Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> >> Exactly. Ergo, excessive spending is the cause of raising the debt >> limit. >> >And raising the debt limit causes excessive spending. >> Ridiculous.
>Yes, you keep claiming that. But you have refused to respond to my >points each time you claim it. Because you seem to have a problem with the concept of causation. >1. if they did not raise the limit and it did not limit their future >spending as you suggest, how would they fund their future spending? Probably by simply floating bad checks that banks would honor. They would honor them for a time, in the expectation that the credit limit would LATER be increased. >2. What are you basing your beleif that banks would cash checks issues >by the federal government if they were not going to recieve money from >the government in return? They WOULD BE receiving "money". The checks would become de facto promissory notes. Fedgov would be getting a bargain in that they'd be interest-free, but banks would be willing to forego some interest on these de facto loans in order to keep the Treasury Dept. and their payees as customers. It's just "overdraft protection", and it would be understood as temporary. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert in the Bronx _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
