BOHENER CANCELS TAX BILL VOTE

[itshappening]

Boehner has withdrawn his tax bill as he doesn't have the votes to pass it!

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121205194059/simpsons/images/e/e9/Nelson_Ha-Ha.jpg


This is despite him and his henchmen Eric Cantor claiming (and lying) to have the votes to pass it...


Time for him to GO!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3MJYF6S4zQ

[LibertyEagle]

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/256/5/d/happy_cat_dance__animation__by_redfoxfurry-d2ynsol.gif

:D

[angelatc]

Nancy Pelosi is evil, but she's twice the man Boehner is.

[Agorism]

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/256/5/d/happy_cat_dance__animation__by_redfoxfurry-d2ynsol.gif

:D

I still think plan B was a good bill at least from what I superficially know about it so long as it wasn't used as a trade for debt ceiling increase.

[hardrightedge]

This whole thing is a work...Fuck the Cliff!

[sailingaway]

I still think plan B was a good bill at least from what I superficially know about it so long as it wasn't used as a trade for debt ceiling increase.

Dunno. And now it has been pulled, I may never know.

[LibertyEagle]

I still think plan B was a good bill at least from what I superficially know about it so long as it wasn't used as a trade for debt ceiling increase.

No, it wasn't. It increased taxes on dividends and capital gains. Beyond that, the discussion shouldn't be about raising taxes AT ALL. They should be talking about drastic cuts to government.

[Brett85]

No, it wasn't. It increased taxes on dividends and capital gains. Beyond that, the discussion shouldn't be about raising taxes AT ALL. They should be talking about drastic cuts to government.

But the alternative to not getting a deal passed is that tax rates will go up for every single American. How is that better than passing a bill that extends the current marginal tax rates for 99% of the American people?

[Dr.3D]

No, it wasn't. It increased taxes on dividends and capital gains. Beyond that, the discussion shouldn't be about raising taxes AT ALL. They should be talking about drastic cuts to government.
For sure. That's the only sensible solution to the problem.

[Agorism]

No, it wasn't. It increased taxes on dividends and capital gains. Beyond that, the discussion shouldn't be about raising taxes AT ALL. They should be talking about drastic cuts to government.

Above what they would have been if no bill at all passes?

From my understanding those rates go up no matter what.

[itshappening]

They rejected it because they didn't want to be seen to be voting for a tax rise of any kind. Conservative groups warned that anyone voting for it will be in deep trouble.

They should listen to Rand and vote present on the senate bill next week and that should I think extend the tax rates for everyone below 250k but i'm sure it will contain a lot of other nasty things.

[sailingaway]

But the alternative to not getting a deal passed is that tax rates will go up for every single American. How is that better than passing a bill that extends the current marginal tax rates for 99% of the American people?

Yeah, but I'd have to see the bill to know what was actually in it and since it failed....

I do wonder what Ron would have voted. But presumably there was a test vote in caucus and it failed.

[itshappening]

And Boehner and Cantor bluffing all day, threatening to purge more members I'm sure did him no favors.

He needs to resign really. I can't see him surviving much longer.

[sailingaway]

Above what they would have been if no bill at all passes?

From my understanding those rates go up no matter what.

Yes they do, automatically. As well as the taxes that wouldn't have gone up if this passed. And the Dems voted against it because they are going to push for more taxes.

However, it is off the table, now, one way or the other. I don't know that that is a bad thing. It is easy to wonder when you don't know what is in it.

[Brett85]

Yeah, but I'd have to see the bill to know what was actually in it and since it failed....

I do wonder what Ron would have voted. But presumably there was a test vote in caucus and it failed.

I believe Ron would've voted for it unless it contained an increase in the debt ceiling. He voted in favor of a bill to extend the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 a year in almost the exact same situation.

[jj-]

Justin Amash for Speaker!

[sailingaway]

I believe Ron would've voted for it unless it contained an increase in the debt ceiling. He voted in favor of a bill to extend the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 a year in almost the exact same situation.

I know, and I agree that if that was the only issue it raised he would have voted for it, likely. He wants to minimize taxes. But I don't know if that WAS the only consideration.

[sailingaway]

Justin Amash for Speaker!

I wish!

[sailingaway]

I HATE quoting Cantor, but:

Eric Cantor ‏@GOPLeader
The House of Representatives has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed.

[tsai3904]

No, it wasn't. It increased taxes on dividends and capital gains.

I don't think it raises taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Here's the bill for everyone to read. It's hard to understand though because you have to reference a bunch of other laws.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/BILLS-112hjres66-HAmdt2.pdf

[Confederate]

Why were the "Bush tax cuts" only temporary? What logic did that have?

[Confederate]

I don't think it raises taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Here's the bill for everyone to read. It's hard to understand though because you have to reference a bunch of other laws.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/BILLS-112hjres66-HAmdt2.pdf

It does, from 15% to 20% above $250,000.

[Keith and stuff]

But the alternative to not getting a deal passed is that tax rates will go up for every single American. How is that better than passing a bill that extends the current marginal tax rates for 99% of the American people?

This bill wasn't designed to pass anything other than the US House. So your argument doesn't make any sense.

[Brett85]

I HATE quoting Cantor, but:

Eric Cantor ‏@GOPLeader
The House of Representatives has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed.

Wow, we might go off the fiscal cliff after all.

[Brett85]

This bill wasn't designed to pass anything other than the US House. So your argument doesn't make any sense.

The bill was designed to protect Republicans from criticism if we end up going off the fiscal cliff. It was good politics. (And I'm usually not a fan of ANYTHING that John Boehner comes up with)

[tsai3904]

It does, from 15% to 20% above $250,000.

Is that from the bill I linked or is that because the law would have expired and the rate would have gone up?

[itshappening]

Wow, we might go off the fiscal cliff after all.

They're back next Thursday, that means they have plenty of time to pass something.

Hopefully they vote "present" and listen to Rand Paul rather than follow the failed strategy Boehner has been insisting on. I knew it was doomed to fail.

[thoughtomator]

Begun, the Republican Civil War has...

[Brett85]

Why were the "Bush tax cuts" only temporary? What logic did that have?

I imagine that Bush didn't have the votes to make the tax cuts permanent, so they included a sunset clause in order to get the votes to pass the tax cuts.

[sailingaway]

I don't think it raises taxes on dividends and capital gains.

Here's the bill for everyone to read. It's hard to understand though because you have to reference a bunch of other laws.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/BILLS-112hjres66-HAmdt2.pdf

Yeah, I'd have to compare it to the actual act to be sure. There could have been something sneaky, but it looks from just reading that as if all it did was make at least some tax cuts, including to dividends and expensing, and relief from the alternate minimum tax, permanent.

But it refers to a lot of subsections of acts which aren't shown to read properly.

[itshappening]

GOP has 7 less seats in the next congress which means Boehner can be more easily defeated by an unruly caucus.

He should just resign as his position is becoming increasingly untenable .

[sailingaway]

Is that from the bill I linked or is that because the law would have expired and the rate would have gone up?

It goes up regardless unless something passed. What the bill you linked SEEMS to do is at least remove the automatic rise in tax from those making under $250.000 per year. That's without double checking all the citations, though.

[jj-]

GOP has 7 less seats in the next congress which means Boehner can be more easily defeated by an unruly caucus.

If Cantor or the whip becomes speaker, not much changes. Someone who isn't part of leadership should be speaker.

[itshappening]

If Cantor or the whip becomes speaker, not much changes. Someone who isn't part of leadership should be speaker.

Cantor would not even be considered if Boehner resigned, not after his antics today of lying and saying they had the votes. He looks just as stupid as Boehner and so does McCarthy who I am sure was also behind the scenes trying to threaten members.

They need to clear out the whole leadership and hopefully they will do it.

Conservative groups support Rep. Jim Jordan and there's a few others who could be good at it.

[torchbearer]

vote of no confidence.

[Agorism]

Norquist signed off on the bill.

I think it was good. Whatever the senate produces will be much worse and will probably include a debt ceiling increase (and therefor no Pentagon and domestic cuts that were automatic if the debt ceiling increase fails)

[Agorism]

Boehner's heavy handedness of kicking people off committees won't end reflecting well on him if its costing him votes though (though I think that's a dumb\childish way to vote on a bill based on Boehner dislike\revenge)

[torchbearer]

Norquist signed off on the bill.

