# A visualization of the Untied States debt



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Somebody posted this on the Guardian website and I thought I would pass the link along. It's quite well done, and it doesn't seem to be trying to score points on either political side:

*http://www.wtfnoway.com/*

EDIT:  Sorry about my dyslexia in the title of the thread--there doesn't seem to be a way to fix it after posting.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> EDIT:  Sorry about my dyslexia in the title of the thread--there doesn't seem to be a way to fix it after posting.


Reads as a Freudian rectification telling a lot about the US' situation at present.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

TxllxT said:


> Reads as a Freudian rectification telling a lot about the US' situation at present.


Yes, that did occur to me when I saw it.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Very interesting link. I just hope the US can raise that damn debt ceiling already. I quite like the thought of the world economy (now including the Norwegian one!) not going to hell in a handbasket. But that's just me.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

we've been 'untied' in one way or another for well over two centuries, ever since breaking some of the ties with England.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Fsharpmajor, I can edit the title if you want, but I think the Freudian slip is so interesting that doing so would decrease the value of the thread.:lol: Let me know, if you still want me to do it, I will.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> Fsharpmajor, I can edit the title if you want, but I think the Freudian slip is so interesting that doing so would decrease the value of the thread.:lol: Let me know, if you still want me to do it, I will.


I think you're right--leave it in. But I take no responsibility for the opinion of my subconcscious mind! :lol:


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

per capita its not that bad..


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Philip said:


> per capita its not that bad..


Overall deficit figures for the USA look alarming because of the population and the size of the economy, especially when illustrated this way. You could do the same thing for Greece, a small country, with piles of 100 euro notes (stacked beside the Parthenon, maybe) and it wouldn't look nearly so alarming, even though (without EU and IMF intervention) they would be in a much worse financial situation and would, as I understand it, almost certainly have to default.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Somebody posted this on the Guardian website and I thought I would pass the link along. It's quite well done, and it doesn't seem to be trying to score points on either political side:
> 
> *http://www.wtfnoway.com/*


Thanks for this.

Not sure _I_ can promise to proceed without trying to make political points, but here goes the effort--

I've long argued that the three ordinal unimaginables in this world are Astronomic Space, Geologic Time, and American Debt Obligations. Even when illustrated unambiguously, it's still difficult to get our minds around the scope of it. Earlier this week, and quite independently, I assigned to myself the following exercise...

*What if John Q. Public had the budgeting habits of the US government?!?*

1. I took as my base the Median GDP in the US. For 2010- and averaged from three different sources, it's $47200.
2. (If spending like the government), last year, John Q. would have spent $69800.
3. John Q.'s total debt is now $190200.
(Sidebar- if an individual had this parlous a personal financial situation, it would normally be the kind of thing that might induce him to consult with an Attorney for the purpose of filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.) [For our overseas friends, as well as those in America who have never encountered the details of this procedure, _that_'s the bankruptcy where you say 'I can never repay, I have no _prospect_ of ever repaying'- and your wordly goods except for subsistence necessities are placed in a big pile, to be divvied up among your creditors, in return for having a clean start (and having your credit-rating sent to ughi for at least seven years).]
4. So (back on point), imagine 'Mr. Public' being in this hole, and having his first impulse be something like "my $190200 credit-line is TOO LOW!! I need an increase in my line of credit, *NOW!!*"

I used $47200 as an earlier reference... but really, any of you can apply similar math to your own situation. Think of your income as X. Now, imagine your personal debt is roughly 4X. Imagine that last year, you spent c. 1½X. Figure that for the forseeable future, you will continue to have annual expenditures of X+(+).

Does this bring the madness and insanity of it all into clearer focus!?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Does this bring the madness and insanity of it all into clearer focus!?


You've reminded me of a quote by Henry Ford:

*It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.*


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

@CTP - the debt is a problem but not raising the debt limit and defaulting is a bigger problem. Being pragmatic, we can't afford to default since it would further depress the economy and decrease revenue even more. The debt is *not* our biggest problem now, but rather, the sluggish economy and high unemployment. If we get to sustained growth again and fuller employment, *then* we'll be in a better position to rein in the deficit. We should aim for bringing the fiscal house into order in some five years or so, but doing so right now is economic suicide. The Republicans probably know this, and *want* the economy to tank, so that they easily win the 2012 elections (the vast majority of the people won't understand who is to blame and will lay the bulk of the blame on whoever is in the White House right now). Remember, this big deficit started with two unpaid wars, tax cuts, and economic deregulation, all of which were started by Republicans. I guess the Republicans just want to finish the job of undoing the biggest economy in the planet so that they get back to power. At that point, however, will they have power over what? Over a broken economy and a broken country. We may never recover from this, and make sure that the people's memory is short, and even if the Republicans recover the White House in 2012, there won't be any economic recovery and they'll be blamed in 2016, as soon as people realize that cutting taxes for the rich won't get us out of this. As usual, our politicians only think in the short term and with elections in sight, they don't consider what is good for the country.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree completely with Almaviva. Our first priority should be getting the economy moving again. We can have a mid to long term goal of reducing the deficit at that time. Reducing spending now will reduce the little demand that exists and prevent an expansion.



Chi_townPhilly said:


> So (back on point), imagine 'Mr. Public' being in this hole, and having his first impulse be something like "my $190200 credit-line is TOO LOW!! I need an increase in my line of credit, *NOW!!*"
> 
> Does this bring the madness and insanity of it all into clearer focus!?


