Financial Problem?

children.

will

point

more

children's

Hogwash! You aren't guaranteed anything.

he children.

on.

on

lion

on

on

ion

govt. will

ing point

out how

he older

rnment

from

the

ystem and

nned the

ning.

cial...

above

Fund

children's

When the US defaults, it will be totally over for everything and everybody. You think you have a secure private pension? Guess again, it will be gone too.

children.

govt. will

point

how

older

more

and

the

children's

Depending on the definition of "default", true, but irrelevant in any case.

"A federal default is no option under the U.S. Constitution. Rating- agency warnings and budget-talk walkouts aside, America=92s founding document probably won=92t let the government stiff its creditors. That=92s no reason to derail a deal on the debt ceiling. But if push comes to shove, the White House may have the greater legal leverage."

The blogger has it bass-ackwards. If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling that doesn't force a default. It just means the White House has to live within its means, like the rest of us.

Barack has plenty of revenue to service the debt--$2.2 trillion pouring in. Debt service is less than $400B. He can make the debt payments and have 80%+ left over to spare.

So ff anything, the 14th bars Geithner and *the President* from defaulting--it limits him, not Congress. He's got the money, so it's a phony issue.

Of course if forced to live within our means G&O would leave all the expensive useless stuff intact. They'd wring their hands and explain the only way to save a nickel is to unplug a baby's incubator, etc., not cut any of O's 24% hikes (the on-going stimulus).

James

They can take my Toto when they pry it off my cold, dead @ss.

children.

will

point

how

older

more

and

the

I do not trust any resource thoughtlessly. Note that this time i = followed through and went to the original legislation. Did you look at it?

?-(

ldren.

will

int

er

ore

and

he

wed

Nope- I would not bother. The codified version, even if it uses the most plain language, is full of pitfalls and ambiguity in interpretation. It is much better to approach it from the legislative history side, and this should include all the revisions, because this describes the actual intent.

I think you're better off with an American Standard...

Everywhere.

ly

It's right in a certain sense. They don't legally owe anyone a dime, so "liability" is whatever they decide it is.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Dan

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Dan

I almost can't believe you put those sentences side by side, except that you did.

hildren.

. will

point

how

lder

nt

more

m and

the

...

ldren's

Maybe you should instead compare the normal usage of "trust" with the government's usage.

te:

the children.

lion.

lion

illion

lion

lion

llion

=3D1258

e govt. will

aking point

e out how

the older

s.

vernment

e from

nd 37% more

ly

ch the

system and

conned the

inning.

Social...

e above

t_Fund

ur children's

nd?

..

You're saying there is uncertainty in the world? Wow, that is quite a revelation.

e:

e a bit

ents.

to

udget

might

But

of

or

ach

amendment_...

Yes. Plus, while it's possible that the interest on debts may be legally binding, there is nothing to say it has to be paid via new debt. It could just as well be paid by making room via other spending cuts. The method of funding debt interest payments is not defined. So it is unclear why new debt could possibly be legally required.

Exactly. Spending cuts.

us

Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, EPA, NASA, FDA, CPSC, DOT, FAA, FCC, BATF and Mex Gun supply, BLS, NTIS, ...

On and on.

Nations do not need "national resources" to prosper. Cases in point are Singapore and Hong Kong.

Very little the Federal government does is "essential." What you say is a massive untruth.

On Jul 1, 10:10=A0pm, "DonMack" wrote: We

no

c,

I realized the reason he said "essential" is because to control people, you need to make them dependent. Now I get his perspective.