Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:Hey, there's a thought! Any chance the EU would bail us out?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
...Wear that badge of honour as your country goes the way of Greece. Enjoy.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:Hopefully Obama will avoid doing that but after observing his insular partisan politicking for a few years now it's difficult to be optimistic.
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.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by tclune:
If we actually default, it will send the world's economic system into melt-down. It's a 10.
quote:Sometimes one is forced to despair of the ignorance of the population.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Current polls have a plurality of Americans against raising the debt ceiling
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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
quote:Hooray!!! The U.S. managed to balance the federal budget! I wonder why this momentous event hasn't received more news coverage?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Hooray!!! The U.S. managed to balance the federal budget! I wonder why this momentous event hasn't received more news coverage?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Except that NYer's statement, even if we make some pretty generous assumptions, is still false.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Hooray!!! The U.S. managed to balance the federal budget! I wonder why this momentous event hasn't received more news coverage?
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.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-feder a/
quote:You misunderstood my musing. I never said I thought they shouldn't run for government positions.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote: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?
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.
quote:Well - given that was the basis of Obama's appeal in 2008, it would appear to be endemic in American culture.
Originally posted by sabine:
They [are] fundamentalists; they seem to think that taking one stand will somehow make everything right.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yep. For whatever reason, Congression Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
quote:God bless the party of No!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason, Congression[al] Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
quote:Ezra Klein offers an interesting take on the politics of the Grand Bargain. FWIW
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:God bless the party of No!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason, Congression[al] Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yep. For whatever reason, Congression Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yep. For whatever reason, Congression Republicans seem unwilling to accept a deal that includes everything they asked for.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Has Obama actually made any concrete proposals at the debt ceiling discussions in District of Clusterfuck?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The dems did it during Bush Jr.'s term.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The dems did it during Bush Jr.'s term.
quote:I don't know - my knowledge of this kind of detail isn't good enough. Care to enlighten me?
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
quote:Hey, there's a thought! Any chance the EU would bail us out?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
...Wear that badge of honour as your country goes the way of Greece. Enjoy.
quote:Not the EU. Any bailout for the US will come with nice big portraits of Chairman Mao for all government buildings, especially the outside of the White House.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:Hey, there's a thought! Any chance the EU would bail us out?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
...Wear that badge of honour as your country goes the way of Greece. Enjoy.
quote:Given that very little money has been spent on Obama's health care reform measures yet, I'd say you're being fed a line. Whatever it may or may not do for the U.S. bottom line in the long run, "Obamacare" has almost nothing to do with the current debt ceiling kerfuffle.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I did hear that if we simply repeal Obamacare all the problems would be solved. If that's correct go for it.
quote:That 40% figure sounds about right. About 25% of the U.S. population is under 18 years old and another 12% is 65 years old or older. The under-eighteens don't vote, so getting them to "pay something" gets into that whole "taxation without representation" thing that was such a big deal in the early republic. I guess you could squeeze retirees, perhaps take back some of their Social Security or Medicare benefits. This is, of course, exactly in line with current Republican proposals.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I also see statistics that some 40% of the population does not pay income taxes. Their incomes are under the limit. Well, why shouldn't they pay something? Shared sacrifice and all that.
quote:If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, I would have boldly declared (if it favored my side) or not brought it up at all (if it favored the other side).
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:I don't know - my knowledge of this kind of detail isn't good enough. Care to enlighten me?
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
quote:It's also a major part of Obama's Grand Bargain proposal. Of course, when Obama talks like a Republican, Republicans recoil in horror. Go figure...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess you could squeeze retirees, perhaps take back some of their Social Security or Medicare benefits. This is, of course, exactly in line with current Republican proposals.
quote:Indeed. Paul Krugman's column today deals with this a bit.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:It's also a major part of Obama's Grand Bargain proposal. Of course, when Obama talks like a Republican, Republicans recoil in horror. Go figure...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess you could squeeze retirees, perhaps take back some of their Social Security or Medicare benefits. This is, of course, exactly in line with current Republican proposals.
--Tom Clune
quote:
Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.
quote:Over here anything other than essentials is subject to Value Added Tax. Excise duties are payable on booze, tobacco and the like. AFAIK you have duties and state sales taxes, which are levied at the same rate irrespective of income, so anybod with any cash will pay something. Not income tax, but as far as you purse, pocket or wallet is concerned, it feels like tax.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I also see statistics that some 40% of the population does not pay income taxes. Their incomes are under the limit. Well, why shouldn't they pay something? Shared sacrifice and all that.
quote:True, but most sales taxes in the U.S. are collected by the individual states and have no bearing on the federal budget. The U.S. also levies a payroll tax, which is used to fund Social Security, and this is paid by anyone drawing a paycheck. There's no exempted amount so if a U.S. worker makes any kind of salary, she's paying at least some kind of tax. Interestingly, money earned through investment or speculation (i.e. the sources of income most common to the very wealthy) is not subject to the payroll tax.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Over here anything other than essentials is subject to Value Added Tax. Excise duties are payable on booze, tobacco and the like. AFAIK you have duties and state sales taxes, which are levied at the same rate irrespective of income, so anybod with any cash will pay something. Not income tax, but as far as you purse, pocket or wallet is concerned, it feels like tax.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I also see statistics that some 40% of the population does not pay income taxes. Their incomes are under the limit. Well, why shouldn't they pay something? Shared sacrifice and all that.
quote:New Yorker speaks the truth!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We could start by not paying elected officials salaries.
quote:Because they have nothing?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I also see statistics that some 40% of the population does not pay income taxes. Their incomes are under the limit. Well, why shouldn't they pay something? Shared sacrifice and all that.
quote:Yeah, all those seniors squandering their wealth on medical copayments, bus fare, absorbent panties, hearing aids, etc. How selfish! It's not as though they're spending money on really useful things, such as corporate jets, country club memberships, political contributions, etc.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess you could squeeze retirees, perhaps take back some of their Social Security or Medicare benefits. This is, of course, exactly in line with current Republican proposals.
quote:Always, my friend. Glad we agree.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:New Yorker speaks the truth!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We could start by not paying elected officials salaries.
quote:I thought about this whilst driving today, and figured out what bugs me about it. Part of the reason so few people pay income tax is that they no longer have living-wage jobs, because the super-rich have tossed them out on their ear and moved those jobs overseas. Guess who needs to take up the slack?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I also see statistics that some 40% of the population does not pay income taxes. Their incomes are under the limit. Well, why shouldn't they pay something? Shared sacrifice and all that.
quote:As always, it depends on who's asking the question, who they're asking, and how the question is worded.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
[QUOTE]
I read where Obama claimed at his presser today that 80% of Americans wanted a tax increase. I mean, I know the guy is a serial liar, but that is beyond belief.
Rasmussen says that only 35% of Americans support tax increases.
quote:You're looking at only one end of the spectrum. There are huge corporations (e.g., General Electric) which pay no taxes at all. And very wealthy (as in millionaires) who also have found many loopholes.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I also see statistics that some 40% of the population does not pay income taxes. Their incomes are under the limit. Well, why shouldn't they pay something? Shared sacrifice and all that.
quote:Oh yes, Obama's best friend!
Originally posted by sabine:
There are huge corporations (e.g., General Electric) which pay no taxes at all.
quote:Oh, okay. I thought you were asking rhetorically. My mistake.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, I would have boldly declared (if it favored my side) or not brought it up at all (if it favored the other side).
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:I don't know - my knowledge of this kind of detail isn't good enough. Care to enlighten me?
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
quote:Or as David Brooks said on All Things Considered this afternoon (paraphrasing):
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Indeed. Paul Krugman's column today deals with this a bit.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:It's also a major part of Obama's Grand Bargain proposal. Of course, when Obama talks like a Republican, Republicans recoil in horror. Go figure...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess you could squeeze retirees, perhaps take back some of their Social Security or Medicare benefits. This is, of course, exactly in line with current Republican proposals.
--Tom Clune
quote:
Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.
quote:The truth is the GOP has been taken over by crazy people who have no agenda except to destroy the social safety net and make the rich richer. In other words, to make the US into a Third World country, with an enormously wealthy elite, a vast impoverished underclass, and a small, insecure middle class that will be conservative out of fear.
If someone had told me that a Democratic president would offer the cuts Obama has offered, I wouldn't have believed it--and if someone told me a Republican Congress would turn it down I would have been amazed.
quote:No--but now they are the government. And a government is an enduring entity--as the current members of the government they are responsible for everything that has been done since 1787. And they are trying to act like they can just walk away.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote: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?
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.
quote:When was the last time? I thought the US hadn't defaulted before.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I saw this in action last time.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:What I find interesting in that post is the assumption that there IS a solution to the problem - but that the Republicans stopped it being implemented. Why are you so sure there is a solution? The counter argument is that there was a build up of imbalances in the economy which the hyper-activity of the Fed (probably starting as early as 1992) prevented getting sorted earlier. When therefore there was such a big shift in the economy - the panic over the levels of debts - that a lot of banks were forced to draw in their horns and the Fed could no longer correct for, all this bad stuff happened. And it's perverse to blame anyone in particular - as much the Republicans of 2008, as opposed to the ignoramuses of the Tea Party - as Democrats, aliens from Zog or the tooth fairy.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And while the primary responsibility for this [the LAST bust] lies with the Republican Party and their faith-based economics (never mind the evidence--we believe that small government, low taxes, and free markets inevitably lead to prosperity), some share will go to Obama and the Democrats who didn't have the guts to fight on the core issue, which is inequality.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And it's perverse to blame anyone in particular - as much the Republicans of 2008, as opposed to the ignoramuses of the Tea Party - as Democrats, aliens from Zog or the tooth fairy.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:A good read?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Mark Steyn is always a good read.
I don't know Mark Tapscott but he has an interesting and brief column.
quote:Don't look now, but...
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But the inequity of it astounds and offends me; America will be a third-world country within a generation if the Tea Party get their way. There will be a small elite of superrich and large majority of people scraping by.
quote:Yep. We're there already.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Don't look now, but...
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But the inequity of it astounds and offends me; America will be a third-world country within a generation if the Tea Party get their way. There will be a small elite of superrich and large majority of people scraping by.
--Tom Clune
quote:It goes back much farther--to 1980 or a bit earlier, when US corporations, actively supported by policymakers (of both parties, admittedly) began to pump up profits by holding down wages through moving jobs overseas, breaking unions, etc. (and along the way, creating a new class of unimaginably wealthy CEOs). The consumer economy that was the source of the profits was kept going with easy credit, supported by ever-increasing real estate values--people paying for stuff with the equity in their homes, since wages have been essentially flat for 30 years. Add on a vast superstructure of phantom wealth built on subprime mortage bonds, credit default swaps, etc., and the active cultivation of unsustainable consumer debt to keep it going, and you have a formula for collapse. The problem is that there's insufficient demand to get a strong recovery going, because consumers are broke and scared. The solution is more government spending in the short run to pump up demand and get people working again, and reversing the policies that have handed over all the increased productivity of the past three decades to the top 1%. Once the middle class has got their personal balance sheets in order, it becomes possible for the government to attend to its deficit problem--macroeconomics 101.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:What I find interesting in that post is the assumption that there IS a solution to the problem - but that the Republicans stopped it being implemented. Why are you so sure there is a solution? The counter argument is that there was a build up of imbalances in the economy which the hyper-activity of the Fed (probably starting as early as 1992) prevented getting sorted earlier. When therefore there was such a big shift in the economy - the panic over the levels of debts - that a lot of banks were forced to draw in their horns and the Fed could no longer correct for, all this bad stuff happened. And it's perverse to blame anyone in particular - as much the Republicans of 2008, as opposed to the ignoramuses of the Tea Party - as Democrats, aliens from Zog or the tooth fairy.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And while the primary responsibility for this [the LAST bust] lies with the Republican Party and their faith-based economics (never mind the evidence--we believe that small government, low taxes, and free markets inevitably lead to prosperity), some share will go to Obama and the Democrats who didn't have the guts to fight on the core issue, which is inequality.
quote:Hmm - I'd describe that as Keynesian Macroeconomics 101, making certain assumptions about the nature of what the economic system will stand for - particularly the assumption that it can stand more government debt. Let's try and agree something - at some point a government cannot borrow any more, because the interest cost of that additional borrowing will cost more than the taxes on that the rise in economic growth that the extra borrowing achieves will bring in. Once you get to that point you must default - or suffer a horrendous amount of austerity, as Greece is currently proving. Now the question is whether the US would hit this problem if it attempted to go down that route, and that is a genuinely open question, but one that we have to consider.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
<snip>The problem is that there's insufficient demand to get a strong recovery going, because consumers are broke and scared. The solution is more government spending in the short run to pump up demand and get people working again, and reversing the policies that have handed over all the increased productivity of the past three decades to the top 1%. Once the middle class has got their personal balance sheets in order, it becomes possible for the government to attend to its deficit problem--macroeconomics 101.
quote:Indeed it is.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It would be an interesting exercise to identify what proportion has been grabbed by the rich.
quote:Not quite. The reality of the 'inflation' you so blithely disdain is that US's ability to buy things in the world would be SEVERELY undermined. At the moment the US is running a severe balance of payment deficit which it is already covering by borrowing. If that source of support disappeared, things would rapidly get very 'interesting' as oil imports would become VERY expensive; $10 a gallon anyone? It's essentially the same risk of severe austerity - though from a different route.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Nonsense Ender. The United States is in a vastly different position than Greece. Both the United States and the United Kingdom borrow in their own currency and have their own central banks. They cannot be forced to default on their debts but they can choose to do so*.
A true sovereign borrower can always print more money to cover its debts. The effect may be inflation, but there is no need, absolutely no need for a default.
Greece on the other hand is not a true sovereign borrowers, neither is France or Germany for that matter. European government debts are denominated in Euros and each individual state cannot ask the central bank to print more money to cover their debts.
Apples and oranges.
*The Tea Party idiots want the US to do just that.
quote:I really ought to call you to Hell for the sheer ignorance and lack of empathy for the main victims of inflation - the poor - that that comment demonstrates. Sadly as I won't be on line much over the next few days, I wouldn't be able to make a decent debate of it. However, let me assure you that the long term effect of high levels of inflation (>> 15% or so) are serious; just consider a) the person on a fixed pension - rapidly reduced to poverty b) Even someone whose pension is inflation linked will suffer a loss the equivalent of half the prevailing rate unless updating for inflation is made more frequent than annually.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Inflationphobia is the economic mental illness of our time.
quote:It is instructive to work out who the main beneficiaries of inflation are.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... the sheer ignorance and lack of empathy for the main victims of inflation - the poor - that that comment demonstrates.
quote:It's simply an indicator of nervousness in the economy and stock markets; anticipation of inflation and devaluation, but you knew that, right?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And we care why? It can't buy anything by itself...
quote:Total non-sequitur. The U.S. trade deficit is not the same thing as the U.S. federal deficit. Attempts to conflate the two are usually a sign of slight-of-hand argumentation.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the moment the US is running a severe balance of payment deficit which it is already covering by borrowing.
quote:Those hurt most by inflation are usually the very poor (those with fixed or marginal incomes) and the very rich (creditors holding a lot of fixed-rate debt and anyone with a lot of cash reserves). The beneficiaries are usually the working class and the middle class, whose wages typically inflate at a similar rate to the inflation rate for commodities while any fixed-rate debt they owe (e.g. mortgage, car loan) does not inflate.