I would add one slight change to your scenario. Suppose that for the past several months economic experts, including Wall Street, macroeconimists, and business leaders, had been strongly urging Mr. Public to raise his credit line to avoid serious negative consequences to at least 300 million people and possibly much of the world. I would hope that his first, second, and only impulse would have been to raise his credit line months ago. For me the madness and insanity is tying the debt ceiling to other legislation and not raising it immediately.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I agree with this comment:

_Raising the Debt Ceiling is kind of like increasing Blood Alcohol Levels to Solve Drunk Driving._

Maybe it's better that we crash now and learn from our mistakes... otherwise won't the default be even bigger and worse when it finally happens???? Does anyone seriously think we'll be able to pay all this debt off?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> I agree with this comment:
> 
> _Raising the Debt Ceiling is kind of like increasing Blood Alcohol Levels to Solve Drunk Driving._
> 
> Maybe it's better that we crash now and learn from our mistakes... otherwise won't the default be even bigger and worse when it finally happens???? Does anyone seriously think we'll be able to pay all this debt off?


Increasing the debt ceiling is not the same as increasing spending (a distinction many haven't realized yet).

It's a question of paying our obligations for the money that has *already* been spent. We are no Banana Republic. Our debt must be honored. The consequences are a lot more serious than you guys may imagine. It means that we'll not be the reference for safe investments any longer. Next, the dollar will lose its prominence. If you want to make of us a third world country, then let us default. We'll never recover from a default because trust and confidence will be gone. We can't build it back. Forever, we'll be seen as "that country that has such a dysfunctional government that we can't trust them to pay off their obligations." Gone will be our position as the gold standard. We won't find it back.

These Republican politicians are playing with fire.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The unfunded liabilities thing at the very end uses some unreliable numbers put out by people ideologically opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on. I believe the absolute worst-case scenario that can be given with even a shred of plausibility is $170 trillion. No one knows the real number, but there is good reason to expect to be smaller than that.

The question is how _much_ smaller. We need it to be _a lot_ smaller. Unless we reform the system, the whole thing may well crash.

Another trick that is often used by the ideologically-driven is to portray the US debt per capita, as if we were going to pay it off with a flat tax. If you divide up the debt relative to wealth: so, say, you have 1/300,000,000 of the wealth in the US, then your share of the debt would be average - but in fact most of us have much less than 1/300 millionths of the assets, so our share is considerably less than potrayed by per capita estimations.

The hundred-millionaires and billionaires who have benefitted most from the policies that created this debt (such as the bank bailout) but do not want to pay for the policies that benefit most citizens (such as Medicare and Social Security) know exactly what they are doing when they create presentations.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Increasing the debt ceiling is not the same as increasing spending (a distinction many haven't realized yet).
> 
> It's a question of paying our obligations for the money that has *already* been spent. We are no Banana Republic. Our debt must be honored. The consequences are a lot more serious than you guys may imagine. It means that we'll not be the reference for safe investments any longer. Next, the dollar will lose its prominence. If you want to make of us a third world country, then let us default. We'll never recover from a default because trust and confidence will be gone. We can't build it back. Forever, we'll be seen as "that country that has such a dysfunctional government that we can't trust them to pay off their obligations." Gone will be our position as the gold standard. We won't find it back.
> 
> These Republican politicians are playing with fire.


Just because we hit our debt ceiling doesn't mean we will default. Our revenues each month are more than enough to meet our debt obligations. Hitting the ceiling means that we will have to take a hard look at our expenditures and make some decisions on spending cuts. It means we won't be able to do more deficit spending. But hitting the debt ceiling no more means that we will default than maxing out your credit card means you will default. It just means you can't borrow any more until you start paying down your debt. Right now, the federal government is borrowing over a trillion dollars a year and making only the minimum payments on our debt. We can continue to make that minimum payment if we don't raise the ceiling. We'll just have to cut other spending - like for entitlement programs. Obama wants the debt ceiling raised because he has, during his short time in office, made trillion dollar deficits the new norm, where Democrats once derided Bush for hundreds of billions. Take away his ability to run up trillion dollar deficits, and his whole house of cards comes tumbling down.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Just because we hit our debt ceiling doesn't mean we will default. Our revenues each month are more than enough to meet our debt obligations. Hitting the ceiling means that we will have to take a hard look at our expenditures and make some decisions on spending cuts. It means we won't be able to do more deficit spending. But hitting the debt ceiling no more means that we will default than maxing out your credit card means you will default. It just means you can't borrow any more until you start paying down your debt. Right now, the federal government is borrowing over a trillion dollars a year and making only the minimum payments on our debt. We can continue to make that minimum payment if we don't raise the ceiling. We'll just have to cut other spending - like for entitlement programs. Obama wants the debt ceiling raised because he has, during his short time in office, made trillion dollar deficits the new norm, where Democrats once derided Bush for hundreds of billions. Take away his ability to run up trillion dollar deficits, and his whole house of cards comes tumbling down.


There is some truth to what you're saying; the problem is, Republicans are trying to fix the problem by gambling with the country's financial reputation, and I'm afraid this will backfire on all of us, and the consequences will be felt decades after your much hated Obama administration (and the next Republican administration which will also fail when the populace realizes that they *also* don't have a fix for the economy) is long gone and is a memory in history books. Your guys are playing with fire and we'll *all* get burned, Democrats and Republicans alike, conservatives and progressives alike, current generation and future generations alike. The sheer irresponsibility of it is appalling.

You guys want to sink the Obama administration badly. Oh well, you may succeed. The problem is, you'll be throwing the baby down the drain with the bath water. You'll recover the White House, but said White House will be the executive government of a bankrupt, discredited country (you'll then lose the WH next because you won't be able to blame the Obama administration for the full four years you'll be in power while the country crumbles to pieces under your watch).

It will be a Pyrrhic victory, and the short-sightedness of it is utterly appalling. Bravo, Republicans. In 12 years you'll have finished the job of bringing down the once greatest country on Earth.

Mark my words, Dr.Mike. It *will* happen if your beloved Republicans don't realize what they're doing to the country.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> There is some truth to what you're saying; the problem is, Republicans are trying to fix the problem by gambling with the country's financial reputation, and I'm afraid this will backfire on all of us, and the consequences will be felt decades after your much hated Obama administration (and the next Republican administration which will also fail when the populace realizes that they *also* don't have a fix for the economy) is long gone and is a memory in history books. Your guys are playing with fire and we'll *all* get burned, Democrats and Republicans alike, conservatives and progressives alike, current generation and future generations alike. The sheer irresponsibility of it is appalling.
> 
> You guys want to sink the Obama administration badly. Oh well, you may succeed. The problem is, you'll be throwing the baby down the drain with the bath water. You'll recover the White House, but said White House will be the executive government of a bankrupt, discredited country (you'll then lose the WH next because you won't be able to blame the Obama administration for the full four years you'll be in power while the country crumbles to pieces under your watch).
> 
> ...


Alma, have you not been listening to the latest news? The credit rating agencies are now saying that raising the debt ceiling alone is not going to protect our credit rating - we have to do something about our out of control debt. Democrats have made trillion dollar deficits the new norm, and you blame Republicans for driving the economy over the cliff? In the midst of a financial crisis, the response of the Obama administration was to pass a new healthcare program that is going to only add to our deficit spending. In response to a financial crisis, the Obama administration ran around like a spoiled rich girl who went and maxed out her parents' credit cards, and now blames her parents for not giving her another credit card. And all the while, the economic situation is still in the crapper. Unemployment is creeping back up. Take your pick of measures - the Obama administration's actions are not improving our situation. Back early on when he should have been focusing on the economy, he insisted on passing his healthcare bill. Now that he realizes he needs to focus on the economy, he is trying to get the Republicans to take on some of the blame for his spending problem by making them provide the specifics for cuts, while he talks in the abstract about some bogus "balanced" approach, refusing to offer any specifics. His only budget proposal that could actually be scored by the CBO would have continued his reckless course, and it failed by a 97-0 vote. Democrats in the Senate haven't put forward a budget proposal in over 2 years - all they do is deride every plan the GOP passes in the House. At least the GOP is doing the leg work and passing budgets. Democrats are becoming the party of obstructionism. They are being completely irresponsible. And, true to their caricatures, their main solution to fix every problem is to simply raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires and private jet owners (do you realize what a paltry, pathetically small amount of revenue would be generated by lifting the tax break for private jets - and do you also realize that the tax break was created by Obama's own stimulus plan, not by Republicans - you know, that bill that he forced through before anybody could actually read it?).


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Looking at those piles of paper reminded me of the certain notion a guy had on another forum, regarding $700b bailout in 2008 (you can easily remember that by Henry Paulson coming on the floor with 3 sheets of paper in his hand that said "you pay for our mistakes and no court in the world can overturn that"), when people, startled with such huge amounts of money, started asking questions like "where does all that money comes from in the first place?" (and then heard of the FED for the first time). And a witty forum member said - there's a guy somewhere that types into a computer number 7 followed with 11 zeros! The ironic this is - he was right. So, the moment I saw these piles of "money" (by now, it sould be under quote signs), I thought how much of that money is a number in "some guy's" computer.

Another guy tried to find out how did USA get to that point even before crash of 2008, the year when "FED fad" took place. His attempt is summarized in the movie "America freedom to fascism" (whole movie is on youtube), and - as any other serious enough attempt at criticism - is labeled conspiracy theory material. Because you can only question whom Clinton f**ked and if Bush had dyslexia or low IQ, but not the big business interest groups that put them there...

Not saying that it's any better in my country - au contraire, au contraire (Rodders) - in my country, Serbia, it is more than obvious that politics is something between black comedy and Borghia's Italy (so, kinda tragicomedy), and it is not even interesting to dwelwe into it. Even political commentators, who will comment on anything to keep their place, are admitting that they can't take domestic politics serious anymore...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

A great revelation just came to me! the only logical explanation for the plutocrats' actions has to be a plan for a *New Feudalism*. Observe how this seeming stupidity plays out, then be in awe of my insight.

I'm too old and decrepit to be a field hand. Maybe I could be taken on as some sort of house man. Or, some minion could just break both my legs and dump me in the woods. Ah, why kid myself; a knife stroke across the throat is more efficient.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Alma, have you not been listening to the latest news? The credit rating agencies are now saying that raising the debt ceiling alone is not going to protect our credit rating - we have to do something about our out of control debt. Democrats have made trillion dollar deficits the new norm, and you blame Republicans for driving the economy over the cliff? In the midst of a financial crisis, the response of the Obama administration was to pass a new healthcare program that is going to only add to our deficit spending. In response to a financial crisis, the Obama administration ran around like a spoiled rich girl who went and maxed out her parents' credit cards, and now blames her parents for not giving her another credit card. And all the while, the economic situation is still in the crapper. Unemployment is creeping back up. Take your pick of measures - the Obama administration's actions are not improving our situation. Back early on when he should have been focusing on the economy, he insisted on passing his healthcare bill. Now that he realizes he needs to focus on the economy, he is trying to get the Republicans to take on some of the blame for his spending problem by making them provide the specifics for cuts, while he talks in the abstract about some bogus "balanced" approach, refusing to offer any specifics. His only budget proposal that could actually be scored by the CBO would have continued his reckless course, and it failed by a 97-0 vote. Democrats in the Senate haven't put forward a budget proposal in over 2 years - all they do is deride every plan the GOP passes in the House. At least the GOP is doing the leg work and passing budgets. Democrats are becoming the party of obstructionism. They are being completely irresponsible. And, true to their caricatures, their main solution to fix every problem is to simply raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires and private jet owners (do you realize what a paltry, pathetically small amount of revenue would be generated by lifting the tax break for private jets - and do you also realize that the tax break was created by Obama's own stimulus plan, not by Republicans - you know, that bill that he forced through before anybody could actually read it?).


