She understands:
I saw Bachmann on O’Reilly and I have to say that while Bachmann was great, she did flub one of her answerst. O’Reilly about whether or not Geithner is lying – whether, that is, we’ll really have a catastrophe if we don’t raise the debt ceiling? Bachmann answered that Geithner is wrong – probably out of an unwillingness to ever directly call someone a liar (one bit of courage we are sorely lacking in the modern world). Bachammn should have answered like this:
“Lying? I don’t know, Bill; lying our stupid. Think about it: what Geithner, Obama and the rest are saying is that the only way to avoid bankruptcy is to go further in to debt. ”
You have to be some kind of special definition of obtuse to believe such nonsense – piling on more debt is what will cause our default. The way to avoid default is to cease piling on more debt. Remember, the only reason to raise the debt ceiling is because you want to borrow more money – you want to continue to live beyond your means. I don’t know about any of you, but it seems to me that the best course of action for a man teetering on the edge of bankruptcy is to spend less money – certainly not to borrow any more.
Bachmann is right, though, about the fact that we won’t default – we have plenty of revenues coming in to pay off old debts, roll them over with new debts and meet the vital needs – social security, medicare/medicaid, defense, etc. What we don’t have the money for is things like the Departments of Commerce, Labor and Energy, as well as whole swaths of more useful Departments like Health and Defense. We can, if we are only willing to offend core, Democrat constituencies, easily cut several hundred billion out of the 2012 budget…and that would eliminate any need for raising the debt ceiling. Bachmann sees this – so does a small but growing number of Congressional GOPers. So, too, will a majority of the American people once it is properly explained to them.
So, this makes Bachmann a hero – she said it: the Emperor has no clothes – debt does not make you rich. It is the first step in restoring fiscal sanity to our nation.
Blogs For Victory 
Bachmann is the real deal and will be a force. I like her titanium spine, her common sense, and her experience. Thus far, she has my vote
In 1979 the U.S. Treasury accidentally defaulted on the sum of $120 million. That relatively small error caused interest rates on Treasury securities to rise by .6 percent. With an existing debt of around $800 billion, that ended up costing the nation something in the ballpark of $5 billion annually. That’s like a twelve-dollar mistake costing five hundred dollars, only multiplied ten million times.
Now Bachmann might think standing up for her principles (actually, her misguided ideology) won’t cost anyone a thing, but when the mere suggestion of default can cause interest rates to rise, even rhetoric can have a hefty price tag attached. One fiscal year at an elevated rate would be economically disastrous compared with the cost of raising the debt limit, let alone the U.S. facing an indefinite future of higher interest rates. When the American people realize the GOP is willing to risk such a consequence with their ideological intransigence it will make their dissatisfaction with Obama seem like a silly spat compared with the grievance that will result.
We will not default on our debt obligations, rather, we will just need to defund Obamacare, and unemploy some people in the many bloated government agencies, ie: DOE, EPA, etc.
What the American people realize is that democrats would rather bring the nation to it’s knees rather than scale back public union pensions and their other pet projects.
It’s pretty simple really and Bachmann is 100% correct.
pot, in 1979 did the Unites States actually default on $120 million or was there just a “… mere suggestion of default ..” ?
Is there an example where “the mere suggestion of default ” has had any impact on interest rates?
Or are you just fearmongering to defend the Leftist demand for more debt?
Can you tell us when and where “rhetoric” has had “a hefty price tag”? How hefty?
On the other hand, do you think there might be some examples of the negative impact of increased indebtedness? Do you think there is a cost to the nation of debt service? Can you explain how and why increasing the burden of this debt service will, somehow, benefit the nation?
What about Bachmann’s “ideology” is “misguided”? Do you understand her “ideology” or are you just tossing words around in an effort to sound as if you actually know what you are talking about? Go ahead—give us a description of Michelle Bachmann’s “ideology”. It won’t be hard—like most conservatives, she has been quite candid and specific about it.
While you’re at it, give us a description of your own ideology. Surely there is a solid and well-thought-out reason behind your support of the Leftist agenda. We’d love to hear it. As a matter of fact, we’d love to see it compared to the actual ideology of Michelle Bachmann, point by point, so we can evaluate each belief. Go ahead and support your own ideology with historical references to its successes in various applications. Michelle can do so, so I am sure you can. After all, you seem to think you are far smarter than she.
Ama
looks like ole potomac is still floating down the potomac on his raft, crickets chirp birds tweet ole P is no where to be heard from.
Hi,
Thank you for this valuable post. I really helps me a lot.
Keep it up thanks.