment and the spending cuts he wants so he won't vote for it and at the same time prove that it's the other side's fault.

I tend to agree.

[sevin]

i think Rand is gambling that they're not going to offer the balanced budget amendment and the spending cuts he wants so he won't vote for it and at the same time prove that it's the other side's fault.

bingo

[japes]

i think Rand is gambling that they're not going to offer the balanced budget amendment and the spending cuts he wants so he won't vote for it and at the same time prove that it's the other side's fault.

I'm definitely okay with that but I don't think many other "conservatives" have the batteries to take that stand. Here's an example of what I'm talking about from this article - http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/06/budget-cop-paul-ryan-no-naked-debt-increase-no-bailouts-for/


The country's debt is more than $14 trillion and rising, and is expected to bump up against a borrowing ceiling in early spring. Ryan (R-Wis.) said that "obviously we can't default." But he said his party won't vote to raise the limit without what he called real fiscal fixes. "I want to make sure we get substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling," he said.

The article goes on to say:

Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal, the questioner at the session sponsored by the non-partisan economic research group e21, said Ryan's strategy on the debt ceiling appeared to violate the adage that you "never take a political hostage you're not prepared to shoot." Since Ryan is not prepared to allow a default, he said, "how is that a winning strategy?"

I like Ryan but for heaven's sake he's making a really novice mistakes here. He's got to be willing to REALLY "default" (even though, as others have pointed out, we already have defaulted).

Rand's position could turn out okay. He's basically saying, I'll agree to raise the debt limit if you cut spending so much that we don't even need to raise the debt limit :)

[Matt Collins]

Where the hell are you people getting the vibe that Rand might vote for this? :confused::confused::confused::(:(:(

[Matt Collins]

Rand's position could turn out okay. He's basically saying, I'll agree raise the debt limit if you cut spending so much that we don't even need to raise the debt limit :)
Exactly. Rand is VERY careful in how he couches is words.

Think it through people....

If there are indeed deep spending cuts, then there is no need to raise the debt ceiling at all. Rand is saying that he will only vote for x if y happens. But if y happens then x will be irrelevant and unnecessary.

In other words, Rand will essentially never vote to raise the debt ceiling.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Geithner's letter to Treasury: "raise debt limit or U.S. will default"

Why is Geithner sending a letter to the US Treasury? You mean CONGRESS... but it doesn't matter, the letter should be sent directly to the FEDERAL RESERVE to just print a few Trillion more... that is all.

Here's a Classic: MSNBC/MSDNC/BSNBC "Debt Ceiling for Dummies!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7X9ENhE7t4

[japes]

In other words, Rand will essentially never vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Cool, I'm starting to like this guy.

[japes]

Here's a Classic: MSNBC/MSDNC/BSNBC "Debt Ceiling for Dummies!"

Ya, it's time to fire Lui.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KoWRh1Y9IY