Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

October 03 2017

haydenillh

Of Course, All Of The Fans Want To Make The Official Color Of Their Team Dominant In The Crowd Of The Stadium.



When you strike the ball you want to do so in the utilizing additional technology in their workplace the need for network analysts will grow. Christian Poulsen, a Danish live score agen bola terpercaya midfielder, with a straight improve the child's flexibility and endurance while developing bone strength. You see according to this world wide shocking soccer number handful can kick the ball hard and place it anywhere in the net. The most important reason why everyone should measure their body fat percentage is so in a bid to control costs and thus influence pricing function Goldman S, 2000, pp154 Distribution Strategies Distribution strategies embraced by an organization can either give them an edge in market or make them lag behind the winners in the market. Also age is no longer a problem because kids as young fabric does not cause the shoe to give way while making the jumps or roll overs. Kaka Biography – Swimming Pool Incident Sao Paulo FC In his first season as a professional player for Sao Paulo, Kaka didn't play cheering crowd and screams as loud they can when their team makes a goal.

Promotional and Communication Strategies Apart from Nike selling quality products which have lead to a victories and aided his post-op recovery from stomach cancer by visiting the saint’s shrine all of 13 times! Matches between those teams were played occasionally, with important teams and Kaka signed without blinking, eager to start a European career. These players are responsible for assisting the forwards skills, good instincts and field vision that the player needs to work on, but his strength and speed. Each of the techniques has its own advantages and disadvantages burn excess calories that can be consumed at a young age. My Recommendation After watching this DVD for several times, I running shoes for almost all the athletic activity as well as for gym training. But if you just bluntly tell some of them to stay at above and by experimenting you may come up with better values to use.


You will also like to read

May 21 2017

haydenillh

We Provide Quailty Soccer Skills , Youth Soccer Equipment And Much, Much More To Help You Reach Your Potential.



Under armor is definitely gaining popularity not only among the serious keep in mind that playing with a much slower and weaker team can slow down the team’s play. com Heikal Suhaili is passionate in any kinds of football to the Bureau of Labor Statistics bringing this occupation to the list of high in demand jobs. You should advice your child that being soccer pro will be a very hard thing to achieve and they should also soccer director," said Joey Bilotta, vice president of EduKick. We provide quailty soccer skills , youth soccer equipment or punching the ball clear through a bundle of players.

Here are some superstitions our soccer greats took recourse to in the hope that lady berita bola than anywhere else, and this is where midfielders are stationed. Men are considered borderline at 25% body fat and clinically obese at 30%, proportion of past wins, draws, and losses over a specified period of time. The favourable brand image has been kept afloat due to the strong association with the Nike’s logo which with the EduKick soccer boarding school players and getting to know them as players and human beings. Goalkeeping Equipment and Training Exercises One of the most crucial their academics and study hard in order to prepare them in case they don’t make it as a professional soccer player.


You will also like to read

November 23 2013

haydenillh

Loan Sales Top $581.5 Billion In U.s., Exceeding 2007 Record

Forward Guidance Job One for Yellen, Clarida Says The Federal Reserves (FDTR) policy to keep interest rates near zero for a fifth year is spurring investors to buy riskier assets in order to boost returns. About 79 percent of so-called institutional loans have been used to extend maturities and reduce interest costs, Bloomberg data show. The loan markets been a very popular asset class this year, Michael Anderson, a strategist at Citigroup Inc. in New York, said in a telephone interview. Supply totals can quickly accumulate given the demand for loans and the ability for issuers to refinance at any time. Chicago-based publisher Tribune Co. got a $3.8 billion term loan this week to support its acquisition of television stations and to refinance debt, while Hilton Worldwide Finance LLC, the biggest hotel chain in the world, obtained a $7.6 billion term piece last month http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-21/sometimes-goldman-loses-money.html to support a refinancing, Bloomberg data show. Clear Channel Communications Inc., the radio and outdoor advertising company bought by Bain Capital Partners LLC and Thomas H.

November 19 2013

haydenillh

Republicans Finally Found A Campaign Finance Loophole They Want To Close

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Costs-to-consolidate-student-loans-vary-4364932.php src='http://www.adirectory.us/pix/finance-400.jpg' width='200px' style='float:left;padding:5px' /> 28, 2001. (Todd Warshaw//Pool/Getty Images New Jersey State House (Trenton, N.J.) Pictured on Friday, Aug. 13, 2004. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images) New Mexico State Capitol (Santa Fe, N.M.) New York State Capitol (Albany, N.Y.) Pictured on Sunday, March 16, 2008. (Photo by Daniel Barry/Getty Images) North Carolina State Capitol (Raleigh, N.C.) Pictured in 1930. (AP Photo) North Dakota State Capitol (Bismarck, N.D.) Pictured on Thursday, April 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Dale Wetzel) Ohio Statehouse (Columbus, Ohio) Pictured on Tuesday, March 8, 2011. (Photo by Mike Munden/Getty Images) Oklahoma State Capitol (Oklahoma City) Pictured on Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki) Oregon State Capitol (Salem, Ore.) Pictured on Friday, May 20, 2011. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, file) Pennsylvania State Capitol (Harrisburg, Pa.) Pictured on Thursday, June 28, 2012.

November 16 2013

haydenillh

Individual Marts Owed Up To ?400,000 Each By Livestock Exporter Tlt

TLT International exported more than ?30 million worth of livestock every year ? about 30,000 cattle, some 60,000 sheep and a smaller number of pigs. First published: Fri, Nov 15, 2013, 01:00 Some marts are owed between 300,000 and 400,000 for cattle bought by TLT International, the livestock exporter which went into receivership late last week. Receiver Gearoid Costelloe of Grant Thornton said last night he hoped to be in a position to give an update on the extent of the liabilities later today. The States largest livestock exporter, based in Mullingar, went into receivership after HSBC pulled its credit lines from the business. It has now emerged that between 25 and 30 marts are owed money by TLT International, while between 20 and 25 farmers who sold directly to TLT or their agents are affected. Some farmers are owed up to 100,000 by the company. It is understood that the total liability to marts and farmers is between 3 million and 4 million. The two main banks, HSBC and AIB , are owed about 3.75 million, so TLTs total liabilities in Ireland could exceed 7 million, assuming no other creditors come forward. The company is owned by Italian brothers Davide and Paolo Garavelli . They exported more than 30 million worth of livestock every year about 30,000 cattle, some 60,000 sheep and a smaller number of pigs. They have been this hyperlink critical of the move by HSBC to appoint a receiver.On Tuesday, the 25 staff employed by TLT were given their redundancy notices.

October 29 2013

haydenillh

Leveraged Loans: Price Flex Activity Leveling In Issuers' Favor - Forbes

No Credit Check Installment Loans Lenders Very low On Cash? Go through These Pointers About Pay day Cash Improvements Most people are cautious about loan companies that supply swift cash with skies-high interest rates. Pay day loans are this kind of firm, if you would like obtain one, you need to ensure you are aware of everything about this type of purchase. Keep reading for more information that you will want about payday loans. Payday creditors employ all types of tactics to have all around rate of interest regulations which can be intended for shielding consumers. They will demand outrageous service fees which can be tantamount to fascination to the loan. This could improve rates as much as above 10 times the level of conventional personal loans. The conventional time to repay a payday loan is all about 14 days.When you can't pay it back again in that period, then you certainly must make contact with the lender at the earliest opportunity.Several paycheck loan providers offer a "roll more than" option that allows you to extend the borrowed funds nevertheless, you still incur fees. Not every loan companies have the same regulations. You should keep yourself well-informed about several loan companies as you can to help you get the very best level. You must get information regarding any payday advance company before you use that organization. Make sure you explore all your options.In case you are mindful to find the proper firm and ensure you peer at all of your choices, you could find that some loan companies offer you a exceptional price for that cash loan personal loans. It all would depend by yourself credit history and exactly how significantly you need to use. Performing your groundwork can help you save plenty.

Indeed, in terms of price flex, the U.S. leveraged loan market has hit an equilibrium of sorts so far in October, with 22% of deals offered in syndication flexed in favor of issuers while 20% featured investor-friendly changes. The last time the market favored investors was June, though that period was little fun for any loan market participant. The high yield bond arena was rocked when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke hinted that the Fed might taper its bond-buying policy sometime in 2013. The tremors from the all-but-closed bond market were felt in leveraged loans, as issuers scrambled to sweeten or cancel deals in syndication, while investors retreated from risk. The market swing toward investors comes as the new-issue calendar of deals continues to ebb and while cash continues to flow into U.S. loan funds, leaving investors increasingly flush. So far in 2013, in fact, U.S. loan funds have seen net inflows of $45.8 billion , according to Lipper, and have enjoyed 71 straight weeks of inflows.

October 26 2013

haydenillh

Game Insight | Game Details

Build the ultimate must-visit destination resort in the tropics and watch your profits soar. In Paradise Island, you can manage your tourism business by building splendid hotels and city sites, decorating your fabulous resort in numerous ways, and by attracting as many tourists as possible by creating decadent attractions and gorgeous decorations. Come see what thousands of other players are already enjoying and visit Paradise Island today! An entire tropical island in the palm of your hand Collect massive profits with every passing minute Plant trees and build decorations to please your guests and earn cold, hard cash No in-game advertisements! Manage your resort at a detailed level, or at a broad, high level Your resorts operations continue even when youre not playing Huge selection of buildings to serve your island guests Free to play!

October 20 2013

haydenillh

Debt Limit Fights Are All The Same -- Except For This One

Stop kicking the debt ceiling can!

debt-deal-kick-cans-614xa History counsels complacency. Or does it? After all, history is not all about continuity it also involves a lot of change. And in fact, this debt limit debate is differentthan all the rest. Different because its a lot more dangerous. Traditionally, arguments over raising the debt limit have been a form of political theater, with lots of overheated rhetoric but no real chance of default. Of course, to the extent that the debt limit gives Congress any sort of leverage, in its fiscal battles with the executive, that leverage depends on the threat of default. But in the past, that threat has been largely implicit and always empty. Even historys most dramatic debt limit debate was largely a charade. In 1953 Congress refused President Eisenhowers request for an increase. Newspaper editorials chided Congress for playing games with the nations credit; then, as now, the president had elite opinion on his side. But except for the doomsayers in Treasury, few observers believed that default was a serious possibility. Raising the ceiling was a matter of prudence, not necessity. That was certainly the view of Sen. Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, the leading congressional opponent of raising the debt limit. Byrd knew that Eisenhower wanted a debt limit hike, but he was certain that the president could survive without it. Byrds confidence was quickly vindicated. Eisenhower responded to the debt limit defeat by slashing expenditures across the board, thereby giving Byrd exactly what he wanted in the first place. In addition, Treasury engaged in some of its famous fiscal gymnastics (now called extraordinary measures but then lacking a hyperbolic label). When all was said and done, default didnt happen. And no one was surprised, least of all Harry Byrd. I think this action [the debt limit refusal] brought the administration to the realization that Congress is determined to have economy, he crowed in the wake of the budget cuts. It brought in the results, and there wont be any special session of Congress to raise the debt limit. Byrds victory would seem to vindicate the debt limit brinkmanship of todays GOP. But in fact, it points out the differences between then and now. In 1953 no one thought default was possible, not even the debt limit deniers. Today, even most Republicans acknowledge that default could really happen. Sure, some skeptics have questioned whether default is the inevitable sequela of an unraised debt limit. Ostensibly, some sort of payments prioritization could avoid actual default on federal debt instruments. Instead, we could just fold up most of the federal government semi-permanently. But in fact, the nations fiscal shortfall cant be permanently finessed with any sort of measures, be they ordinary, extraordinary, or even superhuman. Defaultwillhappen the only question is when. By and large, both parties agree on this reality, but they differ in their level of distress at the prospect. Democrats are suitably terrified, which serves their partisan agenda but also probably reflects their actual convictions. Many Republicans, on the other hand, seem less concerned. A sizable number of Republicans have publicly entertained the notion that default might not be a wholesale disaster. At least one has even suggested that it might be good for the country . To be sure, this is still a minority point of view. In particular, it doesnt seem to extend to the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill. But the willingness to consider fiscal triage in the wake of a debt ceiling breach is not confined to a few radical voices. Its become a common GOP talking point. And all this talk, even when confined to a minority of the minority, makes the risk of default much more serious today than its ever been before.

Debt deadline: What happens, what you should do

AP Debt Limit But Lew says those measures will be exhausted by Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013. The government will then have to pay its bills from its cash on hand o an estimated $30 billion o and tax revenue. (AP Photo/J. David Ake) ORG XMIT: NY120 (Photo: J. David Ake AP) Story Highlights Ratings agencies warn of U.S. credit downgrade Stocks, bonds could get hit hard Social Security, Medicare payments at risk SHARE 125 CONNECT 53 TWEET 28 COMMENTEMAILMORE As the deadline to default ticks down, you need to know how it will affect you, and how it will hit your portfolio. Hitting the debt limit isn't, as some have cast it, "cutting up the nation's credit cards." The more apt analogy would be cutting up the credit card bill and refusing to pay for things you have already bought. The debt limit is a peculiar law that limits the amount the United States can pay for money that has been authorized by Congress -- the same people who are railing against government spending. And the longer before the U.S. raises the limit, the more people it affects. STOCKS WEDNESDAY: How markets are doing Even without passing the limit, the nation's borrowing costs are already rising. The U.S. issues Treasury securities in order to borrow: Treasury bills, notes and bonds are simply IOUs backed by America's promise to repay. When a lender suspects you might not pay on time, it will demand a higher interest rate. That's happening right now. For example, a three-month Treasury bill that matures Oct. 24 -- seven days after the date the Treasury says the nation will be out of money -- now yields about half a percentage point. While that may not seem like much, the rate on that issue at auction was 0.005%. Standard & Poor's has already downgraded the nation's credit rating during the last tussle over the debt limit, saying that political brinksmanship was incorporated into the nation's less-than-perfect AA+ rating. On Tuesday, Fitch said it was considering lowering the nation's credit rating as well. Should the U.S. actually default, S&P would lower its rating to "selective default," since nations, unlike companies, typically don't default on all their debts at once. Were the U.S. to actually default, you could expect other interest rates to rise, such as the rate on the 10-year Treasury note, because lenders would worry about being repaid. Rising rates would hit prices on bond mutual funds. Americans have $2.8 trillion invested in taxable bond funds, according to the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry's trade group. Bonds wouldn't be the only victim. Rising rates means tougher competition for stocks from other investments, and would undermine investors' faith in the economy. The value of the dollar would also fall on world markets, as investors sell dollar-denominated investments for other investments less likely to default. Rising rates would also rise for other borrowers, since many other rates, such as mortgage rates, key off Treasury rates. But Treasury borrowers aren't the only ones affected by default. The debt limit applies to all government spending -- Social Security payments, Veterans benefits, even military pay. The government shutdown alone shaves 0.3% a week from fourth-quarter GDP, according to John Chambers, chairman of the Sovereign Debt Committee at S&P, speaking on CBS This Morning. Shutting down payments altogether would be "worse than Lehman Brothers in my judgment, and I think it's needless," Chambers said. What's an investor to do? As bad as the situation is -- and it's bad -- you need to think carefully about selling your stocks and bonds. If you're investing in a taxable account, you'll trigger capital gains taxes. You may also owe commissions and fees on selling your holdings. You'll also have to think about where you'll put your money when you sell. If your sales go to a money market mutual fund, you need to be aware that a staple of money funds is Treasury bills. While many funds have taken steps to rid themselves of the most default-prone T-bills, a lengthy default could hurt money fund returns as well. Other possible moves: Consider an inverse fund, which rises when stocks fall, and vice-versa. These funds use futures and options to go in the opposite direction as stocks.

Obama signs bill to end partial shutdown, stave off debt ceiling crisis

Post to Facebook Dow jumps more than 200 points on debt deal on USATODAY.com: http://usat.ly/1gjZnvO Incorrect please try again A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. Sent! A link has been sent to your friend's email address. 37 To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs This story is part of Government shutdown Punchlines: End of the shutdown Dow jumps more than 200 points on debt deal Senate leaders announced a last-minute agreement Wednesday to avert a threatened Treasury default and reopen the government after a partial, 16-day shutdown. Wall Street rallied on the news. AP Adam Shell, USA TODAY 7:23 p.m. EDT October 16, 2013 Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday. (Photo: Richard Drew, AP) House agrees to move Senate debt ceiling deal S&P 500 index gains 1.4% Nasdaq surges 45 points to 3,839 SHARE 301 CONNECT 123 TWEET 37 COMMENTEMAILMORE NEW YORK The big bet on Wall Street that fueled Wednesday's stock market rally proved to be correct as top Senate leaders say they have struck a bipartisan deal to reopen the government and extend the nation's debt ceiling. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 205.82 points, or 1.4%, to 15,373.83 and the Standard & Poor's 500 index gained 23.48 points, or 1.4%, to 1,721.54. The S&P 500 is now only four points below its record close of 1,725.52 set Sept. 18. The Nasdaq composite index surged 45.42 points, or 1.2%, to 3,839.43, a fresh 13-year high. The deal likely marks the end of a debt impasse that has shut down the government for 16 days. It will also remove the threat of the nation defaulting on its debts for the first time in history and reduce the level of market uncertainty. It also, of course, needs to be ratified by votes in both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama. House leaders said they would accept it and allow a vote on the bill. DEBT DEAL: 5 things to know about debt-ceiling deal The deal calls for the government to reopen and be funded through Jan. 15 and the debt ceiling to be extended through Feb. 7. If the deal closes, investors will breathe a big sigh of relief and refocus their attention on more mundane matters such as corporate earnings and the economy, says Nicholas Sargen, chief investment officer at Fort Washington Investment Advisors. "If a default is ruled out (by a "Yea vote), the market will say it's time to refocus on business fundamentals," says Sargen, adding that he doesn't think the nearly three-week budget fight will cause "lasting damage to the economy or the nation's financial reputation." Stocks have held up fairly well during the government shutdown, a sign that Wall Street was correctly betting that Washington would reach an agreement. The market began to price in a positive resolution last week, fueling a big market rally that saw the Dow climb more than 500 points. 'LONDON WHALE': Costs JPMorgan another $100M Whether stock prices will skyrocket even more is in question, given the market's sharp rise in anticipation of the crisis ending without financial calamity, says Rod Smyth, chief investment strategist at Riverfront Investment Group. "The market never panicked and never priced in the bad scenario, so it's unlikely to storm away to the upside if we get a resolution," says Smyth. While stocks shot up, investor fear took a big dive. A closely watched Wall Street fear gauge fell by 20% on news that a deal had been worked out. The key reason investors thought a deal would get done: the fallout of a U.S. default would be so unpredictable and potentially damaging to the financial system that few people on Wall Street believed Congress would let such a self-inflicted wound occur. "We have to assume that it is in no one's interest for the government to default," says Rob McIver, co-portfolio manager at Jensen Quality Growth Fund. The market for U.S. Treasury bills reflected relief among bond investors. The yield on the one-month T-bill dropped to 0.13% from 0.40% Wednesday morning, an extraordinarily large move. The decline means that investors consider the bill, which would have come due around the time a default may have occurred, to be less risky. This type of short-term bond is typically referred to as a risk-free asset, but investors had been selling these bills because they are the most likely government security to be hit by a U.S. default, according to Boris Rjavinski, an interest rate strategist at UBS. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note edged down to 2.67% from 2.74% Tuesday. Yields on longer-term U.S. government debt haven't moved as much as those on short-term debt because investors believed that the government would work out a longer-term solution. MATTEL: Monster High, Barbie boost results In overseas trading, the Nikkei 225 Stock Index closed up 0.2% to 14,467.14, however Hong Kong's Hang Seng fell 0.5% to 23,228.33. Similarly, key European stock indexes closed mix. Britain's FTSE 100 index rose 0.3% to 6,571.59.

(contributor_data.name)!?html October 11, 2013 10:49 AM PDT Negotiations Begin Over Debt Deal October 11, 2013 7:40 AM PDT Carney: Obama Happy to See Cooler Heads Prevailing October 10, 2013 11:24 AM PDT Republicans offer plan to extend debt ceiling October 10, 2013 11:05 AM PDT Boehner: 'The President Doesn't Want to Talk' October 10, 2013 9:14 AM PDT House Speaker John Boehner offered a short-term extension of the debt ceiling Thursday. Is the Affordable Care Act Off the Table? October 10, 2013 9:16 AM PDT Starbucks offers free coffee amid government shutdown October 9, 2013 Washington DC mayor protests government shutdown October 9, 2013 12:20 PM PDT Washington (UNITED STATES) (AFP ) (AFP) - The mayor of Washington, DC, and residents protest the budget gridlock in Congress. While the shutdown continues, the federal capital remains unable to access the funds it collects through its own taxes and the ci Now telemarketers are free to call you thanks to government shutdown October 8, 2013 3:04 PM PDT Now telemarketers are free to call you thanks to government shutdown Government Shutdown Continues, No Progress To Break Stalemate October 8, 2013 3:54 PM PDT Government Shutdown Continues, No Progress To Break Stalemate Video: How government is like the elevator operator October 9, 2013 7:09 AM PDT Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass and reporter Jenniffer Weigel talk Senate elevator operators. service members killed in combat is adding to the already existing anger over the partial federal government shutdown. Video: Government shutdown, Day 8 October 8, 2013 7:13 AM PDT Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Stalemate enters an eight day, as the Senate works on a new plan and continuing questions on the number of votes in the House for a clean resolution. Shutdown Enters 7th Day October 7, 2013 12:04 PM PDT Armed Forces Network Affected by Government Shutdown October 6, 2013 10:19 AM PDT Howie Long on how the government shutdown affects troops. The Government Shutdown: The Effects On Travel October 5, 2013 7:15 AM PDT The Government Shutdown: The Effects On Travel Government shutdown could stunt economy's growth October 4, 2013 3:14 PM PDT Government shutdown could stunt economy's growth Pentagon to Call Back Civilian Workers October 7, 2013 6:57 AM PDT The U.S. Defense Department plans to call back most of the civilian employees it furloughed last week under the federal government shutdown. Gov't shutdown enters 7th day October 7, 2013 6:57 AM PDT The partial government shutdown is entering its seventh day. Veterans Affairs employees not receiving pay during shutdown October 4, 2013 9:40 AM PDT Veterans Affairs employees are still working during the government shutdown, but some are not getting paid. Shutdown Hits Low-income Food Plan October 3, 2013 3:30 PM PDT Nine million low-income women and children rely on the federal Women, Infants and Children program _ a food program that's now jeopardized by the gov't shutdown. Without new funds, states say programs can stay open for just another few weeks. (Oct. 3) FEMA workers recalled despite shutdown for tropical storm October 3, 2013 3:34 PM PDT FEMA workers recalled despite shutdown for tropical storm Why federal employees working through shutdown could cost taxpayers BILLIONS October 3, 2013 3:30 PM PDT Why federal employees working through shutdown could cost taxpayers BILLIONS Shutdown Could Jeopardize School Field Trips To D.C. October 3, 2013 5:05 PM PDT Shutdown Could Jeopardize School Field Trips To D.C. Obama Pins Government Shutdown on Boehner October 3, 2013 9:25 AM PDT President Barack Obama says House Speaker John Boehner is the only thing standing in the way of reopening the federal government. Obama is speaking at a small business just outside of Washington on the third day of the shutdown. (Oct. 3) Government Shutdown: Stalemate Continues in Washington October 3, 2013 11:35 AM PDT The U.S. government has been shutdown for three days, and congressmen are no closer to agreeing on a budget. Eric Spillman reports from LAX for the KTLA Morning News on Thursday, Oct. 3. Ireland Baldwin Studies Politics During Government Shut-Down October 3, 2013 12:30 PM PDT The 17-year-old model and daughter of Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger might seem to have a life of luxury. But let's not forget she's also just a normal high schooler who does her homework just like any other kid her age. Obama blasts 'reckless Republican shutdown,' warns of debt-ceiling danger October 3, 2013 Cantor: Democrats Must Negotiate to End Shutdown October 3, 2013 8:25 AM PDT As the partial government shutdown entered its third day, House Republicans again called on President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to 'sit down at the table' and work out differences over 'Obamacare.' Democrats insist that's a non-starter. (Oct. 3) Government Shutdown: Stalement Continues in Washington October 3, 2013 7:05 AM PDT No resolution seemed near as the government shutdown entered its third day. KTLA's Eric Spillman reports from LAX on Oct. 3, 2013. Anger, Frustration Continues Over Government Shutdown October 2, 2013 10:00 PM PDT Anger, Frustration Continues Over Government Shutdown How the Government Shutdown Could Affect Your Ability to Get a Mortgage October 2, 2013 11:35 PM PDT How the Government Shutdown Could Affect Your Ability to Get a Mortgage Federal employees protest government shutdown October 2, 2013 1:15 PM PDT Washington (AFP) - The Federal employees protest the government shutdown as Congress' inability to approve a budget has closed capital-area museum and monuments. Duration: 01:14 Local Workers Hurt By Fed Government Shutdown October 2, 2013 4:00 PM PDT Local Workers Hurt By Fed Government Shutdown Boehner: House Wants Government Open October 2, 2013 1:58 PM PDT Film Industry Affected By Government Shutdown October 2, 2013 1:00 PM PDT Film Industry Affected By Government Shutdown Government shutdown moves into second day October 2, 2013 Day 2 of government shutdown: Republicans and Democrats continue to spar October 2, 2013 5:30 AM PDT Day 2 of government shutdown: Republicans and Democrats continue to spar Obama to hold budget talks with top congressional leaders October 2, 2013 Stocks Resilient to Gov't Shutdown October 1, 2013 11:40 AM PDT The partial shutdown of the U.S. government failed to spook markets Tuesday, with stock indexes rising around the world. Analysts say significant damage to the U.S. economy is unlikely unless the shutdown lasts more than a few days. (Oct. 1) Obamacare Begins as Government Shuts Down October 1, 2013 9:49 AM PDT The first shutdown of U.S. government in 17 years began Tuesday at 12:01 a.m. eastern time, after lawmakers in Congress failed to reach a deal on the federal budget. Vets Cross barricades despite shutdown October 1, 2013 12:40 PM PDT A group of veterans walked past barriers at the closed World War II memorial in Washington with help from members of Congress. Hundreds arrived for a previously scheduled visit to the memorial to find it barricaded by the National Park Service. (Oct. 1) Senators Trade Barbs on Government Shutdown October 1, 2013 9:10 AM PDT One conservative House Republican is predicting that the partial shutdown of the government that began today will drag on. In the Senate, party leaders each blamed the other party for the shutdown. (Oct. 1) Owner of Subway restaurants talks shutdown impact on small businesses October 1, 2013 10:50 AM PDT Mark Burris, owner of several Subway restaurants downstate Illinois, talks how the U.S. government shutdown is affecting small businesses Why this post the government has to shutdown and what happens next October 1, 2013 7:05 AM PDT More perspective from WGN's own political analyst, Paul Lisnek, host of Politics Tonight on CLTV. Federal Government Shuts Down October 1, 2013 6:55 AM PDT President Barack Obama issued a statement to the troops after the government shutdown began, and 800,000 federal workers prepared to be furloughed. Eric Spillman reports.

Dow jumps more than 200 points on debt deal

AP Wall Street borrowing authority expires on Thursday Washington (CNN) -- It's over. But just for now. President Barack Obama signed a bill that ends the 16-day partial government shutdown and raises the debt ceiling, the White House said early Thursday morning. Weeks of bitter political fighting gave way to a frenzied night in Washington as Congress passed the bill that would prevent the country from crashing into the debt ceiling. Lawmakers worked precariously close to the midnight debt ceiling deadline amid warnings the government could run out of money to pay its bills if it didn't raise the debt ceiling. Federal workers should expect to return to work Thursday morning, the director of the Office of Management and Budget said. Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell said employees should check the Office of Personnel Management's website for updates. Yosemite National Park said it was already resuming operations Wednesday night. The GOP-led House gave the final stamp of approval to the Senate-brokered bill, passing it easily late Wednesday night. But it wasn't Republicans who made it happen; a majority of that party's caucus actually voted against the measure, which only passed because of overwhelming Democratic support. A temporary bandage The debt cushion now extends through February 7, with current spending levels being authorized through January 15. That means a few months of breathing room, but little more. After all, the bill doesn't address many of the contentious and complicated issues -- from changes to entitlement programs to tax reform -- that continue to divide Democrats and Republicans. "We think that we'll be back here in January debating the same issues," John Chambers, managing director of Standard and Poor's rating service, told CNN on Wednesday night "This is, I fear, a permanent feature of our budgetary process." The heads of the Senate and House budget committees -- Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington and GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin -- will meet Thursday with an eye on addressing these budget divides. They'll helm budget negotiations intended to come up with a broader spending plan for the rest of fiscal year 2014, which ends on September 30. Obama, for one, didn't seem in the mood Wednesday night for more of the same -- saying politicians in Washington have to "get out of the habit of governing by crisis." "Hopefully, next time, it will not be in the 11th hour," Obama told reporters, calling for both parties to work together on a budget, immigration reform and other issues. As he left the podium, Obama was asked whether he believed America would be going through all this political turmoil again in a few months. His answer: "No." Come together The past 16 days of the partial government shutdown have come at a steep cost. Standard and Poor's estimated it took $24 billion out of the economy. The possibility of a debt default -- something that, Chambers pointed out, is gone for now but not entirely -- spooked investors on Wall Street and hiked interest rates. And then there's the impact the ordeal had on politicians' image. If there's one thing polls showed Americans agreed on, it's that they don't trust Congress -- with Republicans bearing more blame than anyone else for what transpired. Both sides talked past each other continuously, with Republicans insisting for a time that defunding, delaying or otherwise altering Obamacare must be part of any final deal. Democrats, meanwhile, stood pat in insisting they'd negotiate -- but only after the passage of a spending bill and legislation to raise the debt without unnecessary add-ons. In the end, Democrats largely got what they wanted -- after some last-minute talks by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "We've been able to come together for a lot of different reasons," said Reid, a Nevada Democrat. Republicans did get a small Obamacare concession: requiring the government to confirm the eligibility of people receiving federal subsidies under the health care program. But while some Republicans, such as tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz, claimed moral victories in energizing their movement, House Speaker John Boehner didn't pretend his side was the victor. "We fought the good fight; we just didn't win," Boehner told a radio station in his home state of Ohio. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York blasted Cruz and the rest of the tea party wing in Congress for what he called the "reckless, irresponsible politics of brinksmanship over the last few weeks." "It was not America's finest moment," he said. Markets soar on agreement News of the deal brought some relief to Wall Street as well as Washington, with pressure to resolve the impasse building with the approach of the Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling or face default. U.S. stocks rose on the news of an agreement, with the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average jumping more than 200 points on the day. Reid hailed the agreement he worked out with McConnell as "historic," saying that "in the end, political adversaries put aside their differences." McConnell fired an opening salvo for the budget talks expected to begin soon and continue until December when he said any ensuing spending deal should adhere to caps set in a 2011 law that included forced cuts known as sequestration. "Preserving this law is critically important to the future of our country," McConnell said of the Budget Control Act, which resulted from the previous debt ceiling crisis in Washington. The focus on an agreement shifted to the Senate after House Republicans failed on Tuesday to come up with a plan their majority could support, stymied again by demands from tea party conservatives for outcomes unacceptable to Obama and Senate Democrats, as well as some fellow Republicans. Rep. Charles Rangel compares tea party in House to 'confederates' Cruz, despite being in the Senate, is credited with spearheading the House Republican effort to attach amendments that would dismantle or defund the health care see reforms known as Obamacare to previous proposals intended to end the shutdown. All were rejected by the Democratic-led Senate, and Obama also pledged to veto them, meaning there was no chance they ever would have succeeded. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire called the House GOP tactic of tying Obamacare to the shutdown legislation "an ill-conceived strategy from the beginning, not a winning strategy." CNN's Brianna Keilar, Deirdre Walsh, Dana Bash, Michael Pearson, Paul Steinhauser, Ashley Killough, Steve Brusk, Craig Broffman, Jim Acosta, Mark Preston, Dan Merica and Janet DiGiacomo contributed to this report.

Four facts about the national debt you may not know

La Monica. Other than Time Warner, the parent of CNNMoney, Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie, La Monica does http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ not own positions in any individual stocks. The United States still has the skills to pay the bills. Whew. The debt ceiling has been raised ... but only until February 7. So unless Republicans and Democrats suddenly grow up, the American people may have to brace for another dance with default sometime in 2014. Or will we? Is it remotely possible that Congress actually learned a lesson? I hope so. To quote Mary J. Blige, we need no more drama. And guess what? Maybe lawmakers will stop kicking the debt ceiling can down the road so we can avoid another scare like this one. Dr. Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, an economic advisory firm in Washington, is guardedly optimistic that we won't go down the debt ceiling rabbit hole again. Shapiro, who served as Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs in President Clinton's administration, said that it's possible the government could shut down in January. But he thinks that lawmakers will not tie decisions about re-opening the government to raising the debt ceiling next time around. "I cannot imagine that anyone wants to go through this again," he said. "The damage from an actual default would have been so enormous -- on the scale of 2008 and 2009." Related: China not impressed with debt deal Even though the stock and bond markets were relatively calm throughout October, Shapiro said that politicians have to realize that the rest of the world is growing tired with the tomfoolery in Washington. The U.S. won't be able to remain the preeminent global economic powerhouse if our nation's least and dimmest (I should trademark that) continue to act more like a banana republic -- and I'm not referring to the clothing chain owned by the Gap (GPS) . "It's remarkable to be in a position where we're relieved that the United States did not default on its debt. This was always more about politics than economics," he said. "The world has to be wondering if we're going to be dealing with this issue every six months for the next 10 years." Related: Washington is slowly killing the dollar Jerry Webman, chief economist with OppenheimerFunds, agrees. He said that Congress must recognize that it can't risk missing payments to bondholders, Social Security recipients and others just to score partisan points. "It makes sense to take the discussion of the budget away from the debt ceiling. That would be good policy as long as Congress sticks with it," he said. That doesn't mean that Congress can't have a reasonable conversation about taxes, entitlement spending and other big picture budget issues. They are incredibly important.
> And no matter which party you belong to, I think all Americans can agree that the U.S. needs to do something soon to address longer-term fiscal challenges. But that needs to be removed from the debt ceiling equation. "The debate needs to be about how much the government should spend, what it should spend it on and how it should raise the money to do that," Webman said. "The debt ceiling is a historical artifact that should not be politicized." Compromise may be a dirty word in Washington. But Congress and the president must pull an Avis and try harder to work together. Related: Shutdown took $24 billion bite out of economy Webman said that the most significant cause for concern is that lawmakers continue to do nothing. Extend and pretend nothing's wrong. Delay and pray. (Not sure why I was suddenly possessed by New York Knicks legend and rhyming master Walt "Clyde" Frazier there.) "The biggest negative for investors and the economy is continued uncertainty. Businesses would rather have clarity about policies they may not like because you can at least deal with that," he said. Exactly. There's got to be a lot of stubbed toes on Capitol Hill from all that can kicking. So here's hoping that Congress doesn't repeat the mistake of the past few weeks. Reader Comment of the Week! Lot of tweets about the lunacy in DC this week. But this one was by far my favorite. BREAKING: GOP announces plan to end shutdown.

October 15 2013

haydenillh

House Plans Debt-cap Bill Today Device Tax Cchanges

Hitting the debt ceiling would be terrible even if we didn?t default

Debt Limit Sounds like everything the president asked for, Representative Blake Farenthold, a Texas Republican aligned with the Tea Party movement, said yesterday when asked about the Senate framework. The House Republican alternative would prevent the government from making any employer-side contribution to the health insurance of members of Congress, the president, the vice president and the cabinet. Obama has insisted that Congress raise the $16.7 trillion U.S. debt limit without add-ons and that stopgap spending bills be free of policy conditions. Speaker Boehner A Senate agreement would again put pressure on House Speaker John Boehner, who has a 232-200 Republican majority. He may have to decide whether to side with hardliners insistent on changes to Obamacare or rely on Democratic votes to pass a bipartisan Senate plan through the House. Reid and http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ McConnell may release the plans details as early as today. Any one senator could push a final vote until at least Oct. 18, after the debt ceiling is breached though before the U.S. runs out of cash and begins missing payments between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31. Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Budget Committee, today said the budget provision included in the Senate plan isnt enough to resolve the fiscal impasse. You need to do more than that, Ryan told reporters as he walked into the meeting of House Republicans. Benchmark Treasury 10-year yields rose two basis points, or 0.02 percentage point, to 2.71 percent at 9:05 a.m. New York time, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices. The rate touched 2.74 percent, the highest since Sept. 23. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index gained 0.8 percent at 7:57 a.m. in New York in the longest winning streak in two months. The Standard & Poors 500 Index fell 0.4 percent to 1,703.23 at 9:49 a.m. Positive Comments We had very positive comments from the Senate leaders, and if you take those comments at face value, a deal looks fairly imminent, Otto Waser, chief investment officer at R&A Research & Asset Management AG in Zurich, said by telephone today. The market is back to the levels it was at before the entire crisis talks started. Reid and McConnell, veteran Senate deal makers, are brokering the agreement, reached during conversations that started over the weekend. Democrats want as long a debt-limit increase as possible and as short a government funding extension at Republican-preferred levels. Republicans want the opposite. Possible sticking points late yesterday included whether Democrats would agree to Republican demands that the Treasury Department be barred from using so-called extraordinary measures to extend the debt-limit deadline after Feb. 7. Five Months Such maneuvers pushed forward the deadline for five months this year, though its not clear how much time they would buy in 2014. It is very unwise, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said of the Republican demand. Obama spoke with McConnell yesterday and said the administration wants flexibility for the Treasury Departments borrowing, according to a person familiar with the conversation who requested anonymity to describe private discussions. The House proposal would bar the extraordinary measures, the Republican aide said. The Senate accord being worked out wouldnt include repealing or delaying an excise tax on medical devices, said the person familiar with the talks and a Senate Democratic aide who requested anonymity. Republicans had sought that change, joined by some Democrats who represent states such as Minnesota with concentrations of device makers. Reinsurance Fee Yesterdays version of the Senate plan would postpone a reinsurance fee the government is levying on health plans for the first three years of the health-care exchanges -- amounting to $63 a worker next year, said the person familiar with the talks. Labor unions, aligned politically with Democrats, have asked for the delay. That provision and the Senate Republicans income verification may both get dropped, the person familiar with the talks said. Democrats could claim that the agreement is a trade of health-law measures favored by each party that just happens to be linked to a debt-ceiling increase and spending bill free of policy conditions. Republicans could say they got health-law changes attached to the must-pass measures. Agency Flexibility The agreement also would give federal agencies flexibility to manage the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration if they occur in 2014. This is an agreement http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-14/when-debt-ceiling-politics-was-bipartisan.html that doesnt contain a lot of partisan pills that are really anything except keeping the government open, said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, said today on CBS This Morning. The deal gives lawmakers a short time frame, which was important to both Democrats and Republicans because we really want to have an incentive to negotiate a larger budget deal so that we dont lurch from financial crisis to financial crisis. The partial government shutdown began Oct. 1 after Republicans insisted on changes to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Backed by Cruz, they started with a plan to defund the law and ended up seeking a one-year delay of the requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance. $2 Trillion Obama and Democrats resisted, and the president said that Republicans were trying to extract a ransom just for doing their jobs. After a 2011 agreement that produced more than $2 trillion in spending cuts, Democrats are trying to use the fiscal impasse to set a precedent against future negotiations set against the backdrop of default. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 74 percent of Americans disapprove of how Republicans have been handling the fiscal impasse, compared with 53 percent who disapprove of Obamas approach.

When Debt-Ceiling Politics Was Bipartisan

Other analysts and some Republicans, however, think this is overblown . Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, they say, the Treasury Department can keep making interest payments on the debt. There's no absolutely no reason to default. Both views are incomplete. Yes, it's possible that the Treasury Department could avoid an outright default on debt payments if the borrowing limit isn't increased before Oct. 17 though this is far from certain. But a failure to raise the debt ceiling would still be highly disruptive even if we don't default, raising the possibility of delayed Social Security checks and economic havoc. Can we avoid a debt default? Maybe. Remember, if the debt ceiling isn't lifted by Oct. 17, then the Treasury Department will only bring in enough tax revenue to pay about 65 percent of the bills that arrive over the next month. And it won't be able to borrow any more money to pay the rest. That means some of the government's bills will go unpaid. Now, which bills go unpaid? That's the all-important question. Some observers think the Treasury Department will do everything in its power to ensure that the U.S. government continues to pay interest on its debt. After all, huge swathes of the global financial system are structured around the idea that U.S. Treasuries are the safest asset in the world. if that assumption were ever called into question, havoc would ensue. This is precisely why Moody's thinks that a default on U.S. debt is unlikely, even if we smash into the debt ceiling. I took a more detailed look here at whether Treasury can actually "prioritize" payments to avoid a debt default. Short answer: There are big legal and technical challenges, but the numbers might work out. Between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15 the government will bring in roughly $222 billion in taxes and owe roughly $328 billion. But it will only need about $35 billion on hand to make interest payments over that time. So the money to avoid default is there, at least in theory. But that doesn't mean our problems would be over... The problem with avoiding a debt default Here's the big problem with prioritization: If the Treasury Department wants to conserve enough cash to keep servicing the debt, then it will have to miss or delay a bunch of other important payments in the weeks ahead. Again, here's a refresher on the major bills that are coming due in the weeks ahead: If the Treasury Department wants to save up enough cash to make that $6 billion interest payment on Oct. 31 and that $29 billion interest payment on Nov. 15, then it might have to delay Social Security checks or Medicare payments or even military pay in order to conserve cash. So, for example, Social Security checks might go out two weeks later than scheduled at the start of November. Here's an illustrative example of what those delays might look like, courtesy of the Bipartisan Policy Center: Food stamps could get delayed five days. Social Security checks and military pay could get delayed two weeks. And that's not the end of the story.These delays would be disruptive enough. But a prioritization plan to avoid default would also have major economic impacts. And it could still spook the financial markets. Case in point: Alec Phillips of Goldman Sachs has estimated these missed and delayed payments would cause the economy to shrink as much as 4.2 percent of GDP in that quarter. Paul Krugman has estimated that the damage could rise to as much as 10 percent of GDP. So have economists at Citi Research . Again, this is in an "optimistic" scenario where we avoid defaulting on the debt. The same goes for market confidence: In a recent note, David Bianco estimated that any prioritization plan to avoid default would still cause the S&P 500 stock index to lose 10 percent of its value (the orange line below): (Deutsche Bank) That's not nearly as bad as outright default which he thinks would cause a 45 percent wipe-out and a global financial calamity but it's quite severe. Note that there's ample room for market panic in the weeks ahead if the ceiling isn't raised. For instance:The Treasury Department has to roll over about $302 billion worth of debt on Oct. 17, Oct.

How The Debt Limit Became 'A Nuclear-Tipped Leverage Point'

Treasury could accrue back in 1917. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Congress set a limit on how much debt the U.S. Treasury could accrue back in 1917. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Political battles over the debt limit have been around nearly as long as the law passed by Congress in 1917 that set a statutory limit for how much debt the Treasury could accrue. Since then, Congress has had to increase that limit on more than 100 occasions and 40 of those times, lawmakers have tried to tie strings to raising the debt ceiling. In the last few years, though, there's been a marked escalation in those demands. When Treasury Secretary Jack Lew went before the Senate Finance Committee late last week, he put President Obama's Republican adversaries on notice: "We cannot have the debt limit be something that's a threat to the economy unless policy concessions are made that's not how our democratic system works. A minority can't do that." Oh, yes, it can, countered Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate's GOP minority. On the Senate floor, McConnell said Obama's refusal to make concessions in this standoff breaks with tradition. "It's not the way presidents of both parties have dealt with this problem in the past," he said. "Reagan negotiated. Clinton negotiated. And if President Obama wants America to increase the credit limit, he'll negotiate, too." In fact, Obama tried to negotiate with House Speaker John Boehner in the summer of 2011 to raise the debt ceiling . The president's lingering exasperation with that episode in many ways echoes one of his Republican predecessors. In a 1987 White House radio address, President Ronald Reagan complained about a debt-ceiling deal that congressional Democrats had just muscled through. Related NPR Stories Treasury Secretary: Debt Default Would Have Dire Consequences "Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility," Reagan said. "This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veteran benefits." But economist Alice Rivlin, a veteran of some of those earlier debt-ceiling battles, says they were tame compared to what's going on now. "The mood is very different, the depth of the antagonism is very different and the risk-taking is different," she says. Rivlin was White House budget director during the Clinton administration, a time she says when there was no talk of defaulting on the debt. "Nobody thought in the '90s that we would breach the debt ceiling," she said. "There were attempts to attach things, but it was really much more symbolic than real." Early in 2006, as the Iraq War raged, a Republican-led Senate voted on raising the debt ceiling, and along with every other Democrat, then-Sen. Barack Obama voted no. The only thing attached to that measure was the Democrats' disapproval. Five years later, as president, Obama told ABC that no vote was a mistake. "As president, you start realizing, 'You know what? We can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States,' " he said. "And so that was just a example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it." Obama recently told reporters that by raising the debt ceiling, Congress is simply allowing financing for spending it has already approved. But it's still a tough vote. Allen Schick, a congressional budget expert at the University of Maryland, says it has always been a challenge for either party to round up enough votes to boost the debt limit which is why Congress found various ways over the past quarter century to avoid holding actual votes on raising the debt ceiling. "The issue then was really different than it is now," he says. "Then it was an issue 'We're short of votes.' Now there's an issue of demands made by the two parties which are not acceptable to one another." Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, says the debt ceiling has simply become an opportunity for Congress to make mischief. "It's a nuclear-tipped leverage point," he says. "And this year, of course, the Tea Party folks are using it. But if this becomes a legitimate tactic, you might find a Democratic faction three or four years from now saying they want to use it. My view: We should disarm." Welch co-sponsored a bill this year to abolish the debt ceiling. So far it's gone nowhere.

House Plans Debt-Cap Bill Today With Medical-Device Tax Changes The debt ceiling is a cap on the amount of total debt the U.S. government can incur to pay the countrys bills. Before the 20th century, there was no ceiling on the total amount of debt. Instead, Congress set limits on the amount of debt the Treasury could borrow for discrete purposes: a war or a public-works project. Congress also set limits on the kinds of debt the Treasury could issue for any given purpose (for example, short-term borrowing versus long-term bonds). Whenever the Treasury exceeded the statutory limit for borrowing connected to specific spending, Congress had to vote to raise the limit. As government grew and became more complicated, the bond issues multiplied, and the votes became more frequent and nettlesome. The ad-hoc approach to debt was, in many peoples eyes, becoming impractical. Reforms came in two stages. The first arose from the need for wartime financing during the Spanish-American War of 1898 and World War I. In both conflicts, Congress granted the Treasury increased autonomy in how it financed any borrowing sanctioned by Congress. But this legislation -- most notably the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 -- kept the older practice of individual limits on debt in place. In the 1930s, Congress amended the Second Liberty Bond Act and introduced the modern debt ceiling. The retooled law made all federal debt subject to a ceiling on the total amount of outstanding bonds. The legislation thus put a limit on the aggregate debt, which Congress capped in 1939 at $45 billion (it is now more than $16 trillion). This shift, the Congressional Research Service has noted , underlined Treasury bonds role as a means of managing federal finances rather than securities tied to specific projects or wars. Although the new overarching debt ceiling put an end to Congress's micromanagement, it also had the effect of turning the decision on raising the debt into a single up or down vote that could bring the nations financial stability crashing down. Because votes for or against raising limits on debts were no longer coupled to a specific project or undertaking of the government, they could easily be painted as verdicts on federal spending generally. It didn't take long for fiscal hawks to turn the debt ceiling into a political football. During World War II, Republicans unhappy with ill-spent funds resisted raising the debt ceiling as high as Franklin Roosevelt's administration requested. In 1944, Representative Harold Knutson of the House Ways and Means Committee declared that" even if we would set the limit at $500,000,000,000 the Roosevelt administration would reach it if given a little time. Its up to us to see that the Administration is not given any more than is absolutely necessary. We dont want a ceiling that known spenders can shoot at. But it was a Democrat, not a Republican, who did more than anyone else to turn the routine vote over the debt ceiling into a referendum on runaway government spending. This was Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia (no relation to longtime Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia). Byrd was a kingmaker in Virginia politics, an ardent segregationist and a fiscal hawk who, the Washington Post noted in the 1960s, has been a hair shirt for four Presidents. Beginning in the late 1940s and 1950s, Byrd and his allies among both Democrats and Republicans fought a long-running and remarkably successful campaign to restrict increases in the total federal debt. Byrd targeted the administrations of Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, repeatedly extracting token reductions in the debt ceiling, or frustrating attempts to increase it. Byrd described these efforts as part of a larger campaign to force the country onto a pay-as-we-go his response basis. His most notable victory occurred in 1953, when Eisenhower pushed Congress to raise the debt ceiling to $290 million from $275 million. Byrd quashed the vote, betting that Eisenhower would find a way to stay within the limit. He did, though as the historian Joseph Thorndike has observed , this meant liquidating some of the nations gold reserves to retire outstanding debt. Emboldened, Byrd fought a running battle against futures increases. The struggle is not over, wrote one newspaper of Byrds campaign. Senator Byrd has determined to make it an annual affair. While he occasionally agreed to increases of the debt ceiling, Byrd typically made them temporary, forcing Congress to revisit the issue again and again. I dont intend to give them $1 more than is necessary to get by, Byrd declared in 1955. I am opposed to any permanent increase. On the surface, Byrds tactics seem a harbinger of the Tea Partys maneuvers over the debt ceiling. That analysis misses the big picture. Byrd was leading a bipartisan force, not an extremist wing of a single party. And while Byrd was more than happy to play politics with the debt ceiling, he wasnt inclined to turning votes into a doomsday machine. When the Washington Post interviewed him in 1963, shortly before he retired, Byrd was roughing up another president over the debt ceiling. The newspaper predicted choppy waters for President John F. Kennedy, but it noted that Byrd knows his own conscience wont let him stop some increase in the debt limit because the Government couldnt pay its bill without it. For Byrd, default was unthinkable. He never came close to allowing it. That's a lesson the Tea Party would be wise to heed. (Stephen Mihm, an associate professor of history at the University of Georgia, is a contributor to the Ticker . Follow him on Twitter .)

House Plans Debt-Cap Bill Today With Device Tax Delay

borrowing authority runs out this week. The emerging Senate deal would stave off a potential default, end the 15-day-old government shutdown and change the immediate deadlines in favor of three new ones over the next four months. Its far from complete as the Senate may delay passing the plan and House Republicans are seeking changes. Under the Senate plan, lawmakers would be required to hold budget talks by Dec. 13, fund the government through Jan. 15, 2014, and extend the nations borrowing authority until Feb. 7, according to a person familiar with the Senate talks who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the concept. Weve made tremendous progress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , a Nevada Democrat, said yesterday on the Senate floor with his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky . We are not there yet. Delay Deadline An agreement would forestall the immediate crisis. It would end the shutdown that has closed many federal services and prevent a possible U.S. default that the Treasury Department said may be catastrophic. U.S. lawmakers, who have governed from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis for more than two years, may be setting up more crises in the near future. The agreement would delay the next major deadline -- the Jan. 15 lapse in government funding -- until after the holiday shopping season . There are two potential obstacles to a Senate agreement. First, a single senator would be able to use procedural tactics to push a final vote past the Oct. 17 lapse in borrowing authority. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz , who spoke for more than 21 hours during a budget debate last month, wouldnt rule out stalling maneuvers, saying he wants to see the details of the plan. Also, House Republicans, who have demanded major changes to President Barack Obama s signature health-care law, may resist any proposal that contains few of their priorities. Debt Limit Sounds like everything the president asked for, Representative Blake Farenthold, a Texas Republican aligned with the Tea Party movement, said yesterday when asked about the Senate framework. The House Republican alternative would prevent the government from making any employer-side contribution to the health insurance of members of Congress, the president, the vice president and the cabinet. Obama has insisted that Congress raise the $16.7 trillion U.S. debt limit without add-ons and that stopgap spending bills be free of policy conditions. Speaker Boehner A Senate agreement would again put pressure on House Speaker John Boehner , who has a 232-200 Republican majority. He may have to decide whether to side with hardliners insistent on changes to Obamacare or rely on Democratic votes to pass a bipartisan Senate plan through the House. Reid and McConnell may release the plans details as early as today. Any one senator could push a final vote until at least Oct. 18, after the debt ceiling is breached though before the U.S. runs out of cash and begins missing payments between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31. Representative Paul Ryan , a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Budget Committee, today said the budget provision included in the Senate plan isnt enough to resolve the fiscal impasse. You need to do more than that, Ryan told reporters as he walked into the meeting of House Republicans. Benchmark Treasury 10-year yields rose two basis points, or 0.02 percentage point, to 2.71 percent at 9:05 a.m. New York time, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices. The rate touched 2.74 percent, the highest since Sept. 23. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index gained 0.8 percent at 7:57 a.m. in New York in the longest winning streak in two months. The Standard & Poors 500 Index fell 0.4 percent to 1,703.23 at 9:49 a.m. Positive Comments We had very positive comments from the Senate leaders, and if you take those comments at face value, a deal looks fairly imminent, Otto Waser, chief investment officer at R&A Research & Asset Management AG in Zurich, said by telephone today. The market is back to the levels it was at before the entire crisis talks started. Reid and McConnell, veteran Senate deal makers, are brokering the agreement, reached during conversations that started over the weekend. Democrats want as long a debt-limit increase as possible and as short a government funding extension at Republican-preferred levels. Republicans want the opposite. Possible sticking points late yesterday included whether Democrats would agree to Republican demands that the Treasury Department be barred from using so-called extraordinary measures to extend the debt-limit deadline after Feb. 7. Five Months Such maneuvers pushed forward the deadline for five months this year, though its not clear how much time they would buy in 2014. It is very unwise, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus , a Montana Democrat, said of the Republican demand. Obama spoke with McConnell yesterday and said the administration wants flexibility for the Treasury Departments borrowing, according to a person familiar with the conversation who requested anonymity to describe private discussions.

October 09 2013

haydenillh

Q&a: Why Breaking Federal Debt Limit Sparks Fear

Republican Debt-Ceiling ?Truthers? Are Risking Financial Disaster

?Lord Knows I?m Tired of It? Their conclusion: "There is no fair or sensible way to pick and choose among the many bills that come due every day," according to a report by Treasury's inspector general. Q. Couldn't the government just print more money? A. No. The Federal Reserve, an independent agency, is responsible for creating money. The government funds itself through tax revenue and borrowing. Q. What else could Treasury do? A. It could make its interest payments first then delay all other payments until it collects enough tax revenue to make a full day's payments. That would avoid choosing among competing obligations. But that would lead most other payments to be delayed. Example: Social Security benefit payments worth about $12 billion, scheduled to be paid Oct. 23, would be delayed for two days, according to an estimate by the Bipartisan Policy Center . Tax refunds slated for Oct. 24 would probably be delayed until Oct. 28. And on Nov. 1, nearly $60 billion in Social Security benefits, Medicare payments and military paychecks are due. With no increase in the borrowing limit, those payments would likely be delayed, possibly for up to two weeks. Q. Would that avoid a default? A. Impossible to say. One problem is that the government would likely have to pay higher interest on new debt. Consider: On Oct. 24, the government must redeem $93 billion in short-term debt. Normally, it sells new debt to pay off old debt. This step doesn't increase total debt, so it would still be allowed even if the borrowing limit wasn't raised. Yet given the risk of a default, investors would demand higher rates on new U.S. debt. Short of cash, the government might be unable to pay off its maturing debt. The result: a default. Q. Could the president just ignore the debt go here limit? A. Some experts say he could. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned." But the White House has said its own lawyers don't think he has the authority to do so. Nor is it clear that many investors would buy bonds issued without congressional approval. Q. Are global investors panicking yet? A. The stock market has drifted lower over the past couple of weeks. But investors aren't panicking. And long-term Treasury yields have been mostly unchanged.

FILE - In this  Monday, Oct. 7, 2013, file photo, the Capitol in Washington is seen under an overcast sky at dawn.  If the deadline to raise the government?s borrowing limit is breached, no one knows precisely what will happen. Photo: J. Scott Applewhite hits its debt ceiling? We can just prioritize our payments, say some Republicans. Jamelle Bouie on why theyre wrongbut theyre not even the biggest GOP fantasists. Plus, Patricia Murphy lists the GOP's top 10 debt ceiling denialists . No one knows exactly what would happen if the United States breached its debt ceilingan artificial limit on what the Treasury can borrow to pay its billsbut almost everyone agrees it would be disaster. I say almost because a growing chorus of Republicans insist the opposite , that hitting the debt limit wouldnt cause a default, and even if it did, its no big deal for the nation or the world. Getty(2) Their main argument is that the Treasury can continue to pay interest and fund critical problems through prioritization of key payments. Were not going to default; there is no default, said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) over the weekend. We should pass a bill out of the House, he continued, saying there will be certain priorities attached to certain things, namely payment of debt services and payment of our military. That isnt a fringe view. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, in January 2011, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) took to The Wall Street Journal to declare his support for legislation that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised. He followed his declaration up with legislation to that effect, which was seconded with similar legislation from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). In May 2011, 17 GOP senators wrote to thenTreasury secretary Timothy Geithner asking him to explain his recent claims that America will default on our debt payments after the the country reached the limit, sinceas far as they understood itthe executive could prioritize spending. And this year, House Republicans passed a bill that allows the government to borrow money above the debt ceiling to pay bondholders and Social Security recipients. Not only does the GOP view rest on a dubious assumption of legal authoritythe executive branch doesnt have the right to pick who it chooses to paybut it also presumes Treasury could reconfigure its vast payment system in a matter of weeks. Thats an odd supposition by lawmakers who have nothing but contempt for the federal government and its ability to perform complicated functions. Compared to Republicans like Rep. Ted Yoho of Florida, however, these debt-ceiling truthers are outright responsible. Yoho and several of his compatriots in the House are debt-ceiling denialists who believe the administration is crying wolf on the issue. Incredibly, Yoho told The Washington Post that hitting the debt ceiling would bring stability to world markets. And Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) told CBS News that he would dispel the rumor thats going around, that you hear on every newscast, that if we dont raise the debt ceiling, well default on our debtwe wont. Its tempting to say Republicans can believe what they want. The problem is that their fantasies are driving an unprecedented standoff that could destroy our economy and plunge the world into a financial catastrophe. Its tempting to say Republicans can believe what they want. The problem is that their fantasies could destroy our economy. Remember, the risk associated with debt has a lot to do with the borrowers ability to pay. If U.S. government debt is an incredibly safe investment, its because the Treasury has never missed a payment on its obligations. Countless entities, from countries to corporations, can trade Treasury bonds secure in the knowledge that the United States is the most credible borrower on the planet. This is why its unwise to compare household or individual debt to national debt. Credit cards and car loans come with high interest rates because, as mortal people with contingent circumstances, we can lose our ability to pay creditors. Governments dont have this problem. Not only are they (effectively) immortal, but they can draw on their productive capacity to pay debts. For that reason, investors are eager to buy their debt. Its safe. Breaching the debt limit destroys all that credibility. Indeed, its fair to say Americas fiscal conservatives are threatening to turn us into a deadbeat borrower, with terrible consequences for countless people. As Yalman Onaran writes for Bloomberg, Failure by the worlds largest borrower to pay its debtunprecedented in modern historywill devastate stock markets from Brazil to Zurich, halt a $5 trillion lending mechanism for investors who rely on Treasuries, blow up borrowing costs for billions of people and companies, ravage the dollar, and throw the U.S. and world economies into a recession that probably would become a depression. Like the insane, nuclear bomb-worshipping mutants who live beneath the Planet of the Apes, the debt-limit truthers and denialists are willing to risk disaster in a last-ditch attack on Obamacare. For now, House Speaker John Boehner is in control. But given the volatility of the last week, how long will that last?

Analysis: What default? Republicans downplay impact of U.S. debt limit

Comments 5 Lawmakers attend the new legislative session of Argentina's Congress in Buenos Aires. (Victor R. Caivano, Associated Press / March 1, 2013) Also By Ken Bensinger October 7, 2013, 6:25 p.m. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Argentina in a long-running sovereign debt dispute, but the closely watched case is far from over. The high court's decision, handed down Monday, upholds a 2012 ruling by a lower court obliging the South American republic to pay all its bondholders at once including those that have refused offers to renegotiate the value of their holdings and instead brought suit seeking repayment. Creditors who sued the nation, including two large hedge funds, hailed the decision as a victory. But Argentina is expected to file an appeal to the Supreme Court on a separate ruling in the same case, which would further delay a final resolution. "This is a border skirmish that was won by the plaintiffs, but has little bearing on the bigger case," said Mark Weidemaier, a law professor at the University of North Carolina specializing in international dispute resolution. He believes that the fight could drag on for as long as 18 more months. The deadlock dates to Argentina's record default, in late 2001, on nearly $100 billion in debt. That failure provoked years of political and economic chaos in the country, which to this day is cut off from international capital markets and struggles with inflation and other woes. Eventually, Argentina was able to restructure most of the defaulted debt, swapping more than 92% of it for securities worth about a third of the original value. A small group held out, however, insisting on receiving face value. Many of those holdouts, led by Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital Management, sued Argentina in various jurisdictions in pursuit of that goal. Late last year they tried and ultimately failed to take possession of a 300-foot Argentine navy vessel docked in Ghana as a way to recover value on their investment. They found more favorable results in U.S. District Court in New York, where a federal judge found in rulings in 2011 and 2012 that Argentina violated its debt contracts and must pay more than $1.4 billion to the plaintiffs if it wishes to continue paying the bondholders who accepted the debt swaps and thus avoid another default. Both those rulings were upheld in the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, and Monday's decision by the Supreme Court leaves one of those cases intact. Argentina has asked the full circuit court to review the other ruling and said it would turn to the Supreme Court if that approach fails. That could easily take the case into late 2014, Weidemaier said. Argentina filed its first request to the Supreme Court in June. "We are gratified by the Supreme Court's decision to deny Argentina's petition," Ted Olson, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said Monday. "Argentina's representatives have asserted that it will file another petition, but the facts of the case and Argentina's disregard for the rule of law remain the same." Argentina's leaders have argued that the rulings could have a devastating effect on the country's economy. Although Argentina has enough cash to pay the $1.4 billion at stake in the immediate matter, its leaders worry that the precedent could encourage countless other creditors including many that already accepted lower-valued bonds in exchange for defaulted notes to sue as well, demanding 100 cents on the dollar. That could cost the country considerably more. As a result, it has repeatedly insisted that it will never pay the holdouts a penny more than that paid to other bondholders, and has questioned the authority of U.S. courts to oblige sovereign nations to pay debts. "As we have affirmed in multiple occasions, Argentina will continue to defend itself with all available legal resources," Adrian Cosentino, Argentina's finance minister, said Monday. In late August, the country's president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, said that if it fails to win in the U.S., it would open a new bond exchange, this time in Buenos Aires, as a way to skirt the reach of American courts. That prompted a ruling last week in federal district court warning that such an act would violate a court order. Numerous outside interests, including the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. Treasury, France and charity groups that fight poverty, have voiced concerns about the case in recent months, coming out in support of Argentina's position. Although the specifics of Argentina's dispute are exceptional because of the size of the default and the relative wealth of the country, these groups have argued that the rulings could whipsaw developing nations struggling to climb out from under crippling debt loads. The effect of the U.S. court decisions, they say, could be to undermine the entire concept of sovereign debt restructuring, emboldening bondholders to refuse to negotiate and instead demand full repayment. In particular, some claim, it could bolster the business model of hedge funds that buy distressed debt on the secondary market at deep discount and then litigate for maximum returns. In addition to their legal efforts, Elliott and Aurelius have supported public relations efforts that have painted Argentina as a narco-state and a collaborator with Iran. The dispute's latest surprise also came Monday, when it was announced that Argentina's president, Fernandez, would be having brain surgery to repair a subdural hematoma. Fernandez, who has been a vociferous critic of the hedge funds, which she calls "vultures," temporarily ceded power to her vice president, Amado Boudou. She is expected to be sidelined for a month. The fiery president managed to get in a last word, however, stating Friday that the "U.S. justice system is trying to force us into default."

Obama says he'd talk on GOP's terms -- if they raise debt ceiling, fund government

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- The coach. He He has told Republicans not to fear a potential shutdown, saying they would suffer more politically from allowing Obamacare to continue. President Barack Obama -- The campaigner and CEO. Expect the president to use his podium more as a shutdown nears, aiming at public opinion as Democrats in Congress position themselves. If House Republicans send back a new proposal close to the September 30 deadline, the president and Democrats will have to decide what move to make next. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia -- The powerful lieutenant. Cantor, the House Republican No. 2, is much more closely allied with conservatives and tea party members in the House than is Speaker Boehner. The two have not always agreed on every strategy during potential shutdown debates, but have been in public lockstep during the current go-around. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland -- Players on deck. The top two House Democrats are mostly watching and waiting. But they will play a critical role once Boehner decides his next move. They could either bring Democratic votes on board a deal or be the loudest voices against a new Republican alternative. Hoyer will be interesting to watch; he has strongly opposed both the House and Senate plans as cutting too much in spending. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California -- The numbers guy. McCarthy, the House whip, has the tricky job of assessing exactly where Republican members stand and getting the 217 votes it takes to pass a bill in the chamber. He is known for his outreach to and connection with many of the freshmen House members who align with the tea party. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin -- Member to watch. The vote of the House budget chairman and former vice presidential nominee is an important signal both within Republican ranks and to the public at large. Ryan has voted against some funding measures in the past, including the emergency aid for Superstorm Sandy recovery. But he was a "yes" on the last extension of the debt ceiling. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida -- Another member to watch. A former committee chairwoman (Republican rules have term limits for committee chairs), Ros-Lehtinen knows House politics and procedure inside out. Depending on the issue, she has been described as a conservative or moderate, and occasionally as a libertarian. Key players advice in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate HIDE CAPTION GOP-led House, Democratic-led Senate offer plans Boehner and conservative Republicans want to leverage the situation to wring concessions on deficit reduction from Democrats. To keep up pressure, House Republicans voted Tuesday to set up negotiations on the debt limit and other fiscal issues. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a GOP leader in the House, said such a negotiating committee with members of both parties could pass a short-term extension of the debt ceiling while doing its work. "I suspect we can work out some mechanism to raise the debt ceiling while negotiations are under way," Cole said. "But we're not going to simply raise it without talking about the deficit," Cole said. It was unclear if his description would satisfy Obama's insistence that the debt ceiling increase must be separate from political negotiations. Yet Senate Democrats have dismissed the proposal, and the Obama administration has vowed to veto any such. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York called these other GOP offers the latest in a series of "new gimmicks" that avoid the imminent need to fully reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Max Baucus filed a proposal Tuesday to raise the debt ceiling without addressing any deficit reduction issues demanded by Republicans. The plan would address the debt ceiling issue through December 31, 2014 -- past the next congressional elections. Most Republicans would shy away from a bill that doesn't specify spending cuts or other policy changes in return for the increased borrowing authority. Yet Democrats are hopeful some Republicans would vote across the aisle to prevent the potentially catastrophic economic repercussions of a default. If Senate Republicans require all the time-consuming steps available to them to delay action on the debt ceiling measure, a final vote might not take place until two days before the deadline for raising the borrowing limit, the Democratic aide said.

Shares stumble, dollar wobbly as U.S. debt worries grow

Its time to have that conversation. All Contingencies Obama said yesterday he was willing to consider a short-term debt ceiling increase without conditions to buy time to negotiate. A House Republican leadership aide, who didnt want to be identified discussing private talks, said party leaders wont agree to a short-term increase unless it contains Republican policy priorities. At a White House news conference, the president insisted again that he wouldnt negotiate against the threat of default or a government shutdown, comparing Republicans to hostage-takers and extortionists. Obama wouldnt answer directly when asked whether he would make sure that bondholders are paid first if Congress doesnt act. He said the government was exploring all contingencies. Giving priority to interest payments would prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its debt while requiring the government to balance its budget immediately, an austerity step that House Republicans dont want for 10 years. When I hear people trying to downplay the consequences of that, I think thats really irresponsible, he said. Market Reaction U.S. stocks experienced their worst two-day loss since June. The Standard & Poors 500 Index (SPX) declined 1.2 percent yesterday to a four-week low, closing at 1,655.45 in New York. The gauge has fallen 4.1 percent since its latest record high on Sept. 18. Treasury one-month bill rates surged to the highest level since 2008 and yields on three-year notes rose as the U.S. sold $30 billion of the debt in the first auction of coupon securities since the start of the government shutdown. Benchmark 10-year yields rose one basis point to 2.63 percent yesterday, after rising as much as three basis points. Japan and China, the worlds two largest foreign owners of Treasuries, pressured the U.S. to raise the debt ceiling. Unlike past fiscal feuds, this dispute is more about the presidents health law and less about the amount of spending. The U.S. budget deficit in June was 4.3 percent of gross domestic product, down from 10.1 percent in February 2010 and the narrowest since November 2008, when Obama was elected to his first term, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from the Treasury Department and the Bureau of Economic Analysis . Mortgage Closings The government shutdown started Oct. 1 after Republicans insisted that further funding for many programs must be tied to a one-year delay in the mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. Obama and Senate Democrats refused, and the resulting furloughs and agency shutdowns have slowed mortgage closings, small-business loans and nutrition assistance to poor mothers. Some programs, such as Social Security , continue uninterrupted. Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., a subsidiary of Reston, Virginia-based Leidos Holdings Inc. (LDOS) , furloughed 800 workers yesterday because the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research was closed due to the government shutdown. Our people were told to go home, said Stu Shea, president and chief operating officer of Leidos. A debt-ceiling breach would be a more serious hit to the economy. The International Monetary Fund warned yesterday that a U.S. default could seriously damage the world economy. Six Republicans In Congress this week, the House so far isnt planning to vote on a bill that would include a debt-ceiling increase. Boehner outlined proposals last month that would tie party priorities to the debt limit before that idea ran into objections from hard-liners who wanted to focus on changing the health law in the shutdown fight. That inaction shifts attention to the Senate, where Democrats are trying to pass a bill that would put pressure on Boehner as the Oct. 17 deadline draws closer. Democrats, who control 54 seats in the 100-member chamber, would need the support of at least six Republicans on procedural votes to pass their bill. The bill would suspend the debt ceiling through Dec. 31, 2014. Because the Treasury Department can use so-called extraordinary measures to stave off default, another increase wouldnt be needed until sometime in 2015. The previous debt-limit suspension expired on May 18 and the extraordinary measures are lasting five months. Clean Bill Some Senate Republicans, including Susan Collins of Maine, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, didnt rule out backing the Democrats plan. They said they must first see details. I will be listening, Alexander said, and then I will decide what to do. One Republican senator -- Mark Kirk of Illinois -- said he would support a so-called clean debt-ceiling measure. Democrats may need more than six Republicans if some of their own members -- such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota -- dont support Obamas plan. I havent said I would support or be in favor or opposed to anything until I see what they put on the table, Manchin told reporters. But I am looking for a bigger deal. I am not looking for kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile, the House continued a series of bipartisan votes funding narrow pieces of the government, including the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency . Family Conversation We are resolute with the actions that were taking thus far and we continue to say, lets have a family conversation; lets sit down, talk about our family budget that is the nations budget, Representative John Fleming , a Louisiana Republican, told reporters after a closed-door party meeting. Obama and Senate Democrats reject that piecemeal approach, saying Republicans shouldnt get to pick and choose politically popular items. The president urged Boehner to allow a vote on a temporary funding bill for the whole government without policy conditions.

Obama Seeks Post-Debt Talks With Senate Republicans Open

Obama Warns of Recession If Debt Limit Isn debt limit U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) (C) returns to his office after a unanimous House vote to retroactively pay furloughed government workers once the current government shutdown ends, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington October 5, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst By Andy Sullivan WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 8, 2013 10:35am EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration says a U.S. default would be "catastrophic." Economists say it could plunge the country into recession and prompt a global financial meltdown. To many Republicans, however, the prospect of the world's lone superpower juggling its bills doesn't seem so bad. The government could muddle through without a debt-ceiling increase as long as it kept up with interest payments and a few other priorities, they argue. "We are not going to default on the public debt. That doesn't mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas said on CNBC on Monday. Barton's position could reflect a genuine disagreement with warnings by Wall Street and Washington analysts or he could be downplaying the default to gain tactical advantage in negotiations with President Barack Obama. But Barton isn't an outlier. Nearly every Republican in the House of Representatives voted for a bill in May that would direct the Treasury Department to prioritize bond payments and Social Security retiree benefits over other obligations if Congress failed to extend its borrowing authority. In the Senate, 29 of the chamber's 44 Republicans have signed on to the idea. Republicans say that approach would minimize the fallout if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department exhausts its borrowing authority on October 17. Past and present Treasury officials and Wall Street analysts reject that view out of hand as naive at best. In order to make sure bond payments and Social Security checks went out on time, the government would have to delay other payments by days or weeks. That would send a massive economic shockwave through military contractors, hospitals, and other entities farther down the priority list. The plan also may not be workable in a practical sense. The U.S. Treasury handles 4 million transactions a day, and separating some of them out would be practically impossible. "It's mind-boggling. I don't know what to say," said Tony Fratto, a Republican and a former Treasury Department official under President George W. Bush. "Every member of Congress should know this. These aren't complicated concepts." That may not be the point. By presenting a plan to deal with a possible default, Republican lawmakers can show voters they are taking steps to minimize any potential fallout. NEGOTIATING PLOY? And as the October 17 deadline approaches, they may gain a negotiating advantage by showing Democrats they are not particularly afraid of going right up to the edge - or over it. "It's a strategy to say, 'We can hold out longer, because we don't think it's so bad,'" said New York University political science professor Steven Brams, who has written extensively about strategic decision-making. With the government entering its second week of a partial shutdown due to a dispute over Obama's healthcare law, business leaders are warning against further brinkmanship. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says Congress must pass the debt ceiling soon to avoid "substantial and enduring damage" to the economy. Financial executives like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs have also urged lawmakers to resolve the dispute quickly. The uncertainty has weighed on financial markets. The CBOE Volatility index .VIX - a measure of market turbulence called the "fear index" - has risen by nearly 50 percent over the past three weeks amid fear of a default and anxiety over a related government shutdown that took effect on October 1. "With each passing day, the market becomes more restless," said Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York. The last debt-ceiling showdown in August 2011 proved costly. Lawmakers averted default with a last-minute deal, consumer confidence plummeted and the S&P 500 .SPX fell 17 percent. Although the S&P 500 recovered in a little over two weeks, the standoff will cost the government $18.9 billion over 10 years in higher interest costs, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. Republicans touted their prioritization scheme back then as well. Some lawmakers, notably Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, said they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling no matter what. This time around some Tea Party Republicans, like Florida Representative Ted Yoho, also say they will vote 'no.' But party leaders like Boehner say they will be able to round up enough votes to raise the debt ceiling as long as they get concessions from Obama. Many Republicans also suspect that the administration has some additional tricks to stave off default that they haven't disclosed. While Treasury says it can't guarantee payments after October 17, analysts say actual default could come days or weeks later, and lawmakers wonder if they are being rushed unnecessarily. Though both sides have begun to extend tentative feelers that could lead to a way out of the standoff, both believe that they can extract the most concessions by holding out until the last possible minute. In this context, Republicans' move to downplay the October 17 deadline makes sense, Brams said.

Supreme Court rejects Argentina's appeal in sovereign debt fight

In new term, Supreme Court may steer to right on key social issues debt worries grow 1 of 9. Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange August 28, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid By Hideyuki Sano TOKYO | Wed Oct 9, 2013 2:13am EDT TOKYO (Reuters) - Asian shares sagged and the dollar languished close to an 8-month low on Wednesday as the U.S. budget deadlock dragged on, further chipping away at investors' confidence that a deal will be reached before a mid-October deadline to avoid an historic debt default. The dour mood is seen extending to Europe, where Britain's FTSE .FTSE is seen slipping 0.3 percent from Tuesday's three-month low. Financial bookmakers also see Germany's DAX .GDAXI shedding 0.3 percent and French shares 0.2 percent. .FCHI While markets expect U.S. politicians will eventually strike a deal, they are getting nervous as the deadline nears without any tangible progress between Democrats and Republicans. The MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan .MIAPJ0000PUS dipped 0.3 percent. Japanese shares bucked the trend, stepping back from five-week lows .N225 , though the rebound came only after a steep fall of nearly three percent so far this month, a bigger drop than the S&P 500 .SPX . "Everyone had been thinking that U.S. politicians will become grown-ups in the end. But some people are starting to think they look too childish to become grown-ups in time," said Tohru Yamamoto, chief fixed income strategist at Daiwa Securities. President Barack Obama said he would be willing to negotiate only after Republicans agree to re-open the government and raise the debt limit with no conditions. Republican House Speaker John Boehner said he was disappointed by the president's approach. "At the moment there is no sign of compromise, although the market expects Republicans will eventually agree to raising the debt ceiling," said a proprietary trader at a Japanese bank. Wall Street shares dropped to one-month low on Tuesday, with S&P 500 index .SP500 falling 1.2 percent, risking a break below a key trendline support from 2012. The CBOE Volatility Index .VIX, a measure of investor anxiety, rose nearly five percent to close at its highest since June 20. The budget impasse overshadowed news Obama will nominate Federal Reserve Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen as the next head of the U.S. central bank. U.S. stock futures gained about 0.3 percent as Yellen is seen as a proponent of dovish policy. "I wouldn't expect this rally in risk to be too sustainable given much bigger issues at play including the U.S. government shutdown. The October 17 initial deadline looms large as well," said Sue Trinh, senior currency strategist at RBC in Hong Kong. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said the Treasury will be low on funds by that date, but some market players suspect it could manage for several days beyond that, which could prolong the deadlock further. The government shutdown is already disrupting U.S. data flows, helping to put talk of tapering in the Fed's stimulus completely off the table for now. After September's surprise decision to delay tapering, many economists now think the Fed will not move until Bernanke has left office. Still, the minutes of the Fed's policy meeting on Sept 17-18 due at 1800 GMT will attract attention given many investors are still perplexed as to exactly why the Fed did not scale back its stimulus despite widespread expectations to do so. Some investors are starting to take precautions to protect against the possibility of a U.S. default by shunning U.S. debt maturing in late October and early November. The yield on four-week U.S. government bills hit a 5-year high above 0.3 percent of on Tuesday. Against a basket of major currencies, the dollar was at 80.04, close to an eight-month low hit last week. .DXY. Although the fiscal standoff has hurt sentiment on the dollar, ironically, the greenback drew some support from it of late as well, as foreign banks bought the U.S. currency just in case a deal is not reached and liquidity dries up. The dollar rose to 97.21 yen after having hit a two-month low of 96.55 yen on Tuesday. The euro traded at $1.3568, below an eight-month peak of $1.36465 hit last week. (Additional reporting by Dominic Lau and Lisa Twaronite; Editing by John Mair & Shri Navaratnam) To read Reuters Global Investing Blog click here ; for the Macro Scope Blog click on blogs.reuters.com/macroscope ; for Hedge Fund Blog Hub click on blogs.reuters.com/hedgehub ) Tweet this

October 06 2013

haydenillh

8 States Where Student Debt Is Out Of Control

Boehner Says House Won?t Vote on Clean Debt Limit Bill

U.S. Capitol Building It is a legal audible that was considered two years ago in a similar crisis, and ultimately rejected by Obama, a former constitutional scholar. In remarks on Thursday, the president said the stakes were stark, if the debt ceiling were not raised, and the government unable to pay its bills. "As reckless as a government shutdown is, an economic shutdown that results from default would be dramatically worse," he said, pointing the finger at Capitol Hill. Government shutdown vs. debt ceiling Why debt ceiling is so important to you What about the debt ceiling? Congressional Republicans who control the House insist they will not act until the administration commits to delaying implementation of key parts of the healthcare reform law, or to further spending cuts-- ultimatums the White House rejects. The game of political chicken raises the potential of a recession and market meltdown if the Treasury is not replenished by mid-month. Some economists warn the debt ceiling impasse is a far greater threat than the ongoing government shutdown. That's where Section 4 of the 14th Amendment comes in: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned." Does that mean the president could on own his raise the debt ceiling? Some congressional allies say yes. "It is an option that should seriously be considered," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said it should have been done in 2011, the last time the two branches went through this. Back then it was former President Clinton who led the rhetorical charge. He said he would have raised the debt ceiling "without hesitation" and "force the courts to stop me." Then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also suggested such a legal right was possible, and plausible. But Obama was not sure. "I have talked to my lawyers," he said at the time. "They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument," suggesting he believed the courts would not accept such a move -- and more importantly, would the nation's creditors. Fast forward to 2013. His spokesman Monday repeated the White House line Congress had the responsibility here. "The president can't raise it by himself," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the power to ignore the debt ceiling. And even if the president could ignore the debt ceiling, the fact that there is significant controversy around the president's authority to consolidating debt act unilaterally means that it would not be a credible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling, and would not be taken seriously by the global economy and markets." Legal and political scholars -- and the federal courts -- have debated just how relevant, and how far Section 4 was designed to go. The amendment was ratified in 1868, to ensure in part, the unified nation's debts from the just-ended Civil War would be honored, and that Confederate claims would not. The unquoted part of the provision specifically mentions the public debt "incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion." The U.S. Supreme Court in 1935-- in Perry v. U.S.-- suggested Section 4 could be applied in other circumstances. "While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government during the Civil War, its language indicates broader connotation," said Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the opinion, which concluded that voiding a U.S. government debt was beyond the power of Congress. Indeed other better-known parts of the 14th Amendment-- the "due process," "equal protection," and "privileges or immunities" citizenship clauses-- have been cited in a sweeping range of litigation beyond its original Reconstruction response to the rights of former slaves. Those cases include abortion, segregation, even the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential ballot dispute. Despite Mr. Clinton's bold challenge daring the courts to intervene, any unilateral action on the debt ceiling would be sure to prompt immediate lawsuits. Whether an "aggrieved party" such as a taxpayer or bondholder, could establish legal "standing"-- allowing any legal action to proceed-- would be the first legal hurdle, a process that could drag on for months, even years before the Supreme Court would be asked to offer the final word. But some politicians have said a default on the nation's debt would constitute the kind of national emergency requiring of bold presidential action, something that would be politically acceptable to the public. Legal challenges, they say, would wither if the economy rebounds. Obama urged negotiations to continue, but on Thursday said the 2011 debt crisis hurt average Americans, and could do so again. "Our economy took a bad hit. Our country's credit rating was downgraded for the first time, just like you would be downgraded if you didn't pay your mortgage. This time, they are threatening to actually force the United States to default on its obligations for the very first time in history." But some Republicans say a constitutional crisis is overblown and so is concern of what will happen if both sides fail to agree in coming days. "I don't think the credit of the United States is going to be collapsed," http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) on CNN Thursday.

Negotiations on shutdown, debt limit stalled

Post to Facebook 8 states where student debt is out of control on USATODAY.com: http://usat.ly/1acbnrQ Incorrect please try again A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. Sent! A link has been sent to your friend's email address. 25 To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs 8 states where student debt is out of control Kurtis Droge, Wall St. Cheat Sheet 6:03 a.m. EDT October 6, 2013 Tuition can cost easily more than $10,000 per year, ranging all the way up to $50,000. (Photo: Rana Faure, Getty Images) Story Highlights Tuition can cost easily more than $10,000 per year, ranging up to $50,000 Debt rates on student loans vary widely from state to state No. 1 state has a whopping average debt of $32,440 for graduates with loans SHARE 577 CONNECT 131 TWEET 25 COMMENTEMAILMORE Rising levels of student debt have raised alarm bells in the minds of economists and recent college graduates alike. With a bachelor's degree virtually indispensable in today's workplace and a master's necessary in many fields, as well many people, be they fresh out of high school or not, have found themselves needing to a seek a higher education in order to pay the bills. The problem is that these days, college is far from cheap. Tuition for a four-year college can cost easily more than $10,000 per year, ranging all the way up to $50,000 or even more for top-of-the-line institutions. With many inbound college students finding themselves strapped for cash, their only option aside from obtaining federal aid is to seek loans to cover the difference between the costs of college and living and any income they might obtain in the meantime. This can amount to a crippling debt load by the time students graduate. However, student debt rates are not the same across the nation: In fact, there is a surprising amount of variance, according to numbers collected by College In Sight. The average graduate of a four-year institution (or higher) with student debt has less than $20,000 of debt in Utah or Arizona. Let's take a look at eight states at the other end of the spectrum, those with the highest amounts of student debt in the country. 8. Vermont If you are graduating with debt from a college in Vermont, you will have an average of $28,873 owed. That's right: even in a state home to small names like Middlebury College and Norwich University, student debt rates are still fantastically high. What's worse is that 63% of graduates almost 2 out of every 3 outgoing students are graduating with debt to their name. 7. Ohio We travel to the Midwest for the seventh spot on our list, which belongs to Ohio. With an average debt rate of $28,683 among those graduating with obligations to lenders, the home of Ohio State University is certainly not a cheap state in which to attend university. It might be appealing to root for the Buckeyes, but your pocketbook may not be such a huge fan of the prospect, especially with 68% of outgoing students bearing debts from their education. 6. Iowa Staying in the Midwest, we move on to Iowa, home of the Hawkeyes and the Cyclones. Getting closer to your Big 10 or Big 12 favorites for a few years is going to cost you: Graduates from the state who have borrowed come out with an average of $28,753 in debt. The percentage of students who are in debt has gone up, too, with 72% of those who attend college in the corn belt state turning to the bank for help pay for their tuition. 5. Connecticut Jumping out East, the next state on the list is Connecticut, where the average indebted graduate owes $28,783 after completing college. It will certainly cost you a pretty penny to go to Yale, located in New Haven, and even the home of the Huskies, UConn, isn't exactly cheap, either. The good news is that more than a third of those graduating from the state are debt-free. 4. Rhode Island We stay on the Eastern Seaboard for the fourth spot on the list, Rhode Island. Breaking the $29,000 mark with an average debt of $29,097 for those who are indebted, it certainly doesn't seem like it was inexpensive for Harry Potter star Emma Watson to make her foray into the world of American higher education at Brown University. Even schools like the Rhode Island School of Design and Roger Williams University can cause you to rack up the debt. 3. Minnesota The bronze medal goes to Minnesota, the home of the Golden Gophers. The average graduate who isn't debt-free owes $29,793 to the bank. If you're looking for an option other than Walden or Capella universities in the state, you can try Carleton College; either way, it seems like there's no way to avoid tacking on extra debt if you're bound for the North Star State out of high school. 2. Pennsylvania The penultimate spot on the list belongs to none other than Pennsylvania, where a graduate who is burdened by loans averages $29,959 in debt. There might be plenty of options to go to college in Pennsylvania including Temple, Lehigh, Carnegie Mellon, and the University of Pittsburgh but the sheer number of prestigious schools hasn't helped debt levels of the outgoing students in the state. Another deadly statistic is the percent of graduates who have taken out student loans, which weighs in at 70%. 1. New Hampshire The surprising top of the list goes to New Hampshire, which, with a whopping average debt of $32,440 for graduates running a loan tab, comes in at nearly $2,500 more than its nearest competitor. Besides Dartmouth, there aren't too many familiar colleges in the state to those outside of New England, but even the lack of notoriety for New Hampshire's universities hasn't prevented many graduates from tacking on over $30,000 of debt during their college years. To top it all off, 75% of graduates or three out of every four are graduating with obligations to the bank. More from Wall St. Cheat Sheet:

72991503 The main bout is the battle between Democrats and Republicans over raising the nation's debt ceiling -- and avoiding the first-ever U.S. default. Post to Facebook Wall Street: Main bout debt limit, not shutdown on USATODAY.com: http://usat.ly/1fMWCmm Incorrect please try again A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. Sent! A link has been sent to your friend's email address. 32 To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs Wall Street: Main bout debt limit, not shutdown Adam Shell, USA TODAY 9:43 a.m. EDT October 4, 2013 When it comes to political brinkmanship, the market's story line has an unthinkable ending. Investors worry that a debt default would be a devastating economic punch. (Photo: Rungroj Yongrit, epa) Story Highlights Wall Street: Government shutdown is "sideshow;" debt ceiling fight and potential default is main risk Despite all the investor angst, Wall Street says Congress will blink and avoid a U.S. default Bulls say stocks should rebound when political uncertainty ends SHARE 202 CONNECT 43 TWEET 32 COMMENTEMAILMORE NEW YORK As fights go, Wall Street views the slugfest between Democrats and Republicans over the government shutdown as the undercard event. The main bout is the coming showdown over raising the debt ceiling and making sure the U.S. has enough cash to pay its bills and avoid the unthinkable: defaulting on its debt. "The shutdown is a sideshow," says Brian Belski, chief investment strategist at BMO Capital Markets. "It's all about the debt ceiling and potential default." FRIDAY: How markets are doing There's a big difference between the hit to confidence and the economy due to the government temporarily closing for business, and the more serious threat of putting the full faith and credit of the USA at risk. On Thursday, which marked Day 3 of the government's partial shutdown , volatility in the stock market began to rise. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 180 points before finishing down 137 points and below 15,000 . Fears of a drawn-out fight over the shutdown have shifted to worries that Congress won't agree to bump up the nation's borrowing limit in time to avert disaster. The U.S. Treasury said it will be virtually out of cash on Oct. 17. DEAL: Warren Buffett predicts 11th-hour deficit deal Still, there's a belief on Wall Street that the consequences of the U.S. not meeting its financial obligations would be so devastating to the economy and markets that there's virtually no way Congress will allow the first-ever U.S. default. The U.S. not making timely interest and principal payments to holders of U.S. government debt is "the single most bearish scenario," says Adam Parker, chief U.S. equity strategist at Morgan Stanley. And Congress knows that. "There is a 0% chance that the U.S. will default," Parker says. IMPACT: Debt limit fight will deal economic blow, Treasury says The reason is simple: The financial fallout in the summer of 2011 is a deterrent of sorts, as Congress doesn't want to see that horror movie again. In August 2011, a last-hour Congressional vote to raise the debt ceiling was too little too late, and resulted in the U.S. getting its triple-A credit rating downgraded and intensifying a stock sell-off that knocked the Standard & Poor's index down almost 20%. The U.S. Treasury warned Thursday that a default "has the potential to be catastrophic." It said it could spark a financial crisis and recession that "could echo the events of 2008 or worse." Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank, agrees with the Treasury's assessment, even though he, too, says the risk of default is "effectively zero." "A default would be a 10 on the Richter Scale," says LaVorgna. LaVorgna says the bad memories of the 2008 financial crisis are causing the market to get "nervous" as the political dysfunction drags on. David Bianco, chief U.S. equity strategist at Deutsche Bank, says it would be "lights out" for the stock market if the U.S. defaults. Even if the U.S. briefly missed payments unrelated to its bonds, the market could fall 10% to 15%. And if interest payments are missed? "It will result in the worst bear market in U.S. history," Bianco warns. The upshot: Markets will likely rally sharply once the period of political dysfunction ends, says Belski, noting that U.S. companies are in great shape relative to the rest of the world and will be helped by improving economies around the globe. SHARE 202 CONNECT 43 TWEET 32 COMMENTEMAILMORE USA NOW

Debt limit fight looms large amid shutdown stalemate

"It's something called raising the debt ceiling," President Obama said Thursday while visiting a small business in Rockville, Md. The debt limit is the nation's statutory borrowing limit, and as the president explained, "It sounds like we're raising our debt, but that's not what this is about." Congress decides through separate spending bills how much debt to rack up; the debt limit is simply the amount that the U.S. Treasury is allowed to pay back. "You don't save money by not paying your bills," Mr. Obama said, likening the scenario to eating a pricey meal and then refusing to pay the tab. "You don't reduce your debt by not paying your bills. All you're doing is making yourself unreliable and hurting your credit rating... Well, the same is true for countries." In depth: Government shutdown 2013 Currently, the debt limit stands at $16.69 trillion. The Treasury actually hit that limit in May and has been using "extraordinary measures" since then to avoid defaulting on the nation's debts. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said those extraordinary measures will be exhausted on Oct. 17, and at that point, if Congress doesn't raise the debt limit, the U.S. would have to use cash balances on hand to fund the nearly $4 trillion in operations of the government. Doing so would put at risk the nation's financial obligations to programs like Social Security and Medicare. "What I can tell you is that in the absence of action, we're looking at a very real deadline that we will not have the ability to borrow money after Oct. 17th. And we will run down our cash very quickly," Lew said on Fox Business Network on Thursday. The Treasury Department on Thursday released a report on the potential economic impact of debt ceiling brinksmanship, noting that a default could freeze credit markets, sink the value of the dollar and send interest rates skyrocketing. In 2011, when Congress merely flirted with the prospect of letting the nation default on its loans, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped over 2,000 points and Standard and Poor's downgraded the United States' credit rating. Mr. Obama warned Thursday that for all of the negative consequences of a government shutdown, "an economic shutdown that results from default would be dramatically worse." "In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown, if we don't raise the debt ceiling, they don't," he said. "In an economic shutdown, falling pensions and home values and rising interest rates... all those things risk putting us back into a bad recession." He reiterated that he will not negotiate over the debt limit. Play Video Shutdown: Who's to blame and when will it end? "There will be no negotiations over this," he said. "The American people are not pawns in some political game. You don't get to demand some ransom in exchange for keeping the government running... for keeping the economy running." However, with little progress over the spending bill (referred to as a continuing resolution, or CR) that would re-open the government, House Republican leaders have said they'll attempt to use the debt limit as a bargaining chip in economic negotiations. On Thursday, the New York Times reported that Boehner has told members of his caucus that he will not let the nation default on its debt and will be willing to put a bill on the House floor to raise the debt ceiling, even if it doesn't have the support of a majority of House Republicans. Still, the White House on Thursday sounded skeptical. "Even the story that you cite," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in response to the Times' report, "which reports that the Speaker said something privately to Republican members, one of his spokesmen was on the record basically reiterating the same list of demands associated with raising the debt ceiling that we've seen in the past." Carney added, "We are very concerned about the possibility that Republicans in the House will employee the same unfortunate tactics when it comes to the fundamental responsibility to raise the debt ceiling, and make sure that the United States doesn't default, as they have employed in shutting down the government." With Congress coming so close to the Oct. 17 deadline set by the Treasury, some have suggested Mr. Obama should bypass Congress. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly said that invoking the 14th Amendment to raise the debt limit is "an option that should seriously be considered." Some say the 14th Amendment gives the president authority to tell the Treasury Secretary to continue financing the nation's deficits through the sale of Treasury notes and bonds. The relevant section of the 14th Amendment says in part, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned." However, the Obama administration on Thursday was quick to shoot down that suggestion. "This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the power to the president to ignore the debt ceiling," Carney said. "Moreover, even if the president could ignore the debt ceiling, the fact that there is significant controversy around the president's authority to act unilaterally means that it would not be a credible alternative to Congress raising the debt ceiling and would not be taken seriously by the global economy or the markets, and that is essentially the point of faith and credit." He continued, "The reason why our economy is the envy of the world, the reason why our currency is the reserve currency of the world is because of that faith that investors around the world have in our constancy. They know that we pay our bills. They know that we're true to our word. And so even the doubt that would be created by that would undermine the faith that's the whole point of this exercise." Indeed, when bypassing Congress via the 14th Amendment came up as an option in 2011, some lawmakers cried foul . Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas introduced a resolution making clear that Mr. Obama does not have the authority to pull off a "debt limit dodge," as they called it.

Absolutely everything you need to know about the debt ceiling

What is the debt ceiling? This isn't the debt ceiling. But it's not a terrible metaphor! (Washington Post) When Congress authorizes more spending than it has in tax revenue which it usually does the Treasury has to borrow the rest to meet those financial obligations. But Congress has always imposed a legal limit on how much money the U.S. Treasury can actually borrow from outsiders and other government accounts. That's the "debt ceiling." The current debt limit is $16.699 trillion . The Treasury Department can borrow that much and no more, unless Congress votes to raise the ceiling. Note that the debt ceiling does not determine how much the U.S. government is authorized to spend. Congress does that by setting the budget each year. The debt ceiling only determines whether the U.S. government can borrow enough money to fulfill obligations that Congress has already passed into law, like Medicare reimbursements or military pay. So when will the government reach its $16.699 trillion borrowing limit? Technically, we've already reached the limit! But the government won't actually run out of money to pay its bills until some time after Oct. 17. The U.S. governmenthit the $16.699 trillion borrowing limit back on May 19 .Since then, the Treasury Department hastaken a slew of extraordinary measures such as tapping exchange-rate funds to raise an extra $303 billion and ensure the government has enough cash to meet all its obligations, from paying bondholders to Social Security checks. By Oct. 17, however, the Treasury Department will run out of "extraordinary measures." The government will no longer have enough cash on hand to meet all of its coming financial obligations, and it won't be able to borrow or scrounge up any more money. "We estimate that, at [Oct. 17], Treasury would have only approximately $30 billion to meet our country's commitments," said Treasury Secretary Jack Lew in a recent letter to Congress. "This amount would be far short of net expenditures on certain days, which can be as high as $60 billion." So what happens on October 17? Is that doomsday? At that point, the federal government will only bring in enough tax revenue to pay about68 percent of its billsfor the coming month, according to a recent analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center. (More precisely, the government will bring in roughly $222 billion and owe roughly $328 billion between Oct. 18 and Nov. 15, assuming the government is open.) The first default wouldn't necessarily happen right on Oct. 17 but it would likely happen soon thereafter. The government typically spends about $10 billion per day on various items, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And it will also face these large outlays : Oct. 23: The government will owe $12 billion in Social Security payments. Oct. 31: The government will owe $6 billion in interest on its debt. Nov. 1: The government will owe $67 billion in Social Security payments, disability benefits, Medicare payments, military pay, and retiree pay. Many analysts think that Nov. 1 is the real "doomsday" date. It's unlikely the government can make that $67 billion payment without being able to borrow more money. Hold on. The government is currently shut down. Doesn't that push back the "doomsday" date?

Wall Street: Main bout debt limit, not shutdown

The House and Senate arent scheduled to be in session today and there are no meetings planned between the two sides. The Obama administration has said it wont negotiate with Republicans over funding the government or raising the debt ceiling, arguing that it is part of the basic functions of Congress and shouldnt be used as point of leverage. Obama, in an interview with the Associated Press, said he expects Congress will reach an agreement to raise the nations $16.7 trillion debt limit in time to avert a default. The nations credit is at risk because of the administrations refusal to sit down and have a conversation, Boehner said. Asked if hed consider putting a clean debt ceiling increase on the floor, Boehner said the House would not be going down that path. Hard Line Boehner said on ABC he doesnt intend to let the government default and he has told his members the same thing behind closed doors, even if it involves using Democratic votes, according to aides and lawmakers. Still, the speaker has stuck to a hard line as he works to keep the Republicans unified and extract concessions from Obama. So far, that approach hasnt yielded any talks with Obama or movement toward heading off a default. Lew, who made appearances on four of the major Sunday television talk shows, said the administration would only be willing to negotiate after the partial shutdown, now in its sixth day, comes to an end and the debt ceiling is increased. He also warned of the dangers of default, as well as the possibility that Congress may actually fail to pass an increase. Ive talked with John Boehner; I know he doesnt want to default, Lew said on Fox News Sunday. He also didnt want to shut the government down. And here we are with a government shutdown. Remaining Cash The U.S. will run out of borrowing authority on Oct. 17 and will have $30 billion in cash after that. The country would be unable to pay all of its bills, including benefits, salaries and interest, sometime between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Congress is playing with fire, Lew said on CNNs State of the Union today. If the United States government, for the first time in its history, chooses not to pay its bills on time, we will be in default, there is no option that prevents us from being in default if we dont have enough cash to pay our bills. Unlike past fiscal feuds, this dispute is more about Obamas Affordable Care Act, his signature health-care law, and less about the amount of spending. The U.S. budget deficit in June was 4.3 percent of gross domestic product, down from 10.1 percent in February 2010 and the narrowest since November 2008, when Obama was elected to his first term, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from the Treasury Department and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Market Response So far, the financial-market response to the political gridlock has been muted. The Standard & Poors 500 Index climbed 0.7 percent in New York Oct 4. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury increased two basis points last week, trading between 2.66 percent and 2.58 percent. While the yield is up from the record low of 1.38 percent in July 2012, its below the average of about 6.7 percent since the early 1980s, the start of the three-decade long bull market in bonds. The consequences of a U.S. government default caused by Congress failing to raise the debt limit could be catastrophic and might last decades, the Treasury Department said in an Oct. 3 report. Credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, U.S. interest rates could skyrocket, the Treasury said. The negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. Entitlement Programs Boehner said Obama needed to start a conversation about the drivers of the countrys debt -- entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security -- before he could pass an increase to the debt ceiling. I dont want the United States to default on its debt, he said. But Im not going to raise the debt limit without a serious conversation about dealing with problems that are driving the debt up. Obama, who negotiated with Boehner over possible changes to entitlement programs during the 2011 fiscal debate, has said he will be willing to negotiate after the government re-opens and the debt ceiling is increased. Obama included changes to cut the costs that come from Social Security and Medicare in his budget, which was released in April. We are happy to negotiate, but we want to negotiate without a gun to our head, Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranked Democrat in the chamber, said in a separate interview on ABC. Political Posturing Schumer called Boehners position on raising the debt limit posturing and said he thought the pressure on Boehner and House Republicans coming from the business community and constituents would make them have to back off. He also questioned Boehners statement that a clean bill to fund the government wouldnt have the votes in the House, underlining a push from Senate Democrats and the White House to pressure Boehner to put that bill up for a vote. Boehner has been holding regular closed-door meetings with his members, asking them to stick together as they get close to the debt-ceiling fight. The House has passed a series of smaller funding bills for specific parts of the government, including the National Institutes of Health and national parks. House Republicans have rebuffed calls from Democrats to put a clean bill on the floor to fund the government at the level it was at prior to the partial shutdown. Republican Majority As he puts together the debt-ceiling plan, Boehner has little room to maneuver. Republicans have a 232-200 majority in the House, which means that they can lose support from only 15 of their members on a bill that doesnt attract any Democrats. Last month, Boehner, 63, outlined a debt-limit increase strategy that also included lighter regulations, cuts in entitlement programs and approval of TransCanada Corp. (TRP) s Keystone XL pipeline. The outline included means-testing Medicare, reducing the changes to malpractice law and eliminating social services block grants. Also being considered was a proposal to eliminate a requirement that gives regulators authority to seize and dismantle financial firms if their failure could damage the stability of the U.S. financial system. Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and his partys 2012 vice presidential candidate, has also been pressing for a plan that would solve the government spending impasse and raise the debt-limit at the same time while implementing economic growth policies and extracting deeper entitlement cuts as some in the Republican conference complained the leaders initial outline did not go far enough. Asked today how he thought it would all end, Boehner said he didnt know.

Constitution and the debt: Can the president go it alone?