Originally posted by ken:
It is instructive to work out who the main beneficiaries of inflation are.
Bearing in mind that in normal inflation (i.e. not the kind of hyperinflation they had in Germany in the early 1920s or Zimbabwe recently, which disrupts normal economic activity) production continues more or less at the same level - in fact it usually slowly rises - so there is the same amount of stuff to buy, so if the poor are getting poorer and having to make do with less stuff, someone else will be getting hold of more stuff. Who are they?
quote:If you read what I said, you will see that I'm not relating the two specifically, rather indicating how a default achieved by inflating the problem away would play out in the real world. Though actually there CAN be a relationship: if foreigners - broadly defined - are going to buy your national debt, then they need to have your currency, which they will gain if there is a trade deficit. However it is possible to run the two separately, and, indeed, there is a tendency to confuse them. But I plead not guilty.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Total non-sequitur. The U.S. trade deficit is not the same thing as the U.S. federal deficit. Attempts to conflate the two are usually a sign of slight-of-hand argumentation.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the moment the US is running a severe balance of payment deficit which it is already covering by borrowing.
quote:I agree, he's a great aid to the constipated. In fact I feel an urgent need to visit the bog right now.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Mark Steyn is always a good read.
quote:Excuse me, SPK. I believe we have been civil in the past. I support the Tea Party, strongly, and I object to being called an idiot. Obviously, therefore, if you think we Tea Partiers are idiots then you are one for thinking thus.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
*The Tea Party idiots want the US to do just that.
quote:You'd better get used to it then because their idiotic policies don't seem to be going away.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I support the Tea Party, strongly, and I object to being called an idiot.
quote:With the host's indulgence because New Yorker addressed me directly:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Excuse me, SPK. I believe we have been civil in the past. I support the Tea Party, strongly, and I object to being called an idiot. Obviously, therefore, if you think we Tea Partiers are idiots then you are one for thinking thus.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
*The Tea Party idiots want the US to do just that.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Cutting the US government's expenditures is a legitimate political goal. One I mainly disagree with in what is to be cut, but that's politics.
quote:You sound as if it is the Tea Party (or the GOP or Conservatives) that is, all by itself, threatening a US debt default. It take's two to tango and Obama isn't on the dance floor. Indeed, the GOP is trying to pass a bill today that will solve the problem and he's already threatened to veto it. So not only is he not on the dance floor, he's trying to stop the music.
Threatening to default on US debt payments, causing a credit crunch and victimizing millions of Americans who will lose their jobs when credit gets scarce (again) is so ill-considered that I really can't think of another word. Not to mention the rest of us worldwide since US government debt is embedded in the world's economy like nothing else.
quote:Not sure how the banks are holding a gun to the US economy.....
Look, I thought the bailed out banks should have been grateful to have survived at all and shown an appropriate degree of penitence and humility, but they didn't.
But holding a gun to the US economy just to make a political point is beyond sensible.
quote:Wrong. Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to pay debts already incurred. By failing to raise it, the government by law will have to default on those debts already incurred.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
...FWIW, I don't think we would default. Obama would have enough money coming in to service the debt and other programs. He would not be able to spend on new programs, of course.
quote:Exactly. It is rather stunning that this point is not universally understood -- and it is horrifying that it does not appear to be universally understood by the members of Congress.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:Wrong. Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to pay debts already incurred. By failing to raise it, the government by law will have to default on those debts already incurred.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
...FWIW, I don't think we would default. Obama would have enough money coming in to service the debt and other programs. He would not be able to spend on new programs, of course.
quote:I am not an economist nor do I play one on TV, but tax revenues will be coming in even if the debt ceiling is not raised. Those revenues can be used to service the existing debt. So no default.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Wrong. Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to pay debts already incurred. By failing to raise it, the government by law will have to default on those debts already incurred.
quote:Well, given the current make-up of Congress, why is anyone surprised that they don't really know what they're doing? Really.
Originally posted by tclune:
It is rather stunning that this point is not universally understood -- and it is horrifying that it does not appear to be universally understood by the members of Congress.
quote:Well yes, but they can't also be used to pay the military, fulfill the obligations on entitlements, and all the other things that the federal government spends money on. That is why the deficit exists! So if the debt ceiling is not raised, somebody has to make a choice about where the money from tax receipts goes. Servicing the debt would obviously be a good choice, but so would most of the other possibilities.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not an economist nor do I play one on TV, but tax revenues will be coming in even if the debt ceiling is not raised. Those revenues can be used to service the existing debt. So no default.
quote:Ahhhhhhhh! Thanks for the explanation. That wasn't mentioned the general media coverage I've heard.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to pay debts already incurred. By failing to raise it, the government by law will have to default on those debts already incurred.
quote:You ever wonder why? Or why it wasn't mentioned in the coverage that some members of Congress seem to have read (or watched)?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Ahhhhhhhh! Thanks for the explanation. That wasn't mentioned the general media coverage I've heard.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Raising the debt ceiling allows the government to pay debts already incurred. By failing to raise it, the government by law will have to default on those debts already incurred.
quote:If that doesn't get you to rethink your views, then you're beyond redemption...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Never thought I'd agree with Harry Reid.
quote:Huh? In the video he's agreeing with me! (and taking a position 180 degrees from the one he's taking now.)
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:If that doesn't get you to rethink your views, then you're beyond redemption...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Never thought I'd agree with Harry Reid.
--Tom Clune
quote:This analysis may refresh your recollection. And again, not raising the debt ceiling may result in the U.S. Treasuries being serviced, but not other obligations. This is like paying your credit cards and mortgages, but not paying the cable bill.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Well yes, but they can't also be used to pay the military, fulfill the obligations on entitlements, and all the other things that the federal government spends money on. That is why the deficit exists! So if the debt ceiling is not raised, somebody has to make a choice about where the money from tax receipts goes. Servicing the debt would obviously be a good choice, but so would most of the other possibilities.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not an economist nor do I play one on TV, but tax revenues will be coming in even if the debt ceiling is not raised. Those revenues can be used to service the existing debt. So no default.
I read somewhere this week what the projected tax take was for the month of August, compared to projected expenditures. I don't remember the exact figures, and a quick search didn't help me locate the article, but the bottom line was that the latter was significantly larger than the former.
quote:That was my point -- if Harry Reid thinks that, it must be flawed. I assume that you do not believe that he was in general the soul of reason a few years ago, and somehow lost the thread...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Huh? In the video he's agreeing with me! (and taking a position 180 degrees from the one he's taking now.)
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:If that doesn't get you to rethink your views, then you're beyond redemption...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Never thought I'd agree with Harry Reid.
--Tom Clune
quote:No. I believe he opposed raising the debt ceiling when a Republican was in the White House and he's now in favor of raising it since there is a Democrat in the White House.
Originally posted by tclune:
That was my point -- if Harry Reid thinks that, it must be flawed. I assume that you do not believe that he was in general the soul of reason a few years ago, and somehow lost the thread...
--Tom Clune
quote:So what part of that do you agree with?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. I believe he opposed raising the debt ceiling when a Republican was in the White House and he's now in favor of raising it since there is a Democrat in the White House.
Originally posted by tclune:
That was my point -- if Harry Reid thinks that, it must be flawed. I assume that you do not believe that he was in general the soul of reason a few years ago, and somehow lost the thread...
--Tom Clune
quote:Yeah. That was my point, although I wouldn't phrase the analogy quite like that.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
And again, not raising the debt ceiling may result in the U.S. Treasuries being serviced, but not other obligations. This is like paying your credit cards and mortgages, but not paying the cable bill.
quote:
Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined
WASHINGTON — Members of the U.S. Congress reported Wednesday they were continuing to carefully debate the issue of whether or not they should allow the country to descend into a roiling economic meltdown of historically dire proportions. "It is a question that, I think, is worthy of serious consideration: Should we take steps to avoid a crippling, decades-long depression that would lead to disastrous consequences on a worldwide scale? Or should we not do that?" asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), adding that arguments could be made for both sides, and that the debate over ensuring America’s financial solvency versus allowing the nation to default on its debt — which would torpedo stock markets, cause mortgage and interests rates to skyrocket, and decimate the value of the U.S. dollar — is “certainly a conversation worth having.”
quote:Opinions on whether that would work?
Former President Bill Clinton says that he would invoke the so-called constitutional option to raise the nation’s debt ceiling “without hesitation, and force the courts to stop me” in order to prevent a default, should Congress and the President fail to achieve agreement before the August 2 deadline.
Sharply criticizing Congressional Republicans in an exclusive Monday evening interview with The National Memo, Clinton said, “I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”
...
The 14th Amendment reads, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned,” which some scholars have interpreted as giving the president the authority to pay off all outstanding obligations of the United States, regardless of the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress. Prof. Garrett Epps, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, wrote in the Atlantic that “it’s not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients — pensioners, that is — above the vagaries of Congressional politics.”
quote:my savings are, mostly, in my federal Empoyee Retirement fund.. which includes stocks of varous sorts. Unfortunately, I can't just pull it out, alhtough I'm ABOUT to take out a loan against it.. to pay for college. I will pull out as much as they'll let me at this point.. but unfortunately due to their rules, I can't take out a new loan untill an old one has been paid off in full for 60 days. my 60 days are up... on Aug. 5 I hope that nothing in this whole mess changes the rules.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
<free financial advice>
Well, as it looks pretty certain now (Friday evening) that the US will default, I have just stepped into a convenient phone booth, changed into my secret identity -- Bond Vigilante! -- and placed a sell order for all my T-bills. Not such a big order, but these are my retirement savings, and I want to protect them as much as possible from the financial storm about to break.
I'd ask all of you who hold T-bills to consider selling now, before the big rush on Thursday, when the entire Western World starts to dump them.
Get out of stocks, too. Internationals as well as domestics. Take a big position in money markets; you'll make money when interest rates go through the roof.
</free financial advice>
Nothing personal, nothing political in any of this, and yes, I am betting against my own country, but the markets don't have room for sentiment or ideology, and at this point neither do you or I.
quote:Would commodities in general be worth getting into? (As if they aren't rising enough already)
Originally posted by Grammatica:
<free financial advice>
I'd ask all of you who hold T-bills to consider selling now, before the big rush on Thursday, when the entire Western World starts to dump them.
Get out of stocks, too. Internationals as well as domestics. Take a big position in money markets; you'll make money when interest rates go through the roof.
</free financial advice>
Nothing personal, nothing political in any of this, and yes, I am betting against my own country, but the markets don't have room for sentiment or ideology, and at this point neither do you or I.
quote:The problems Italy incurred by the practice don't seem to apply to the type of liquidity trap the U.S. currently finds itself in. The Federal Reserve recently expanded the U.S. monetary base (a.k.a. printed a lot of money) drastically without either triggering inflation or causing U.S. interest rates to rise.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Italy was also notorious for trying to print more and more Lira to get themselves out of trouble. This is one country which has definitely benefited from losing some of their financial sovreignity by being part of the Eurozone!
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:I REALLY hope I am COMPLETELY wrong about ALL of this!
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:I think you're making a post hoc error. I can't see anything about quantitative easing that would selectively raise the price of food and fuel but not anything else. The main reason that food and fuel are not included in core inflation is because they're subject to wild fluctuations for reasons that have very little to do with economic policy (political instability in petroleum exporting nations, drought, etc.) As such, including them would skew any short term (four quarters or less) economic assessment using that data. Over the longer term, such fluctuations would smooth out and it would be reasonable to include them when estimating inflation over longer periods.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Croesus, you're right about the non-effects of the recent round of "quantitative easing," though the price of gasoline and the prices of foodstuffs did rise as a direct result of quantitative easing. (Food and gasoline prices are stripped out of the measure of so-called "core inflation," in a bit of fiddle I personally find nauseating.)
quote:Gasoline prices rise owing to quantitative easing, because the price of oil is denominated in dollars, and when the dollar depreciates, the price of oil rises.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think you're making a post hoc error. I can't see anything about quantitative easing that would selectively raise the price of food and fuel but not anything else. The main reason that food and fuel are not included in core inflation is because they're subject to wild fluctuations for reasons that have very little to do with economic policy (political instability in petroleum exporting nations, drought, etc.) As such, including them would skew any short term (four quarters or less) economic assessment using that data. Over the longer term, such fluctuations would smooth out and it would be reasonable to include them when estimating inflation over longer periods.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Croesus, you're right about the non-effects of the recent round of "quantitative easing," though the price of gasoline and the prices of foodstuffs did rise as a direct result of quantitative easing. (Food and gasoline prices are stripped out of the measure of so-called "core inflation," in a bit of fiddle I personally find nauseating.)
So anyway, why do you say that U.S. quantitative easing is directly responsible for inflating food and gasoline prices (and not just in the U.S.) while leaving all other commodities uninflated?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Interesting theory, but it seems to be at variance with reality. For starters, U.S. consumer goods are also denominated in dollars, even the imports, so any currency fluctuations that affect petroleum should also affect clothing, electronics, etc., which is something we haven't seen.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:Gasoline prices rise owing to quantitative easing, because the price of oil is denominated in dollars, and when the dollar depreciates, the price of oil rises.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So anyway, why do you say that U.S. quantitative easing is directly responsible for inflating food and gasoline prices (and not just in the U.S.) while leaving all other commodities uninflated?
quote:The question is, "Who is a constituent?" If the majority of Americans can't be bothered to vote, and an even larger percentage of Americans never contribute to a political campaign, either in time or treasure, then the majority of Americans are not their constituents.
Originally posted by sabine:
I'm sure Washington politicians have seen the polls which show that a representative 80% of Americans are fed up--even angry--with all the drama in Washington. [That's Americans of all political persuasions.]
Do the politicans feel they no longer have to answer to their constituents?
quote:I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you lost your right to representative government by not voting. When did that come about?
Originally posted by tclune:
The question is, "Who is a constituent?" If the majority of Americans can't be bothered to vote, and an even larger percentage of Americans never contribute to a political campaign, either in time or treasure, then the majority of Americans are not their constituents.
quote:of course you don't.. but sadly politicians tend to feel pressure to represent those who are likely to vote and/or contribute to their campaign, rather than those who stay home on election day. it's not right, but it's reality.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you lost your right to representative government by not voting. When did that come about?