I think it was good. Whatever the senate produces will be much worse and will probably include a debt ceiling increase (and therefor no Pentagon and domestic cuts that were automatic if the debt ceiling increase fails)

can the senate originate such legislation, or am I thinking about constitutional government again?

[torchbearer]

Boehner's heavy handedness of kicking people off committees won't end reflecting well on him if its costing him votes though (though I think that's a dumb\childish way to vote on a bill based on Boehner dislike\revenge)

well, if Boner's bill had any tax increases, some conservative may still be opposed to it. to give it 1% of the principle is to give up 100% of the principle.

[itshappening]

Norquist signed off on the bill.

I think it was good. Whatever the senate produces will be much worse and will probably include a debt ceiling increase (and therefor no Pentagon and domestic cuts that were automatic if the debt ceiling increase fails)

there were other, larger conservative groups who didn't sign off on it and threatened anyone who voted for it with a primary.

That's why it failed.

[sailingaway]

well, if Boner's bill had any tax increases, some conservative may still be opposed to it. to give it 1% of the principle is to give up 100% of the principle.

It doesn't seem to have had increases but it only prevented the automatic increase when the Bush tax cuts expire for those making under $250K per year. Last time there was a bill like that Ron voted for it, for the same reason his response to half the country not paying tax is, "We're half way there!"

but you have to cross check a ton of other statutes to be sure exactly what the bill says.

It did STOP automatic increases, though, not create new ones, from what I could tell.

[torchbearer]

It doesn't seem to have had increases but it only prevented the automatic increase when the Bush tax cuts expire for those making under $250K per year. Last time there was a bill like that Ron voted for it, for the same reason his response to half the country not paying tax is, "We're half way there!"

but you have to cross check a ton of other statutes to be sure exactly what the bill says.

It did STOP automatic increases, though, not create new ones, from what I could tell.
but there were increases? even if automatic?
what would ron do?

[sailingaway]

but there were increases? even if automatic?
what would ron do?

those happen without this bill, this bill would have stopped some of them -- for those making under $250K. If nothing passes both houses and is signed by the President, the taxes go up across the board, including for those this would have prevented that happening to.

It stopped expiration of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250K.

If that was CLEANLY the bill (and as I said there were hard to follow incorporations) Ron did vote FOR something similar before, on the grounds that it raised taxes on no one by itself and prevented taxes from going up on some. That is probably why Norquist approved this one.

But it was all tangled in a challenge to Boehner's leadership after the purge....

[torchbearer]

those happen without this bill, this bill would have stopped some of them -- for those making under $250K. If nothing passes both houses and is signed by the President, the taxes go up across the board, including for those this would have prevented that happening to.

It stopped expiration of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250K.

If that was CLEANLY the bill (and as I said there were hard to follow incorporations) Ron did vote FOR something similar before, on the grounds that it raised taxes on no one by itself and prevented taxes from going up on some. That is probably why Norquist approved this one.

But it was all tangled in a challenge to Boehner's leadership after the purge....

why don't they just make all the tax cuts permanent. no new spending.
GOP needs to take that position or the position of letting the democrats have everything they want and let them own the consequences.
Boehner wants to keep his cookie jar full.

[sailingaway]

why don't they just make all the tax cuts permanent. no new spending.
GOP needs to take that position or the position of letting the democrats have everything they want and let them own the consequences.
Boehner wants to keep his cookie jar full.

I think Boehner, who wrote this, was trying to say he didn't hold the middle class hostage to tax cuts for the rich, which is how Obama is trying to spin it, and make the Dems in the senate vote down a bill that would have at least alleviated the problem for the middle class. That would politically make it 'their problem'. Ron, Amash etc had no say in the framing of the bill though, and could only vote on what was in front of them. The Dems voted no to get MORE taxes. I don't see the next bill being better, but I hope I'm wrong.

Beohner didn't make it for everyone because he is a gutless wonder. You already know that.

IN any event, we didn't get to see Ron's vote because Boehner apparently had a vote in caucus, lost, and pulled the bill.