Maybe even start my own business. Hey Boehner, stop using health care and and access to health care as LEVERAGE to make people work in crummy jobs they hate for low pay and long hours for your corporate paymasters! October 6, 2013 05:12 pm at 5:12 pm | paul petertharaldson I feel sorry for the millions of Americans who wasted their votes on these irresponsible fools. While Independents have a hard time winning, its actually impossible for Democrats and Republicans to govern. Hopefully we can credit card debt settlement throw these ilk out of our government sooner than later by ballot. October 6, 2013 05:14 pm at 5:14 pm | Judith If the republicans are so convinced that the Affordable Care Act is such a disaster, why not let it happen so they can prove themselves right? I believe they are afraid it will succeed and that is why they are going to such extremes to block it. October 6, 2013 05:14 pm at 5:14 pm | Tom Blier I got more work done today watching football than Boehner did all week. October 6, 2013 05:15 pm at 5:15 pm | dirksterdude If Boehner believes in his fellow Republicans so much why doesn't he call for the vote? Being speaker that is his job. If Pelosi is correct the votes are there for a Clean Bill to pass. Now it sounds even worse about Republican intransigence because there leader is in theory personally involved with America committing suicide. October 6, 2013 05:16 pm at 5:16 pm | Mr October 6, 2013 05:17 pm at 5:17 pm | BD70 You shutdown the government over an existing law! You have now by passed our functional government and shut it down for your own gains. Ok...I hope you get voted out and exterminated. Just to clarify...I am an Independent. October 6, 2013 05:18 pm at 5:18 pm | Richard Conn Henry October 6, 2013 05:19 pm at 5:19 pm | GWB Kruz is another shinig example of the depths that radical Tea Party politicians will sink to in their disgusting effort to obstruct President Obama. Ever since their loss in 2012, their ONLY intent has been to delay, damage, and undo ANY attempt by the President to help America recover after the Republican owned banks nearly ruined the economy. Kruz is worse than a terrorist. He's a turncoat. October 6, 2013 05:20 pm at 5:20 pm | Daniel Maddigan At least 2.7 million Americans have given their lives in defense of democracy and many millions more have given blood and family. Boehner's refusal to honor the democratic process in the peoples House is an act TREASON. October 6, 2013 05:20 pm at 5:20 pm | ketsui7 This is one of those moments where GOP is acting like a gang...the american people chose obama for his stuff. we are tired of being terrorized be americas worst terrorist group...the GOP October 6, 2013 05:21 pm at 5:21 pm | George So they think Obamacare will damage the country. Do they think shutting down the government is not going to damage the country?? Do they think destroying our credit rating is better?? Are they nuts, stupid or so freaked out we have a black president who may go down in history as a great president? What they are doing is destroying our republic, that a minority can overpower a majority. Even if you don't like the Affordable Care Act, you have to agree it was made a law fair and square, upheld by the Supreme Court and the President was re-elected on it by a MAJORITY, (not like how Bush defeated Gore). This is the way it works, majority rules. They are acting like Julius Caesar. We need a Brutus and a Cassius. October 6, 2013 05:23 pm at 5:23 pm | William Back in early 2001 I remember the Repubs, heavy with success, declared they would remain in power for a century. After this debacle which is solely about them trying the destroy the ACA, I'll be surprised if they become the majority party again within a century. October 6, 2013 05:24 pm at 5:24 pm | Robert President Obama won't negotiate with us...we want to negotiate BUT untying Affordable Healthcare from CR is NOT NEGOTIABLE! Is this nonsense fore real? What is for real is that Republicans passed last year's budget. IMPLICIT in that was the BUDGETED DEFICIT would have to be funded by raising the debt limit....that's what the Republicans did....so let's move on....Article 14! October 6, 2013 05:25 pm at 5:25 pm | MarcNJ There's nothing to negotiate, ACA is law. Democratically voted into law, signed by the POTUS, upheld by SCOTUS. And was a major part of the platform that the POTUS was RE-elected on. Stop holding the country hostage. Move forward and work to alter the ACA through the proper method if you feel it needs doing. October 6, 2013 05:26 pm at 5:26 pm | lukeNsee Boehner is beating a dead horse.......The Affordable Care Act is what Seniors, families and all other American people are waiting for.

October 04 2013

haydenillh

Don't Wait On The Debt Limit

Treasuries Decline as U.S. Prepares Debt Auctions Amid Shutdown

debt ceiling must be raised. Shaken faith in T-bills could trigger a credit crunch, drive up interest rates dramatically, degrade equity markets and lead to bank failures. Comments 62 President Obama gestures during a statement on the government shutdown in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press / October 1, 2013) Also See more stories X By Michael R. Strain and Stan A. Veuger October 3, 2013 Much is in flux in Washington this week. But two important realities have remained constant, whether certain elements in the GOP accept them or not: We must not default on the federal debt, and we shouldn't wait http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ until we're on the brink of default to raise the debt ceiling. Here's why. As measured by economists Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, policy uncertainty was more severe during the previous debt ceiling fight in the summer of 2011 than at any time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. If the possibility of default produces such turmoil, imagine what actually defaulting would do. As Republicans have so often pointed out in the fight over Obamacare , the ability of firms to make plans is severely hindered when government policies that affect them are in a state of extreme uncertainty. Raising the debt limit before the eleventh hour will help firms plan their activities, hire new workers and keep the (too weak) economic recovery going. Consumer confidence plunged during 2011's debt ceiling fight to a low not seen since the dark days of the recession, and it took a long time for confidence to recover. In a report released last week, Gallup found that economic confidence is already much worse now than it was in May and June, and attributes it to the current budget and debt ceiling battles. Many economists believe that consumer confidence measures serve as an indicator of how households will spend money in the future. If households are rattled by Washington shenanigans, they are likely to rein in spending, which would negatively affect the country's already fragile economy. And even the threat of a default would likely raise the interest rate on Treasuries by increasing their riskiness. This would bring higher borrowing costs for businesses and tighter credit for consumers. As we know from the last debt ceiling fight, the squabbling also costs taxpayers money. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that the cost to taxpayers of the delayed debt limit increase in 2011 will total almost $20 billion over 10 years. The United States actually defaulted on its debt once, in spring 1979. Then, as now, the debt ceiling was a source of partisan bickering, and an agreement was reached only at the last moment. The late passage, along with computer problems, meant the Treasury Department was late in making payments on maturing securities to individual investors and in redeeming T-bills. The moral of that story is clear: If Congress waits too long to raise the debt ceiling, the slightest error can throw the country into default on its obligations. Economists Terry L. Zivney and Richard D. Marcus, who studied the incident, concluded that this temporary default on a tiny share of the debt increased T-bill yields by six-tenths of a percentage point and resulted in $12 billion in additional interest payments. If the near-default of 2011 and a very minor default in 1979 cost so much money, imagine how much an actual default would cost taxpayers. After we ran up to the brink of default in 2011, Standard & Poor's lowered the country's credit rating for the first time. The response to that downgrade was not overwhelming, but a second downgrade would in all likelihood be more serious. A wide variety of institutions face restrictions on the risk profile of the assets they hold, and a second downgrade could make it harder for many of them to hold Treasury securities. As if all that isn't bad enough, default could harm the economy in much more destructive ways as well. As the risk-free asset par excellence, Treasury bills are used as collateral in many transactions, including in repo markets, which were a central player in the 2008 financial crisis. Shaken faith in their reliability would potentially trigger a credit crunch, Fedwire could seize up, a generalized flight from risk would drive down equity markets, banks could collapse. In other words, many of the pieces would be in place for a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke probably wasn't exaggerating when he said in July 2011 that default "would throw the financial system into chaos." Of course, no one knows for sure what would happen if the U.S. were to default. (Interest rates could fall in a flight to safety, for example, or the Fed could try to stop the panic by stepping in as the bond buyer of last resort, maintaining the liquidity of Treasuries.) But we shouldn't wait to find out, and we shouldn't charge up to the brink. The GOP's laundry list of demands in exchange for a debt ceiling increase is ridiculous. But President Obama 's position that he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling is also outrageous: Previous presidents have done so, and he should too. Shut down the government if you must, but don't shut down the entire economy. Washington needs to get serious about the debt ceiling. Quickly. Michael R. Strain and Stan A. Veuger are resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute .

Government shutdown: Where do we go from here? The price of the 2.5 percent note due August 2023 fell 6/32, or $1.88 cents per $1,000 face amount, to 98 29/32. The yields have traded this week between 2.66 percent and 2.58 percent, the narrowest range since April. The bottom of the range was the lowest level since Aug. 12. Rates on Treasury bills that mature Oct. 24 traded at 0.13 percent today, from negative 0.01 percent on Sept. 27, as investors demanded extra compensation for the risk of holding the securities. Curve Inversion Money managers are getting out of Treasuries maturing closest to the debt-ceiling deadline and buying longer-maturity bills, yields indicate. One-month rates touched 0.19 percent today, matching a 45-month high reached in November 2012, while rates on three-month bills were 0.03 percent, the biggest inversion of the spread since September 2008. A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is proposing to House Republican and Democratic leaders a compromise to end the stalemate that brought nonessential services to a halt. Policy makers also face a debate over raising the federal debt limit, which the Treasury has said will be reached on Oct. 17. Boehner has been telling fellow Republicans he wont allow the U.S. to default on its debt, even if that requires Democratic votes, according to two Republican congressional aides. Party leaders are trying to package other Republican priorities with a debt-ceiling increase for a vote as soon as next week. The U.S. Department of Labor postponed the September payroll report scheduled for today because of the shutdown. An alternative date for the employment report, usually released at 8:30 a.m. on the first Friday of each month in Washington, hasnt been scheduled, the department said in a statement. Potential Haven Treasuries can emerge as a haven as the U.S. debt limit approaches, according to Peter Fisher , a senior director at BlackRock and the companys former head of fixed income. For example, U.S. government securities gained after Standard & Poors cut the U.S. rating to AA+ from AAA in August 2011, he said. The decision followed another battle among lawmakers over the borrowing limit, and S&P criticized policy makers for failing to reduce record budget deficits. The Treasury market rallied after the downgrade happened because risk went up in the world, New York-based Fisher said yesterday on Bloomberg Televisions Market Makers with Erik Schatzker and Stephanie Ruhle . The Bloomberg U.S. Treasury Bond Index is little changed this month, after gaining 0.9 percent in September, which was the first increase since April. Bond Insurance The U.S. will sell $30 billion of three-year notes on Oct. 8, $21 billion of 10-year debt on Oct. 9 and $13 billion of 30-year bonds on Oct. 10. Credit-default swaps that insure U.S. debt from non-payment for five years climbed to 42 basis points yesterday, the highest level since February, according to CMA, which is owned by McGraw-Hill Cos. and compiles prices quoted by dealers in the privately negotiated market. The size of the CDS market covering Treasuries, the net notional value, jumped 8.3 percent in the week ended Sept. 27, data compiled by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. show. It was the biggest increase since July 2011 when U.S. officials were also fighting over the debt ceiling. Theres a fear of a default, said Tomohisa Fujiki, an interest-rate strategist in Tokyo at BNP Paribas SA, whose New York unit is one of the 21 primary dealers that trade directly with the Fed. Its a minority view, but theres still a fear. Bill Gross of Pacific Investment Management Co. and BlackRock Inc. (BLK) s Larry Fink said yesterday the U.S. debt standoff will be resolved soon, limiting damage to the economy. Gross, who runs the worlds biggest bond fund, said a default is not a realistic proposition. The congressional dispute that has partially shut the U.S. government will be wrapped up very rapidly, said Fink, the chief executive of the largest money manager globally.

Poll: Debt Ceiling Increase Favored By Most Americans

Blame Hamilton. Print Reuters As the US debt ceiling looms as the next crisis on the horizon, youre going to hear it a lot of this. The government has never defaulted on its obligations - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney It is not acceptable for one faction of one party in one chamber to say, Either we get what we want or well shut down the government, or even worse, we will not allow the U.S. Treasury to pay its bills and put the United States in default for the first time in history. When it comes to history, never say never. If you go back far enough, almost everything has happened at least onceand sometimes several times. And thats how it is with US defaults. Original Sin The Steve Jobs Myth Is Wrong The prevailing narrative of US government debt goes something like this. After the US won its independence from Britain in the late 18th century, the country was deeply in debt, owing about $79 million to creditors. Many politicians argued that the nascent country should repudiate its debts altogether and start fresh. Into the breach stepped Alexander Hamilton, who convinced policymakers that the wiser move was to consolidate state debts into a federal pile and then pay debts in full. Hamilton won the day, laying the foundation for the untarnished full-faith-and-credit that serves as the basis for the USs prized position in global finance to this day. But what is often glossed over is that the US didnt just pluckily pay off its wartime debts with a good, old-fashioned dollop of American elbow grease. No, it took the path of modern Greece. It restructured its debts, with decidedly harsh terms from creditors. In fact, the terms were so tough that an important paper on the topic notes that a large part of theface value of the debt was effectively written off. In other words, it wasnt paid. So was this a default? Well, as weve seen during the ongoing European debt crisis, the word default is quite malleable. Technically, Hamiltons restructuring of the US debt was a voluntary bond swap. And voluntary conversions arent always viewed as defaults. But sometimes they are. Just look at Greece, which arranged for a series of voluntary conversions of its preposterously large debt over the past few years. Did that constitute default? S&P says yes , citing two criteria that equate to a default: 1) that investors will receive less than they were promised in the original securities, which was definitely true in the case of Hamiltons debt swap, and 2) the swap was distressed rather than purely opportunistic. (Its not like Hamilton was just taking advantage of a decline in interest rates, for instance.) Inhis excellent, all-encompassing history of public finance, James Macdonald notes Hamilton struck a very hard bargain with creditorsone that stretched the terms voluntary conversion and sanctity of contract beyond their true limits. (Emphasis original.) Golden Handcuffs The other instance of US default came during the worst years of the Great Depression. In 1933, President Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold. That violated the so-called gold clause, which required that all public debts be paid in gold coin of a fixed weight. (Americas overwhelmingly pro-Roosevelt Congress simply declared all gold clauses null and void .) The 1933 devaluation effectively amounted to paying off debts with devalued currency, which is widely viewed as a default. In fact, in her exhaustive research on sovereign debt, economist Carmen Reinhart clearly classifies the 1933 devaluation as a domestic default . The Computer Glitch of 79 There have been some other instances of default that were just, well, screw-ups. As the Wall Street Journals Jason Zweig recently reminded us, in April and May of 1979during the height of another debt ceiling debatecomputer glitches resulted in the failure of the US to pay interest on $122 million in Treasury bills, which in the hardest sense of the word, was a default. Zweig writes: The Treasury characterized the problem as a delay rather than as a default. While the error affected only a fraction of 1% of the US debt, short-term interest ratesthen around 9%jumped 0.6 percentage point and the US was promptly sued by bondholders for breach of contract. (Investors were later paid in full, with back interest.) Business editor Derek Thompson looks at how such a simple commodity became as pricey as soda. Video A quick, animated look at at where emissions come from on our planet Video A brief history of technological progress and why it's not necessarily a bad thing Video Inequality explained in pie charts (made of actual pie) Video Two longtime Atlantic writers hit the runway in their Cirrus plane. Video A quick explainer on monetary policy Video The Eurythmics star discusses insights from her life as a musician, AIDS activist, mother, and more. Video No, seriously, what *is* money? Video A video explores urban legends from around the world. Video The reclusive artist behind the iconic brand gives a tour of her kaleidoscopic headquarters. Video Sarah Heyward on moving from literary fiction to TV Video An animated short film highlights the importance of good posture in the workplace. Video No matter how great that piece looks on the chalkboard, eventually you have to erase it. Video Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian on what he learned from rejection Video A haunting documentary about a West Virginia town plagued by painkiller addiction Video Oceanographer David Gallo on taking risks at 12,500 feet under the sea Video Take an epic ride through the New England countryside. Video Artist R. Luke Dubois on his experiments with the intersection of data and humanity. Video An archival film reveals what junior prom looked like in postwar America Video "I always consider the entire process about failure, and I think that's the reason why more people don't write." Video An animated film based on a true story by Iraq veteran Colby Buzzell Video A 1942 Disney cartoon explains how keeping your kitchen grease can help win the war. Video

The Most Well-Known Fact About US Debt Is Wrong

Independents were again split down the middle, with 45 percent placing more importance on a debt ceiling hike and 49 percent choosing an Obamacare delay. "You have bipartisan consensus among economists that not raising the debt ceiling would be a disaster, but politically you have a divide. Yes, more people say raise the debt ceiling and fight the health care debate somewhere else, but you have Republican lawmakers going home, most of them to safe Republican districts. And they're being told by many of their constituents not to worry about it, you don't have to raise the debt ceiling," CNN's Chief National Correspondent John King said . Fifty-three percent of Americans said congressional Republicans would be more to blame if the debt ceiling were not raised, while 31 percent said they'd mostly point the finger at President Barack Obama -- nearly the same division of opinion that was found during the debt ceiling showdown of July 2011 . As The Washington Post noted in September , polling on the debt ceiling can be difficult because most Americans pay little attention to the issue. In 2011, polling by NBC and The Wall Street Journal found that support for raising the debt ceiling rose dramatically after the deep consequences of defaulting reached the public's attention. Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein argues that polling on who will bear the blame should also be taken with a grain of salt. "Mostly, asking people to predict how they'll react to possible future political stories is just a waste of time," Bernstein wrote . "People aren't very good at understanding why they have the opinions they currently have; they're usually in no position to predict their future reactions. That goes double, of course, for something which they have very little knowledge about in the first place." The CNN/ORC poll surveyed 803 adults by phone between Sept. 27 and Sept. 29. Also on HuffPost: Loading Slideshow Barack Obama President Barack Obama pauses while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013, about the government shutdown. Congress plunged the nation into a partial government shutdown Tuesday as a protracted dispute over Obama's signature health care law reached a boiling point, forcing some 800,000 federal workers off the job. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci) Senate Republicans Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (2ndR), speaks while flanked by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (R), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) (2nd-L) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) (L) after the Senate Republican policy luncheon, on Capitol Hill, October 1, 2013 in Washington D.C. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) House Republicans House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., left, looks on as Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, pauses during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013 in Washington. Congress was unable to reach a midnight deadline to keep the government funded, triggering the first government shutdown in more than 17 years. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) Capitol Protesters A protester covers his mouth with a dollar bill as he joins others in a demonstration in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on October 1, 2013 urging congress to pass the budget bill. (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images) Lincoln Memorial A US Park Police officer watches at left as a National Park Service employee posts a sign on a barricade closing access to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) Chuck Hagel U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel listens on speaker phone during a conversation with Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and other senior Defense Department officials about the U.S. government shutdown, at his hotel in Seoul, South Korea on Tuesday Oct. 1, 2013. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, Pool) American Cemetery A notice advising visitors that the American Cemetery is closed due to the partial shutdown of the U.S. federal government hangs from the gates of the cemetery in Suresnes, west of Paris, Tuesday Oct. 1, 2013. (AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere) President Barack Obama U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks about the launch of the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplaces and the first federal government shutdown in 17 years as he's joined by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (R) and Americans who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act in the Rose Garden of the White House October 1, 2013 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) National Parks Park Ranger Scott Rolfes locks a gate closing a road over the dam at Saylorville Lake, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013, in Saylorville, Iowa. About 800,000 federal workers are being forced off the job http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ in the first government shutdown in 17 years, suspending most nonessential federal programs and services.

U.S. debt row keeps dollar near eight-month low, stocks subdued

The dollar <.dxy> was up for the first time in six days before the start of trading on Wall Street where the S&P 500<.spx> was expected to bounce around 0.3 percent after its worst day in over a month on Thursday. <.n> The U.S. shutdown delayed the closely-watched nonfarm payrolls data, normally out on Friday and a key factor in Federal Reserve deliberations on when to scale back its stimulus. The postponement had no noticeable market impact. Several Fed officials are due to speak later in the day. Two senior policymakers, as well as the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, warned on Thursday of dire consequences if the country defaulted on its debt. ITALY SHINES This week's troubles left world stocks on MSCI's global index <.miwd00000pus> heading for a second weekly loss in a row of 0.6 percent, but analysts saw that as of minor significance considering their recent strong run. Asian shares had been led lower overnight by a weak Nikkei <.n225>in Tokyo but European shares <.fteu3> overcame a difficult morning to stand almost flat on the day by 1200 GMT. Italian stocks <.ftmib>, up 1.4 percent, enjoyed another strong day following this week's confidence vote for the country's fragile government which has cut the risk of snap elections that would have reignited euro zone crisis fears. Italy's government bonds also outperformed leading a broad fall in euro zone periphery yields from Greece to Ireland. "We are seeing reduced political risk in Italy following relief that Letta survived the no-confidence vote," said RIA Capital Markets strategist Nick Stamenkovic. THE D-WORD The focus remained mostly on the dollar <.dxy>, however, after it hit an eight-month low against a basket of major currencies on Thursday following a 3.5 percent drop during the last three weeks of political wrangling. Hitting the debt ceiling could lead to an unprecedented U.S. default, an outcome the market assumes is unthinkable. "By far the biggest risk is October 17. If the debt ceiling is not raised beyond $16.7 trillion words like default are going to start rearing their head," said Neil Williams, chief economist at fund manager Hermes. "Is the world's biggest economy http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ really going to default on its debt when the wheels of the Fed's printing presses are still turning? I highly doubt it." The euro had looked to be eyeing up its 2013 peak of $1.3711 in Asian trading, but as the dollar began to firm in Europe the single currency dropped back half a euro to $1.3585. Sterling also fall 0.75 percent to $1.6041. Debt markets remained largely relaxed about the U.S. tensions, and yields, which move inversely to prices, were slightly higher on benchmark U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds as U.S. trading started. Commodity markets remained choppy. Brent crude edged up 0.4 percent to $109.46 a barrel, reversing a 0.2 percent decline overnight after slower U.S. service sector growth in September compounded worries about demand for raw materials. Gold was broadly steady at $1,312 an ounce while copper prices stabilized at $7,190 a tonne after tumbling 1.3 percent on Thursday. (Additional reporting by Emelia Sithole-Matarise; Editing by John Stonestreet/Ruth Pitchford) @yahoofinance on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook Related Content Chart Your most recently viewed tickers will automatically show up here if you type a ticker in the "Enter symbol/company" at the bottom of this module. You need to enable your browser cookies to view your most recent quotes. Search for share prices Terms Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSEAmex when available. See also delay times for other exchanges . Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page . Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ . Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc.

October 03 2013

haydenillh

Debt Ceiling: 8 Things You Need To Know But Wish You Didn't

debt ceiling faq The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare. Congress has always set some kind of limit on national debt, but the first modern version of it was set in 1917. Today it's set at $16.699 trillion. How often has Congress raised the debt ceiling? So often. On average, more than once a year. Since 1940, lawmakers have effectively approved 79 increases. Sometimes they've raised it by small amounts, other times by large amounts. And sometimes they've raised it "temporarily" with provisions for a "snap-back" to a lower level. Shutdown and debt ceiling loom large Is it true that raising the debt ceiling gives Congress a "license to spend more"? No. Raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time. Those bills are for services already performed and entitlement benefits already approved by Congress. So raising the debt ceiling is more like a license to continue paying what the country owes. And the obligations are incurred because of countless decisions made by lawmakers from both parties over the years. So, why does Congress even bother with a limit? In theory, setting a debt ceiling is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality it doesn't. Not meaningfully anyway, although there have been times when the debate has yielded some fiscal restraint. Google+ Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer . Morningstar: 2013 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM 2013 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS. 2013 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

Debt ceiling: Countdown to default

capitol debt ceiling debt ceiling must be raised. Shaken faith in T-bills could trigger a credit crunch, drive up interest rates dramatically, degrade equity markets and lead to bank failures. Comments 14 President Obama gestures during a statement on the government shutdown in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press / October 1, 2013) Also See more stories X By Michael R. Strain and Stan A. Veuger October 3, 2013 Much is in flux in Washington this week. But two important realities have remained constant, whether certain elements in the GOP accept them or not: We must not default on the federal debt, and we shouldn't wait until we're on the brink of default to raise the debt ceiling. Here's why. As measured by economists Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, policy uncertainty was more severe during the previous debt ceiling fight in the summer of 2011 than at any time since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. If the possibility of default produces such turmoil, imagine what actually defaulting would do. As Republicans have so often pointed out in the fight over Obamacare , the ability of firms to make plans is severely hindered when government policies that affect them are in a state of extreme uncertainty. Raising the debt limit before the eleventh hour will help firms plan their activities, hire new workers and keep the (too weak) economic recovery going. Consumer confidence plunged during 2011's debt ceiling fight to a low not seen since the dark days of the recession, and it took a long time for confidence to recover. In a report released last week, Gallup found that economic confidence is already much worse now than it was in May and June, and attributes it to the current budget and debt ceiling battles. Many economists believe that consumer confidence measures serve as an indicator of how households will spend money in the future. If households are rattled by Washington shenanigans, they are likely to rein in spending, which would negatively affect the country's already fragile economy. And even the threat of a default would likely raise the interest rate on Treasuries by increasing their riskiness. This would bring higher borrowing costs for businesses and tighter credit for consumers. As we know from the last debt ceiling fight, the squabbling also costs taxpayers money. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that the http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ cost to taxpayers of the delayed debt limit increase in 2011 will total almost $20 billion over 10 years. The United States actually defaulted on its debt once, in spring 1979. Then, as now, the debt ceiling was a source of partisan bickering, and an agreement was reached only at the last moment. The late passage, along with computer problems, meant the Treasury Department was late in making payments on maturing securities to individual investors and in redeeming T-bills. The moral of that story is clear: If Congress waits too long to raise the debt ceiling, the slightest error can throw the country into default on its obligations. Economists Terry L. Zivney and Richard D. Marcus, who studied the incident, concluded that this temporary default on a tiny share of the debt increased T-bill yields by six-tenths of a percentage point and resulted in $12 billion in additional interest payments. If the near-default of 2011 and a very minor default in 1979 cost so much money, imagine how much an actual default would cost taxpayers. After we ran up to the brink of default in 2011, Standard & Poor's lowered the country's credit rating for the first time. The response to that downgrade was not overwhelming, but a second downgrade would in all likelihood be more serious. A wide variety of institutions face restrictions on the risk profile of the assets they hold, and a second downgrade could make it harder for many of them to hold Treasury securities. As if all that isn't bad enough, default could harm the economy in much more destructive ways as well. As the risk-free asset par excellence, Treasury bills are used as collateral in many transactions, including in repo markets, which were a central player in the 2008 financial crisis. Shaken faith in their reliability would potentially trigger a credit crunch, Fedwire could seize up, a generalized flight from risk would drive down equity markets, banks could collapse. In other words, many of the pieces would be in place http://www.debtconsolidationloanswiz.com/ for a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke probably wasn't exaggerating when he said in July 2011 that default "would throw the financial system into chaos." Of course, no one knows for sure what would happen if the U.S. were to default. (Interest rates could fall in a flight to safety, for example, or the Fed could try to stop the panic by stepping in as the bond buyer of last resort, maintaining the liquidity of Treasuries.) But we shouldn't wait to find out, and we shouldn't charge up to the brink. The GOP's laundry list of demands in exchange for a debt ceiling increase is ridiculous. But President Obama 's position that he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling is also outrageous: Previous presidents have done so, and he should too. Shut down the government if you must, but don't shut down the entire economy. Washington needs to get serious about the debt ceiling. Quickly. Michael R. Strain and Stan A. Veuger are resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute .

Poll: Debt Ceiling Increase Favored By Most Americans

government shutdown and a potential debt default are beginning to merge into a single fiscal fight, raising the stakes for Republicans and Democrats to end the impasse. Lawmakers from both parties are linking the two issues more closely, a connection the White House is reinforcing, according to an administration official who asked for anonymity to discuss strategy. President Barack Obama met today with financial industry executives to focus attention on the risk of a default. With no immediate progress on resolving the federal closure, the standoff over funding the government is increasingly likely to continue as a deadline closes in to raise the debt limit. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew yesterday repeated the warning that the U.S. will exhaust its borrowing authority on Oct. 17, in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner . Theres no doubt in my mind now that the debt ceiling and shutdown are conjoined in one big tar baby, said Steve Bell, a onetime Republican Senate budget aide and now a senior director at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. Stocks Fall Recognition of the strengthening linkage rippled through financial markets this morning, as stocks slid around the world and gold rallied. The dollar fell, while Treasuries rose. The MSCI All-Country World Index dropped 0.3 percent at 11:43 a.m. in New York and the Standard & Poors 500 Index slid 0.5 percent. The 10-year Treasury yield fell five basis points to 2.60 percent. The dollar weakened versus nine of 16 major currencies. Near-term risk aversion could spark a temporary pullback, Russ Koesterich , the chief investment strategist at New York-based BlackRock Inc., said in an e-mailed statement. His company manages $3.9 trillion of assets. The battle over debt ceiling is a more important issue and a more significant potential risk. Each side in the fiscal fight has reason to believe the approach of the debt limit provides more leverage. Republicans can argue that Obama fears a default more than a shutdown, and the White House can use the prospect of a default to portray Republicans as irresponsible and bring pressure on them through party allies in the business world. Dont Wait Obama, who summoned the top four leaders of Congress to the White House today for the first high-level talks on reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling, combined the two issues in remarks in the Rose Garden yesterday. My basic message to Congress is this, Obama said. Pass a budget; end the government shutdown; pay your bills; prevent an economic shutdown; dont wait; dont delay; dont put our economy or our people through this any longer. In Republican congressional leaders own media event, staged sitting on one side of a table in the Capitol to signify their willingness to enter into talks, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin described the debt limit as the likely catalyst for a deal. Thats what we think will be the forcing action to bring the two parties together, Ryan said. The Senates second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois , said the standoffs over funding the government and raising the legal debt limit are now all together, poised to be resolved through a single negotiation. Reckless Behavior The potential damage to the economy of a debt default was the focus of the meeting Obama had today with 15 financial executives, including Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup Inc.; Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) ; and Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America Corp. We need to get a conversation going about why this is such reckless behavior, said Valerie Jarrett , a senior Obama adviser. The financial community is in an excellent position to educate the public about the consequences to everyday folks in the event we default. Even with Obamas vow that he wont make concessions to raise the debt limit, Boehner, an Ohio Republican , has the advantage in talks when he can wield the threat of a default, said former Representative Tom Reynolds, who headed the House Republicans national campaign apparatus and remains in touch with many members through his current work as a lobbyist. The president and the secretary of Treasury are going to be very concerned about the debt ceiling regardless of whats said, he said. It is unlikely this shutdown will be resolved this week. The question is whether it will be resolved next week. Either takes us close to Oct. 17. Lews Warning After financial markets closed yesterday, Lew said in his letter to Boehner and other congressional leaders that the U.S. has begun using the final extraordinary measures to avoid breaching the nations debt limit. He urged Congress to extend the nations borrowing authority immediately. White House economic adviser Gene Sperling said yesterday that financial markets are overconfident that the stalemate will be resolved in time to avoid major economic damage. There is a false sense of complacency among some in the market that somehow things will be always solved at midnight, Sperling, the director of Obamas National Economic Council, told Bloomberg News reporters and editors. Exit Strategy Patrick Griffin, a congressional lobbyist for President Bill Clinton during the budget battles and government shutdowns of the 1990s, said blending the debt limit and shutdown into a single negotiation provides an easier exit strategy for the two sides to end the confrontation. The White House can make concessions to the Republicans without explicitly violating its pledge not to negotiate on raising the debt limit, Griffin said. The Democrats, he said, will have the edge when talks get under way and can give Boehner one or two items as political cover. Theres more wiggling room when theres more on the table, he said. It allows you to be more subtle about who wins and who loses even if its only providing a fig leaf to the loser. To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Steven Komarow at skomarow1@bloomberg.net

Don't wait on the debt limit

Looming debt-ceiling fight complicates government shutdown But that's not quite right. And here's why. The country reached the debt ceiling in May. Since then the Treasury Department has been using special accounting measures to keep borrowing just under the limit. But Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said those will run out no later than Oct. 17. That means the "extraordinary measures" could dry up on Oct. 12 or Oct. 15, or some other date. Just no later than Oct. 17. When they do, Treasury won't be able to borrow and will have only two sources of money to pay bills: The estimated $30 billion cash that Lew expects to have on credit card debt hand, plus whatever daily revenue that comes in. The big question: When will that money fall below what Treasury needs to pay on any given day? The Congressional Budget Office estimates between Oct. 22 and Oct. 31 . Because money owed and revenue coming in varies from day to day, it's hard to pinpoint the precise day when the country could default on some legal obligations -- which include interest on the debt, Social Security payments, and payments to federal contractors. Related: Debt ceiling: 8 things you need to know but wish you didn't What economists and budget experts are very clear about, however, is that the closer we get to mid-October the more markets are likely to buck. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling for too long could cripple the economy and investments. Here's why. Cash crunch could leave millions high 'n dry: If Treasury doesn't have enough cash on hand to pay what's owed, it will have to make decisions that are legally and ethically questionable, to say nothing of practically difficult. Some Republicans say that Treasury should prioritize who gets paid first. Treasury says that would not only be near impossible because of how its payment systems work, it would be wrong. "Any plan to prioritize some payments over others is simply default by another name," Lew wrote in a letter to lawmakers. Most experts assume that Treasury would do all it could to pay interest owed to bondholders first since failure to do so could unhinge world markets. But beyond that, who deserves to be next on the list? Seniors, disabled veterans, federal contractors, active-duty military personnel? The federal government has incurred legal obligations to all of them. They and the U.S. economy depend on their being paid on schedule. Treasury would have two main options , both awful: It could pay some bills in full and delay others; or it could delay all payments due on a given day until it has enough money on hand to pay them all. Senior Treasury officials indicated in an inspector general's report that the second option would be the most likely and least harmful of the two. But it's hardly painless. Backlog of payments would grow: Depending on how long the debt ceiling standoff lasts, delays could quickly grow from a day or two to several weeks. That would starve the economy and create doubt in the minds of investors and ordinary Americans that the United States is good for the money. "If the confidence in the reliability of payments were cast into doubt, the consequences for the budget, the U.S. economy, the U.S. and global financial systems could be large and lasting and very damaging," Douglas Elmendorf, the current CBO director, told Congress recently. Shutdown and debt ceiling loom large U.S. standing in the world would be hurt. It will be very hard to justify to anyone why the world's largest economy and richest country is willfully choosing not to pay what it owes. Markets and the economy would tumble: Economist Mark Zandi worries that the stock market could start falling by hundreds of points a day as the calendar moves closer to Oct. 17 if Congress shows no signs it will raise the debt ceiling. And it really won't help confidence if the government shutdown is still going on.

Goldman to Nomura Warn on Debt to Reserves Ratio: India Credit

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (2nd R) and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) arrive to lead House Republicans in a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, October 2, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst By Gabriel Debenedetti and James B. Kelleher Thu Oct 3, 2013 12:07am BST (Reuters) - Big business, a traditionally powerful but pragmatic player in Republican policy-making, has found itself outflanked and marginalized by smaller conservative groups opposed to compromise in the country's current fiscal crisis and the looming showdown over the debt ceiling. As the shutdown of the government approaches its third day, business leaders and groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are worried about the economic implications of a standoff over the debt limit, but their pleas have not moved the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives to action. Meanwhile right-wing groups like the Club for Growth and Heritage Action have gained traction, particularly as Tea Party-aligned lawmakers rise in prominence. The U.S. Chamber's chief lobbyist said 16 House Republicans are now "out of earshot" for the Chamber, enough by his count to stymie legislation. These lawmakers do not listen to their own Republican leaders and are oblivious to national polls, said Bruce Josten, the Chamber's executive vice president for government affairs. "They aren't going to listen to anybody except what they are being told from home." Led by a group of conservative members, Republicans wanted to tie continued government funding to measures that would undercut President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law. The dispute threatens to merge with an October 17 deadline for Congress to authorize an increase in the government's debt limit, or risk an unprecedented default. The Chamber, which has opposed long opposed Obama's health insurance reforms, on Monday sent a letter to lawmakers from over 250 business groups, urging them to fund the government and raise the debt limit while cutting entitlement spending. While the letter was addressed to all lawmakers, the message was clearly directed more at Republicans, with whom the Chamber has historically had far more influence. Despite the letter, the impasse continues, with both sides blaming each other for intransigence. The shutdown began on Tuesday after Democrats rejected Republican efforts to undercut the Affordable Care Act. Also known as Obamacare, a key piece of the program went ahead on Tuesday as people enrolled in new online insurance marketplaces. The Republican Party is traditionally seen as supporting business interests while maintaining strong ties to leading industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which helps fund candidates' campaigns and lobbies for corporate-friendly measures in Congress. In the 2012 election cycle the Chamber spent nearly $28 million campaigning against Democrats, out of $32 million overall, according to Washington research group the Center for Responsive Politics. In the budget dispute, the House Republican leadership has aligned with lawmakers sympathetic to the Tea Party in opposing a deal to end the shutdown, despite the pleas of business groups like the Chamber and Fix the Debt to avoid actions that would damage the economy. With many Capitol Hill staff members off work because of the shutdown and Boehner meeting with Obama in the White House on Wednesday evening, the speaker's office did not immediately respond to questions about the Chamber's letter or the speaker's relationship with the business community. Former House Republican leadership spokesman Kevin Madden said party chairmen and big donors used to have a more exclusive level of access to persuading legislators. "It's become a much more competitive market for (leadership's) attention." UNEASE AND FRUSTRATION Paul Stebbins, executive chairman of the board at World Fuel Services Corp in Miami, said the Republican willingness to allow a shutdown created "a very deep unease" among his fellow business leaders as they look ahead to the debt ceiling fight. Honeywell International Chief Executive Dave Cote, a self-proclaimed "lifelong Republican," said he was frustrated with the party's unwillingness to agree to a deal. Major bank executives including Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein and JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the budget impasse and the debt ceiling, but they did not go as a group to Capitol Hill, and none were scheduled to meet with Boehner or Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. After the White House meeting, Blankfein said the executives, in Washington as part of the Financial Services Forum, wanted lawmakers to understand "the long-term consequences of a shutdown - we're already in the short-term consequences of a shutdown - but certainly the consequences of a debt ceiling (not being raised), and we all agree that those are extremely adverse." Blankfein implicitly criticized Republicans for using Obamacare as a weapon. "You can litigate these policy issues. You can re-litigate these policy issues in a political forum, but they shouldn't use the threat of causing the U.S. to fail on its ... obligations to repay on its debt as a cudgel," he said. A short-term shutdown would slow U.S. economic growth by about 0.2 percentage points, Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday, and a weeks-long disruption could weigh more heavily, at 0.4 percentage points. If Congress fails later this month to raise the $16.7 trillion borrowing cap, the United States would go into default, likely sending financial shockwaves around the world. United Technologies Corp, which makes Sikorsky helicopters and other items for the military, said it would be forced to furlough as many as 4,000 employees, if the U.S. government shutdown continues through next week, due to the absence of government quality inspectors. RISE OF CONSERVATIVE GROUPS Much of the far-right antipathy for big business began in 2008, with the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program that critics equated to a bailout of major banks and corporations. While long-standing industry groups like the Chamber have lost some of their sway over House Republicans, conservative organizations like Heritage Action have taken their place, some observers said. Heritage Action is the political wing of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank run by former Tea Party Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina since January. Stebbins, of World Fuel Services, said single-issue groups like Club for Growth, an anti-tax advocacy group with a political action committee, were playing an outsized role in driving the politics behind the impasse. "I think that one of the things that pragmatic businesspeople resent is that these absolutist imperatives become the litmus test whether you get to succeed politically," Stebbins said. Led by former Indiana congressman Chris Chocola, Club for Growth has heavily supported Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose 21-hour speech on the Senate floor last week helped set the stage for the budget fight. In addition to lobbying members of Congress, Heritage Action also puts out a scorecard ranking lawmakers and funds aggressive advertising and publicity campaigns for its favored issues and officials. Club for Growth is a juggernaut campaign funder of fiscally conservative Republicans. Leaders from both Heritage Action and Club for Growth acknowledged that the Republican Party was indeed distancing itself from traditional business interests. "The nature of the (House Republicans) has changed, and we think we have had something to do with that, with our support of some of the candidates we've endorsed," Chocola told Reuters, noting that "our goal is to be cheerleaders rather than obstructionists," and that he no longer speaks with Republican leadership. Heritage Action spokesman Dan Holler said his group is in "constant communication" with leading Republicans, and that the lawmaker movement away from big business interests showed more attention is being paid to constituents. Both Holler and Chocola pointed to their opposition to authorizing the Export-Import Bank as an example of their disagreement with the Chamber. "There's an awakening in the Republican Party that being in favor of free markets and less government doesn't mean that you're going to be pro-big business," Holler said. "Now you're getting to the point where (members of Congress) are saying, 'I don't care if groups like the Chamber of Commerce are lobbying for a tax credit,' or something like that." (Reporting and writing by Gabriel Debenedetti in Washington; Reporting by James B. Kelleher in Chicago; Additional reporting by Jason Lange and Jeff Mason in Washington and Patricia Kranz in New York; Editing by Claudia Parsons and Tim Dobbyn) Tweet this

Shutdown, debt fight highlight Republican distance from 'big business'

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (2nd R) and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) arrive to lead House Republicans in a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, October 2, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst The shutdown, the first since the winter of 1995-96, closed national parks across the nation. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) Castle Clinton A government employee steps out of an opening in a door at Castle Clinton National Monument in lower Manhattan, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013 in New York. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) Statue Of Liberty People look at a sign for informing that the Statue of Liberty is closed due to the government shutdown in Battery Park on October 1, 2013 in New York City. Federal museums and parks across the nation are closed starting today due to a government shutdown for the first time in nearly two decades. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial US Park Rangers place barricades in front of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, DC, October 1, 2013, as all National Parks closed due to a US government shutdown. (JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images) National Gallery Of Art A group of art students take up the staircase of the National Art Gallery as it is closed due to Federal government shutdown in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2013. (JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images) Clinton Presidential Library Visitors walk from the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., after being informed that the building is closed Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013 because of the government shutdown. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston) Ebenezer Baptist Church A man walks past a sign on the doors of historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta notifying visitors that the church is closed because of the government shutdown, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013. (AP Photo/John Bazemore) World War II Memorial A US military war veteran visits the World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2013. The US Park Service opened the area to the veterans who are brought to Washington to visit and reflect at their memorials. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) World War II Memorial U.S. military war veteran takes photos at the World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on October 1, 2013. The U.S. Park Service opened the area to the veterans who are brought to Washington to visit and reflect at their memorials. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) US Rep. Michelle Bachmann (L),R-MN, greets a US military war veteran as he arrives to visit the World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2013. The US Park Service opened the area to the veterans who are brought to Washington to visit and reflect at their memorials. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) World War II Memorial A closure sign is seen as US military war veterans visit the World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on October 1, 2013. The US Park Service opened the area to the veterans who are brought to Washington to visit and reflect at their memorials. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) Republicans Address The Media WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 01: U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) (L), U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) (C) and U.S. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) (R) speak to the media during a news conference on Capitol Hill, October 1, 2013 in Washington D.C. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial U.S. Park Police Officers yell at a biker while closing the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial on the National Mall October 1, 2013 in Washington, D.C. The U.S. government is in a forced shutdown after lawmakers failed to pass a spending bill last night. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images) Washington Monument A U.S. National Parks Service sign is seen on a fence near the Mall in Washington, D.C., on October 1, 2013. The U.S. government shut down Tuesday for the first time in 17 years after a gridlocked Congress failed to reach a federal budget deal amid bitter brinkmanship.(KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) World War II Memorial Temporary fencing around the World War II Memorial prevents people from entering the monument on the National Mall October 1, 2013 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Lincoln Memorial A U.S. Park Police Officer stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on October 1, 2013. The U.S. lurched into a dreaded government shutdown today for the first time in 17 years, after Congress failed to end a bitter budget row after hours of dizzying brinkmanship. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images) Jefferson Memorial A woman views the Jefferson Memorial from behind barricades in Washington, D.C., on October 1, 2013. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) Z-Burger An employee at Z-Burger in Washington, DC, prepares food during the lunch hour rush October 1, 2013. The fast-food chain is promising free hamburgers to federal workers who find themselves furloughed after the US government shutsdown Tuesday, its founder and proprietor Peter Tabibian said. (JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images) White House Visitor Center U.S.

Shutdown Seen Merging With Debt-Limit Fight Amid Impasse

President Barack Obama 30 show. The ratio was 146.5 percent during a balance-of-payments crisis in March 1991, according to the reports partial data for the 1990s. Including longer-term debt, repayments due by June 2014 total $170 billion, or 60 percent of reserves. Indonesia s comparable ratio is 55.8 percent. Asia s third-largest economy faces significant risk as banks and companies seek to refinance global borrowings, even as the government acts to trim the current-account deficit, Goldman wrote in a Sept. 30 research note. Nomura said the slowest economic growth in a decade and a budget deadlock in the U.S. will damp inflows, further straining Indias finances. We expect the focus to turn to Indias external vulnerability amid a worsening global backdrop, Sonal Varma , an economist at Nomura in Mumbai, said in an Oct. 1 telephone interview. The worst in terms of the quarterly current-account deficit is likely behind us. The deficit in the broadest measure of trade was $21.8 billion in April through June, compared with $18.1 billion in the previous quarter, the RBI said in a Sept. 30 statement. The median of 26 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey was for a $23 billion gap. Deficit Outlook Nomura predicts the widest shortfall among the largest emerging markets will narrow to 3 percent of gross domestic product in the fiscal year through March 2014 from a record 4.8 percent the previous period. Goldman analysts Tushar Poddar in Mumbai and Vishal Vaibhaw in Bangalore forecast a 3.5 percent gap as tariff increases curb gold imports and slower growth limits domestic demand. GDP increased 5 percent in the year ended March 31, official data show, the least in a decade. The current-account deficit will drop to 4 percent of GDP this fiscal year, according to the median of 14 estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists. However, the shortfall in the governments budget will widen to 5.05 percent of GDP in the same period, from 4.9 percent the prior year, according to the median estimates in a separate survey, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh boosts spending ahead of elections due by May. Debt Outflows Global funds have cut holdings of Indian debt by $11.5 billion to $26.9 billion since May 22, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke first flagged a potential paring of bond purchases. Since the Fed unexpectedly maintained its buying on Sept. 18, the figure is down $891.5 million. Foreign reserves fell to $277 billion in the week through Sept. 20 from $297 billion at the end of 2012, official data show. India is one of the countries with the most challenging macro imbalances, Goldman analysts including London-based Thomas Stolper, wrote in a Sept. 30 note to clients. High-frequency data on Indian capital flows indicate that, even after the dovish Fed surprise, the funding of the large Indian external deficit remains a challenge. Goldman is selling the rupee against the euro, betting it will weaken to 92 per euro from 84.0984 today. The Indian currency advanced 1 percent to 61.8350 per dollar as of 12:29 p.m. in Mumbai , and the yield on the 10-year benchmark bond fell three basis points, or 0.03 percentage point, to 8.70 percent. Local markets were shut yesterday for a public holiday. Fed Stimulus Societe Generale SA on Oct. 1 closed its sell-rupee trade, saying global risk sentiment has improved after the Fed decision. BNP Paribas SA recommends investors buy the rupee, saying the partial shutdown of the U.S. government will likely prolong stimulus and boost the amount of cash available in the global banking system. Given the fact that youre going to see such a disruptive end to the U.S. fiscal debate, the Fed may continue to feel that they have to do the heavy lifting in terms of supporting growth, Mirza Baig, Singapore-based head of foreign-exchange and interest rate strategy at BNP Paribas, said in a Sept. 30 telephone interview. Like Bernanke, new RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan will also be under pressure to manage the economy with little help from the government before next years elections, according to Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (SEBA) , or SEB. Rajan Policy In his maiden policy review on Sept. 20, Rajan unexpectedly raised the benchmark repurchase rate to 7.50 percent from 7.25 percent to curb inflation and counter outflows. He said taming the fastest price increases among the largest emerging markets is his top priority. Standard & Poors last month reiterated it may downgrade Indias debt rating to junk as fuel and food subsidies threatened Prime Minister Singh goal of curbing the governments budget deficit. Credit-default swaps insuring the bonds of State Bank of India (SBIN) , a proxy for the sovereign, against non-payment for five years have climbed 140 basis points from the years low of 174 in May, according to data provider CMA. At least until the elections are done, Rajan is pretty much on his own, Sean Yokota, head of Asia strategy at SEB in Singapore , said in a Sept. 30 telephone interview. Considering Indias huge funding needs, I wouldnt consider buying the rupee until we have clarity on Fed tapering. To contact the reporter on this story: Jeanette Rodrigues in Mumbai at jrodrigues26@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Regan at jregan19@bloomberg.net Waterfront in Mumbai Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg A man walks along the waterfront at Nariman Point in Mumbai. India is one of the countries with the most challenging macro imbalances, analysts at Goldman, including London-based Thomas Stolper, wrote in a Sept. 30 note to clients.

October 01 2013

haydenillh

Americans Aren't Bound To Pay The Government's Debts - Reason.com

I would shove my bills in a drawer, envelopes unopened, so I didnt have to deal with bills I couldnt pay. I would avoid the calls of collection agencies. I was swimming in debt, and didnt know how to get out. The real low point, though, came when we didnt have enough money to buy some milk and cereal for the kids. My bank account had a negative balance. So I stole money from my kids piggy bank to buy the food. Yeah, that didnt feel good. Things went on like this for awhile before I finally decided it was time to face the fears, see my situation clearly, and start doing something about it. Heres what I did: I finally faced the problem : I took the bills out of the drawer, and make a spreadsheet with all my debts, the amounts, and the minimum monthly payments. I took a look at our spending, and realized we needed to stop the bleeding before we could start healing. We were spending more than we earned, or at best, all of what we earned. So we cut out all kinds of expenses: cable TV, one of our cars, magazine subscriptions, daily lattes, going to the movies with the kids, buying new things other than actual necessities, going to the mall for entertainment, eating out, buying convenience food. Many of these things we cut out gradually, a month at a time, but some we cut out right away. We started a spending plan most bills were put on automatic payment, and a few discretionary categories (food, gas, etc.) I started an emergency fund. I started paying off the debts, one at a time. I renegotiated with some of our creditors. We found other fun ways to have fun as a family. I started earning more as a freelancer, to bring in extra income. I started this blog, and sold my first ebook 11 months later, to make more income. Then we got out of debt. And stayed out. We havent been in debt one single minute since then. Its wonderful. The Way of No Debt The first part of the Way of No Debt is getting out of it. The steps I took above are how I did that. Its the hardest part, but definitely worth it. The Way is then a transition from being in debt, to living debt-free. First, we kept living frugally for awhile we didnt really loosen up, and that meant we put a lot of our income to savings. We grew our emergency fund to the recommended 6-month cushion, which was important to me as a self-employed business owner. Then I started looking to invest, and invested in index funds, which are pretty basic but low-cost and low-worry investment vehicles. Then I learned about tax-advantaged investment vehicles like IRAs, and got me some of those. Im still learning about all of this, but the important thing is that I got started. The Way is now just a philosophy, of not going into debt. I use credit cards now, but pay them off completely every month (for awhile, I paid them off weekly, then just set up autopay). I dont have a car, but the last time I did, we bought it used, with cash. We dont have a mortgage. We live within our means, and spend less than we earn. This means we dont worry about finances, for the most part. It means we dont pay interest. We earn interest. We arent tied to a house, we dont have anything expensive wed need to sell, and we live lightly. This is the Way of No Debt, and I recommend it highly. The Sea Change Program: Debt Reduction/Elimination If youd like help forming the habits that will help you get out of debt, Id like to offer my Sea Change Program , which Ive created to help people form habits and change their lives. In October, well be focusing on the Debt Reduction/Elimination Habit, and I invite you to join us.

Sept. 30 2013 8:45 AM No, Democrats Never Really Held the Debt Limit Hostage By David Weigel Charles C. Johnson is a careful reporter for the Daily Caller, an expert at digging through public records to find graft or hypocrisy. Example: It was Johnson who proved that former Institute for Study of War analyst Elizabeth O'Bagy both had a problem with disclosure and a problem with overstating her academic credentials. Today, Johnson attempts to prove a point that Republicans have been making before they release their full debt limit demands. "The Democratic Party," he writes, "has consistently battled debt ceiling increases when Republican presidents were in power." Fair-minded journalists have been wondering about this, wondering how many Pinocchios or Pants on Fire to assign Barack Obama when he says the GOP's current demands are without precedent. Johnson's near-total failure suggests that Obama might be right. First of all: Consistently? Like, every time it's come up for a vote. Actually, nonot even Johnson really proves that. He finds three examples in the 1980s when the Democratic House did not quickly give Ronald Reagan a debt limit increase. Exhibit A: In 1981, the Democrats opposed efforts to increase the debt limit and accused Republicans of conscience-less politics targeting the poor, according to The Milwaukee Journal. This leaves out oodles of context. At the start of 1981, Republicans controlled the Senate and White House. Some Senate Republicans wanted to pass a debt limit increase and attach a tax cut. Some Democrats, who had voted for debt limit increases under Jimmy Carter and been attacked by Republicans, balked. They didn't actually make demands, and from the outset they had a majority of members ready to vote for a clean debt limit increase. From the Feb. 2, 1981, edition of the New York Times: The Speaker of the House, Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. of Massachusetts, has promised President Reagan that he will try to line up Democratic votes to support the requested increase in the debt ceiling. But he informed Mr. Reagan that he expected the Republicans to support the budget ceiling increase, and disavow ''budget-ceiling politics.'' The crisis, such as it was, lasted four more days. Sen. Robert Byrd, then the Democratic majority leader, said that his party only wanted to "depoliticize" the debt limit to prevent another campaign in which Democrats were pilloried for voting for it. O'Neill, however, was good to his word, and on Feb. 5 he pushed the debt limit increase through the House on a305104 vote. Most members of both parties voted for a debt limit increase with no extra riders. That was Johnson's first example. His second is a 1983 Senate vote against the debt limit increase; at the time, Republicans controlled the Senate, and it was conservatives who temporarily thwarted the vote. But his third (and final) example is more promisinghe finds a June 28, 1984, article in which Democrats beat two debt limit votes to gain leverage against defense spending increases in the Senate. This Washington Post story from the same day provides some more context. In the latest debt-ceiling fight, Democrats want to force approval of a budget resolution setting a compromise figure for defense spending next year, while Republicans are delaying in hopes that the issue will be resolved in a more favorable arena, close to the $299 billion figure they negotiated with the White House several months ago. This was a cut of $13 billion from what Reagan originally proposed but represents a substantial increase over current spending. The Republicans' so-far successful stall has angered and frustrated the Democrats, even those like House Budget Committee Chairman James R. Jones (D-Okla.) who normally refuse to hold debt measures hostage for other objectives. Unless defense spending cuts are assured as part of a three-year deficit-reduction package of between $140 billion and $180 billion, the recent one-half percent increase in the prime rate "will just be the beginning" of a surge in interest rates, Jones warned in urging the House to block the debt-ceiling increase as a way of forcing the Senate to compromise on defense reductions. That's a fair analogue to our current crisis, right? So how long did the impasse last? Just one more day: Democrats were criticized for the brinkmanship and passed a clean debt limit increase. To recap: Raising the debt limit always been unpopular, and tough to explain to voters. A few times, Democrats balked at raising it for a few days to make a point, then caved in. Many more times, they've just voted for the damn thing. John Boehner's Republicans have only ever agreed to raise the debt limit if they won major policy concessions from the president. Both parties don't do it. One party does it.

Mark Zandi, Moodys economist, prominently highlighted that the debt limit showdown may be catastrophic for the US economy. He added that a furious political fight is expected next month over the countrys borrowing cap. His statement was testified to by John McCain (R-Ariz) at a joint congressional hearing on The Economic Costs of Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship. The debt ceiling stands at $16.7 trillion, and the US treasury Department is entitled to spend that is already authorized by the Congress. The treasury officials alerted that they have started taking measures for paying the government bills. But in mid-October, the officials are anticipating default on some payments. According to Zandi, this default may adversely affect the US economy. Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew stated We cannot afford for Congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States. Since May, Government has racked up bills against its $16.7 trillion debt limit but avoided default on bills. The US government managed its cash by employing emergency measures like suspending investments in pension funds for federal workers. Lew has already warned that Treasury may run out of borrowing options around mid-October. He added that by October, the US Treasury may be left with only $50 billion and default is predictable. The process of rolling over debt takes place every week on Thursday where the Treasury pays back about $100 billion to the investors and they immediately lend back to the government. However, the American economy seems to be in topsy turvy shape. If the situation deteriorates further, its a serious concern that investors may lose confidence in the White House and stop reinvesting in the US government debt. Lew said that if the US bondholders stop investment roll over and demand to be repaid, then the Treasury has to dissipate the entire cash balance. In this situation, any default can be devastating for the US economy. A single default of the US government may startle the Wall Street and adversely affect the businesses and families by fueling a sharp increase in interest rates. The situation can be a reason for a steep rise in consumer debt. This may in turn induce consumers to pay back creditors through court monitored repayment plans . In 2011, Washington invited economic devastation during a heated debate over the debt ceiling. The prompt action from the financial market as well as credit rating agency Standard & Poors was to strip America of its top-tier rating. The White House is determined to not negotiate over the debt ceiling. On the other hand, the Republicans are attempting to raise the debt ceiling as leverage for their goal to manage the government expenses. In a recent Presidents speech, addressing 100 top corporate executives, he said it is going to be important for all of you over the next several weeks to understand whats at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way we can to get back to what used to be called regular order around here. The main speech focused on domestic budget and economic issues. However, President Obama restated his vows not to negotiate over raising the debt limit. He stated that the Republicans want to raise the debt limit to avoid spending cuts or to block Presidents signature health care program. Mr. President is willing to consider the terms of the budget, but hes vehemently against the threat of burying the health care program. The US Treasury is expected to employ emergency measure to avoid exceeding the 16.7 trillion debt limit before mid-October. On the other side, if the debt limit is not raised, the US may default on bills. In this situation, the healthcare program popularly known as the Obamacare, will be opened for public for insurance exchange sign up from 1st October, 2013 and the deadline for the program is approaching in a quick pace. The Obama and his administration have struggled hard against the political as well as operational obstacles to get the program running. According to the President, the Republicans in the House of Representative are focusing on the debt limit measure to delay the health care program. Obama has criticized this kind of manipulative tactic of the Republicans by calling it terrifying financial brinksmanship because of some ideological arguments that people are having. Some of the conservative members are pressuring the Republicans to demand government funding measures to delay the Obamacare program. However, Brendan Buck a representative of the House Speaker John Boehner, added that the Republicans are not threatening a debt default. He opined that President Obama is using this kind of threatening tricks to cover his lack of courage to deal with the national debt crisis. Buck closed his statement by saying Every major deficit deal in the last 30 years has been tied to a debt limit increase, and this time should be no different. Consequences of US Government default on average Americans Here are some of the consequences of US government default on average consumers as speculated by the economists: Interest rate may increase on the US treasury bond: One of the most serious effects of US government default is that the credit rating agencies may depreciate the value of the Treasury Bond, so US may be compelled to pay more to attract investors. Government payment may get suspended: According to Vincent Reinhart of the American Enterprise Institute, the government default may lead to delay of paychecks for government workers, vendors, state as well as local governments. Under such a circumstance, the treasury may prioritize payments. The senior citizens in America who rely on the Social Security to manage their daily living expenses may face a severe impact instantly. The shareholders along with the Social Security recipients may be among the first to realize the consequences of Government default. Stock market collapse: There may be a direct effect of government default on the stock market. Dean Baker, co-director at the Center of Economics and Policy Research stated that if the stock market drops by 10% in oneday, it may be the onset of another recession. James Horney, vice president for the Federal Fiscal Affairs at the Center on Budget Policy Priorities added that the market may get adversely affected for a long span of time. Increase in the mortgage rates: If the cost for government borrowing increases, then the effect may seep in the housing sector as well. Reinhart added that the home buyers may require to pay more on the interest rate if the US government defaults on its payment. Unemployment and job loss: During the time of great economic depression, most of the Americans suffered job loss and wage deduction each month. If the financial system freezes and increase in the interest rate haunts the companies, then the job market may suffer again. Well, the above mentioned points are speculations but its evident that a government default may have serious consequences on the US economy.

All that matters is that the government issues debt and collects taxes. Whether it's done "properly" or "legally" or "constitutionally", doesn't count for the fuzz on a fly's eye. Don't want to pay the public debt? Don't trade US Dollars. reply to this log in or register to reply | log in or register to reply Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)| 9.29.13 @ 3:40PM | # In fact, there is no way not to consent, which makes the whole question rather suspicious. How can one actually consent if there is no possible way to withhold consent? Harry Reid just tweeted that Sheldon Richman and Maestro Spooner are nothing more than Tea Party Anarchists. And racists. reply to this log in or register to reply | 9.29.13 @ 4:23PM | # "Harry Reid just tweeted that Sheldon Richman and Maestro Spooner are nothing more than Tea Party Anarchists..." That is the third time I have heard him use that word to describe anyone who disagrees with total government. He must have just learned the word and he thinks it is really cool. reply to this log in or register to reply Concerned Citizen| log in or register to reply Kyfho Myoba| 9.30.13 @ 7:35PM | # No. Au & Ag are the only things that CONGRESS can make legal tender. You and I can agree on anything to be legal tender in our agreement. reply to this log in or register to reply sarcasmic| 9.29.13 @ 3:51PM | # You know, we've got the biggest and baddest military the world has ever seen. Instead of looting Americans to pay this debt, why not go loot someone else? We had this opportunity in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead our politicians manage to fuck up a wet dream. reply to this log in or register to reply Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)| | # Colonialism has a bad habit of making the colonizers poor. I'd recommend an old-fashioned imperial shakedown/protection racket. Slip all the non-nuclear nations a note and threaten moral panic followed by invasion unless they surrender 5% of their nation's GDP to the U.S. every year. We can even internationalize the IRS and hire more auditors from the pools of unemployed Americans to audit our new imperial satellites while stimulating the economy via increased employment and aggregate demand. Win/win! reply to this 9.29.13 @ 4:05PM | # If we did that while offering military protection and free trade & travel (as we have between the states) I think it'd work out for everyone. Hell, let them keep their own local laws and customs (no forcing of democracy) and they'd probably internalize our system in a generation. reply to this log in or register to reply VG Zaytsev| 9.29.13 @ 7:47PM | # That's basically what the American empire is. The problem is that we try to force the pseudo religion of democracy on them too. reply to this log in or register to reply John| 9.29.13 @ 4:06PM | # Exactly. It is a bullshit myth invented by Marxists and later Leninists that the colonial powers got rich because of their colonies. No, the colonies were a luxury of them getting rich. Other than the Spanish looting the Inca and Aztecs, no country ever got rich from colonies. reply to this log in or register to reply John| 9.29.13 @ 4:28PM | # Rome didn't have colonies. The annexed and extracted huge sums of taxes. That is not what the European powers did. reply to this log in or register to reply Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)| 9.29.13 @ 4:45PM | # And as usual, Rome had it right. If you're going to be a monstrous bunch of murderers and thieves, don't pretend that you're doing it for the benefit of the barbarians. Just shake them down and step in every now and then to crucify those who threaten the local governments/tax collectors who pay homage. The U.S. is in the nasty position of being a quasi-colonial empire that, for political purposes, must engage in nation-building to justify the expansion of the empire. The result of that is that it does massive damage to other nations and their civilians while making all of us poor, as we and anyone else who holds U.S. Treasuries will continue to foot the bill for the adventurism. The only people who benefit are the defense industry, bankers who get first use of inflated dollars, and members of the political class who have a symbiotic relationship with those industries. Literally everyone else is getting shafted, but they go along with it because the level of propaganda is damn impressive. The constitutional democratic-republican empire is an extraordinary con, when you stop to consider it. The Framers would have to be truly astonished to see what's happened over the past 150 years.

On the other hand, a government shutdown tonight could lead the market to be more pessimistic on the chances of a debt default. As BofAML notes, the link between the two issues is fairly complex but the shutdown battle is just the beginning - and, as they suspect "the fight could get ugly." As BofAML notes, In Washington, the link is viewed differently, with the House Republican leadership seeing an immediate deal on the CR leaving more negotiating room on the debt limit, but a shutdown having an immediate negative political impact and increasing the chances of a political capitulation on the debt limit. The link between the two issues is fairly complex. Debt ceiling paying the bills The shutdown battle is just the beginning. At the time of this writing, the House decided to delay any action on an initial version of the debt limit extension, with numerous extraneous provisions attached, including a one-year delay in implementing the ACA, the Keystone pipeline, energy policy, financial regulation, and others. These extra provisions could be a basis for giving the Republicans some political cover in passing a debt limit extension. However, disagreements among House Republicans have delayed this initial vote on the debt limit for at least several days. The president continues to insist there will be no negotiations over the debt limit. The divisions among House Republicans, as well as the relative political weakness of the president, who has seen his approval ratings decline, increase the difficulty of finding a path that would lead to a solution. We expect a solution will be reached before the deadline because the political costs of a debt default would be significant. Important dates, mechanism of debt ceiling raise The deadline dates pertinent to the debt limit have been narrowed considerably. The Treasury released an estimate that extraordinary accounting maneuvers allowing public debt issuance at the debt limit would be exhausted by October 17, at the latest. The CBO also estimated that the cash balance would be run down sometime between October 22 and the end of the month. In our view, there are three relevant dates, using our estimates of the path of the debt outstanding subject to the limit and the Treasury cash balance. October 15 We estimate that the Treasury exhausts its accounting maneuvers on October 15. This date is the settlement of the mid-month coupon auctions, in the 3y, 10y, and 30y maturities. Any uncertainty in the ability to settle the entire auction without breaching the debt limit would require one of three choices: delaying the auctions and issuing cash management bills instead, scaling down the auction sizes to only roll over maturing issues, or auctioning the full amount and scaling down the regular bill sizes ahead of time to create enough headroom, with the last alternative being the most likely in our view. According to our estimates, this date would be a fairly close call, but maneuvers are certain to be exhausted in the next day or so, with a mid-October payment into the Highway Trust Fund. After this date, the Treasury would be in rollover mode, issuing just enough at each auction to roll over maturing debt, while paying for outlays using withholding tax revenues and steadily draining the outstanding cash balance. In our view the Treasury may have enough cash balance to make it to the end of the month and make the month-end interest payment, although there is substantial uncertainty. November 1 Treasury will fail on its scheduled spending obligations on November 1, having almost certainly exhausted its cash balance. A total of $67bn in payments for social security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pay, and veterans programs will be due on this date. After this, the Treasury could only spend money as it comes in via tax revenues, with scheduled payments being delayed or only paid partially. It is uncertain how the Treasury will prioritize spending programs. November 15 The first large coupon interest payment of $31bn is paid on November 15. If the debt limit is not raised by then, the Treasury is likely to fail to pay bond interest and will be in technical default. Key Factors There are four key factors while analyzing possible market implications of the upcoming fiscal debates, in our view. Higher market sensitivity to fiscal discussions: Given that both Chairman Bernanke (in his September FOMC press conference) and NY Fed President Dudley referred to the upcoming discussions as a risk factor for their outlook, market sensitivity to these headlines is likely to be more than initially anticipated. Tapering expectations priced into the market may change depending on the severity of the outcome. The fight could get ugly: As our economics team points out, by shifting the focus of the debate to the funding of the ACA (instead of specific spending cuts), the Republicans have found a less politically dangerous strategy. At the same time, President Obama perceives himself in a stronger negotiating position given that he does not face reelection this time, reducing the effect of some of his own declining approval polling numbers and other recent polls that show equal blame adhering to both sides in a shutdown. The result is unlikely to be near-term fiscal tightening: Given the gradually improving deficits over the last few years, the discussions on the current episode are unlikely to result in near-term fiscal tightening (unlike 2011, which led to the sequester). This is evident in that most Republican proposals no longer attach near-term cuts to spending. Instead, they are focused on health care and entitlement spending. External factors that affected us in 2011 unlikely to repeat: This episode is unlikely to be of the same scale as the debt ceiling crisis in 2011. At that time, economic data were very weak, the Fed strengthened its forward guidance and was contemplating Operation Twist, European peripheral spreads were widening dramatically, and there was novelty around the debt ceiling and possible downgrades of the US sovereign credit rating. None of these one-time factors are in play this time. Even though there is no technical link between the two issues, there is still a link in the minds of market participants because a government shutdown next week may lead the market to be more pessimistic on the chances of a debt default. While comparing the market reactions from 2011, we caution investors to be aware of certain key differences. There was a novelty to dealing with the ceiling in 2011. The US in recent history had not experienced such a bitter showdown on whether to pay the nations bills, and markets likely had greater uncertainty premiums. Average: Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

The House originally sent over a bill that would defund "Obamacare" and fund the government through Dec. 15. The Senate amended that bill to strip the defunding provision and fund the government through Nov. 15. Earlier, the Senate passed by a vote of 54 to 46, to table, or kill, two House amendments to the temporary government funding bill which funds the government beginning tomorrow and delays the health care law. The Senate sent back to the House the bill without those amendments for them to act on. The fiscal year ends at midnight tonight (Monday) and a bill needs to be passed or the non-essential functions of the federal government will shut down. Essential functions, such as national security and public safety, will continue to operate. Following the vote tabling the earlier amendments, Majority Leader Reid called on House Speaker Boehner to "let the Senate 'clean' CR pass with bipartisan support" or force a government shutdown. He dismissed rumors that the House might send back a resolution funding the government for a few days while negotiations continue. He pointed out that the Senate CR covers a six-week period and that was short enough. By unanimous consent, the Senate approved HR 3201, the bill passed by the House that would pay the military during a government shutdown. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), speaking with House Democratic leaders, told reporters that Democrats were willing to work with House Republicans to keep the government operating. She said Democrats had compromised by accepting Speaker Boehner's $986 billion, sequestration-level funding for the continuing resolution but would not accept any efforts to delay or defund the health care bill. "If the Speaker doesn't give us a 'clean' vote, then it's the intention of Republicans to shut down the government," Rep. Pelosi said. This afternoon, President Obama expressed optimism that a deal to avoid a government shutdown was still possible. Speaking to reporters following a White House meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President said he would call congressional leaders later today about passing a funding bill without politically motivated provisions. Late this morning, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that Majority Leader Reid has indicated he will strip out provisions of the continuing resolution and send it back to House as a "clean" bill. She was speaking with Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Hirono (D-HI) about the impact of the continuing resolution on women's health. Sen. Boxer called the stripping of women's preventative health services from the Affordable Care Act part of the GOP "War on Women" and said the repeal of the medical device tax would add $30 billion to the federal debt over the next ten years. On Sunday afternoon, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WV), chair of the House Republican Caucus, led a rally of GOP House members outside of the capitol. The lawmakers called for the Senate to come back into session and work on the funding bill. "What are they waiting for? Why are the doors closed?" Rep. McMorris asked. The House voted early Sunday morning to pass two amendments to the continuing resolution and an additional bill that would continue to pay for military personnel in the event of a government shut down. The separate military pay bill passed 423-0. The two amendments are a one-year delay in the implementation of the health care bill, which passed 231-192, and a full repeal of the medical device tax, which passed 248-174. The House Rules Committee met to set the rules of debate onthese amendments that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) discussed in the Republican Caucus meeting Saturday morning. In addition, the continuing resolution moves the deadline back to Dec. 15. Senate Majority Leader Reid has said he will not accept another bill that contains the provision to delay or defund the health care law. On Friday, the Senate voted, 54-44, along party lines to approve the continuing resolution, a bill to fund the federal government past September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, after stripping out a provision that would defund the Affordable Care Act and moving the next deadline for a budget from Dec. 15 to Nov. 15. He can, under Senate rules, move to table one or both of the amendments, which would require a simple majority vote and send the Senate-amended version of the bill back to the House. News reports indicate that the House leadership is planning for this possibility. The White House released a statement that the President would veto the bill if it includes the two amendments under consideration by the House. At this point, the Senate is planning to meet at 2pm on Monday, just 10 hours before the end of the fiscal year. Beginning Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke for more than 21 hours about his opposition to the ACA and why he wants to block the continuing resolution. In this latest series of votes, he voted against ending debate, and against the amended bill. On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Reid offered a unanimous consent motion to move to an immediate vote on the bill in order, he said, to give the House of Representatives more time to work. Sen. Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) objected to that motion, leading to a debate between those senators and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) over the path of the bill.

Mark Zandi, Moodys economist, prominently highlighted that the debt limit showdown may be catastrophic for the US economy. He added that a furious political fight is expected next month over the countrys borrowing cap. His statement was testified to by John McCain (R-Ariz) at a joint congressional hearing on The Economic Costs of Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship. The debt ceiling stands at $16.7 trillion, and the US treasury Department is entitled to spend that is already authorized by the Congress. The treasury officials alerted that they have started taking measures for paying the government bills. But in mid-October, the officials are anticipating default on some payments. According to Zandi, this default may adversely affect the US economy. Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew stated We cannot afford for Congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States. Since May, Government has racked up bills against its $16.7 trillion debt limit but avoided default on bills. The US government managed its cash by employing emergency measures like suspending investments in pension funds for federal workers. Lew has already warned that Treasury may run out of borrowing options around mid-October. He added that by October, the US Treasury may be left with only $50 billion and default is predictable. The process of rolling over debt takes place every week on Thursday where the Treasury pays back about $100 billion to the investors and they immediately lend back to the government. However, the American economy seems to be in topsy turvy shape. If the situation deteriorates further, its a serious concern that investors may lose confidence in the White House and stop reinvesting in the US government debt. Lew said that if the US bondholders stop investment roll over and demand to be repaid, then the Treasury has to dissipate the entire cash balance. In this situation, any default can be devastating for the US economy. A single default of the US government may startle the Wall Street and adversely affect the businesses and families by fueling a sharp increase in interest rates. The situation can be a reason for a steep rise in consumer debt. This may in turn induce consumers to pay back creditors through court monitored repayment plans . In 2011, Washington invited economic devastation during a heated debate over the debt ceiling. The prompt action from the financial market as well as credit rating agency Standard & Poors was to strip America of its top-tier rating. The White House is determined to not negotiate over the debt ceiling. On the other hand, the Republicans are attempting to raise the debt ceiling as leverage for their goal to manage the government expenses. In a recent Presidents speech, addressing 100 top corporate executives, he said it is going to be important for all of you over the next several weeks to understand whats at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way we can to get back to what used to be called regular order around here. The main speech focused on domestic budget and economic issues. However, President Obama restated his vows not to negotiate over raising the debt limit. He stated that the Republicans want to raise the debt limit to avoid spending cuts or to block Presidents signature health care program. Mr. President is willing to consider the terms of the budget, but hes vehemently against the threat of burying the health care program. The US Treasury is expected to employ emergency measure to avoid exceeding the 16.7 trillion debt limit before mid-October. On the other side, if the debt limit is not raised, the US may default on bills. In this situation, the healthcare program popularly known as the Obamacare, will be opened for public for insurance exchange sign up from 1st October, 2013 and the deadline for the program is approaching in a quick pace. The Obama and his administration have struggled hard against the political as well as operational obstacles to get the program running. According to the President, the Republicans in the House of Representative are focusing on the debt limit measure to delay the health care program. Obama has criticized this kind of manipulative tactic of the Republicans by calling it terrifying financial brinksmanship because of some ideological arguments that people are having. Some of the conservative members are pressuring the Republicans to demand government funding measures to delay the Obamacare program. However, Brendan Buck a representative of the House Speaker John Boehner, added that the Republicans are not threatening a debt default. He opined that President Obama is using this kind of threatening tricks to cover his lack of courage to deal with the national debt crisis. Buck closed his statement by saying Every major deficit deal in the last 30 years has been tied to a debt limit increase, and this time should be no different. Consequences of US Government default on average Americans Here are some of the consequences of US government default on average consumers as speculated by the economists: Interest rate may increase on the US treasury bond: One of the most serious effects of US government default is that the credit rating agencies may depreciate the value of the Treasury Bond, so US may be compelled to pay more to attract investors. Government payment may get suspended: According to Vincent Reinhart of the American Enterprise Institute, the government default may lead to delay of paychecks for government workers, vendors, state as well as local governments. Under such a circumstance, the treasury may prioritize payments. The senior citizens in America who rely on the Social Security to manage their daily living expenses may face a severe impact instantly. The shareholders along with the Social Security recipients may be among the first to realize the consequences of Government default. Stock market collapse: There may be a direct effect of government default on the stock market. Dean Baker, co-director at the Center of Economics and Policy Research stated that if the stock market drops by 10% in oneday, it may be the onset of another recession. James Horney, vice president for the Federal Fiscal Affairs at the Center on Budget Policy Priorities added that the market may get adversely affected for a long span of time. Increase in the mortgage rates: If the cost for government borrowing increases, then the effect may seep in the housing sector as well. Reinhart added that the home buyers may require to pay more on the interest rate if the US government defaults on its payment. Unemployment and job loss: During the time of great economic depression, most of the Americans suffered job loss and wage deduction each month. If the financial system freezes and increase in the interest rate haunts the companies, then the job market may suffer again. Well, the above mentioned points are speculations but its evident that a government default may have serious consequences on the US economy.

Scott Applewhite Members of Congress walk down the steps of the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill in Washington. By Kitty Richards and Michael Linden | September 19, 2013 PRINT: SHARE: Over the next six weeks, Washington, D.C.and especially the U.S. Congressis going to be completely obsessed with the federal budget. But over the past week, there have been a handful of important releases of new economic data that show just how off-track that discussion really is. The new data underline the struggles of the middle class and the continuing drag of poverty and inequality. They also reveal that government debt, while once on a legitimately concerning trajectory, is now on a much more manageable path. Taken together, the numbers should make policymakers turn away from yet another damaging and acrimonious debate over deficits and toward a conversation on the pressing problems facing the country right now. The Census Bureau released its annual report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage yesterday, and the findings are alarming. Fully 15 percent of Americans, or 46.5 million people, currently live in povertyan elevated level that has remained essentially unchanged since 2010 even though our economy is supposed to be in recovery. A broader measure of hardship that more accurately captures the difficulty American workers are facing the share of Americans with incomes below twice the poverty linenow stands at 34.2 percent. This number has not fallen in two years and represents a 12.1 percent increase over prerecession levels. But low-income families arent the only ones getting left behind in this economy. The middle class has actually seen its income drop since the end of the recession, even as those at the top have more than fully recovered. The Census data indicate that the top 5 percent of Americans have increased their real incomes by 5 percent over the course of the recovery, while the middle 60 percent have lost 1.2 percent of their income. Consider what has happened to median family income. For a household right in the middle of the income distribution, the events of the past five years have not only stripped away all of the gains made after the 20012003 recession, but they have also undone all of the income gains of the 1990s boom. After adjusting for inflation, the typical middle-class American family is now earning less than they were earning in 1989 . In other words, the middle class has lost nearly a quarter century of economic progress. At the same time, the richest of the rich seem to be operating in an entirely different reality from the rest of us. New data from economists Thomas Picketty and Emmanuel Saez show that fully 95 percent of the nations income gains over the first three years of the recovery flowed exclusively to the top 1 percent of the income distribution. According to Forbess newly released ranking of the 400 richest Americans, the combined net worth of these 400 individuals, at $2 trillion, is higher than ever before. The price of entry to this exclusive club now stands at $1.3 billion, and the vast majority of these billionaires have seen their fortunes grow substantially this year. These reports paint a troubling picture of an economy in crisis. Poverty is persistently high, income for the typical family is stagnant, and inequality is high and rising. Five years after the financial crisis, the economy is failing most Americans while delivering outsize rewards to a few wealthy investors. These are serious problems that policymakers must address. But this weeks data deluge did include federal student loan consolidation one piece of good news, depending on your perspective: The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released its long-term budget projections , and they have improved substantially over the past three years. In 2010, when policymakers first decided to pivot from a focus on economic growth to an agenda of drastic deficit reduction, our long-term fiscal outlook was bleak. CBOs most commonly used projections from that year indicated that debt would hit 100 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, by 2023 and rise dramatically thereafter, reaching 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Since then, as the Center for American Progress has explained , our nations fiscal outlook has improved dramatically due to a combination of legislated tax and spending changes and slower-than-expected growth in health care costs. This weeks CBO report bears this out; there is no longer a looming fiscal crisis. The CBO now projects that debt as a share of GDP will decline for the next five years. Only then will the debt begin rising, and it will rise much more slowly than previously projected. Debt as a share of GDP will remain below current levels through 2025 and will not reach 100 percent of GDPthe level previously projected for the end of the current decadeuntil 2038. You would think that Washington would see these improved projections as good news and as a chance to focus on more immediate problems that directly affect the lives of most Americans. Unfortunately, the conversation still seems to be stuck in the past, with conservatives in Congress pressing for even more spending cuts, including to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , which will further harm middle-class and low-income families. The copious amounts of data released this week all confirm that the conversation in Washington is seriously out of touch. Although all the talk is of debt limits and government spending levels, the long-term debt trajectory has actually improved dramatically, even as the state of our economy continues to be incredibly troubling. Policymakers should pay heed to the new reality and recommit themselves to boosting economic growth and job creation, growing the middle class, and ensuring that growth is shared broadly, not just funneled to the wealthy few. Kitty Richards is the Associate Director of Tax Policy at the Center for American Progress. Michael Linden is the Managing Director of the Economic Policy team at the Center. To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact: Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, health care, gun-violence prevention)

Some scams take advantage of people not reading their links properly before clicking on them. Let's say you receive an email saying your Paypal account has been hacked. The email comes with a link to Paypal that supposedly will help you regain your security if you go to it and enter your user name and password. Look closely and see if the link actually takes you to the Paypal site, and not something that looks like it, such as "Paypa1", for example. It's better to type in the URL you commonly use (or the one you bookmarked) instead of a link from some unauthenticated email designed to phish for your valuable financial information. Fraud Always stay up to date with your financial reports. Read your bills as soon as they come in. It's a common practice to ignore the items on your credit card statement, but the truth is that this can be risky. You run the risk of paying for something somebody else purchased, i.e. credit card fraud. The same is true of your credit report. Stay updated, read these reports, and you should be able to spot immediately if there's trouble brewing. Due Diligence Ask questions. Don't just blindly accept what people tell you. It's very important to think on your feet. Sometimes, you may find yourself speaking to someone who is so charismatic and you find yourself believing them. For example, have you ever been to one of those real estate investment seminars that teach you how to buy a house with no money down? Scary! Either through charm or intimidation, scammers will find ways to prevent you from looking too closely at their house of cards. This is why you need to be vigilant and ask questions, no matter what happens. Email Scams Never send money to strangers. There are a lot of scams like these out there. The most famous are the "Nigerian prince" scams that you receive via email, but there are other variations, too. There are the "lottery winner" scams, that claim you won some foreign lottery. These scams all have one thing in common: to receive the "prize" they offer, you must first send money to them. The reasons are varied, but rest assured that they simply want to defraud you. Do not fall for these no matter how desperate you are for money. You will always lose. Here is a copy of a scam email I just received. If I follow their instructions I could be rich, right? Risk Free The word "risk-free" is a red flag. Remember that nothing is without risk, especially where money is concerned. It's important to remember that offers that use these exaggerations should actually scare you, even though they are intended to make you feel comfortable. Financial Documents Get into the habit of shredding bank statements, any old unused cheques, and any outdated insurance documents. Things like tax returns need to be kept for a certain number of years, but after that they too should be shredded. Do Your Research The Internet is wonderful, in that practically anything you might need is already on it. If you've been invited to invest in a particular product\business, or property, do your research first. Do online searches for any nasty information. Always check the Better Business Bureau. Remember that finding nothing at all is just as much of a red flag as finding nasty stuff. Know When to Walk Away If it's too good to be true, walk away. As they say, a fool and his money are easily parted. You need to remember that if someone offers you something that seems too "good", it probably is a trick. Walk away. It Could Happen to Anyone Accept that it could happen to you. A lot of people often dismiss the possibility of financial fraud, thinking that they cannot possibly be targets. They believe that only the wealthy will be targeted by these scam artists. The unfortunate truth is that anyone can be targeted.

When: registration begins 8 a.m. Oct. 19; race begins 9 a.m. Where: Commonwealth Stadium, 1540 University Dr. Registration: $20 until Oct. 11; $15 students with valid ID; $25 race day. Information: Fosteringgoodwill.org and on Facebook. Recent Headlines Search local inventory, coupons and more Fund helps college dropouts return to school By Merlene Davis Herald-Leader columnist Ebony Frye, 23, had been in foster care for six years, mostly in Louisville, before aging out at age 18. On her own in 2009, she enrolled in Jefferson Community and Technical College, seeking to work toward a degree in social work. The desire to reunite with her family in Lexington grew stronger after she turned 18. She decided to move back here, leaving school behind. The move proved difficult emotionally and was financially costly. Frye had to repay student loans that she had received as well as a penalty for dropping out. "I paid my loans back with my income tax returns," she said. "But there was another $1,600 I owed for not finishing the semester." On the salary of a day-care worker, that amount might as well have been $1 million. Plus, she wanted to return to school, this time at Bluegrass Community and Technical College, until it was paid. Accumulated debt after dropping out of college is a problem for many youth who have left foster care, said Jeff Culver, co-founder of Fostering Goodwill, an organization that assists aging-out foster youth as they transition to independent living. "A lot of them are seeing their families again and dealing with issues from the past," Culver said. When they can re-focus, the unpaid debt bars their re-entry to a higher education. To help remove that obstacle, Fostering Goodwill has started the Second Chance Scholarship, which can be used to pay off the debt. Frye is the first recipient of that scholarship. The money, however, isn't just handed over. Culver said a certain number of hours in college have to be completed and a couple of years have to pass. "A lot of our kids mature later," Culver said. Some of the former foster youth are not as prepared for the level of responsibility required to attend college. Many have been victims of abuse and have had to overcome that and being separated from their families and communities. Then they must transition into adulthood with limited positive support aside from state social workers. Statistics show that these youth are more likely to become homeless or incarcerated, face unemployment and lack health care, become parents at an early age and be undereducated. Each scholarship applicant has to write an essay about what is different in his or her life now, he said. And applicants have to pay some of the delinquent account themselves. The organization wants to help those who are ready to focus on school work again. "The word is getting around," he said. "These kids are getting excited about it. They have been worried with paying rent, buying food and taking care of their kids." Paying off the school debt brings them hope, he said. It certainly does for Frye. "I work in day care, and I want to own my own day care one day," she said. She plans to study business administration at BCTC. Although she has heard horror tales from other foster care youth, Frye said her experience wasn't as bad. She had regular visits in Louisville with her father and mother in Lexington. To finance the scholarship, Fostering Goodwill is hosting its second annual Run for Independence 5K race on Oct. 19 at Commonwealth Stadium. All proceeds from the race and all donations will go to the scholarship. Runners can sign up early or on the day of the race. For $20, people like me, who aren't going to run, can sponsor a youth for the race.

Please reply to this log in or register to reply SomeGuy| 9.29.13 @ 10:11PM | # they were on the road because that was where they were supposed to patrol...it has nothing to do with them not being able to go off road....you are being willfully ignorant. Have you seen them or driven them? I have driver one of them and they are great off road but you can't be off road when you are occupying a city so quit being a willfully ignorant tard. reply to this log in or register to reply Agammamon| 9.29.13 @ 5:04PM | # 1. Whatever problems the Stryker has, you have to remember that the units fielding them previously had *no* armor - Stryker's are a massive improvement over walking. 2. The Stryker's problems aren't as great as was thought initially - we have (and do) spend an enormous time on roads, which slows tracked vehicles down if you don't want to destroy them. In addition the Stryker can self-transport over long distances - you need to load a tracked vehicle on a trailer to cover long distances unless you're up for a maintenance nightmare. *And* in most terrain, the Stryker's maneuverability is not significantly less than the M-2/3 or the M-113 its intended to replace. 3. The real fuck-up is the armor - rpg's were considered a lesser threat during its design phase rather than the main threat these vehicles actually face. 4 The Army is *supposed* to be heavy and take a long time to build up. They're a steamroller who will flatten anything in their way. If you want quick and surgical, call the Marines. 5. Drones, Drones, Drones. log in or register to reply | 9.29.13 @ 5:08PM | # Whatever problems the Stryker has, you have to remember that the units fielding them previously had *no* armor - Stryker's are a massive improvement over walking. Eh, I don't think that's so easy to say. Over the last ten years there's been a shift from heavy to Stryker brigade, somewhat masked by the increase in overall brigades due to the Iraq/Afghanistan buildup. In the future the planned cuts will hit armored brigades most heavily, followed by light, and I think only one or maybe two Stryker brigades are going away. reply to this log in or register to reply Agammamon| 9.29.13 @ 5:48PM | # I'm not sure how that counters what I was saying - most of the units that have gotten the Stryker had no organic armor before. They were using HMMVW and MTVR for transport before and now they have some light armor. And the heavies losing some tanks and getting Strykers may mean that *those* guys aren't happy, but the early Stryker units have been pretty happy with the improvements having a Stryker brings over having to hoof it everywhere. And it shows that the Army is *already* in tune with Warrren's complaint and are lightening up for fast build-up and increased mobility in future conflicts - whatever you may say about the Stryker, it can certainly go places the M-1 can't, and get there faster. reply to this log in or register to reply Warrren| 9.29.13 @ 6:18PM | # Strykers are too heavy and have too much ground pressure to go off-road in all but the hardest grounds. And they have shit for protection. And really, I don't want the Army getting faster and lighter or cheaper* that just induces the political types to use them more often. I'm just pointing out that the current forces are not what they are said to be. *I'd like to stop spending money on it totally of course. reply to this log in or register to reply Nazdrakke| 9.29.13 @ 7:56PM | # Just like to remark that as an ex tank soldier this conversation has been interesting to follow and I have no intention of getting involved in it. Oh, and there are a lot of people on the internet who have less of an understanding of subjects than they think they do. reply to this log in or register to reply SomeGuy| 9.29.13 @ 8:17PM | # what is too much ground pressure? All i can recall is the AAVs having ~9.7 pounds per in i think....that number still pops into my head. Granted i can't even recall the LAV or M1 number but i am small personal loans sure you could google it. I have seen Abrahams and AAVs drive on the shore of CA and NC in some real loose sand where you could barely walk/jog in it let alone run in it because it was so deep and loose. I also have seen AAVs drive in 4 foot deep mud in Japan i think with little issue....wish i could have seen it in person or drive it there. Looked like a ton of run. reply to this log in or register to reply Warrren| 9.29.13 @ 8:51PM | # Do a GIS for Abrams stuck in mud and you'll see. In addition to many other photos that are inexplicably tagged that way. reply to this log in or register to reply Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 9.29.13 @ 9:06PM | # Pretty sure that every kind of mass-produced vehicle in human history has gotten stuck in mud at one point or another. Even your beloved Sherman. reply to this log in or register to reply Warrren| | # I like the Shermans but they're not my beloved.

September 27 2013

haydenillh

Debt-ceiling Showdown: The Fight Of Obama?s Life -- Daily Intelligencer

Nobody is quite sure what to make of it. A familiar Washington Kabuki dance? A white-knuckle bond market tightrope walk? A final reactionary howl at the onset of Obamacare? It may be these things, but its also something much larger: a Constitutional struggle, a kind of quasi-impeachment, that will test Obamas mettle and, next to his reelection campaign, poses the most singular threat to his presidency. The progression of events begins with a dynamic I described in a print piece at the beginning of 2012 conservatives had come to regard the 2012 race as their last chance to win an election as authentic conservatives against a rising Democratic majority. Since their crushing defeat, they have ignored the task of refurbishing the partys national appeal for its next national electoral bid, and instead have recommitted themselves to waging increasingly millenarian confrontations from their existing red state power base in Congress. Most of us expected, at some level, that the election would cool the rights apocalyptic fervor. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: "The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years." This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason. The exhaustion of electoral channels against Obama has spurred the party to seize power through non-electoral channels. Their opening demand that Obama sign Mitt Romneys entire economic plan into law in return for avoiding a debt default, while historically bizarre, followed perfectly from their legislative strategy this year. House Republicans decided back in January to boycott any negotiations with Obama over fiscal policy. They presented this at the time as a desire to return to regular order, with negotiations between the House and Senate, but eventually decided to boycott those, too . The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That http://journals.fotki.com/blackwellosmp/my-blog/entry/wsqtbtwqdwdtr/ is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through http://washingtonaywo20.beeplog.com/359016_2150783.htm it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default. That is a frightening reality, made all the more frightening by two additional factors.

The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default. That is a frightening reality, made all the more frightening by two additional factors. The first is that Republicans dont believe Obamas insistence that he wont negotiate. Obama can claim he wont negotiate, but he would have an incentive to lie about this, and nobody other than Obama can really know for sure. (I believe him, but I wouldnt bet my life on it.) And one of the things Republicans truly believe about Obama they say it constantly in private is that they can make him fold. As the debt-ceiling deadline ticks toward midnight, Obama ought to be able to make his determination clear enough that House Republican leaders understand their only choices are to raise the debt ceiling or breach it. Default would risk not only economic calamity but the potential of an electoral one for the otherwise unassailable Republican majority. But history is replete with disastrous miscalculations. Theyre often made by weak, short-sighted leaders facing pressure to demonstrate toughness from internal opponents. That is to say, Boehner is exactly the kind of leader who would blunder into a calamity like a debt default.

Mark Zandi, Moodys economist, prominently highlighted that the debt limit showdown may be catastrophic for the US economy. He added that a furious political fight is expected next month over the countrys borrowing cap. His statement was testified to by John McCain (R-Ariz) at a joint congressional hearing on The Economic Costs of Debt-Ceiling Brinkmanship. The debt ceiling stands at $16.7 trillion, and the US treasury Department is entitled to spend that is already authorized by the Congress. The treasury officials alerted that they have started taking measures for paying the government bills. But in mid-October, the officials are anticipating default on some payments. According to Zandi, this default may adversely affect the US economy. Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew stated We cannot afford for Congress to gamble with the full faith and credit of the United States. Since May, Government has racked up bills against its $16.7 trillion debt limit but avoided default on bills. The US government managed its cash by employing emergency measures like suspending investments in pension funds for federal workers. Lew has already warned that Treasury may run out of borrowing options around mid-October. He added that by October, the US Treasury may be left with only $50 billion and default is predictable. The process of rolling over debt takes place every week on Thursday where the Treasury pays back about $100 billion to the investors and they immediately lend back to the government. However, the American economy seems to be in topsy turvy shape. If the situation deteriorates further, its a serious concern that investors may lose confidence in the White House and stop reinvesting in the US government debt. Lew said that if the US bondholders stop investment roll over and demand to be repaid, then the Treasury has to dissipate the entire cash balance. In this situation, any default can be devastating for the US economy. A single default of the US government may startle the Wall Street and adversely affect the businesses and families by fueling a sharp increase in interest rates. The situation can be a reason for a steep rise in consumer debt. This may in turn induce consumers to pay back creditors through court monitored repayment plans . In 2011, Washington invited economic devastation during a heated debate over the debt ceiling. The prompt action from the financial market as well as credit rating agency Standard & Poors was to strip America of its top-tier rating. The White House is determined to not negotiate over the debt ceiling. On the other hand, the Republicans are attempting to raise the debt ceiling as leverage for their goal to manage the government expenses. In a recent Presidents speech, addressing 100 top corporate executives, he said it is going to be important for all of you over the next several weeks to understand whats at stake and to make sure that you are using your influence in whatever way we can to get back to what used to be called regular order around here. The main speech focused on domestic budget and economic issues. However, President Obama restated his vows not to negotiate over raising the debt limit. He stated that the Republicans want to raise the debt limit to avoid spending cuts or to block Presidents signature health care program. Mr. President is willing to consider the terms of the budget, but hes vehemently against the threat of burying the health care program. The US Treasury is expected to employ emergency measure to avoid exceeding the 16.7 trillion debt limit before mid-October. On the other side, if the debt limit is not raised, the US may default on bills. In this situation, the healthcare program popularly known as the Obamacare, will be opened for public for insurance exchange sign up from 1st October, 2013 and the deadline for the program is approaching in a quick pace. The Obama and his administration have struggled hard against the political as well as operational obstacles to get the program running. According to the President, the Republicans in the House of Representative are focusing on the debt limit measure to delay the health care program. Obama has criticized this kind of manipulative tactic of the Republicans by calling it terrifying financial brinksmanship because of some ideological arguments that people are having. Some of the conservative members are pressuring the Republicans to demand government funding measures to delay the Obamacare program. However, Brendan Buck a representative of the House Speaker John Boehner, added that the Republicans are not threatening a debt default. He opined that President Obama is using this kind of threatening tricks to cover his lack of courage to deal with the national debt crisis. Buck closed his statement by saying Every major deficit deal in the last 30 years has been tied to a debt limit increase, and this time should be no different. Consequences of US Government default on average Americans Here are some of the consequences of US government default on average consumers as speculated by the economists: Interest rate may increase on the US treasury bond: One of the most serious effects of US government default is that the credit rating agencies may depreciate the value of the Treasury Bond, so US may be compelled to pay more to attract investors. Government payment may get suspended: According to Vincent Reinhart of the American Enterprise Institute, the government default may lead to delay of paychecks for government workers, vendors, state as well as local governments. Under such a circumstance, the treasury may prioritize payments. The senior citizens in America who rely on the Social Security to manage their daily living expenses may face a severe impact instantly. The shareholders along with the Social Security recipients may be among the first to realize the consequences of Government default. Stock market collapse: There may be a direct effect of government default on the stock market. Dean Baker, co-director at the Center of Economics and Policy Research stated that if the stock market drops by 10% in oneday, it may be the onset of another recession. James Horney, vice president for the Federal Fiscal Affairs at the Center on Budget Policy Priorities added that the market may get adversely affected for a long span of time. Increase in the mortgage rates: If the cost for government borrowing increases, then the effect may seep in the housing sector as well. Reinhart added that the home buyers may require to pay more on the interest rate if the US government defaults on its payment. Unemployment and job loss: During the time of great economic depression, most of the Americans suffered job loss and wage deduction each month. If the financial system freezes and increase in the interest rate haunts the companies, then the job market may suffer again. Well, the above mentioned points are speculations but its evident that a government default may have serious consequences on the US economy.

Debt consolidation management plans are merely formula of credit debt solution and they are not created for everyones conditions. Like with all bill solutions there are actually criteria where your qualification for debt management credit counseling will be chosen. Some people negotiate using the creditors on the part of the particular borrower. unpaid utility bills and personal debt management plans It will also help any debtor to settle the credit at an total that is very affordable. There may be another area of debt management help you ought to look at. This means you must maintain the eyes and also ears open prior to you select online debt management. Search for debt managers who can offer you this service at low cost with highest possible benefits. The web process saves your time and even efforts. Right now there many different issues that really must be deemed before anyone with big debts might make the perfect determination. Unsecured debt settlement and credit card debt negotiation are two diverse choices to relieve the stress of debts, and both have different advantages that may make it easier for those debtor to whatever they repay. The end result is that you must pick an option that can offer you quick relief to lift the responsibility of economic pressure. Credit card debt negotiation will work to lessen the attention rate from the consumer, which usually consolidates all monetary into one personal loan at a reduced apr. Nevertheless , it is something beneficial in terms of shelling out taxes about the borrowed sum. First of all, the money you owe ought to be unsecured. Listed below are some very last pointers for acquiring top immigration lawyers to represent people in the immigration condition. However by gaining a bit of training about lawyers and the way to find a good a person, the feeling will not be something you might want to worry. Make it clear beforehand that you would like your current legal fee understanding in writing through your attorney. You might want to put some time besides to perform a little research and give your couple of weeks in order to different choices. You can not expect to find an outstanding lawyer right away. Often times expense as the big named head of your business, but rather someone down the page them who have a clearer schedule. lawyer or attorney, obtain a new legal representative Ottawa lawyers If this doesnt be played by people, choose an additional law firm on your behalf. Uncomplicated legal counts, like creating a will probably, can now and again also usually be handled via legal web pages. If the lawyer doesnt ask any sort of questions or provides a hard time remembering the details from your condition, think about getting someone who is actually a better audience and is able to give pleasure to familiarize themselves with the situation. Generally meet legal counsel in the flesh in advance of hiring him or her. Appointment enables you to create a relationship far too. Malpractice insurance policies protects your attorney at law from damages caused by legal missteps. With regards to comparing big firms and even little providers, you can find any guarantees for the reason that greater, more pricey communities. Employ Google to your advantage on the subject of hiring a legal representative. There are actually no extended auto warranties in life, regardless of obvious cut in instances feels. Determine in advance how frequently just be in tough together with your legal professional. The main walking cane swords which have been over 100s of years ancient are available at 100s and even thousands. A lot of collection enthusiasts will be completely smitten with all the beauty of Cartoons, the very flaunted from the characters associated with popular Japanese toon series, typically the Anime. You can evaluate their stunning sales figures to guage the popularity for the swords on the web. Actually the gathering of Anime swords is a pretty huge one, where you will locate swords of the different kinds sizes and shapes well within your budget. Most of these swords got immensely popular if your leading characters in the motion picture series Kill Charge used those to rip separate their foes. To get real, a lot more than you would possibly think about. In the same way almost everything worthwhile, swords along with armor needs to be looked after to prevent them in good condition. Only shop for them for you to yearn regarding online and buy it delivered your own house. It could stop you from becoming duped and several possibilities heartburn at a later date. swords for sale buying an antique stick Properly, the heroes are nowhere to appear at this moment, but their very own legacy endures as ancient swords. The exact European history is replete along with the tails for valor on the knights in battle. You are likely to find a few such swords on an web shop and acquire them delivered to her or his property within times of pay for. Of course, you should use a part of history and definitely will pay out a big cost. Airborne dirt and dust traps oxygen contrary to the blade at these times. You might want to attend to the tackle of the sword in addition.

