Debt ceiling talks: Whose fault?

[BendBrewer]

Obama got us in two wars also, Libya and Yemen plus drone strikes in Pakistan, certainly this must be considered peace measures, how else do you explain the Pulitzer prize? How is he going to pay for it all? By having you pay for it.

The Pulitzer prize?

Do you know how I can tell that your hatred is not only irrational but also insatiable?

 

[tet1953]

So if Obama is unable to get the debt ceiling raised none of you are going to vote for him, correct?

I never said that. If Ron Paul were to get the nomination I'd vote for him. Otherwise it's Obama again. Besides, what you suggest is exactly what Republicans are trying to accomplish. Won't work though.

 

[NoDrama]

The Pulitzer prize?

Do you know how I can tell that your hatred is not only irrational but also insatiable?

Erp yep, you got me there, I meant NOBEL.

 

[NoDrama]

I never said that. If Ron Paul were to get the nomination I'd vote for him. Otherwise it's Obama again. Besides, what you suggest is exactly what Republicans are trying to accomplish. Won't work though.

DING DING DING, that is the answer I was hoping to get. You folks will vote for Obama EVEN IF the debt ceiling doesn't get raised. You would think the dumbass republicans would clue in and stop this nonsense because its not going to get them the presidency anyway, its just going to hurt the country. I say we default, Iceland did it and they are growing like a MoFo now!!

 

[undertheice]

bad place to post the poll because almost everyone here is a liberal biased being hippys and all.

quite to the contrary, this place is teeming with folks who realize the insanity of the liberal agenda or at least it is from time to time. i, for example, am just another aging hippie. i marched, i protested and i even expressed my discontent in what might be considered some rather nonconstructive ways. what i learned from all that, what many of us learned, is that demanding action from the government results in some rather unexpected and undesirable consequences. government simply does not change. the faces change and the players even alter their rhetoric, but we always end up with less and less of the freedoms we were promised. there is always an enemy without, a distraction from the sleight of hand of our would-be masters, and an enemy within, a scapegoat to blame for the chaos that naturally ensues from the bureaucratic corruption. there are always those who will blindly follow the crowd toward destruction and those who insist on questioning authority, no matter which party is in power.

 

[mame]

ah yes, that great liberal devotion to fact. i've watched as you have trotted out fact after fact and find i am spectacularly unimpressed. what you seem to miss is that each and every fact is open to interpretation, that no occurrence is independent of its surroundings. your strict adherence to keynesian economic mythology and utter denial of the merits of free market solutions are perfect examples of the none too equitable nature of your quest for fact. what you are following is the liberal party line, the interpretation of evidence that best suits your own desired outcome.

I adhere most closely with the Samuelsonian synthesis, where markets are recognized as useful and needed but flaws are recognized and that's where regulation and other limited government intervention step in. The free market is inherently instable, government done right can and generally does act as a stabilizer. Social safety net programs, for example, help those who are worst off in downturns... Most of the increased size of government as a percentage of GDP has actually come from these stabilizing programs and I assure you things would be much worse off ATM if it wasn't for government intervention in this case. I believe that progressive taxation is necessary, based on the flaw in market economies where over time the wealthy own an increasingly large portion of a nation's wealth...

You think that because I believe stimulus, regulation and progressive taxation work that that means I'm for unlimited government intervention where we all eventually living "1984" style - but that's just not it, just as there is evidence that shows some government intervention is good there is also plenty of evidence showing that there should be a limit to the size of government. The Rahn curve says government shouldn't exceed "18-23%" of GDP, prior to the 08 recession US government spending was 19% of GDP... That tells me that government is not too big ATM, as we're at 24% and missing tons of revenue we'd normally have in a full employment environment(and social safety net spending is up dramatically also because we're not at full employment). The Laffer curve is less concrete, as no one has found that "sweet spot" quite yet as far as tax rates(partially because the model changes as economic conditions change over time), but the important thing to realize is that decreasing taxes at this point decreases revenue which means we must be on the left side of the laffer curve... Meaning that you cannot "broaden the base" via tax cuts with our rates as low as they are already.

So no, I dont deny markets - I just know they're imperfect. And if you took off your rose colored glasses you'd see the same thing.

i know y'all would love to believe that the tenets of your faith are based on sound reasoning, but it is little more than an ivory tower version of mob mentality. the short term solutions of statist dogma only embrace efficiency, what will most quickly serve the people, and ignore the long term success that individualist solutions have always brought. of course your solutions will work, anything can be made to work, but our goal shouldn't be the mediocrity of a herd existence and that is precisely the result of handing economic control over to the state. this is, after all, what increased taxation and the over-regulation of the free market will do.

Any solution can be made to work, eh? How's that austerity coming along for Greece(Hint: things have gotten worse...)? I advocate for solutions that have shown in the past to be effective. What is so hard to see about that? I mean, if economics weren't connected to politics you wouldn't have people arguing against emprical evidence, but that's what the Republicans in congress do almost every day... It's frustrating to no end TBH.

lacking a formal education, i am forced to take a realistic approach to any question. perhaps it's time you took a step back from all you have been taught about how things should work and infused your mind with a mild dose of reality.

Oh I do live in reality. Before I started going to college I got a nice hard dose of that reality, and I continue to face reality every day. I pay the same bills, buy the same groceries, and have the same responsibilities just as you do(no kids though, IDK about you.. haha); Do not accuse me of not living in reality. I was a centrist before I was a liberal, facts drove me away from the Republican party - it's quite simple.

the following are a few simple facts, unadulterated by the agenda of politically motivated buffoons. first and foremost is that governments do not play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. their motivations are the same, expansion and influence, and the consequences of their actions, though spread out to the people they rule, are the same as for any one of us. the second and equally important fact in this matter is that debt only breeds growth to a certain extent. at some point the investment of borrowed funds cannot pay for the fees involved and we are fast approaching that point, if we have not already reached it. finally, government produces nothing. it may regulate, but all that we pump into the state is lost to the real producers of the nation. we support a bureaucracy that often works at counter-purposes and whose true devotion is only to its own continuation.

Nope. Go look up our debt levels compared to GDP. Compare them to Greece, Compare them to Japan during the lost decade, and compare them to post WW2 U.S.... What do you see? We are not nearly at the point were the government should stop borrowing... Private debt is a problem for our economy right now, yes; Public debt is a long term issue, sure; But as of right now there hasn't been a better time to borrow in quite some time.

Our nation's infrastructure is crumbling and government is the only player left; Let's put those 1 million construction workers back to work so they can pay their bills and buy shit... So the people they bought shit from take that money and invest in expanding thanks to newfound demand for goods. Full employment is priority #1, you can't even argue the debt should come first - because the best step to take at reducing our deficit is to get people back to work, and paying taxes; Cuts can come after that.

 

[BendBrewer]

DING DING DING, that is the answer I was hoping to get. You folks will vote for Obama EVEN IF the debt ceiling doesn't get raised. You would think the dumbass republicans would clue in and stop this nonsense because its not going to get them the presidency anyway, its just going to hurt the country. I say we default, Iceland did it and they are growing like a MoFo now!!

Defaulting violates the Constitution of the United States. Pesky little damn piece of paper...........

 

[Dan Kone]

The republicans are massively overplaying their hand here. If Obama says "you get nothing, now raise the debt ceiling", they'd still have to do it. Most republicans in congress are cynical, but not as stupid as their rhetoric makes them out to be. They know what happens if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

 

[NoDrama]

Defaulting violates the Constitution of the United States. Pesky little damn piece of paper...........

You can't squeeze blood from a rock no matter how many laws you make that say you can. Quite a conundrum, it would seem the 14th amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional doesn't it? perhaps we just need to make some new amendments that say we can't default and can't choose to NOT pay, then we can all enjoy 100% taxation and it will be constitutional. Who says Slavery isn't alive and well?

 

[mame]

How did you get from here:

You can't squeeze blood from a rock no matter how many laws you make that say you can. Quite a conundrum, it would seem the 14th amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional doesn't it?

To here?

perhaps we just need to make some new amendments that say we can't default and can't choose to NOT pay, then we can all enjoy 100% taxation and it will be constitutional. Who says Slavery isn't alive and well?

You lost me, maybe I'm just high but I read it like 3 times and I dont get the connection... are you agreeing or disagreeing that the 14th amendment makes a debt ceiling unconstitutional?

 

[Dan Kone]

You can't squeeze blood from a rock no matter how many laws you make that say you can. Quite a conundrum, it would seem the 14th amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional doesn't it?

That's entirely possible. I was unable to find a case of the debt ceiling being challenged in the courts. You could be right about that.

 

[BendBrewer]

It's a Catch 22.

Section 5 clearly allows Congress to set rules on how to administer the 14th which would include having a debt ceiling. But the Debt Ceiling does not mean that Congress can violate the 14th by not paying our Debts. So technically the Ceiling is Constitutional as long as it is set high enough to pay our bills.

 

[BendBrewer]

It is not squeezing blood from a rock. You go borrow the money.

When I bought my house, I didn't have 100 grand lying around. I didn't let it stop me from buying a house. I borrowed money from a willing lender. Got into debt and am paying that off. Meanwhile I am looking to borrow again and buy again getting further in debt.

In the end am I better or worse off than my future tenant who fears to go into debt?

Debt isn't a bad thing. Almost every single successful person has or had it at one time.

 

[Dan Kone]

It's a Catch 22.

Section 5 clearly allows Congress to set rules on how to administer the 14th which would include having a debt ceiling. But the Debt Ceiling does not mean that Congress can violate the 14th by not paying our Debts. So technically the Ceiling is Constitutional as long as it is set high enough to pay our bills.

It seems like the debt ceiling itself is constitutional, but not raising it violates the constitution.

 

[NoDrama]

How did you get from here:

To here?

You lost me, maybe I'm just high but I read it like 3 times and I dont get the connection... are you agreeing or disagreeing that the 14th amendment makes a debt ceiling unconstitutional?

yeah I switched into full facetious mode after the second sentence. Dismiss what I said about making new amendments, I was hardly serious.

 

[NoDrama]

It is not squeezing blood from a rock. You go borrow the money.

When I bought my house, I didn't have 100 grand lying around. I didn't let it stop me from buying a house. I borrowed money from a willing lender. Got into debt and am paying that off. Meanwhile I am looking to borrow again and buy again getting further in debt.

In the end am I better or worse off than my future tenant who fears to go into debt?

Debt isn't a bad thing. Almost every single successful person has or had it at one time.

Oh I completely understand and totally agree that Capital can and SHOULD be used to further ones profit making potential. Its when capital is used only to print more money to cause more inflation to make the bills easier to pay on the backs of the common man is where I draw the line. In other words, that house you bought was able to make you a more profitable person in the end because now you had something you could accumulate equity in, something to provide you shelter, grow a family etc etc Its when you borrow money and then go take all that money and go gamble with it, sure you had a great 2 days , but that $40k you just lost at the craps tables has to come from somewhere. You see the difference? There is good debt and bad debt, banks forgot that for a while there and just thought any debt was good debt, but that isn't the case as the gambling addict proves ( or the drug addict or shopping addict, or alcoholic etc etc etc). So your wrong when you say debt isn't a bad thing, only in some cases is it not a bad thing. You wouldn't take on $200 Billion in Greek debt would you? I mean if all debt was good, we could just pile it on, the more the better, continually getting new credit cards to pay the bills on the old ones, a never ending Ponzi scheme that eventually ends in ruin. Oh wait, I just described the American Dream didn't I?

If you currently make zero income, how much does the government force you to pay in taxes? How much money can the Government confiscate from someone who has nothing? The Government doesn't have a single red penny, not a one, they get every cent from you, if you have nothing how will the loan ever be paid back? Does your bank give $200k loans for homes with no collateral due? If you stop making the payments on your home, is it still yours to keep? Will you rent your home to someone who is a drunk and addicted gambler? only on the promise that when he wins at craps he will pay you for rent?

C'mon bend, you know better than that. Constitution or no, if no one has any money the only way to pay those bills would be direct debt monetization. Which didn't work too well for Zimbabwe, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Argentina and the many others who monetized their debt.

The income gap has only grown since the Inception of the Federal Reserve and the Income tax. Government couldn't possibly reverse course with the same old tired policies that have over and over proved to be harmful in the end.

 

[Dan Kone]

by the way, I'm the one who voted "problems? what problems?". The debt ceiling will be raised. This issue is 100% political bullshit. It's not a real problem.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the best case scenario for the republicans is that the country defaults, everyone blames Obama and he's replaced by a republican. Even if that did happen, which is highly unlikely, then under that republican president our credit rating would be lowered and it would be much more difficult for republicans in congress to go on their own massive spending spree. It wouldn't just shut down the piggy bank for democrats, but everyone. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Anyone who doesn't think the republicans will go on their own massive deficit spending spree if they regained power is a fool. Basically, they won't do it. This is all a big bluff. Failing to raise the debt ceiling hurts the republicans massive spending as much as the democrats.

 

[BendBrewer]

But the real problem doesn't arise until people stop lending the US money. They do so because we pay our bills. ALWAYS.

China lends us money because they are betting on the US to continue to lead the world. It's a shame that so many Americans have a lot less faith in their own Country.

 

[NoDrama]

But the real problem doesn't arise until people stop lending the US money. They do so because we pay our bills. ALWAYS.

China lends us money because they are betting on the US to continue to lead the world. It's a shame that so many Americans have a lot less faith in their own Country.

China is actually a net seller of treasuries, sure they still buy our treasuries, but only the short term notes, they are selling their long term treasuries. They sell $130 of treasury for every $100 they buy. Slowly they are exiting their dollar positions, hedging their bets by bringing the BRIC nations together. China will be the biggest economy in the world before you know it. Last year the Federal Reserve purchased 78% of all treasuries the USA auctioned off.

THESE AREN'T SIGNS OF RECOVERY!!!

 

[NoDrama]

by the way, I'm the one who voted "problems? what problems?". The debt ceiling will be raised. This issue is 100% political bullshit. It's not a real problem.

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, the best case scenario for the republicans is that the country defaults, everyone blames Obama and he's replaced by a republican. Even if that did happen, which is highly unlikely, then under that republican president our credit rating would be lowered and it would be much more difficult for republicans in congress to go on their own massive spending spree. It wouldn't just shut down the piggy back for democrats, but everyone. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Anyone who doesn't think the republicans will go on their own massive deficit spending spree if they regained power is a fool. Basically, they won't do it. This is all a big bluff. Failing to raise the debt ceiling hurts the republicans massive spending as much as the democrats.

I gotta agree with you on this one, the old guard would probably give even more tax breaks and credits to big companies and their wall st and Bankster friends. The Tea party is too small and junior to make a big enough difference, the only thing they can do is give more options to the Democrats.