[itshappening]

What about voting present on the Senate bill that's already passed?

tsai, do you know what's in the the Senate bill or what it does?

I suspect it has some bad stuff in there as well as extending the tax rates but this is increasingly looking like Boehner's only option.

[Brett85]

why don't they just make all the tax cuts permanent. no new spending.

Because that would never pass the Senate, and if it somehow did, Obama would never sign it.

[itshappening]

There is a senate bill that;s already passed. I think it extends tax rates for those under 250k.

GOP members should vote present on it and let it pass the house with Democrat votes.

[tsai3904]

What about voting present on the Senate bill that's already passed?

tsai, do you know what's in the the Senate bill or what it does?

I suspect it has some bad stuff in there as well as extending the tax rates but this is increasingly looking like Boehner's only option.

I think the Senate bill is S. 3412.

From the summary, it looks like it would have extended the Bush rates for those under $250k but it would have raised capital gains for those above $250k from 15% to 20%.

Here's the roll call vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00184

[torchbearer]

Because that would never pass the Senate, and if it somehow did, Obama would never sign it.

you don't pass a bill because you think your opposition will like it. you pass it so they will reject it. but you make them reject the principles of your position not some crap compromise.
or you go the other route and let them go hog wild and wash your hands of the situation.

[JK/SEA]

you don't pass a bill because you think your opposition will like it. you pass it so they will reject it. but you make them reject the principles of your position not some crap compromise.
or you go the other route and let them go hog wild and wash your hands of the situation.

yep...and if we go over the 'cliff' it will be pointing the finger time, and we'll see how it turns out at the mid-terms...

[belian78]

you don't pass a bill because you think your opposition will like it. you pass it so they will reject it. but you make them reject the principles of your position not some crap compromise.
or you go the other route and let them go hog wild and wash your hands of the situation.
Well you see, according to the (we're lead to believe) more politically savvy posters here on the forums, we must work with and compromise with these unprincipled snakeoil salesmen. Work within their system, tinkering around the edges. And we all know how Ron felt about tinkering, right?

[LibertyEagle]

Well you see, according to the (we're lead to believe) more politically savvy posters here on the forums, we must work with and compromise with these unprincipled snakeoil salesmen. Work within their system, tinkering around the edges. And we all know how Ron felt about tinkering, right?

Where did someone say to compromise? Because I didn't see it.

[Brett85]

Well you see, according to the (we're lead to believe) more politically savvy posters here on the forums, we must work with and compromise with these unprincipled snakeoil salesmen. Work within their system, tinkering around the edges. And we all know how Ron felt about tinkering, right?

I'm simply taking the position that Ron himself has taken, which is that preserving the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the American people is better than letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/did-ron-paul-vote-for-a-tax-in

[brandon]

I haven't followed this too much, but does this mean my taxes go up Jan 1 now?

[sailingaway]

I haven't followed this too much, but does this mean my taxes go up Jan 1 now?

So far, yes, unless something else is passed and signed by the President.

[brandon]

So far, yes, unless something else is passed and signed by the President.

Is congress really going to work through christmas to try and pass something?

[sailingaway]

Is congress really going to work through christmas to try and pass something?

Apparently they have recessed tonight until after Christmas but will be back during the holiday after while this Congress is still in session. Per a Cantor tweet, but you know how trustworthy he is.

[mport1]

Man I love this situation. Hopefully more people realize what a joke the Feds are. Come on "fiscal cliff!"

[LibertyEagle]

I believe Ron would've voted for it unless it contained an increase in the debt ceiling. He voted in favor of a bill to extend the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 a year in almost the exact same situation.

I disagree. I don't think he would have voted for it at all. There were no significant cuts, to my knowledge.

[LibertyEagle]

Wow, we might go off the fiscal cliff after all.

That ain't the fiscal cliff. The REAL fiscal cliff is when countries like China stop loaning us money to pay the interest on the SIXTEEN TRILLION dollar debt (and growing) and when Bernanke cannot buy up the debt. Now, THAT is when the real fireworks are going to start.

There MUST be huge cuts to the federal government. That is the only thing that will cushion our landing when we crash.

[sailingaway]

The fiscal cliff only cuts the rate of increase in spending.

But the Bush tax cuts go away unless a bill preserves them.

[mport1]

That ain't the fiscal cliff. The REAL fiscal cliff is when countries like China stop loaning us money to pay the interest on the SIXTEEN TRILLION dollar debt (and growing) and when Bernanke cannot buy up the debt. Now, THAT is when the real fireworks are going to start.

There MUST be huge cuts to the federal government. That is the only thing that will cushion our landing when we crash.

Yep, but that is never going to happen. Only a matter of time before SHTF. Hopefully the Feds will just go away after they go completely belly up.

On the bright side, the world will be a much more peaceful place without the U.S. government's empire.

[LibertyEagle]

Yep, but that is never going to happen. Only a matter of time before SHTF. Hopefully the Feds will just go away after they go completely belly up.
Oh, I agree. Might as well propose something that would actually improve things. Rather than pass some piece of crap that while better than the Democrats piece of crap, is still going to increase the debt.


On the bright side, the world will be a much more peaceful place without the U.S. government's empire.
Unfortunately, I doubt that such a void would last. Expect the solution to be a world currency and world government. And the people are going to clamor for it too, unless we can do something about it.

[supermario21]

Jim Jordan is someone that can unite the tea partiers, fiscal cons, and libertarians. We need to push him now.

[sailingaway]

Jim Jordan is someone that can unite the tea partiers, fiscal cons, and libertarians. We need to push him now.

I don't know him, but some are pushing Bachmann, and I know I don't support her.

How is he on civil liberties?

[itshappening]

Bachmann can hardly even win her district, she is not being pushed by anyone and is an idiot and an embarrassment to the party.

Putting her on prime time TV every day and in leadership would be the dumbest thing the GOP has ever done and they've done a lot of terrible things over the years!

[itshappening]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jordan_%28Ohio_politician%29

Jordan isn't perfect, he's tried to bring home the bacon in military spending to his district though he has made some tough votes over the years and has a decent record.

We could certainly do worse.

[supermario21]

He rates as a libertarian leaning conservative on Ontheissues. He doesn't seem to be the best on liberties but is really good on fiscal issues, especially of late when I've been following a few of his votes.

[sailingaway]

I don't expect anyone perfect to be able to win speaker but I'd like someone at least not HOSTILE to civil liberties and who would know they needed us....

But Boehner really should go after that purge. NOT Cantor or Ryan who also were for it, though.

[LibertyEagle]

Jim Jordan is someone that can unite the tea partiers, fiscal cons, and libertarians. We need to push him now.

Nope. Sorry. He voted to extend the Patriot Act and voted for the stimulus. My eyes are crossing right now from being tired, so someone else should double-check whether he voted for the NDAA the year that the indefinite detention BS was in there. My guess is yes, he did.

Oh, and he also seems to like the crappy managed trade agreements.

[supermario21]

He did vote for NDAA, :(. My only question is who can we put up that can actually win. Of course I'd rather have a Mulvaney, Jones, Amash-type but we need to find someone that can defeat the establishment candidate Boehner.

[LibertyEagle]

Most anyone half-way decent was on that purge list. lol

[LibertyEagle]

I know, I know. Thomas Massie.

:D

[Bastiat's The Law]

But the alternative to not getting a deal passed is that tax rates will go up for every single American. How is that better than passing a bill that extends the current marginal tax rates for 99% of the American people?
The American people also voted in Obama so you reap what you sow. Let the Dems own ALL the tax increases just like Rand said to do. The backlash would be shift.

[sailingaway]

The American people also voted in Obama so you reap what you sow. Let the Dems own ALL the tax increases just like Rand said to do. The backlash would be shift.

Some backlash might be on those who were against this bill though, since I understand the Senate bill is worse, including more capital gains tax raises, from what tsai was saying earlier. I still wonder how Ron was planning to vote.

But at this point we see what happens after Christmas.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Cantor would not even be considered if Boehner resigned, not after his antics today of lying and saying they had the votes. He looks just as stupid as Boehner and so does McCarthy who I am sure was also behind the scenes trying to threaten members.

They need to clear out the whole leadership and hopefully they will do it.

Conservative groups support Rep. Jim Jordan and there's a few others who could be good at it.
Jim Jordan is the one who called in Peter Schiff to testify before the subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight, and Government Spending.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgpq-lthpPQ

[Brett85]

Oh, and he also seems to like the crappy managed trade agreements.

So does Amash and practically every other Republican in Congress.

[supermario21]

Every Republican likes free trade. No libertarian is a protectionist. We libertarians might go against certain agreements, but on technical levels, not conceptual ones.

[sailingaway]

Every Republican likes free trade. No libertarian is a protectionist. We libertarians might go against certain agreements, but on technical levels, not conceptual ones.

Managed trade isn't free trade, it reserves the benefit of trade to the well connected at the expense of opportunity for all. Terms like 'trusted trade partner' mean 'only the well connected politically need apply'. Further, several of the agreements also violate US sovereignty, putting foreign special interest bodies over our own local law.

None of that has to do with free trade, just cronyism and actual avoidance of the will of those expressed in home rule of a particular nation.

As Ron Paul points out, free trade doesn't require 10,000 - 20,000 pages of regulations.

[Brett85]

Managed trade isn't free trade, it reserves the benefit of trade to the well connected at the expense of opportunity for all. Terms like 'trusted trade partner' mean 'only the well connected politically need apply'. Further, several of the agreements also violate US sovereignty, putting foreign special interest bodies over our own local law.

None of that has to do with free trade, just cronyism and actual avoidance of the will of those expressed in home rule of a particular nation.

As Ron Paul points out, free trade doesn't require 10,000 - 20,000 pages of regulations.

The trade between us and other countries is still managed even before the trade agreements are passed. So before these trade agreements are passed you have a situation where you have managed trade with high tariffs, and after the trade agreements are passed you have managed trade with low tariffs. Managed trade with low tariffs is better than managed trade with high tariffs.

[sailingaway]

The trade between us and other countries is still managed even before the trade agreements are passed. So before these trade agreements are passed you have a situation where you have managed trade with high tariffs, and after the trade agreements are passed you have managed trade with low tariffs. Managed trade with low tariffs is better than managed trade with high tariffs.

That depends. Managed trade with low tariffs but which only permit a favored few rather than all the nation to participate are worse for all but the favored few, depending on how they are written.

You and I disagree on some of this, I know.

Each bill needs to be looked at separately.

But I'm against ceding sovereignty altogether. I think the individual is best represented at the most local level and on a global level is rarely represented at all, to be frank.

[compromise]

The Speaker is meant to be someone who represents the Republican big-tent. Boehner does not, but neither does Amash. It's also incredibly unrealistic to expect Amash to win.

Massie said that the nicest guy he's met in Congress so far (other than Dr. Paul) has to be Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan is prepared to listen to libertarians and fiscal conservatives, while Boehner is not. Jordan would be an excellent Speaker, if he's interested.

[Brett85]

That depends. Managed trade with low tariffs but which only permit a favored few rather than all the nation to participate are worse for all but the favored few, depending on how they are written.

You and I disagree on some of this, I know.

Each bill needs to be looked at separately.

But I'm against ceding sovereignty altogether. I think the individual is best represented at the most local level and on a global level is rarely represented at all, to be frank.

I'm not nessecarily saying that I would support every "free trade agreement." There may be some that are so bad that I would oppose them. But generally speaking, I would probably support the majority of the "free trade agreements" in Congress, just because I think most of them are probably a step in the right direction, although far from perfect. But again, some of them might be so bad that I would have to vote against them.

[Confederate]

That ain't the fiscal cliff. The REAL fiscal cliff is when countries like China stop loaning us money to pay the interest on the SIXTEEN TRILLION dollar debt (and growing) and when Bernanke cannot buy up the debt. Now, THAT is when the real fireworks are going to start.

There MUST be huge cuts to the federal government. That is the only thing that will cushion our landing when we crash.

China has already stopped loaning the US money. They've cut their holdings of treasuries by almost $300 billion over the last year. Japan will soon overtake China to once again be the US's largest creditor.

[itshappening]

Japan want to re-start military expansion too... lots of nice shiney toys they can buy from the MIC with their dollars so they can threaten China.