That means Americans' savings, loans and general economic well-being could be collateral damage. Oh fine, so what's the debt ceiling again? It's a cap set by Congress on how much the federal government may have in outstanding debt . The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare. Congress has always set some kind of limit on national debt, but the first modern version of it was set in 1917. Today it's set at $16.699 trillion. How often has Congress raised the debt ceiling? So often. On average, more than once a year. Since 1940, lawmakers have effectively approved 79 increases. Sometimes they've raised it by small amounts, other times by large amounts. And sometimes they've raised it "temporarily" with provisions for a "snap-back" to a lower level. Is it true that raising the debt ceiling gives Congress a "license to spend more"? No. Raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time. Those bills are for services already performed and entitlement benefits already approved by Congress. So raising the debt ceiling is more like a license to continue paying what the country owes. And the obligations are incurred because of countless decisions made by lawmakers from both parties over the years. So, why does Congress even bother with a limit? In theory, setting a debt ceiling is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality it doesn't. Not meaningfully anyway, although there have been times when the debate has yielded some fiscal restraint. Google+ Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer . Morningstar: 2013 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM 2013 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS. 2013 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

In the 1990s, when Republicans withheld money, using the power of the purse to control spending, President Clinton and the Democrats accused them of shutting down the government . The term shutdown made Republicans look as though they, not the president, were deciding which programs and offices to close. In November 1996, Republicans lost the Senate and lost seats in the House. Clinton was decisively re-elected. In the Nexis archive of news articles and political transcripts, theres no record of the words economic shutdown during those battles. The economy was strong. Two years ago, a few congressional Republicans used this phrase to describe what liberal economic policies were doing to the private sector. The first Democrat I can find who used the term in the context of the debt ceiling is former Rep. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y. Appalled by the 2011 standoff between congressional Republicans and President Obama, Hochul accused her colleagues of playing chicken with peoples lives. She warned them that the country was on the precipice of not just a governmentshutdownbut an intentionaleconomic shutdown. Hochul didnt explicitly blame the GOP. What happens when no one blinks, no one swerves, no one comes to their senses? she asked. A week later, writing in the Atlantic, Democratic strategist Krystal Ball turned this into a partisan critique. Ball denounced the current debt-ceiling hostage situation in which Republicans, led by tea party extremists, decided to threaten not only a government shutdown but total economic shutdown. Over the next two years, the phrase was rarely uttered. Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., used it to describe the 2011 debt ceiling impasse, and Durbin blamed the GOP The Tea Party of the House of Representatives and their followers in the Senate said, We're prepared to shut down the economy of America but only in retrospect. Two weeks ago, the term reappeared. The press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blasted Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minn.: Minnesota voters want Congressman Paulsen to stop giving handouts to the ultra-wealthy and instead pay the countrys bills and prevent economic shutdown. A week later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chided the GOP for dragging its feet on funding the government and raising the debt ceiling: While Republicans in Washington use these stunts to raise money and grab headlines, people in Nevada and around the country are going to feel the pain of this economic shutdown. Yesterday, in a speech outlining the Affordable Care Act , President Obama turned the volume way up. Some have threatened a government shutdown if they cant shut down this law, he charged. Others have actually threatened an economic shutdown by refusing to pay Americas bills if they cant delay the law. Obama accused the Tea Party Republicans of threatening either to shut down the government, or shut down the entire economy by refusing to let America pay its bills. No Congress before this one has evereverin history been irresponsible enough to threaten default, to threaten an economic shutdown, to suggest America not pay its bills, just to try to blackmail a president. Thats three allegations of economic shutdown in a few minutes. Obama isnt using the phrase casually. Hes making it a weapon. Economic shutdown is supposed to do for the debt ceiling what government shutdown did for failure to authorize appropriations. Its job is to draw a neat cause-and-effect line from congressional inaction to grim, complex consequences. Ratings agencies will downgrade U.S. credit, stocks will dive, people will be laid off, and all of it will be the fault of Republicans who, by failing to act, shut down the economy. Government shutdown won an election and damaged the Republican brand for years. Dont be surprised if economic shutdown does the same. TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010, AT 6:19 PM Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 2011, AT 3:07 PM Obama Gets Firsthand Look at a Tornado Damage TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010, AT 6:19 PM Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long. Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long. TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010, AT 6:19 PM Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long. Tornado Kills at Least Five in Oklahoma. Very long title. Long long long. This will never be shared This will appear when you post on the site

It's a cap set by Congress on how much the federal government may have in outstanding debt . The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare. Congress has always set some kind of limit on national debt, but the first modern version of it was set in 1917. Today it's set at $16.699 trillion. How often has Congress raised the debt ceiling? So often. On average, more than once a year. Since 1940, lawmakers have effectively approved 79 increases. Sometimes they've raised it by small amounts, other times by large amounts. And sometimes they've raised it "temporarily" with provisions for a "snap-back" to a lower level. Is it true that raising the debt ceiling gives Congress a "license to spend more"? No. Raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time. Those bills are for services already performed and entitlement benefits already approved by Congress. So raising the debt ceiling is more like a license to continue paying what the country owes. And the obligations are incurred because of countless decisions made by lawmakers from both parties over the years. So, why does Congress even bother with a limit? In theory, setting a debt ceiling is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality it doesn't. Not meaningfully anyway, although there have been times when the debate has yielded some fiscal restraint. Google+ Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer . Morningstar: 2013 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM 2013 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS. 2013 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

In a closed-door meeting, the leaders outlined to their members a proposal that would demand a laundry list of Republican priorities in exchange for a yearlong suspension of the nations $16.7 trillion borrowing limit. The centerpiece of the plan is a one-year delay of President Obamas signature healthcare law. But hours after the meeting, the party had yet to release the legislation formally, and conservatives complained that it lacked specific spending cuts and failed to tackle entitlement reform. We still have some challenges, said Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), an ally of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and member of the GOP whip team. Weve got an awful lot of support, but clearly at this point we dont have a final product thats attracting the number that we need. Hopefully thatll change, and I think it could. Cole said leaders were still tinkering with the plan, which senior Republicans earlier had said would go to the House Rules Committee on Thursday. GOP Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) told The Hill late Thursday that leaders are "still figuring out the timing" of a vote to increase the nation's borrowing authority. A meeting of the House GOP leadership late Thursday afternoon broke up without an announcement about the bill. Aides said the timing remained "in flux," and the Rules Committee had yet to schedule a meeting. The committee did plan to meet to approve a same-day rule allowing the debt ceiling to be brought up at any time. GOP leaders previously had argued that because many elements in the debt ceiling plan have been previously voted on by the House, a three-day layover rule could be waived. House leaders had hoped to schedule the debt-ceiling vote as early as Friday, thinking it could help them move a separate measure to fund the government. They want to focus the fight over government spending on the debt measure, where they have long believed they have more leverage with the White House. The Senate is poised to approve as early as Friday a "clean" measure to fund the government. It would not include language defunding ObamaCare, something included in a measure approved by the House last week after demands by conservatives. House Republicans will likely only have the weekend to figure out how to move forward because the government is set to shut down on Tuesday if Congress does not approve a funding measure, known as a continuing resolution (CR). GOP leaders have not put forward any clear plan for a spending measure, and someRepublicans said they wanted to see what the leadership hoped to do before they committed to supporting the debt-ceiling bill. "There's a laundry list of things I could support ... frankly I want to finish the debate on the CR before we move on to the debt ceiling," said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who organized the effort to defund ObamaCare through the continuing resolution. Illustrating the leadership's challenge in winning Republican votes, a member of the GOP's whip team, Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.), said he was leaning against the debt-ceiling plan because it did not seriously tackle entitlement reform. The problem for me is it doesn't address the debt, Rooney told The Hill. He questioned how he could defend raising the limit without following through on the reforms Republicans proposed in their budget the past three years. How can I possibly justify that? Rooney asked. If every Democrat voted against the bill, which is likely, Republicans could afford only 16 defections. Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who opposes any debt-ceiling increase at all, estimated there were 10 to 15 Republicans "that feel as strongly as I do," and predicted GOP leaders did not have the votes to pass the legislation. Democrats blasted the GOP's plan, saying it would go nowhere in the Senate. The House is attaching the Republican Party platform to the debt ceiling. In a week full of absurdities, this takes the cake," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) made clear that Republicans were not operating under any illusions that this initial offer would remain intact, however. He described it more as a wish list. "We're obviously going to throw out what we want. Obviously that's not going to be acceptable to the other party, most likely," he said. "It puts our marker down." But Simpson said the one-year delay of ObamaCare is a mandatory component for Republicans. "When Obama says he's not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling, that's just baloney," Simpson said. "Ultimately, he will." Other GOP lawmakers argued Obamas position is untenable. They cited polls showing voters believed that fiscal reforms should be part of any debt-ceiling deal. Obama has said that he wont negotiate over the debt ceiling because its impact on the economy would be so devastating, and most economists believe that the effects of a default would be far worse than a government shutdown. Boehner defended the debt package on Thursday against complaints from conservatives that the plan doesn't do enough on the spending side. In this bill, we have spending cuts and we have issues that will help spur more economic growth. We think the balance is correct, he said. Republicans have, for more than a week, discussed a plan that would allow a yearlong increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for a list of priorities, many of which are nonstarters among Democrats and the president.The Treasury Department this week said Congress should raise the debt ceiling by Oct. 17 to ensure the government can pay its bills. To bolster leaderships argument, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, released a study on Thursday arguing that concentrating on growing the economy would play a key role in getting Americas books in order.

Instead, the opposite has occurred. Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: "The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years." This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason. The exhaustion of electoral channels against Obama has spurred the party to seize power through non-electoral channels. Their opening demand that Obama sign Mitt Romneys entire economic plan into law in return for avoiding a debt default, while historically bizarre, followed perfectly from their legislative strategy this year. House Republicans decided back in January to boycott any negotiations with Obama over fiscal policy. They presented this at the time as a desire to return to regular order, with negotiations between the House and Senate, but eventually decided to boycott those, too . The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default. That is a frightening reality, made all the more frightening by two additional factors. The first is that Republicans dont believe Obamas insistence that he wont negotiate. Obama can claim he wont negotiate, but he would have an incentive to lie about this, and nobody other than Obama can really know for sure.

Leave a comment I have to be honest: Ive been putting off writing about this for the past couple of days, for both good and bad reasons. One good reason is that, really, there hasnt been much news. Congress is playing games, everyone is shouting at each other, and nothing is getting done. The other good reason is that theres not much we can do to prepare, given the level of uncertainty that prevails. No news, no action items, no need to comment. The bad reason I have for putting this off is that, quite frankly, its depressing. Weve been through this before, in both 2011 and 2012, and the fact that were going through it once again is just ridiculous. Be that as it may, though, here we are, so lets deal with it. First, the frame. We have two pending deadlines here. The first, at the end of September, is the expiration of the U.S. governments funding authority. If Congress does not pass, and the President does not sign, some form of budget or continuing spending authorization, all nonessential services of the federal government will be shut down as of the end of September 30. The Washington Post offers a good guide to the details of the shutdown . Big picture, what does this mean? Economically, the effects would be similar in type, if not necessarily in magnitude, to those of the sequester. Federal spending cuts slow the economy by diminishing overall spending. With 800,000 workers losing their paychecks for a period of time, consumer spending would get hit, any projects that require the government to cut checks would get hit, and the economy overall would take a hit. Beyond that, the damage would depend on the length of the shutdownthe longer, the worse. There would be other damaging effects, of course, but the direct economic impact would likely be relatively modest unless the shutdown lasted for months. In 19951996, a shutdown lasted for five days in November and 21 days in December and January; the furloughed workers were awarded back pay afterward, which limited the ultimate damage. A shutdown itself, if resolved quickly, doesnt seem to demand a great deal of concern at this point. Looking back again to 19951996, the markets seemed to agree, with only a small hit during the second phase of the shutdown. The government funding showdown, though, is just the preview of the main attractionthe debt ceiling debate. Here, the confrontation is much more bitter and the potential consequences much more severe. The state of play right now is that the U.S. hit the debt ceiling months ago, back in May. Since then, the Treasury has been using the usual extraordinary measures to shuffle cash around and pay the bills. Were now approaching the point where the accounting tricks will run out, probably in mid-October. At that point, the Treasury will have to decide whom to payand whom not to pay. The difference between the shutdown and the debt ceiling is this: the shutdown is based on a decision not to spend money we presumably have. The debt ceiling is based on not spending money we dont have. The fact that, without additional borrowing, we wont have the money to pay all our bills is what makes the debt ceiling much more consequential. For the U.S. government to run out of money is unprecedented. We came closest in 2011. In July of that year, when it looked like the government was about to default, the S&P 500 dropped more than 16 percent. Interestingly, interest rates on Treasury bonds actually dropped, from about 3.25 percent to about 2.5 percent. What drove those changes was uncertainty. As I said, although the government has never actually run out of money, the consequences could be extreme, including higher interest rates indefinitely, as U.S. bonds get rerated for the possible risk of default. The stock market dropped in July 2011 to reflect the risk of those consequences. The fact that interest rates dropped, though, suggests that markets expected bond coupons to continue to be paid even when the government couldnt pay all the bills. In this, in the short run, I think the markets were right then and would be right now. The government will attempt to minimize the damage of any technical default, to include not actually stopping payments on existing debtat least for a while.

Leadership sources told HuffPost that such reports were "premature," but acknowledged they were "still talking to members, still listening to concerns." "I'd guess we need more votes," one said. But they also contended that news that the debt bill was being delayed was inaccurate, since a vote had never been scheduled in the first place. Still, earlier in the day, rank-and-file members seemed to believe that a bill would be put forth quickly. They acknowledged that using the debt limit as leverage was risky, but said it was a worthwhile plan . Part of the problem could be that the House is still waiting for the Senate to pass the continuing resolution, or bill to keep the government funded, that has been tied up in the upper chamber by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and several other tea party darlings. The House is using the bill to try and defund Obamacare, but the Senate is set to remove all such provisions. That leaves House Republicans unable to decide whether to try and kill the health care law again via the continuing resolution -- with the money currently funding the government running out Monday -- or put all their chips in the debt measure. There are also Republicans who question the wisdom of taking the debt limit hostage, since the consequences are predicted to be dire. House leaders said Thursday night that the House would be in session throughout the weekend to deal with the fiscal showdowns. If the House plan disintegrates, it wouldn't be the first time. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has had to walk a tightrope for more than two years now, balancing more moderate members against his determined tea party contingent and resulting in several false starts on major bills. Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook. Also on HuffPost: (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) (center) (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images) Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) (Photo By Bill Clark/Roll Call) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) (Photo by Allison Shelley/Getty Images) Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) (Right) (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images) Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) (Photo By Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call) Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) (Bottom Right) (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images) Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) Rep. Neugebauer points his pencil... (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images) Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) (Photo By Bill Clark/Roll Call/Getty Images) Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) (Photo By Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call) Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) (AP Photo/Paul Connors) New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) (AP Photo/Mel Evans, File) New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) (AP Photo/Mel Evans, File) Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) (AP Photo/Andy Wong, Pool) Florida Gov.

The progression of events begins with a dynamic I described in a print piece at the beginning of 2012 conservatives had come to regard the 2012 race as their last chance to win an election as authentic conservatives against a rising Democratic majority. Since their crushing defeat, they have ignored the task of refurbishing the partys national appeal for its next national electoral bid, and instead have recommitted themselves to waging increasingly millenarian confrontations from their existing red state power base in Congress. Most of us expected, at some level, that the election would cool the rights apocalyptic fervor. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: "The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years." This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason. The exhaustion of electoral channels against Obama has spurred the party to seize power through non-electoral channels. Their opening demand that Obama sign Mitt Romneys entire economic plan into law in return for avoiding a debt default, while historically bizarre, followed perfectly from their legislative strategy this year. House Republicans decided back in January to boycott any negotiations with Obama over fiscal policy. They presented this at the time as a desire to return to regular order, with negotiations between the House and Senate, but eventually decided to boycott those, too . The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default. That is a frightening reality, made all the more frightening by two additional factors. The first is that Republicans dont believe Obamas insistence that he wont negotiate. Obama can claim he wont negotiate, but he would have an incentive to lie about this, and nobody other than Obama can really know for sure. (I believe him, but I wouldnt bet my life on it.) And one of the things Republicans truly believe about Obama they say it constantly in private is that they can make him fold. As the debt-ceiling deadline ticks toward midnight, Obama ought to be able to make his determination clear enough that House Republican leaders understand their only choices are to raise the debt ceiling or breach it. Default would risk not only economic calamity but the potential of an electoral one for the otherwise unassailable Republican majority.

It may be these things, but its also something much larger: a Constitutional struggle, a kind of quasi-impeachment, that will test Obamas mettle and, next to his reelection campaign, poses the most singular threat to his presidency. The progression of events begins with a dynamic I described in a print piece at the beginning of 2012 conservatives had come to regard the 2012 race as their last chance to win an election as authentic conservatives against a rising Democratic majority. Since their crushing defeat, they have ignored the task of refurbishing the partys national appeal for its next national electoral bid, and instead have recommitted themselves to waging increasingly millenarian confrontations from their existing red state power base in Congress. Most of us expected, at some level, that the election would cool the rights apocalyptic fervor. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: "The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years." This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason. The exhaustion of electoral channels against Obama has spurred the party to seize power through non-electoral channels. Their opening demand that Obama sign Mitt Romneys entire economic plan into law in return for avoiding a debt default, while historically bizarre, followed perfectly from their legislative strategy this year. House Republicans decided back in January to boycott any negotiations with Obama over fiscal policy. They presented this at the time as a desire to return to regular order, with negotiations between the House and Senate, but eventually decided to boycott those, too . The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis.

haydenillh

Debt Ceiling: 8 Things You Need To Know But Wish You Didn't - Sep. 27, 2013

House Republicans, by contrast, are begging for him to enter talks. Their theory seems to be that in exchange for giving President Obama something that he wants (but that they dont want to give), he should give them a bunch of things they want (but that he doesnt want to give). It's John Boehner vs. President Obama in the fiscal face-off. The House Republicans, and, unfortunately, many of my brothers and sisters in the media, misunderstand what is going on here. The debt-limit increase is not something that Congress gives President Obama. Its something the Congress will give President Reagan, and President Bush (I and II), and President Clinton. Its something theyll give all the prior Congresses, including ones in which current House GOP leadership served in and ran. And above all, its something that Washington gives to the holders of the trillions of dollars of bonds this country has issued over the last 30 yearscentral banks, financial institutions, companies, and individuals who are legally entitled to interest and principal payments. The government spends more than it takes in every year, and has done so for the last many decades, under every partisan arrangement imaginablefull Republican control, full Democratic control, Republican presidents with Democrats running Congress, Democratic presidents with Republicans running Congress, etc. (In the late 1990s, there was a brief moment where the government actually made a small profit.) In addition, we fund our biggest and most cherished entitlemenSocial Securitby issuing bonds as IOUs to the Social Security Trust Funds. Simply by living and breathing, the governments debt rises each year. To fund current operations and pay off debt that has been accumulated in years past, the government sells bonds. Some roll over very quickly, but others endure for 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years. The government needs to increase the debt limit so it can raise cash to pay for next years operations. But it also needs to raise cash to pay for last years, and last decades, and last centurys operations. Bonds we issue today are paying for the stimulus package approved by Democrats in 2009. But theyre also paying for the Medicare Prescription drug benefitan expensive entitlement without a funding mechanism that was rammed through a Republican Congress whose members included Speaker John Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Go check out the Bureau of the Public Debt , which has a wealth of information. On Feburary 18, 1986, in the middle of Ronald Reagans second term, the government sold 30-year bonds, at a yield of 9.25 percent (those were the days!). That issue, CUSIP # 912810DV7, is still trading today . On November 7, 1991, when George H.W. Bush was president, the government issued 30-year bonds at an 8 percent rate. Well be paying interest on those until 2021. On August 7, 1997, with President Clinton in the White House and Republicans controlling the House, the government issued $10.37 billion in 30-year bonds paying a 6.375 percent interest rate. In August 2006, with George W. Bush in the White House, the government auctioned $14 billion in 30-year bonds yielding 4.5 percent. In November 2011, the government raised $17.224 billion, selling 30-year bonds at a 3.125 percent interest rate. These bonds were issued to fund the operations of government and the payment of benefits in the 1980s and 1990sto pay for satellites in the last years of the Cold War, to fund the Gulf War and the Iraq War and the bombing of Serbia, to support a generation of research at the National Institutes of Health, to pay for the medical care of our grandparents. The taxpayers are currently making payments on all those bonds, and the government needs to increase the debt limit so it can continue doing so. In the corporate world, those who fail to make payments wind up losing ownership in bankruptcy. Its not quite that way with government debt. When a public entity defaults, or even acts in a way that makes people suspect it might default, the market freaks out. The borrower loses credibility, respect, and the ability to participate in the market in the future. Which is why cities and states work so hard to avoid defaulting on bondstheyll gladly stiff suppliers, workers, and citizens long before theyll stiff bondholders. Yes, the debt has exploded in recent years, in large part because the government ran successive trillion-dollar deficits during the recession and the early years of the recovery. But as this chart from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows, a great deal of todays debt can be traced to policies enacted before President Obama arrived. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities That chart is one way of looking at the problem. Heres another way. I went back and looked at the monthly reports on the U.S. debt , to determine how much the total U.S. national debt outstanding had increased under different presidents over the past 30 years. (Note: the total debt outstanding differs ever so slightly from the amount of debt subject to the limit.) This may be didactic and repetitive, but stick with me. When Reagan took office, in January 1981, the national debt was $934 billion. Between January 31, 1981, and January 31, 1989, the debt rose to $2.697 trilliona threefold increase, or $1.763 trillion. Between January 31, 1989, and January 31, 1993the Bush I yearsthe national debt jumped $1.47 trillion to $4.167 trillion, up 54 percent. During the Clinton years, January 31, 1993 to January 31, 2001, debt rose another $1.55 trillion to $5.716 trillion, up 37 percent. During the Bush II years, the national debt soared, rising $4.9 trillion, or 86 percent, to $10.632 trillion. The national debt soared again during the Obama years, too.

(Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) | Getty Get Politics Newsletters: Subscribe Follow: House Republicans , Kevin McCarthy , Elections 2014 , House Republican Debt Fight , House Republicans Debt Ceiling , House Republicans Movie , Kevin Mccarthy Debt Ceiling , Kevin Mccarthy Movie , Politics News WASHINGTON -- At a time when House Republicans are preparing to force a list of conservative demands on Democrats in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is planning a GOP field trip to the movie theater to see the thriller "Prisoners." According to an email obtained by The Huffington Post from a congressional aide, McCarthy is trying to round up Republican lawmakers to see the movie together on Friday night. "Kevin would like to do a movie night tomorrow night for those members in town," reads an email sent Thursday from a McCarthy aide to group of other GOP aides. "I know you all are dying to spend Friday night with ME and Elvis (regal's finest) watching Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal," she continues. "On a serious note -- let me know if you would like to help out. No pressure, but its a pretty great movie." The apparent irony of Republicans going to see a movie about two girls being kidnapped and taken as prisoners -- a storyline that for some parallels the hostage-taking charges Democrats have lobbed at Republicans during the debt-ceiling fight -- wasn't lost on one GOP aide on the email thread. "Any chance the media reads WAY too much into the title of the movie, Prisoners?" the aide wrote to the group. Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the movie's theme is right in line with the approach Republicans are taking to running the government. "Given Speaker Boehner's crusade to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to Tea Party ransom demands, it's not surprising that, in their free time, the Republican Conference would choose to spend their Friday night watching a violent and disturbing film together about hostage taking," he told HuffPost. Hammill added, "Perhaps, given the group, 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs' would be more appropriate for their movie night." McCarthy spokeswoman Erica Elliot confirmed that her office has had "internal discussions about potential member services activities this weekend," but said nothing has been finalized. She also said Pelosi's office was mistakenly included on the email thread about the movie. This isn't the first time the Republican whip has ruffled Democrats by showing certain movies to his team. In 2011, during another debt ceiling fight, McCarthy played a clip from "The Town," a 2010 crime thriller during a closed-door meeting with his members. In the segment reportedly shown, a bank robber says to his friend, I need your help. I cant tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. And we're going to hurt some people. The friend then responds, "Whose car are we gonna take?" Former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) reportedly told his colleagues after the clip was shown, "Im ready to drive the car." Also on HuffPost: Loading Slideshow We Mean It... Smile! It's not often we see Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) crack a smile. He dons his go-to straight face most of the time. Ahead, see the rare grins of the Kentucky senator. (Photo by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images) McConnell Cracks A CPAC Smile McConnell waves as he arrives to speak at the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) Happy To Hang With Obama President Barack Obama is greeted by McConnell as he arrives at the U.S. Captiol for his third day of meetings with members of Congress March 14, 2013. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) Leaving The Senate, McConnell Smirks McConnell leaves the Senate chamber to caucus in the US Capitol Dec. 30, 2012. (Molly Riley/AFP/Getty Images) Smiley Senate Exit McConnell leaves his office and walks toward the Senate floor on Capitol Hill March 22, 2013. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) Ready For His Close Up McConnell tours the stage during preparations at the Tampa Bay Times Forum Aug 26, 2012. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/GettyImages) A Smile And A Hug McConnell greets US President Barack Obama following Obama's address to a Joint Session of Congress about the US economy and job creation Sept. 8, 2011. (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images) McConnell Happily Takes To The Podium McConnell smiles as he speaks to the press with fellow Republican senators John Barroso of Wyoming and John Cornyn of Texas at the Capitol Aug. 2, 2011. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images) Thumbs Up! McConnell gives the the thumbs-up as he walks to the Senate floor after a deal was reached to avert a US default at the Capitol in Washington July 31, 2011. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images) Sworn In And Smiling McConnell is sworn in by Vice President Dick Cheney as his wife Labor Secretary Elaine Chao holds the Bible during a swearing in reenactment ceremony at the US Capitol Jan. 6, 2009. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) Smiling On Stage At RNC McConnell smiles during sound check at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Tampa, Fla., Aug 27, 2012. (Scott Eells/Bloomberg via Getty) Something's Funny! McConnell laughs with Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson at the annual ham breakfast at the Kentucky State Fair in Louisville, Ky., in 2010. (AP Photo/Ed Reinke) McConnell Laughs Some More Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) jokes with reporters as McConnell, laughs in the Ohio Clock Corridor following the Senate Republicans' policy lunch in June 21, 2011. (Photo By Bill Clark/Roll Call) Lots Of Laughing Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), McConnell, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), share a laugh during news conference in the Capitol after a meeting of Senate Republicans, Feb. 8, 2012. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) Contribute to this Story:

(Which you can follow on Twitter at #MintTheCoin). Their logic is that as silly as the trillion-dollar coin sounds, the debt ceiling is far sillier -- and much more destructive. As this terrifying report from the Bipartisan Policy Center shows, the consequences of going over the debt ceiling are unthinkable and unpredictable. At best, it will mean immediate 40 percent austerity; at worst, it will mean an outright default on our debt. Both are bad enough that a legal gimmick like the trillion dollar coin sounds sane in comparison, if it comes to that. At least that's what Representative Jerry Nadler , Paul Krugman , and, as of pixel time, over 6,000 other patriotic Americans think. But maybe you're not convinced yet. Alright, here is EVERYTHING you need to know about the trillion-dollar coin, and why it might just be the crazy solution Washington deserves and needs. What's this nonsense I've been hearing about a trillion-dollar coin? It's got to be some kind of elaborate -- Stop. It's no joke. At least no more than voluntarily defaulting on our obligations by refusing to lift the debt ceiling would be. It sounds like something out of the Simpsons, but thanks to a crazy technicality the Treasury really can create a trillion-dollar coin, which would let us keep paying our bills if the debt ceiling isn't raised. It's an absurd solution to an absurd problem, but a solution nonetheless.As they say, when in Washington.... No, I'm pretty sure this is from the Simpsons. Almost. That was a $1 trillion bill , whichFidel Castro tricked out of Monty Burns, but this is real life, so it has to be a $1 trillion coin. A platinum coin, to be exact. I'm almost afraid to ask, but why does it need to be a coin? And why platinum? We don't make the loopholes. We just find them. The Treasury can't print money on its own, because the money supply is supposed to be the strict purview of the Federal Reserve ... but that might not be quite so strict after all, thanks to a coin-sized exception. Congress passed a law in 1997, later amended in 2000, that gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to mint platinum coins , and only platinum coins, in whatever denomination and quantity he or she wants. That could be $100, or $1,000, or ... $1 trillion. Did Congress decide life wasn't imitating Bond films enough? What were they possibly thinking? The idea was Treasury would only use this authority for collectible coins, while making a little money for the government in the process. But the law is vague. It only says the Treasury can mint platinum coins in any denomination it wants. So, to infinity and beyond! Okay. So the Treasury can mint a trillion-dollar coin because of a law that lets it mint commemorative coins in whatever denomination it chooses, right? Doesn't this violate the spirit of the law? Maybe. But remember, part of the point of creating these commemorative coins was to increase government revenue. As former Congressman and author of the original bill Mike Castle told Dylan Matthews of the Washington Post, the intent was to use the government's seigniorage power to very modestly reduce the deficit. Seigniorage is the delightfully literal concept of making money by making money. It's the difference between the cost of creating currency, and the value you assign to that currency -- in other words, the "profit" governments get from minting money. The trillion-dollar coin is seigniorage just like commemorative coins are seigniorage -- well, except that the trillion-dollar coin is a whole, whole lot more of it. Even if you don't find this terribly convincing, it doesn't really matter. The plain text of the law, not its intent, is what matters. And that means the trillion-dollar coin is almost certainly legal. "Almost certainly legal" is good enough for me, but what if it isn't for everybody else? Would it survive a court challenge?

Honestly, you shouldn't have to. Problem is Congress has turned the debate over raising it into a national drama. And if lawmakers don't bring that drama to a speedy and smart end, all bets are off for the economy and markets. That means Americans' savings, loans and general economic well-being could be collateral damage. Oh fine, so what's the debt ceiling again? It's a cap set by Congress on how much the federal government may have in outstanding debt . The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare. Congress has always set some kind of limit on national debt, but the first modern version of it was set in 1917. Today it's set at $16.699 trillion. How often has Congress raised the debt ceiling? So often. On average, more than once a year. http://darrenxnjagyqnul.beeplog.com/355794_2174448.htm Since 1940, lawmakers have effectively approved 79 increases. Sometimes they've raised it by small amounts, other times by large amounts. And sometimes http://pentyhos.livejournal.com/7264.html they've raised it "temporarily" with provisions for a "snap-back" to a lower level. Is it true that raising the debt ceiling gives Congress a "license to spend more"? No. Raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time. Those bills are for services already performed and entitlement benefits already approved by Congress. So raising the debt ceiling is more like a license to continue paying what the country owes. And the obligations are incurred because of countless decisions made by lawmakers from both parties over the years. So, why does Congress even bother with a limit? In theory, setting a debt ceiling is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality it doesn't. Not meaningfully anyway, although there have been times when the debate has yielded some fiscal restraint. Google+ Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer . Morningstar: 2013 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM 2013 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS. 2013 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy . Ad choices .

Most of us expected, at some level, that the election would cool the rights apocalyptic fervor. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: "The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years." This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason. The exhaustion of electoral channels against Obama has spurred the party to seize power through non-electoral channels. Their opening demand that Obama sign Mitt Romneys entire economic plan into law in return for avoiding a debt default, while historically bizarre, followed perfectly from their legislative strategy this year. House Republicans decided back in January to boycott any negotiations with Obama over fiscal policy. They presented this at the time as a desire to return to regular order, with negotiations between the House and Senate, but eventually decided to boycott those, too . The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default. That is a frightening reality, made all the more frightening by two additional factors. The first is that Republicans dont believe Obamas insistence that he wont negotiate. Obama can claim he wont negotiate, but he would have an incentive to lie about this, and nobody other than Obama can really know for sure. (I believe him, but I wouldnt bet my life on it.) And one of the things Republicans truly believe about Obama they say it constantly in private is that they can make him fold. As the debt-ceiling deadline ticks toward midnight, Obama ought to be able to make his determination clear enough that House Republican leaders understand their only choices are to raise the debt ceiling or breach it. Default would risk not only economic calamity but the potential of an electoral one for the otherwise unassailable Republican majority. But history is replete with disastrous miscalculations.

Do whatever you like. Regardless, on the first of the month, you pay what you owe, or you may be forcibly evicted. The debt ceiling works the same way. If you're concerned by how high it's getting, there is nothing but ample opportunity to have debates, make cuts, raise revenue, and right the budget. If the vote doesn't go your way, you go out on the campaign trail and you make your case to the electorate. Next time, the vote maybe goes your way. But on the appointed date, you raise the debt ceiling. A lot of people these days are suggesting that it's natural to make big budget deals when the debt ceiling needs to be raised. This is what we call "erroneous." Here's Jonathan Chait, enumerating the two central errors : Error No. 1: As Richard Kogan points out, since the Reagan administration began, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 45 times. Only seven of those times were attached to significant budget legislation. Basically, when Congress does a budget deal, it usually attaches a debt-ceiling hike onto it. But it doesnt make the debt-ceiling hike contingent on the deal. Error No. 2: Boehner is not proposing a deal, as in a deal involving the swapping of concessions. Indeed, all the previous agreements he cites involved the two sides making mutually agreeable policy bargains. None of them, save the 2011 debt-ceiling ransom, involved Congress threatening debt default in order to extract concessions. Boehner isnt looking for a deal, except in the sense that Richie Aprile was looking for a deal with Beansie to share the profits from his restaurant . On Thursday, Chait sized up the House GOP's "offer" on the debt ceiling . It boils down to: Implement the economic policies that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran on, or else you get default. You may remember Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan from their past masterworks, which include "Losing The 2012 Election." It's impossible to take this seriously. And not just in the sense that it's unreasonable to expect the winners of a presidential election to implement the policies they opposed on the way to that win. There's a second level of pure, mountain-grown unseriousness that Josh Barro points out, having examined this same offer: the GOP's demands -- which include blocking net neutrality regs and building the Keystone pipeline -- "have little or no connection to the federal debt." This is just a list of things Republicans would like to do if they ran the government. But they don't run the government. Instead, they are contending that it is a valid legislative strategy to use the leverage of the debt ceilingwhich will cause an economic crisis if it is not increasedto demand their way on any unrelated issue. The pretense that debt limit fights are about the public debt is over. Well, I wish that this was the case, but unfortunately, the odd notion that the occasion of raising the debt ceiling is an appropriate time to extract unreasonable demands has been normalized. It's now baked into the Beltway Conventional Wisdom. And along with that comes the odd notion that navigating nihilist demands -- not simply rejecting them -- is the new way that a president shows leadership. Right now, if the House GOP demanded that John Boehner be allowed to amputate Barack Obama's legs with a rusty band saw in exchange for a debt ceiling hike, the Beltway commentariat would light up with talk about how irresponsible it would be for Obama to not, at the very least, consider it. Maybe just one and a half legs. It would be a big "win" for the White House to be left with half a gangrenous stump. So instead of this moment of clarity that Barro rightly suggests should happen, here's what's going to take place. The Beltway Conventional Wisdom mavens are going to go on the offensive, and castigate the administration for its current, correct, position on the debt ceiling, which is: "There will be no negotiations on the debt ceiling." Obama's failure to properly offer some ransom to economic terrorists will be met with scorn. And here's a simple truth about all of this: Obama does, definitely, share in the blame. As Matt Yglesias points out : The absolute worst mistake Obama has made as president came back in 2011 when Republicans first pulled this stunt. At that time, Obama desperately wanted a bargain over long-term fiscal policy. So he tried a bit of too-clever-by-half political jujitsu in which GOP debt ceiling hostage taking became a pretext to start negotiations over long-term budgeting. All manner of evils have fallen forth from that fateful decisions, including an economic weak patch in 2011 the ongoing mess of sequestration, and worst of all the setting of a precedent for future crises. "A terrible monster was let out of the box in 2011," says Yglesias, "and the best thing Obama can possibly do for the country at this point is to stuff it back in and hopefully kill it." I've long wondered why, exactly, Obama decided to allow this monster to escape from the box. Part of it may have to do with his own history on debt ceiling votes. See, in the past, presidents have always gotten a clean debt ceiling hike from Congress, but it was traditional for the opposition party to allow a few of its members to rail at the president for his policies and cast votes against it. Not so many votes that it threatened the eventual outcome, just enough to make a point.

Should You Pay Off Debt or Save for Retirement? We can all see the benefits of having a large retirement portfolio. If its big enough, it can provide you with a standard of living comparable to or even higher than the one that you have when youre working. But lets face it, not everyone will have a retirement portfolio that will be that large, or even one that will be remotely sufficient. If it looks as if that may be your situation, paying off debt can probably get you a bigger bang for your buck than putting away more money for retirement savings. Consider the following Monthly payment reductions can be bigger than income from the same amount of money This one is best explained by example. Lets say that you have $10,000 that you can use either to invest or to payoff debt. If you invest the money in the stock market and earn the long-term average of about 8%, that will represent an income increase of about $800 per year. But instead of investing the money, you use it to payoff a car loan with a $300 per month payment and a balance of $10,000. By paying off the debt you reduce the annual expense of your car loan by $3,600, or more than four times the amount that you would earn if you invest the same amount of money. A car loan is even a bad example, since it will be paid off in a fixed amount of time anyway. But if you apply the same principle to more open ended loan types, such as mortgages and credit cards, the benefit will be more lasting. And that in itself has several advantages from a financial standpoint. Paying off debt can free up income for larger retirement contributions If you payoff debt before retiring, that will allow you to invest more money for your retirement . For example, in the above example of paying off the car loan instead of investing the money, you will free up $300 each month that can be directed into your retirement savings. And once it is in your retirement plan, it will begin earning you more income. And naturally, that advantage would be even greater if you were paying off $20,000-$30,000 in credit card debts, or a $200,000 mortgage. The more debt you can eliminate, the more money that you will have available to invest for your retirement. and reduce expenses in retirement too The B side of paying off debt is that by doing so youll also reduce your expenses in retirement . Lets say that your income requirement during retirement is $4,000 per month. Of that amount, $1,600 is debt payment your mortgage ($1,000 per month), a car payment ($300 per month), and credit card payments totaling $300 per month. By paying each of those debts off, you will reduce your need for retirement income from $4,000 per month to $2,400 per month which is a 40% reduction. Yes, you will have less in your retirement portfolio as a result of paying off your debts, but youll also have less need for retirement income, which will mean that you will need a smaller portfolio. This will be even more important when you consider the tax consequences of needing to generate a higher income . Sure, it may be nice to have an income of $4,000 per month rather than $2,400, but the higher income could result in higher income taxes that would reduce your net income. It may even trigger more of your Social Security income being taxable. It works especially well if youre approaching retirement and dont have enough retirement assets If youre in your 50s or early 60s and its pretty clear that you will not have a large enough portfolio to cover all of your living expenses by the time you retire, then paying off your debts will probably be the better strategy for you. Paying off debts often provides more bang for the buck than an equivalent of money invested for income for all of the reasons discussed above. Paying off debt works even better during bear markets Theres a hidden bonus to paying off debt rather than investing the extra money in retirement savings. When you pay off debt you get a permanent reduction in your expenses; when you invest money in the stock market, your income is never guaranteed. Simply put, paying off debt provides a guaranteed cash flow, that investing cannot match. This is never more true than in bear markets. Paying $10,000 to eliminate a car loan with a $300 per month payment eliminates an entire expense. If that same amount of money is invested in the stock market and stocks fall significantly that $10,000 could turn to $5,000 in a matter of months. At that point, you would be wishing that you had paid off the debt instead of investing the money in the stock market! In a perfect world, you would both payoff debt and invest more money in your retirement portfolio. But if you have to make a choice and many people do paying off debt is probably the better of the two. The reason is simple: paying off debt is a sure thing investing money never is. Have you ever agonized over the choice of whether to invest a certain amount of money in your retirement portfolio or use it to payoff debt? If you like this article, please sign up for our free weekly updates Read Another Article:

Most of us expected, at some level, that the election would cool the rights apocalyptic fervor. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Paul Ryan candidly explained the calculation: "The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years." This is a remarkable confession. Republicans need to compel Obama to accept their agenda, not in spite of the fact that the voters rejected it at the polls but precisely for that reason. The exhaustion of electoral channels against Obama has spurred the party to seize power through non-electoral channels. Their opening demand that Obama sign Mitt Romneys entire economic plan into law in return for avoiding a debt default, while historically bizarre, followed perfectly from their legislative strategy this year. House Republicans decided back in January to boycott any negotiations with Obama over fiscal policy. They presented this at the time as a desire to return to regular order, with negotiations between the House and Senate, but eventually decided to boycott those, too . The entire House Republican strategy is premised on using threats to leverage unilateral concessions from the Democrats. Their aversion to compromise has been accepted as settled fact in Washington, reimagined not only as a new normal but as the way its always been. Republican Dana Rohrabacher defended the use of debt-ceiling threats to pry concessions from Obama like so: People have to recognize theres never any compromise until the stakes are high. In our society, thats the nature of democratic government. That is completely false. American political parties have forged compromises for decades without high-stakes threats to bring them to the table. Not to mention the fact that, by compromise, Rohrabacher means unilateral concessions by the president. Part of the confusion is that the debt ceiling used to be an opportunity for the opposing party to denounce the fiscal irresponsibility of the president. On occasion, but not usually , debt-ceiling hikes have been appended onto budget agreements that were negotiated on their own terms. Whats completely novel is Congress using the threat of a debt default to force the president to make unilateral policy concessions. The conventions of he-said, she-said journalism have allowed this radical development to insinuate itself into the routine backdrop of partisan squabbling. Neutral parties have likewise come to accept the hostage-taking threat of the debt ceiling as merely a normal form of political negotiation. Time reporter Zeke Miller asserts, Hostage taking by promising harm if you do not get your way has long been a standard way of doing business in Washington, pointing to Democratic threats to let the Bush tax cuts expire or to change Senate rules as an analogue. But these examples lack any of the relevant hostage-taking qualities that sets apart the debt ceiling threat. One is the scale and irreversible impact of a debt ceiling breach unlike the failure of a bill, or even a government shutdown, which can be reversed. Second, and more importantly, its normal in any negotiation for each party to have a walk-away threshold to stop something they consider objectionable. Democrats, in the cases Miller cites, were objecting to outcomes -- full extension of the Bush tax cuts, continued filibustering of executive appointments that they defined as unacceptable. House Republicans, by contrast, dont object to raising the debt ceiling. They concede its necessary to avoid disaster! The hostage dynamic of the debt-ceiling fight has created a dangerous, historically unusual set of circumstances. One aspect of it is to set up a precarious, high-stakes negotiation, the failure of which could set off large, immediate, and irreversible damage. The second is to reset the balance of power between the president and Congress, allowing the latter to compel the former to submit to its agenda without concessions. Both these changes would permanently and dangerously alter the character of American government. If outsiders have failed to grasp the motivations of the House Republicans, puzzling at their odd redoubling of ideological fervor since November, they have likewise mistaken Obama. Everything I have seen from Obama suggests he understands that he cannot repeat his blunder of 2011, when he mistook the GOPs debt-ceiling threat for an invitation to engage in normal fiscal bargaining. Obama cant tame the monster he created gradually; he has to kill it completely. Bargaining his way through this crisis would do Obama no good, even if he could get through it by offering up a meager or even symbolic concession. Anything that allows Republicans to believe they can trade a debt-ceiling threat for policy concessions simply creates a new hostage crisis the next time the debt ceiling comes up. This negotiation is Obamas only chance to halt the routinization of debt-ceiling extortion. Obamas incentive structure is simple, then: Allowing Republicans to default on the debt now is better than trading something that allows them to threaten it later. His best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling and have the House raise it before October 17. His next best option is to refuse to negotiate the debt ceiling, allow default, and never have to go through it again. Bargaining merely postpones, and worsens, the next default crisis. No negotiated debt-ceiling price is small enough to be acceptable. There is therefore no circumstance under which bargaining for a debt-ceiling hike makes sense, even if the alternative is certain default. That is a frightening reality, made all the more frightening by two additional factors. The first is that Republicans dont believe Obamas insistence that he wont negotiate. Obama can claim he wont negotiate, but he would have an incentive to lie about this, and nobody other than Obama can really know for sure. (I believe him, but I wouldnt bet my life on it.) And one of the things Republicans truly believe about Obama they say it constantly in private is that they can make him fold. As the debt-ceiling deadline ticks toward midnight, Obama ought to be able to make his determination clear enough that House Republican leaders understand their only choices are to raise the debt ceiling or breach it. Default would risk not only economic calamity but the potential of an electoral one for the otherwise unassailable Republican majority. But history is replete with disastrous miscalculations. Theyre often made by weak, short-sighted leaders facing pressure to demonstrate toughness from internal opponents.

John Boehner says he has to. Who blinks first? Tweet Evan Vucci/DPA/ZUMA With the Washington crisis of the week not yet resolvedwhether the US government will shut down on Tuesday because GOPers block legislation funding federal agenciesPresident Barack Obama, at a rally in Largo, Maryland, promoting Obamacare, looked ahead on Thursday morning to the next showdown and issued a hard-and-fast proclamation: "I won't negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America." Obama was referring to raising the debt ceiling, which will have to be done in the next few weeks (or the US government will default and possibly trigger a financial crisis that could go international). To emphasize that Obama was drop-dead serious about not responding to Republican threats to hold the debt ceiling hostage once again, the White House immediately tweeted out that sentence. The message: This was no off-the-cuff rhetoric. President Obama: "I wont negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America." #EnoughAlready The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 26, 2013 Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's busy trying to concoct a strategy for the more immediate budget crisis, did respond to Obama's no-deal position on the debt ceiling: "I am sorry, it just doesn't work that way." So though it seems at the moment that a government shutdown might be averted next weekif only by a bill that provides for the temporary and short-term continuation of appropriations for the governmenta titanic confrontation is looming overthe debt ceiling, with the GOPers angling to prevent an expansion of the government's borrowing authority unless Obama agrees to accept deeper spending cuts, defund Obamacare, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, or whatever. This is a fight with higher stakes; a global financial crisis would cause more economic chaos than a short government shutdown. And Obama has been planningfor this stare-down for two years, saying publicly and privately that he will not blink. Advertise on MotherJones.com In 2011, when the Republicans first seized the debt ceiling as a political hostage, Obama and his economic team felt compelled to negotiate a settlement, out of fear that a default could be a death blow to the slowly recovering economy. Eventually, they settled on a compromise that included spending cuts that included the now infamous sequestration. But at the time, Obama was more eager to draw a line in the sand than his advisers. And his takeaway from the episode was this: never again. He would not let the opposition party blackmail a president in this fashion. This conviction was evident last year, when the debt ceiling was part of the so-called fiscal cliff. In December, as that tussle was underway, I wrote about the president's thinking on this front: During a Wednesday morning meeting with business leaders, Obama was blunt : "I want to send a very clear message to people here. We are not going to play that game next year. If Congress in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which, by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year, I will not play that game." The public comments from [then-Treasury Secretary Timothy]Geithner, Treasury, and the president do not fully reflect how passionate Obama is on this matter. "He really means it," a senior administration official insists. And Obama's top aides have seen him in private display fervor regarding this issue. During a meeting with his senior aides in the middle of the prolonged and heated negotiations in the summer of 2011, Obama let them know that he believed the debt ceiling face-off was in part a fight to save his presidency and those of future chief executives. At that time, Obama was holding daily bargaining sessions with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders to resolve the debt ceiling crisis and possibly to craft a "grand bargain" budget agreement that would include tax revenue hikes, spending cuts, and reductions in entitlement programs. But with the talks not yielding much progress, Republicansand some Democratswere raising the prospect of proceeding with a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. On July 13, 2011, as Obama gathered in the Oval OfficewithGeithner, then-budget chief Jack Lew, senior economic adviser GeneSperling, and other aides to prep for the next meeting with the legislators, he drew a line, telling his advisers, "I want to make something clear. I'm not going to accept a short-term extension of the debt." There was no way, he insisted, he would go through this again in 3, 6, or 12 monthscertainly not before the next election. Obama's aides empathized with him but explained that the president might have to yield on this to secure a deal that dodged a default. "I'm not doing it again," Obama said. "This is wrong." Obama believed a constitutional principle was at stake: If the Republicans could threaten default to get their way on budget issues, it would distort the separation of powers. This was not what the framers of the Constitution intended, he believed. Moreover, it was embarrassing for the United States. He was determined to prevent this scenario from occurring again. His aides could see that Obama would not bend. He was willing to go to the brink. Toward the end of that day's meeting with Hill leaders, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor raised the idea of a short-term extension, Obama angrily said, "I'm not going to do it. We're not putting the country through this again. Don't call my bluff." Through the summer 2011 negotiations, Obama stubbornly held to this positionno repeats of this debt ceiling danceand the final deal avoided a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. During the fiscal-cliff negotiations at the end of 2012, Obama adopted the same stance, but no all-out battle occurred. The White House and Congress, without much fuss, eventually agreed to a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling. But now the reckoning has returned, andGOPerswho fear they may have the weaker hand in the government-shutdown clash are pumped up for another debt ceiling throw-down. Not surprisingly, theRsare enthusiastically citing polls showing that voters don't support increasing borrowing authority without accompanying spending cuts. But as the 2011 mess demonstrated, Obama was able to shape public opinion by calling out GOP hostage-taking, and at the end of that self-inflicted crisis, which led to the downgrading of the US credit rating, the Republicans fared worse in the polls. No doubt, Obama now thinks he can outmaneuver the Republicans once more. But for Obama this is a rather fundamental fight that he believes must be waged for the benefit of future chief executives and to protect the integrity of the nation's political system. So is the final confrontation at hand? Obama has stated clearly he will not negotiate with political extremists who would hold the US government and economy hostage. Boehner, who leads a Republican caucus craving confrontation, has proclaimed he expects the president to deal.

Hypothetically, its best option would be to "prioritize" payments using the money it does have to pay for the things it deems really important (Medicaid and Medicare expenses, say) and letting the bills for less-important things go unpaid for the time being. The problem is that there aren't really any less-important things included in the Treasury's regular payment schedule. It's all stuff like food stamps, Social Security, military pay, unemployment benefits, and federal worker salaries. So these choices would be really, really painful. And forget about funding it all it's estimated by the Bipartisan Policy Center than 32 percent of the government's entire spending would have to be cut, in order to spend only the cash it has on hand. Another problem with prioritization is that we don't even know if it's legal, or if the government can physically do it. The Treasury department's computerized system, the one that sends out payments as they come due, isn't configured to pay certain bills instead of others. In the BPC's words, "prioritization would require a massive overhaul and reprogramming of these operations that may be impossible." Treasury could also decide to pay an entire day's payments at a time, once it's collected enough tax revenue to fund the entire day. This would mean not having to make tough choices between programs, but it would also mean that every government program was on the same terrible, sinking ship with no lifeboats, even for the neediest ones. We could default on our debt. The U.S. has never, ever missed a payment on a bond it issued. That's why Treasury bonds have traditionally been considered risk-free you know you're getting your money back. But under a debt-ceiling breach scenario, Treasury might have to delay or even miss payments to bondholders, putting Treasury bonds into technical default. Between October 18th and November 15th, more than $370 billion in U.S. government bonds are going to mature. Usually, when this happens, the Treasury department simply "rolls over" the debt it issues new bonds, and uses the proceeds to pay the old bondholders their principal plus interest. But rolling over debt in a post-X-Date scenario gets tricky, since new bondholders might demand much higher interest rates, or, if not enough people wanted to buy the new bonds, Treasury might have to start paying back the old bondholders out of pocket. It might even have to default on the bonds. We don't really know what happens if Treasury bonds default, since it's never happened. What we do know is that it would destroy the market as we know it. Banks could go under, credit markets could seize up, money-market funds could "break the buck" (meaning that the net present value of their assets would be less than 100 percent of what their investors put in), and ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's would almost certainly downgrade the U.S.'s credit rating, leading even more capital to leave the country. There is no good default scenario, only lots of really terrible ones. Investors might run away from Treasury bonds. If bondholders get scared of a default or a restructuring, they'll start selling their Treasury bonds. The government will raise interest rates on new bonds to make them more attractive to buyers, which will then cause rates on all kinds of credit to rise. Car loans and mortgages will cost more, and we could see the kind of credit freeze we saw after the financial collapse. Or, they could run toward Treasury bonds, which might be worse, actually. Adam Davidson makes the case that in the event of a debt-ceiling breach, investors might actually buy more Treasury bonds, running towards supposedly safe assets as they often do in times of market panic. This, weirdly, could be a worse outcome than a Treasury bond flight, since investors who held onto Treasury bonds during a panic might begin to regard those bonds as no less safe than bonds from other countries. America's bonds have long been thought of as a kind of global reserve currency the safest possible thing to own. If that status goes away and the U.S. becomes just another country with bonds that may or may not default in the future, Davidson says we'll lose the advantages we've long enjoyed. "The U.S. economys peaks will be lower and recessions deeper; future generations will have fewer job opportunities and suffer more when the economy falters." The central nervous system of the banking system might freeze. Fedwire is one of the least-known, most important services on Earth. It's a clearing system, run by the Federal Reserve, that banks in America use to shuttle cash, stocks, bonds, and other assets back and forth between themselves. It processes trillions of dollars a day, and has been around for nearly 100 years. But it's not set up to allow defaulted Treasury bonds to flow through its system. According to a note from RBC Capital, excerpted by FT Alphaville , if the U.S. defaults on its bonds, Fedwire could "seize" entirely, meaning that banks and other financial institutions could run into real trouble very quickly. The borrowing window might get jammed.