No, the agencies are saying they may downgrade our ratings regardless of the end of this circus because they are losing trust in the ability of our politicians to sort this out. This should have been solved months ago. The fact that we have a dysfunctional, paralyzed government is what is drawing down our ratings. People are losing trust in the United States.

"their main solution to fix every problem is to simply raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires"

Whaaat? Have you missed the Democrat's proposals with 4 trillions in cuts including cuts to entitlements, and only 1 trillion in revenue increase just by closing some loopholes?

The Republicans should have taken it. But no, they want EVERYTHING their way. They don't know the word "compromise."

I'm starting to think that they just want the economy to sink so that they can blame the president.

Dr. Mike, not for one minute you have a little bit of doubt?

Your way so far:

Obama = BAD
Democrats = BAD
Republicans = saviors

Have you stopped to think at least once, something like - "oops, I guess we *are* getting too far and letting ideologues and extremists hijack the Republican party, and the nation will suffer."

I hope you see the light at some point.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> No, the agencies are saying they may downgrade our ratings regardless of the end of this circus because they are losing trust in the ability of our politicians to sort this out. This should have been sold months ago. The fact that we have a dysfunctional, paralyzed government is what is drawing down our ratings. People are losing trust in the United States.
> 
> "their main solution to fix every problem is to simply raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires"
> 
> ...


Alma, the only plan put forward by Democrats that has actually been scored by the CBO is the one from Reid, and at most it only cuts $2.2 trillion. But about $1 trillion of that is accounting gimmickry, "cutting" future increases in spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Essentially, it is like saying, "Well, I was planning on spending $30,000 on a new car next year, but I've decided to only buy a $10,000 used car, so I have now cut $20,000 from my spending." In reality, rather than cutting $20,000, you have increased spending by $10,000. And the remaining $1.2 trillion is over a decade - $120 billion per year, except that most of the cuts are planned for out years, and would depend on future congresses to make good on spending cuts agreed to now - which is not very likely.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not that big a fan of the Boehner plan, either. He also delays most of the cuts for the out years. But he doesn't use the "cut increased war spending" gimmick to get at his numbers.

You cite those bogus numbers that Obama touted - exactly what entitlements were Democrats going to cut? Have you seen the numbers? Where is the president's plan for us to scrutinize?

You accuse the Republicans of wanting to wreck the economy, but help me out here - what is it that is sinking Greece, Portugal, and Ireland? Is it that they couldn't raise their debt ceilings, or is it that their debts became unsustainable? I should be excited about a Democrat plan or a Republican plan that allows our government to accumulate $1-2 trillion more in debt? What is $1 trillion in debt? Lately, we blow that much in less than one year. We borrow around $0.40 of every dollar we spend. Who can survive with that kind of debt? Yeah, it is the Tea Party that is going to sink our economy. Keep telling yourself that. Once again, the mentality of the spoiled rich girl who is so upset she can no longer spend with abandon because she maxed out daddy's credit card, and he won't give her a credit extension.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Sorry about my dyslexia in the title of the thread--there doesn't seem to be a way to fix it after posting.


I just saw this post and felt I must contribute my reaction. I used to just call this country "The States" because I figured there was nothing whatsoever "united" about it (still true, I must say), but...this is so much better.

The debt is such a mess. And nobody's doing anything about it! People say, "Raise the debt ceiling!" but, as one commenter on that site said, "Raising the debt ceiling is like raising blood-alcohol content to prevent drunk driving."

Would it kill the jerks in the government to just raise the stupid taxes? They're at an all-time low and the country would be falling apart if hadn't fallen apart already decades ago!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Alma, the only plan put forward by Democrats that has actually been scored by the CBO is the one from Reid, and at most it only cuts $2.2 trillion. But about $1 trillion of that is accounting gimmickry, "cutting" future increases in spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Essentially, it is like saying, "Well, I was planning on spending $30,000 on a new car next year, but I've decided to only buy a $10,000 used car, so I have now cut $20,000 from my spending." In reality, rather than cutting $20,000, you have increased spending by $10,000. And the remaining $1.2 trillion is over a decade - $120 billion per year, except that most of the cuts are planned for out years, and would depend on future congresses to make good on spending cuts agreed to now - which is not very likely.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not that big a fan of the Boehner plan, either. He also delays most of the cuts for the out years. But he doesn't use the "cut increased war spending" gimmick to get at his numbers.
> 
> ...


Takes will always vary on these competing plans and their numbers. BUT WE GOTTA GET TO A COMPROMISE. We can't use the good financial reputation of the United States as hostage.
This is shooting ourselves in the foot (and I'm afraid the damage is already done). I'm NOT for fiscal deficit and external debt. I'm FOR fixing it. But I'm not for fixing it right now when the economy is suffering, and definitely not for fixing it by DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO RUIN OUR RATINGS AND THE WORLD ECONOMY, DAMMIT!

And do you think the Republicans are doing this because of concerns with the debt, the deficit, and the economy? NO! They are doing it because they want to score political points and win the WH in 2012. They have voted numerous times for increases in debt ceiling during previous administrations.

