This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Senate Votes Down Clean 2014 Debt Extension Along Party Lines As Democrats Reject Collins' Plan
As was largely expected, the Senate cloture vote to extend the debt ceiling through the end of 2014, has failed to pass along party lines, or 53-45.
BREAKING: Senate rejects Democratic plan to extend debt ceiling through next year.
— The Associated Press (@AP) October 12, 2013
Hardly a ringing endorsement that negotiations in the Senate are running any more smoothly than in the House.
Following the vote, the Senate goes into recess and Democrats are going into a private meeting even as Reid has said he will reject McConnell's offer which is contingent on negotiations. From Politico:
Democratic leaders in the Senate are rejecting an offer by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to end the budget impasse, arguing it asks for too much in return for too little, senators and aides tell POLITICO.
The development comes on the same day that the Senate voted 53-45 to block a Democratic bill that would raise the debt ceiling through 2014 without any spending cuts or changes to Obamacare.
The Collins plan, which was drafted with input from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and other senators, called for a six-month extension of government funding and a debt limit increase through January. But it asked for a delay in Obamacare’s medical device tax for two years and a requirement for income verification for Obamacare subsidies.
While it would give federal agencies more flexibility to work within the constraints of the automatic sequestration cuts, Democrats objected to the level of funding that Collins was seeking, which would lock-in the levels under the sequester at $967 billion next year, far too low for many Democrats.
Moreover, Democrats are calling for a longer-term budget deal that would raise the debt ceiling and extend government funding. And they said that agreeing to a shorter-term budget deal and a lower funding level — with a handful of changes to Obamacare — was asking too much after they have called for a “clean” increase to the $16.7 trillion national debt ceiling and a stop-gap measure to keep the government running.
This means that there is little time for the two sides to reach a deal — and the talks may now shift to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to try to find a way out of the crisis now that the House Republicans have hit an impasse with the White House. Reid and McConnell met Saturday morning.
And now, with the House Republicans out of the negotiation as Harry Reid noted previously, the final chance is that Senate Republicans and the White House/Democrats finds some common ground a la the Fiscal Cliff negotiation.
It appears that any hope of a Monday morning resolution has just been dashed, and once again it will be up to the wire, or perhaps beyond it (if Goldman's observations that 2013 is different), depending on just how much of a motivating factor the market is.
»
- 13357 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No deal is the New deal
These guys are Tough!
its a tough country men!
No Deal is great news for the stock market. A Deal is also great news for the stock market.
There is a lot of growth to go around !!!!!
I can live with No Deal. That would be a terrific demonstration as to what is important about .gov vs. what is not.
Damn, dems cant even get the senate? This is so surreal that this is happening right now.
Stop the socialist progression..let Barry go down in history as the worst leader ever because he allowed the world economy to implode
"Pull it."
"whip it...whip it good!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATFsuhA0qKM
"Eat the Rich"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LZxelSc62Y
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to fund the expenses that it creates. How does Congress failing to discharge their constitutional duties reflect poorly on President Obama?
That question is not intended to support President Obama. It is intended to support logic. The Constitution says that Congress is supposed to do something. Period. It does not say that Congress is supposed to do it ONLY if they can get concessions from the Executive Branch.
Where in the Constitution is there anything to back up your thesis?
Actually, practically everything the Federal government currently does is not authorized by the Constitution.
+1. This is a WH talking point: "Congress is responsible to pay our bills". Actually, Congres is reponsible for appropriating (spending) money, and specifically NOT the Senate. What the Dems are trying to say is "We get to use the credit card and Congress is responsible for paying the bill when it comes in".
Where in the Constitution is there anything to back up your thesis?
You already know the answer to that question. Congress gives the House of Representatives the responsibility/authority to generate money bills. They authorize programs as well as fund them. Once funded, the House of Representatives can vote to defund a program. But if debt has been incurred to pay for previous funding, before the program is defunded, the Constitution says that debts of the Federal government shall not be questioned. It is up to Congress to ensure that mandate is carried out and the bills previously acquired are paid.
You know that the House of Representatives can refuse to incur new debt going forward. But they cannot refuse to repay debt already incurred.
I said that the House of Representatives can vote to defund a program. For those who may not know, the House of Representatives cannot defund a program by themselves. The Senate and the President both must agree also.
The House has passed many bills to defund ObamaCare. In the current situation, all bills to defund ObamaCare that were passed in the House were denied by the Senate. This current issue is not about whether the House can vote to defund a program. Making it about that issue is to not understand what is going on, or is to be intentionally trying to divert attention.
The House has voted to defund ObamaCare. Nobody else agreed. So the House is now trying to blackmail the Senate and the President into agreeing to defund ObamaCare. They are using a process not authorized in the Constitution. The process that IS authorized in the Constitution was tried, but it didn't give the House what it wants. What they are doing now is unconstitutional.
No you fucking moron. If a previous congress voted to create some program the current congress is consitutionally entitled to choose not to fund it. This is just another lie and deciet of Obama who loves to repeat, ad nauseum, that Obamacare is the law of the land and cannot be touched. If that were a principle, instead of a propaganda effort, Obama would say that the debt limit is the law of the land an exercise some leadership in closing the deficit. Alas, he is as full of shit as you are.
Exactly, by democrats talking points things like slavery, Prohibition, and segregation were settled law and could never be changed.
If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I am not using Democrat talking points.
Also, I addresses your points in my post above your posts
Any system that creates expenses without immediately addressing the funding...immediately = simultaneously...is a system that does not work in the long term....the games are close to over.
Every large company that creates a budged has a two step process. First the budget is proposed, then approved. When the time comes to execute the planned expenses the executive is responsible for comparing the planned expenses with the income that was assumed to approve those expenses and to look at how evry other expense is doing with respect to plan, and only if evrything is going according to plan approved the actual execution of the expense. This is done to control execution and allocation as you move forward. Our government only control with regards to execution is the debt limit, which is the only time Congress has the opportunity to limit the power of the executive.
If this system doesn't work we shouldbchange it, but not destroy it by shifting infinite spending power to the executive branch.
Obama's statement are fallacious, our government system is based on forcing the executive to yield to the House on spending appropiations. If there are consequences to what is going on, the responsability fall 100% on the executive. The job of the executive is NOT to dictate policy but only to ADMINISTER it, Congress is the body that should define policy.
Our government only control with regards to execution is the debt limit, which is the only time Congress has the opportunity to limit the power of the executive.
This is not a true statement. The legislative branch controls the executive branch continuously - through the funding of the programs that the Congress and the President have approved. No funding, no expense is generated. That is complete and effective control, on an on-going basis.
What is happening now is twofold: 1.) authorize funding for the programs of the government for the new fiscal year, and; 2.) authorize borrowing to enable the government to pay back debt ALREADY INCURRED. I don't know if it is constitutional for the House to refuse to fund the government at all, going forward. Since the Federal government is authorized by the Constitution - and since logic if not the consitution suggests that there will be some expense incurred in order for the Federal government to carry out its constitutional duties - it seems that it would be unconstitutional for the House to refuse to fund the Federal government at all. But funding the Federal government going forward (budget or CR) at some level is an issue separate from refusing to allow the government to borrow what it needs to pay off expenses already incurred.
Since the Constitution declares that the debts of the Federal government shall not questioned, the House of Representatives cannot block the ability of the government to repay debts already incurred and be acting within the intent of the Constitution.
Logic is simply not supported by some posters on this board. Plenty of passion, but too much time in the echo chamber.
Your question goes straight to the crux of the matter. A handful of young guns decide they will essentially refuse to do their job unless they get their way on Obamacare. Nevermind that since it was passed into law it has been found constitutional by the Supreme Court, and there was a national referendum on the subject last year, and they have tried about 40 times to pass bills to kill it.
So, these guys run out with six-guns in each hand threatening to shut down the government unless Obama kills his baby. Somehow, they are convinced that the country has their back, but they have 3 problems.
1.) Obama will never kill his baby, so no negotiations, 2.) they are shooting blanks, so threats are meaningless, and 3.) the country thinks they are crazy.
As you note above, how is it a negative for Obama? Everybody who hates him may hate him more, but from his perspective, so what? His poll numbers are down some, but not nearly as bad as Congress, and Republicans specifically.
Like you, I'm not here to defend Obama, Obamacare, or the Democrats. I've been watching this clown show unfold with a mixture of amusement and disgust. The Republicans were on a fool's errand from the start, and quickly got into a situation they still don't know how to get out of. Meanwhile, they are killing their brand and doing unkown damage to the party. Obama and the Democrats have already tied this shut-down around their neck, and it the country defaults (which we won't) the Republicans will the blame and may not winn another National election in my lifetime. Destroying the party sounds like a good idea to some on this board, but I don't share those views. Single party rule is bad for the country. We are better off when there is conflict and tension between ideas and goals - when alternative opinions are forced to be considered.
Now we will get a bunch of red arrows for daring to point out the immeidate reality of the situation.
Alot of we's and they's in your post. Very telling. Thanks for the talking points Mr. Carney. Those young guns were democratically and legally elected to voice the opinion of their constituents. They are doing exactly that. You should re-read the position Sen. Obama's had on the debt ceiling in 2006. Those young guns are merely acting as a young Sen. Obama opined.
What Obama opined and what he did were 2 different things. The political retoric was not backed up with a serious attempt to shut the country down. This kind of retoric happens every day in Congress. Just watch a little C-span.
These far-right rengades were elected in their little districts, but somehow came to think they had a mandate to take control of America. So far, it's not working too good for them, is it? Stay tuned for even more sad results.
I wouldn't call Texas a 'little district'.
Neither would he. Texas is not a district. Texas is made up of districts.
He said "These far-right rengades were elected in their little districts".
Texas isn't a 'little district'. It's a rather large state. He's just being ignorant.
Do you have any idea how many House Districts are in Texas? I thought not.
The answer is 36. There are 36 House members from Texas.....and 2 Seantors, just like every other state, in case you didn't know that, either.
Pardon my ignorance, and go bother somebody else.
Senators (the subject of this article) aren't voted into office by the people of one district. They're voted in by the entire state.
Critical reading is not your strong suit, I see. Politics isn't, either.
No where in what I wrote did I even mention a Senator. The action does not originate in the Senate, and the Senate was not really an issue in this suicide attempt by the Republican party. Senator Cruz even had to get permission from Harry Reid to put on his all-night clown show, and Harry told him to go right ahead....just wrap it up by noon the next day. Reid played Crus like a fiddle and gave him all the rope he needed to tie the government shutdown to the Republican brand.
okay mine is the first red down arrow. the job of Congress is to spend money not simply to pay the bills incurred or desired to be incurred by others specifically the white house or the Senate. any of you dumbasses who've ever done the research into the constitutional founding documents know that the power of the purse was specifically giving given to the house for this reason
Which of us dumbasses is arguing against the role of the House in the funding process?
The job is to pay the bills for obligations already incurred. This is not appropriating money for new spending. This is for spending already approved. If the House doesn't like the numbers, there is a separate process for undoing laws.
This is exactly why they had no real bargaining chips to begin with. It's why they have painted themselves into a corner. It is why they look so much like 7th grade school boys, and why the country ain't buyin' what they're sellin'.
absolutely not true. Multiyear funding, as in paying for long term "commitments" which prove unpopular or disastrous, is the realm of the house. Defunding unpopular programs is absolutely within their purview.
... pay the bills incurred or desired to be incurred by others ...
Edit: SW - if that quote was intended to be someone else's words and not yours, then my appologies for misunderstanding what you said. I don't see those words in italics or quote marks on my browser - but they seem to repeat something you were quoting upthread. end Edit.
SW - help please. I thought only the House could generate money bills. I know that, over the years, Congress has created many programs and then refused to appropriate the money to pay for them. I know that the President can submit a budget to Congress - but I didn't think he could impose the budget without Congressional approval.
You are implying that others can create debt for the Federal government. I thought only the House could initiate that debt - and it would become real only if the Senate and the President agreed. Can the President or the Senate obligate the Federal government to expenditures/debts all by themselves?
... the job of Congress is to spend money ...
It is not the job of Congress to spend money. It is the job of Congress to authorize the expenditure of money. Two different issues. The agencies that make up the Executive Branch are charged in the Consitution with carrying out the programs authorized by Congress. These agencies are the ones that actually spend the money, in carrying out the programs. But they can spend money only if Congress appropriates it. And they can spend only the amount that Congress appropriates in the budget process. That is the reason we currently have a partial government shut-down. Congess has appropriated no money for the new fiscal year, and so the programs that have no money because of this are shut down. I know it is actually more complicated than this. But the point is, the Federal government is acting in a way to not incur more expense than what Congress has appropriated money for. The Federal government cannot spend money that Congress has not appropriated.
Congress is in charge of spending. Ironic ain't it. Does not compute with wingers.
well if you follow ZH it will implode with or without him.
I think Cog Dis is right : Plan A is to kick the can as long as possible. Plan B is to go down fast in a situation where you personally (not the people) collect the most, even if the reset is terrible for the others.
I think these guys are cold blooded and greeeeedy enuff to now seriousy plan the inevitable either fast or slow to their interest.
Don't forget this is ONE Oligarchy. I don't buy red blue divide except to fool the people who vote NOT for the OLigarchy behind the curtain but their puppet REPS.
This dog n pony is about WHO WILL BE THE REP OF THE OLIGARCHY AND CALL THE SHOTS IN THEIR NAME?
The rest, down the road after reset comes, is just a question of timing and of bargaining with the OTHER Oligarchs from other countries who run the world about the fall out of $ hegemony sacrifice/compromise; to avoid WW3 scenarios mutually destructive for a 1% world population THAT HAS NEVER HAD IT SO GOOD.
The US plutocrats still head that list as the largest bunch running MIC/Internet and all big multinational global plays.
.
I want to hear CNBC say buy buy buy on monday morning.
raising of margins has saved a few people from suiciding themselves following Goldman's advice du jour up and down. deal on no deal ...
Great, STALEMATE,or CHECKMATE, as this is exactly what ASShat wants.)
Bring out the gimp.
LOL now you have the Senate rejecting a 'clean' debt ceiling extension...LMAO
Looks like the politico's want there to be some REAL pain this time, I wonder how much Wall Street wants to give them???
1000 points
3000 points
I'm not sure what would get everyone attention these days?
I think it's about time the "Chief Community Organizer" gets a lesson in economics.
"Missed it by > that < much". - Maxwell Smart Boehner
+1
What if default is the objective?
DaddyO
It very well could. If you know the system is coming down then the "smart" play is to take it down the way that best benefits you (the 1%) the most.
I don't think the jackasses are that smart, or even capable of the level of skepticism required to see any possibilty of systemic collapse.
Last second deal, super relief rally, market goes higher.
Just working the con.
edit: But we shall see shortly, won't we?
Defaulting on a few short term treasuries is the end of the world?
As we all know, there is more than enough juice coming into the treasury to pay without defaulting.
What this is all about is the end of the Obama administration. Most presidents have accepted their lame duck status when the time finally arrives.
But, this guy believes his own press releases and thinks he's somehow different.
As in, what if this is part of a plan to wean/reduce the people off of entitlements/benefits thus avoiding political blame?
Barrack let Corzine loot the accounts of earners. Defaulting isn't going to hurt the 99%, its going to affect the affluent who aren't recieving kickbacks from this administration. This is his way of ratfucking America and our allies. If the NSA worked for us, they wuld have blown the whistle and if the CIA worked for us, they would have capped this entire crew, or let the FBI take him down (if either the FBI or the judicial system worked for us).
The federal government is the problem.
The Republicans should siege the out of control WH until it squeals.
McCain, Lindsey Graham, Flake, Rubio, Coker, Hatch and other Senate RINO scum are doing everything to undercut House Republicans and conservatives. McCain, Graham et al are Obama's little helpers.
Yeah yeah red team blue team but the Obama, Reid and Pelosi teams sucks. F them.
there is talk of the Fed cancelling its owned Treasury debt. they won't do it though, because it represents their ownership of us. why give that up?
But who is doing the talking? In a world run by central bankers and built upon a foundation of debt based fiat issuance, simply erasing debt is tantamount to apostasy (and punishable by death in the eyes of the fiat fundamentalists).
The obstacle that prevents the pigs from happily feeding at the trough is the current prohibition on the ISSUANCE of NEW DEBT which is subject to the DEBT CEILING.
Your average freshmeat cocksucker at Goldman should be able to come up with half a dozen loopholes in that big enough to run a couple hundred billion through to keep the farce up just a little longer.
If they wanted to go full Corzine- they could put a new twist on the Golden Gimmick and have the Fed rehypothecate 50% of its existing debt back to the Treasury (for resale back into the market) and get the central bank balls deep into the shadow banking clusterfuck.
The possibilities are endless, the soap opera stops only when (and IF) they want it to stop. Hank could have saved Lehman if he actually wanted to, he CHOSE not to.
Well now the phony paper price operation on the only 2 forms of real money makes perfect fucking NON sense......doesn't it........
What will it take to reverse our course of more debt? Let's have that fight now and be done with it.
The more I think about it, the more I believe ZH's "Sathington Willoughby" had it right earlier today:
Dog barks at pony. Pony kicks at dog. Dog wears tutu. Pony runs around the ring. The crowd loves it.
***
Problem is that we have to pay for the games. Dictatorship ahead?
I'm trying to picture an elephant and a donkey doing this but it's not working.
We would not stand for a dictatorship. We can stand a disfunctional feral government but not a dictatorship.
huh. go figure. or is it..."do figure"? is Jenny Finch still available?
May I have more bread with my circus please?
So it isn't enough to have the pubs capitulate on Obamacare?
The pub leadership is so f'n weak. They should be making hay out of this and every other Obama/Reid screwup in this process.
The repub. leadership are all Dem-lite statists.A permanent ruling class far worse than that
imposed by King George.
If they weren't they would make the govt live within a balanced budget, and not raise the debt ceiling.
I hope my avatar was correct when he said that Americans will eventually come to the right answer,
after trying everything else.
Mind you they are some far worse alternatives to try out first.
All the chatter from both political parties is what to do about the debt ceiling; and one word seems to be generally missing from pundit columns and from position descriptions in the Senate, the House and the White House. That word is “Obamacare.”
Obamacare is a hot button which can sink the banker debt-ceiling deal when the country realizes the Republicans have sold them out. It’s hard to find, but funding Obamacare is a part of Boehner’s proposal. If the Republicans are agreeing to put the government back to work with only minor exceptions to the Affordable Care Act, that means they are agreeing to fund Obamacare.
Who cares about the debt limit when it’s clear the politicians eventually will raise it any time the bankers pull their chain.
NOW there is clearly BLAME. If liberal Senator (R) Collins plan can't get through, the Dems are just being assholes.
Pretty much this. The Sequester has proven to be the only limit on spending that has ever worked. The reduction in deficit is largely Sequester derived (plus the 1 Jan tax increase, for which McConnell got nothing). But the Sequester HAS to be defended. Without it there is destruction.
A big issue is Harry Reid was cut out of the Fiscal Cliff talks in January because McConnell said he could not deal with him. So Biden showed up and they did the deal.
Reid has maneuvered now to keep Biden out. This could mean no deal can occur.
Wrong.
Paygo was working quite well until Bush/Cheney came in and set us on the road to fiscal disaster.
+1
I am curious as to how Barry will prioritzie payments. The 'Oh shit!' moment when you have to live within your means.
Oh that's simple. He'll just follow the Chicago way and punish his enemies. He will cut everything he can going to a Repug Congressional District, a Repug state with 2 senators, and a Red State with a Repug Gov and State Legislature. Guaranteed.
You forgot to mention hitting the military, vets, and anything connected therewith.
He'll try, but got to be careful with the deep military spooks and the other spooks in the NSA & CIA. They won't play ball if their toys are threatened and can make life very difficult for 0zer0. I suspect that the message to not get crazy against the spooks has already been delivered.
<--- Nuclear false flag
<--- Barry in the slammer
Last minute deal. Stock ramp.
(I've already seen the movie before.)
We've all seen the movie before. Just that you're among the few who seem to recall how it ends. Everyone, don't you remember, the drama and excitement of the finale back in 2011. Then they set up that kind of shitty sequel - Sequester, which looked like it might be good but turned out to be all hype.... remember? It wasn't that long ago...
The Democrats, union goons, illegals and dead people elected another Detroit mayor when they voted for Obama helped by Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Black Monday?
It does have that 1987 feel about it.
It will put the fear of God into the critters.
no black monday
enter from stage left the always articulate Susan Collins with a plan that Harry and Mitch can use as a framework
more like Sunday night BS - we can only hope for a Bear Stearns Sunday
it is clear that Boner is simply a cheap date so if Senate serves up creamed shit on toast he'll be right there with his plate
Mmm, creamed shit... Oh wait! I meant creamed spinach! Spinach!
"...the always articulate Susan Collins..."
That is one funny-ass line.
She is truly a clueless old bag. I lived in Maine when she got into politics. Scratch the surface of her skin and you will find air beneath. Nothing more than stale air. The sound of her voice, the halting inflection, it's something with no soul, no meaningful purpose, no recognition of what is going on around her. She is a marionette, a cartoon character, the quintessential politician.
You could put anyones name in Washington in that post.
The clown car getting ready to depart
Reid and McConnell are working off a six-point proposal sponsored by Sen. Susan Collins
slippery Mitch McConnell and the inexplicable Susan Collins are now the great hope. Susan Collins??? one of her pillars for a combined debt and shutdown solution -- a 2 year delay of the tax on medical devices So there you have it - Cruz, Rand, Boner et al -- instead of repeallin Obamacare how 'bout we delay taxing wheelchairs for 2 years. WTF WTF WTFCNN et al all now reporting that the Susan Collins plan has been outright rejected by the Dems. Last hope for any kind of a deal has fallen through and no possibility of any vote until Monday night at the soonest. "Back to square one," is how the CNN anchor called it.
500 point hope for a deal rally may be undone and then some when markets open. Some on here shorted the market Friday and now will be proven right. I was wrong that the market wouldn't rally 500 points unless a deal really was imminent. Many believed cnbs that everything was done except the dotting of the i's and crossing the t's. For once we could have traded per ZH. At least I'm in cash and not holding long over the weekend. Monday ought to spectacularly good for the bears. 'Bout time.
I thought The Bernank had the fat lady tied up somewhere, but I'm starting to believe he killed and ate her.
As much as we'd like to think it's "about time", B.S. could still pull another 100B/mo out of his ass through a keystroke; which will somehow someday help heal the global economy.
Amazing how much faith/complacancy the American people have towards these assholes.
They act like they do not want the crash.. They are causing it..
What did the CME know and when did they know it?
Kabuki. Something will get passed."Last hope for any deal." Who believes any of this shit?
The most powerful force in Washington right now is the Sequester.
It is enraging Democrats because they voted for it and it apparently was essentially Obama's idea -- because he was sure the SuperCommittee would reach an agreement and it would never trigger.
But it has, and it is the ONLY thing that has EVER restrained spending. The Democrats hate it. The GOP is not all that happy about it and snipes at the margins of its caps, but overall IT is the only thing that MUST be defended.
The 800+B deficit of FY2013 was only as low as it was due to the Sequester (which was only in effect 6 months) and to a lesser extent the tax increase that McConnell allowed in January. If the Sequester is smashed, that 800B number will be north of $1T again almost immediately. The Sequester should be considered sacred and left untouched.
It is the only thing that has ever worked. Even Gramm Rudman failed.
You do understand it is already to late to fix right? Relax, have a beer,, enjoy life
PayGo worked fine, but is was hard work. When either side wanted something, they had to sit down and figure out how to compromise.
When Bush came to office, the Republicans scrapped it. Fact.
Pay go didn't work. It was always just another way to force tax increases. It never prevented spending increases.
Wrong. It was working until they (House Republicans under Bush) ended it. It was causing too many problems for them, because the both wanted to spend more, and wanted to pass tax cuts. Those policies set the course for fiscal diaster. Paygo was one of the primary ways that Clinton produced a budget surplus for the 3 years prior to the Bush/Cheney debt explosion.
Commies starting to get a taste of the new communism. mmmm.....3rd world death for all (well, not all).
We just can't aford to keep you lazy assholes alive any longer (we even had to drop the second f out of aford).
Democrats explain, these Goddamn Republicans are holding this country hostage. Well listen here dumb fuck, if we release one trillion to satisfy your sponging off the taxpayer needs, consumer purchasing power is lost. The newly released monies circulated will aid in higher product costs & GDP government [better than expected] forecast.
How long do Democrats have until the public figures out their scam? Sets egg timer.
What's the max setting on your egg timer?
The Dems know the sheeple are drugged so thoroughly that most who havne't already woken will never wake from their slumber.
Beware the Ether Bunny.
Who cares. Let the federal government collapse, and take the federal reserve along with it, and Obama, and Bush and all of them.
If one does not raise the debt ceiling and paying the interest on the debt (avoiding default) is the primary function of the collected taxes, then not raising the debt ceiling is the same as a ballanced budget amendment. Of course all hell will break loose with the chaos to follow. Sounds like a deal to me.
Agree.
Because we pay taxes, there is plenty of current cashflow to pay currently-due interest and principal. The bankers aren't afraid we can't pay the debt without raising the debt ceiling. They are worried federal spending will drop as cash flow is steered into debt payment. Bankers need new "growth" constantly, inflation, federal spending, consumer debt growth. They are terrorizing the public, as is Obama, under false pretenses, peddling lies as to the possibility of default. It will not happen, but lots of other federal spending will have to stop, affecting the stock prices of defense contractors and such.
Dear ZH editorial staff... Seems like Politico changed the story on you. Perhaps it was too critical of the dems.
Translation.. We want all Government furloughed wages repaid, beginning from Scamquester.
Obama: we will not talk until this negotiation portion of my demands are met. We will take down further divisions of the Government to make our concessions. Fearful and a national security role playing efforts will earn my votes.. Keep up your rhetoric Half white Kenyon negro, the NSA record play button is on..
look for the Sunday night stick save..... Just want to make that really obvious statement now and get it out of the way....
....wondering if the market just might decide to not listen to a last minute solution. Wouldn't that be a hard kick in the balls for these mother fucking bastard politicians! Then we'll have some real fireworks and make room for Ben's last stand by the end of the month!
Monday may be the only day for the rest of the year to short stocks...the market will speak to these idiots.
Don't you mean the last chance to BTFD?
Federal Reserve will be begging for a quick resolution so that it can continue buying 75%+ of the debt issued by Barack.gov.
Nothing to worry about - that dimwit Collins will be back after the weekend with a "deal" that basically gives King Putt and her fellow Democrats everything they want in return for the promise of a reach-around.
Hahaha they want this to be the warm up for the real deal. When they can further implement their "multi-polar" world run by a centralized source!! The New World Order or New Order of the Ages is to the common American what salt is to a slug. Get ready to run backwards through a cornfield naked, Murica!! But, it won't be just yet. This posturing is moreso fear-mongering because the banksters want to wring us more dry first.
http://www.physiciansnews.com/2009/03/03/electronic-medical-records-the-...
"In the meantime Congress is poised to put forth a multi-billion dollar stimulus package that calls for $19 billion to implement electronic health records and other information technology. The Senate version of the package was supported by Pennsylvania’s own Arlen Specter, one of only three Republican senators to support the bill. The others were Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine. According to the Senate bill, hospitals would be eligible for incentives for using electronic medical records beginning in 2011 and would be penalized if they haven’t switched over from paper records by 2015."