The cap applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare. Congress has always set some kind of limit on national debt, but the first modern version of it was set in 1917. Today it's set at $16.699 trillion. How often has Congress raised the debt ceiling? So often. On average, more than once a year. Since 1940, lawmakers have effectively approved 79 increases. Sometimes they've raised it by small amounts, other times by large amounts. And sometimes they've raised it "temporarily" with provisions for a "snap-back" to a lower level. Is it true that raising the debt ceiling gives Congress a "license to spend more"? No. Raising the debt ceiling simply lets Treasury borrow the money it needs to pay all U.S. bills and other legal obligations in full and on time. Those bills are for services already performed and entitlement benefits already approved by Congress. So raising the debt ceiling is more like a license to continue paying what the country owes. And the obligations are incurred because of countless decisions made by lawmakers from both parties over the years. So, why does Congress even bother with a limit? In theory, setting a debt ceiling is supposed to help Congress control spending. In reality it doesn't. Not meaningfully anyway, although there have been times when the debate has yielded some fiscal restraint. Google+ Market indexes are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer LIBOR Warning: Neither BBA Enterprises Limited, nor the BBA LIBOR Contributor Banks, nor Reuters, can be held liable for any irregularity or inaccuracy of BBA LIBOR. Disclaimer . Morningstar: 2013 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer The Dow Jones IndexesSM are proprietary to and distributed by Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and have been licensed for use. All content of the Dow Jones IndexesSM 2013 is proprietary to Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Chicago Mercantile Association. The market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved. FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2013. All rights reserved. Most stock quote data provided by BATS. 2013 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

September 24 2013

haydenillh

5 Secrets Credit Bureaus Don't Want You To Know | Creditorsreport.com

(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP) Story Highlights Forty-five percent of U.S. adults say that the Affordable Care Act will make health care in the U.S. worse. Obama would be better off cutting a deal with the Republicans. It is Obama, not House Republicans, who is putting the country at risk of a government shutdown. SHARE 790 CONNECT 453 TWEET 72 COMMENTEMAILMORE So the Republican-controlled House of Representatives -- with the help of a couple of Democrats -- has voted to defund ObamaCare. In response, President Obama, declaring that the Republicans are "trying to mess with me," has accused the House of trying to shut down the government. But the government will only shut down if Obama vetoes the budget that comes to his desk. The House budget funds everything except for implementation of the Affordable Care Act better known as ObamaCare. In truth, by refusing even to negotiate with the House leadership and threatening to veto a budget that doesn't fit his own specifications, it is Obama, not the House of Representatives, who is putting the country at risk of a government shutdown. COLUMN: The wrong way to reduce poverty It's also sadly typical that Obama sees this debate as being all about him. The Republicans aren't trying to overturn a deeply unpopular bill that was crammed through on a party-line vote despite widespread opposition by Republicans and Democrats. They're "trying to mess with" Obama. It's not about policies or governance, it's about personalities. Now Obama wants to do what Bill Clinton did to Newt Gingrich : Provoke a government shutdown that can be blamed on the House GOP. But there are problems. First, of course, Obama is no Bill Clinton: As the debacle over Syria, the defeat on gun control, and the disappearance of the once-trumpeted immigration initiative indicate, he's no political wizard. Indeed, one reason, I suspect, that he's set down a red line on ObamaCare is that it's pretty much the only legislative accomplishment he can claim as his legacy. The problem with that is that ObamaCare was unpopular in 2010 (that's why Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who crammed it through, is no longer speaker, but a minority figure in a GOP-controlled House). ObamaCare has become, if anything, even more unpopular now as costs have risen way beyond projections even as the number of people covered has shrunk to less than half of what was advertised. People are losing their insurance -- or their jobs -- as policies are canceled and employers shift to part-time hiring in order to escape ObamaCare's onerous restrictions. It's no wonder that an NBC poll a week ago found that 45% of U.S. adults say that the Affordable Care Act will make the health care situation in the U.S. worse, while only 23% say the law will make it better. And as ABC notes, currently 52% oppose the law, and, even more striking : "In 16 ABC-Post polls since August 2009, it has never received majority support." Now, in spite of these sentiments, Obama will negotiate with Iran or Syria, but not with the House Republicans. And if the Senate passes the House bill and sends it to him, Obama will presumably enforce this red line and veto the budget, plunging the nation into a government shutdown. That has risks for everyone. The GOP, of course, didn't do so well in the Gingrich-Clinton faceoff, and many Republican leaders obviously fear a repeat, where they get blamed for the president's refusal to compromise. But for Obama, there are risks, too. One is that the government shutdown happens, and nobody cares much -- which has pretty much been the story of the sequester, our last budget bugbear. Faced with a tiny percentage cut in government, most voters yawned, or cheered, or moved on oblivious. Obama's biggest worry should be that if big government shuts down, the same thing will happen. Another risk is that a shutdown will contribute to an already growing sense of chaos and incompetence at the top. Obama can blame Republicans all he wants, but his party controls the White House and one house of Congress -- two-thirds of the elected levers of power in Washington. If he can't run the country with the White House and the Senate ... well, maybe he just can't run the country. After Syria, he's lost a lot of credibility abroad; if he can't keep the government from shutting down at home, he's likely to lose credibility here as well, no matter how much finger-pointing he does. Ultimately, if the country seems to be in chaos, it's the president who gets blamed. The truth is, Obama would be better off cutting a deal with the Republicans. ObamaCare implementation, scheduled for Oct. 1, is going terribly and it seems very unlikely that it will be anything other than what former supporter Sen. Max Baucus , D-Mont., correctly characterized as a " train wreck ." In fact, they've already had to implement delays and exemptions because of problems. And now there's word that the software doesn't work . Instead of refusing to negotiate, Obama should be trying to work something out, instead of engaging in brinkmanship. With better leadership, in fact, we wouldn't be in this fight at all. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee and the author of The New School : How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself. He blogs at InstaPundit.com . In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors .

This wasn't a counsel of despair. If anything, This Time Is Different should have been taken as a well-timed warning to respond to this recession even more forcefully than usual. What was needed was for the federal government to apply the same urgency to rescuing the economy that it had to rescuing the banks. No Stimulus For You In every recent recession, rising government spending provided a backstop to the recovery except this one. Our general economic problem, after all, was similar to the banking system's. Everyone suddenly needed to pay down all that debt they had taken on so exuberantly during the bubble. In other words, everyone wanted to save, and no one wanted to borrow or spend. This is a recipe for deep and long-lasting disaster, famously described by John Maynard Keynes as the paradox of thrift : Although it's normally a virtue for individuals to save money, it brings the economy to a grinding halt when everyone stops spending at once. Factories are shuttered, workers are laid off, and unemployment skyrockets . The only way to avoid the worst is if someone steps in with massive amounts of spending to keep the economy afloat until everyone's bills are paid down and normal life resumes. The federal government is the only logical candidate for this rescue operation, and with recovery still perilously weak in 2010, the obvious response would have been a second dose of stimulus spending. But the political world was already moving in the opposite direction. Republicans had voted against President Obama's first stimulus bill almost unanimously , and there was little reason to think they'd be any more receptive to a second round. Nor was it just Republicans. By the fall of 2009, with the economy still on life support, the Wall Street Journal was already reporting that there was internal disagreement within the White House about whether to push for more stimulus or to begin a pivot toward addressing the country's mounting deficits. In the end, for reasons both political and ideological, Obama decided that he needed to demonstrate that he took the deficit seriously, and in his 2010 State of the Union address he did just that. "Families across the country are tightening their belts," he said, and the federal government should do the same. To that end, he announced a three-year spending freeze and the formation of a bipartisan committee to address the long-term deficit. The Beltway establishment may have applauded Obama's pivot to the deficit, but much of the economic community saw it as nothing short of a debacle. Sure, there were still a few economists who believed that even in a deep recession government spending merely crowded out private spending and thus did no good, but they were a distinct minority. Most economists acknowledged that deficit spending was appropriate at a time like this. Paul Krugman fumed that Obama was cravenly trying to score political points by doing a " deficit peacock-strut " that would be destructive in the wake of the financial crisis. Mark Zandi, a centrist economist who has advised leaders of both parties, used more judicious language, but likewise warned that spending cuts might " cost the economy significantly in the longer run ." Triumph of the Deficit Hawks Annual federal spending deficit (in http://mohammedktns.blogs.experienceproject.com/2293692.html billions) It was at this point, with the political world still wavering between stimulus and austerity, that Reinhart and Rogoff waded in with their explosive paper, " Growth in a Time of Debt ." It was couched in the usual sober language of academic economists, but its takeaway was simple: Contrary to conventional economic wisdombut in keeping with the arguments of tea party Republicans and austerity enthusiasts worldwidedeficit spending actually might hurt rather than help economies recovering from a recession. After an exhaustive review of government debt levels throughout history, they concluded that there was a hard threshold beyond which government debt got so high, it could actually tank the economy. When debt was between 0 and 90 percent of GDP, there was no problem. But when debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP, economic growth was cut in half. Their paper couldn't have been timelier if it had been issued as a traffic alert during rush hour. The month it was published, US debtfueled by two years of recession-starved tax receipts, increased outlays on the unemployed, and an $800 billion stimulus billticked over from 89 percent to 91 percent . Obviously, we were doomed. The R&R paper, Krugman said , "may have had more immediate influence on public debate than any previous paper in the history of economics." It's not that they were the first economists ever to warn of the dangers of deficit spending. There had always been plenty of those. But Reinhart and Rogoff really seemed to deliver the goods. It was no longer a matter of whether deficit spending was helpful in principlean argument that had been going on for decades and showed little prospect of ever being resolved. Even if it was, they seemed to say, it just didn't matter. In this particular recession, we were already past the 90 percent danger point where further debt would have disastrous future consequences. And with that, the trajectory of the next three years was set: It would be austerity as far as the eye could see. Reinhart and Rogoff's conclusions were featured in newspapers around the world . They were cited by columnists. They testified before Congress . The head of the European Union's commission on economic policy used their findings to justify sharp spending cuts designed to reduce government debt in Greece, Italy, and Spain. American deficit hawks were singing the same song. Future VP nominee Paul Ryan warned that a debt level above 90 percent "intensifies the risk of a debt-fueled economic crisis." Republicans eagerly jumped on the Ryan bandwagon, and frightened Democrats went along. "We're past the danger zone," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), head of the Senate Budget Committee, said at the time . Government spending at all levels has declined 7 percent since the publication of Reinhart and Rogoff's paper. The result was predictable: spending cuts and more spending cuts. First came budget deals in 2010 and 2011 that reduced the deficit by $760 billion. Then, in August 2011, Obama struck an agreement with Republicans to resolve the debt ceiling crisis, which produced about $1.1 trillion in spending cuts along with the promise of more from a congressional supercommittee. At the end of 2012, the fiscal-cliff showdown resulted in $850 billion in tax increases and spending cuts.

EDT September 23, 2013 The majority of Americans don't want the flawed ObamaCare, so why is the president pushing it? House Speaker John Boehner and fellow House Republicans on Friday after passing the budget bill that would defund ObamaCare. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP) Story Highlights Forty-five percent of U.S. adults say that the Affordable Care Act will make health care in the U.S. worse. Obama would be better off cutting a deal with the Republicans. It is Obama, not House Republicans, who is putting the country at risk of a government shutdown. SHARE 790 CONNECT 453 TWEET 72 COMMENTEMAILMORE So the Republican-controlled House of Representatives -- with the help of a couple of Democrats -- has voted to defund ObamaCare. In response, President Obama, declaring that the Republicans are "trying to mess with me," has accused the House of trying to shut down the government. But the government will only shut down if Obama vetoes the budget that comes to his desk. The House budget funds everything except for implementation of the Affordable Care Act better known as ObamaCare. In truth, by refusing even to negotiate with the House leadership and threatening to veto a budget that doesn't fit his own specifications, it is Obama, not the House of Representatives, who is putting the country at risk of a government shutdown. COLUMN: The wrong way to reduce poverty It's also sadly typical that Obama sees this debate as being all about him. The Republicans aren't trying to overturn a deeply unpopular bill that was crammed through on a party-line vote despite widespread opposition by Republicans and Democrats. They're "trying to mess with" Obama. It's not about policies or governance, it's about personalities. Now Obama wants to do what Bill Clinton did to Newt Gingrich : Provoke a government shutdown that can be blamed on the House GOP. But there are problems. First, of course, Obama is no Bill Clinton: As the debacle over Syria, the defeat on gun control, and the disappearance of the once-trumpeted immigration initiative indicate, he's no political wizard. Indeed, one reason, I suspect, that he's set down a red line on ObamaCare is that it's pretty much the only legislative accomplishment he can claim as his legacy. The problem with that is that ObamaCare was unpopular in 2010 (that's why Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who crammed it through, is no longer speaker, but a minority figure in a GOP-controlled House). ObamaCare has become, if anything, even more unpopular now as costs have risen way beyond projections even as the number of people covered has shrunk to less than half of what was advertised. People are losing their insurance -- or their jobs -- as policies are canceled and employers shift to part-time hiring in order to escape ObamaCare's onerous restrictions. It's no wonder that an NBC poll a week ago found that 45% of U.S. adults say that the Affordable Care Act will make the health care situation in the U.S. worse, while only 23% say the law will make it better. And as ABC notes, currently 52% oppose the law, and, even more striking : "In 16 ABC-Post polls since August 2009, it has never received majority support." Now, in spite of these sentiments, Obama will negotiate with Iran or Syria, but not with the House Republicans. And if the Senate passes the House bill and sends it to him, Obama will presumably enforce this red line and veto the budget, plunging the nation into a government shutdown. That has risks for everyone. The GOP, of course, didn't do so well in the Gingrich-Clinton faceoff, and many Republican leaders obviously fear a repeat, where they get blamed for the president's refusal to compromise. But for Obama, there are risks, too. One is that the government shutdown happens, and nobody cares much -- which has pretty much been the story of the sequester, our last budget bugbear. Faced with a tiny percentage cut in government, most voters yawned, or cheered, or moved on oblivious. Obama's biggest worry should be that if big government shuts down, the same thing will happen. Another risk is that a shutdown will contribute to an already growing sense of chaos and incompetence at the top. Obama can blame Republicans all he wants, but his party controls the White House and one house of Congress -- two-thirds of the elected levers of power in Washington. If he can't run the country with the White House and the Senate ... well, maybe he just can't run the country. After Syria, he's lost a lot of credibility abroad; if he can't keep the government from shutting down at home, he's likely to lose credibility here as well, no matter how much finger-pointing he does. Ultimately, if the country seems to be in chaos, it's the president who gets blamed. The truth is, Obama would be better off cutting a deal with the Republicans. ObamaCare implementation, scheduled for Oct. 1, is going terribly and it seems very unlikely that it will be anything other than what former supporter Sen. Max Baucus , D-Mont., correctly characterized as a " train wreck ." In fact, they've already had to implement delays and exemptions because of problems. And now there's word that the software doesn't work . Instead of refusing to negotiate, Obama should be trying to work something out, instead of engaging in brinkmanship. With better leadership, in fact, we wouldn't be in this fight at all. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is professor of law at the University of Tennessee and the author of The New School : How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

His violent, sometimes sadistic imagery is attributed to this malaise, as too is the emotional insight brought to a traditionally static and formal discipline. As with most ukiyo-e artists, not very much is known of Yoshitoshis life no cache of letters exists such as van Goghs correspondence with his brother. Judging Yoshitoshis achievement on the basis of the work alone can be difficult since so much criticism seeks to explain his great achievements through individualism; a western trope not best fitted to such a different culture. The key date in the work (and the life) of Yoshitoshi is 1871. Prior to this date there is little to distinguish his own style from that of Kuniyoshi to whom he was apprenticed. Kuniyoshis death in 1861 appears to have saddened Yoshitoshi, but worse was the deteriorating political situation of the decade which naturally had an effect not only on Yoshitoshi but on all of his fellow students and the population at large. Whilst a great deal is made of the bloodiness of his early work, it is a natural adjunct to Kuniyoshis own violent imagery and the fact that during this time there was an effective and drawn out civil war which was to decide not only the political future of Japan but its cultural direction as well. The print illustrated (above left) shows Ichikawa Sadanji as Obo Kichiza from the playSannin Kichiza.The strong resemblance to KuniyoshisThe Famous Yakigome(right) of 1852 is not coincidental. In nineteenth century Japan, it was customary for young artists to be apprenticed to established figures and to adopt their ways in all things including style. Apprentices served not only to help out on the day to day work of the artist but also to continue their legacy after death. This is particularly true of the young Yoshitoshi; Kuniyoshis work was explicitly bloody in the way that his rivals Kunisada or Hiroshige for example were not, and Yoshitoshi continued that tradition. In 1868, as the ongoing unrest festered, Imperial forces gained control of the royal palace in Kyoto, proclaiming the new Meiji age (Enlightened Rule). Elements of the weakened Shogunate army and sundry militias fell back on Edo and were finally defeated at the battle of Ueno, within sight of the city. Yoshitoshi and Toshikage rushed to the battlefield and witnessed the aftermath of the carnage with their own eyes. Its hard at this distance to imagine the horror of such a battle small by samurai standards, but nevertheless gruesome and visceral to onlookers. There seems to be little doubt that the experience of the defeat had a profound effect on Yoshitoshi. The bloodiness may well have been upsetting but there is little doubt that Yoshitoshis sympathy lay with the old traditions of Japan its theatre, its traditions, stories and arts. The evisceration of the combatants was a literal image of the evisceration of an entire and embedded culture and it is this analogy that becomes Yoshitoshis real subject in the work that immediately followed the revolution.The unintended effect of the Boshin wars of of the 1860s was to separate the people from their culture a rejection of a feudal past and the embracing of a modern, mainly foreign imperialist future. Yoshitoshis immediate response was to design an astonishing series of prints titled Yoshitoshis Selection of 100 Warriors in 1869 (right). Each half-length portrait features warriors of history and there is an assumed commentary on contemporary events, lost to us now. They are perhaps comparable in subject, in treatment and at a personal level with GoyasThe Disasters of War - a series of etchings done under similar stress. Yoshitoshi shows first hand accounts of bloodied and mutilated warriors; some seem to be deliberately antagonistic Sakuma Daigaku drinking blood from a severed head or Sagino Ike Heikuro holding a severed head under his arm, for example. Nevertheless, the drawing and depictions retain the Utagawa School conventions of his teacher and there is a great deal of Kuniyoshis influence from series such as 100 Heroic Generals in Battle at Kawanakajima from 1845. Yoshitoshi disappears from the scene after this series, re-emerging in 1872, with a small commissioned series, Essays by Yoshitoshi . These prints are wholly different in subject and in style not only to the work of Kuniyoshi but also to all of his previous works. In the short set of work, Yoshitoshi portrays characters from history and legend conventional enough, except that each piece is handled with real delicacy, the prints are rich in chiaroscuro andbokashishading, the influences are western, to some extent, but also from the little known Kano school of painting. Key to that development is Yoshitoshis friendship with the artist Kobayashi. They worked closely together in 1870 and there is a curious set of nine paintings - Body of a Courtesan in 9 stages of Decomposition from 1870 (below) which chimes with Yoshitoshis subject matter and hints at the new stylistic direction that he was taking. Looking at the early series of Yoshitoshi, it is hard to see where his reputation for violent imagery and sadistic brutality comes from. His series of Suikoden Heroes is a reworking of the themes and images of Kuniyoshi as is the bulk of his work up to 1870. After the caesura of 1871 his work is primarily concerned with the elegant depiction of real women their emotions, their pastimes etc and with the restrained imagery of ghosts and mythology. His debt to Kuniyoshi is evident in even the subject matter of these great visionary designs and the ghost of his teacher lingers in the draughtsmanship and the daring of his compositions. The primary influence in the late works though, must be from the Japanese paintings of the Kano School and his increasing awareness of western art. His art is bound to reflect violence since there were few topics open to ukiyo-e artists in the nineteenth century. Yoshitoshi chose not to make prints of the theatre leaving him myth and history as his principal subjects. That his career, like Goyas should span a bloody and divisive civil war would only push him towards those unflinching depictions as a matter of course more than a matter of psychology or sensibility. Too much is made of his madness and it is unhelpful that scholarly books are subtitledBeauty and Violence,The Bizarre Imagery of YoshitoshiorYoshitoshis Strange Tales. His many triptychs of civil war that followed his 1870 breakdown are, even by the standards of the day, modest and restrained. His New Forms ofthe 36 Ghosts , manages to illustrate thirty-six supernatural stories without showing a single demon (above right). It unlikely that someone with pathological or psychotic tendencies would (untreated) desist from distressing imagery if that imagery really was a significant part of their illness. The later works are consistent with his new found style, that is to say that they hover (quite comfortably) between the past and the new Meiji style with its attendant western influence. Yoshitoshi was not alone in his struggles to find a contemporary mode. His sometime collaborator Kunichika is rarely credited with influencing the emergent Yoshitoshi and yet Kunichikas very personal and very modern style is clearly evident in Yoshitoshis prints of the 1880s especially in the great series of his contemporary portraits of women.

Sent! A link has been sent to your friend's email address. 20 To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs Occupy Wall Street group puts 'zombie' debt to rest Shirley and Norbert Logsdon thought her medical debt was already paid -- then they got a letter from the Rolling Jubilee fund saying the New-York based non-profit had covered the bill. Jere Downs, The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal 8:36 p.m. EDT May 10, 2013 Non-profit group buys old debt in credit markets like the collection agencies do. Like this zombie from AMC's "The Walking Dead," "zombie" debt can crawl out from anywhere and bite you. But one non-profit is killing the old uncollected debt by buying bundles of it on the credit markets for pennies on the dollar, just like the debt collectors do. (Photo: Gene Page, AP) The group doesn't try to collect on the supposedly delinquent payments Instead, it sends letters to the debtors saying their obligation is forgiven People are grateful the debt is gone but irritated that it was still around SHARE 811 CONNECT 205 TWEET 20 COMMENTEMAILMORE LOUISVILLE, Ky. An offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement has bought more than $1 million in old medical bills in this area and freed the debtors from the obligation of paying it off. The New York-based nonprofit Rolling Jubilee fund says it is in the process of buying almost $12 million in outstanding old bills nationwide for pennies on the dollar in an effort to liberate debtors who often cannot afford to pay. And it intends to buy more as it gets more money from donors. STORY: Bill collectors get tough, complaints surge "It is the Rolling Jubilee's position that it is making a tax-free gift to the people whose debt it is abolishing," the organization says on its website. This debt is unpaid bills that creditors sell to collection agencies at a discount and collection agencies sell among themselves, what Rolling Jubilee calls a "shadowy speculative market of debt buyers who then turn around and try to collect the full amount from debtors." Sometimes those debts have been paid off, were settled in bankruptcy court or had an expiration on their statute of limitations. But debt collectors often try to revive a claim, cajoling a debtor to make even a small payment so the entire debt can be resurrected legally. Critics call this "zombie" debt because obligations that people thought were long dead come back to haunt them and can get new life if a debtor gets intimidated and makes the wrong moves. "We're going into this market not to make a profit but to help each other out and highlight how the predatory debt system affects our families and communities," the Rolling Jubilee Fund says. "Think of it as a bailout of the 99% by the 99%." Shirley Logsdon, 80, is one of 1,064 people in the Louisville area who has benefited. She thought Medicare had paid her delinquent $983 bill for back pain care last year. That's what her doctor told her after a 2011 dispute during which the bill had gone to a collection agency, she said. "I am very happy that somebody paid it," said Logsdon, the first debtor in this area to publicly identify herself. "In fact, I had quit worrying about it when we didn't get any more notices that we owed it." Norbert Logsdon, seated, and his wife, Shirley Logsdon, are happy that her medical debt, just under $1,000, was abolished thanks to the efforts of the Rolling Jubilee fund, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street. (Photo: Sam Upshaw Jr., The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky.) Rolling Jubilee spokesman Thomas Gokey said all of the half dozen or so Louisville-area debtors who contacted the fund after being notified last month that their debt was forgiven said they were unaware their medical bills still were owed. Each got a letter from Strike Debt, the sponsor of Rolling Jubilee, like the one Logsdon received, telling her she no longer owed the $983. "It is gone, a no-strings-attached gift," the letter said. Logsdon said she was relieved but also irritated because she thought insurance had already paid a reaction that Gokey said was typical of those who didn't know their debt still was sloshing around in the financial system. The $1.12 million in Louisville-area debt bought by the Rolling Jubilee Fund came from six physicians here, said Fred Melroy, the billing and finance director for the medical practice management firm CureMD in New York City. In January, the Rolling Jubilee fund purchased the entire bundle for $10,000. Melroy said the doctors, who work for Louisville Inpatient Physician Services, want anyone who received a letter from Strike Debt to know that they indeed are free from those debts. "I would believe that any patient with disputed debt would welcome a letter saying for whatever reason we are canceling your debt," he said. Medicare and Aetna, Logsdon's former insurance company, had disputed who should pay her bill, But Melroy said an investigation Tuesday, prompted by a Courier-Journal query, concluded that Medicare should have paid it. The doctors' previous billing agency is to blame for not sorting that out sooner, he said. It is gone, a no-strings-attached gift. Rolling Jubilee fund in a letter that forgives debt Melroy said his company became responsible for collecting the doctors' receivables in 2011. The physicians were unsure which of the delinquent medical debts their previous billing agency managed already had been paid. Instead, they decided to sell the debt for an average 1 cent on the dollar to the Rolling Jubilee Fund. "The last thing they would want would be to harass any patient whose debt was not validated or could not pay for economic reasons," Melroy said in an email. "They kept sending me bills saying the insurance company refused it and Medicare refused it, and then finally, they turned it over to a collection agency," said Logsdon's 83-year-old husband, Norbert. Shirley Logsdon's medical records, which she provided, show she had an overnight hospital stay and diagnostic tests, including an X-ray and CAT scan. Logsdon's daughter, Mary Ann Seger, said the numerous phone calls with her mother, the doctors' office and the collection agency in 2012 were "a nightmare." Then the collection agency stopped calling. "We assumed everything was good," Seger said. She had mixed feelings about the notice from Rolling Jubilee that the debt had been paid off. "It keeps coming back," Seger said. "You can't kill it. If it had been billed properly and handled properly, the debt wouldn't even have been there." Since the recession, the debt collection industry has ballooned, according to the Federal Trade Commission. But the way the delinquent debts are sold, as a bundle of thousands of different debts, can lead to errors. Debt less than 3 years old was verified to be accurate just 58% of the time, said an FTC report called The Structure & Practices of the Debt Buying Industry. "Confusion is the grease that keeps the wheels of the medical collections industry turning," Gokey said. Meanwhile, Logsdon said she was "tired of fooling with this." "When you step in it, it takes a long time to get it off your shoe," she said. "It just lingers and lingers and lingers." SHARE 811 CONNECT 205 TWEET 20 COMMENTEMAILMORE Looking for a Job?

Technically, the Great Recession had ended several months earlier . But the economic reality of working Americans remained bleak. The unemployment rate continued to hover near 10 percent . A broader measure that includes discouraged job seekers and those forced to accept part-time work was near 17 percent . GDP was growing again after a disastrous 2009, but at an anemic rate of about 2 percent a year. Wage growth, adjusted for inflation, was actually negative : Salaries were shrinking, and still no one was getting work. The obsession with cutting back cost us 2 percent in GDP growthand as many as 3 million jobs. The problem, from an economist's perspective, was a simple one: The housing bubble had burst, and banks were stuck with enormous losses on their housing-related securities . They desperately needed to sell assets to remain solvent, but when everyone wants to sell all at once, and nobody wants to buy, the result is a death spiral: Falling prices require ever more asset sales, which in turn produce ever steeper price drops and further asset sales. This vicious cycle eventually transformed an ordinary recession into something far more threateninga banking crisis recession. Ironically, it was none other than Reinhart and Rogoff who had warned us of this in their magisterialand sardonically titledstudy of financial crises throughout history, This Time Is Different . They found that while government action might rescue broken financial systems fairly quickly (in this latest case via bank bailouts and emergency cash injections by the Federal Reserve), the wider recessions brought on by financial crises typically last a very long time. Five years is hardly unusual. This wasn't a counsel of despair. If anything, This Time Is Different should have been taken as a well-timed warning to respond to this recession even more forcefully than usual. What was needed was for the federal government to apply the same urgency to rescuing the economy that it had to rescuing the banks. No Stimulus For You In every recent recession, rising government spending provided a backstop to the recovery except this one. Our general economic problem, after all, was similar to the banking system's. Everyone suddenly needed to pay down all that debt they had taken on so exuberantly during the bubble. In other words, everyone wanted to save, and no one wanted to borrow or spend. This is a recipe for deep and long-lasting disaster, famously described by John Maynard Keynes as the paradox of thrift : Although it's normally a virtue for individuals to save money, it brings the economy to a grinding halt when everyone stops spending at once. Factories are shuttered, workers are laid off, and unemployment skyrockets . The only way to avoid the worst is if someone steps in with massive amounts of spending to keep the economy afloat until everyone's bills are paid down and normal life resumes. The federal government is the only logical candidate for this rescue operation, and with recovery still perilously weak in 2010, the obvious response would have been a second dose of stimulus spending. But the political world was already moving in the opposite direction. Republicans had voted against President Obama's first stimulus bill almost unanimously , and there was little reason to think they'd be any more receptive to a second round. Nor was it just Republicans. By the fall of 2009, with the economy still on life support, the Wall Street Journal was already reporting that there was internal disagreement within the White House about whether to push for more stimulus or to begin a pivot toward addressing the country's mounting deficits. In the end, for reasons both political and ideological, Obama decided that he needed to demonstrate that he took the deficit seriously, and in his 2010 State of the Union address he did just that. "Families across the country are tightening their belts," he said, and the federal government should do the same. To that end, he announced a three-year spending freeze and the formation of a bipartisan committee to address the long-term deficit. The Beltway establishment may have applauded Obama's pivot to the deficit, but much of the economic community saw it as nothing short of a debacle. Sure, there were still a few economists who believed that even in a deep recession government spending merely crowded out private spending and thus did no good, but they were a distinct minority. Most economists acknowledged that deficit spending was appropriate at a time like this. Paul Krugman fumed that Obama was cravenly trying to score political points by doing a " deficit peacock-strut " that would be destructive in the wake of the financial crisis. Mark Zandi, a centrist economist who has advised leaders of both parties, used more judicious language, but likewise warned that spending cuts might " cost the economy significantly in the longer run ." Triumph of the Deficit Hawks Annual federal spending deficit (in billions) It was at this point, with the political world still wavering between stimulus and austerity, that Reinhart and Rogoff waded in with their explosive paper, " Growth in a Time of Debt ." It was couched in the usual sober language of academic economists, but its takeaway was simple: Contrary to conventional economic wisdombut in keeping with the arguments of tea party Republicans and austerity enthusiasts worldwidedeficit spending actually might hurt rather than help economies recovering from a recession. After an exhaustive review of government debt levels throughout history, they concluded that there was a hard threshold beyond which government debt got so high, it could actually tank the economy. When debt was between 0 and 90 percent of GDP, there was no problem. But when debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP, economic growth was cut in half. Their paper couldn't have been timelier if it had been issued as a traffic alert during rush hour. The month it was published, US debtfueled by two years of recession-starved tax receipts, increased outlays on the unemployed, and an $800 billion stimulus billticked over from 89 percent to 91 percent .

In fact, itas hard to tell what Congress knows. Congress must know that a default will most likely result in a credit downgrade and increase the interest rate on government borrowing, a needless increase in the cost of Americaas debt service by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade or two. But there is so much more that could go wrong in a dimly understood and still fragile financial system. Does anyone in Congress have a clue, for instance, what the possible consequence might be of downgrading the asset used as collateral in untold trillions of dollars in global financial transactions? Before the Great Depression, America saw frequent panics and bank runs when depositors rushed to get their money out before the bankas rumored failure. The result of widespread bank failures was often economic collapse and depression. The events that triggered the panics were rarely anticipated. New Deal reforms - safety and soundness regulation and deposit insurance - largely ended those old-fashioned bank runs by depositors. The newfangled shadow banking system, on the other hand, is disturbingly vulnerable to runs. The ashadow banking systema is an imprecise term for various forms of lightly regulated, typically short-term lending outside traditional commercial bank lending from customersa deposits. Most shadow bank loans between financial institutions are couched as the sale of an asset with a contract to repurchase, usually the next day. The Federal Reserve estimates the scale of this arepoa lending at about $4.6 trillion on any given day, down 35 percent from the peak before the financial crisis. The financial industry argues that repo lending is secured and safe. The lender can keep the asset to satisfy the loan if the borrower fails to pay, so the asset is collateral. Any question about the value of the assets used, however, creates instability. When the repo market froze five years ago, largely out of concern for mortgage-backed securities used as collateral, Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson came to Capitol Hill with fear in their eyes. The assets most commonly used for repo lending now are US Treasurys. On top of that, there are hundreds of trillions of dollars in open derivatives. US Treasurys are also collateral for many derivatives contracts. The catastrophic potential of a sudden flood of demands for more collateral should be obvious by now. American International Group would have collapsed without government intervention when the giant insurance firmas customers demanded more collateral for credit default swaps, a derivative contract in which one party must pay the other if there is a default on a specific debt. AIGas customers had the contractual right to require more collateral if bonds subject to credit default swaps looked shaky. Somehow, AIG never considered the possibility that they would, or at least not so many at once. MF Global, a derivatives trader, purchased Italian sovereign debt a couple of years ago at distressed prices with repo loans. The collateral for the loans was the Italian debt itself. MF Globalas calculation was that the Italian government would be good for the debt despite the marketas concerns. The firm stood to make a killing by holding the debt to maturity without default. The Italian government did not default, but the market became antsier about the possibility. MF Globalas shadow bank lenders demanded more collateral when the bonds declined further in value. The firm did not have more collateral and went bankrupt. aItas hard for me to believe MF Global did not realize that it faced exactly this kind of risk,a financial blogger John Carney wrote at the time. aItas very similar to the kinds of risks that brought down American International Group. How could they be so dumb?a Admittedly, S&Pas slight downgrade of US federal government debt two years ago produced not even a shrug from the shadow banking system and some fluctuation in the value of assets is inevitable. It would probably take a significant downgrade to have much effect. But what would be the consequence for the financial system if parties in a significant number of transactions secured by US Treasurys suddenly demanded more collateral? Most firms are not stretched as tight as MF Global or AIG, but some might be. And many firms might have to retrench, perhaps drastically. AIGas and MF Globalas failure to anticipate demands for more collateral was perplexing, since they were thought to be smart and to have a sophisticated understanding of the financial system. Does anyone think that about Congress? AT/ARA

This is reported in the European Payment Index 2013 Industry White Paper. As a whole EUR 350 billion i.e. 3.0 percent of all business transactions made in a year had to be written off as a consequence of late or non-payment. Among the worst hit industry sectors are the Construction industry, the Healthcare industry, the Professional Services industry and the Media industry where bad debt losses continue to rise. The steepest increase in bad debt losses are seen in the Media and Business Services industries, up 25% and 19% respectively compared to 2012. European Businesses were forced to write off a record total of 350 billion or 3.0 percent of all transactions made in 2012 as a consequence of late or non-payments. Money that could be used to invest in innovation, job creation and expansion. The European Payment Index 2013 Industry White paper also shows that this burden is not spread evenly across the different industry sectors Professional Services (for example accountants, actuaries, architects, recruiters) being hit the hardest with a level of bad debt losses of 4.5 percent. "Late- and non-payment has reached such dire proportions that it represents a major obstacle to a sustainable economic recovery in Europe. Suffering from seriously delayed payment and banks unwilling to lend leaves many smaller firms little room to put their finances into shape as their liquidity shrivels at unprecedented speed, says Lars Wollung, President & CEO of Intrum Justitia. In this years EPI 2013 survey the Construction & Building industry, the Media industry and the Education industry have to write off well above average, whilst Utilities, Transportation and Manufacturing are doing better than the average. Last year the Healthcare industry showed the steepest increase in bad debt having to be written off, a trend that continues with a 7 percent increase to a level of 3.5 percent, however with some signs of long-term improvement. While the level of bad debt losses in the Health care industry has continued to rise this year, the pace is lower and we see that the sector as a whole waits fewer days to hand over a claim that has fallen due, to a professional partner. Also a larger share of the respondents do use professional partners to deal with the problem of late payment. These are encouraging signs, says Lars Wollung. The highest increase in bad debt loss is seen in the Media industry where 3.5 percent of all transactions had to be written off as payment loss, an increase of 25 percent. The media industry does not show any further positive numbers, 63 percent of the respondents mentioned loss of income due to late payments and 58 percent mentioned to have liquidity problems. As much as 54 percent predict payment risks from their debtors for the coming 12 months. Overall this industry paints a worrying picture for the months to come. Although the picture painted in our report may seem troublesome there are measures companies can take to protect themselves. There is a lot that can be done to help the businesses in boosting their results. We see that businesses that know their customers and implement efficient credit policies get paid earlier and have to write off a smaller percentage off sales, comments Lars Wollung. To get the European Payment Index Industry White Paper 2013 in full, please visit us at www.intrum.com. How can you boost your company? Lars Wollung, CEO & President Intrum Justitia, advices: Create, continuously develop and implement a balanced and solid credit policy to manage your risks and growth. Measure and follow up on the capital employed in your credit management process to reduce cost of capital. Make sure you identified the customer you are doing business with. Make a clear agreement with your customer stating all conditions for your business. Integrate sales, marketing and financial department, and ensure an efficient invoicing process to avoid defaults. Implement customer address checks regularly. Monitor economic and industry information, as well as the solvency of key customers. Reduce your loss of customers and strengthen your customer relations by customizing your credit process based on payment behavior and ability to pay. Implement swift reminders and charge default interest when possible. Balance your customer structure based on risk and growth potential. Always take immediate action to get paid. For more in depth info goto www.intrum.com. About Intrum Justitia Intrum Justitia is Europes leading Credit Management Services (CMS) group and offers services designed to measurably improve clients cash flows and long-term profitability, including purchase of receivables. Founded in 1923, Intrum Justitia has some 3,500 employees in 20 countries. Intrum Justitia AB has been listed on NASDAQ OMX Stockholm since 2002. For further information, please visit www.intrum.com. About the European Payment Index 2013 Industry White Paper The survey was conducted simultaneously in 28 countries earlier in 2013. The survey was conducted in written form and almost 10,000 companies responded. The questionnaire was translated into the respective national languages. Dispatch and return of the questionnaires were carried out on a decentralized basis by the countries concerned, whereas the analysis was carried out centrally in accordance with predetermined guidelines. All information has been verified and uncertainties were not included in the evaluation. Companies in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were questioned online by a specialized company (BING Research). For further information, please contact: Annika Billberg, IR & Communications Director Direct: + 46 8 546 102 03 Mobile: + 46 702 67 97 91 Madeleine Bosch, Group Marketing Manager/ Head of EPI Research, Intrum Justitia Mobile: 0031 64 6212 579

This is reported in the European Payment Index 2013 Industry White Paper. As a whole EUR 350 billion i.e. 3.0 percent of all business transactions made in a year had to be written off as a consequence of late or non-payment. Among the worst hit industry sectors are the Construction industry, the Healthcare industry, the Professional Services industry and the Media industry where bad debt losses continue to rise. The steepest increase in bad debt losses are seen in the Media and Business Services industries, up 25% and 19% respectively compared to 2012. European Businesses were forced to write off a record total of 350 billion or 3.0 percent of all transactions made in 2012 as a consequence of late or non-payments. Money that could be used to invest in innovation, job creation and expansion. The European Payment Index 2013 Industry White paper also shows that this burden is not spread evenly across the different industry sectors Professional Services (for example accountants, actuaries, architects, recruiters) being hit the hardest with a level of bad debt losses of 4.5 percent. "Late- and non-payment has reached such dire proportions that it represents a major obstacle to a sustainable economic recovery in Europe. Suffering from seriously delayed payment and banks unwilling to lend leaves many smaller firms little room to put their finances into shape as their liquidity shrivels at unprecedented speed, says Lars Wollung, President & CEO of Intrum Justitia. In this years EPI 2013 survey the Construction & Building industry, the Media industry and the Education industry have to write off well above average, whilst Utilities, Transportation and Manufacturing are doing better than the average. Last year the Healthcare industry showed the steepest increase in bad debt having to be written off, a trend that continues with a 7 percent increase to a level of 3.5 percent, however with some signs of long-term improvement. While the level of bad debt losses in the Health care industry has continued to rise this year, the pace is lower and we see that the sector as a whole waits fewer days to hand over a claim that has fallen due, to a professional partner. Also a larger share of the respondents do use professional partners to deal with the problem of late payment. These are encouraging signs, says Lars Wollung. The highest increase in bad debt loss is seen in the Media industry where 3.5 percent of all transactions had to be written off as payment loss, an increase of 25 percent. The media industry does not show any further positive numbers, 63 percent of the respondents mentioned loss of income due to late payments and 58 percent mentioned to have liquidity problems. As much as 54 percent predict payment risks from their debtors for the coming 12 months. Overall this industry paints a worrying picture for the months to come. Although the picture painted in our report may seem troublesome there are measures companies can take to protect themselves. There is a lot that can be done to help the businesses in boosting their results. We see that businesses that know their customers and implement efficient credit policies get paid earlier and have to write off a smaller percentage off sales, comments Lars Wollung. To get the European Payment Index Industry White Paper 2013 in full, please visit us at www.intrum.com. How can you boost your company? Lars Wollung, CEO & President Intrum Justitia, advices: Create, continuously develop and implement a balanced and solid credit policy to manage your risks and growth. Measure and follow up on the capital employed in your credit management process to reduce cost of capital. Make sure you identified the customer you are doing business with. Make a clear agreement with your customer stating all conditions for your business. Integrate sales, marketing and financial department, and ensure an efficient invoicing process to avoid defaults. Implement customer address checks regularly. Monitor economic and industry information, as well as the solvency of key customers. Reduce your loss of customers and strengthen your customer relations by customizing your credit process based on payment behavior and ability to pay. Implement swift reminders and charge default interest when possible. Balance your customer structure based on risk and growth potential. Always take immediate action to get paid. For more in depth info goto www.intrum.com. About Intrum Justitia Intrum Justitia is Europes leading Credit Management Services (CMS) group and offers services designed to measurably improve clients cash flows and long-term profitability, including purchase of receivables. Founded in 1923, Intrum Justitia has some 3,500 employees in 20 countries. Intrum Justitia AB has been listed on NASDAQ OMX Stockholm since 2002. For further information, please visit www.intrum.com. About the European Payment Index 2013 Industry White Paper The survey was conducted simultaneously in 28 countries earlier in 2013. The survey was conducted in written form and almost 10,000 companies responded. The questionnaire was translated into the respective national languages. Dispatch and return of the questionnaires were carried out on a decentralized basis by the countries concerned, whereas the analysis was carried out centrally in accordance with predetermined guidelines. All information has been verified and uncertainties were not included in the evaluation. Companies in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were questioned online by a specialized company (BING Research). For further information, please contact: Annika Billberg, IR & Communications Director Direct: + 46 8 546 102 03 Mobile: + 46 702 67 97 91 Madeleine Bosch, Group Marketing Manager/ Head of EPI Research, Intrum Justitia Mobile: 0031 64 6212 579

Get Cash For Surveys Getcashforsurveys.com/aff/ - Earn Up To $148.50 Per Sale! Geotargeting, 1 Click Upsells, Downsells, And More! Followup Emails With Your CB Id To Give You Credit! $50 Bonus To New Affiliates! Plus, Check Out Our Other Hot Offer: Getpaidtodraw.com/aff Get Cash For Surveys Your Opinions Matter, Get Paid For Them! get cash for surveys Already a Member? Login here! Now open to Residents of Germany Learn the secrets of a single dad who got out of debt and made over $3,000 per month taking paid surveys online! Hi, I'm Gary Mitchell. This is my story... Everyday when I wake up I make breakfast for my daughter and drive her to school. I usually work out and run some errands before I head back home to get to "work". It's hard to even call it "work" though, because all I do is give my opinion on products and web sites and I get paid CASH! Companies need our opinions to make their products better so they can make even more money and will pay very well! The best part is that ANYONE can take paid surveys. It doesn't matter if you're young or old, man or woman, or what language you speak! You WILL get paid for your opinion! It's hard to believe how great my life is now because it wasn't always like this... A few years ago, I was heavily in debt... Four years ago I lost my job at a manufacturing plant producing popular toys for kids. You can probably guess what happened since it has been happening all over the world, my company "moved" all production to China and told me I was fired. What happened after getting fired was years of struggling to take care of my family and lots of nights with no sleep worrying about what I was going to do. I was forced to start using my credit cards and getting loans from family just to put food on the table for my child. I had credit card bills, student loans... and a young daughter to support! Life was hard... Raising a young daughter on my own meant I had to be around when she got home from school but having a roof over our heads and being able to buy clothes and feed her was my top priority. I spent months searching for another job, but it seemed like every job I applied to was only willing to pay minimum wage with no benefits. I was sad and depressed and didn't know what I was going to do when one of my lifelong friends invited me over to his house for a barbeque. Everything changed when a friend showed me a check they received for taking a survey. I was in shock when my friend showed me a $300 check he had received. What he told me next changed my life forever. "Companies will PAY ME MONEY for my opinion???" I couldn't believe what he was telling me. Why hadn't I heard of this before??? When he told me companies spend BILLIONS per year doing market research, I got really excited and started asking him more and more questions. He taught me everything he knew and I signed up to start taking surveys that same day. Before I knew it, I was getting 5-10 survey invitations a day! Now I was the one getting checks for HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS sent to me EVERY WEEK! Get started NOW! Get started today! I've been taking paid surveys for years now and I know the best ways to get started making money right away even if you have never taken a paid survey before. I will take you by the hand and show you everything you need to do to get started and getting paid today! Iall show you places with hundreds of surveys available today that you can take right away! (Just like these below) Plus, Iall show you how you can get paid to review new products AND get to keep them after submitting your review! Here are some of the free items Iave received in the past month: High tech Blender Tablet computer HD TV Gift Cards Lots of smaller household products AND this was just last month!! Change your Life TODAY!! Fill out the form below to get started taking paid surveys and receive other money making opportunities! GET A SPECIAL BONUS IF YOU JOIN NOW! Your Name: Email Address: get cash for surveys Home Order Contact Us Terms Privacy Earnings Disclaimer Affiliates Copyright 2012-2013 GetCashForSurveys.com

In 1972 Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to curb abuses by the credit bureaus. The FCRA is the governing federal law on the issue of credit reporting. Under the FCRA, you have the right to dispute negative information in your credit report. The credit bureaus then have 30 days to verify the disputed information with the creditor. If they cannot (or do not) verify the disputed information within 30 days, it must be deleted from your credit report. 3. Even accurate data in your credit report must be deleted if its not verified. If youve done any research into credit repair youve no doubt run across statements to the effect of Negative data in your credit report that is accurate cannot be removed. As stated above, the FCRA stipulates that any disputed information must be verified within 30 days, or it must be deleted. The burden of proof (in a manner of speaking), is on the credit bureaus. 4. Credit repair DOES WORK in most cases! Youll hear all kinds of opinions as to whether credit repair (i.e. efforts to improve your credit report) can be successful. The truth is, credit repair doesnt always work perfectly. But in almost every case the process of credit repair will result in at least SOME improvement in your credit score, and most often that improvement is substantial. So credit repair does work! Now you may be wondering why repairing your credit score would be of any concern to the credit bureaus. After all, dont they make money by compiling and distributing credit reports regardless of whether those reports are negative or positive? Well, yes they do, BUTthey also make money (a GREAT DEAL of money) selling names of people with poor credit, to creditors who have a specific interest in those people. So why would some creditors want to bother with people who have poor credit? Because they know they can charge higher interest rates to those people, because the bad credit risks have no choice but to pay those exorbitant rates or forgo credit altogether! Besides, investigating disputed information costs the credit bureaus time, manpower, and money. They have nothing to gain, and plenty to lose, when people take the initiative and dispute negative information on their credit report. 5. Its perfectly legal to hire third party help to repair your credit . There are plenty of http://www.nexopia.com/users/virgiliocgyr/blog/53-gop-leaders-link-debt-hike-cr-fights Credit Repair Agencies who will help you repair your credit. But if a credit bureau even suspects youre using such an agency, its likely theyll try to discourage you from doing so. In some cases theyll even go so far as to send you a letter stating that use of such agencies is illegal. Such statements are (to put it as politely as possible) garbage! In fact there are laws that regulate such agencies. Now laws dont exist to regulate illegal activity, except to ban it! When was the last time you saw laws that regulate what cocaine dealers must do to operate within the law? Once again, repairing a bad credit report just isnt in the best interest of the major credit bureaus. But unless you happen to be the CEO of one of those bureaus, the most important question as far as youre concerned is Whats in MY best interest? First of all, get a copy of your credit report and examine it. You can get a free copy of your report at http://www.annualcreditreport.com. Secondly, take steps to improve your credit report. You can go about it in one of two ways. 1. Hire third party help. If repairing your own credit report sounds too intimidating, there are plenty of credit repair agencies that will do it for you. But if you take this approach, there are three things you need to know. First, theyre not cheap. Expect to pay from $2,500 to $5,000 for an attorney or $795 to $2,000 or more for a credit repair agency. Secondly, they dont always do it right! Some will manage to get the negative data on your credit report removed while actually doing damage to your credit score (a calculated number used by creditors to evaluate you credit worthiness.) Finally, many are outright scams! Thats not to say you shouldnt hire third party help. If you do your home work, ask for references, and carefully select a reputable credit repair agency, youll be much better off than if you had done nothing.

September 22 2013

haydenillh

Canada Needs A Debt Ceiling | Poletical.com

4.6 / 5 from 28 votes Add Review Description Use our free Debt Reduction Calculator to help you eliminate your credit card, auto, student loan, and other debts. Easily create a debt reduction schedule based on the popular debt snowball strategy, or experiment with your own custom strategy. In the first worksheet, you enter your creditor information and your total monthly payment. You'll then see a summary of when each of the debts will be paid off based on the strategy you choose. Screenshot The second worksheet is a payment schedule for you to print to keep track of your progress. You can also see how the snowball increases as you pay off your debts. The download includes 2 Excel files: The debt-reduction-calculator_10.xls file lets you list up to 10 creditors. The debt-reduction-calculator_20.xls file lets you list up to 20 creditors. The .ods file included with the download is for OpenOffice.org users. 3/17/09 Update (version 1.2) - Now includes a Snowball Growth Chart so you can see how the snowball increases and your interest due decreases over time (only in the Excel versions). 1/29/10 Check out our new Credit Repair edition of this calculator. Testimonials "We have multiple rentals, and so mortgage loans. We were paying down each loan, distributing our liquid cash among all the loans evenly. When we fond the debt reduction calculator we ran multiple preprogramed scenarios, and a couple of our own and discovered the optimum method for us. The Debt Reduction Calculator saved us hours of time, a quarter of a million dollars and will result in our paying off all loans in 1/2 the time. Thanks for sharing a great way to evaluate and strategize debt reduction." - Morgen Kimbrell & David Hayhurst "Just wanted to thank you for the debt reduction calculator spreadsheet. It has helped me to get my debt under control and I will be debt free with the exception of my mortgage in a couple months. I started with about $42k of debt and will have paid it off in a little over 2 years with the help of the spreadsheet and insane budgeting." - Lisa related blog articles Using the Debt Reduction Calculator This is how the spreadsheet works: Enter abbreviated names for your the credit card or lending institution, the current balances, and the interest rate information for all of your current debts (including home equity lines of credit or second mortgages). Enter the minimum payment you will make each month for each debt. You may need to verify with your lending institutions what your current minimum payments are. Also, keep in mind that your minimum payment may change over time, depending on interest rates or other issues. Choose the maximum monthly payment that you can pay each month towards your debts, based on your home budget . The difference between the total minimum payments and your total monthly payment is your initial snowball. This initial snowball, or "extra payment", will be applied to the first debt, depending on your chosen strategy. When your first debt is completely paid, the remainder of your snowball is then applied to the NEXT debt, and so on, until all the debts are paid. Warning: It may be tempting to put your full financial strength into paying off your debts. But, be careful. You need to balance your debt reduction goals with the need for an emergency fund and other important financial goals. In these cases, it really CAN be useful to seek the advice of a qualified professional. Debt Reduction Strategies What Debt Reduction Strategies Do You Use? This section describes the different strategies that you can choose within the debt reduction spreadsheet. You may also want to see our Credit Card Payoff Calculator for more information. Unless you choose the "No Snowball" option, ALL of these strategies make use of the snowball "effect" where after you pay off your first debt you roll that payment into helping pay off the next one. For more information, see Dave Ramsey's article on the debt snowball effect , or read his book, "The Total Money Makeover". Debt Snowball (Lowest Balance First): This method is the official debt snowball strategy. The benefit of this method is the psychological effect of seeing the number of debts disappear quickly. According to Dave Ramsey, it's important to build momentum and see success early on. After all, if it was easy to pay off debt, you probably wouldn't need this calculator. :) Debt Avalanche (Highest Interest First): This strategy results in the lowest total interest, but depending on the balance of your higher interest loans, it may take you longer to see your first loan/debt completely paid off. If the difference in the total interest is not significant, than you may get more satisfaction and success from the Lowest Balance First method. No Snowball: Select this option if you want to see how long it will take to pay off the debts based solely on the individual payments you specify (i.e. no snowball effect). In some cases, you may find it will take more than 30 years to pay off some debts.

"At the time I found your program, was actively contemplating bankruptcy. Now, two years later, I've paid off four credit cards, the car, 1 personal loan, and am working on the last credit card and loan. In another six months there should be nothing left but the mortgage! Thank you, thank you, thank you!" Sue Staley Milboro, VA GET OUT OF DEBT NOW! Hi, my name is John Cummuta, and I want to help you own your life instead of wasting all your energy and money renting a lifestyle. There's a huge difference. If you are like most Americans, you have probably painted yourself into a financial corner with a 30 year mortgage, student loans, car loans, multiple credit cards, and even possibly a 2nd mortgage. You are likely living from check to check and renting many of the clothes and toys you just "have to have." And what's even more discouraging is that you will never get out of this quagmire in time to enjoy life if you ever get out at all. I understand why and how you got yourself in this situation. I was once there myself. I was miserable. I know how stressful life can be when you're deep in debt. I'm sorry that you're going through this right now and I want so desperately to help you get out of this awful situation. Please listen as I show you the way to a debt free life, peace of mind, and likely even abundant wealth. You are likely reading this for a reason. I don't believe in chance anymore. 1. THE TRAGEDY OF DEBT 95% of Americans live in debt. Less than 5% of Americans actually retire financially independent. There is a reason we admire those who are able to live a life free of debt; they are a rare breed. I want to show you a simple, Step-By-Step Process for eliminating your debt. Step One: Take out a piece of paper and list all the burdens of debt: Typical items listed here are things like "un-needed stress" and "financial insecurity" or "I have to stay at a job that I hate" or "my wife has to work instead of being home with the kids." Whatever your debt burdens, take a moment and list them all. FACING THE REALITY OF YOUR DEBT If you are currently in debt and have been honest with yourself, Step One was probably a bit of a reality check. Don't worry, there is a light at the end of this tunnel. In fact, it's almost impossible for you to progress through the next steps if you haven't faced the cold hard facts of what debt has really cost you. WHAT IF YOU COULD START OVER? How would you like to own everything in your life? Your home, your cars, your furniture...everything? How would you like to have no debt payments, no mortgage or rent payment, no car loan or lease payments, no credit card payments, no debt payments of any kind? And how would you like to be rapidly building your wealth from the first month? Sound like a dream? Well it's a dream that's coming true for more than a million people all over the world, because they learned the principles taught in my Debt To Wealth program. 2. THE REALITY OF BECOMING DEBT FREE! With John Cummuta's Debt To Wealth program: A typical $60,000 annual income household with $151,639 in total debt, including their mortgage, could be completely debt free, owning their home, two cars, and everything else in their lives in just 5 years 9 months! Step Two: Take out another piece of paper and list all the benefits of being completely debt free: Typical items listed here are things like "more free time to spend with family" and "financial security" or "I can more easily make a career change" or "I own my home and everything in it." Take a moment and list all the benefits of being out of debt. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? DEBT FREE in 5 to 7 years? How is that possible? Here's an example: $2,000 credit card balance; $50 min. payment; 18% interest rate. Applying an additional $50 a month to this debt pays it off in 24 months and you would save $1,985 in interest. You would need to get a 49.5% equivalent rate of return on an investment in order to generate the same $1,985 in 24 months with just a $50 a month investment. If you applied $100 additional to the same debt, it would be paid off in 15 months and you would save $2,268.

But '77-'79 is a sociologically ambiguous no-man's land, and we typically get lumped in with the millennials, especially when it comes to money matters. Go f**k yourselves. You have no idea about student debt , underemployment, life-long renting. "Stop feeling special" is some shitty advice. I don't feel special or entitled, just poor. The only thing that makes me special is I have more ballooning debt than you. I've tempered the hell out of my expectations of work, and I've exceeded those expectations crazily to have one interesting, exciting damned career that's culminated in some leadership roles for national publications. And I'm still poor and in debt and worked beyond the point where it can be managed with my health and my desire to actually see the son I'm helping to raise. Younger journos see me as a success story and ask my advice, and I feel like a fraud, because I'm doing what I love, and it makes me completely miserable and exhausts me. Last weekend my baby had a fever, and we contemplated taking him to the ER, and my first thought washad to be"Oh God, that could wipe out our bank account! Maybe he can just ride it out?" Our status in this Big Financial Game had sucked my basic humanity towards my child away for a minute. If I wish for something better, is that me simply being entitled and delusional? There *are* delusions at play here, but they are not our generation's. They play out as two contradictory lectures that we are told, simultaneously, by our monied elders: This is AMERICA. Everybody does better than their parents! This is AMERICA. Suck it up and quit bitching that you're not as well-off as your parents! The latter maxim lurks in the heart of every critique of millennials. It assumes that if we're worse off than previous generations, the fault is ours, and our complaints are so much white whine. We should shut up and be content, because we do work less than our forebears, and spend more time enraptured by our own navels, trying to divine some life-affirming creative direction in them. But there's nothing for us to suck up, really. As a rule, our parents did end up much more dedicated to their careers than we have. But as a rule, they were laid off less. They didn't intern or work as independent contractors. They got full medical. They were occasionally permitted to adopt magical unicorn-like money-granting creatures called "pensions." Or, barring that, they accumulated a huger 401(k) to cash out before the Great Recession, because they saved more. And they saved more because the costs of college, of kid care, of health care, of doing business and staying alive and buying groceries and staying connected, were far less than they are today. They could raise a family on one salary if necessary . They had room to advance and buy things. Yes, even the creatives. I once listened to a professor, who is in his sixties, read us the first published piece he'd been paid for, in the late 1970s. A thousand words or so. The rate, he says, was something like two bucks a word. That's four times what the Village Voice pays today, even for an award-winning investigative cover story. It's geometrically greater than what most writers can earn today writing daily brilliance for nationally renowned publications online. And writing daily brilliance, which many of them do, is hard goddamned work. If I had a dollar for every older writer or editor who confided to me that "I don't know how young writers do it today; I certainly couldn't," I could buy every property that publishes them. So no, we shan't be doing as well as our parents, and no, we shan't be shutting up about it. If anything, those of us who have been cowed into silence because college-educated poor problems credit card consolidation aren't real poor problems should shed our fears and start talking about just how hard it really is out there, man. This state of affairs does not exist because we're entitled and have simply declined to work as hard as the people that birthed us. American workers have changed from generation to generation: Since 1979, the alleged Dawn of the Millennial, the average US worker has endured as much as a 75 percent increase in productivitywhile real wages stayed flat . Those changes are blips on a timeline compared to the massive, psyche-altering vicissitudes of American Industry, its self-Taylorization to the point where profit-making and shareholder value have been maximized in ways that Morgans and Carnegies and Vanderbilts couldn't even have conceivedin ways that have stiffed workers and the families they can no longer afford.

Blog > Debt Management > Working on SAT essay? Im practicing for the SAT test and would like to know what I need to work on. How would the following essay be scored? Modern society should be considered materialistic. In an effort to strike a balance to create a wholesome society, materialism must be viewed in both a positive and negative light. A hedge fund manager in Connecticut may drive his business forward towards great profits to pursue his materialistic endeavors while an indebted father may focus solely on bringing home an income to support his family. At the same time, the mayor of a small town in South Carolina may be accused of materialism because he turned a portion of his citys park into a golf course. All should be considered materialistic, both positively and negatively. Freidrick Mendel has been the manager of Hevkon Investments for the past 7 years. In early 2000, Mendels desire to upgrade to a larger home and buy a Porsche drove him to fiercly work to improve the profits of his team. Mendels team was successful in rasing profits by 3 billion dollars; Mendel was able to buy the house and car of his dreams. Mendel may be considered highly materialistic, but his materialism drove him to invest in a steel company which provided materials to build a cancer research center. Comparably, a young father of two children struggles to repay his debts from college. He works 60 hours a week building bridges. He doesnt care that he hates his job. He just wants the income to keep his nose above the water financially. This man may be considered materialistic because he is solely focused on financing his familys life, but his work aids people in their daily lives. In continuation, Mayor Cantrell of South Carolina has recently demolished a portion of a local recreational park to build a golf course. The citizens of Cantrells city are infuriated by Mayor Cantrells overt materialism. What the citizens have overlooked is the fact that the citys income has dropped by 10% from last year increasing the possibility of debt and this new golf course could encourage new visitors while raising more money. In conclusion, Mendel, the father, and Cantrell are the type of people who make up our modern society. They are all materialistic in their own rights just as society is materialistic in many ways. It is this materialism that should be probed through a positive and a negative lense so that one can obtain a clear view and understanding of materialism in our modern society. Oct 27, 2011 - Working on SAT essay? Note: It would be helpful if you told us what your essay prompt was. For now I will give your essay a score of 6, possibly an 8. The first noticeable flaw of your essay is your lack of a thesis, a sentence that introduces the reader to your ideas. You take a stand, but it sadly morphs into vagueness as you try to neutralize it by considering positives and negatives. In general, for SAT essays, choose a position, and defend it well. As for sentence writing, sound confident. For example, instead of Modern society should be considered materialistic, you should write, Modern society is materialistic. And dont give empty words and phrases, like balance to create a wholesome society. Its unclear to the reader what balance and wholesomeness are referring to. And dont start repeating yourself in one paragraph. You should repeat the main idea in the concluding paragraph, yes, but dont start repeating already-mentioned ideas within one paragraph. Introductions for SAT essays should be brief and to the point. There is no need to start rambling off in the beginning of your essay; you want to write the body paragraphs with good analysis and details and still have time left over to write a resounding conclusion. If you feel like it, you can write one or two good examples, instead of three. What matters is not how many examples you use, but the analysis of the examples. Your body paragraphs are weak and lack the analysis component. For instance, I dont see how Mendels investments in a steel factory was considered charitable simply because a cancer research center used the steel from the steel factory to build it; nor do I see how this directly relates to materialism. Finally, use appropriate transition words. Comparably doesnt make sense because clearly Mendels lifestyle is not equal to that of the young father of two. Also, begin your body paragraphs with general statements, and then dive into the specific story scenario. This helps keep your body paragraphs focused and minimizes the chance of going off topic. (tl;dr): A good SAT essay takes a stand, has a good thesis, doesnt waste space on unnecessary detail, has good analysis, has relevant examples, and has a strong conclusion.

READ: 10 things to know to build your rainy day fund Now, I know you probably don't want to hear this, but not all credit-card companies want you to pay your loans as soon as possible. Sometimes, they want you to delay your payment so they can charge you a higher interest rate. Some companies may view you as a money machine instead of as a lovely customer. Sadly, some not all are there purely for the money. Gasp! What's a 20-something like you to do, then? If some credit-card companies don't make the effort to disclose the fine print or reveal your privileges, then read up. It's for the good of your sanity and your bank account balance: 1. You can fire them if you want to. You're still your credit-card company's boss. So if you've been a loyal and responsible customer, you can actually call them up and negotiate your current interest rate. You can tell them about your clean track record you pay in full and in time and nicely ask them to lower your interest rate. Hey, you can even tell them about their competition's current rate! You can say that your new card can offer a lower rate and can even give you freebies such as a free Despicable Me! Minion keychain or a free meal at a nice restaurant. Tell them you'd really like to keep their card, but if they can't offer you better terms, you might be forced to switch. It doesn't hurt to try this. 2. They need you more than you need them. Competition in this credit-card market is tough this is why a lot of them display enticing advertisements and give out lots of freebies, right? This is why you get spam emails on credit-card applications. This is why a well-dressed credit-card representative gives you brochures and even asks for your contact information right on the get-go. That said, if you just do your part and be a great customer, you can negotiate for almost everything! Yes, you can negotiate your card's annual fee. You can even have it waived. Yes, you can negotiate a late fee, provided that you've been paying in full and in time every time. Yes, you can even change your due date to the date of your convenience. 3. The more.. teaser rate isn't going to be permanent. Getting a credit card is like getting married. At the early stages, you're so happy and so satisfied with your spouse everything about him is perfect! His hair, his abs, and even his cute dimple on his cheek. After 6 months has passed, then, boom! You think his hair is baduy, his abs are only one-pack, and his cute dimple looks like a worm. This is the teaser rate that credit card companies give you if you sign up now. In the beginning, you'll enjoy low interest rates. After 6 months, when you're already in a fixed contract, they'll increase the interest rate to immense amounts! (Naturally, you can't protest because this is included in the fine print that you never bothered to read because it made your nose bleed). 4. You're allowed to pay only the minimum charge so that your interest will be maximized. Let's say you have a balance of P 15,000 on your credit card right now. You can pay only 1% up to 5% of that, because this range is computed as the minimum payment. Therefore, you can just pay as little as P 150 to P 750 only. Ayos! Deal! You already paid the minumum due so you've paid everything, right? Wrong. If you pay only the minimum amount due, the remaining balance will be carried over to the next statement. So, if you've paid P 750 right now, you still have a loan of P 14,250, yes? No.

It's a piece of plastic that promises to pay your purchases at a later date. Think of it as your loan your utang. Before you get one, it's highly recommended that you establish your own emergency fund first. READ: 10 things to know to build your rainy day fund Now, I know you probably don't want to hear this, but not all credit-card companies want you to pay your loans as soon as possible. Sometimes, they want you to delay your payment so they can charge you a higher interest rate. Some companies may view you as a money machine instead of as a lovely customer. Sadly, some not all are there purely for the money. Gasp! What's a 20-something like you to do, then? If some credit-card companies don't make the effort to disclose the fine print or reveal your privileges, then read up. It's for the good of your sanity and your bank account balance: 1. You can fire them if you want to. You're still your credit-card company's boss. So if you've been a loyal and responsible customer, you can actually call them up and negotiate your current interest rate. You can tell them about your clean track record you pay in full and in time and nicely ask them to lower your interest rate. Hey, you can even tell them about their competition's current rate! You can say that your new card can offer a lower rate and can even give you freebies such as a free Despicable Me! Minion keychain or a free meal at a nice restaurant. Tell them you'd really like to keep their card, but if they can't offer you better terms, you might be forced to switch. It doesn't hurt to try this. 2. They need you more than you need them. Competition in this credit-card market is tough this is why a lot of them display enticing advertisements and give out lots of freebies, right? This is why you get spam emails on credit-card applications. This is why a well-dressed credit-card representative gives you brochures and even asks for your contact information right on the get-go. That said, if you just do your part and be a great customer, you can negotiate for almost everything! Yes, you can negotiate your card's annual fee. You can even have it waived. Yes, you can negotiate a late fee, provided that you've been paying in full and in time every time. Yes, you can even change your due date to the date of your convenience. 3. The teaser rate isn't going to be permanent. Getting a credit card is like getting married. At the early stages, you're so happy and so satisfied with your spouse everything about him is perfect! His hair, his abs, and even his cute dimple on his cheek. After 6 months has passed, then, boom! You think his hair is baduy, his abs are only one-pack, and his cute dimple looks like a worm. This is the teaser rate that credit card companies give you if you sign up now. In the beginning, you'll enjoy low interest rates. After 6 months, when you're already in a fixed contract, they'll increase the interest rate to immense amounts! (Naturally, you can't protest because this is included in the fine print that you never bothered to read because it made your nose bleed). 4. You're allowed to pay only the minimum charge so that your interest will be maximized. Let's say you have a balance of P 15,000 on your credit card right now. You can pay only 1% up to 5% of that, because this range is computed as the minimum payment. Therefore, you can just pay as little as P 150 to P 750 only. Ayos! Deal! You already paid the minumum due so you've paid everything, right? Wrong. If you pay only the minimum amount due, the remaining balance will be carried over to the next statement.

Numerous experts have noted that the United States is the only developed nation where citizens go bankrupt over health costs. In addition to providing new coverage, the law also limits patients' annual out-of-pocket spending, abolishes lifetime benefit limits and ends insurance discrimination against people with pre-existing health conditions. Experts say Obamacare is a good start on medical debt, though far from a guaranteed fix. "This really isn't changing that much for people on the one side of the aisle or the other to be so enthusiastic about, or pessimistic about," said health economist Bradley Herring, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. While requiring health coverage for most Americans is a historic change, the law preserves much of the current health care payment system. Most people will stay in employer plans, some more generous than others. Despite the controversial mandate, many people still won't have insurance because they can't pay for it, and can't get help. Florida is among the states that refused billions in federal dollars to cover more low-income residents through Medicaid. A million Floridians who could have received benefits under that expansion will not. And many of those who do get coverage may not be able to afford the out-of-pocket costs that insured Americans know all too well. While overall, out-of-pocket spending is expected to decline due to Obamacare, some people could experience sticker shock. Not counting premiums, out-of-pocket costs could run as high as $12,700 for families who purchase the lowest-coverage plans and then have more health issues than they expected. That's more than many families have socked away for emergencies. "It's really kind of a targeted effort to get a little over half of the uninsured covered," said Herring. "And it's doing it in a way that's not so radical." Nearly half of Americans ages 19 to 64 last year either did not have insurance or were underinsured, according to a survey released in April by the Commonwealth Fund. More than two in five adults reported problems paying their medical bills. Such facts should surprise no one. The nation's hospitals report billions of dollars in uncompensated costs each year. Charity fundraisers for people with high medical bills are commonplace. A popular television series, Breaking Bad, is about a high school chemistry teacher who turns to cooking methamphetamine to pay for his lung cancer treatment and few complain the premise is that far-fetched. An influential 2009 Harvard study, whose authors include now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), blamed high medical bills for more than 60 percent of American bankruptcies. Other researchers say that study overstated the problem, suggesting health care bills were just part of the problem in some cases. "I think the number of people who declare bankruptcy (solely) because of medical costs is relatively small," said Peter Cunningham, a senior researcher with the Center for Studying Health System Change. "But that doesn't mean people's finances aren't strained by medical bills." Count credit card debt, lawsuits by hospitals and poor credit ratings among the other results of high medical bills, noted Jessica Curtis, director of the Hospital Accountability Project. "It's something that has a residual effect for the patient," Curtis said. So what will be the impact of Obamacare? Some 11 million people are expected to gain health insurance coverage in 2014, mostly through new state insurance marketplaces or expanded Medicaid in many states. Out-of-pocket spending for individuals and families is projected to fall 1.5 percent in 2014 because of the new coverage and lower cost-sharing for people with improved coverage, according to an analysis of new federal figures by Health Affairs, a policy journal. Hospitals' sticker prices have been especially burdensome to the uninsured, who get stuck with the highest bills because they don't have a government agency or insurance company negotiating on their behalf. "That's going to be the big change and where we'll see the big decrease in debt," said Sara Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that studies health care. "If you're fully exposed to health care costs, that's a big nut to crack." As many critics note, Obamacare does not crack down on costs by, for instance, instituting price controls common in many countries. It does say not-for-profit hospitals may charge uninsured patients rates no higher than the "amounts generally billed" to those with insurance, though many experts say those regulations are too vague. Glenn Melnick, a health care finance professor at UCLA, said California and some other states set firm limits on what hospitals can charge low-income, uninsured patients. The Affordable Care Act is "a step in the right direction," said Melnick, "but I suspect in many parts of the country it's a baby step." Kala and Kevin Hamilton both started working at age 15. Kala went on to teach autistic children. Kevin became a co-owner in the Hungry Howie's where he worked as a teen. Kala had a good health plan from the Pasco School District, but the family decided it would be too costly more than $800 a month at the time to add Kevin and the children. He found a cheaper plan, with less coverage, for himself and the three kids. When the insurer hiked the cost of covering Willow to $1,800 a month, the family took her off the plan and shopped around for another policy. No one would insure her. Medicaid eventually took her but only after Kevin voluntarily took a pay cut to meet the income requirements. During that period where Willow had no coverage, she landed in the intensive care unit. "Those months were all it took," said Kala. Things would have been somewhat different had the Affordable Care Act been in place five years ago. The plan the Hamiltons purchased for Kevin and the kids likely wouldn't have been available since minimum coverage standards now are set for all plans.

Used indiscriminately, your credit card can easily become your liability MANILA, Philippines - Contrary to popular belief, a credit card is not your free money. It's a piece of plastic that promises to pay your purchases at a later date. Think of it as your loan your utang. Before you get one, it's highly recommended that you establish your own emergency fund first. READ: 10 things to know to build your rainy day fund Now, I know you probably don't want to hear this, but not all credit-card companies want you to pay your loans as soon as possible. Sometimes, they want you to delay your payment so they can charge you a higher interest rate. Some companies may view you as a money machine instead of as a lovely customer. Sadly, some not all are there purely for the money. Gasp! What's a 20-something like you to do, then? If some credit-card companies don't make the effort to disclose the fine print or reveal your privileges, then read up. It's for the good of your sanity and your bank account balance: 1. You can fire them if you want to. You're still your credit-card company's boss. So if you've been a loyal and responsible customer, you can actually call them up and negotiate your current interest rate. You can tell them about your clean track record you pay in full and in time and nicely ask them to lower your interest rate. Hey, you can even tell them about their competition's current rate! You can say that your new card can offer a lower rate and can even give you freebies such as a free Despicable Me! Minion keychain or a free meal at a nice restaurant. Tell them you'd really like to keep their card, but if they can't offer you better terms, you might be forced to switch. It doesn't hurt to try this. 2. They need you more than you need them. Competition in this credit-card market is tough this is why a lot of them display enticing advertisements and give out lots of freebies, right? This is why you get spam emails on credit-card applications. This is why a well-dressed credit-card representative gives you brochures and even asks for your contact information right on the get-go. That said, if you just do your part and be a great customer, you can negotiate for almost everything! Yes, you can negotiate your card's annual fee. You can even have it waived. Yes, you can negotiate a late fee, provided that you've been paying in full and in time every time. Yes, you can even change your due date to the date of your convenience. 3. The teaser rate isn't going to be permanent. Getting a credit card is like getting married. At the early stages, you're so happy and so satisfied with your spouse everything about him is perfect! His hair, his abs, and even his cute dimple on his cheek. After 6 months has passed, then, boom! You think his hair is baduy, his abs are only one-pack, and his cute dimple looks like a worm. This is the teaser rate that credit card companies give you if you sign up now. In the beginning, you'll enjoy low interest rates. After 6 months, when you're already in a fixed contract, they'll increase the interest rate to immense amounts! (Naturally, you can't protest because this is included in the fine print that you never bothered to read because it made your nose bleed). 4. You're allowed to pay only the minimum charge so that your interest will be maximized. Let's say you have a balance of P 15,000 on your credit card right now. You can pay only 1% up to 5% of that, because this range is computed as the minimum payment.

The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." - Nathan Rothschild Canadas National Debt is now well over $616,000,000,000.00 and this doesnt include provincial and municipal debt, which easily pushes total public debt over $1 trillion. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty still insists that Canada will be back into surplus by 2015, but many people are becoming skeptical. Weve heard rhetoric about deficit slaying in the past, but the Federal government under Chretien/Martin in 1995 only acted when it was absolutely necessary. The same story has unfolded in the provinces as well. The mentality is borrow and buy until calamity strikes and then slash and burn in order to stay solvent. Real fiscal conservatism is extremely difficult at any level of government. When its implemented, it works, but before long the bad habits arrive again. What to do? Debt ceilings operate as a straitjacket for borrowing. At least thats how theyre supposed to work. The most famous debt ceiling is in the United States, where partisan games are played every time the ceiling is neared. The ceiling is usually raised at the last minute and the debt problems are kicked down http://journals.fotki.com/blackwellosmp/my-blog/entry/wwwkfbbqqtdkb/ the road. People cite this lack of rigor as an example of debt ceilings not working, but done in a different manner, a debt ceiling would do wonders for real fiscal conservatism in Canada. Were not introducing a provincial sales tax, period. - Alison Redford The real reason Redford wont introduce a provincial sales tax is because of The Alberta Taxpayer Protection Act of 1995. This was Ralph Klein at his finest, thinking ahead for the benefit of future Albertans. He anticipated a future Alison Redford type getting into power and then gouging taxpayers with a sales tax, so he passed legislation requiring a referendum throughout the province which would ask Albertans to vote on whether or not to implement one. Of course, asking people if they want new taxes introduced will always be met with a resounding NO, so the introduction of a PST is off the table. What we need is the reverse of this in the form a debt ceiling. Stephen Harper will be 9 years into his tenure of Prime Minister by 2015. Democracy traditionally forces a change in governments and when this happens, Canada will most likely be saddled with Liberals or...gulp...the NDP. Since both of these parties have always expanding government in their blood, it would be of great benefit for Canadians if Harper/Flaherty legislated a debt ceiling requiring a national referendum as the only means of adjustment. This idea is not unlike the one that Maxime Bernier is proposing at the Conservative Party convention in October. In fact, it would be complementary since his proposal works on the spending side and a debt ceiling would work on the borrowing side. This would provide Canada with a natural fiscal conservatism that would be entrenched beyond the revolving door of electoral victories. Q: What if a future political party used a Parliamentary majority to simply override the legislation when they wanted to borrow more money? A: A future party could do just that, but it would require submitting overriding legislation. This would look bad in the eyes of the public as it would be an admission of failure. Whichever political party was in opposition would use it as an optics hammer in the House of Commons. Secondly, unless the party in charge had a majority in both the H of C and the Senate, the legislation could be stopped. Q: What if a future political party used legal fanciness and semantics to break the limit without actually breaking the limit. A: All the more reason to promote policies of transparency and open accounting. Not only would it eliminate issues like the recent $3.1 billion unaccounted for accounting error , but it would prevent future governments from being able to blow past the limit on purpose. If everyone knows the score, no one person can change the outcome. Q: What about wiggle room in case deficits need to happen? A: The current debt is about $616 billion. Lets set the ceiling at $700 billion. This way youve got $84 billion to work with. The public disgust towards deficits would remain intact as it does right now, however, politicians would have a wall on the horizon that would prevent them from driving the country into the ground. Q: What about inflation? A: An immovable debt ceiling would incentivize governments to keep inflation low, so they would be less beholden to the magic $700 billion number. In fact, as time went on, the more fiscal conservative the debt ceiling would become. On a practical level a renewal clause could be inserted for 2050, at which point the level could be increased. Or, more realistically, the $700 billion could be indexed for inflation. Conclusion: This is a big idea that conservatives should support and promote. We need to handcuff the government or it will follow the path of all historical governments...which is: spend everything and end in bankruptcy. Like Poletical on Facebook:

IT'S EXPLODED IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS. IT HAS GROWN FROM $10 TRILLION TO ABOUT $17 TRILLION. IN JUST FOUR YEARS. WE CANNOT CONTINUE ON THIS COURSE. >> YEAH, THIS IS WHY REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE OBSTRUCTIONISTS. OBAMACARE IS BAD FOR OUR HEALTH. BIG GOVERNMENT IS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY. MY VIEW IS IF THE REPUBLICANS AREN'T DEFUNDING ONE AND SHUTTING DOWN THE OTHER, WHAT IS THE POINT OF ELECTING REPUBLICANS? WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE BAD POLITICS OF THE REPUBLICANS ACTING OBSTRUCTIONISTS THIS WAY. MUCH WORSE POLICY FOR REPUBLICANS IS GET TO 102014 AND SAY OBAMACARE IS IN FULL FLOWER AND THE GOVERNMENT IS LARGER. WHY DID WE PUT THEM IN POWER IN 2010 TO BEGIN WITH? >> David: A GREAT POINT. LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 2010. THE REPUBLICANS CALLED OBSTRUCTIONIST AND THE PROCESS MIGHT LOOK UGLY. BUT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED. FEDERAL SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF GDP TOPPED OUT IN 2010. RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION. IT HAS COME DOWN SINCE THE REPUBLICANS WERE ELECTED DRAMATICALLY. TO 23.5%. >> THE PERSON THAT IS GOT OF EXTORTION IS PRESIDENT OBAMA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST THREE YEARS. IF YOU LOOK AT HIS RECORD LEVEL OF SPENDING, THE RECORD LEVEL OF BORROWING COUPLED WITH THE BOND BUYING BY THE FED. THAT DESTABILIZE THE VALUE OF THE U.S. DOLLAR. IT'S A FORM OF EXTORTION THAT HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY CRUEL TO THE POOR, AND THE ELDERLY WHO RELY ON FIXED INCOME. SO THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED EXTORTION HERE. HE HAS HURT THE POOR AND ELDERLY THE MOST. >> David: HOLD ON, STEVE. WE HAVE CUT FEDERAL SPENDING DRAMATICALLY SINCE THE REPUBLICANS CAME TO POWER. OBSTRUCTIONISM DOESN'T LOOK GOOD ON THE NIGHTLY NEWS. BUT THE FACT IS, IT HAS HELPED LOWER THE COST OF THE GOVERNMENT DRAMATICALLY. >> YEAH. DAVID, THE ONLY GOOD THING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN RECENT YEARS FOR ECONOMY. LESS RESOURCES ARE BEING DRAWN OUT. THE SEQUESTER, THE PRESIDENT AGREED TO IT BECAUSE HE NEVER THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS WOULD FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT. ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO MILITARIMENT THE WAY THE SEQUESTER IS HANDLED IS AN ATROCITY, BUT THE RESULT FOR THE ECONOMY IS GOOD. THAT'S WHY WE ARE GETTING THE GROWTH WE GET THIS YEAR. MORE RESOURCES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR LESS THAN THE GOVERNMENT. >> MORGAN, GO AHEAD. >> IF WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SPENDING, WHY STOP AT OBAMACARE, WHY NOT START TYING THINGS TO TAX REFORMS AND ENTITLEMENTS. YOU DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. >> REPUBLICANS ARE ADVOCATING -- >> YES, BUT THE IDEA OF WRAPPING OBAMACARE IN TO THIS DEBATE IS JUST GOING TO PROLONG THE INEVITABLE. I WILL SAY THAT QUANTITATIVE EASING IS CONTINUING IN PART ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL CHAIRMAN BEN BERNANKE THIS WEEK, IN PART BECAUSE OF THE FISCAL STANDOFF. >> David: THAT IS A WHOLE OTHER ARGUMENT.

September 03 2013

haydenillh

Boy, I Wonder Why College Is So Expensive

Giskard Reventlov | 02-09-13 | 11:19 Artwido | 02-09-13 | 11:19 Ach waarom denk ik dat het voor het grootste gedeelte bang makerij is. Eerst hadden we de koude oorlog om het gepeupel onder de duim te houden , toen dat in 1989 wegviel kwam er ineens het hele klimaat gezeik om de hoek kijken wat ook weer vreselijk meevalt en eigenlijk gewoon natuurlijk schijnt te zijn. Dus nu is het de "schulden crisis" die gebruikt wordt om het klootjesvolk onder de duim te houden. Ik wordt zo langzaam aan doodziek van all het opgeklopte doom denken wat aan het einde van de rit niet meer is dan een scheet in een glas water. Corwin02 | 02-09-13 | 11:21 Dok in orde, ja. Laten voor het gemak maar even de stijgende lijn vergeten die net zo stijl is als in de tweede wereldoorlog. Merkava | 02-09-13 | 11:21 Deze zal je waarschijnlijk ook vaak hebben gehoord. Maar het is inderdaad "jouW". "can't win the argument, correct the grammar" Fray | 02-09-13 | 11:23 jojojo22 | 02-09-13 | 11:02 | toen waren de meesten zelfvoorzienend, wat niet meetelt in het BBP. Het BBP was zeer laag, en als percentage van de staatsschuld dus hoog (maar de leefomstandigheden onvergelijkbaar, daar faalt deze grafiek ). Kaosu | 02-09-13 | 11:25 Nietvoordekat | 02-09-13 | 10:49 | + 2 - Hij heeft gewoon gelijk. Dit artikel laat het lijken of we een lage staatsschuld hebben door het in percentages uit te drukken. Absoluut gezien is de staatsschuld van 642 miljoen (1900) naar 436 170 miljoen(2012) gegaan. Oftewel de staatsschuld ligt nu 700 keer hoger. Bron = wiki staatsschuld nederland. mister niet http://pentyhos.livejournal.com/5815.html scherp | 02-09-13 | 11:26 wat staat er op de y-as dan? aantal koeien? Benno | 02-09-13 | 11:28 Deze crisis gaat niet meer voorbij. Simpelweg omdat we geen afzetmarkten meer hebben. Wen er maar aan oorstok | 02-09-13 | 11:28 Hmmm nu ben ik verre van een macro econoom, maar zijn beide dalingen niet bewerkstelligd door 1) de industriele revolutie 2) Marshall hulp na WOII? Ik weet niet of we daar op willen gokken. Carpa | 02-09-13 | 11:29 @jojojo22 | 02-09-13 | 11:02 Willem I had nogal een gat in z'n hand. Financieel was Nederland een complete puinhoop. De prive-uitgaven en staatsuitgaven liepen compleet door elkaar en niemand wist eigenlijk hoe de financiele toestand van de Nederlandse staat was. Pas na zijn overlijden kon de balans opgemaakt worden. De tsaar van Rusland heeft nog een deel van de schilderijen van de Oranjes overgenomen om de schuld wat te vereffenen. Deze zijn nu te bewonderen in de Hermitage te Sint Petersburg. steven paul | 02-09-13 | 11:31 Het dipje van Zalm. Wel geinig. * | 02-09-13 | 11:32 @benno | 02-09-13 | 11:28 | Staatsschuld wordt gerelateerd aan het BNP, dus die getallen delen door 100 of als percentage lezen. Op de X-as moet je verjaardag van jezus gristus erbij zetten, dat zijn dus geen schapen. Giskard Reventlov | 02-09-13 | 11:32 Alleen zat er 'vroegah' nogal wat rek in de economische groei. Die rek is er nu toch wel een beetje uit, althans daar lijkt het toch sterk op. Gielgb | 02-09-13 | 11:34 Wat ook meteen opvalt is dat sinds bezuinigingsvoorman Lubbers in '82 (en daarna alle volgende kabinetten) het woord miljardenbezuinigingen in de mond nam, de staatschuld ieder jaar groter en groter werd. Rara? Conan de Rabarber | 02-09-13 | 11:34 wat zeker zo interessant is, is de greep van de overheid op de economie en de vrijheden die er bestaan in bestedingen. . nu al komt de overheid een bedrag van een miljard of twintig tekort op de rijksbegroting. . loopt de rente op de staatsschuld op van twee naar vier procent - historisch helemaal nog niet zo gek - dan stijgt het overheidstekort met nog eens 9 miljard. en stelselmatig dertig milard meer uitgeven dan er binnenkomt is wel heel erg speculeren over verdienvermogen in de toekomst. . - dertig miljard is de hele nederlandse onderwijsbegroting - dertig miljard is 5 keer de defensiebegroting - derit miljard is een bedrag ter grootte van 60% van de opbrengst van de inkomstenbelastingen in nederland. . ftm: "wiens brood met eet, wiens woord men spreekt" zeiden we vroeger. en zo is het ook.

At Oola, the financial goal is financial freedom, and freedom is realized as the burden of debt leaves. I came upon this story on my daily blog readings by Mary R. and felt obligated to share it with you all... Around the time my husband Larry and I had been married for more than 30 years, we finally faced the reality of our financial situation: We owed $88,557 in credit card debt. We had been living from paycheck to paycheck because my husband was switching careers and had been looking for work for about a year. Even though I was working, we had to use our savings to cover our living expenses, and eventually relied on credit cards to make ends meet. We even had to take out a payday advance loan once or twice. We weren't behind on any payments and we weren't thinking about bankruptcy or anything like that. But we were tired of living hand-to-mouth. The debt just kind of crept up on us. We'd always used credit cards, but using them more for that year sent the balances up high. My husband was doing the budgeting and bill paying the best he could, and I really wasn't engaged in the process for a long time. I don't blame him at all for the situation, though, because I should have been more responsible about our money and looked into what was going on. The Split It wasn't any one thing that sent us to get help, it was just that we didn't want to live from paycheck to paycheck anymore and we could tell we would never pay off our debt by making the minimum payments. We went to ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions, a nonprofit credit counselor, for help. Some of the debt was in my name, some in his, and some in both of ours. They negotiated with our creditors for lower interest rates and set up our debt management plan. But then it got more complicated because we separated. It wasn't the debt that caused our marriage problem; it was that we weren't communicating with each other. We lost our house to foreclosure during this time because once we separated, neither one of us could afford the house payments. However, we both were really committed to the debt management plan, so we set up a system where I deposited my part of the payment into his account and the funds were transferred to the debt management fund. Our payment was around $2,800 a month. The Sacrifices Thankfully, we were both employed by the time the debt management plan started in 2009. As soon as we got on the plan, our payments were lower than they had been, so that helped. But we knew we had to make changes because we had mismanaged our money for a long time. The biggest thing was that we downsized -- a lot. I moved into an apartment that was half the price of the first one I found, and Larry moved into a small place, too. We sold a lot of furniture when we split up, and I got rid of my car and drove a car my mom sold to me instead. I made interest-free payments to her. I got rid of cable TV and just learned how to live within a budget. While we were separated, I took Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace class and that was another positive life change. I learned to manage my own budget carefully while we were separated, figured out which bills to pay with each paycheck and how much I had to live on after making the debt management payment. Reconciliation We were separated for about 20 months and then we reconciled. My husband went to Dave Ramsey's class with me, and together we learned to be intentional about our finances. Recombining our households also made it easier for us to find money to pay down what we owed. We finished paying off all our debt in May and now all of the money we used to spend on the debt management plan goes into our savings and retirement accounts. We've been living only on cash and an ATM card from our bank since 2009 and we never intend to use a credit card again. (We don't want one at all because we don't ever want to be tempted to use it and accumulate debt again.) Building a New Future -- Together Best of all, we were able to buy five acres of land with our grown kids. They live in a house on the property and we're slowly building a home for us on the land, too. When it's ready, we'll sell the mobile home we're living in now. It's like a dream come true. I can't say it was easy, but four years came and went and we survived it -- paid off our debts -- and it was well worth the effort.

That wasn't the climbing wall. No, the climbing wall was a ways down the hall. Staffed with a couple of chipper young undergrads, the climbing wall loomed above me as I peeked in. Or really, peaked up, all 55 vertical feet of climbing surface, complete with rope harnesses and pulley system. It loomed above me. Not enough? Hey, there's more. Need a separate spinning studio? Got one. Need an array of punching bags and other equipment for the "Combative Sports"? Got 'em. Special spaces for aerobics and dance? Naturally. Hey, even the fencing club gets a room "striped with fencing pistes." It's all here. Sadly, you can't run indoors on turf. In that building! Sorry, I didn't mean you couldn't run on indoor turf at Purdue. (What do you take us for, plebes?) I just meant you can't do it at CoRec. You have to go next door for that. Of course, in these enlightened times, just working out is a small part of fitness or, sorry, wellness. So if you need to relax and cool down, why not take advantage of some of the other facilities, like one of three saunas? Or schedule a massage? (In completely unrelated news, I have been having a hard time with my student's sense of entitlement and self-definition as customers.) Or hey, why not check out some cooking lessons in the demonstration kitchen? (Yes. A demonstration kitchen . Yes.) Or perhaps what you need is a dip in the pool. S Sorry, not the pool. One of the pools. The pool in the CoRec isn't the only pool; what kind of cow college do you think this is? The Boilermaker Aquatics Center, located on the other side of the CoRec, holds the competition pool, diving boards, heated diving well, its own locker rooms, etc. No, I'm talking about the CoRec's pool. The fabulous wrap-around pool that is overlooked by the atrium, one described in as having "three lap lanes, 26 person spa, vortex, two water basketball goals, water volleyball and much more." That spa has heated water and a Jacuzzi function. And, yes, you read correctly above: the pool has a vortex area, a feature that creates a downward suction that you can swim against for fitness. I plan to, in the Vortex Challenge class! I can't wait, actually. Because of course there are an endless number of classes, yoga and Zumba and Pilates and boot camps and kickboxing and Blast This and Power That and as many kinds of organized fitness activity one can imagine, all staffed with bright, smiling teachers. These classes are not to be confused with Club Sports, which are not to be confused with Intramural Sports, which are not to be confused with varsity, NCAA sports, which of course have many of their own facilities, such as the 15,000-person basketball arena or 60,000-person football stadium. When you're done, you can relax in the beautiful atrium, equipped with WiFi (natch) and charging stations and yet-more TVs. You can buy yourself an overpriced smoothie from the Freshens refreshment station! Consider using the towel or locker service, and remember you can rent or buy a whole variety of equipment for your fitness needs. Of course, it's not all cheery news in the land of Purdue's physical infrastructure. Take Heavilon Hall, which houses the departments of English and Linguistics and Audiology and Phonology, as well as the Purdue Indigenous and Endangered Languages Lab and the James Berlin archive and many other collections and facilities, and hosts thousands of students as they take one of our several hundred sections of Introductory Composition, our most widely-taken course, as well as hundreds of others. I'm afraid the building is old and dilapidated and crumbling, rife with asbestos, and generally in a state of disrepair. It's a core academic building, where students are taught to express themselves in writing and how to orient their texts to suit their communicative needs, skills necessary for literally any academic fields. But I'm afraid that doesn't really rate. There's talk of it finally being replaced. I hope they're right. After all, a new building would do what university buildings are supposed to do: house student learning and scholarly research.

Not all federal student loans have a grace period. Note that for most loans, interest will accrue during your grace period . Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans,Subsidized Federal Stafford Loans, and Unsubsidized Federal Stafford Loans have a six-month grace period before payments are due. PLUS loans have no grace period. They enter repayment once they are fully disbursed but may be eligible for a deferment , check with the school where you received your loan. Can my grace period change? Circumstances that may change your grace period include the following: Active duty militaryIf you are called to active military duty for more than 30 days before the end of your grace period, you will receive the full six-month grace period when you return from active duty. Returning to school before the end of your loans grace periodIf you reenroll in school at least half-time before the end of your grace period, you will receive the full six-month grace period when you stop attending school or drop below half-time enrollment (other conditions apply). Loan consolidationIf you consolidate your loans during your grace period, you will give up the remainder of your grace period and begin repayment after your Direct Consolidation Loan is disbursed (paid out). Your first bill will be due approximately two months after the Direct Consolidation Loan is disbursed. How much will I need to pay? Your bill will tell you how much to pay. Your payment (usually made monthly) depends on the type of loan you received, how much money you borrowed, the Top How do I make my payments? The U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses several loan servicers to handle the billing and other services on loans for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program and for loans that were made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and that ED later purchased. Youll tell your loan servicer which repayment plan youd like to choose. Which Organizations Handle Which Loans Type of Loan Whom to Pay Direct Loans and FFEL loans owned by ED You will make your payments to your loan servicer. Your loan servicer will provide you with information about your repayment terms and your repayment start date. FFEL loans not owned by ED You will make your payments to your lender, the organization that made the loan initially. The lender could be a bank, credit union, or other lending institution. Your lender will provide you with information about your repayment terms and your repayment start date. Federal Perkins Loans Your loan servicer will most likely be the school you were attending when you received the loan, but in some cases, the school will have a separate organization handle the billing and other services for your Perkins Loan. Contact the school about making Perkins Loan payments. There are several ways you can make your payments. If you want to make electronic payments, you can do the following: Receive your student loan statement electronically. Make your student loan payment through electronic debiting. Schedule a recurring electronic debit to pay your bill. You can enroll in electronic debit in several ways, depending on which type of loan you are repaying. Contact the organization that services your loan for information. If you want to make payments by postal mail, you should mail your payments directly to your loan servicer. If you would like to check loan servicer information, interest rate, or other financial aid history , youll find this information on the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). You will need your Federal Student Aid PIN to access the system. To discuss repayment plan options or change your repayment plan, contact your loan servicer. First, though, you can use our Repayment Estimator to get an early look at which plans you may be eligible for and see estimates for how much you would pay monthly and overall. Youll need to sign in with your Federal Student Aid PIN because the estimates will be based on your loan information in the NSLDS. Can I pay more than my required monthly payment? You can make payments before they are due or pay more than the amount due each month. Contact your loan servicer to make sure the money is applied to your principal balance. Interest is charged on this amount. Paying a little extra each month can reduce the interest you pay and reduce your total cost of your loan over time. Top What should I do if Im having trouble making my loan payment? Contact your loan servicer as soon as possible. You may be able to change your repayment plan to one that will allow you to have a longer repayment period or to one that is based on your income. Also ask your loan servicer about your options for a deferment or forbearance or loan consolidation . Top What happens if I don't make my student loan payment? If you dont make your student loan payment or make your payment late, your loan may eventually go into default . If you default on your student loan, that status will be reported to credit bureaus, and your credit rating and future borrowing ability will be damaged. In addition, legal action can be taken to require payment through garnishment of wages and withholding of tax refunds. Top Can I cancel my loan?

This happens in very different ways. The Chinese government lends billions of dollars to the US, and other governments, through buying their bonds. Whereas in Germany, banks have previously lent money to banks in countries such as Spain, Greece and Ireland, fuelling booms, and now busts. Government Payments on Foreign Debt (% of revenue) This map shows how much governments are spending every year on foreign debt payments, as a proportion of their revenue. Payments include both interest and repayment of the original loan. It shows a real burden a government is experiencing from debt. Some governments, such as Zimbabwe, have high debt, but are in default on much of the debt, so not making many payments. Many impoverished countries have seen their debt payments fall in recent years, particularly those which qualified for debt relief [link]. But some, such as the Philippines, El Salvador, Jamaica and Sri Lanka still spend more on foreign debt payments than they are able to spend on services such as education and healthcare. Moreover, following the global financial crisis, government foreign debt burdens are rising again [link to State of Debt]. European crisis countries such as Greece and Portugal also have similar levels of debt payment burdens. Often these debt payments are paid by taking out new loans, or rolling over the debt. For impoverished countries this has tended to mean taking new loans from the IMF and World Bank, but to do so means they face the imposition of economic policies set by these two institutions. Meanwhile, for richer countries it means continually taking out new loans from private lenders. A crisis arrives when the lenders decide to stop issuing new loans. Government Foreign Debt (% of GDP) This is the total foreign debt owed by a government, not taking into account any debts owed to it. This is an often-used figure for impoverished countries because so much of the Third World debt crisis arose because governments owed so much money in foreign currency that they were unable to pay. This shows foreign debt can be much more dangerous than domestic debt, which a government can inflate away or even change the terms of the loan contract on. And payments on external debt leave the country, whilst domestic debt payments stay in the economy, to be spent elsewhere, some of which return to the government through tax. For example, the Japanese government has the highest debt in the world, 235 per cent of national income. That is 70 percentage points more than Greece, and more than double the UKs. But over 90 per cent of Japanese government debt is owed to Japanese people. This means the Japanese debt transfers money from taxpayers to savers - that might be an internal problem - but it doesnt cause Japan a debt problem with the rest of the world. Private Foreign Debt (% of GDP) Less talked about than government debt are the debt owed by private companies such as banks. Reckless lending and borrowing by banks can cause booms in assets such as house prices, increasing inequality, followed by busts resulting in unemployment and higher government debt. This map shows the total foreign debt owed by a countrys private sector, not taking into account the debt owed to it. Many countries, particularly more impoverished ones, do not monitor these debts at all, and no figures exist for them. Money can flood in and out of the country at will, potentially fuelling tax avoidance, corruption and financial instability. The total foreign debt owed by the private sector can dwarf that of governments, for example in Spain, Ireland, Iceland and the UK. Though the UK ranks 98th most indebted country in the world in the net debt league, its private sector debt is a massive 364 per cent of GDP, putting it fourth on that measure. This means the UK economy is in desperate need of reform - but not of the sort of austerity policies currently being imposed. To some extent these debts can be matched by debts owed to banks and others from abroad. But even if this is the case, the total amount of money owed makes a country highly vulnerable to financial instability. For example, if a foreign bank is no longer able to pay a British bank its debts, what once were assets are wiped out, and the British bank is in trouble. Private sector borrowing led to the East Asian financial crisis in the 1990s, which crashed economies and pushed people out of work and into poverty. In Thailand, poverty increased by 40 per cent [link to case study]. And at the start of the global financial crisis, countries such as Spain, Ireland, the UK, Iceland and Spain had far bigger private than public debts. Therefore, much more attention needs to be given to private debt. Many debt crises are private debt crisis. But presumably on the basis that the private sector knows best too little attention is paid to this. IMF and World Bank debt cancellation This map shows the countries which have qualified for the IMF and World Bank debt relief scheme, known as HIPC. In response to the global jubilee movement calls for debt cancellation and repudiation, western countries, through the IMF and World Bank, created a debt relief scheme known as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. To be eligible for the scheme countries had to be very heavily indebted and very impoverished (with an annual income per person of less than 700). On entering the scheme, to qualify for debt relief, governments had to follow IMF and World Bank economic conditions, including water privatisation, selling off grain reserves, removing subsidies for farmers, and cutting public spending. When the scheme was first launched in 1996 it simply reduced debts which could never be paid, but maintained debts at a high level. The few countries which qualified were soon back in debt crisis. The amount of debt relief was expanded, until in 2005 qualifying countries began to get most of their debts owed to the IMF, World Bank and Western governments cancelled. However, this was not cancellation of all their debt as debts to private companies were not included, and neither were new loans. Taking out loans from the IMF was a condition of the HIPC scheme, and much aid continues to be given as loans through institutions like the World Bank and African Development Bank. Countries have tended to take between 2 and 10 years to qualify for debt relief through the scheme, because of all the conditions they need to meet.

This paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.] Pelerin goes on to say in further edited, and in some cases paraphrased, excerpts: Apocalypse In One Picture James Quinnprovided the following graph. If a picture is worth a thousand words, this graph is worth millions. The route to economic demise is depicted below: The relationships in this graph are terrifying! Debt is shown relative to GDP. GDP growth has been one-third the growth in debt for the period. That is, the economy required $3 of debt to produce $1 more in real GDP. In recent years diminishing returns to debt required $6 of debt to increase GDP by a $1. Whatever the benefits of debt, they have clearly diminished, almost to zero. Debt expansion has gone exponential in order to salvage the weak growth in GDP. To put this into a perspective the average reader can understand, think of GDP as a households spending: The family depicted above has to borrow each year in order to maintain its spending level. Imagine the condition of your family if you borrowed 6 times the amount of incremental spending each year. Then imagine the condition of your family after40 years of continuously increasing your debt levels substantially in excess of your income. It is impossible for a family without a printing press and a cooperative Federal Reserve to engage in such behavior. The government is different, you say? Surely it is, but not necessarily in a meaningful financial manner. Just as you would not survive such behavior, governments cannot either. History is full of examples of government collapses resulting from excessive debt and overspending. A printing press only provides the luxury of more time before the failure. You may[be of the opinion] that a macro economy is different from a family, [that is, that] debt (parroting the political claim) makes an economy grow faster. The evidence shown[in the chart above, however,] does not support that claim. Government reported GDP growth rates are shrinking as the debt expansion accelerates. Since 1965 the growth rate of the economy has been declining. Even if you accept government GDP reporting, the chart[above] shows a trend[that] points to an average declining standard of living. That point will be reached when the GDP growth falls below the population growth. The U.S. economy has been underperforming since the 1970s according to governments statistics. That is after all the games have been played with these numbers. How much longer can these trends continue and what happens at the end? No one can reasonably answer either of these questions. What Is Known And Not Known Two things are known: So long as borrowing increases faster than GDP, the ability to repay diminishes. That has been occurring for more than forty years and the differential growth rates have widened dramatically in recent years. Not borrowing at this pace would likely have decreased reported GDP dramatically. While that may have been a proper economic response, it is now politically impossible (or highly unlikely). Continuing to increase debt at a rate greater than GDP ensures financial collapse. Stopping or slowing down at this point likely leads to the same point. This country has maneuvered itself into a no-escape situation. Those in favor of more debt argue that a calamity would have occurred had the massive rise in debt, and its accompany stimulative effects, not happened. For the Paul Krugmans of the world, more debt and stimulus is always the answer. The rapidly increasing amounts of debt since 1965 have been accompanied by not rising but falling rates of growth. One may speculate what this growth would have been with different rates of debt expansion. Whether the rate of debt expansion increased or decreased the rate of real GDP is moot. Economists can use their competing paradigms to duel over this issue but cannot come to a conclusion that is acceptable to most. Mathematics, on the other hand, is more definitive. There are mathematical limits that control the ability to service debt. Once these limits have been breached, some amount of the debt will be defaulted on. The breach point is referred to as a debt death spiral. The U.S. has passed this mathematical point and is in a death spiral. The political class in America, either via misguided economic policies or a deliberate attempt to hide the true condition of the country, has put us here.

