|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Staring at the debt ceiling
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
On August 2, the United States will reach the debt ceiling. Apparently, this means the USA will be unable to borrow any more money unless Congress votes to raise the limits. According to those in the know, this will be a Bad Thing.
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a mild inconvenience and 10 being the collapse of the world economic system, how Bad a Thing is it?
[ 02. December 2011, 09:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I would rate it an 8.
It really is bad because if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling the US won't be able to pay all of its bills including rolling over debt; that is redeeming old debt with new.
It would mean the US would intentionally default on its debts, which would be a major stumble. It did happen once before in 1978, which was written off as administrative error. A debt payment was missed by a few days. It raised the cost of borrowing in US debt markets by 2% for two years.
US debt securities are the foundation of the world's monetary exchange system. The world economy turns on US debt.
Credit markets would seize up and we would have yet another credit crisis. Banks would start collapsing like houses of cards.
There is a smart way and a dumb way to deal with a country's fiscal problems. Defaulting on debt simply to make a political point and harming millions in the process, including Americans who would truly suffer from a dysfunctional banking and credit system (watch the US payments system explode) seems truly stupid and unproductive.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Defaulting on debt simply to make a political point and harming millions in the process, including Americans who would truly suffer from a dysfunctional banking and credit system (watch the US payments system explode) seems truly stupid and unproductive.
Hopefully Obama will avoid doing that but after observing his insular partisan politicking for a few years now it's difficult to be optimistic.
I'm past just wishing the spirit of Bill could come back... there are stirrings of lust in my heart for Jimmy. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Nah, I'm fairly sure that this is an elaborate theater in the same genre as the 'debates' over the budget continuing resolutions. It'll go down to the wire, and both sides will make some concessions and claim victory.
In this case, it will mean that the Dems have to pony up to bigger cuts than they wanted, and probably some changes to Medicaid. The GOP will have to agree to the closing of some tax loopholes. A modest amount of deficit reduction will ensue, Geithner will get his 2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, and nobody will be very happy.
What's going on now is just the posturing that is required for both sides to be able to state that they've won, and both sides know it. There is no crisis: something will be agreed before August 2nd and there will be no default. The current bickering (like Cantor walking away from the negotiations, and Obama getting preachy on Wednesday) is just the script that everyone has to read before the deal is done.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I'd rate it something if I knew anything about U.S. politics.
As it is, I'll watch and see how it affects the rest of the world.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I rate it another mixture of grandstanding and brinkmanship, ie it's politics. It rates zero in any country.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
On August 2, the United States will reach the debt ceiling. Apparently, this means the USA will be unable to borrow any more money unless Congress votes to raise the limits. According to those in the know, this will be a Bad Thing.
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being a mild inconvenience and 10 being the collapse of the world economic system, how Bad a Thing is it?
I suspect that the feistiness POTUS showed at his recent press conference about this is laying the groundwork for him to order the Treasury to ignore the debt limit if Congress doesn't act. A fair number of legal experts, left and right, have suggested that the debt limit is unconstitutional. My guess is that Obama won't allow default, and wants public opinion on his side if he has to ignore the debt limit law. If we actually default, it will send the world's economic system into melt-down. It's a 10.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Now, that would be interesting. The Republicans probably couldn't challenge Obama in federal court over his ignoring the debt ceiling. Members of congress apparently lack standing to challenge the executive branch for refusing to follow the law. The only recourse would be to impeach Obama for abuse of power. The Republicans aren't going to do that.
However, if Obama ignores the debt ceiling, he takes a huge political risk. He hands the Republicans the issue of the 2012 election. Can he win on it? Who knows? Republicans are refusing to accept even the elimination of subsidies much less actually raising taxes. Voters won't be happy with that. On the other hand, people do appear concerned about the deficit. Democrats aren't willing to accept major spending cuts to bring it under control. On top of that, Obama's ignoring the law will be red meat for Republicans to feed those concerned about the power of the federal government. Furthermore, Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was senator. Hard for him to now take the high ground and insist the Republicans have to vote to raise the debt ceiling. Sure the Republicans voted to raise it in the past when Bush was president however they can always just say they learned their lesson about the deficit. In any event, Obama's opponent will likely not have served in Congress. This issue will allow the Republican candidate to run against the establishment of both parties.
I think the Republicans would love to have this as a campaign issue. Agreeing to tax increases would be bad for them. Running a campaign over is responsible for economic collapse would be even worse.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Current polls have a plurality of Americans against raising the debt ceiling, so I agree that this makes it a very bold move for Obama (or anyone else) to go against Congress.
Would you care to share more about the possible unconstitutionality of the debt ceiling? I read a headline this week on some left-leaning web site (I don't remember where it was) which talked about this but I didn't stop to read the full article. How would an argument along those lines be framed?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
It follows from the Fourteenth Amendment section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
That was passed after the Civil War and the next sentence in Section 4 repudiates all Confederate debt.
How you read that in concert with Article 1, which allows Congress authority to borrow on the credit of the United States, it open to question.
It truly depends on how the underlying supply, appropriation and borrowing acts are phrased. I don't know exactly how it works in the US.
In Canada there are three key parts of the government spending process: The Estimates, the Budget, and the Financial Administration Act.
The Estimates detail government spending and are tabled a month before the Budget. The Budget concerns Supply and details how much revenue the Government intends to raise for the coming fiscal year. The difference between the Estimates and the current revenue from taxation is the Borrowing requirement or deficit. It is detailed in the Budget but the government has standing authority under the Financial Administration Act to finance it.
The Government also has standing authority under the Financial Administration Act to refinance outstanding market debt.
To look at it another way, if the Government or Parliament wants to alter spending or revenue, they have to do so directly by changing the Estimates or Budget, not throttling the borrowing authority.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The debt ceiling is a very odd thing, and I don't believe anything like it exists in any other country. It didn't exist in the the US until the 20th century (1917, I believe). I suspect the reason people are against raising it is because they think it means giving authority for more spending, when in fact it just means authorizing the government to pay for spending that has already been agreed to (the same congresspeople who voted to buy stuff are now threatening to vote against actually writing the checks). On the Republican side it's pure grandstanding--they're holding the US (and world) economy hostage, threatening to blow its head off if the Democrats won't agree to eliminate every program they don't like (which pretty much means anything that isn't designed to make rich people richer at everyone else's expense).
At ground level, the debt ceiling limits the amount of bonds the Treasury can issue. Bear in mind that US Treasury bonds are in so much demand that they have been selling with a negative interest rate--just because they are such a secure place to put money. Nevertheless, a default--or even the serious threat of one--will undermine that. "Irresponsible" doesn't begin to describe it.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If we actually default, it will send the world's economic system into melt-down. It's a 10.
Well, let's not be too apocalyptic about this. After all, when nations and empires fall, they do rise again - Ezekiel 37 and all that. And even when they don't, other nations come to take their place.
My view is that if the US Federal government defaults, it will be a disaster - for the US Federal government. Its credit rating will tank - and, seeing as how big the US is, it would take it a lot longer to recover than smaller nations might. The US government certainly won't be bailing out any more banks - and it also won't be honouring any deposit protection schemes, or any federal contributory benefits, such as federal pensions.
I'm not convinced that the IMF would be so keen to bail the US out if the default was simply because the US Federal government used their own laws as an excuse.
So, the US Federal government would find itself unable to finance its armed forces. It could result in the end of the USA as we know it; states will want to break away into independent nations. That might raise a smile or two in the Middle East, but I don't think Israel will be very happy.
Clearly there are a lot of powerful interests who don't want it to happen. But would it really be that big a deal in the global scheme of things? Would it make anything worse for the ordinary guy on the street? Would it make anything worse for, say, your average developing world slum-dweller? Probably not.
The thing I'm most intrigued about is the US federal armoury. Who's going to look after the weapon stock, if no-one is going to be paid to do it?
Personally, I don't think it will come to that, though; it's more likely that the debt ceiling law will simply be ignored. After all, it's not as if there's any authority that's able to enforce this law against the US federal government.
I don't think anyone seriously believes the US is going to default. The US sovereign debt rating would have already been lowered if anyone did. Mind you, then again, the same thing was said about several other nations before 2007.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Current polls have a plurality of Americans against raising the debt ceiling
Sometimes one is forced to despair of the ignorance of the population. quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
But would it really be that big a deal in the global scheme of things? Would it make anything worse for the ordinary guy on the street? Would it make anything worse for, say, your average developing world slum-dweller? Probably not.
Yes it would make things worse for the ordinary guy in the third world slum; for them the collapse in demand throughout the world economy would make their plight even worse - their opportunities for employment would be reduced still further.
For people further up the food chain the effect would be equally significant: governments would have to cut back further as lenders would be spooked, whilst private sector investment would tank.
In China industrial production would be cut as items intended for export to the US - in effect to be paid for by US government bonds - would not be produced.
And the financial markets would respond as they did in the run up to the last crisis: refusing to lend to exposed banks, which would be almost every one. The banks were bailed out for a reason - they provide the working capital and payments system to keep economies at work. If they have to write down the value of the US Treasuries that they hold as capital, they will have to cut back their lending.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
I rate it as either a 1 or a 10. In more ordinary times, I would say almost certainly the former, but these are not ordinary times.
The shut-down of the governemnt in the Clinton years (although somewhat different from the current possible consequences) didn't do any serious harm to the country.
Today's world-wide financial sector is very precarious. Nervousness, and even gloom, are widespread. If the US government becomes unable to further finance its debt, I think that the consequences are potentially eplosive.
[ 04. July 2011, 07:36: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
I'd give the situation as a whole a 9.5.
The US is in deep deep shit. Getting rid of or ignoring the debt ceiling ultimately means the US continues to print money to pay its debts. Nobody wants to address the real issues (tax loopholes, spending for the sake of spending, a huge medical/industrial complex that syphons resources without providing enough returns on investment in terms of keeping people healthy) for fear of losing the next election. Yes, there is a LOT of money running around, but its more there is a lot of debt being used and the credits continue to be siphoned to fewer and fewer people who are not paying back in enough strength to keep the system going.
Your political system as it is, which is responsible for this mess, is unsustainable. Something big will change that, but not sure what it will be.
An attack on the country proper didn't do that. The virtual halt of credit didn't do that.
The debt ceiling crisis may pass, but the root issues are going to bite the US sometime in the next 5 years and nobody is going to be happy.
[ 05. July 2011, 00:30: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Apparently, although we're not allowed to blame Bush any longer, these folks may have a point.
Just ten years ago there were projected supluses as far as the eye could see. What happened? To the extent that the cbpp answers that question, it points, I think, to at least some possible major remedies.
[ 05. July 2011, 01:49: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
David Brooks (the only rational conservative left) says it all here.
quote:
We can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor....
The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.
If the debt ceiling talks fail, independent voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
And they will be right.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Thanks Timothy the Obscure for an interesting link. What I think we all need to engage with is the question of why such attitudes have emerged - and I would argue that it's as a result of a persistent failure of the political system to provide effective accountability. This isn't to argue that the tea-partiers are rational in their response - just to say that it's important to see why we are in this mess.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There was a short slot about this on Radio 4 this morning.
From outside, I'd say this is a clear demonstration of why dogmatism in politics is a bad thing, and what's wrong with separation of powers. It means one has an assembly which is not actually responsible for anything, yet alone governing.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There was a short slot about this on Radio 4 this morning.
From outside, I'd say this is a clear demonstration of why dogmatism in politics is a bad thing, and what's wrong with separation of powers. It means one has an assembly which is not actually responsible for anything, yet alone governing.
Indeed - one of the issues in constitutional theory is how to sustain the operation of a government when there is no majority for it in the legislature. The American solution - to have a separately elected executive - offers more stability than a purely parliamentary system, where no governing coalition can emerge given the number in the house. However, when push comes to shove, neither system is capable of providing continuity of government if there is a complete breakdown of legitimacy. For the record, the German system of 'constructive majorities' and 'president's government' does provide a real alternative in theory, but it has never actually been tested under fire.
The conclusion that 'dogmatism in politics is a bad thing' is a deeply depressing one - as the implication of this is that we should not expect our leaders to be anything but drawn by the expediency of the moment. However I accept that there is a need to be willing to compromise: it's interesting to note that the anti-slavery campaigners were routinely criticised for their willing to compromise on the way to achieving their ultimate objective; the problem remains that this does create a perception that they are soft on their objectives. It's interesting to note that a lot of people are taking this absolutist view over the willingness of the LibDems to join the Conservatives in the present coalition, and their abandonment of the student fee commitment who would be unwilling to give the TeaPartiers the time of day...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Apparently, although we're not allowed to blame Bush any longer, these folks may have a point.
Just ten years ago there were projected supluses as far as the eye could see. What happened? To the extent that the cbpp answers that question, it points, I think, to at least some possible major remedies.
The surpluses were largely the result of revenues derived from capital gains from roaring stock market (tech-bubble) of the late 90s. When that bubble burst, the surpluses disappeared. We again had large revenues in 2006-2007 as a result of massive gains in the housing market, including the secondary housing market, and to a lesser degree the stock market. The financial crisis put an end to that with massive year-end realized losses across the board. These are the largest drivers of the massive increase deficit in recent years, though the stimulus, (and the TARP bailout which in the end will make money) and elevated defense spending play an important role as well. As the stock market continues to increase, and when the housing market as a whole begins to claw back towards its pre-2008 values (whenever that is), we will see shrinkage in the deficit, though not so much in the overall debt, I'm afraid.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks Timothy the Obscure for an interesting link. What I think we all need to engage with is the question of why such attitudes have emerged - and I would argue that it's as a result of a persistent failure of the political system to provide effective accountability. This isn't to argue that the tea-partiers are rational in their response - just to say that it's important to see why we are in this mess.
I think there are a lot of factors, but at some level we seem to have lost the thread of the core of democracy--the idea that the government is us. It's gone so far that even people who have been elected to govern (the Tea Party caucus) seem to regard the government as something entirely other than themselves, and so have no awareness that when they threaten to force a default they are actually threatening to refuse to pay their (and our) bills. If you told them they were a bunch of deadbeats they'd no doubt be indignant, because they think of the government as some alien force that is taking their money to pay its bills. I don't see how democracy can survive without a strong sense of the common good and common purpose. Americans may have talked individualism, but our core values were once very communitarian, as de Toqueville noticed.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Someone once said that democracy is based on the modest proposition that more than half of the people are likely to be right more than half of the time. I used to think that was a modest proposition--it begins to seem pretty extreme, with survey results saying that 56% of Americans are opposed to raising the debt ceiling.
Of course, this is probably because they don't actually understand what the debt ceiling is, since the Republicans have--very intentionally and cynically--confounded it with the deficit, which is actually a completely separate thing.
It occurs to me that much of this comes from a shift in the construction of our relation to politics--I think that most people now see their relationship to government as that of consumers to a corporation. The idea of citizenship is just vanishing. And yeah, I blame conservatism.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It's gone so far that even people who have been elected to govern (the Tea Party caucus) seem to regard the government as something entirely other than themselves, and so have no awareness that when they threaten to force a default they are actually threatening to refuse to pay their (and our) bills. If you told them they were a bunch of deadbeats they'd no doubt be indignant, because they think of the government as some alien force that is taking their money to pay its bills.
That's simply not true. Congress COULD make the cuts to programmes necessary to ensure that the debt ceiling isn't breeched; by definition it can't be necessary to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay the debt - or if it is then default is inevitable.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I think there are a lot of factors, but at some level we seem to have lost the thread of the core of democracy--the idea that the government is us. It's gone so far that even people who have been elected to govern (the Tea Party caucus) seem to regard the government as something entirely other than themselves, and so have no awareness that when they threaten to force a default they are actually threatening to refuse to pay their (and our) bills. If you told them they were a bunch of deadbeats they'd no doubt be indignant, because they think of the government as some alien force that is taking their money to pay its bills. I don't see how democracy can survive without a strong sense of the common good and common purpose. Americans may have talked individualism, but our core values were once very communitarian, as de Toqueville noticed.
I've often wondered why the Tea Party politicians have been so eager to be elected into government when they seem to feel that government is so bad.
Meanwhile, as people debate the so-called horror of raising the debt ceiling, those who rely on Social Security for their incomes, Medicare and Medicaid for their health care and medication, and foodstamps for their food (the elderly, the disabled, low-income children) and those in the military and their families wait nervously to see how dire their lives are going to be while the politicians who have security in these survival issues play games with the debt ceiling.
It would be a shame if the poor and disabled among us have their lives massively disrupted on August 2 so the politicians can prove a point.
It would be a shame for us to ask someone to put his/her life on the line in a war without pay--even for one day.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I've often wondered why the Tea Party politicians have been so eager to be elected into government when they seem to feel that government is so bad.
Huh? To be elected into government is, in a democracy, the right thing for them to do. Politics 101 says that people with that view have the right to be represented. It's screwing with the rest of us? That's part of the price we pay for democracy. Or should they be taking up arms against the government?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Meanwhile, as people debate the so-called horror of raising the debt ceiling, those who rely on Social Security for their incomes, Medicare and Medicaid for their health care and medication, and foodstamps for their food (the elderly, the disabled, low-income children) and those in the military and their families wait nervously to see how dire their lives are going to be while the politicians who have security in these survival issues play games with the debt ceiling.
It would be a shame if the poor and disabled among us have their lives massively disrupted on August 2 so the politicians can prove a point.
It would be a shame for us to ask someone to put his/her life on the line in a war without pay--even for one day.
sabine
Well, even if there is no raise in the debt ceiling current federal revenues are sufficient to ensure that payments for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, etc. are paid. Obama's remark about the Social Security checks not going out is nothing but fear mongering. But that's his style.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, even if there is no raise in the debt ceiling current federal revenues are sufficient to ensure that payments for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, etc. are paid.
Hooray!!! The U.S. managed to balance the federal budget! I wonder why this momentous event hasn't received more news coverage?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
As has been posted above, it is a political game.
One answer is that the rich in the USA have tax rates that are far too low, corporations receive too preferential tax treatment also. It is curious that they could find money to bail out banks, and have previously bailed out car manufacturers. So make the rich pay.
Maybe also they could sell a bomb or a jet, to maybe some dictatorship like Saudi Arabia and that would tide them over (the Germans are trying to see military equipment to the Saudis right now). Some of these items are worth billions.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, even if there is no raise in the debt ceiling current federal revenues are sufficient to ensure that payments for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, etc. are paid.
Hooray!!! The U.S. managed to balance the federal budget! I wonder why this momentous event hasn't received more news coverage?
It's a matter of prioritization. the US has an income.. it's just that this income is less than it's obligation. we have money to pay things, just not EVERYTHING. a concept I keep trying to explain to my kids when they ask me if we can "afford" this or that. yes. I can afford this. and I can afford that. but I can't afford both this AND that.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-feder a/
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, even if there is no raise in the debt ceiling current federal revenues are sufficient to ensure that payments for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, etc. are paid. Obama's remark about the Social Security checks not going out is nothing but fear mongering. But that's his style.
So all the reputable economists from both parties who have presented detailed presentations demonstrating that what you say is complete and utter nonsense are somehow in cahoots with Obama to swindle the rich out of their tax breaks? Good analysis.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, even if there is no raise in the debt ceiling current federal revenues are sufficient to ensure that payments for Social Security, Medicare, military pay, etc. are paid.
Hooray!!! The U.S. managed to balance the federal budget! I wonder why this momentous event hasn't received more news coverage?
It's a matter of prioritization. the US has an income.. it's just that this income is less than it's obligation. we have money to pay things, just not EVERYTHING. a concept I keep trying to explain to my kids when they ask me if we can "afford" this or that. yes. I can afford this. and I can afford that. but I can't afford both this AND that.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-feder a/
Except that NYer's statement, even if we make some pretty generous assumptions, is still false.
Using FY2010 data as a baseline, the U.S. federal government collected about $2,162 billion in revenues. For FY2010 the U.S. expenses for NYer's listed items are:
- Social Security $701 billion
- Medicare/Medicaid $793 billion
- Military Pay* $157 billion
- Other Mandatory Spending $416 billion
- Interest on Existing Debt $197 billion
Admittedly NYer didn't mention that last one, but it's got to be paid or the U.S. will exceed the existing debt ceiling. These items total up to about $100 billion over total FY2010 revenues.
*Military pay figures do not include most of the expenses associated with the current wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Liby, Yemen, etc. nor does it include "Operations and Maintenance" expenses associated with running military bases.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I've often wondered why the Tea Party politicians have been so eager to be elected into government when they seem to feel that government is so bad.
Huh? To be elected into government is, in a democracy, the right thing for them to do. Politics 101 says that people with that view have the right to be represented. It's screwing with the rest of us? That's part of the price we pay for democracy. Or should they be taking up arms against the government?
You misunderstood my musing. I never said I thought they shouldn't run for government positions.
But their position seems to be that big government is bad or sometimes all government is slightly bad.
OK, maybe they want to fix this from the inside by participating in the big, bad government. But if they feel so strongly about this, why are they, for example, taking their taxpayer-funded health care as members of Congress? Why are they not standing in solidarity with the people who will loose out when the cuts they want will come (e.g., cutting their own salaries)?
It seems to me that they are using the boogey man of big government to get elected by people who are nervous and afraid in the midst of tough economic times.
If they are successful in cutting big government down to a size they can live with, will they consider their job to be done? I doubt it.
There is an ebb and a flow to all of this, and the Tea Party people have entered the stream. They fundamentalists; they seem to think that taking one stand (which, incidently, was not taken by the GOP in the past and even poo-pooed by such people as Mitch Daniels when he was part of big government) will somehow make everything right.
What "everything" and "right" mean in their eyes is not the same as they mean in a less divided government, IMO.
Actually, I think they are shooting themselves in the feet repeatedly and will not be a factor in years to come--although others will be cleaning up their mess.
sabine
[ 14. July 2011, 16:09: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
They [are] fundamentalists; they seem to think that taking one stand will somehow make everything right.
Well - given that was the basis of Obama's appeal in 2008, it would appear to be endemic in American culture. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I tend to agree that others are liable to be clearing up the mess long after they've faded. But to deconstruct their campaign without apparently recognising that every political group indulges in the same bad habits of playing on people's fears is a bad case of logs and specks - or at least logs and logs.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Obama has put huge cuts in spending on the table, along with a ridiculously small increase in tax revenues. He has offered a compromise package.
The GOP flatly refuses to consider a raise in tax revenues. They are not willing to compromise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Senate Republicans seem to be on board with McConnell's idea, so they at least seem to be taking the idea that default would be a Bad Thing™ seriously.
You got any thoughts on his proposal?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Senate Republicans seem to be on board with McConnell's idea, so they at least seem to be taking the idea that default would be a Bad Thing™ seriously.
You got any thoughts on his proposal?
It is outrageous. The substance is: let's not do what we were elected to do; let's fail to address the issue that we Republicans have identified as the most important issue facing the nation. Instead, we will grant POTUS the powers reserved to Congress, and blame him for using them to avoid a catastrophe. It is the most overtly craven political hackery I can recall -- and I can recall an awful lot by both parties over the years.
Obama's "grand bargain" looks to me an awful lot like the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which is painful, and would involve both left and right holding their noses while they voted for it. But it is an honest attempt to find a real compromise, where all sides can hang onto what they need while sacrificing what they would really like to see. If Congress were more the province of adults than craven self-seekers, it -- or something very much like it -- is what would happen. The fact that Reid was so willing to endorse the McConnell cravenness tells you a lot about the band of cowards who govern us.
--Tom Clune
[ 14. July 2011, 18:07: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Senate Republicans seem to be on board with McConnell's idea, so they at least seem to be taking the idea that default would be a Bad Thing™ seriously.
You got any thoughts on his proposal?
McConnell's proposal seems to boil down to Republicans getting their policy preferences enacted plus twelve predetermined times to bash the President's spending policies. Since the largest of McConnell's proposed debt ceiling increases would be scheduled for summer 2012, there seems to be a good deal of political calculus going into it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Using FY2010 data as a baseline, the U.S. federal government collected about $2,162 billion in revenues. For FY2010 the U.S. expenses for NYer's listed items are:
- Social Security $701 billion
- Medicare/Medicaid $793 billion
- Military Pay* $157 billion
- Other Mandatory Spending $416 billion
- Interest on Existing Debt $197 billion
Admittedly NYer didn't mention that last one, but it's got to be paid or the U.S. will exceed the existing debt ceiling. These items total up to about $100 billion over total FY2010 revenues.
*Military pay figures do not include most of the expenses associated with the current wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Liby, Yemen, etc. nor does it include "Operations and Maintenance" expenses associated with running military bases.
The figure you want is $685.1 billion sayeth wikipedia. Though one wonders if the figure is complete even at that obscene amount, which is fully 1/2 of the total world military spending.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
Yep. For whatever reason, Congression Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason, Congression[al] Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
God bless the party of No!
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason, Congression[al] Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
God bless the party of No!
Ezra Klein offers an interesting take on the politics of the Grand Bargain. FWIW
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
Yep. For whatever reason, Congression Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
Help me out. I don't see any actual proposals from Obama in what you linked, just some polling data about tax increases and budget cuts.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
Obama has pushed a 3-to-1 cuts to tax revenue approach for a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. He refers to this as the "Grand Bargain," and it is basically the Simpson-Bowles plan. If he lays out specific proposals, he is pilloried for dictating to Congress. If he fails to offer a detailed plan, he is pilloried for not "leading." I call BS.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
Yep. For whatever reason, Congression Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
The GOP isn't interested in actual policy that solves the nation's debt problems. Their own memos focus on what actions will or won't get Obama re-elected. That is what our political system has boiled down to on both sides of the aisle. The dems did it during Bush Jr.'s term.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The dems did it during Bush Jr.'s term.
I don't recall Congressional Democrats holding the U.S. economy hostage during the Bush years. In fact, I can't recally anyone objecting to increasing U.S. debt during the Bush years. Given that the debt ceiling was raised seven times during the Bush II years without anything approaching this elaborate kabuki your assertion of parity seems inaccurate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The dems did it during Bush Jr.'s term.
I don't recall Congressional Democrats holding the U.S. economy hostage during the Bush years. In fact, I can't recally anyone objecting to increasing U.S. debt during the Bush years. Given that the debt ceiling was raised seven times during the Bush II years without anything approaching this elaborate kabuki your assertion of parity seems inaccurate.
Not holding the national debt hostage, but they did indeed cheer on and encourage anything that made the economy look bad and them as being the saviors to fix it. Which they have failed epically at doing. Frankly, I wouldn't trust either party to watch my purse for a minute while I ran an errand. I'd come back to find it empty and both parties trying to have the other arrested for how it wound up that way.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Speaking of the party of No, how are the Republicans stacking up as far as judicial appointees through the Senate? Compared to, say, the amount of stonewalling the Democrats did during Bush II's term?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
The chicken games played by the Dems vs. Bush are nothing compared to this.
The republicans look stupid to much of the world, but then most of them would wear that as a badge of honour.
Wear that badge of honour as your country goes the way of Greece. Enjoy.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
