SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (9998)8/3/2011 11:08:39 AM
From: Lane31 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 10087
 
You can change it to "no it wouldn't".

My head is spinning. To clarify, are you or are you not agreeing that the term, "default," would apply if the feds did not pay in the case of each of the following:

1. Service on the debt;
2. Contract obligations;
3. Other legal financial obligations, such as entitlements?

but I don't think that would have happened, paying debt and contractual obligations probably would have come first.

Your exclusion of entitlements suggests that you do not agree that number 3 would present a default.

Entitlements are different from contracts and debt in one key way. In the case of entitlements, there is always the option to change the law that established the entitlement. Unlike contracts and debts, the government can unilaterally get out from under a legal obligation it created when it created a law. To rid itself of the obligation, it "just" has to change the law. Congress could pass and the President could sign legislation to scrap the entitlement program or reduce the entitlement until it was affordable with available moneys. Technically, albeit not practically, there is an out.

But as long as the entitlement is in place, not paying it would constitute default. If you disagree, please explain your basis.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext