You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Rampant spending & debt ceiling to collide mid May. Some clowns asking about fire sale.
2011-04-05
Background: Geithner says the feds will run out of money about May 16.
As the government nears the debt ceiling, the Treasury has authority to take certain extraordinary measures to postpone the date the United States would default on its obligations.
Something I like to think of as "Reality Day".
However, those actions would be exhausted after about eight weeks and there would be "no headroom" to borrow after July 8, Geithner said.
Something I like to think of as about two months worth of rope. More than enough to pop your heads clean off your shoulders.
Some lawmakers have called for legislation to force the Treasury to first pay interest on U.S. bonds before other obligations, such as unemployment benefits and Social Security and Medicare payments, as a way to stave off a debt default.
Now why on earth would they need to consider common-sense legislation like that? Unless you're using it as a teaching tool, of course.
They have also asked Treasury whether financial assets such as the country's gold reserves or the government's portfolio of student loans could be sold to avoid raising the debt ceiling.
Why don't we sell off your office buildings, cars, houses, bank accounts, pensions, family heirlooms and photos, healthcare plans, and other belongings first? And your children's as well? Oh, I forgot, that's already been done, we're just waiting for "Reality Day" to make it more apparent to y'all.
Treasury has rejected the proposals as unworkable.
Mind if we take a little peek inside Fort Knox?
"To attempt a fire sale of financial assets in an effort to buy time for Congress to act would be damaging to financial markets and the economy and would undermine confidence in the United States," Geithner said.
Confidence? Oh yeah, that thing we until shortly before W et. al. wrote a $3T+ check for everyone to cash as frosting on the political cake we've been working on for the last 60 years or so.
Based on estimates last year from the International Monetary Fund, U.S. debt as measured against the size of the economy is higher than in France, Canada and Germany, but less than in Italy and Japan
How comforting. So we're stuck somewhere between being able to salvage what's left of our country or watching it sail off the Niagra Falls. Too bad we've got a pilot who acts like momentum and gravity don't apply to what he does.
Geithner said that while the debt ceiling projections could change, the Obama administration does not believe they could change in a way that would give Congress more time to raise the debt ceiling. He said Treasury would provide updated projections in early May.
Those @$$holes just keep doubling down with a losing hand. All I can imagine is that they think that if they can just get the economy working again they can pay off all this debt in a few years. I don't think they understand how debt works, both economically and on people's thinking. Team Obean is both clueless and rudderless. Shut them down and don't bother to check on them until they figure it out and come begging.

The state governments will work just fine until then. Maybe even better. They'll be able to operate without the feds getting in the way of what should be done. Hopefully folks are in for a reawakening of the idea of being a citizen of the state they live in more than being a citizen of some construct that is supposed to be there just to help them work together for the common goal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by:gorb

#7  "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
The Prophet Ronald Reagan(PBUH)


"Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent."

– Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter 2, Article I: Taxes upon the Rent of Houses
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-04-05 19:00  

#6  Great idea, Steve - but not until AFTER spending has been cut drastically and permanently. Otherwise it's the same as "one more amnesty, and then we'll secure the borders."

I have a family member who is a spendaholic. I helped her to the tune of $20,000 over two years so she wouldn't lose her house or her car. I am not rich and made sacrifices to provide that help (I don't even own a house or a car myself). But no matter what I did, she couldn't stay current on her mortgage. When I discovered she'd charged up my credit card too, I realized the behavior was an addiction she couldn't control, any more than an alcoholic. I told her, "I love you, but not another dime."

Within three months, she was current on her mortgage, and doesn't need my help anymore.

Moral of the story: pumping extra revenue into the government coffers sieve strikes me as a bad idea, until the spending problem is dealt with first.
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-04-05 18:17  

#5  All of the so-called Federally owned land belongs to the States in which it resides and therefore the citizens of those States.

In my mind all Federal land holdings are illegitimate, as is the Federal Government.

Gut the FedGov, shutdown D.C. and relocate the Capitol to the center of the country. All politicians live in dorms and eat in a gov cafeteria. I have lots more...very severe.

Time to put the "service" back into Public Servant. Heads on pikes.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man (at large)   2011-04-05 16:24  

#4  Maybe Obumbles can lease out the Lincoln bedroom like Clinton did.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2011-04-05 14:40  

#3  I like the idea of selling public lands, though we shouldn't be forced to do it at fire sale prices.

For example: we could sell leases for land under which oil is likely to be found. Then we could let the oil companies drill for oil and if they find it charge a royalty for production. I know, I know, crazy idea but I'm thinking out of the box here.

We could sell leases (or the land outright) where one might find minerals. Timber. Sell the land on which ski resorts have been built -- let them pay for the land and pay taxes.

Go through each parcel of land. Keep Yellowstone, keep Yosemite, keep the national parks. But the rest? Feel free to start selling it off, not at fire-sale prices but for good money, and use that money to reduce the deficit.

Our children will thank us.
Posted by: Steve White   2011-04-05 14:13  

#2  Let's sell off this utterly useless and wasteful federal government and all of the ass maggots that work for it to China. Does anyone want a $4 trillion dollar miter stone?

We will keep our military of course, thats all we really need.
Posted by: newc   2011-04-05 14:08  

#1  Sorry. Here's the link.
Posted by: gorb   2011-04-05 13:18  

00:00