Can't you see the shallowness and the dangerousness of this plan, gambling with the nation's good name?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Let's see, Bush in power, he cuts taxes, causing a 1.6 Trillion dollar increase in national debt.
The Republicans vote to raise the debt ceiling SEVEN times.

Obama in power, 2012 looming, now suddenly the Republicans have a problem with increasing the debt ceiling?
This is a joke, the people trying to defend this obvious political play by the Republicans are hilarious.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think there's no chance of a deal this week. Even if the house passes Boehner's plan, it won't pass the Senate. There seem to be three options near term.
1) Pass a clean debt ceiling increase through the end of 2012 (after elections)
2) pass a clean debt ceiling increase for 6 months or so to give us more time
3) Don't pass a debt ceiling increase and wait to see if Obama tries to use the Executive office's power to raise the ceiling.

At this point option 1 seems by far the best. It won't prevent credit agencies from downgrading our rating, but of the three options it would send the best signal to the agencies. Option 2 will simply set us up for another 6 months of the same garbage we've seen for the last few months. Option 3 shouldn't be considered according to knowledgeable sources from Wall Street, economists, and business leaders.

After the debt ceiling is raised, I worry that there will be political pressure to produce bills with significant near-term spending cuts and tax increases - something (as best as I can tell) economists seem to believe is wrong for the economy now. I would love for Congress to actively pursue legislation that balances the budget in roughly 10 years with a combination of significant spending cuts plus tax increases kicking in after a significant job creation stimulus near-term.

The Progressive Caucus Budget 
(http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70) is the only proposal I know that attempts that. My two concerns are 1) Do they overestimate job creation from their $1.7 trillion public investment? and 2) Will they adequately keep Medicare in check?. Their budget is clearly weighted toward revenue increases (although much of it comes from stimulating the economy) and includes what Republicans would call modest spending cuts $1.7 trillion. They predict a $31 billion surplus in 10 years. If people really care about deficit reduction, this plan (or a more balanced one with similar goals) should be a strong contender.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Let's see, Bush in power, he cuts taxes, causing a 1.6 Trillion dollar increase in national debt.
> The Republicans vote to raise the debt ceiling SEVEN times.
> 
> Obama in power, 2012 looming, now suddenly the Republicans have a problem with increasing the debt ceiling?
> This is a joke, the people trying to defend this obvious political play by the Republicans are hilarious.


Ooh, wait, two can play at this game.

Who said the following:


> The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.


Give up? That was Senator Obama in 2006, when he voted AGAINST a debt ceiling increase. Then in 2007 and 2008 he failed to vote for debt ceiling increases.

You mention the $1.6 trillion increase in the national debt under Bush. Would you mind also posting the increase in the national debt under Obama? And keep in mind he has only been in office since 2009 - roughly 2 1/2 years. A deficit of $1.9 trillion in 2009. A deficit of $1.7 trillion in 2010. Obama borrows more in one year than Bush borrowed in his entire 8.

Republicans from 2000 to 2008 are a different breed than those in Congress now. The Tea Party did not exist prior to 2008. They are a new dynamic. The internal fight in the GOP caucus is a reflection of that, and they are primarily the movers behind this desire to block increasing the debt ceiling.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Takes will always vary on these competing plans and their numbers. BUT WE GOTTA GET TO A COMPROMISE. We can't use the good financial reputation of the United States as hostage.
> This is shooting ourselves in the foot (and I'm afraid the damage is already done). I'm NOT for fiscal deficit and external debt. I'm FOR fixing it. But I'm not for fixing it right now when the economy is suffering, and definitely not for fixing it by DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO RUIN OUR RATINGS AND THE WORLD ECONOMY, DAMMIT!
> 
> And do you think the Republicans are doing this because of concerns with the debt, the deficit, and the economy? NO! They are doing it because they want to score political points and win the WH in 2012. They have voted numerous times for increases in debt ceiling during previous administrations.
> ...


Alma,
Last year when Obama reauthorized the Bush tax cuts, he acknowledged (as even Harry Reid now acknowledges in his newest plan) that raising taxes in a bad economy would be a bad idea. So why did his "grand compromise" include tax increases? Are they or are they not a bad idea in a bad economy? And if so, shouldn't they not be part of this debt ceiling increase? Why would he insist on tax increases that even he acknowledged as a bad idea, knowing they would force a confrontation? Your idea of compromise means Republicans giving up one of their core beliefs, and even going against Obama's own ideas less than one year ago! And if the idea of tax breaks for corporate jets is such a bad idea, why did Obama himself put it in his stimulus bill? And why is he now demonizing Republicans over it? Who is playing politics now? He takes prime time space on Monday for a purely political speech - he offered no new information, not concrete plan. It was purely to beat up on Republicans and campaign for his own re-election. Earlier in the summer, when he chastised Republicans for not getting the work done on this debt ceiling deal, he was galavanting around the country, playing golf and attending fundraisers.

Don't talk to me about this being the Republicans' fault. Democrats refuse to even write a budget for over two years - that is an example of fiscal discipline?!?!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Ooh, wait, two can play at this game.
> 
> Who said the following:
> 
> Give up? That was Senator Obama in 2006, when he voted AGAINST a debt ceiling increase. Then in 2007 and 2008 he failed to vote for debt ceiling increases.


And Obama was wrong to do that, a fact which he admits. Holding the economy at gunpoint is not how ANYONE should get their way in congress. The situation in 2006 was a bit different, there was no global recession, Bush had cut taxes while still increasing spending, essentially a switch from financing his terrible foreign policy with cash to credit, unsustainable credit that will inevitably have to be repaid later by taxpayers anyways, plus the additional hundreds of billions to cover the interest paid to foreign entities, wealthy americans, and corporate banks. Drawing credit to prevent the collapse of the country's financial system is quite a bit different from drawing credit for the sake of your largely unproven conservative quasi-religious mantra that tax cuts stimulate the economy.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

DrMike said:


> ... Senator Obama in 2006, when he voted AGAINST a debt ceiling increase. Then in 2007 and 2008 he failed to vote for debt ceiling increases.


Good one.

And if he ever publicly stated was wrong about that (as distinguished from _governing_ out of phase from his previous rhetoric, and leaving the issue of his reversals from prior polemics unaddresssed), I musta missed it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2011)

Couchie said:


> And Obama was wrong to do that, a fact which he admits. Holding the economy at gunpoint is not how ANYONE should get their way in congress. The situation in 2006 was a bit different, there was no global recession, Bush had cut taxes while still increasing spending, essentially a switch from financing his terrible foreign policy with cash to credit, unsustainable credit that will inevitably have to be repaid later by taxpayers anyways, plus the additional hundreds of billions to cover the interest paid to foreign entities, wealthy americans, and corporate banks. Drawing credit to prevent the collapse of the country's financial system is quite a bit different from drawing credit for the sake of your largely unproven conservative quasi-religious mantra that tax cuts stimulate the economy.


Got ya - so basically your argument boils down to this: when Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling, it is to fund their evil, wasteful programs and pay off fat cats. When Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, it is only for the purest of motives to save the country from financial disaster. So you lambast Bush for his raising the debt ceiling, but also claim that Obama was wrong to not vote to raise it. So what we have here is situational ethics. The act is only right or wrong depending on who is doing it. If it is a Republican, it is wrong. If it is a Democrat, it is right. So what about all the money that Obama is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? If it was wrong for Bush to borrow money to pay for that, is it wrong for Obama to do the same? And what about Obama continuing the Bush tax cuts? I believe you described them as "drawing credit for the sake of your largely unproven conservative quasi-religious mantra that tax cuts stimulate the economy." So what is it now that Obama has extended them? Are we not now drawing credit to help pay for those tax cuts?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

This thread has led to a discovery: '_likes'_ can be employed as votes, of a remarkably useless sort to be sure, but nonetheless... recently I have employed them to 'approve of' posts contesting _DrMike_'s assertions. I suspect that, under the New Feudalism, he will be the modern equivalent of a baronet; that is apparently good enough for him. When they drag my rancid body by him to the fertilizer factory, perhaps he will tip his hat.

[:tiphat:]


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Got ya - so basically your argument boils down to this: when Republicans want to raise the debt ceiling, it is to fund their evil, wasteful programs and pay off fat cats. When Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, it is only for the purest of motives to save the country from financial disaster.


Well a trillion to look for nonexistent WMDs and assert presence in Iraq vs. a trillion to keep the largest banks in the country from failing, which is a more frivolous expenditure?



DrMike said:


> So you lambast Bush for his raising the debt ceiling, but also claim that Obama was wrong to not vote to raise it. So what we have here is situational ethics. The act is only right or wrong depending on who is doing it. If it is a Republican, it is wrong. If it is a Democrat, it is right. So what about all the money that Obama is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? If it was wrong for Bush to borrow money to pay for that, is it wrong for Obama to do the same?


I never lambasted Bush, but the Republicans for raising the debt ceiling under Bush but suddenly having a problem doing the same under Obama. And yes, Obama's continued war expenditures, breaking several campaign promises, is a large reason why I'm not a huge fan of the Obama administration.



DrMike said:


> And what about Obama continuing the Bush tax cuts? I believe you described them as "drawing credit for the sake of your largely unproven conservative quasi-religious mantra that tax cuts stimulate the economy." So what is it now that Obama has extended them? Are we not now drawing credit to help pay for those tax cuts?


Are you *really* equating choosing to lower taxes at a time of relative prosperity with choosing to not increase taxes during a global depression with 10% unemployment and 50 million people on food-stamps?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Dr.Mike, politicians do that, they grandstand and posture, and that's what Obama did in 2006, and it is wrong. So you say it was wrong (we agree) but now that Republicans are doing the same, you say it's OK? (now we don't agree). So one could say that Obama, like all politicians and with an eye on his presidential run, could afford to grandstand because he knew that his "no" vote wouldn't stop the debt ceiling from being raised and wouldn't throw the country in the abyss of default. It was probably calculated, limited grandstanding, knowing that other colleagues were about to pass it. Was it wrong to do it? You bet. But if you say so, then you must agree that what the Republicans are doing now is equally wrong, otherwise, where is your coherence?

The difference is, some limited grandstanding and posturing may have occurred during debt ceiling talks in 2006, but a compromise was reached and the ceiling was increased, like in all the numerous times it's been done since its creation, regardless of the party in power.

Now, the grandstanding and posturing are reaching ALARMING proportions, and these new kids on the bloc from the Tea Party who really don't know very well how things work (something their own party leaders have said) are playing with fire and hijacking the country's economy (by extension, the world economy) to use it as hostage, with already serious consequences (the agencies may downgrade our credit rating anyway, thanks, Republicans!).

So Obama spent more than Bush? Sure, but he did so, again, to partially save an economy that Bush had destroyed. Fixing the mess is *very* expensive. Better not to cause the mess in the first place. Clinton didn't leave such a mess for Bush. But your dear G.W. had to go look for WMDs in Iraq and give tax breaks to his fat cat friends, and deregulate the financial industry. *Now* we've had to spend a lot more to try and fix the mess.

Yes, I'd pretty much say it *is* the fault of the Republicans, and you know what? Beware. Opinion polls show 78% of Americans blaming *Republicans* in Congress for the impasse, a lot more than those who blame Obama, and those who blame Democrats in Congress. I don't have a link to the poll but I heard it on the radio (I did, I'm not lying - sometimes Internet posters tend to think "if there's no link, it's not true" - I usually reply by saying: well, I don't think there is a link to my birth when my mom delivered me, but I *am* here).

This whole thing may still backfire badly on your guys.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Couchie and Almaviva, Well said, guys. I wish I could be as wonderfully eloquent in getting these points across. Keep up the good work! :tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Thanks, Samurai, but I'd actually say that I'm the least eloquent one here. Couchie, Science, mmsbls, Dr. Mike and CTP and various less frequent participants are usually are much better in getting their points across. I try, but I'm not as knowledgeable in politics and economy as these guys are. Seriously, I'm not being falsely modest, I think one could say that I learn a lot more than I teach (as a way of speaking) in these political/economical threads.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Increasing the debt ceiling is not the same as increasing spending (a distinction many haven't realized yet).
> 
> It's a question of paying our obligations for the money that has *already* been spent. We are no Banana Republic. Our debt must be honored. The consequences are a lot more serious than you guys may imagine. It means that we'll not be the reference for safe investments any longer. Next, the dollar will lose its prominence. If you want to make of us a third world country, then let us default. We'll never recover from a default because trust and confidence will be gone. We can't build it back. Forever, we'll be seen as "that country that has such a dysfunctional government that we can't trust them to pay off their obligations." Gone will be our position as the gold standard. We won't find it back.
> 
> These Republican politicians are playing with fire.


Okay, perhaps... (doesn't increasing the debt ceiling imply future increases in spending?) but you didn't answer my question. I think the reason Republicans want spending to be decreased is quite simply, because we spend too much. It seems most Republicans and Americans are scared that our debt is already way tooo high for us to ever pay it off. And please forget about whose fault it was that we're in this mess now, that's all in the past and nothing can be done about it. What gives Democrats the confidence that we can handle even MORE debt?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Okay, perhaps... (doesn't increasing the debt ceiling imply future increases in spending?)


No, it doesn't. Much the opposite, the proposition was to increase the debt ceiling AND decrease spending by more than the amount of the new borrowing. This money is being borrowed to pay for the service on the debt, not for new spending. I know that Republicans try to misinform people about this to score political points (like they did with the infamous "death panels") but definitely increasing the debt ceiling DOESN'T mean future increased spending.



> but you didn't answer my question. I think the reason Republicans want spending to be decreased is quite simply, because we spend too much.


No. The reason Republicans want this, is to score political points and win the 2012 election. If they truly wanted to decrease spending they would have accepted some of the proposals on the table which did just that. I think what they want is for the economy to NOT recover so that they sail through 2012 (I think they won't, people are starting to see the light and blame *them* for the irresponsible mess they've created).

Democrats *also* want spending to decrease, and the proposals put on the table by Democrats had huge spending cuts. It's just that Democrats *also* wanted increased revenue (to better close up the deficit) but Republicans wouldn't compromise on this. You know, the party whose mantra is "cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes?" Which obviously INCREASES the deficit and consequently the debt? Which contributed to landing us on this trouble in the first place? Which benefits the rich but not the people or the nation? Which *doesn't* create jobs like they pretend?



> It seems most Republicans and Americans are scared that our debt is already way tooo high for us to ever pay it off. *And please forget about whose fault it was* that we're in this mess now, that's all in the past and nothing can be done about it.


Oh no, never underestimate the lessons of history. We do need to understand why we got into this mess, so that we DON'T vote into office again the folks who have destroyed our economy for the gain of their fat cat friends.



> What gives Democrats the confidence that we can handle even MORE debt?


We can, if Republicans learn the words "yes" and "compromise." Actually with the right fixes we could see a surplus of 30 trillion in a couple of decades which goes a long way to reverse the process and start paying up the principal.

Economies who used to be much weaker than ours like Brazil did it. They used to have the second largest external debt in the world after Poland at the time (now *we* have this "honor") and they have *entirely* paid off their debt and became a lending country (they now actually own 4% of our debt) with a policy of economic modernity and fiscal austerity coupled with social programs and focused infrastructure spending to jump start the job market, boost the middle class (consequently increasing the internal market - middle class in Brazil went from 10% to 51% while ours is shrinking) and strengthen the economy. Now they enjoy steady 5% growth every year, full employment, no inflation, no external debt, and energy independence to boot (with a focus on sugar cane alcohol, hydraulic, and nuclear) which allowed them to be arguably the country that resisted the best the global economic downturn of the last two years. They also don't belong to the Third World any longer, having been promoted to the status of "newly developed nation." Their investing risk is now *lower* than ours. They have accomplished this with national dialogue, with the leftist government listening to the economic policies of the right, and using this magic word: compromising (this is helped by their multi-party system - for one party to govern, they need to compromise and make alliances - our 2-party system is killing us). Meanwhile we have a dysfunctional government with one party eternally sabotaging the other for short-sighted political gain, a stalemate, paralysis, and we're marching the exact opposite way - while Brazil advances to the First World, we're sliding down towards the Third (one day - still far away but the trend is there). It's a tough world out there, Brazil, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, and others are working hard to solve their problems and advance (it's not like they've been solved, all these countries still have huge social problems and the such, but they've been working on them, unlike us), while we are not doing ANYTHING except political bickering, our problems are accumulating instead of being solved, and we're abdicating of our leadership and stepping down as the superpower.