Originally posted by tclune:
The question is, "Who is a constituent?" If the majority of Americans can't be bothered to vote, and an even larger percentage of Americans never contribute to a political campaign, either in time or treasure, then the majority of Americans are not their constituents.
quote:What do you think "representation" means? Your representative is the proxy for those who elected him, not some generic ombudsman. A politician may find it in his interest to seek the good graces of those who have so far shown no interest in politics, in the hope that they may some day show some sign of civic life. But that is hardly the major point of politics.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you lost your right to representative government by not voting. When did that come about?
quote:Wrong. A representative, once elected, is responsible to ALL the people of his/her district - not just "those who elected him". At least, that's what I've always assumed. Lately, events have convinced me otherwise.
Originally posted by tclune:
What do you think "representation" means? Your representative is the proxy for those who elected him, not some generic ombudsman...
quote:What a stunningly vapid notion! If all people are in agreement, then trivially your elective official represents them all. The point is, when people do not agree, he represents the people who elected him -- that's why there was an election.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
A representative, once elected, is responsible to ALL the people of his/her district - not just "those who elected him". At least, that's what I've always assumed. Lately, events have convinced me otherwise.
quote:There's a lot more to representing your constituents than voting and speaking in whatever debating chamber you sit in. Constituents plead for help and intervention with all sorts of things, and if a repesentative wants to be re-elected his or her performance on these can make a huge difference. I don't know how things are with Senators and Representatives but for our Members of Parliament who are not cabinet ministers it's a priority.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:What a stunningly vapid notion! If all people are in agreement, then trivially your elective official represents them all. The point is, when people do not agree, he represents the people who elected him -- that's why there was an election.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
A representative, once elected, is responsible to ALL the people of his/her district - not just "those who elected him". At least, that's what I've always assumed. Lately, events have convinced me otherwise.
--Tom Clune
quote:Most representatives will still send out a card to granny's 100th birthday if asked. But the old-fashioned roll-up-your-sleeves advocacy for individuals in his district is pretty much an artifact of days gone by around here.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's a lot more to representing your constituents than voting and speaking in whatever debating chamber you sit in. Constituents plead for help and intervention with all sorts of things, and if a repesentative wants to be re-elected his or her performance on these can make a huge difference. I don't know how things are with Senators and Representatives but for our Members of Parliament who are not cabinet ministers it's a priority.
quote:well, I don't know waht precentage of such issues actually get looked into, but I do know that we in my Agency are very, very frequently sent letters from Congress asking us to look into this or that complaint by a constituent. I don't know what precentage of the total that represents, but it's definitely a LOT of letters. and most are about trivial matters or matters that would have been more easily dealt with by calling the appropriate Office in the Agency directly. But it IS true that those Congressional letters get attention (there is a formal process for tracking them, and a short timeline for response).
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Most representatives will still send out a card to granny's 100th birthday if asked. But the old-fashioned roll-up-your-sleeves advocacy for individuals in his district is pretty much an artifact of days gone by around here.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's a lot more to representing your constituents than voting and speaking in whatever debating chamber you sit in. Constituents plead for help and intervention with all sorts of things, and if a repesentative wants to be re-elected his or her performance on these can make a huge difference. I don't know how things are with Senators and Representatives but for our Members of Parliament who are not cabinet ministers it's a priority.
I have on occasion written to legislators on behalf of people who needed their help in dealing with the bureaucracy. I normally write every rep and senator applicable, and it is less than 50/50 that even one of them will actually look into the matter.
If the issue is big enough -- the battle between Washington state and Georgia (?) for airline contracts, for example, will bring out the politicians. But old-fashioned "retail" politics is pretty much gone on this side of the Atlantic. Some folks attribute that to the requirements of constant fund-raising in politics now, but I really don't know why.
--Tom Clune
quote:Uh, no. The elected official is supposed to represent all their constituents, no matter who they voted for or if they voted at all It's a requirement of the job.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:What a stunningly vapid notion! If all people are in agreement, then trivially your elective official represents them all. The point is, when people do not agree, he represents the people who elected him -- that's why there was an election.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
A representative, once elected, is responsible to ALL the people of his/her district - not just "those who elected him". At least, that's what I've always assumed. Lately, events have convinced me otherwise.
quote:There is little media coverage of the recent Wisconsin Senate debacle (with looming federal debt crisis demanding attention) but it's a clear example of politicians with an agenda that wasn't revealed during their campaigns. They passed legislation ending workers' collective bargaining rights and now six Republican Senators are facing recall elections initiated by outraged citizens' petitions.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... If you think your personal interests, or indeed the interests of the constituency as a whole, won't be met in that way I don't think you really have any procedural grounds for complaint. (Unless their plans are illegal in their own right.)
quote:Perfect. Then we can spend from passage of whatever they enact until next election watching the legal challenges to the proposal.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"Super Congress" proposed to break deadlock.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:I love it when the proles fight back.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:There is little media coverage of the recent Wisconsin Senate debacle (with looming federal debt crisis demanding attention) but it's a clear example of politicians with an agenda that wasn't revealed during their campaigns. They passed legislation ending workers' collective bargaining rights and now six Republican Senators are facing recall elections initiated by outraged citizens' petitions.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... If you think your personal interests, or indeed the interests of the constituency as a whole, won't be met in that way I don't think you really have any procedural grounds for complaint. (Unless their plans are illegal in their own right.)
quote:Well, LSK, I hope you are not too surprised to learn that you and I disagree!
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
After the President's address, John Boner remains as intransigent as ever.
quote:NY, this is either cosmically ignorant or breathtakingly dishonest. Raising the debt limit means paying for what you've already bought. In what universe is doing that a "compromise?" In what universe is refusing to pay for what you chose to buy an honest bargaining position?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The GOP has compromised. They've agreed to raise the debt ceiling something that is against the grain of many Republicans in the House.
quote:I whole-heartedly agree. This is no time for partianship. Yet, Obama sticks to his demand for tax increases when the bi-partisan trend in the Congress (which makes law) is for there to be no tax increases. Who is being partisan? Who is acting like a spoiled child?
In that context, New Yorker, political partisanship in the US looks a pretty dangerous game, no matter who's playing it. Time for everyone to grow up.
quote:(Pardon me while I try to get the Two if by Tea out of the computer. I just spewed it out of my mouth reading the above.)
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Beeb is by no means perfect, but it has an international reputation for its constitutional commitment to objective and balanced reporting. Fox News doesn't.
quote:Got that?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I whole-heartedly agree. This is no time for partianship. Yet, Obama sticks to his demand for tax increases when the bi-partisan trend in the Congress (which makes law) is for there to be no tax increases. Who is being partisan? Who is acting like a spoiled child?
In that context, New Yorker, political partisanship in the US looks a pretty dangerous game, no matter who's playing it. Time for everyone to grow up.
quote:Indeed. Fox News has never been criticized by its ombudsman since it's so "fair and balanced" it doesn't even have one!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:For me the BBC is outrageously biased. Think of all it's anti-Israel stands. And were they not recently critized by their own ombundsman for being biased? I seem to recall that.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The Beeb is by no means perfect, but it has an international reputation for its constitutional commitment to objective and balanced reporting. Fox News doesn't.
Fox News, while it has faults, is, in its news outlets not necessarily in its opinion outlets, fair and balanced.
quote:What anti-Israel stands? The BBC is consistently biased in favour of Israel. It would be difficult to be more pro-Israel without making stuff up or leaving stuff out.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
For me the BBC is outrageously biased. Think of all it's anti-Israel stands.
quote:Those who expect there to be no tax increases in times of economic hardship are acting like spoiled children.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
This is no time for partianship. Yet, Obama sticks to his demand for tax increases when the bi-partisan trend in the Congress (which makes law) is for there to be no tax increases. Who is being partisan? Who is acting like a spoiled child?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Remember the marvelous little DH Lawrence short story, The Rocking Horse Winner
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those who expect there to be no tax increases in times of economic hardship are acting like spoiled children.
quote:*aside*: that strange, sad story could be the story of my paternal grandmother & my father.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Remember the marvelous little DH Lawrence short story, The Rocking Horse Winner
Originally posted by Boogie:
Those who expect there to be no tax increases in times of economic hardship are acting like spoiled children.
"There must be more money. There must be more money. There must be more money."
quote:It just isn't pro-Israel enough (to be honest, parts of the Beeb are pro-Israel, others are merely opposed to using 70 ton main battle tanks as police vehicles).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What anti-Israel stands? The BBC is consistently biased in favour of Israel. It would be difficult to be more pro-Israel without making stuff up or leaving stuff out.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
For me the BBC is outrageously biased. Think of all it's anti-Israel stands.
quote:Actually, he has entrenched himself as much as anyone else in his own ideology. All that is left is to see who blinks first, and when.
Originally posted by Boogie:
...
I feel for Obama - his hands are tied
quote:The so-called moderates who refuse to call the idiotic lunacy of the Tea Party what it is, and who won't acknowledge that what the Republicans in the House are doing is legislative terrorism, are as much to blame as Cantor and his acolytes.
I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.
No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.
Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.
So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent....
And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Yes, but ....
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Once again, Paul Krugman gets it exactly right.
quote:The so-called moderates who refuse to call the idiotic lunacy of the Tea Party what it is, and who won't acknowledge that what the Republicans in the House are doing is legislative terrorism, are as much to blame as Cantor and his acolytes.
I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.
No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.
Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.
So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent....
And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.
quote:I'll add it to my wish-list.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--
I haven't read your books. But have you read Starhawk's "The Fifth Sacred Thing"? Deals with similar issues.
quote:The Republic of Gilead, maybe?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now, I've had some interesting conversations with people, saying I've misjudged your average patriotic right-wing Christian conservative, and maybe I have (still remembering this is fiction). But I don't think it's 'average' conservatives driving this madness. Having foreseen the Tea Party movement by nearly a decade, I'd just like to say it doesn't end well...
quote:Exactly. Handmaid's tale has been looking less and less fictional lately. While I'm not ready yet to bolt and am very tied down, I'm also looking at options. I mean, I still hope that sanity will ultimately prevail, but then so did my grandparents in 1917. and then they were stuck.
Originally posted by Moth:
quote:The Republic of Gilead, maybe?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Now, I've had some interesting conversations with people, saying I've misjudged your average patriotic right-wing Christian conservative, and maybe I have (still remembering this is fiction). But I don't think it's 'average' conservatives driving this madness. Having foreseen the Tea Party movement by nearly a decade, I'd just like to say it doesn't end well...
quote:The legislative way out of that is for some moderate Republican representatives - and there are some - to break ranks and say they will vote as Independents and support the compromise on this, if their fellow party-members don't pull their heaads out of their arseholes. (even if they spell it differently) They could even threaten to put some Democrats into committee chairs (& no doubt get some quid prop quo off the Dems for soing so)
Originally posted by Josephine:
You can't reason with him, and you can't negotiate with him, and you can't compromise with him. It's not possible. And that seems to be the case with the rest of the Tea Party and their associates as well. The Dems gave them everything they asked for, and they respond, not by accepting the deal, but by demanding more, and by blaming the Dems for intransigence.
quote:Blogger (and economist) Brad DeLong has outlined a possible Constitutional argument along those lines.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What can the President actually enforce under the US Constitution? If in the end, he doesn't need to negotiate with the legislative terrorists, if he has the power to impose and say, effectively "so impeach me if you want to try" then he can confront by Presidential order, enforce it by the power of the office and get the job done the way he believes will work. Can he do that? Never mind whether he has the will, does he have the constitutional means?
quote:It's not a Constitutional slam dunk, but it's a pretty plausible argument. Congress has, by passing a budget, already authorized spending which will cause the U.S. government to exceed the debt ceiling and the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the federal government from defaulting on its Congressionally authorized debts.
An administration that can find lawyers to say that Libya is not "hostilities" and that wanted to reassure markets and reduce economic uncertainty by solving the debt ceiling kabuki theatre debate would have no problem at all with finding lawyers to advance and justify this well-grounded and wise legal interpretation.
The structure of [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner's testimony to Congress defending his additional borrowing is:
- The Constitution forbids me from even thinking about default.
- You ordered me to spend.
- A previous Congress told me not to borrow, but no Congress can bind its successors, and those of you who are in this Congress here now ordered me to spend.
- I'm just doing what you told me to do -- and what the Constitution directly and explicitly tells me to do.
quote:I would be quite surprised if his office would have any interest in the opinions of people out of his district. But maybe I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Anyone who (like me) is frightened and angry about the prospect that the US might default next week should consider calling Speaker Boehner's office...
quote:If he was, it would probably signal a long-term eye toward a future run for the presidency (*shudders*)
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I would be quite surprised if his office would have any interest in the opinions of people out of his district. But maybe I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Anyone who (like me) is frightened and angry about the prospect that the US might default next week should consider calling Speaker Boehner's office...
--Tom Clune
quote:I think the big problem in doing something like this is our jack-booted Supreme Court. Many of these clowns actually injected themselves in the political process during the Bush/Gore election, so it is very reasonable to believe that they would jump with both feet into this Executive/Legislative branch furor.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You're right; it's not a slam dunk but something like it might cut across "who blinks first". An interesting card to threaten to play, and not too difficult to explain either. "In extremis" it doesn't look like a bluff. Don't know enough in detail about the 14th amendment and caselaw to be sure, but then the WH probably doesn't have to be 100% sure; just that such an action would be sufficiently plausible to justify putting on the "Big Hat".
quote:Wow, how many strawmans can you cram into one post?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Might I ask my left-leaning Shipmates a few questions:
It seems to me that the underlying problem is the debt, the debt ceiling being a symptom. Indeed if I understand the ratings agencies it is the size of our debt that is causing them to consider downgrading our credit rating. So, why do the Democrats want to keep spending if that is the problem?
Why won't President Obama produce a plan to solve the problem? All he does is threaten to veto all the GOP plans.
...Why is no one talking about serious spending cuts? All I've read and heard is savings of a trillion dollars or so over ten years. That's not going to do us any good.
quote:Of course.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Raising the debt ceiling is not about increasing the debt. It's about paying the debts we've already incurred.
quote:Of course.
The dispute is about whether deficit reduction should be accomplished solely thru spending cuts (requiring some incredibly draconian measures) or through a combination of spending cuts and targeted tax increases (or, rather, allowing temporary tax cuts for a small segment of Americans to expire).
quote:But a big chunk of Reid's plan's savings come from not fighting a future war.
Finally, the dems are presenting a detailed, specific plan. And the Congressional Budget Office confirms that the Democratic plan results in a significantly larger deficit reduction than the GOP plan:
CBO analysis of both plans
quote:You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But a big chunk of Reid's plan's savings come from not fighting a future war.
quote:Don't forget that you are only spending $120 a month for this year. Next year you will spend $130 a month, regardless of your circumstances at that time, and the next year it will be $140. Should you decide to only spend $125 per month next year that would constitute a $5 monthly cut and a savings of $60 for the year! Incredible!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
quote:right. and it works that way on BOTH sides. The Republican plan also is counting on "cutting" increases, not pure cuts. the plans are compared against a baseline, which is not "waht we spend now" but "what we are currently projected to spend in the future.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Don't forget that you are only spending $120 a month for this year. Next year you will spend $130 a month, regardless of your circumstances at that time, and the next year it will be $140. Should you decide to only spend $125 per month next year that would constitute a $5 monthly cut and a savings of $60 for the year! Incredible!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
If we were to spend no more than we did this year for the next 5 years the CBO would score that as a 4 trillion dollar cut.
quote:Tom, we agree! Hurrah!
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
quote:The class warfare by the rich is not usually called a war on poverty, but I see your point...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Tom, we agree! Hurrah!
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
quote:But that's not what the plan is doing. Not even close.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
[QUOTE]
So, let me get this straight. Suppose I make $100 per month. I am spending $120 per month. I need to cut $20 per month in spending. Okay. It's hard. But I decide not to spend $20 per month on donations to "Obama's 50th Birthday Cake Party and Speech," even though I was only thinking of spending this $20 in the future. I was not yet spending it. How is that a cut? I'm still spending $120 per month.
quote:New Yorker, there's a man named Lazarus out on the sidewalk in front of your house. Abraham would like to have a word with you about him.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:New Yorker, there's a man named Lazarus out on the sidewalk in front of your house. Abraham would like to have a word with you about him.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:New Yorker, there's a man named Lazarus out on the sidewalk in front of your house. Abraham would like to have a word with you about him.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
quote:God Bless the United States of American...
The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
quote:Um, no, he placed a $4b plan on the table that Bonehead walked away from. You're not paying attention to the news.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why won't President Obama produce a plan to solve the problem? All he does is threaten to veto all the GOP plans.
quote:If the Hamas wing of the Republicans (AKA teabaggers) get their way and destroy Social Security and Medicaid just to spite the President maybe you can employ US refugees as cheap domestic help.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
quote:Hmm. IN my Bible, it says that Jesus will judge us all on whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, welcomed strangers, clothed those in need, visited prisoners, and cared for the sick. So, yeah, you're right. We need to be making sure our resources are doing those things.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But, Josephine, do you not know that Jesus will judge us all on how we used the resources we had?
quote:I'm holding out for the annexation option. May the Province of Massachusetts live again!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:If the Hamas wing of the Republicans (AKA teabaggers) get their way and destroy Social Security and Medicaid just to spite the President maybe you can employ US refugees as cheap domestic help.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, though I am neither smarter nor better than Josephine, I am one of those who signed the circle of protection.
quote:One could only hope!
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:I'm holding out for the annexation option. May the Province of Massachusetts live again!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:If the Hamas wing of the Republicans (AKA teabaggers) get their way and destroy Social Security and Medicaid just to spite the President maybe you can employ US refugees as cheap domestic help.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Since I live on the other side of the lake to New York State, I imagine I should reinforce my windows just to be sure.
Besides, if we annex a few states we get the physical plant and resources too. Why settle for domestic work when you can do what you were trained to do?
No, no, just stay right where you are and things will be all better soon. There will be a new flag in front of City Hall, the cops will start wearing red bands on their caps and lawyers will start to wear gowns, but there's no need to uproot yourselves.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Shouldn't there be an "eh" at the end of that?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Why settle for domestic work when you can do what you were trained to do?
quote:Do I have to wear a wig, too?
... lawyers will start to wear gowns ...
re Abraham & Lazarus remark. And I've just now signed up for the Circle of Protection. I thought of doing it when I discovered it, a couple of days ago, but there were a couple of things in the Sojourners' article that I didn't quite agree with--mostly, IIRC, that it was so very Christian and didn't include other faiths. But I'm signed up, now.quote:As always, conservatism boils down to "I'm all right, Jack--fuck you."
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Tom, we agree! Hurrah!
You're in luck. We don't need a future war: we've already got one we can stop fighting.
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
Give 'em Hell, Timmy!
quote:So you're volunteering to join the ranks of the poor, then?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
quote:No, no, MT. You KNOW that will put the Poor Company out of business and lead to fewer jobs.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm making $100 a month and spending $120. I know. I'll ask them to cut my hours at work so I'm only making $80. That'll solve it. Somehow. Maybe.
Okay maybe not.
quote:No, in his role as Speaker of the House, all Republican members of Congress have been added to his constituency. There are two groups that vote him in or out to one of his offices -- his district voters and the members of his caucus in Congress.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In his role as a member of the House, he has a district in his home state. But in his role as Speaker of the House, all Americans are in his district.
quote:Suppose New York repealed its legislation requiring everyone who drives to have auto insurance? It's the exact same idea.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So now all 53 Senate Democrats have sent Boehner a letter saying they will not vote for his bill.
Solution: amend the bill to include a repeal of Obamacare. Have the House pass the bill then take a three week vacation.
quote:Huh? Not the same at all. If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the world doesn't come to an end. Obama will have to figure out what to pay, but life will go on.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Suppose New York repealed its legislation requiring everyone who drives to have auto insurance? It's the exact same idea.
Good luck if you crash your car.
quote:But that is the most powerful argument for why Obama should just tell the Treasury to ignore the debt limit -- the executive branch will have to ignore some legislation passed by Congress no matter what it does. Congress is the one and only branch that can pass spending bills, and all the debt that they are now threatening to refuse to pay was run up by their legislation.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the world doesn't come to an end. Obama will have to figure out what to pay, but life will go on.
quote:Oh, I hope so. But I don't think he will. One of his spokespersons was on NPR earlier this week, talking about how Obama would in no wise usurp Congress's powers and responsibilities.
Originally posted by tclune:
I still expect that Obama will give such a directive if Congress continues to try to weasel out of taking responsibility for the debt it has incurred.
quote:"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call "The Constitutional Twilight Zone".
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
...I can understand why nobody wants to go there. It's a bit of a constitutional Twilight Zone.
quote:Might as well....the pay is the same....
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:So you're volunteering to join the ranks of the poor, then?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
We've been fighting the war on poverty for decades and can't win. It's time to surrender and stop fighting.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:You'd have to speak with a teabagger to understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. You can't get through to them with substantiated facts. They will simply ignore them, change the subject or accuse you of liberal bias. It's maddening.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...But do they really believe this guff? Seriously? Heck, any A level economics student in the UK knows better than that. If Tea Partiers are that kind of "true believer", your electoral processes are putting some seriously stupid people in office.
quote:Not to mention that too many of them either didn't attend college or didn't pay attention in class. The electoral college isn't needed to put stunningly stupid people into office - the Tea Party fringe in Congress is a good example of that.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:You'd have to speak with a teabagger to understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. You can't get through to them with substantiated facts. They will simply ignore them, change the subject or accuse you of liberal bias. It's maddening.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...But do they really believe this guff? Seriously? Heck, any A level economics student in the UK knows better than that. If Tea Partiers are that kind of "true believer", your electoral processes are putting some seriously stupid people in office.
quote:One of the problems with goups like the Tea Party is that they are deeply suspicious of so-called "outside experts" even if such experts have Nobel Prizes in Economics.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:You'd have to speak with a teabagger to understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. You can't get through to them with substantiated facts. They will simply ignore them, change the subject or accuse you of liberal bias. It's maddening.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
...But do they really believe this guff? Seriously? Heck, any A level economics student in the UK knows better than that. If Tea Partiers are that kind of "true believer", your electoral processes are putting some seriously stupid people in office.
quote:Opinions differ on this. The Tea Party believes nothing much will happen if the US defaults; the rest of the world thinks otherwise. Only one of the two can be right. Stay tuned...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the world doesn't come to an end. Obama will have to figure out what to pay, but life will go on.
quote:Careful! Let's be clear. The Tea Party does not want the US to default. That would be bad. The Tea Party is, however, not keen on raising the debt ceiling, if at all, unles there are spending cuts. This is what has to happen to address the problem of which the debt ceiling is the sympton: the debt.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Opinions differ on this. The Tea Party believes nothing much will happen if the US defaults; the rest of the world thinks otherwise. Only one of the two can be right. Stay tuned...
quote:In other news, dihydrogen monoxide is liquid at standard temperature and pressure, individuals of the order Ursidae eliminate bodily wastes in sylvan settings, and the successor of Peter is a member of the largest Christian ecclesial body with headquarters in Rome.
Originally posted by tclune:
So, to summarize the last few posts, Teabaggers [sic] are uneducated dupes who stoop to personal attacks instead of being persuaded by dispassionate facts.
quote:This is just plain false. There is no need to cut spending at all to eradicate the debt -- it could be done by raising revenues, lowering expenditures, or a combination of the two. Let's at least state the obvious in a way that is not obviously false.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Careful! Let's be clear. The Tea Party does not want the US to default. That would be bad. The Tea Party is, however, not keen on raising the debt ceiling, if at all, unles there are spending cuts. This is what has to happen to address the problem of which the debt ceiling is the sympton: the debt.
quote:That seems implausible. If the Tea Party were concerned about debt, they'd have spoken up when the previous administration was running up debt like a drunken sailor. Given that the Tea Party refuses to consider any alteration to the largest recent policy change to increase the debt (the Bush tax cuts), the concern over U.S. debt is just an excuse for pushing right-wing partisanship.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Careful! Let's be clear. The Tea Party does not want the US to default. That would be bad. The Tea Party is, however, not keen on raising the debt ceiling, if at all, unles there are spending cuts. This is what has to happen to address the problem of which the debt ceiling is the sympton: the debt.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Opinions differ on this. The Tea Party believes nothing much will happen if the US defaults; the rest of the world thinks otherwise. Only one of the two can be right. Stay tuned...
quote:If true, it may be a blessing in disguise. All it takes is for the smarter Republicans to present a plan with the explanation, "It's not a tax! Never! How dare you! It's just a mandatory payment made by individuals." (heads nod, "Well that's all right then")
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Not to mention that too many of them either didn't attend college or didn't pay attention in class. The electoral college isn't needed to put stunningly stupid people into office - the Tea Party fringe in Congress is a good example of that.
quote:[Tangent]The most widely-accepted values for STP are 0 degrees C at 100 kPa, so dihydrogen monoxide is a solid at STP if I am not mistaken.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other news, dihydrogen monoxide is liquid at standard temperature and pressure...
quote:The trouble Boehner is having maintaining discipline in his caucus shows that the Tea Partiers inherently distrust anyone not in the club. If the tactic you suggest would actually work, Boehner would have no trouble getting the votes he needs.
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:If true, it may be a blessing in disguise. All it takes is for the smarter Republicans to present a plan with the explanation, "It's not a tax! Never! How dare you! It's just a mandatory payment made by individuals." (heads nod, "Well that's all right then")
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Not to mention that too many of them either didn't attend college or didn't pay attention in class. The electoral college isn't needed to put stunningly stupid people into office - the Tea Party fringe in Congress is a good example of that.
quote:If I see a man with a baseball bat hitting another man in the head again and again then I assume the is trying to hit him. If he then tells me that in fact he is really trying to hit the ball but the other idiot keeps on putting his head in the way, I don't believe him
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The Tea Party does not want the US to default.
quote:Maybe where you are but for us it was always 20C.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:[Tangent]The most widely-accepted values for STP are 0 degrees C at 100 kPa, so dihydrogen monoxide is a solid at STP if I am not mistaken.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other news, dihydrogen monoxide is liquid at standard temperature and pressure...
[/Tangent]
quote:Always used to be 25oC when I was a nipper...
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:[Tangent]The most widely-accepted values for STP are 0 degrees C at 100 kPa, so dihydrogen monoxide is a solid at STP if I am not mistaken.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other news, dihydrogen monoxide is liquid at standard temperature and pressure...
[/Tangent]
quote:Click me
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The Tea Party does not want the US to default.
quote:A couple of small points -- first, I should have said that the pressure of STP was 1 atm. Second, your recollection of 25 degrees C is most likely from the temperature for standard enthalpy data, not a definition of STP. We now return to our regularly-scheduled program...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Always used to be 25oC when I was a nipper...
quote:The hard reality is that it's going to take cuts to programs for the poor AND tax increases on those who can pay. It's going to hurt everyone. Even the patron saint of the conservative right, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes during both his governorship of California (the biggest in state history) and his Presidency.
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:If true, it may be a blessing in disguise. All it takes is for the smarter Republicans to present a plan with the explanation, "It's not a tax! Never! How dare you! It's just a mandatory payment made by individuals." (heads nod, "Well that's all right then")
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Not to mention that too many of them either didn't attend college or didn't pay attention in class. The electoral college isn't needed to put stunningly stupid people into office - the Tea Party fringe in Congress is a good example of that.
quote:Firstly, its not really offensive.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Okay, I know that political views are highly charged onboard as in real life. However, the term "teabagger" is offensive. I would ask, simply for one's good sake, that it be avoided.
quote:Not true. Federal expenditures stand at about 8.3% of the U.S. GDP, about the same level as 1992. Total government expeditures (federal + state) is about 20.5% of U.S. GDP, about the same as in 1991.
Originally posted by Alogon:
According to a recent newspaper column, federal government expenditures are now the highest percentage of gross national product since World War II.
quote:The ones that Barry extended in an 850 billion dollar bill back in December? Yeah, I remember those.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...the largest recent policy change to increase the debt (the Bush tax cuts)...
quote:QE3, we gotta have QE3, it'll work this time for sure, no doubt about it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...the obvious step is not for the government to cut spending but rather to encourage growth.
quote:IIRC he did it under protest in order to salvage extended unemployment benefits due to the Republicans pulling exactly this kind of hostage-taking activity.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:The ones that Barry extended in an 850 billion dollar bill back in December? Yeah, I remember those.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...the largest recent policy change to increase the debt (the Bush tax cuts)...
quote:I call 'em teabaggers all the time, but I don't expect that to change anything. When someone offends me, I tend to reflect on how badly they are behaving.
Originally posted by ken:
If offending them has a chance of making them realise how badly they are behaving, and the effect their petty vindictiveness is having on their country and the rest of the world, then lets offend away.
quote:Yes, I understand that, but apparently the Tea Party doesn't. It was my understanding that Tea Persons were in favour only of program cuts and refused to countenance tax increases. I thought that if they are as immune to reason and logic as presented, they might be fooled as long as you don't say the bad word "tax."
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The hard reality is that it's going to take cuts to programs for the poor AND tax increases on those who can pay. It's going to hurt everyone. Even the patron saint of the conservative right, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes during both his governorship of California (the biggest in state history) and his Presidency.
quote:Oh, I see: Now you would like civil discourse. How refreshing. I assume that you will also dispense with some of the more offensive nicknames for your President, in the name of the civil discourse from which you wish to benefit.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Okay, I know that political views are highly charged onboard as in real life. However, the term "teabagger" is offensive. I would ask, simply for one's good sake, that it be avoided.
Thanks.
quote:In short, when given a choice between providing for the kids or bankrolling toxic political rhetoric, the Tea Party strongly favors the latter over the former.
Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.
“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.
<snip>
But court documents examined this week by the Chicago Sun-Times during research for a profile on the increasingly visible congressman showed his financial issues also included a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife.
Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.
“Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.”
Walsh’s attorneys responded in court filings: “Respondent admits that funds were loaned to his campaign fund. . . . Respondent admits that the campaign fund has repaid certain loans.”
quote:No, they are not the same thing at all. In the case of the extension of tax cuts for the rich, it was a matter of the kind of compromise that is the life-blood of politics. President Obama wanted to pass a policy for which he did not have the votes. The unpleasant cost of getting a policy that he wanted was to give the opposition somethng that they wanted. We can debate whether it was a good trade or not, but there was nothing untoward about it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
IIRC he did it under protest in order to salvage extended unemployment benefits due to the Republicans pulling exactly this kind of hostage-taking activity.
quote:And I would say the same thing about the lefties who are not trying to turn the country into Guatemala, they are turning us into Guataemala.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why should one not be offensive about people who are trying to turn the Greatest Country In The World into Guatemala?
quote:But people do this all the time, don't they? That's why we have foreclosures and repo men. Refusing to pay for what you have already bought when you have the means to pay for it is immoral. Theft, pretty much, but at what point do you have to admit that you simply cannot afford to continue buying? Where is the morality in borrowing 40% of what you spend? Not to mention grossly inflating the money supply and driving rates up?
Originally posted by tclune:
Refusing to pay for what you have already bought is a very different ballgame. The approach that the Tea Partiers are taking is analogous to an individual deciding that he can improve his finances not by cutting up his credit cards, but by cutting up his credit card bills. I cannot see this as anything other than immoral.
quote:The debt limit isn't to purchase something, it's to pay the bill that has come due on the loan for the shortfall.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:But people do this all the time, don't they? That's why we have foreclosures and repo men. Refusing to pay for what you have already bought when you have the means to pay for it is immoral. Theft, pretty much, but at what point do you have to admit that you simply cannot afford to continue buying? Where is the morality in borrowing 40% of what you spend? Not to mention grossly inflating the money supply and driving rates up?
Originally posted by tclune:
Refusing to pay for what you have already bought is a very different ballgame. The approach that the Tea Partiers are taking is analogous to an individual deciding that he can improve his finances not by cutting up his credit cards, but by cutting up his credit card bills. I cannot see this as anything other than immoral.
Spoiler Alert: The debt limit will rise. There will be no "revenue increases." Barry will suck down a pack of Dunhills and sign whatever they send him. He lacks the huevos to veto.
quote:They can't support tax increases without violating the solemn pledge sworn to Grover Norquist and the group, Americans for Tax Reform (as have most Republicans).
Originally posted by Leaf:
...It was my understanding that Tea Persons were in favour only of program cuts and refused to countenance tax increases. I thought that if they are as immune to reason and logic as presented, they might be fooled as long as you don't say the bad word "tax."
quote:When, exactly, are we going to see these rates driven up? As noted earlier, there does not seem to be any inflationary pressure on the U.S. dollar at the current level of spending and the rate on long-term U.S. bonds is currently at 2.87%.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Not to mention grossly inflating the money supply and driving rates up?
quote:Not exactly. It's to pay the bill that has come due without cutting spending. It's increasing the debt without doing anything to decrease the debt.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The debt limit isn't to purchase something, it's to pay the bill that has come due on the loan for the shortfall.
quote:And how, precisely, do you go about deriving an ought from an is?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:But people do this all the time, don't they?
Originally posted by tclune:
Refusing to pay for what you have already bought is a very different ballgame. The approach that the Tea Partiers are taking is analogous to an individual deciding that he can improve his finances not by cutting up his credit cards, but by cutting up his credit card bills. I cannot see this as anything other than immoral.
quote:Ah, it's all clear to me now. If we can only increase taxes without doing anything to decrease them, we'll be good to go.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
... It's increasing the debt without doing anything to decrease the debt.
quote:For you to speak reassuringly, and for Romanlion to say that the sky is falling, is what one would expect from your respective general positions. The puzzling thing to me is that the roles are often reversed these days. It is the Republicans who tell us that a default on the government's part wouldn't be that terrible. I can't grok this. Those who despise defaults and other breaches of contract are the creditors. That would be the Republicans-- or at least those who bankroll them. By and large, Republicans are the only creditors who are citizens of the U.S. I conclude this by a process of elimination, because no one else in this country is capable of buying or holding a significant fraction of outstanding U.S. government bonds.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
there does not seem to be any inflationary pressure on the U.S. dollar at the current level of spending and the rate on long-term U.S. bonds is currently at 2.87%.
A lot of people are confusing their personal economic theories about how things should be with actual reality of the situation.
quote:Sort of.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The debt limit isn't to purchase something, it's to pay the bill that has come due on the loan for the shortfall.
quote:When US debt becomes an unattractive investment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]When, exactly, are we going to see these rates driven up?
quote:I was responding specifically to romanlion's assertion that continued deficit spending at current levels would result in inflation and high interest rates, not what would happen in the event of a default. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough, given the context of the current thread. At any rate, it's fairly clear that accrual of additional debt by the U.S. at its current pace is not leading to the things RL claims it is. What's not clear is what an actual default would do to inflation and bond rates, but it's probably not good.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:For you to speak reassuringly, and for Romanlion to say that the sky is falling, is what one would expect from your respective general positions. The puzzling thing to me is that the roles are often reversed these days. It is the Republicans who tell us that a default on the government's part wouldn't be that terrible. I can't grok this.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
there does not seem to be any inflationary pressure on the U.S. dollar at the current level of spending and the rate on long-term U.S. bonds is currently at 2.87%.
A lot of people are confusing their personal economic theories about how things should be with actual reality of the situation.
quote:Yes, that's exactly what the managing partners of PIMCO have been recommending. Not that they would know anything, of course...all they do is run the world's largest bond trading firm.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that most of recent upward motion of the U.S. deficit/debt as a percentage of GDP hasn't been due to a sudden binge of runaway spending but due to the stagnation of the U.S. economy. (i.e. the U.S. GDP has shrunk or held steady but not grown significantly since 2008.) Given this, the obvious step is not for the government to cut spending but rather to encourage growth.
quote:So I suggest that on August 2, the federal government immediately cease spending money in the districts of all the members of Congress who have signed Norquist's idiotic pledge.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
quote:They can't support tax increases without violating the solemn pledge sworn to Grover Norquist and the group, Americans for Tax Reform (as have most Republicans).
Originally posted by Leaf:
...It was my understanding that Tea Persons were in favour only of program cuts and refused to countenance tax increases. I thought that if they are as immune to reason and logic as presented, they might be fooled as long as you don't say the bad word "tax."
"Take the pledge, win the primary. Take the pledge, win the general. Break the pledge, lose," Norquist says.
We have no one to blame but the bone-headed American public who voted these intransigent corporate lackeys into office last fall. Hopefully, enough voters will wake up to their gross mistake and remove them in 2012 - but I'm not counting on it. It's as though the public is mesmerized by a lemming-like suicidal fascination.
quote:Well, that comes to the tricky part. Does the President, or those acting on his behalf in the Treasury Department, have the authority to selectively not perform spending that's been authorized by the Congress? The Treasury has been both ordered by Congress to spend and forbidden by Congress to spend.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
So I suggest that on August 2, the federal government immediately cease spending money in the districts of all the members of Congress who have signed Norquist's idiotic pledge.
quote:For anyone who doesn't understand how an entity can (1) incur debt while (2) having enough spare cash to buy that debt back-- this feat is otherwise known as printing paper money. Which explains why the federal government is the only entity that can accomplish the feat.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Buy any bonds lately? The Fed sure has.
quote:Unfortunately the laws of arithmetic (not subject to Congressional alteration) mean that, absent a change in the debt ceiling, the President must over-ride the Congress in one of those two ways.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
quote:and
“And what about here in the Senate? Well the contrast couldn’t be starker. Rather than working these last few days towards a solution to this crisis the way the Republican Majority in the House has, the Democratic Majority here in the Senate has been wasting precious time rounding up `no’ votes to keep this crisis alive. Rather than being responsible and doing their duty and come up with a bill that can pass, they’ve been busy signing people up for the `not good enough’ caucus and ginning up opposition to everything else.
quote:
Democrats are out bragging about how they’re going to prolong this crisis instead of doing the hard work of trying to solve it.
“And that includes the President.
“Look: If the President hadn’t decided to blow up the bipartisan solution that members of Congress worked so hard to produce last weekend, we’d be voting to end this crisis today.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:There is a stench on both sides, but there could've been a deal by now if not for the Tea Party faction. Their whole attitude is they either get Cut, Cap and Balance, complete with a constitutional amendment or they aren't going along with raising the debt limit. Period. They refuse to negotiate or compromise - even with their own party. The country is about to go over the cliff financially when for the first time in our entire history we won't be able to pay bills that are already obligated. The Tea Party doesn't care or is blindingly ignorant as to what the debt limit actually is. There is a stench on both sides, but the Tea Party is rotten.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I don't often quote Mitch McConnell, but this is rather good.
quote:and
“And what about here in the Senate? Well the contrast couldn’t be starker. Rather than working these last few days towards a solution to this crisis the way the Republican Majority in the House has, the Democratic Majority here in the Senate has been wasting precious time rounding up `no’ votes to keep this crisis alive. Rather than being responsible and doing their duty and come up with a bill that can pass, they’ve been busy signing people up for the `not good enough’ caucus and ginning up opposition to everything else.
quote:
Democrats are out bragging about how they’re going to prolong this crisis instead of doing the hard work of trying to solve it.
“And that includes the President.
“Look: If the President hadn’t decided to blow up the bipartisan solution that members of Congress worked so hard to produce last weekend, we’d be voting to end this crisis today.
quote:Your link locked up my browser. The President has been engaged in Congressional negotiations and laid out what he would like to see. As to actual legislation or a "plan" that is Congress' responsibility, which they've made a royal f&ck up of. As I said, the stench is on both sides, but the Tea Party are the spoiled kids on the block.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Finally, at long, long last, the President's debt ceiling crisis Plan.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
.
quote:Then Obama must honor his oath to uphold the constitution and order the Treasury Dept. to pay debts already incurred. Congress is attempting to pass legislation retroactively and ignore the 14th amendment - "The validity of public debts...including debts incurred...shall not be questioned."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Unfortunately the laws of arithmetic (not subject to Congressional alteration) mean that, absent a change in the debt ceiling, the President must over-ride the Congress in one of those two ways.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about debt, he must disobey it's instructions about payments.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about payments (a.k.a. spending), he must disobey its instructions regarding the debt ceiling.
quote:Oops. Jordy go down the hole.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Here in Ohio, it looks like one tea party member is going to be repaid for his disloyality to the speaker
quote:I agree. If the government is "buying back" its own instruments of indebtedness, that sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? Scratch the surface and a few things are explained. Perhaps the interest rate is slammed down almost to zero in hopes of concealing the fact that money is being printed with nothing behind it, and postponing the consequences. The ruse will have to be abandoned soon. Hence, too, proposals to "recalibrate" the cost-of-living index on the premise that the current rate of inflation, low though it is said to be, is overstated. Yeah sure. I've just been informed that my long-term- care insurance premium, already by far the largest check I write all year, is to go up 23%. The cost of gasoline is up. The cost of food is up. The cost of college tuition has gone up "faster than inflation" for quite awhile. The cost of cable-TV and telephone service... so many exceptions. One has to wonder what is left on which a low rate can be calculated.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's not clear is what an actual default would do to inflation and bond rates, but it's probably not good.
quote:My boss had a thought about how this needle could be threaded -- what if the Treasury stopped borrowing, continued to send out the checks, and just printed enough money to cover them (or whatever is the modern equivalent of that). Bad economics, certainly. Inflationary as all get-out. But wouldn't that resolve the apparent contradiction?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Unfortunately the laws of arithmetic (not subject to Congressional alteration) mean that, absent a change in the debt ceiling, the President must over-ride the Congress in one of those two ways.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about debt, he must disobey it's instructions about payments.
If the President obeys Congress' instructions about payments (a.k.a. spending), he must disobey its instructions regarding the debt ceiling.
quote:This brings us to what's been called "the platinum coin option". The amount of paper currency in circulation is controlled by statute (i.e. Congress already passed a law) but there seems to be an insane-sounding throw-away provision in the U.S. Code that allows a lot of discretion to the Treasury Secretary in one very specific way. Blogger Matthew Yglesias explains:
Originally posted by tclune:
My boss had a thought about how this needle could be threaded -- what if the Treasury stopped borrowing, continued to send out the checks, and just printed enough money to cover them (or whatever is the modern equivalent of that). Bad economics, certainly. Inflationary as all get-out. But wouldn't that resolve the apparent contradiction?
--Tom Clune
quote:In short, there are legal restrictions on how much paper currency can be circulated by the U.S. at one time, but there's this obscure, open-ended subsection of the U.S. Code, probably inserted years ago by a Congressman with platinum extraction interests in his district, that authorizes the Treasury Secretary to issue as much platinum currency as he wants, in whatever denominations he wishes. Brad DeLong suggested minting fifty coins valued at $100 billion each.
I keep hesitating to write about this because it sounds insane, but Jack Balkin’s a professor at Yale Law School so I’ll let him say it:
quote:It’s right here in 31 USC § 5112 “Denominations, specifications, and design of coins.” It’s super-prescriptive about all kinds of things until you get to section (k):
Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there’s a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time. Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.
quote:
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
quote:What? That is just wrong.The Republicans passed a bill, Cut, Cap and Balance, which the Senate would not even consider.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Tea Party won't even engage with the rest of the Republican Party. The best thing for the Republicans would be to eject the Tea Partiers and let them set up their own official party. Because that's the way their Congress members on the hill are behaving, like they are their own party.
quote:What? That makes no sense.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
[QB] Then Obama must honor his oath to uphold the constitution and order the Treasury Dept. to pay debts already incurred. Congress is attempting to pass legislation retroactively and ignore the 14th amendment - "The validity of public debts...including debts incurred...shall not be questioned."
quote:Authorized by law. That's why a President cannot incur debt on his own. Congress has to okay it.
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.
quote:Where was the compromise in those bills? There was none. There were no revenue increases. That's not compromise, that's "my way or the highway."
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:What? That is just wrong.The Republicans passed a bill, Cut, Cap and Balance, which the Senate would not even consider.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Tea Party won't even engage with the rest of the Republican Party. The best thing for the Republicans would be to eject the Tea Partiers and let them set up their own official party. Because that's the way their Congress members on the hill are behaving, like they are their own party.
Then Boehner drafted another bill, but it compromised too much. So did the Tea Partiers just walk away? No. They kept bargaining with Boehner and crafted a bill that just passed. Again the Senate has said it will not even consider it.
Sounds like engagement to me. Just because they did not roll over and give in does not mean they walked away. Far from it.
The ones who are not engaging are the Democrats. They call for compromise and bipartisanship and follow through on neither. The House sent them two bills that they will not even debate.
quote:It's fairly simple. NYer doesn't see the contradiction in his theory. I've highlighted it here.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
I'm sorry, NY. Your statements are so convoluted and confused I don't know where to begin a response. You win.
(maybe someone else can sort it out)
quote:He's working from the assumption that the President does not have the power to ignore the law. Fair enough, the Constitution says as much. The President thus cannot ignore the law limiting the total U.S. debt (a.k.a. the debt ceiling). For some reason though, NYer then asserts that nope, in fact the President can ignore the law and pick and choose which bits of Congressionally authorized spending he will and won't perform. Remember, all the spending that NYer suggests Obama not do has been approved by the current Congress. The reason NYer hasn't cited the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows the President to pick and choose which Congressional appropriations will go forward and which won't is because there is no such section. You may remember that the Supreme Court ruled that just such a line-item veto power was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration, and that was with a statutory authorization. There is currently no statute permitting the line-item vetoing of budget items like NYer suggests is possible.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Remember, this debate is about the debt ceiling not the debt. That is the problem, of course. If the debt ceiling is not raised, there is still enough money coming in to service the debt. Other payments would have to be delayed. The Treasury Department surely has a contingency plan for that.
quote:But the Senate has not put forth a budget in, what, 800+ days? The President put forth a budget and it was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Even the Democrats did not vote for the President's budget
Originally posted by mousethief:
The place to debate the budget is when the budget comes up for renewal, not when the responsibility to make good on moneys already spent.
quote:You're right. There is no line item veto. But the 14th Amendment says that the public debt must not be questioned. So, the President must see that the debt is paid. Not all expenditure is debt. Alas, that means that elected officials' salaries are not debt, so they'll have to be left behind until the debt is paid. It's not a line item veto in disguise, it's doing what is necessary to comply with the 14th Amendment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason though, NYer then asserts that nope, in fact the President can ignore the law and pick and choose which bits of Congressionally authorized spending he will and won't perform. Remember, all the spending that NYer suggests Obama not do has been approved by the current Congress. The reason NYer hasn't cited the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows the President to pick and choose which Congressional appropriations will go forward and which won't is because there is no such section. You may remember that the Supreme Court ruled that just such a line-item veto power was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration, and that was with a statutory authorization. There is currently no statute permitting the line-item vetoing of budget items like NYer suggests is possible.
quote:But Congress did pass a continuing resolution authorizing spending. That has the force of law.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:But the Senate has not put forth a budget in, what, 800+ days? The President put forth a budget and it was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Even the Democrats did not vote for the President's budget
Originally posted by mousethief:
The place to debate the budget is when the budget comes up for renewal, not when the responsibility to make good on moneys already spent.
quote:Who's talking about debt? Your argument is that the president is bound to follow the law in the case of the debt ceiling but for some unspecified reason isn't obligated to follow the law in the case of Congressionally mandated expenditures. Remember, honoring the U.S. debt may be mandated by the Constitution but the debt ceiling is statutory.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:You're right. There is no line item veto. But the 14th Amendment says that the public debt must not be questioned. So, the President must see that the debt is paid. Not all expenditure is debt. Alas, that means that elected officials' salaries are not debt, so they'll have to be left behind until the debt is paid.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason though, NYer then asserts that nope, in fact the President can ignore the law and pick and choose which bits of Congressionally authorized spending he will and won't perform. Remember, all the spending that NYer suggests Obama not do has been approved by the current Congress. The reason NYer hasn't cited the section of the U.S. Constitution that allows the President to pick and choose which Congressional appropriations will go forward and which won't is because there is no such section. You may remember that the Supreme Court ruled that just such a line-item veto power was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration, and that was with a statutory authorization. There is currently no statute permitting the line-item vetoing of budget items like NYer suggests is possible.
quote:No, of course not. It's just the President picking which line items won't get funding. Any resemblance between that and a line-item veto, which allows a President to pick which line items won't get funding, is purely coincidental!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
It's not a line item veto in disguise, it's doing what is necessary to comply with the 14th Amendment.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It is so pathetic to see the Democrats begging the Republicans to please let them surrender with some dignity....
quote:From the introduction to Boehner's wonderful column:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sorry for the double post but John Boehner has written a wonderful column.
quote:Thanks, Boehner, for thrusting this debt-limit crisis upon us - your concern has been noted.
Americans are worried about jobs. They’re worried about our economy. And they’re worried about our debt. The debt-limit crisis, thrust upon our citizens this summer, has intensified these anxieties.
(my italics)
quote:Mere collateral damage.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I read Boehner's article. He doesn't even mention the human cost of his plan.
And *he* writes about arrogance.
) So why didn't they just join that group? I'm guessing it's because they wouldn't have had much political power.quote:No. Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
quote:If the Tea Partiers are concerned about the future of America why don't they give a flying fuck about climate change? Then again, those who worry about climate seem not to worry so much about the budget.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
How is the GOP's behavior treasonous? The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
All the Tea Party is saying is STOP. We're broke. Cut spending now. That is caring about America. That is caring about our future. It is not that we don't care about the poor and needy. We certainly do. (What is we normally hear when politicians release their tax returns? Usually the Republicans give much more to charity than the Democrats.)
Those who oppose and belittle the Tea Party seem to have their head in the sand about the real crisis facing the country.
quote:So George Bush is a Democrat now?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
quote:Read literally it allows him to continue to borrow money for Social Security and veterans benefits. Or rather it bans other parts of the government - including Congress - from saying he can't. Because that would be questioning the credit of the United States.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payments of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
This doesn't seem to give the Prez any specific authorization to over-ride Congress with regard to debts or payments.
quote:Oh, dear. You still buy into all that mumbo jumbo? Bless your little heart.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If the Tea Partiers are concerned about the future of America why don't they give a flying fuck about climate change? Then again, those who worry about climate seem not to worry so much about the budget.
quote:That not surrendering did real well for them with the Gingrich vs. Clinton government shutdown. The stakes are much higher now and it appears the GOP is going beyond the shutdown of government, they don't care if they cause the U.S. to default on it's debts for the first time in it's history.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Dems are in an unwinnable battle, because the Republicans simply don't care if the US defaults. The Dems will blink first because they DO care. In any fight, bet on ruthless minority over the caring majority. I find the GOP's behavior treasonous.
quote:George W. Bush with the assistance of 6 years of GOP Congressional majority did that. They spent like drunken sailors and got us into 2 never ending wars. And it was George W. Bush signed the first stimulus package, not Obama. And let's not forget Dick Cheney's "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter". I was a Republican until I saw what Reagan's deficit spending while cutting entitlements was doing. I'm not happy with the Dems either so I'm registered Independent and wish we could trash the 2 party system as it's broken.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How is the GOP's behavior treasonous? The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
quote:The problem Tea Party is ignoring money that is already owed. That is why the debt ceiling must be lifted. I really can't understand why they don't see that. As for "selective bill payment", that will ruin anyone's credit rating. This country has had a AAA rating in all it's history. The TP want's to throw it away. That is treason.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
All the Tea Party is saying is STOP. We're broke. Cut spending now. That is caring about America. That is caring about our future. It is not that we don't care about the poor and needy. We certainly do. (What is we normally hear when politicians release their tax returns? Usually the Republicans give much more to charity than the Democrats.)
Those who oppose and belittle the Tea Party seem to have their head in the sand about the real crisis facing the country.
quote:Kathleen Parker is pretty much considered liberal and thus far it's only been GOP members who have been moderate (read liberal by TP standards) like John McCain. Other than that, most of the GOP are quaking in their boots.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Bad news for the tea party. Conservatives are beginning to openly attack their actions.
quote:Whew! That was close. I thought you a conservative.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Bad news for the tea party. Conservatives are beginning to openly attack their actions.
quote:Have you read my sig ???
Whew! That was close. I thought you a conservative
quote:Like they caved on extending the Bush tax cuts, not at all tying it to continued unemployment benefits, or forcing a showdown, and watching Obama cave? You need to read some history. Earlier you didn't think Obama had a plan, even. Hahahaha. Get your news from somebody else than Fox.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Don't worry, my friend, the Republicans will cave. They always do.
quote:Because they are holding the US's, and the world's, ecconomy hostage for political gain. Because some of them have actually made financial wagers that will REWARD them for fucking our economy for generations to come.
How is the GOP's behavior treasonous?
quote:Well, no, they really aren't. The Democrats balanced the budget under Clinton, and Bush fucked us by cutting taxes and grossly increasing spending. The tax cuts were justified by the obscene notion that otherwise we would be paying off the debt too quickly! The Republicans didn't give a flying fuck about the debt until the Koch Brothers et al. told them to, as a means to slash social programs. Drown it in the bathtub, in part by breaking the bank by deficit spending.
The Democrats are spending us into oblivion.
quote:Because they were not nearly large enough, yes.
They're selling us to the Chinese. They passed, what, two stimuli that caused the debt to soar and did little if anything to help.
quote:Except we're not broke. Our debt is being sold at 0 or near 0 interest, and people are still flocking to buy it. We're simply not broke. That's a lie.
All the Tea Party is saying is STOP. We're broke.
quote:Except it's not. Cutting spending now is exactly the WRONG thing to do. Spend more now, get the economy back on its feet. Then revenue will increase, and THEN we can start cutting back, when we can actually afford to do so.
Cut spending now. That is caring about America. That is caring about our future.
quote:Charity isn't enough. If it were enough, we wouldn't even HAVE social security or medicare.
It is not that we don't care about the poor and needy. We certainly do. (What is we normally hear when politicians release their tax returns? Usually the Republicans give much more to charity than the Democrats.)
quote:Nope. The REAL crisis is the economy. "It's the economy, stupid" as was said by the last man to balance the budget.
Those who oppose and belittle the Tea Party seem to have their head in the sand about the real crisis facing the country.
quote:Hear, hear.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm not happy with the Dems either so I'm registered Independent and wish we could trash the 2 party system as it's broken.
quote:The debt ceiling is not in the constitution. This is not a constitutional crisis. This is a manufactured crisis with the sole intent of slashing social spending.
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I don't see how it's possible to have a constitutionally-mandated default without also having a constitutional crisis.
quote:So if I swipe my credit card and it says approved, that means I'm not broke?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Except we're not broke. Our debt is being sold at 0 or near 0 interest, and people are still flocking to buy it. We're simply not broke. That's a lie.
quote:Compared to other industrialized nations, the US debt is actually very manageable. That is, so long as interest rates stay low... *ominous organ chord*
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So if I swipe my credit card and it says approved, that means I'm not broke?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Except we're not broke. Our debt is being sold at 0 or near 0 interest, and people are still flocking to buy it. We're simply not broke. That's a lie.
quote:Adding my ditto to the mouse
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Mousethief:
Spot on, my friend.
AFZ
quote:Thanks. Two shows each on Friday and Saturday nights. Much better than watching C-Span. Two drink minimum
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're funny, New Yorker.
quote:If the Federal Reserve Bank conitinues using green paper to buy up unsold US Treasury securities to keep the interest rates artificially low, the debt will be manageable - but the shit will hit the fan sooner or later, probably sooner.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Compared to other industrialized nations, the US debt is actually very manageable. That is, so long as interest rates stay low... *ominous organ chord*
quote:Are people lining up to loan you money at 0% interest, even if you're far in the hole? Can you print money? Do people speak of the "full faith and credit of romanlion" as being a guarantee of financial stability? Do most of the world's markets run on the romanlion dollar?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So if I swipe my credit card and it says approved, that means I'm not broke?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Except we're not broke. Our debt is being sold at 0 or near 0 interest, and people are still flocking to buy it. We're simply not broke. That's a lie.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
... The Democrats are spending us into oblivion. ...
Once more, with feeling: US Debt Limits quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
You'd have to speak with a teabagger to understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. You can't get through to them with substantiated facts. They will simply ignore them, change the subject or accuse you of liberal bias. It's maddening.
quote:Obama didn't quite say that--the statement was that the White House lawyers were "not convinced it was a winning strategy." Which is not quite the same as saying it's not constitutional, or completely ruling it out.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
But Obama has already stated publicly that he doesn't believe he has this Constitutional authority, and that he is acting on that advice from his own lawyers.
(@ ken; X-post w NY)
quote:One for each hand.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Thanks. Two shows each on Friday and Saturday nights. Much better than watching C-Span. Two drink minimum
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're funny, New Yorker.
quote:Or as long as the revenue streams remain at the same level.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Compared to other industrialized nations, the US debt is actually very manageable. That is, so long as interest rates stay low... *ominous organ chord*
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So if I swipe my credit card and it says approved, that means I'm not broke?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Except we're not broke. Our debt is being sold at 0 or near 0 interest, and people are still flocking to buy it. We're simply not broke. That's a lie.
Zach
quote:Do you see what the problem is with your post here? I emphasized the important words to hopefully help you and the other readers understand what the issue is.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
There is only one other country in the world with a "debt limit": Denmark. Most sane legislatures understand that if they authorize spending and don't authorize revenue to cover it, there will logically be a need to borrow the difference.
quote:What can I say? The inmates are running the asylum.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I emphasized the important words ...
quote:Gee, who was the last president to actually balance the budget and begin to have a realistic chance of reducing the debt? Which party was he from? Let's not see the same hands.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The Democrats are not interested in reducing the debt.
quote:Spending it on TV's made in China or on accessing a bloated medical bureaucracy isn't all that much better either.
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Get the economy going again, get jobs for all those people, get the money back down in the hands of people who actually spend it on goods and services rather than in games with bad paper and computer arbitraging, and the deficit will go down....
quote:People being employed is, in fact, a lot better than their being unemployed, even if the TVs they buy are made in China.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Spending it on TV's made in China or on accessing a bloated medical bureaucracy isn't all that much better either.
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Get the economy going again, get jobs for all those people, get the money back down in the hands of people who actually spend it on goods and services rather than in games with bad paper and computer arbitraging, and the deficit will go down....
Your saving rate sucks too (as does Canada's for that matter but at least we don't have to worry about being unable to afford getting sick).
quote:Trick is how to tell the junk from the rest . . .
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
There is this thing called investing. I know its considered evil by some people but it is savings too and doesn't have to be the junk paper talked about.
quote:Most investors borrow to invest. Smart ones do it with other people's money. Spending other people's money is the chief local industry of this fair city of London, and the reason it is in many ways the real capital of world capitalism
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
There is this thing called investing. I know its considered evil by some people but it is savings too and doesn't have to be the junk paper talked about.
quote:A nitpicking thing but surely constitutionally the Queen only acts on the advice of her Ministers, as does the GG, so it makes little difference who signs the bit of paper, it was really the government of Canada all along?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Plus there is Section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says that the Queen (and only the Queen, not the Governor General, oddly) can appoint eight extra Senators to break the Senate if it rejects a bill.
quote:Sadly, Barry wants to appeal to both GOP and the Dems and he sounds like he doesn't belong to either. This is the winning formula to be a one term president ala Jimmy Carter. If that does happen I was a majority Dem Congress. We'll have gridlock, but I prefer that to the destruction that will have free reign if it's one party rule.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Grow a spine, Barry.
quote:You'd think, but the Constitution Act, 1867 is explicit in saying that it has to be the Sovereign and not the Governor General. The Prime Minister is required to call London and can't go to Rideau Hall to get a Senate expansion.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:A nitpicking thing but surely constitutionally the Queen only acts on the advice of her Ministers, as does the GG, so it makes little difference who signs the bit of paper, it was really the government of Canada all along?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Plus there is Section 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says that the Queen (and only the Queen, not the Governor General, oddly) can appoint eight extra Senators to break the Senate if it rejects a bill.
(While there is a functioning government of course, if there isn't all bets are off, but so far Canada has avoided that fate better than Australia. And nobody mention Newfoundland)
quote:Notably, he also says:
We're not a AAA country. When we spend 24 percent of GDP and tax 14 and have gap 10 percent that we're borrowing, and this is the third year in a row, then there's no reason why the rating agency should extend our AAA.
quote:
We are raising 14 percent of GDP in taxes, the lowest since 1948. The Republican position that taxes aren't part of this solution, raising taxes is just nonsensical and can't be defended.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:You think that's why they're unhappy with him?
Originally posted by mousethief:
If independent voters are mad at him for caving to the GOP, does that mean they'll vote for the GOP? The logic of this escapes me.
quote:
Obama, Congress reach a debt deal
By DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent | AP – 16 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Racing the clock to avoid a government default, President Barack Obama and Republican congressional leaders reached historic agreement Sunday night on a compromise to permit vital U.S. borrowing by the Treasury in exchange for more than $2 trillion in long-term spending cuts.
Officials said Speaker John Boehner telephoned Obama at mid-evening to say the agreement had been struck.
No votes were expected in either house of Congress until Monday at the earliest, to give rank and file lawmakers to review the package
quote:If the tea partiers seek revenge on moderate GOPers, that would divide the party, insuring an Obama win.
Originally posted by PaulBC:
Look for Obama to loose next year. The Tea Part types wsill reek revenge on GOP supporters of this compromise . Maybe common senmse will break out ? I can hope can't I ?
quote:Clearly you don't. See above comments. 66% of people wanted tax increases.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:You think that's why they're unhappy with him?
Originally posted by mousethief:
If independent voters are mad at him for caving to the GOP, does that mean they'll vote for the GOP? The logic of this escapes me.
I'd say it's his intransigence RE deficit spending but durned if I know.
quote:...and they don't even have the common courtesy to give me a reach-around.
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Wake up, America. The GOP has been fucking you up the ass since 1980.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
If you weren't a commie you'd like it.
quote:Spot on.
Politics involves negotiation. In the US system, with all its checks and balances, a refusal to negotiate amounts to an inability to participate. It means you can pretty much stop anything; it also means you can get almost nothing done. The Republican party's inability to bring its raucous base into line has cost it, and the country, dear. The point of brinkmanship is to take you to the edge, not over it.
quote:If I'm comprehending any of this (to save mt some time: very unlikely
Originally posted by art dunce:
Most of the campaigning will be negative and will focus on "values" since neither party can demonstrate they've done anything to address the economy.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
) I thought the 'compromise' which forces cuts if none can be agreed on is another example of both sides (I'm not sure how to classify the Tea Party) being unwilling to really address unsustainable spending. I predict no cuts will be reached, entitlements will be therefore 'automatically'* scaled back and both parties will say it was the evil people on the other side who are taking away your 'right to benefits'. )
quote:Only in sufficient numbers to ensure that it still passes, most likely. Bachmann will use her "principled opposition" to seek a few markers in aid of her ambitions, then reluctantly acquiesce. If she's got any sense, that is. Which is not a given.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Michele Bachmann and other Tea Party members of Congress are already stating they are going to vote AGAINST the compromise. The Tea Party seems determined to torpedo the economy and destroy the country. Words fail me on how these people can be SO FUCKING STUPID! (And I generally don't swear, but this occasion calls for it.)
quote:But I'll do that one for free.
Originally posted by Boogie:
From today's Guardian -
Politics involves negotiation. In the US system, with all its checks and balances, a (seeming, but really only a bluff) refusal to negotiate gives the impression of an inability to participate. But it REALLY means you can get something, arguably huge, done.
The Republican party's shrewd subsuming of the 'Tea Party' allows them (being the True Patriots they are, and ONLY concerned about the long term welfare of the USA's finances, knowing that is the foundation of more prosperity for all) will benefit it, and the country, dearly. The point of brinksmanship is, as they have savvily demonstrated, to take recalcitrant political opponents to some edge in order to achieve a Righteous End.
quote:Sad thing is, I don't think Obama has it in him to show that kind of leadership. And I do think the Tea Party has it in them to let this country go over the cliff as their ideology has them blinded as to the consequences.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I guess of course. But if they do torpedo, then the Pres can take last minute Executive Action as a last resort "at the 11th hour and 59th minute" given their obduracy even in the face of GOP leadership. That way he probably escapes any impeachment chatter and looks strong in advance of 2012. It's a "save the nation" move. You can hardly see Boehner supporting any hypothetical impeachment moves under those circs, given that the basis of the deal is "we can't afford to default".
Come to think of it, that scenario doesn't look too bad for anybody but the Tea Party. All it would take under those circs would be for Bill O'Reilly to have an Ed Murrow speech in him and the "shooting star would fall from the sky". I think that might even be good for America. Don't like the thought of it being good for Bill O'Reilly.
Wait for an alternative view from New Yorker or romanlion.
quote:ISTM that all this is an elaborate way around the Tea Party crackpots. The overwhelming majority of the American public want "revenue enhancements" to be part of the way that we address the debt problem. When the special committee comes out with its proposal, which will include the same close-the-loopholes, lower-the-marginal-rates agreement that the Tea Partiers torpedoed earlier, it will face an up-or-down vote in both houses and pass.
Originally posted by 205:
If I'm comprehending any of this... I thought the 'compromise' which forces cuts if none can be agreed on is another example of both sides (I'm not sure how to classify the Tea Party) being unwilling to really address unsustainable spending. I predict no cuts will be reached, entitlements will be therefore 'automatically'* scaled back and both parties will say it was the evil people on the other side who are taking away your 'right to benefits'.
quote:I hope you're right -- but I don't believe it. And the reason that I don't believe it is that the Republican "hawks" pitched a fit about the defense cuts in the trigger. They are expecting the trigger to be pulled.
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that all this is an elaborate way around the Tea Party crackpots. The overwhelming majority of the American public want "revenue enhancements" to be part of the way that we address the debt problem. When the special committee comes out with its proposal, which will include the same close-the-loopholes, lower-the-marginal-rates agreement that the Tea Partiers torpedoed earlier, it will face an up-or-down vote in both houses and pass.
quote:What? Michelle loves living off the taxpayer. Trips to Spain, Africa, etc. She'll do everything she can to keep the gravy train running.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I suspect his family would be very ok with that.
quote:Given that all money is essentially fictional (i.e. a mental constuct society has collectively created to denominate value), I'm not sure what point you're making.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But I do think a very serious collapse is just around the corner, simply because for 300 years now the whole western world has based its economy on debt. And there comes a point - long past - where basing an economy on debt means basing it on fictional money. The $2.4tn is fictional. That money doesn't exist, anywhere. Nor do the $14.3tn that came before it. It is all a fiction, hitherto a useful one, henceforth a very, very dangerous one.
quote:New Yorker, your routine is no longer funny. You might need to find a new gag writer.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:What? Michelle loves living off the taxpayer. Trips to Spain, Africa, etc. She'll do everything she can to keep the gravy train running.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I suspect his family would be very ok with that.
quote:Back in the days when anybody still bothered with defining things like M1 money and M3 money, it was generally held that, while all money is to a degree unreal, some kinds were more real than others. So back then, "this piece of paper I'm giving you in exchange for the work you did for me, and which you can use to buy food for your family" would be considered more real than the billions of imaginary dollars that hedge fund managers bet on what is essentially a throw of the dice.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given that all money is essentially fictional (i.e. a mental constuct society has collectively created to denominate value), I'm not sure what point you're making.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But I do think a very serious collapse is just around the corner, simply because for 300 years now the whole western world has based its economy on debt. And there comes a point - long past - where basing an economy on debt means basing it on fictional money. The $2.4tn is fictional. That money doesn't exist, anywhere. Nor do the $14.3tn that came before it. It is all a fiction, hitherto a useful one, henceforth a very, very dangerous one.
quote:Treasury bonds mature on a set day, dearie.
The USA can't really buy anything with its extra $2.4tn, except time. And time is running out. One day, a rising political power will turn round and say, "You know all that fictional money we lent you a few years ago? We'd like it back...". That's the day you won't be able to get out of it by extending the fiction any more.
quote:That's really the thing that chills the blood. Obama has been able to get virtually no democratic legislation through, and what he has gotten through has been so co-opted that it's unrecognizable, yet he's still being decried as a socialist by far right fanatics. Just what is this about anyway?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Honestly, I don't think the lunatic fringes of the House GOP realize how much they've won by: Obama has caved on virtually everything.
quote:First off, U.S. bonds are issued with a fixed term. Anyone, private citizen or foreign government, can't just demand a refund from the federal government. They've agreed to the terms and, while bonds are negotiable and can be traded to other parties, you can't just demand your money back from the feds. You've already agreed to those terms. The worst you could do is simply refuse to buy any more bonds from the U.S. government.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The USA can't really buy anything with its extra $2.4tn, except time. And time is running out. One day, a rising political power will turn round and say, "You know all that fictional money we lent you a few years ago? We'd like it back...". That's the day you won't be able to get out of it by extending the fiction any more.
quote:It's the way of things. The only thing left is to "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Does anyone have any ideas that are both legal and practical that those of us who reside in this childish and corporately-owned polical entity can do to rescue ourselves. By us I mean the many who being preyed upon by the few.
I see no hope for this. But God makes a way out of no way.
But (S)he also gives us brains and choice.)
quote:Surely emigration is the only rational choice for an American. Pick a country at random and apply. Anywhere's got to be better.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone have any ideas that are both legal and practical that those of us who reside in this childish and corporately-owned polical entity can do to rescue ourselves. By us I mean the many who being preyed upon by the few.
I see no hope for this. But God makes a way out of no way.
quote:But, as discussed already on this thread, your AAA rating is under serious threat, even if a deal gets done. And once your rating starts to slip, things get very slippery indeed.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Even without taking inflation into account the price the U.S. government has to pay for credit is ridiculously low. So while there may very well be a point at which the U.S. government can't borrow any more, we're nowhere near that point right now (assuming the debt ceiling is raised and there is no default).
quote:Do you suppose George (RIP) really believed any of that?
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's about this.
Esp. note the part about "a population capable of critical thinking."
quote:Is it really that bad? $1T in cuts over 10 years for a limit rise of $2.4T that gets all these assholes through the election next year? One measley trillion over a period of time when the budget is baselined to grow to something like $5.5T in 2022?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Honestly, I don't think the lunatic fringes of the House GOP realize how much they've won by: Obama has caved on virtually everything.
quote:As was demonstrated during the 2008 financial meltdown, credit rating agencies seem to be ridiculously harsh on government bonds and ridiculously forgiving on corporate-issued debt. I'm not sure there's any action the U.S. government could take that would appease agencies that are pre-disposed to cut its rating, and it's not apparent that such a cut would necessarily scare off lenders.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But, as discussed already on this thread, your AAA rating is under serious threat, even if a deal gets done. And once your rating starts to slip, things get very slippery indeed.
quote:Okay, let's ask Iceland. What's that you say, Iceland?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(My point being that the first step on the road to "give us our money back" is "we're going to make it very expensive for you to borrow any more". Ask Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Iceland.)
quote:You say you can borrow money at much lower rates than Greece, Portugal, Ireland, or other nations that foolishly pursued contractionary deficit reduction policies during an economic downturn? And that investors are clamoring to buy more bonds than you issue? Good to know. Thanks, Iceland!
Iceland is considering selling foreign-currency debt with longer maturities after last month’s $1 billion sale of five-year dollar bonds was twice oversubscribed, Finance Minister Steingrimur J. Sigfusson said.
“We’re very satisfied with how things have developed, how successful our auction was,” Sigfusson said in a phone interview in Reykjavik yesterday. “Issuing bonds with a longer maturity is an option that we’re looking closely at.”
The cost of insuring against an Icelandic default is now lower than guarding against a credit event in Italy, the third-largest member in the euro area.
quote:I'm pretty sure he did (he frequently pontificated on it in serious settings as well as on stage), and I'm not so sure he was wrong.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Do you suppose George (RIP) really believed any of that?
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
It's about this.
Esp. note the part about "a population capable of critical thinking."
Personally, I prefer the 'blissful ignorance' approach: IME life is much more enjoyable that way.
quote:... After three years as a virtual economic pariah. Could the USA afford 3 years of that, if it came to it?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Thanks, Iceland!
quote:Well, when you compare Iceland's performance (as you suggested) with the performance of deficit-cutting, austerity-oriented nations in the same situation (Greece, Ireland, Portugal) I'm not seeing the advantage of fiscal austerity of the type you advocate. If anything, the examples you cite seem to argue against it. For a lot of reasons the U.S. isn't in the exactly the same situation as either Iceland or Greece, but if those are the only two templates available it seem like the former is a lot more successful than the latter.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:... After three years as a virtual economic pariah. Could the USA afford 3 years of that, if it came to it?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Thanks, Iceland!
quote:All money is fictional. That's what money is. If it was really worth what you get for it it wouldn't be money it would be goods of some sort.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
And there comes a point - long past - where basing an economy on debt means basing it on fictional money. The $2.4tn is fictional. That money doesn't exist, anywhere. Nor do the $14.3tn that came before it. It is all a fiction, hitherto a useful one, henceforth a very, very dangerous one.
quote:Malik -
Originally posted by malik3000:
New Yorker, at long last, do facts mean absolutely nothing to you?
First, to momentarily sink to the level of your comment, where do you get the factually wrong idea that the extent of Michelle Obama's travels as a 1st lady is all that different from previous 1st ladies? Or does the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." mean nothing to you?
Now there are also those who really still can't get past the idea of a African-American 1st Lady. This of course would not be true of you, though hailing from the deep south as you do (despite your screen name)
quote:By instituting a tax regime worthy of a fair, progressive, compassionate, developed society.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I still don't see how we can avoid making deep, deep cuts in spending and do so soon.
quote:I'd be a citizen of Canada now if i hadn't been so lackadaisical and non-focussed when i was a younger adult. Now i'm chronologically too old for a work visa, and don't have enough money saved up to where i could just retire and live off my savings.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:Surely emigration is the only rational choice for an American. Pick a country at random and apply. Anywhere's got to be better.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone have any ideas that are both legal and practical that those of us who reside in this childish and corporately-owned polical entity can do to rescue ourselves. By us I mean the many who being preyed upon by the few.
I see no hope for this. But God makes a way out of no way.
quote:If i'd been more focussed during my young adulthood period in Canada i'd have been a citizen by now. But i was pretty aimless in those days. Now i'm chronologically too old for a work visa. And i don't have savings amassed to where i could move back and live independently.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:Surely emigration is the only rational choice for an American. Pick a country at random and apply. Anywhere's got to be better.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Does anyone have any ideas that are both legal and practical that those of us who reside in this childish and corporately-owned polical entity can do to rescue ourselves. By us I mean the many who being preyed upon by the few.
I see no hope for this. But God makes a way out of no way.
quote:Hey, remember that time, like 6 years ago, when Republicans did control the Senate, House, and White House? Manoman, that was a golden age. The budget was soooooo balanced.
Maybe in 2013 when the GOP controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, we'll make progress! But the Republicans always seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
quote:But wouldn't that require us to be a fair, progressive, compassionate, developed society?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:By instituting a tax regime worthy of a fair, progressive, compassionate, developed society.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I still don't see how we can avoid making deep, deep cuts in spending and do so soon.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Hey, remember that time, like 6 years ago, when Republicans did control the Senate, House, and White House? Manoman, that was a golden age. The budget was soooooo balanced.
Maybe in 2013 when the GOP controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, we'll make progress! But the Republicans always seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Zach
quote:And she's living in government-funded housing, too! Why she's practically a "welfare queen", and in no way comparable to things like this!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Malik -
Originally posted by malik3000:
New Yorker, at long last, do facts mean absolutely nothing to you?
First, to momentarily sink to the level of your comment, where do you get the factually wrong idea that the extent of Michelle Obama's travels as a 1st lady is all that different from previous 1st ladies? Or does the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." mean nothing to you?
Now there are also those who really still can't get past the idea of a African-American 1st Lady. This of course would not be true of you, though hailing from the deep south as you do (despite your screen name)
The fact that Michelle is black has no bearing on my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that she has been traveling and living large on the taxpayers' dime(s).
quote:Well, at least you've got a whole bunch of iron-clad statistics to back you up, right?
WASHINGTON [5/12/2002] – Laura Bush takes in Paris in the springtime this week – and Budapest and Prague, too.
It will be her first extended solo trip abroad as first lady and, in many ways, an inevitable new step on a long trail blazed by her predecessors.
Jacqueline Kennedy did it with a splash 40 years ago with high-profile visits to India and Pakistan. And Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly traveled the world, promoting education, health care and micro-loan programs designed largely to help poor women.
On this trip, Mrs. Bush will be more low-key, though no less ambitious in her own businesslike way.
She will discuss education and health care, two issues that she has long advocated. And, in an unusual venue, she will direct a 15-minute address to Afghanistan on the Radio Free Europe network.
"It's a good opportunity for her to use a global stage to talk about something that's important," said the first lady's press secretary, Noelia Rodriguez, summing up the 10-day trip. "She's very much looking forward to it."
quote:Given the way the whole "living large on the taxpayers' dime" thing has been a common stereotype of African-Americans since at least the Eisenhower administration I would have thought it would have gotten a bit tired by now, but I guess not. At any rate, for whatever reason Michelle Obama going to South Africa sets off your "living large on the taxpayers' dime" sensor in a way that Laura Bush going to Paris or (then First Lady) Hillary Clinton going to Pakistan or Beijing don't.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If I am wrong, then I was wrong. And thank you for your kind words.
quote:Long, ugly, STUPID decade.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Lunch conversation today introduced me to the mindset that everything wrong in the economy is because the government spends too much. So if this budget deal tanks the economy, people with this mindset will never accept that it was the cuts, but instead argue that we need more cuts.
It's going to be a long ugly decade.
quote:That was my post from exactly one month ago. Go on, tell me how wrong I was!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I rate it another mixture of grandstanding and brinkmanship, ie it's politics. It rates zero in any country.
quote:"Grandstanding and brinkmanship"? Is that what you call holding the head of the world's economy to the chopping block in order to force your social agenda? Looks like extortion to me.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:That was my post from exactly one month ago. Go on, tell me how wrong I was!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I rate it another mixture of grandstanding and brinkmanship, ie it's politics. It rates zero in any country.
quote:Could it be that in the House the Republicans have a majority while the Democrats are in the majority in the Senate?
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I was interested to see that in the House a lot of Democrats voted against and it was the Republican votes which gave it a comfortable majority, whereas in the Senate the Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favour. What accounts for the difference between the two parts of Congress ?
quote:The Republicans have never objected to the government throwing money at people -- only to the government throwing money at poor people. The Republican world view sees bankers and CEOs as only being motivated by receiving multi-million dollar handouts, while poor people are demotivated by receiving anything at all.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd really like to see the Republicans formally and legally renounce their own Social Security and Medicare, since they hate them so much.
quote:Well, I'm no republican, but even halfway to eligibility I would gladly renounce both in exchange for exemption from payroll taxes.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd really like to see the Republicans formally and legally renounce their own Social Security and Medicare, since they hate them so much.
quote:Which bit of this is supposed to be satirical?
Tea Party Demands Bible Be Replaced with Ayn Rand Novel
quote:I would think it is essentially a joint committee.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this "supercongress" thing even constitutional? Does't allowing a group that isn't congress to determine spending constitute a wresting of constitutionally-guaranteed powers from congress?
quote:Congress is allowed to let committees handle specific tasks, provided that the committee members are all members of Congress and their work is later voted on by Congress as a whole. The only sticking point is whether the supposed inability of either house of Congress to submit amendments to the Supercongress' recommendations prior to a vote is constitutional and, even if constitutional, if it comports with the existing rules of the House and Senate respectively.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this "supercongress" thing even constitutional? Does't allowing a group that isn't congress to determine spending constitute a wresting of constitutionally-guaranteed powers from congress?
quote:It doesn't do that, though. All it does is put together a proposal that must be voted up or down by the Congress as a whole. If it is voted down, the fallback cuts that Congress voted as part of the debt ceiling measure would take effect instead.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this "supercongress" thing even constitutional? Does't allowing a group that isn't congress to determine spending constitute a wresting of constitutionally-guaranteed powers from congress?
quote:I agree that "Supercongress" is an unfortunate label, but that's not what it's called in the agreement (the Budget Control Act Amendment) - it's actually the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Congress is allowed to let committees handle specific tasks, provided that the committee members are all members of Congress and their work is later voted on by Congress as a whole. The only sticking point is whether the supposed inability of either house of Congress to submit amendments to the Supercongress' recommendations prior to a vote is constitutional and, even if constitutional, if it comports with the existing rules of the House and Senate respectively.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this "supercongress" thing even constitutional? Does't allowing a group that isn't congress to determine spending constitute a wresting of constitutionally-guaranteed powers from congress?
So I guess the short answer is that this kind of peculiarly-constituted joint committee isn't unconstitutional on the face of it, though there may be some detail deep in the works that renders it so.
Part of the problem may have been naming the thing "the Supercongress". If it had been named "the Joint Committee on the Federal Debt Limit" there probably would have been less fuss.
quote:Greatest disappointment since Ken Griffey Jr.
Mousethief posted: Grow a spine, Barry.
quote:The impasse was over cutting subsidies to 13 small rural airports (under the Essential Air Services Act) that would save the government $16m per year. But with the FAA unable to collect airline ticket taxes during this shutdown, the government is losing almost twice that — $30 million — EVERY DAY.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
And now, of course, most of the Congress critters have scampered away for their August break, leaving the FAA still unfunded, people working unpaid or on furlough, etc.
quote:The air services to rural areas was just so the tea-baggers could keep talking about cutting stuff. The real issue was airline workers unionizing.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
The impasse was over cutting subsidies to 13 small rural airports (under the Essential Air Services Act) that would save the government $16m per year. But with the FAA unable to collect airline ticket taxes during this shutdown, the government is losing almost twice that — $30 million — EVERY DAY.
quote:And I gather the airports targeted were all in Democratic districts--it was purely cynical gamesmanship, which is par for the course.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:The air services to rural areas was just so the tea-baggers could keep talking about cutting stuff. The real issue was airline workers unionizing.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
The impasse was over cutting subsidies to 13 small rural airports (under the Essential Air Services Act) that would save the government $16m per year. But with the FAA unable to collect airline ticket taxes during this shutdown, the government is losing almost twice that — $30 million — EVERY DAY.
quote:Who is Barry?
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:Greatest disappointment since Ken Griffey Jr.
Mousethief posted: Grow a spine, Barry.
quote:Barack Hussein Obama.
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Who is Barry?
quote:Most. Expensive. Union-busting. Ever. <no smilie will sufice> OliviaG
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:And I gather the airports targeted were all in Democratic districts--it was purely cynical gamesmanship, which is par for the course. ...
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:The air services to rural areas was just so the tea-baggers could keep talking about cutting stuff. The real issue was airline workers unionizing.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
The impasse was over cutting subsidies to 13 small rural airports (under the Essential Air Services Act) that would save the government $16m per year. But with the FAA unable to collect airline ticket taxes during this shutdown, the government is losing almost twice that — $30 million — EVERY DAY.
quote:They're also paying their own plane fare, hotel bills, meals, car rental, and the like. And, unlike their co-workers who were furloughed, they can't apply for unemployment.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Oh, now, hey, be fair. The FAA Safety Inspectors are still on the job.
Of course, they're working for free.
quote:It was? Partner, an adjunct academic, didn't get that memo. Nor did the colleges employing the poor thing.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:They're also paying their own plane fare, hotel bills, meals, car rental, and the like. And, unlike their co-workers who were furloughed, they can't apply for unemployment.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Oh, now, hey, be fair. The FAA Safety Inspectors are still on the job.
Of course, they're working for free.
And you thought indentured servitude was abolished over a century ago.
quote:It should be remembered that S&P rated all those bad mortgage-backed securities AAA and re-affirmed Lehman's triple-A standing a month before bankruptcy. I'm wondering why Standard & Poor's is taken seriously as a credit-rating agency anymore.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
And in other news... Standard and Poors, one of the three largest credit rating agencies has just downgraded the US one point to AA+... the first time in history the US government has been rated less than triple-A.
Great timing, waiting for Friday evening after the markets have closed. Watch for a wild ride Monday with the stock market after this week's 800 point Dow Jones drop.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be remembered that S&P rated all those bad mortgage-backed securities AAA and re-affirmed Lehman's triple-A standing a month before bankruptcy. I'm wondering why Standard & Poor's is taken seriously as a credit-rating agency anymore.
quote:I'm sure that point will be clear in the history books, along with the fact that the speaker of the house was named john bane-er at the time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be remembered that S&P rated all those bad mortgage-backed securities AAA and re-affirmed Lehman's triple-A standing a month before bankruptcy. I'm wondering why Standard & Poor's is taken seriously as a credit-rating agency anymore.
quote:We're not dead yet! You just watch, in 20 or 30 years we'll throw off these jackals and rise again from the Boehnervilles to reclaim our place in the sun! Those of us who survive, I mean. The good thing is that we'll be a lot healthier as a populatin because the people with curable but otherwise fatal childhood illnesses won't reproduce. The libertarians will finally get the eugenics they've been longing for.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Shall we play the Last Post for the end of an era?
quote:My money is on The Road Warrior:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So which decline-and-fall or post-apocalyptic story are we playing out?
--"Omega Man"
--"The Postman"
--"The Road Warrior"
--"Wall-E"
--"The Fifth Sacred Thing"
--"Buffy" (Although Buffy "saved the world--a lot", so we never quite got a full apocalypse. "What, another one?")
quote:I'd liken it to 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' with The Black Knight in the role of the capitalist economy: "'Tis but a flesh wound'" etc.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So which decline-and-fall or post-apocalyptic story are we playing out?
--"Omega Man"
--"The Postman"
--"The Road Warrior"
--"Wall-E"
--"The Fifth Sacred Thing"
--"Buffy" (Although Buffy "saved the world--a lot", so we never quite got a full apocalypse. "What, another one?")
quote:Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'd liken it to 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' with The Black Knight in the role of the capitalist economy: "'Tis but a flesh wound'" etc.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So which decline-and-fall or post-apocalyptic story are we playing out?
--"Omega Man"
--"The Postman"
--"The Road Warrior"
--"Wall-E"
--"The Fifth Sacred Thing"
--"Buffy" (Although Buffy "saved the world--a lot", so we never quite got a full apocalypse. "What, another one?")
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So which decline-and-fall or post-apocalyptic story are we playing out?
quote:With acknowledgements particularly to the above posters, I've started another thread to explore this tangent a little. Let it sink or swim.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Nah - my money is on the usual muddle through.
quote:We've been in a Ken Macleod novel for the past fifteen years or so. Not sure which one yet.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So which decline-and-fall or post-apocalyptic story are we playing out?
quote:Please let it be _Learning the World_. That was full of epic win.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:We've been in a Ken Macleod novel for the past fifteen years or so. Not sure which one yet.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
So which decline-and-fall or post-apocalyptic story are we playing out?
chose the wrong cup. quote:People were asked to look at a chart of a mythical country which has total equality of wealth, a chart of Sweden (not named) which has a middling distance between rich and poor, and a chart of the US (again, not named) which shows a huge gap between the rich and poor. Many of them choose the Swedish chart as representing the US and speculated that the US chart represented places like India or a third-world country in Africa.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Today's edition of "The Newshour" on PBS did a great piece on what wealth distribution in the US is really like, and Americans' misperceptions of it.
quote:Not really. There's a wall that some people claim is keeping Mexicans out, but mostly it does other stuff.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Then again, there's a wall keeping Mexicans out too, isn't there?
quote:As a measure to divert the flow of people, as opposed to water, the border fence has been significantly less successful.
Flooding caused by a border security fence in southwestern Arizona shows the structure is being built too quickly and without regard for the environment, critics say.
Debris and water backed up at the fence during a storm July 12, leading to flooding at the port of entry at Lukeville and Sonoyta, Mexico, and at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
"One of the reasons for it was the debris that accumulated on the fence itself," said Lee Baiza, superintendent of the monument, a lush desert tract overseen by the National Park Service.
quote:
Economist Richard Freeman is not surprised.
RICHARD FREEMAN: We're high for a poor country, in terms of inequality, and we're a rich country. We're about the same level of inequality as China. And, of course, China, half the population are rural peasants who are not part of the modern world.
And if we were to compare us with African countries, dictators in different places, you know, taking a lot of the wealth from normal people, we would be among the top half of the African countries of inequality. So, the U.S. really has reached an extraordinary level of income inequality.
