All this American Hub Ub

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Rogueyopants**

This has probably bin happening for a while but I just found out today that this has bin happening

So what is really happening in the states at the moment, some people are saying that the Americans are going to go under in three days because they will have spent over their buyout limit and that the world will be comparing its dollars to Yen and all this other crap. Is this just big talk, or is a another major economic crisis happening in the West

**Waaagh_Gonads**

Hullo chup from Nu Zulland!

The US has a limit to which it can borrow money, currently a little over 14 trillion.
For severeal years they just bump it up a little to buy themselves a few more months of guilt free borrowing.
Obamalama the man who can do anything!!! (TM) wanted to double the limit to buy many years of guilt free borrowing without worrying voters about borrowing limits etc and said he would refuse a small increase again.

The democrats don't want to drop spending.
The republicans don't want to increase taxes.

The plans each offer is pathetic and woeful at sorting out the underlying problem that the US spends more than it ears and are trying to delay actually doing anything decent by up to a decade.

All of this indicates that they are all clowns.

Ireland and Greece were downgraded AFTER putting into place austerity measures that have crippled their economies and social services.

The US sooner or later needs to bite the bullet and increase taxes, ore close off several hundred loopholes and dramatically cut spending. The longer they delay the worse the cuts to spending and increase in taxes is going to be.
Will there be a hit to the economy - damned right. Will it be worse if left for longer - definitely.

The GFC in 2008 was due to problems with loans, the current issues is to deal with government debt. This is looking to be much worse if they don't sort it out.
The UK is in a similar position as well.

**sebster**

The first thing to realise is that the absolutely immediate nature of this problem is entirely self-inflicted. They could just vote to pass a bill increasing the debt ceiling and carry on with business as usual. This is how things had carried along before, sometimes a bit of chatter but basically they just signed the increase and moved on with business.

What's changed this time isn't the scale of problem, or the scope of the changes that need to be made, basically the Republicans decided to make this an issue this time, and use it to drive through some of the changes they wanted, being their big chance to really flex their muscle since winning back some power in 2010.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, it's what every party should do in their situation. From there we've basically seen a game of chicken, counting down to August 2nd, with the first party to blink having to concede to the cuts the other side wanted.

The Democrats blinked, conceded the Republican call for 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases, as per the script for these kinds of things. Except that from there everything went pear-shaped, because of the increasingly powerful fringe of the Republican party, the Tea Partiers. As a group, they're defined by intense dedication to ever changing goal posts, and in this case they originally wanted a resolution that contained no new tax cuts, then when that looked almost certain, they wanted a resolution with no increase in the debt ceiling at all, before finally ending up looking like they simply weren't interested in dealing with any Democrats at all.

This left Republican Majority leader Boehner in a very tough spot, as he could no longer count on support within his own party for any bill he agreed to with the democrats. It was still a game of chicken, but one of the cars doesn't have a driver. At least, that was how it looked about two days ago.

That said, the US is lucky in that for all the bluff and bluster, there is still very little seperating the two parties. One is a right of centre party with a fringe of hardline right wingers, the other is a right of centre party with a fringe of moderate progressives and one actual socialist.

Right now where there's a bill in House of Representatives that will be supported by almost every Republican, and very few Democrats, and a bill in the senate that will be supported by almost every Democrat and and very few Republicans. The two bills are almost identical, with neither bill raising taxes, both cut discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion, and both establish bi-partisan committees on future budgeting. The only difference is that the Republican bill is set up for another round of this nonsense next January, while the Democrat bill won't kick in until after the presidential election.

The Republicans appear to have gotten their party under control, and have a bill with broad support despite raising the debt ceiling (the final thing the Tea Partiers wanted) meanwhile the Democrats have managed to play their game of pretending to be liberals by taking the Republicans to the limit over the issue, before offering up a bill full of spending cuts, likely what most Democrat congressmen wanted in the first place.

That's kind of the weird thing of US politics, the two sides violently resist each other over issues when they basically have exactly the same opinions as each other*.

So the only question now is whether the fact that the two parties aren't arguing over anything substantial anymore is more powerful than the fact that both parties gain most of their support from being opposed to the other side.

*Excepting the Tea Party, who are genuinely out there, and more or less represent the people who actually believe the rhetoric of the Republicans. Most of them seemed to have eventually come back into the fold at this stage over this issue, but it'll be interesting to see where the future of this fringe lies.

**Rogueyopants**

Cheers guys, I was talking to one of my colleges (Super-Market) and he was saying that this is mainly the cause of the recession and in a smaller part, the middle-eastern war. And that the Republicans are being Republicans are trying to look like the good guys by trying not to increase taxes but in the long run will smack the American people in a blind rage in the long run.

As I look more of this up, I can see this is clearly not Obama's fault, and he's just trying to clean up the crap while the left is throwing it back at him.

**remilia_scarlet**

The way I see it, neither the democrats or republicans are doing the country any favors, and time is running out.

As for expenses, why are we in libya? Why are we allowing more than able-bodied people to get on disability? Why are we cutting jobs at a time where we can't afford to? Our president made a promise for change, things have changed for the worst, and looking at the canidates for 2012, I feel like we're going to be like this for a while.

**Manstein**

sebster wrote:The first thing to realise is that the absolutely immediate nature of this problem is entirely self-inflicted. They could just vote to pass a bill increasing the debt ceiling and carry on with business as usual. This is how things had carried along before, sometimes a bit of chatter but basically they just signed the increase and moved on with business.

What's changed this time isn't the scale of problem, or the scope of the changes that need to be made, basically the Republicans decided to make this an issue this time, and use it to drive through some of the changes they wanted, being their big chance to really flex their muscle since winning back some power in 2010.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, it's what every party should do in their situation. From there we've basically seen a game of chicken, counting down to August 2nd, with the first party to blink having to concede to the cuts the other side wanted.

The Democrats blinked, conceded the Republican call for 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases, as per the script for these kinds of things. Except that from there everything went pear-shaped, because of the increasingly powerful fringe of the Republican party, the Tea Partiers. As a group, they're defined by intense dedication to ever changing goal posts, and in this case they originally wanted a resolution that contained no new tax cuts, then when that looked almost certain, they wanted a resolution with no increase in the debt ceiling at all, before finally ending up looking like they simply weren't interested in dealing with any Democrats at all.

This left Republican Majority leader Boehner in a very tough spot, as he could no longer count on support within his own party for any bill he agreed to with the democrats. It was still a game of chicken, but one of the cars doesn't have a driver. At least, that was how it looked about two days ago.

That said, the US is lucky in that for all the bluff and bluster, there is still very little seperating the two parties. One is a right of centre party with a fringe of hardline right wingers, the other is a right of centre party with a fringe of moderate progressives and one actual socialist.

Right now where there's a bill in House of Representatives that will be supported by almost every Republican, and very few Democrats, and a bill in the senate that will be supported by almost every Democrat and and very few Republicans. The two bills are almost identical, with neither bill raising taxes, both cut discretionary spending by about $1.2 trillion, and both establish bi-partisan committees on future budgeting. The only difference is that the Republican bill is set up for another round of this nonsense next January, while the Democrat bill won't kick in until after the presidential election.

The Republicans appear to have gotten their party under control, and have a bill with broad support despite raising the debt ceiling (the final thing the Tea Partiers wanted) meanwhile the Democrats have managed to play their game of pretending to be liberals by taking the Republicans to the limit over the issue, before offering up a bill full of spending cuts, likely what most Democrat congressmen wanted in the first place.

That's kind of the weird thing of US politics, the two sides violently resist each other over issues when they basically have exactly the same opinions as each other*.

So the only question now is whether the fact that the two parties aren't arguing over anything substantial anymore is more powerful than the fact that both parties gain most of their support from being opposed to the other side.

*Excepting the Tea Party, who are genuinely out there, and more or less represent the people who actually believe the rhetoric of the Republicans. Most of them seemed to have eventually come back into the fold at this stage over this issue, but it'll be interesting to see where the future of this fringe lies.

A sad day when the idea of actually stopping to pay your bills and not go on "maxing out more credit cards" is fringe. Your view on these things is influenced by (and we have chatted about this in the best) a Keynesian view of economics that sees deficit spending as a "good thing." When this house of cards finally does crash, everyone will regret not stopping to consider why we actually raise the debt ceiling, and the consequences behind doing so. I know you don't think the Austrian school holds any water, the Austrians (economists) predicted the mess we are in, and some credit should be lent to their words.

No one likes to hear that you have to stop spending your money and that you should start saving it, but its the damned truth. This neo-keynesian thought process behind unlimited spending just goes to show how real science can be moved aside in favor of "what sounds nice."

The main beef I have with republicans on this whole issue is that this whole thing ISN'T an issue. We are already defaulting on our debt... seeing as we arn't paying it, but rather just trying to post pone payment. Our default can be witnessed by our increasingly outrageous inflation, something being evidenced by food increases across the nation. Republicans should stop protecting their own scared cow, militarism, and stop harping on the Dems for not wanting to chop up theirs, welfare / medicare. If they were serious about cuts, they would be talking about this.

**dogma**

murdog wrote:
No one likes to hear that you have to stop spending your money and that you should start saving it, but its the damned truth.

Is that why you decided to study history in Germany? To save money?

Dang, I should have taken that gender studies fellowship in Moldova, clearly that would have indicated fiscal responsibility.

**avantgarde**

And this was going so well until someone decided to throw around economics terms that most people don't really understand.

sebster wrote:The only difference is that the Republican bill is set up for another round of this nonsense next January, while the Democrat bill won't kick in until after the presidential election

Hey man, you're totally being disingenuous about the differences between Reid and Boehner's plans. There's more than just when the next round of Cap fight while happen. Reid's plan assumes savings from drawing down military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; Boehner's plan does not. These are important political differences that define each party's fundamental philosophy you can't just agree on gak like that without weeks or maybe months of serious thought provoking debate.

**Manstein**

dogma wrote:
murdog wrote:
No one likes to hear that you have to stop spending your money and that you should start saving it, but its the damned truth.

Is that why you decided to study history in Germany? To save money?

Dang, I should have taken that gender studies fellowship in Moldova, clearly that would have indicated fiscal responsibility.

Since I paid for my studies with savings and hard earned scholarship money.... Yeah.... It was fiscally responsible for me. That might have been different if I required loans, but I didn't, so it's all good, especially since the knowledge gained is worth gold in regards to my research (A.K.A. My career)

**dogma**

Manstein wrote:
Since I paid for my studies with savings and hard earned scholarship money.... Yeah.... It was fiscally responsible for me. That might have been different if I required loans, but I didn't, so it's all good, especially since the knowledge gained is worth gold in regards to my research (A.K.A. My career)

Hard earned scholarship money?

But yeah, it is good to know that spending other people's money is no fiscally responsible.

**Manstein**

dogma wrote:
Manstein wrote:
Since I paid for my studies with savings and hard earned scholarship money.... Yeah.... It was fiscally responsible for me. That might have been different if I required loans, but I didn't, so it's all good, especially since the knowledge gained is worth gold in regards to my research (A.K.A. My career)

Hard earned scholarship money?

But yeah, it is good to know that spending other people's money is no fiscally responsible.

According to your logic dogma, which is normally air tight, a scientist who chose to not use personal funds but rather, those awarded to him by a grant, is fiscally irresponsible. Not adding up here bud.

As a side note, I was awarded that scholarship as a result of a 5 prof committe's decision after review of my 89 page research report on prussian military reforms.

**Soladrin**

Manstein wrote:
dogma wrote:
Manstein wrote:
Since I paid for my studies with savings and hard earned scholarship money.... Yeah.... It was fiscally responsible for me. That might have been different if I required loans, but I didn't, so it's all good, especially since the knowledge gained is worth gold in regards to my research (A.K.A. My career)

Hard earned scholarship money?

But yeah, it is good to know that spending other people's money is no fiscally responsible.

According to your logic dogma, which is normally air tight, a scientist who chose to not use personal funds but rather, those awarded to him by a grant, is fiscally irresponsible. Not adding up here bud.

As a side note, I was awarded that scholarship as a result of a 5 prof committe's decision after review of my 89 page research report on prussian military reforms.

Well played

**dogma**

Manstein wrote:
According to your logic dogma, which is normally air tight, a scientist who chose to not use personal funds but rather, those awarded to him by a grant, is fiscally irresponsible. Not adding up here bud.

Reason, not logic, they are different.

Anyway fiscal responsibility is nebulous, which was my initial point.

Manstein wrote:
As a side note, I was awarded that scholarship as a result of a 5 prof committe's decision after review of my 89 page research report on prussian military reforms.

Did you use Modus Tolens in that, or Equivalency?

**halonachos**

Isn't it funny that Australians were the first to post something about the issues with our economy?

Good explanation though, just funny.

**sebster**

Manstein wrote:A sad day when the idea of actually stopping to pay your bills and not go on "maxing out more credit cards" is fringe. Your view on these things is influenced by (and we have chatted about this in the best) a Keynesian view of economics that sees deficit spending as a "good thing."

As I have explained to you beforehand, 'maxxing out on your credit cards' is not a Keynesian principle. As well as dictating that you have deficit budgets during economic downturns, Keynesian economics also dictates that you run surpluses during periods of high economic activity, with a look to a long term neutral position, or at worst an overall growth of deficit that's less than long term economic growth.

I'm happy to talk about this, but you really have to be honest enough to recognise things I've already explained to you, and not just keep repeating your original claims.

I know you don't think the Austrian school holds any water, the Austrians (economists) predicted the mess we are in, and some credit should be lent to their words.

You don't get any credit for being chicken little. Constantly declaring a near future economic collapse, then declaring you're a prophet when you're right really shouldn't give you any credit.

Especially when there is no limit of US borrowings other than the one congress is imposing on itself - the money markets were still lining up to lend money at very low interest rates.

No one likes to hear that you have to stop spending your money and that you should start saving it, but its the damned truth.

No. The 'damned truth' is that government must play a role in regulating the level of economic activity in the economy. This is absolutely it's job, and it's completely lunacy to suggest otherwise.

This means that during poor economic times it should endeavour to spend more and tax less, and during good economic times it should endeavour to tax more and spend less.

This neo-keynesian thought process behind unlimited spending just goes to show how real science can be moved aside in favor of "what sounds nice."

Except, of course, there's nothing keynesian in that idea. You really, really need to understand that the US deficit is not the product of Keynesian economics.

It is the product of a dysfunction in the US political system where no individual or group is ultimately accountable for the bottom line of the US budget. The bill is written in the house, modified in the Senate, and stamped by the president, with everyone having a say every step along the way. This has produced a system where everyone fights for their pet issue, be it another spending item or a reduction in tax rates, and they compromise among each other, with the difference being added to the deficit, which ultimately no-one was willing to fight for.

Compare this to Australia, which you can more or less call the modern stronghold of Keynesian economics. The idea that you should spend more in poor economic times, and save in good economic times is taken as an unquestionable absolute of our politics. Australian debt is among the lowest in the world, and more than offset by financial assets held by government. This is because Australia has a political structure where the party in government has sole responsibility for the budget bottom line, and out of control spending will throw the party in power out of government.

The main beef I have with republicans on this whole issue is that this whole thing ISN'T an issue. We are already defaulting on our debt... seeing as we arn't paying it, but rather just trying to post pone payment.

That's not what defaulting means. Defaulting is when you cannot pay your debt. The only chance of US default is if they decide they are not raising their self-imposed borrowing limit.

Our default can be witnessed by our increasingly outrageous inflation, something being evidenced by food increases across the nation.

I explained to you last time the US does not have high inflation. I even gave you the numbers of US inflation. Look, here it is again; 3.56%. This is low, lower than the average inflation from the end of WWII until today, which was 3.7%.

So please accept that the Austrian prediction of runaway inflation was proven to be utterly false, and at this point only exists in your head. There is not runaway inflation in the US.

Republicans should stop protecting their own scared cow, militarism, and stop harping on the Dems for not wanting to chop up theirs, welfare / medicare. If they were serious about cuts, they would be talking about this.

If there was some honesty about long term deficit reduction, then the only two things that matter would be on the table, healthcare reform and tax increases. They aren't, but I don't think this is because there aren't people who are serious about deficit reduction in congress.

Rather, the problem is that the ones who are serious about deficit reduction (the Tea Party) are idiots who confuse urban myths about welfare queens with fiscal policy, and the ones who simply cannot fathom long term deficit reduction (everyone but the Tea Party) know better than to raise those two sacred cows again.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

avantgarde wrote:Hey man, you're totally being disingenuous about the differences between Reid and Boehner's plans. There's more than just when the next round of Cap fight while happen. Reid's plan assumes savings from drawing down military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; Boehner's plan does not. These are important political differences that define each party's fundamental philosophy you can't just agree on gak like that without weeks or maybe months of serious thought provoking debate.

Except that outside of that, the level of savings in discretionary spending in both bills are basically the same, $1.2 trillion. Whether you list the savings from winding down two wars or don't mention it is ultimately just a piece of accounting, the substance is the same.

**WarOne**

Where do you guys think the Republicans and Democrats can come together and actually get any deal through in order to avoid this whole mess?

**Coolyo294**

WarOne wrote:Where do you guys think the Republicans and Democrats can come together and actually get any deal through in order to avoid this whole mess?

When pigs fly.

**WarOne**

coolyo294 wrote:
WarOne wrote:Where do you guys think the Republicans and Democrats can come together and actually get any deal through in order to avoid this whole mess?
When pigs fly.

I think you meant where pigs fly, as I asked what sort of common ground can the two parties actually work together on and finalize some sort of deal.

**sebster**

coolyo294 wrote:
WarOne wrote:Where do you guys think the Republicans and Democrats can come together and actually get any deal through in order to avoid this whole mess?
When pigs fly.

Either that or Monday.

**Stormrider**

It really doesn't matter what gets passed, our credit rating will go down. It's already too late.

The country won't default if the debt limit isn't raised, non-essential parts of the government will be closed one after another to keep spending under the limit. Our government averages about $200 billion in revenues* every month, our Government's obligations equal about $89 Billion per month, where does the rest of that go? To the leviathan in DC. The idea that the limit needs to be raised is hogwash, that would be a guaranteed way to move closer to a default, probably costing us our reserve currency status and wrecking the American economy for decades.

Any opposition to an increase is labelled extreme, why? What good does it do to keep spending at a pace four times as large a GWB's? What's so vital in the federal government that non-essentials must stay open?

We've got a massive spending problem, not a revenue* problem.

* I despise the use of revenue in this context, but since it's the new code word for taxes I guess I have to now. Stupid word games in the media.

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:
coolyo294 wrote:
WarOne wrote:Where do you guys think the Republicans and Democrats can come together and actually get any deal through in order to avoid this whole mess?
When pigs fly.

Either that or Monday.

AGGGHHHH.

I said WHERE!!!!

**ShumaGorath**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Hullo chup from Nu Zulland!

The US has a limit to which it can borrow money, currently a little over 14 trillion.
For severeal years they just bump it up a little to buy themselves a few more months of guilt free borrowing.
Obamalama the man who can do anything!!! (TM) wanted to double the limit to buy many years of guilt free borrowing without worrying voters about borrowing limits etc and said he would refuse a small increase again.

The democrats don't want to drop spending.
The republicans don't want to increase taxes.

The plans each offer is pathetic and woeful at sorting out the underlying problem that the US spends more than it ears and are trying to delay actually doing anything decent by up to a decade.

All of this indicates that they are all clowns.

Ireland and Greece were downgraded AFTER putting into place austerity measures that have crippled their economies and social services.

The US sooner or later needs to bite the bullet and increase taxes, ore close off several hundred loopholes and dramatically cut spending. The longer they delay the worse the cuts to spending and increase in taxes is going to be.
Will there be a hit to the economy - damned right. Will it be worse if left for longer - definitely.

The GFC in 2008 was due to problems with loans, the current issues is to deal with government debt. This is looking to be much worse if they don't sort it out.
The UK is in a similar position as well.

The brevity and grammar of this post don't bother me nearly as much as the sheer factual inaccuracy of it all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:It really doesn't matter what gets passed, our credit rating will go down. It's already too late.

The country won't default if the debt limit isn't raised, non-essential parts of the government will be closed one after another to keep spending under the limit. Our government averages about $200 billion in revenues* every month, our Government's obligations equal about $89 Billion per month, where does the rest of that go? To the leviathan in DC. The idea that the limit needs to be raised is hogwash, that would be a guaranteed way to move closer to a default, probably costing us our reserve currency status and wrecking the American economy for decades.

Any opposition to an increase is labelled extreme, why? What good does it do to keep spending at a pace four times as large a GWB's? What's so vital in the federal government that non-essentials must stay open?

We've got a massive spending problem, not a revenue* problem.

* I despise the use of revenue in this context, but since it's the new code word for taxes I guess I have to now. Stupid word games in the media.

This post is also pretty full of whimsical bs about a magic fairy united states that darkly mirrors but functions totally differently from our own.

Posts like these are why we're going to default. Our media has been lying to us for ratings and our politicians are cowards. Our electorate is plainly dumb to basic economic or governmental concepts and our elected just ride the stupidity into office. Democracy can't survive modern media. Anyway, back to not posting in OT for me.

**Slarg232**

ShumaGorath wrote:Posts like these are why we're going to default. Our media has been lying to us for ratings and our politicians are cowards. Our electorate is plainly dumb to basic economic or governmental concepts and our elected just ride the stupidity into office. Democracy can't survive modern media. Anyway, back to not posting in OT for me.

Holy gak.

I actually agree with Shuma!

What. The. Hell?!?!

**WarOne**

Slarg232 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Posts like these are why we're going to default. Our media has been lying to us for ratings and our politicians are cowards. Our electorate is plainly dumb to basic economic or governmental concepts and our elected just ride the stupidity into office. Democracy can't survive modern media. Anyway, back to not posting in OT for me.

Holy gak.

I actually agree with Shuma!

What. The. Hell?!?!

Hell, I won't even pretend to know anything about what is actually going on, as I am pretty sure that the elected officials sent to office thanks to the Tea Party rightly have no freakin' idea what they know about this whole mess either.

**dogma**

Stormrider wrote:
* I despise the use of revenue in this context, but since it's the new code word for taxes I guess I have to now. Stupid word games in the media.

It isn't a word game, it is what the money collected via taxes is called.

In other news, this post has prompted me to take a shot of tequila.

**Slarg232**

WarOne wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Posts like these are why we're going to default. Our media has been lying to us for ratings and our politicians are cowards. Our electorate is plainly dumb to basic economic or governmental concepts and our elected just ride the stupidity into office. Democracy can't survive modern media. Anyway, back to not posting in OT for me.

Holy gak.

I actually agree with Shuma!

What. The. Hell?!?!

Hell, I won't even pretend to know anything about what is actually going on, as I am pretty sure that the elected officials sent to office thanks to the Tea Party rightly have no freakin' idea what they know about this whole mess either.

Quite frankly, I don't think either side knows what it's doing. Professionally, I have no background in Economics or Business, or anything else like that, but Personally, I LOATHE being in dept.

Now, I'm not going to say Barack is bad or anything, but the dude has constantly lied to us, and I don't trust him. But then, I don't trust any politician, to tell the truth.

**WarOne**

dogma wrote:In other news, this post has prompted me to take a shot of tequila.

Yes...yes...my cleverly devised plan to make dogma as smart as me is now working.

**WarOne**

Slarg232 wrote:

Quite frankly, I don't think either side knows what it's doing.

It looks like the Republicans are in the same boot.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OP22C01.htm

An intense endgame at hand, House Republican leaders put off a vote Thursday night on legislation to avert a threatened government default and slice federal spending by nearly $1 trillion.

GOP leaders announced their decision after abruptly halting debate on the legislation and plunging into an intensive round of meetings with rebellious conservatives.

The decision created fresh turmoil as a divided government struggled to head off a default threatened after next Tuesday that would leave the Treasury without the funds needed to pay all its bills.

As the evening slipped by, the White House poked fun at Republicans led by Speaker John Boehner, who has become President Barack Obama's principal antagonist in a contentious era of divided government. And Senate Democrats pledged to scuttle the measure -- if it ever got to them -- to force a final compromise.

Boehner summoned a string of Republican critics of the bill to his office.

Asked what he and the speaker had talked about, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said, "I think that's rather obvious. ... There's negotiations going on."

Based on public statements by lawmakers themselves, it appeared that five of some two dozen holdouts were from South Carolina. The state is also represented by Sen. Jim DeMint, who has solid ties to tea party groups and is a strong critic of compromising on the debt issue.

A few first-term conservatives slipped into a small chapel a few paces down the hall from the Capitol Rotunda as they contemplated one of the most consequential votes of their careers.

Asked if he was seeking divine inspiration, Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said that had already happened. "I was leaning no and now I am a no."

Many more congregated in the office of the chief GOP vote counter, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy, perhaps drawn to the 19 boxes of pizza that were rolled in. Boehner joined them but did not speak to reporters.

"Clock ticks towards August 2, House is naming post offices, while leaders twist arms for a pointless vote. No wonder people hate Washington," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted.

Earlier, Boehner had exuded optimism.

"Let's pass this bill and end the crisis," said the president's principal Republican antagonist in a new and contentious era of divided government. "It raises the debt limit and cuts government spending by a larger amount."

President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the measure, and in debate on the House floor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida savaged it as a "Republican plan for default." She said the GOP hoped to "hold our economy hostage while forcing an ideological agenda" on the country.

Despite the sharp rhetoric, there were signs that gridlock might be giving way.

"Around here you've got to have deadlock before you have breakthrough," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. "We're at that stage now."

Wall Street suffered fresh losses as Congress struggled to break its long gridlock. The Dow Jones industrial average was down for a fifth straight session.

The Treasury Department moved ahead with plans to hold its regular weekly auction of three-month and six-month securities on Monday. Yet officials offered no information on what steps would be taken if Congress failed to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt limit by the following day.

Without signed legislation by Aug. 2, the Treasury will not have enough funds to pay all the nation's bills. Administration officials have warned of potentially calamitous effects on the economy if that happens -- a spike in interest rates, a plunge in stock markets and a tightening in the job market in a nation already struggling with unemployment over 9 percent.

White House press secretary Jay Carney outlined White House compromise terms: "significant deficit reduction, a mechanism by which Congress would take on the tough issues of tax reform and entitlement reform and a lifting of the debt ceiling beyond ... into 2013."

The last point loomed as the biggest obstacle.

The House bill cuts spending by $917 billion over a decade, principally by holding down costs for hundreds of government programs ranging from the Park Service to the Agriculture Department and foreign aid.

It also provides an immediate debt limit increase of $900 billion, which is less than half of the total needed to meet Obama's insistence that there be no replay of the current crisis in the heat of the 2012 election campaigns.

An additional $1.6 trillion in borrowing authority would be conditioned on passage of The endgame at hand, House Republicans struggled Thursday to pass legislation to prevent a looming government default while slicing nearly $1 trillion from federal spending. Senate Democrats pledged to scuttle the bill -- if it got to them -- in hopes of forcing a final compromise.

The GOP bill's $917 billion in upfront spending cuts was trillions less than many tea party-backed rank-and-file Republican lawmakers wanted, but a total that seemed nearly unimaginable when they took power in the House last winter with an agenda of reining in government. Numerous Republicans grumbled that the legislation didn't cut more deeply, and Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership have spent their week cajoling reluctant conservatives to provide the votes needed to pass it.

By most accounts, they were succeeding.

"It gives us a little bit of heartburn because it doesn't go big enough," said Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., a first-term lawmaker who said he would vote for the bill as the best one available.

Another first-term Republican, Rep. Martha Roby of Alabama, said the bill was "far from perfect. But I don't have the luxury of writing the plan by myself, and neither does Speaker Boehner."

While the White House and Democrats objected to the House bill, they readied an alternative that contained similarities.

Drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it provides for $2.7 trillion in additional borrowing authority for the Treasury. It also calls for cuts of $2.2 trillion, including about $1 trillion in Pentagon savings that assume the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even before the House voted, Reid served notice he would stage a vote to kill the legislation almost instantly.

"No Democrat will vote for a short-term Band-Aid that would put our economy at risk and put the nation back in this untenable situation a few short months from now," he said.

With the House and Senate focused on debt-limit legislation at opposite ends of the Capitol, 11 religious leaders protesting budget cuts were arrested in the Rotunda midway between the two chambers.

Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine said on the House floor that they were praying for those who will be "hurt the hardest" by the bill being considered.

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., countered that he, too was praying -- to avoid a default.

The day's events marked the climax of a struggle that began last winter, when the Treasury Department notified Congress it would need additional borrowing authority, and Boehner said any increase would have to include steps to reduce future spending.

At first the White House balked at the terms, then relented. That gradually morphed into a series of bipartisan negotiations, one led by Vice President Joe Biden, then another by Obama, and finally, a round of golf that led to stab at a "grand bargain" between the president and Boehner.

Boehner announced last Friday he was calling off the talks, setting in motion a frantic week of maneuvering as the default deadline grew near.

**Slarg232**

I'll have to read it in the morning, it's 11:42 here and I'm half asleep to where that much text is running together.

**ShumaGorath**

Slarg232 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Posts like these are why we're going to default. Our media has been lying to us for ratings and our politicians are cowards. Our electorate is plainly dumb to basic economic or governmental concepts and our elected just ride the stupidity into office. Democracy can't survive modern media. Anyway, back to not posting in OT for me.

Holy gak.

I actually agree with Shuma!

What. The. Hell?!?!

Hell, I won't even pretend to know anything about what is actually going on, as I am pretty sure that the elected officials sent to office thanks to the Tea Party rightly have no freakin' idea what they know about this whole mess either.

Quite frankly, I don't think either side knows what it's doing. Professionally, I have no background in Economics or Business, or anything else like that, but Personally, I LOATHE being in dept.

Now, I'm not going to say Barack is bad or anything, but the dude has constantly lied to us, and I don't trust him. But then, I don't trust any politician, to tell the truth.

How can you say he's lying to you if you fully admit to not knowing what the feth is going on? Doesn't knowing that you're being lied to imply that you know the truth? So you don't know enough and don't want to try to know enough to have anything useful to say, but you sure as hell can bitch about things? At least it's the American attitude I'm used to. I'd had to be surprised at 1AM.