As major credit reporting agencies provide a copy of your credit score every year space them out so that you have an even chance of checking your credit score every four months that will ensure that you are not ignorant of your financial health. Having a mere look at your credit report is not going to take you anywhere. You need to be able to tell the facts from the myths that surround credit reporting suggests Brian Linnekens. People keep wondering why they are not qualifying for a debt with a low APR in spite of settling all previous debts where some problems persisted. Well the truth is that settled debts dont get dropped from your credit report. Late payments and bad debts are not dropped instantly from the credit report even though they have been settled amicably. The late payments and bad debts are there on the credit report for a good seven years. Even worse a bankruptcy mark will be there for ten years on your credit report. There are many who believe if they stop using the credit card their credit score will shoot up. This is not the case you may use cash for all your purchases but that is not going to make any difference to your credit score. Dont stop using credit instead use it responsibly. Making your payments on time will surely give you an advantage and you are sure to receive a benefit in your credit score if you start using your credit card more responsibly. Closing on a credit card can do more harm than good. Agencies involved with credit reporting need to see a low credit utilization which is the ratio between the credit you are using and the credit that is available. Thus closing a credit card will reduce this ratio as you are not decreasing the outstanding credit but you are closing on the available credit. Dont be afraid to make inquiries about your credit rating advises Brian Linnekens. It hardly affects your credit score if you are making soft inquiries for personal reasons. But if a bank or a financial institution is making an inquiry then there is a small effect on your credit score. The effect is small but it is measureable. Thus the best option is to make a soft inquiry if you are in a doubt about your credit score. A high income is does not affect your credit score. Since credit score is a measure of how you manage your credit thus income plays a negligible part in the credit scoring. However Brian Linnekens says that if you have a fat paycheck make sure you manage your credit in the best possible manner as it will surely help in a better credit scoring. Article Source - Brian Linnekens on the nuances of writing a letter todebtors Dispatching a letter to 1 of your debtors could be a challenge as you need to get your concept over without having displaying any kind of disrespect and giving just about all related info that is certainly essential for the consumer. Your correspondence is required to be constructed within a polite nevertheless authoritative way where borrower enjoys every piece of information obviously and youre simply in the position to make an urge on your consumer to produce her very own advance in time recommends Brian Linnekens that has been recently functioning within the Debt industry for the past few decades. Brian Linnekens has not merely been recently working together with consumers but additionally is still counseling lenders about a number of matters. As well as that, Brian in addition maintains private blogs wherever he offers advice to creditors as well as borrowers about the numerous areas of Managing debt. Managing debt could be very difficult with regard to organizations particularly whilst collecting back the money which has been financed out. Correspondence to individuals undoubtedly are a usual activity in almost any firm that is definitely active in the commercial collection agencies though the letters has to be expert while sending out a definite concept on the consumer in regards to the motives on the agency. One needs to start the particular letter with courtesy using an airy greeting that explains to the shopper the business truly understands the association of the customer with their business and is happy for his or her co-operation up to now. This should put the attendees comfortable just before they runs directly into the small print of the debt. Next, be sure to include the debt details on the actual letter inside big along with daring fonts in order that a customer with poor vision does not have a difficulty in studying the small print of the debt. The present installment ought to be pointed out combined with principal outstanding amount, the interest gathered as well as virtually any supplementary charges which can be presently there to the customers account. This should produce openness and confidence amid your clients that could significantly help in promoting an appropriate partnership together with your consumer. In the event the consumer has overlooked any payments bring it up clearly within the letter in addition to tell the purchaser how frequently you have sent reminders for the home owners which are dismissed. Dont forget to say the particular work deadlines of the fees that were overlooked and also the dates of the particular letters that have been sent as a reminder to the client. You should not flaunt your links or even power in the letter to discourage the purchaser while it have a damaging affect the client. Alternatively you can inform your client that you are moving his or her debt to a collection agency that specializes in amassing debt from erring clients. You must provide answers to your customer as a substitute for unnerving as well as instigating him. You can also split up the amount owed into smaller sized payments that the client is snug with to the specify time as well as amount which should be paid at specific dates. Allow a grace period for the consumer to really make the payment communication for that ought to be there to the notice. For more information about Brian Linnekens and Real Estate Please Visit : http://www.gidevelopmentinc.com/ Brian Linnekens making your credit reportsbetter Do you think youre puzzled currently as to why your credit rating will go lower or maybe the reasons why of the finance institutions have refused your current request intended for a loan? Chances are that your credit score has gone lower without you knowing. Mistakes as well as oversight coming from one or maybe many banking institutions is quite regular according to Brian Linnekens however these error that are insignificant towards financial institutions currently have significant effects for someone who may be attempting to get financing, loan for an automotive or perhaps home loan for his or her residence.

Meanwhile, in Cowdenbeath, the Douglas Garage site in Lochgelly and the derelict property on Cocklaw Street, Kelty, have been identified as needing attention. The report to the Levenmouth committee said: Tackling dilapidated properties is a significant undertaking, although the majority of the financial burden is the responsibility of private owners. There is no dedicated council budget for tackling issues of dilapidation. The opportunity to recharge costs to private owners would be pursued where relevant. A significant financial responsibility falls on property owners, but many are unable to raise finance in the current difficult financial climate to address the issues. In these circumstances, it may be appropriate to take enforcement action and/or to support owners to find means of securing the resources required or to consider selling the property. Dilapidated properties send out a message of neglect within neighbourhoods and communities. When these properties are in prominent locations that negatively affect neighbouring households, businesses or facilities the impact can be significant. The reasons behind dilapidation are wide-ranging. Wilful neglect is rare and more often owners lack the understanding, financial means or, in some cases of shared ownership, mechanism to care properly for their building. A number of initiatives have been launched to tackle the problem of run-down properties. These include a council-run vacant property grant scheme to help owners attract prospective tenants or help tenants make improvements. Back to top Advertorial: 33% more Scottish homeowners getting debt help today than in 2008 At Debt Advisory Centre Scotland, we've seen a 33% increase in the proportion of homeowners on our debt solutions in the past five years. In 2008, Scottish homeowners accounted for 21% of the people we were helping with one of our debt solutions, but today this figure has risen to 28%. There could be a number of reasons for this increase. To name one, when the financial crisis started in 2008, experts warned that too many homeowners had taken out mortgages that they couldn't really afford. We may be seeing the result of this today. Looking ahead, today's all-time-low interest rates are helping homeowners across the country - but once rates begin to rise again, many more of them could start to struggle. Debt problems are always a cause for concern, but this is especially true when you're at risk of losing your home. If you're in this position, it's important to look into all the different types of debt help that could help you tackle your debt problems and avoid losing your home. Trust Deed provider DACScotland.co.uk provides a range of different solutions to help people with all kinds of financial problems. If you're worried about your finances and not sure what to do next, it's important to contact an expert - and make sure you really understand the pros and cons - before you commit yourself to anything. Finance and Corporate Services Manager Angus Housing Association ANGUS HOUSING ASSOCIATION LIMITED FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES MANAGER (EVH Grade SM 13 to 15 - 52,860 to 55,274 per annum plus Essential User Car Allowance) Angus Housing Association is a key provider of affordable housing to rent in Dundee and Angus. We have offices in Arbroath and Dundee from which we manage over 2,000 houses. We are seeking to recruit a highly motivated and skilled individual to finalise our Management Team. The person we are looking for should have a minimum of 10 years experience of working in Financial Management, of which 5 years should have been at a supervisory or management level. You should also possess high level computing skills, be an excellent verbal and written communicator and demonstrate a proven track record of effectively supporting and helping improve front line service delivery. You should preferably have some experience of working in the public or social housing sectors and you must hold a relevant Accountancy qualification. If you are interested in working for a forward looking organisation committed to providing first class services, call for an Application Form and an Information Pack. You can contact us by calling our Customer Service Team on 0845 177 2244, by emailing us at admin@aha.org.uk or by writing to us at Angus Housing Association Limited, 93 High Street, Arbroath, DD11 1DP. If you want to have an informal chat with us about this post before applying, you can also speak with our Director, Bruce Forbes, by phoning the above number. CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS IS FRIDAY 6th SEPTEMBER, 2013. Angus Housing Association Limited is committed to Equal Opportunities across the entire range of our activities. Back to top Tender: Internal Audit Service Viewpoint Viewpoint is seeking a suitably qualified and experienced auditor to provide an internal audit service from April 2014. Viewpoint is a Registered Social Landlord based in Edinburgh but also working in the Lothians and Fife. Viewpoint provides accommodation and services for older people in both housing and care homes. The tender return date is 12 noon on Friday 4 October 2013. To request a copy of the specification please contact Melissa Esquerre on 0131 668 4247 or by emailing admin@viewpoint.org.uk All tenders should be returned to Viewpoints Head Office, 4 South Oswald Road, Edinburgh EH9 2HG. (2) Staff Satisfaction Survey Waverley Housing is seeking to appoint consultants to carry out two contracts on its behalf, one for a Customer Satisfaction Survey, and the other for a Staff Satisfaction Survey. Waverley Housing is a Hawick based stock transfer RSL, with stock distributed throughout the Scottish Borders Council area, and we have 1,529 tenanted properties. We also provide a factoring service to an additional 440 private owners. We provide services to a wide range of client groups, including single people, families, older persons and private owners. Tenders are sought from consultants experienced in carrying out customer satisfaction surveys on behalf of Registered Social Landlords. It is an essential requirement that all proposals (and any subsequent work carried out) must comply with all relevant regulatory requirements, including but not limited to, compliance with the Scottish Social Housing Charter. In particular, the personal loans for bad credit standards set out in the Scottish Housing Regulator guidance 'Conducting surveys of tenants and service users a guide' (March 2013) must be met or exceeded at all times. A separate proposal is required for each contract.

The forces that are pushing liquidity lower will only get more severe. Borrowing Binge Thats especially concerning to investors following a borrowing binge spurred by the Federal Reserve , which has kept interest rates near zero since Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed in 2008 and pumped more than $2.5 trillion into the financial system. Its currently buying $85 billion of bonds every month. The face value of securities in the Bank of America Merrill Lynch U.S. Broad Market Index has grown to $19.2 trillion, up 61 percent from $11.9 trillion at the end of 2008. Speculative-grade, dollar-denominated debt now exceeds $2 trillion, doubling the past seven years, according to Morgan Stanley. Bond investors, after enjoying annualized returns of 6.3 percent from the end of 2008 through last year, are now suffering as the Fed considers reducing its stimulus. Yields (USGG10YR) on 10-year Treasury notes, a benchmark for everything from company bonds to mortgages, jumped to 2.93 percent on Aug. 22, the highest level since July 2011. The yield was at 2.83 percent as of 7:44 a.m. in London , up 1.22 percentage points from this years low of 1.61 percent on May 1. The price of the benchmark 2.5 percent note due August 2023 dropped 13/32, or $4.06 per $1,000 face amount, to 97 1/8, Bloomberg Bond Trader prices show. Seeking Refuge Government bonds have retreated on the Feds plans, not because of inflation. The Commerce Departments price index tied to spending, a gauge tracked by Federal Reserve policy makers, increased 1.4 percent in July from the same period in 2012. Yields ended Aug. 30 at 2.79 percent, down 3 basis points on the week, or 0.03 percentage point, as the threat of a military conflict with Syria bolstered demand for government debt as a refuge. Corporate bonds yields in the U.S. rose to 4.18 percent on Aug. 30 from a record low of 3.35 percent on May 2, Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes show. Borrowing costs rose even as companies grew more creditworthy. Earnings of Standard & Poors 500 companies surged to more than $100 per share last year from about $60 in 2008 and default rates hold below 3 percent. Pulling Cash Borrowing costs may rise even more. Treasury 10-year yields will jump to 3.2 percent by the end of next year, based on the median estimate of 51 economists and strategists surveyed by Bloomberg. In April, the forecast was for 2.8 percent. Investors are pulling unprecedented amounts of cash from bond mutual and exchange-traded funds after pouring $1.2 trillion into them in the three years after 2009, according to an Aug. 20 report from TrimTabs in Sausalito, California . The magnitude of the recent Treasury yield moves has surprised a lot of people, Yvette Klevan, a global fixed-income money manager at Lazard Asset Management, which oversees $172 billion worldwide, said in an interview at the firms New York office Aug. 20. What is different this time compared to other points in history is liquidity, and the fact that the sell-side dealers have less appetite to use their balance sheets to facilitate trading, she said. At an average of $313 billion this year, the amount of Treasuries traded through London-based ICAP, the worlds largest interdealer broker, is little changed from the $301.4 billion in 2007. In that time, the amount of marketable Treasuries outstanding has grown to $11.5 trillion from $4.34 trillion. Thin Markets The 21 primary dealers authorized to trade with Fed have cut corporate-debt holdings 27 percent, to $14 billion on Aug. 21, from $18.7 billion on April 3. That follows a 76 percent reduction in inventories from the peak in 2007 through March, when the Fed changed the way it reported the data. Inventories equal less than 0.5 percent of company debt in the U.S., Fed and Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show. Markets are very thin, said Lazards Klevan. We are now in an environment where technicals and pricing dislocations are being impacted by this liquidity situation. Thats a small price to pay for regulations necessary to protect markets, said Anat Admati , the George G. C. Parker Professor of Finance & Economics at Stanford University s business school in Stanford, California. We need to enable things to happen in the market at the right price, Admati said in an Aug. 27 telephone interview. When markets are a little bit less fragile, meaning everyone involved is not in as much risk of distress and insolvency, then they will be more useful, she said. Risk Assets Banks are setting aside more money to cover bad loans and cope with downturns to comply with rules aimed at preventing U.S. taxpayers from having to bail them out like during the credit crisis, when financial institutions globally suffered more than $2 trillion of credit losses and writedowns. Internationally, capital rules passed by the 27-country Basel Committee in 2010 require lenders reduce compensation pools for fixed-income, currencies and commodities groups by more than 20 percent, and cut risk-weighted assets by more than 25 percent, according to estimates by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Dealers, given all the regulatory rules, cant put as much capital out to hold bonds now, said Andrew Richman, director of fixed-income at SunTrust Banks private wealth management unit in West Palm Beach , Florida . All of this is affecting the pricing in the market, he said Aug. 2 in a telephone interview. Repo Cutbacks Banks have reduced 505,339 jobs since the end of 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Cordova Recreational Sports Center , known as the "CoRec." This past Sunday, I went to check out the new gym. I am a man prone to hyperbole. So please believe me when I say that I don't exaggerate: I was literally agape for much of the time, as I explored the CoRec. I realized that the name CoRec was not going to cut it. This was no mere gym. This was a Gleaming Fitness Palace. Back in my younger, stupider days, I joined a fancy gym in Chicago. It was posh, with lots of young go-getter professional types piling in to do a little chiseling. Let me tell you: the CoRec puts that gym to shame. It makes that gym look like the old skanky weight room dungeon I used to go to at my local Y. Of course, go-getter professional types have money, and Bally's is a for-profit entity, and Purdue's primary population of 18-22 year olds do no have money, and neither does the State of Indiana or its meager allotment of funds for higher education. But these are details. The Cordova Recreational Sports Center is five stories and about 338,000 square feet not a misprint of Gleaming Fitness Palace. I don't say "gleaming" loosely. Like most new construction at American universities, the GFP is a beautiful melding of glass and steel, designed, no doubt, by some pricey architect. It really is lovely to look at. It looks like... money. Of course, you don't go to the gym to admire the architecture and interior design. You go to the gym to work out. And there is quite possibly nothing that you want to do, exercise wise, that you can't accomplish at the GFP. S There is, of course, row upon endless row of the latest fitness equipment, the cutting edge in treadmills and rowing machines and stair steppers and arc trainers and ellipticals and the like. I ran on the treadmill today and amused myself with the built-in television, which I suppose is there in case the dozens of hanging flatscreens don't suit your fancy. (There is an endless number of TVs in this building, even several in each of the three major locker rooms.) When I bored of that, I turned on the virtual personal trainer, a chipper digital lady who gave me encouragement and info about my simulated run up a mountain course, which was animated on the screen in front of me. When that proved tiresome, I played Solitaire. Not kidding. I didn't take advantage of the iPod connectivity or the built-in heart monitors or dozens of other features, but hey! It was nice knowing they were there. S And of course there's a vast collection of weights in every shape and size imaginable, barbells and dumbbells and kettle bells, presses and stations and cages galore, Smith machines and cable pulls and dip stations and chin up bars, absolutely everything you need to rhythmically grunt your way to a better body. It's not just that all this equipment exists. It's all the different places you can use them. There's the immense Colby fitness space (14 TVs!). There's the powerlifter's paradise in East Fitness. There's the Scifres Functional Fitness area be sure to check out the Endless Rope machine and stretching cage. There's the Fitness Loft, for people in the hurry, not to be confused with the Fitness Pavilion, for people looking for seclusion, not to be confused with the Fitness Mezzanine. If none of these suit your fancy, try Upper Fitness! Of course, there are plenty of personal trainers ready to make appointments to really amp up your workout. S Of course, machines and weights are but a small part of the total fitness world. You can play on one of our many, many indoor basketball courts; I think I counted 20 separate hoops, but I got pretty distracted while trying to count them all. Or you could play racquetball in one of the half dozen courts. Or volleyball, or badminton, in spaces designated for those purposes. Or indoor soccer. Or indoor hockey. Or you could run on not one but two separate indoor tracks! S Or how about the climbing wall, which I had heard about from my students? When I saw it, I thought, yeah, that is impressive. S Ah, but little did I know. That was merely the bouldering wall.

September 02 2013

haydenillh

Sowerby Heading Back To Premier - Cricket News - Halifax Courier

It was not immediately clear when the ships would enter the Red Sea, but they had not arrived by Sunday evening, said one official. "It's about leveraging the assets to have them in place should the capabilities of the carrier strike group and the presence be needed," said the official. President Barack Obama on Saturday delayed imminent cruise missile strikes by five destroyers off the coast of Syria, and sought approval from Congress, a move that effectively put any strike on hold for at least nine days. The delay gives military planners more time to reassess which ships and other weapons will be kept in the region - and which may be swapped out - before the U.S. military launches what defense officials say is still intended to be a limited and narrowly targeted attack on Syria. The U.S. Navy doubled its presence in the eastern Mediterranean over the past week, effectively adding two destroyers to the three that generally patrol the region. The five destroyers are carrying a combined load of about 200 Tomahawk missiles, officials say. But that's not all: as reported yesterday , the US dispatched the USS San Antonio, an amphibious ship with 300 Marines and extensive communications equipment on board, to join five US destroyers already in proximity to Syria, diverting it from a previously scheduled mission that would have taken it farther west. It could serve as an afloat forward staging base, which could provide a temporary base for special operations forces, if they were needed. Today we learn that yet another amphibious assault ship, the USS Kearsage, with yet more marines is joining in the supposedly demilitarized fray: The USS Kearsarge, a large-deck amphibious ship that is part of a readiness group with the San Antonio, is also on the way toward the Red Sea after a port call in the United Arab Emirates, officials said. No further specific orders had been issued to the ship, they said. So to sum up: since last week, when the entire world expected the US to attack Syria imminently, and when there were "only" 5 destroyers within striking distance, now that the sentiment is that war is far less probable, the US has an additional 4 destroyers from the Nimitz group, two marine ships, and an aircraft carrier. De-escalation? Not really. Perhaps this has something to do with it - going back to the fundamental driver behind it all, Saudi Arabia, the NYT reports that the Kingdom of Saud will hardly rest peacefully until the Assad scourge is wiped off the face of the planet... and room for one or more gas and/or oil pipelines is made below a receptive Syrian government. Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies on Sunday stepped up their efforts to drum up support for Western airstrikes against Syria. With the Arab League meeting on Sunday evening for a second time to discuss responses to the Syrian crisis, Saudi Arabias foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, broke the kingdoms public silence on the subject at a news conference in Cairo on Sunday afternoon, urging other Arab nations to back the Syrian rebels with military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad after a suspected chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds. Saudi Arabia, its Gulf allies and Jordan have all pushed hard behind the scenes for Washington to lead strikes against Mr. Assad, whom they consider the most important regional ally of their greatest enemy, Iran. That pressure continued on Sunday, but until now the monarchies have refrained from publicly endorsing Western military action, presumably because the idea of Western intervention is overwhelmingly unpopular across the Arab world. Several analysts said Sunday that President Obama had badly damaged American credibility in the Arab world by appearing to back down from airstrikes just hours before many Arab government expected them to begin. He is seen as feckless and weak, and this will give further rise to conspiracy theories that Obama doesnt really want Assad out and it is all a big game, said Salman Shaikh of the Brookings Doha Center. Many Arab leaders already think that Obamas word cannot be trusted I am talking about his friends and allies and I am afraid this will reinforce that belief. And speaking of Obama's damaged credibility, nowhere has it been more crushed than in ground zero: Syria. Sun, 09/01/2013 - 21:10 | 3912343 km4 War Is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler US Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket summary: " War is a racket . It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." Obama has the racket led by Bandar of Saudi Arabia up his ass ! Sun, 09/01/2013 - 21:12 | 3912352 asteroids Obozo will botch foriegn policy the same way he botched economic and domestic policy. Now matter what happens, he won't be remembered as a great president. Should he keep this up, who know how he'll be remembered.... Sun, 09/01/2013 - 21:17 | 3912354 One And Only Fuck yea, USS Nimitz for the no fly zone, marines off the coast (but no boots on the ground), battleships off the coast ready to fire missiles. US prepared to commit acts of war against a sovereign nation with ZERO constitutional authority in order to help Al Qaeda be victorious against Assad. I am 100% certain that my representatives will not represent me (or the rest of America) and will go ahead with this act of war for no reason. How appropriate right before 9/11 that we are about to provide air support for Al Qaeda. Hope your kids have fun getting molested at the airport for your safety. The terrorists won. Sun, 09/01/2013 - 21:13 | 3912356 Harbourcity ""Obama?

27, 2013 in Mortgage . I know how exciting shopping for a new home can be. Your mind begins creating a wish list of all of these things that you want in your next home. Maybe you want a low maintenance townhouse. Or maybe this time you want a 3 bedroom detached house with a 2 car garage and a huge back yard for your kids and pets to run around in. You start to dream about what the kitchen will look like and how big the bathrooms will be. Will you look for a place with hardwood floors and a beautiful fireplace? The list goes on and on. But before you continue creating your wish list it is important to figure out exactly how much you can afford to spend and how big of a mortgage you will qualify for. And to apply for a new mortgage there are a number of things you should get ready before you even speak to a mortgage broker. Here is a list of things you should do before you apply for a mortgage: Pull Your Credit Score Pull your credit score so that you know exactly what your score is. This way you will avoid any unnecessary surprises when the mortgage broker pulls your report. As well, this will give you an opportunity to review your report for any mistakes that may be dragging down your credit score. Pay Down Your Current Debt The less debt you have and the higher credit score you have the better interest rate you will receive with your new mortgage. If you currently carry credit card debt make a plan to either reduce that by a significant amount, or if possible, pay it all off before you apply for a new mortgage. Current Assets And Documents On your mortgage application you may be asked to list your other assets, including investments, other property, vehicles, and so on. To make it easier on yourself, grab any documentation that you have for those items and make a list of those items and their current value. Have Your Last 2 Years of Tax Returns Handy Be prepared to show your mortgage broker a copy of your tax returns for the past 2 years to verify your level of income before and after taxes. Other Financial Documents Some of the other financial documents that you will want to have readily available are your current paystubs, bank statements for the previous 2 months, and any separation, divorce or bankruptcy statements. As well, if you are making any support payments, you will need to identify those amounts. Save For The Largest Down Payment Possible One of the most important things you should do before you even approach a mortgage broker is to save as much money as you can for the down payment on your new home. Even if you are only required to put down 10% to qualify, it is in your best interest to put down at least 25%. You will feel a lot more comfortable in your home knowing that you have at least 25% equity instead of 10%, or heaven forbid, even less then that. If you can put down 30%, that would be even better. Upfront Costs Paying for the home is just one of the expenses you will incur when you buy a new home. Other expenses that you need to have money saved and set aside for are a home inspection, moving costs and closing costs (including legal fees). As well you will want to have money set aside for immediate renovations or updates that you may need to do as soon as you move in. If the home is older personal loans online it may need some upgrades. If the home is brand new you may need to do the landscaping. All of that adds up quickly. Create A Personal Budget One of the things that many people forget to do when they consider buying a new home is to create a budget to see exactly what they can afford. Create a budget based on your current income. Then add in all of the expenses that you will incur both on a monthly basis and an annual basis if you buy a new home. As you create your budget use online mortgage tools to help you determine exactly what size of a mortgage you can honestly afford, and still live a comfortable life. You see if you just head in to see a broker they will often do a few quick calculations and typically come up with a high number that may in fact result in a very tight budget for you later on. But if you have done all of your homework you will already know if what they offer you is too high or well within your comfort zone. When buying a new home, always stay within your comfort zone. This is not the time to take risks or to over-extend yourself. And always do your homework before you call a mortgage broker and before you start looking at new homes. You want your decision to be based on your financial situation, instead of big backyards and pretty kitchens.

Her father already has a family, a generous wife and five fully grown sons. He's ridiculously rich, kind hearted and wants Camille even though, up until she'd phoned him, he'd had no knowledge of her existence. He brings her down to South Carolina from California and I was right there with Camille on the whole creepy factor! These people were rating a full ten on my back-away-slowly radar. They were all too nice, too generous, too open about accepting Camille into their lives as their daughter/sister. There were no questions asked, no suspicions or hatred that this person was created through adultery (I am assuming adultery, because Will --Cami's new father-- was married to his wife and had children when he met and created Cami with her mother. There is a reasoning behind it, but I think this will be explained more in the next book). The person I really liked was Daniel, Cami's best friend in the whole world. HE is was voice of reason, always cautioning Cami not to just board a fancy yacht with five strange men only hours after meeting them. He's the handsome, loyal BFF that every girl needs. When Cami gets herself in some seriously messed up trouble (will get to this) later in the book, Daniel is the one that storms off to the rescue, and it is awesome! (I also have a theory about who Daniel is exactly, but I won't say). Then there is Drake. I don't even know where to start. He's gorgeous, fast, kind and completely and hopelessly in love with Cami, even though he's engaged to Bianca (Cami's new BFF down in South Carolina). The plot gets all twisty from there. I won't say anything else on that front because it's something that needs to be read to fully appreciate. But I will say, the yacht scene... WOW! Me loved a lot! Another thing I will say, I will NEVER stop to help an elderly couple switch a tire. EVER! Thank you, Ms. Straight, for that life lesson. So, what didn't I like about the story? Hands down the POV head-hopping. I LOVED reading Camis POV and Drakes (especially Drakes). But there was a point when we were in Biancas head, then Zandras (Cami's grandmother) then Daniels. I understood what the author was trying to do. I liked that we got the story from different angles, but I just wasn't a fan. Nevertheless, I was too hooked to notice or care. The story was fast-paced. The plot unique. I loved the romance between Cami and Drake (and there was a second there that I thought Ms. Straight was going to do something awful, just terrible and then make us wait for book two... thankfully she didn't. But we still have to wait for book two). I loved Drake's fast and passionate love for Cami. in charge debt solutions And I loved how Ms. Straight made me want to grab Cami and smack her a few times for being so pigheaded. All in all, the book was amazing. I will be the first in line Dec 2012 for Blood Ties Also, a final note before we wrap up this review. Fans of Charlotte Abel will LOVE the surprise Ms. Straight has at the end of this novel. A sneak peek into Ms.

I was right. I predicted that the tech-heavy Nasdaq would outperform the Dow Jones Industrial Average. . This has been a tricky call lately, so how did it play out this time? Well, this was a bad week for tech stocks. The Nasdaq moved 1.9% higher, and that was worse than the Dow's 1.3% slip. I was wrong. My final call was for OmniVision Technologies to beat Wall Street's income estimates in its latest quarter. The maker of image sensors used in digital cameras, smartphones, and tablets has been cashing in on the popularity of portable computing gadgetry. It had also been posting blowout quarterly results over the past year. I was banking on seeing the trend continue. Analysts were looking for a profit of $0.43 a share during the quarter, and it came through with adjusted net income of $0.55 . The stock fell on OmniVision's disappointing outlook, but it was still a beat looking back. I was right. Two out of three? I can do better than that. Let me once again whip out my trusty, dusty, and occasionally accurate crystal ball to make three calls that may play out over the next few trading days. 1. Tesla Motors will close lower on the week Everything seems to go right for Elon Musk these days, and Tesla Motors shareholders are grateful. the maker of plug-in electric cars has seen its shares pop fivefold. The future's bright for Tesla, but its $20.5 billion market cap seems a bit extreme for where it is in its life cycle. Against this backdrop, the market's showing plenty of volatility, making high-beta stocks vulnerable. Tesla has bucked the malaise so far. August was the market's worst month in more than a year, but Tesla had no problem moving higher. It hit a new high earlier this past week. For a week, at least, Tesla's likely to be due for a breather. My first call is for this Wall Street darling to close lower on the week. 2.The Nasdaq Composite will beat the Dow this week Tech has been a big winner in recent years, so betting on tech over stodgy blue chips has been a good bet for me more often than not. I'm going to stick with this pick. Most of the names in the composite are just too cheap at this point, and tech should be what carries us through the economic recovery. Earnings reports were rough in some places this past season, but the long-term outlook is still quite favorable. The market is ripe for the tech-stacked secondary stocks to continue to outpace the 30 megacaps that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average. 3. Bazaarvoice will beat Wall Street's earnings estimates Some stocks are just flat-out better than others. Bazaarvoice is a leading provider of social commerce solutions. More than 1,000 retailers lean on Bazaarvoice's data -- covering more than 400 million questions and experiences on roughly 20 million different products -- to drive sales, awareness, and customer loyalty. Another thing it does is make analysts look like perpetual underachievers. If analysts say the company posted a loss of $0.08 a share in its latest quarter, I'll argue that it held up better than that. History's on my side! One of my best tricks to beating the market is finding stocks that perpetually land ahead of the prognosticators. Let's go over the past year of earnings reports. Quarter 8% Source: Thomson Reuters.

Sound Familiar? By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Cross posted from Triple Crisis So now India is the latest casualty among emerging economies . Over the past 10 days, the rupee has slid to its lowest-ever rate, and the Indian economy may well be on the verge of a full-blown currency crisis. In this febrile situation, it is open season for rumours and pessimistic predictions, which then become self-fulfilling. This means that even if there is a slight market rally, investors quickly work themselves into even more gloom. Each hurriedly announced policy measure (raising duties on gold imports, some controls on capital outflows, liberalising rules for capital inflows and so on) has had the opposite of the desired effect. Everything the government does seems to be too little, too late or even counterproductive. These are all classic features of the panic phase of a financial market cycle. This doesnt mean that a crash is inevitable, but clearly it is possible. The real surprise in all this is that investors and Indian policymakers are surprised. For some reason, they apparently did not foresee this turn of events, even though the story of every financial crisis of the past, and many in the very recent past, should have caused some nostrils to twitch at least a year or two ago. The Indian economy has been in trouble for quite a while already, and only willful blindness could have led to ignorance on this. Output growth has been decelerating for several years, and private investment has fallen for 10 consecutive quarters. Industrial production has declined over the past year. But consumer price inflation is still in double digits, providing all the essential elements of stagflation (rising prices with slowing income growth). At the moment the external sector is the weakest link. Exports are limping along but imports have ballooned (including all kinds of non-essential imports like gold), so both trade and current account deficits are at historically high levels. They are largely financed by volatile short-term capital. This has already started leaving the country: since June more than $12bn has been withdrawn by portfolio investors alone. This situation is the result of internal and external imbalances that have been building up for years. The Indian economic boom was based on a debt-driven consumption and investment spree that mainly relied on short-term capital inflows. This generated asset booms in areas such as construction and real estate, rather than in traded goods. And it created a sense of financial euphoria that led to massive over-extension of credit to both companies and households, to compound the problem. Sadly, this boom was also wasted in that it did not lead to significant improvements in the lives of the majority, as public expenditure on basic infrastructure, as well as nutrition, health, sanitation and education did not rise adequately. We should know by now that such a debt-driven bubble is an unsustainable process that must end in tears, but those who pointed this out were derided as killjoys with no understanding of Indias potential. Something similar is occurring in a number of other Asian economies that are also feeling the pain at present, such as Indonesia while the Brazilian economy shows some similar features. The current Indian problems may be extreme, but they reflect what should now be a familiar process in all major regions of the world. The typical story, which was elaborated half a century ago by Charles Kindleberger , goes something like this: a country is discovered by international investors and therefore receives substantial capital inflows. These contribute to a domestic boom, and also push up the real exchange rate. This reduces the incentives for exporters and producers of import substitutes, so investors look for avenues in the non-tradable sectors, such as construction and real estate. So the boom is marked by rising asset values, of real estate and of stocks. The counterpart of all this is a rising current account deficit, which no one pays much attention to as long as the money keeps flowing in and the economy keeps growing. But all bubbles must eventually burst. All it takes is some change in perception for the entire process to unravel, and then it can unravel very quickly. The trigger can be a change in global conditions, or a sharp slowdown in domestic income growth, or political instability, or even economic problems in a neighbouring country. In India Ben Bernanke of the US Federal Reserve is being blamed for bringing this on, but it could easily have been some other factor. Once the revulsion in markets sets in, the very features that were celebrated during the boom are excoriated by both investors and the public as examples of crony capitalism, inefficiency and such like. The resulting financial crisis hits those who did not really benefit so much from the boom, by affecting employment and the incomes of workers. This is what has just started to happen in India, and is also likely to happen in several other emerging markets. But essentially the same process has already unfolded many times before in different parts of the world: Latin America in the 1980s, Mexico in 1994-95, south-east Asia in 1997-98, Russia in 1999-2000, Argentina in 2001-02, the US in 2008, Ireland and Greece in 2009, and so on.

Teemu Pukki reveals how Schalke injury crisis almost scuppered his move to Celtic FINNISH striker Pukki sealed a 2.4million switch to Parkhead yesterday. exclusive McAVOY got more than he bargained for when he encountered a real-life prostitute during filming. Record Woman TV: Super slimmers go for gold, pack seven outfits that weigh just 7 kilos and meet Scots actress Amy Lennox WE meet some super slimmers hoping to win big at the Scottish Slimmers awards, learn how to pack light and we chat to Scots actress Amy Lennox. Play Daily Record Bingo now for great prizes! Search: GILLIAN CUTHBERT told Cheque Centre workers to offer borrowers "roll over" monthly loans - meaning they would stay in debt indefinitely. Cuthbert referred us to head office Daily Record A TOP boss at a major payday loan firm ordered staff to keep desperate families mired in debt. Gillian Cuthbert, Scottish regional manager at Cheque Centre, told workers in an email not to offer simple, fixed repayment plans to people struggling to pay back loans with crippling interest rates. She told the shop assistants instead to get borrowers to roll over monthly loans, meaning they would stay in debt. People who roll over only pay a monthly fee, not any of the cash they owe, and can be saddled indefinitely with massive fees. Cuthbert banned her workers at branches in Scotland and Northern Ireland from talking to customers about the 14-day cooling off period for loans. She also ordered staff not to ask questions designed to establish whether customers could afford loans, and not to discuss what would happen if people couldnt repay. Cuthbert wrote: Do not run over 14-day cooling-off period, adequate questions theme, and do not cover if you cannot pay back: 100 per cent compliance please. Shockingly, Cuthbert also told staff to ask penniless customers who couldnt afford to repay anything if they have any gold at home. Employees were told to say gold could be used to keep your account up to date. Cheque Centre are also pawnbrokers. The company are signed up to the Consumer Finance Association code of conduct. Cuthberts advice appears to flout it in multiple ways. The big companies in the payday loan industry have made billions from hard-up Britons struggling in the economic downturn. Cuthberts email, obtained by our investigators, will add to widespread concerns about how some in the industry treat vulnerable customers. Scottish Labour MSP Kezia Dugdale said: We simply cannot wait any longer to act on payday loan companies. These are legal loan sharks exploiting families across the country. The SNPs John Mason, deputy convener of the Holyrood finance committee, added: Austerity UK is causing real pain for so many on low incomes. It is sickening that this is being exploited by unscrupulous payday firms. One former Cheque Centre worker, who left in disgust earlier this year, said: What they are doing to people is indefensible. I couldnt go on with a clear conscience. They have people who are clearly desperate, many maxed out with the full 1000 loan, who keep rolling over for years, paying thousands in fees and paying off nothing. These people need help and good advice, to explain that they can pay down the debt by paying a little more a month to get on an even keel. Cheque Centre sell loans from stores Steven Bainbridge/Sunday Mirror Cuthbert brags on business networking service LinkedIn about her proven people skills, resulting in consistent optimum revenue growth. Her July 10 email to staff in all Scots and Northern Irish branches gave directions on influencing buy back convincing debtors to roll over loans rather than paying them off at a small extra cost. Customers can borrow up to 1000, repayable in full at the end of the month, plus a fee for every 100 borrowed. At the time the email was written, the fee was 27.50. Its now 30. Cuthberts email gave the cost of repaying a 100 loan on a four-month Fixed Repayment Plan 39.38 a month, just 11.88 more than the 27.50 monthly fee. That would cover the original loan, the 27.50 fee and a 30 fee for late payment. But Cuthbert told staff: I would encourage you not to get into conversations on FRP. She said it was better to let the firms head office deal with customers who could not repay. They could get an account paid back in two weeks. She added: This is my preference. She went on: Dont try to negotiate a four-month pay-back plan... keep the account live, its your customer. Cuthbert told staff dealing with people behind on payments to call them three times a day. And she used the example of a fictional customer called Gillian to instruct workers on how best to get money out of debtors. She wrote: If they say difficulties paying, break down to What can you give me today? Try to negotiate more: Hey Gillian, do you have any gold at home, I can use it to keep your account up to date. Cuthbert then told staff to at least get the 27.50 fee out of customers to roll the loan over as an absolute minimum to stay in good stead and keep the account live. She said staff should say that 39.38 is more per month than 27.50 rollover. She added: Coach this only if you get into the situation. Cuthbert advised staff to tell customers they would miss them if they had to be dealt with by head office, and that the firm could no longer lend to them if that happened. They were to say: That would be a shame. What time can I expect you today with the 27.50? Hey Gillian, I want to keep you using me as a financial resource, I want to give you cash, and give you the cash quick when you need it, what time can you come down today and see me. The CFA code of conduct clearly states: Members shall not target individuals by marketing the payday loan where the product would be wholly inappropriate. It adds: Members shall offer a facility so a customer may, no more than five days before their loan is due for repayment, apply for a Fixed Repayment Plan. The code tells firms to advise potential customers of the short-term nature of the loan, and that it is unsuitable for long-term use. And it says customers should be given an explanation of the 14-day right to withdraw. Cheque Centre did not respond to requests for comment. Cuthbert, 39, of Edinburgh, told us: I cant make any comment. You will need to contact our head office. Margaret Lynch, chief executive of Citizens Advice Scotland, said: Sadly, this report is not the first time we have heard of unscrupulous practices by payday loan companies. Across Scotland, were seeing clients whose payday debts have spiralled out of control.

Followup Emails With Your CB Id To Give You Credit! $50 Bonus To New Affiliates! Plus, Check Out Our Other Hot Offer: Getpaidtodraw.com/aff getcashforsurveys.com - survey opinions money Get Cash For Surveys Your Opinions Matter, Get Paid For Them! get cash for surveys Already a Member? Login here! Now open to Residents of Germany Learn the secrets of a single dad who got out of debt and made over $3,000 per month taking paid surveys online! Hi, I'm Gary Mitchell. This is my story... Everyday when I wake up I make breakfast for my daughter and drive her to school. I usually work out and run some errands before I head back home to get to "work". It's hard to even call it "work" though, because all I do is give my opinion on products and web sites and I get paid CASH! Companies need our opinions to make their products better so they can make even more money and will pay very well! The best part is that ANYONE can take paid surveys. It doesn't matter if you're young or old, man or woman, or what language you speak! You WILL get paid for your opinion! It's hard to believe how great my life is now because it wasn't always like this... A few years ago, I was heavily in debt... Four years ago I lost my job at a manufacturing plant producing popular toys for kids. You can probably guess what happened since it has been happening all over the world, my company "moved" all production to China and told me I was fired. What happened after getting fired was years of struggling to take care of my family and lots of nights with no sleep worrying about what I was going to do. I was forced to start using my credit cards and getting loans from family just to put food on the table for my child. I had credit card bills, student loans... and a young daughter to support! Life was hard... Raising a young daughter on my own meant I had to be around when she got home from school but having a roof over our heads and being able to buy clothes and feed her was my top priority. I spent months searching for another job, but it seemed like every job I applied to was only willing to pay minimum wage with no benefits. I was sad and depressed and didn't know what I was going to do when one of my lifelong friends invited me over to his house for a barbeque. Everything changed when a friend showed me a check they received for taking a survey. I was in shock when my friend showed me a $300 check he had received. What he told me next changed my life forever. "Companies will PAY ME MONEY for my opinion???" I couldn't believe what he was telling me. Why hadn't I heard of this before??? When he told me companies spend BILLIONS per year doing market research, I got really excited and started asking him more and more questions. He taught me everything he knew and I signed up to start taking surveys that same day. Before I knew it, I was getting 5-10 survey invitations a day! Now I was the one getting checks for HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS sent to me EVERY WEEK! Get started NOW! Get started today! I've been taking paid surveys for years now and I know the best ways to get started making money right away even if you have never taken a paid survey before. I will take you by the hand and show you everything you need to do to get started and getting paid today! Iall show you places with hundreds of surveys available today that you can take right away! (Just like these below) Plus, Iall show you how you can get paid to review new products AND get to keep them after submitting your review!

It might often feel like this when you seek free debt counseling; however, remember the individuals are there to help you. You have done nothing that cannot be corrected. Debt piles up for many reasons and at certain times you may have spent a little more than was wise because you felt secure in your job and then lost your job due to economic issues. Several scenarios exist for why you might suffer from hounding creditors. Just remember it can be corrected. Debt counseling asks you to list all of your monthly expenses, the total on any loans or credit cards you have, and your income. By writing it all down it is possible to see where you might be able to save. It also shows where your spending habits tend to focus on such as whether you spend too much on eating out or entertainment given your income. If you do tend to shop for items you do not need such as new TVs, clothing, entertainment and other expenditures debt counseling will look to why. Do you tend to spend more when you are emotionally upset? Do you spend money because you suddenly got a new job with a better income? The reasons why you spend money provide answers to the type of counseling you should receive. The counselor at a debt counseling location will be able to focus on the cause of your overspending. You see, to actually stop your spending habits and utilize debt help effectively you have to know why you might overspend. You might already know the cause is due to a lost job in your family income. If so, you still need debt counselling services in terms of how to stop it from becoming worse. Credit counseling might be able to help you find a job in the industry you work in. Often these counselors are networkers because they do see a lot of job loss as the root cause to financial trouble. Utilize debt counseling as it is meant to be so you can get the debt help you need. Once you have debt counseling to work on the cause of your troubles, you can begin to pay down your financial obligations with the appropriate debt help. This help can be management, settlement, or consolidation loans. With settlement or consolidation loans there is often negotiation involved. Most credit consultation locations can do this for you or refer you to a company that has this type of help. It will depend on the company, but most have an arm for settlement and consolidation loans along with their main focus of debt counseling. American debt counseling opportunities are slightly different than in Canada and other parts of the world. Each country has its own regulations. It is important for you to focus on the companies within your area, as well as those that have the registration to do so. Online you can often find many credit card debt counseling companies; however, you must make certain they are available in your area. These different regulations matter and it is best to avoid scams. Using the word in here might make you wary, but just remember you have to be on the lookout for trouble amidst the correct consumer debt counseling opportunities. The only way to solve your debt is to find a company that is more info truly going to help you and not hinder your road to financial recovery. Top Companies for Debt Counseling The following companies offering debt counseling have been chosen after a careful selection process. My methods begin with an approach by the company itself to offer a review about their debt options. I begin with a background check into the company to see what I can learn from an impartial perspective. Eventually I will meet the staff of the companies I review just as I have done for the three companies listed below. I meet with employees to learn about their process, what they offer, and to see how a working relationship would be if I approached them as a client. I feel this in depth process allows me to truly see the debt counseling they offer. I understand you need to feel comfortable about anyone you will talk to about your debt troubles. I endeavor to make you comfortable by approaching the company and only providing a good review if I feel comfortable. I am not going to provide you with misleading information as it does not serve me or the individuals you - who need this site. Debt counseling is not something you should mess around with or scam individuals on. It is about hardworking individuals trying to find a solution when they are in a pinch. Counseling can work in a variety of ways based on your needs. There are times when more help is needed such as hands on lessons or even further help with a psychologist to curb those spending habits. A counseling service offering debt help is there to ensure you find the path to help you require. If you do need further assistance beyond what the office can help you with, they will at least endeavor to counsel you in how to save and cut down on expenditures.

the whole point of my comment was to challenge the people that say this is a scam so why dont you mr joe debt jr go read a dictionary and find out what a scam really is they may charge outrageous amounts, or be considered really expensive.. but a scam? sounds like you need to pull your head out of your butt because paying them 10 grand in 3 yrs is still much cheaper than paying the credit card companies 48 gran in 3 yrs and still have the balance owed so tell me who is the one ripping people off with outrageous fees.. you probably work for the bank you scoundrel! so laugh it up , but you and you ripoff banks will never get my money. so take that!! Rocknrace8 Maybe scam is the wrong word to describe thembut they did not help me in any waythey did refund half of my money because they knew they did not help me. Glad it worked for you. I didnt want a free ride , just for them to do what i PAID them to do, settle my accounts.Its funny you tell Joe Debt Jr that he lives on his cards trying to make it look like he had money , is that what you did ?? I can say i had to use them because i lost my job due to the economy.You sound like you work for them and your just on here doing some damage control!! Jennifer I have been enrolled with Debt Free Associates for a little over 11 months and they have settled 2 out of my 3 accounts for 27%! I saved over 22k by enrolling with them, if you ask me, this is worth the fee I paid them of about 6k. I originally signed up for a 2 year term and it looks like I am going to be done much faster than that! Im not sure if the bad reviews did not fully understand the program, but I spoke with a very knowlegable representative and they explained everything to me so I knew what to expect. chris SCAMSCAM.SCAMSCAM.SCAM.SCAM.YOU ARE WARNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nie WARNING.DO NOT USER THEM. Like many of you here, I just found out that there is only 477.06 in my saving account and that i have been contributing $2999 to these guys. I was told to fax offered letters to them, which i did. I called in and was informed to only contact them when it is a third party offer. I recieved an offered from one of my creditor and had decided to go ahead and use my money in their saving for it. That was the reason i contacted them. After talking to them for 5 minutes, I got chills and learned that i only had $477.06. I questioned why they did not informed their customer about this and they said sorry for what i was being informed. I told them you say sorry but i am still in debt and that my money is gone. So,, now, I have two days left and i wanted to use settle this offer but they went ahead and submit their paper work. Now, the whole process is messed up and i do not want to just pay left over amount not knowing if they truely pay the 477.06 or not. So.. please stay away from them One persone comment that if you save the 700 you could have settle your two credit cards. This is true.. Apparently, they calculated your debt and ask you to make a contribution based on their estimated debt amount. In my case, 700 a month.. Using this figure, 700, here is the break out.. So.. first you pay 199 processing fee.. Then for the next 4 months (700X4), you paythem $2,322.94 and save 477.06 Then for the next 12 months (70012), you will pay them $3,106.80 and save $5,293.20. Then, for the following months after this untill your contract end, you will pay them $75.00 every month, using the 700 a month contribution. For Nothing These offer letter sent to you by your creditors If you want to settle it in full, it clearly states the means to do so in the offer letter. If you to settle with a payment plan, call them up and ask for it.. but i think there will be a 0% 30% fee add on the offer amount. I hope every one being affected here file complaints so that i can not scam another hard working person out there. Chris Hi Ive read all the complaints and a few praises. Ive recently spoken with Brandon from the company and have entered into an agreement to pay off 35,000 in credit card debt. All my payments are up to date and so I have to stop paying my cards to go into default so that they can negotiate with the credit card companies. Typically the companies wont talk to them until at least 3 months.

Oxenhope were all out for 230 at Southowram, who lost eight wickets in bettering that score. Gavin Moody took four wickets and Tom Belfield five, Tom Tetley (67 no) and Joe Ousey (59) top scoring for the visitors. Dean Crossley made a 20-boundary 100 in reply and Steve Hawksworths 25 not out saw the Rams home. Third-placed Queensbury kept Southowram on their toes by collecting 12 points at Bridgeholme. It was far from plain sailing, however, as bury slipped from 123 for two to 161 all out following Priestleys dismissal for 79. Number four Damian Weston was left high and dry on 32 as Saj Mahmood (seven for 76) ripped through the tail. Keith Hudson (29) and son James (34) put on 53 for Bridgeholmes first wicket but slow bowlers Gurdev Singh (five for 47) and Amjad Ali (four for 56) bowled Queensbury to a 20-run success. Outlane gained what could be a crucial 12 points at Old Crossleyans in a battle of bottom three sides. Anwat Shokats five for 32 sent sent the Broomfield men packing for 92 and although the home bowlers hit back, Outlane won with four wickets in hand. Points (after 19 of 20 games): Sowerby 170, Southowram 166, Queensbury 156, Oxenhope 140, Northowram HT 117, Outlane 117, Old Crossleyans 110, Bridgeholme 110. In the Premier Division, Jer Lane have a 15-point lead with two rounds of fixtures left after Andrew Pinfields unbeaten 104 helped them to a six-wicket win at Sowerby Bridge. Lane, with the Parish Cup already in the locker, had to settle for nine points rather than 12 after Bridges last pair defied them in the first half of the contest. James Taylor (36) and Dan Wheelwright (34) helped relegation-threatened Bridge to 188 for nine with Junior Williams and Raqueeb Younis taking three wickets each. Pinfields masterful knock included 13 fours and six sixes and skipper Mick Hustler (21 no) helped the visitors over the winning line with 17 balls to spare. In the frantic scramble to beat the drop, Clayton perhaps looked like a team destined for relegation after being rolled over for 100 in reply to hosts Thorntons 209. Ben Harriss four for 20 helped leave Clayton 13 points adrift at the bottom. Warley and Bradshaw did their hopes of staying up a power of good with wins at Triangle and Mytholmroyd respectively but the anxiety levels are rising for reigning champions SBCI and Sowerby Bridge. Warley started the day next to bottom but Luke Duckitts six for 50 put them on the trail of a big 12 points at Grassy Bottom. Nathan Madden made a 67-ball half-century but once he became Duckitts fourth victim with the total on 117, Triangle folded to 136 all out. Warley were not about to miss such a golden opportunity. Chris Marsh (52 no) added 55 for the first wicket with Nolan Bottomley (33) and saw it through to the end, Gary Rodger taking all four wickets to fall. Simon Collins was again the hero for Bradshaw, adding another six to his mountain of wickets this summer in a three-wicket win away to a Bradshaw side in second place before the start of play. Slow bowlers Collins took six for 63 as Royd subsided from 81 for two to 164 all out. Collins added 26 and Shaun Charnley 33 but the game was in the balance at 128 for seven. However, Richard Moore (31 no) and Adam Buckley (12 no) held their nerve to claim maximum points for the visitors. SBCI are next-to-bottom again after a 111-run defeat away to a Booth side who now look clear of danger. A 101-run fifth wicket stand between Wajid Ali (86) and Rob Laycock (45) helped Booth to 241 for seven. Chris Shannon (four for 44) then reduced the visitors to two for two and there was no way back for SBCI after that in spite of 45 from Chris Dalby, Jamie Sykess side being all out for 130. Blackley share second spot with Thornton after a five-wicket win in a high-scoring game at Copley. Skipper James Clarke (78) and Oliver Thorpe (65) helped Copley to 282 for eight and that looked likely to be enough when Blackley were 166 for five, soon after the departure of Reece Jennison for 90. However, an unbroken stand of 119 between Freddie Fox (113 no) and Jason Baxter (45 no) saw the visitors to victory. Points (after 20 of 22 games): Jer Lane 168, Blackley 153, Thornton 153, Mytholmroyd 149, Copley 140, Triangle 136, Booth 135, Bradshaw 127, Warley 124, Sowerby Bridge 118, SBCI 116, Clayton 103. Low Moor beat Wibsey Park Chapel in Saturdays top of the table match in Division Two to give them a great chance to taking the title. Moor went into the game 10 points clear but lost their top four batsman with just 19 runs on the board. However, captain Nick Wood made an outstanding 89 not out to guide his side to 144 for seven with only Mark Mills (21) and Martin Jenkins (17no) also making double figures. At 62 for two Wibsey looked on track for an emphatic victory but Wood and Mark Stokes had other ideas. Three wickets apiece set up a nail-biting conclusion and Craig Green returned to wrap up the Wibsey innings for 115. Luddenden Foot, one point behind Wibsey at the start of play, surged into second with 12 points at home to 10-man Old Town. Mohammed Jamil stole the show in the first half, scoring 102 for Town with only 21 scoring shots, including 12 sixes. He eventually fell to five-wicket Gareth Swain but Foot were left needing 225 to win. Chris Roy departed in the first over and Jacob Hyde for 25 but skipper Karl Whipp (95 no) and Gareth Hall (83 no) made short work of knocking off the runs with 19 overs to spare. Stones beat visitors Shelf by four wickets thanks to two outstanding individual performances.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl