The entire security of the world economy hinges on government-backed debt. The “Full Faith and Credit of the United States of America” is not just a term bandied about by elite economists. It is the backbone of our entire economy, and the economy, now, of an interconnected world. It was shocking back when Bush said that Social Security debt was “just IOUs” – they aren’t, they are the same debt bonds that China, or Europe, or businesses buy, backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States of America. That default would have caused severe crisis with our debtors – just as defaulting on our debt to other nations and businesses would destroy our economy now. Imagine calling up your mortgage company and telling them you intend not to pay anything back. Now, imagine the value of your entire existence plunging right after you do this. This is essentially what Cantor is threatening to do.
To even hint at default in the offering as a political tactic is to jeopardize our entire national interest. It is treasonous. This is who you elected, America. Let’s hope this doesn’t come to pass, or you can kiss the jobs recovery goodbye.
Addendum – remember, Reagan said he doesn’t negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers. So, what is this, then??
Addendum II – Also recall, Congress appropriates funds. By saying “the president has a responsibility, as much or more so than Congress, to make sure that we are continuing to function in a way that the people want” is to state that you abdicate getting the funds appropriated to cover the debt at your convenience – the President has no say on enacting the budget except to sign. This is obviously a threat for him to capitulate to what they demand, or else.
…as it is neither levying war against the US nor assisting our enemies. It should however be recognized as politically stupid by anyone whose memory goes back 15 years. GOP forced a government shutdown, marking the beginning of Clinton’s comeback to win a second term.
For tactics that if used would tear our economy to shreds and collapse the global financial system. I think you can safely say that the default on our loans basically puts us in Great Depression territory.
<
p>I hope to GOD that they know that. But they shouldn’t even be THREATENING it. That BY ITSELF is destabilizing.
Words like “treason” “freedom” and “socialism” are already too far down the path of meaning whatever the user wants them to mean — and thus becoming all but useless. There are plenty of other words that could describe this titanically harmful idea.
That the Republican leadership could consider such a thing really is a sign of lack of patriotism. The reason we are not suffering like Greece or some other countries is that the U.S. is able to pay very low rates on its debt. Showing signs of political instability which is what Cantor is suggesting will absolutely bust our economy by jacking up the cost of debt.
<
p>Try to imagine, if you will, what kind of technically treasonous behavior could cause more damage.
On election night, this was the hardball focus of Mr. O’Donnell’s comments and questions after Rand Paul’s election night tirade. Mr. O’Donnell, backed up by the MSNBC team, nailed the GOP hypocrisy about this issue. I think this is what got the GOP riled up enough to demand blood from MSNBC.
<
p>He was right on the money.
<
p>I don’t care whether “treason” is the right word or not, this terrible idea is the kind of insanity that the right wing is now promoting. I’ll leave it to more knowledgeable insiders to determine what mechanisms President Obama and rational-thinking representatives have to stop this.
<
p>Stop it they must, however. At ALL costs.
and here we are.
Only half joking.
<
p>Really you are calling reining in out of control Government spending treason. Wow. Just Wow.
Another failure of our educational system. And here I thought our reading comprehension scores were rising.
THIS “all or nothing” ultimatim is nothing less than fiscal suicide and fast-tracking our country to financial third world status – STUPID beyond belief in my opinion. Also arrogant, totally lacking in an understanding of economics, and absolutely without compassion.
I’m saying that voluntarily defaulting on the federal debt is tantamount to treason. Threatening to default is threatening treason. The debt ceiling will be reached sometime between March and July. At midnight following whatever day that happens, the US either raises its debt ceiling or defaults. That’s not hypothetical or speculative, that’s just the truth.
<
p>So what is the EaBoClipper plan?
<
p>Will you somehow raise federal revenue between now and then? What revenue, how much, and how will you do it?
<
p>Will you cut spending between now and then? What cuts, how much, and when?
<
p>Do you deny or discount the impact of defaulting on the debt? What aspects do you think the thread-starter has wrong? What do YOU think will happen if we default?
<
p>Your team has the ball in Congress now — what would you have us do?
<
p>Oh, and how many jobs has the GOP majority created since the election?
So tiresome. Kudos to BrooklineTom and AmberPaw for having the patience to bother responding.
<
p>Really, don’t you guys have any new tricks up your sleeve? Oh, I guess not. LOL
if US treasury bills cease being considered by all the world the be the safest investment in existence, bar none. This is like “reining in spending” on your mortgage by setting your house on fire. Not a good means to your end.
<
p>I’m sure the business community will make sure that this stays in the realm of bluster to placate the newbies.
<
p>
over-the top jingoistic rhetoric. Call them the enemy within.
… you mean the GOP leadership or Cantor in particular, then yeah – but I certainly wouldn’t paint Republicans in general with this brush since I’d guess that many or even most would understand the stupidity of a deliberate default.
But they have to make some noise about it first before tossing it overboard. Not unlike Democrats advocating gay rights.
… example is incongruous. If it were congruous, you’d have to consider a policy of gay rights would be stupid.
<
p>On one hand you’ve got people making noise about a policy they know is stupid (For what reason I don’t know… just to stoke the economics101-challenged base? Furthering their misunderstanding seems a dumb move in and of itself.) before dropping it on account of knowing it’s stupidity. On the other hand you’ve got people making noise about a good policy before dropping it on account of wanting to spend capital elsewhere instead at best or just plain political cowardice at worst.
But they know in advance that they will give up.
<
p>In this sense it is exactly like Democratic promises to repeal DOMA. They need to keep the base happy, but know in advance that they won’t be keeping the promise (and, as we saw in 2010, will find a way to deliberately sabotage it, even as it was ready to pass).
<
p>I would also say that neither party has any interest in an end to the abortion debate, even in a victorious manner, because it would cut off a source of prodigious fundraising.
<
p>The dumbness of any particular position is not relevant. All that matters is that it is a position advocated by an energized base, and which the elected officials would prefer to ignore.
“I would also say that neither party has any interest in an end to the abortion debate, even in a victorious manner, because it would cut off a source of prodigious fundraising.”
<
p>What the hell gives you this impression? You pulled this out of your ass.
<
p>If choice wasn’t under constant threat (read about the close call with Day O’Connor’s in the early 90s sometime) there would be NO NEED to continue to fight for it, and the issue would die off just like many other civil rights issues have over time (when’s the last time anyone fundraised for woman’s right to vote?). It would be settled law and believe ME, we’d be hella happy to stop having to fret over it.
<
p>But it’s constantly under attack in this country, from driving out clinics and doctors with violence from places where it’s already hard to find either, to state ballot questions, to constant challenges in court, to laws that seek to restrict and make impossible one’s right to seek an abortion.
<
p>Give me a break, dude.
From the perspective of a politician, it is a marvelous fund-raising and base-rousing move, as your post illustrates. Thus, on a field a hundred yards wide, every move of an inch either way is treated by either side as a titanic and glorious victory, or catastrophic and evil threat, depending on whether the next fund-raising mailer is from Operation Rescue or NARAL.
<
p>From the perspective of a Democratic politician, “under constant threat” is the best case scenario because their team is on the winning side of the moment, but the checks and votes keep flowing in, and every single election can be The Most Important Election That Has Ever Been.
You explanation prognosticates the best of any I have heard. Unless a problem no longer is a cash cow … getting donations for ANYTHING political from our household has become harder and harder because our confidence that such donations “do any good” has hit rock bottom…and of course, one partner is on extended unemployment so “discretionary spending” is way way down around here.
I’d say Obama and advocating gay rights.