If the US defaults on its debts on August 2
- Thread starter 53fd
- Start date
Markus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 4,425
- Reaction score
- -1
I have a feeling, the American military influence will start diminishing world wide and they will engage all their focus only on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I've talked about the structural flaws in the socioeconomic system: entitlements, & stuff like Medicare, Medicaid, social security, unemployment, food stamps, retirement, student loans, housing loans; then there are bodies such as the EPA, FDA that are bring huge costs for the government as well. And then the Fed & Wall Street. Until these structural problems are resolved, the US will not revive. I'm not even talking about foreign policy here. America is serving the interests of the big corporate businesses right now, & not the people. Tax hikes on regular citizens (& tax cuts for the country's elites, which Obama hasn't changed) alone will not be good enough to bring this country back to the greatness it once had.
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
We have been pulling down our European commitments for decades. There is an ongoing adjustment of our deployment to meet new realities.
There are already signs that the focus is on the Middle East right now, in particular Yemen, Somalia & Syria. Yemen has the rise of the AQAP, Somalia has the rise of the AQIM & the Al-Shabaab, & Syria is hugely important to the West as well, to curtail the influence of Iran. Most of the Al-Qaeda leadership in the AfPak region has been destroyed, & the US/NATO Forces are negotiating with the Taliban to bring the end game to the region. But that's a different discussion.
Al Bhatti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
President Obama warns Republican approach to debt crisis ‘dangerous’
President Barack Obama warned Monday that the Republicans’ unyielding approach to the US debt crisis was a “dangerous game” and urged Americans to press for compromise.
Mr. Obama delivered the warning in a rare primetime speech as Republicans and Democrats remained deadlocked over a deal to raise the US debt ceiling and agree on how to bring ballooning US deficits under control.
The president rejected a Republican proposal to temporarily lift the debt limit, arguing it would leave the underlying problem unresolved and lead to a repeat of the current crisis in six months.
“That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake, “he said.
But with a potential US default looming in eight days time, Obama appealed to Americans to “make your voice heard.”
“If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message,” he said.
President Obama warns Republican approach to debt crisis
---
Text of President Obama Speech: ‘We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis’
By Text of President Obama Speech: ‘We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis’
Following is the full text of President Barack Obama’s Monday evening address on the debt ceiling impasse in Washington, as prepared for delivery:
Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.
For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.
But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.
The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.
This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.
This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared.
While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families.
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.
How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.
Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:
“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”
Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.
Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.
Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.
In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills - bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.
For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet.
Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis - one caused almost entirely by Washington.
Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.
Text of President Obama Speech:
President Obama warns Republican approach to debt crisis ‘dangerous’
President Barack Obama warned Monday that the Republicans’ unyielding approach to the US debt crisis was a “dangerous game” and urged Americans to press for compromise.
Mr. Obama delivered the warning in a rare primetime speech as Republicans and Democrats remained deadlocked over a deal to raise the US debt ceiling and agree on how to bring ballooning US deficits under control.
The president rejected a Republican proposal to temporarily lift the debt limit, arguing it would leave the underlying problem unresolved and lead to a repeat of the current crisis in six months.
“That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake, “he said.
But with a potential US default looming in eight days time, Obama appealed to Americans to “make your voice heard.”
“If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message,” he said.
President Obama warns Republican approach to debt crisis
---
Text of President Obama Speech: ‘We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis’
By Text of President Obama Speech: ‘We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis’
Following is the full text of President Barack Obama’s Monday evening address on the debt ceiling impasse in Washington, as prepared for delivery:
Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt - a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.
For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus.
But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.
Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.
The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.
This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.
This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared.
While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.
The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach - an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families.
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.
How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.
Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade - millionaires and billionaires - to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:
“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”
Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach - an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate.
Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling - a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.
Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.
In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.
Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.
If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills - bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.
For the first time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet.
Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis - one caused almost entirely by Washington.
Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.
First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.
Text of President Obama Speech:
Zizou
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 0
Same Book .. Different Cover ...
I am by no stretch of imagination a Republican, I'm an independent. But the position of the Republicans is better than Obama's. Obama wants corporate America to continue as it is, & doesn't want to resolve the problem of 'entitlements' in America. America & Americans need to learn within their means, & learn to live without entitlements. There are deep structural problems in the US socioeconomic system, & huge cuts in expenses is the way to go. Republicans are correct in this situation, whereas Obama is still playing politics, by trying to garner the support of the common American, by reiterating the lies he mentioned about implementing tax hikes for the 2% elites, & tax cuts for the 98% (but actually doing the opposite).
Unfortunately, as much as I dislike the Republicans, they are right on this one. The Tea Party Republicans are advocating the correct approach - reduce spending (especially on domestic programs) without further taxation. That way, the people would not suffer, & the root of the problem would be tackled. Obama wants to tax the large corporations & oil companies (without cutting the funding they get from the government), so they can pass on their tax increases to the American middle class by raising the price of gas & products that these large corporations sell. It's so simple, yet people don't seem to understand the problem. Obama wants the American people to suffer at the expense of the big corporate businesses, without tackling the root of the problem, serving the interests of corporate America than the interests of the people or America. Obama also promised during his election campaign that he would have tax hikes for 2% of the people belonging to the country's elite, & tax cuts for the remaining 98%; but he did the opposite. Obama promised less power to the ridiculous health insurance agencies, & more power to the people, by coming up with a healthcare plan that would be within everyone's domain, but he still continued to serve the corporate interests. Obama is a man of corporate America, & will continue to support them at the expense of the American people, & the US.
Chinese-Dragon
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,932
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
Yeah, I don't really like the Republicans either (George Bush was just awful).
But they are right on the money here.
Brother they might be " right on the money here " but i feel its trying to stop a 20 tonne train coming at you at 110 miles per hour and trying to use your hands. The basic policies of the USA have brought them to their knees and the attempts now must be drastic if they are to stop the rot.
Juice
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 4,018
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
We are not quite "on our knees" yet. If you think we are, come take California.
Point taken juice "on thier knees" is perhaps not the correct wordology
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
No Strings Attached: Discover Local Ladies in Your Town- Latest: rana.aamir2990
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