The latest issue of The Economist praises Brazil at least four times in different articles and calls them a model. If a former Third World country like Brazil can do it, you're seriously telling me that we, the United States, can't???

I still have faith in our country. The politicians, however, are destroying that faith (not only mine, but the credit ratings agencies' as well, which *is* a disaster - mark my words). The next thing, we'll manage to erode the international confidence in the dollar as the reserve currency and OPEC currency, and then all hell will break loose.

There is little that is more important to stay in business than one's reputation. These stupid Tea Party ideologues can't see this, and will bring down this former giant of a country.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

I will ask again - if less than a year ago Obama agreed to renew the Bush tax cuts with the understanding that raising taxes in a bad economy was a bad idea, then why was he insisting that any deal on raising the debt ceiling had to pair spending cuts with tax increases? If raising taxes was a bad idea before, why is it not still a bad idea? And if it is a good idea, why has Harry Reid now taken tax increases out of his plan? Or if tax increases in a bad economy is still a bad idea, then who was really at fault for a compromise not being reached - Boehner, who opposed tax increases, or Obama who was going against what he himself had been saying when he supported renewing the tax cuts?

I personally have reservations about raising the debt ceiling, but think it should be raised. We can cover our debt obligations if we don't raise it, but then we will not have enough money to cover any of our discretionary spending, and not all of our mandatory expenses, and the discretion on how the limited money will be spent will be solely in the hands of the executive branch - a scary prospect. But I want serious cuts - and front-loaded. None of this crap of $20 billion or less in cuts in the first year. And no accounting gimmicks, like the Reid plan. I don't believe that we suddenly need to spend $1 trillion more a year than under Bush - and certainly not for multiple years. 

Alma, you can quote your one poll. But the majority of polls show Obama is hurting. He has a net negative approval rating - last time I checked (today), the average has his disapproval 4 points higher than his approval. That isn't good for the incumbent. Generic polls show the GOP beating the Democrats in congressional elections. Already, Democrats have to defend more Senate seats than Republicans. You just had another Democrat have to resign over a sex scandal. Independents in polls are not breaking for Obama. Currently, none of the plans for raising the debt ceiling includes revenue increases - this will be very disappointing to Obama's base, and will likely be seen by them as him caving to Republicans, just like they saw his abandonment of a public option in the health care bill as selling out to Republicans. That leads to less enthusiasm come election time. While he is raking in lots of money in his fundraising, it is curiously behind the pace he set for his first presidential campaign. Curious as well. Our credit rating being downgraded is not related to the vote on the debt ceiling - it is related to the lack of seriousness over reducing our debt. In key battleground states, Obama is not polling well.

All in all, I'm still liking our chances against Obama in 2012.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> No, it doesn't. Much the opposite, the proposition was to increase the debt ceiling AND decrease spending by more than the amount of the new borrowing. This money is being borrowed to pay for the service on the debt, not for new spending. I know that Republicans try to misinform people about this to score political points (like they did with the infamous "death panels") but definitely increasing the debt ceiling DOESN'T mean future increased spending.


Alma, you are being deceptive here. The proposed spending cuts are to be done over a decade. They would only offset spending and reduce the deficit if they were set to go into effect next year. They aren't. And as I said before, most of the cuts are loaded into the out years - meaning most of the cuts won't happen until then end of the 10 years - IF future congresses decide to abide by the deal. And that is a huge IF. I will be surprised if the Reid plan even cuts as much as $20 billion in the first year. Reid himself has acknowledged that the amount he wants to raise the debt ceiling by will only get us through the end of 2012 - i.e. after the election. Make no mistake - whichever plan passes, we will be having another vote to raise the debt ceiling very soon - either next year, if the Boehner plan passes, or after the 2012 elections, if the Reid plan passes. Obviously Obama prefers the Reid plan, because he doesn't have to have this fight again before the election.

Ravellian is right - regardless whose plan wins the day, the debt is going to continue to increase.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's interesting when Democrats compromise with Republicans, and then are blamed for not actually being Republicans.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

@Dr.Mike - The latest Democratic proposals did not include tax increases but rather revenue increases. Of course they started from a position of tax increases (that's called a negotiation) but they ended up only asking for a 1 Trillion revenue increase (against 4 Trillion in spending cuts) by closing loopholes, not by increasing taxes.

Yes, the Democrats are caving in, because they are MORE RESPONSIBLE THAN THE IRRESPONSIBLE REPUBLICANS, DAMMIT. They are realizing that these crazies will bring down the entire country crashing.

Dr. Mike, your idea that not raising the limit is fine because we'll still be able to shift money around and pay the service on the debt is beautiful, but you're failing to consider what this will do to the economy. You know, if the government suddenly stops paying federal employees, social security benefits, and the such, even if the service on the debt is still paid, THE ECONOMY WILL CRASH and then revenues will be even lower, and you'll get a domino effect, and end up defaulting for good. Jesus, can't you see this?

You guys are ideologically against government, period. You forget that when a governmental employee walks into a hardware store and buys some nails for a home improvement project, the store owner is happy to take his money, regardless of who his employer is. You fire this guy or stop paying his salary, he shelves his home improvement project and doesn't buy the nails. Economic depression ensues.

Paralyze the Federal government, and the economy will crash, it's as simple as that.

I know that this is precisely what the Republicans want, so that they win 2012 (and according to your polls, they are achieving it, because unfortunately a lot of our fellow citizens lack the education and the vision to blame the right culprits and attribute all evil to whoever is the then occupant of the Oval Office).

What they think is, "let's screw the country so that we can get elected/re-elected." But like I said, its a Pyrrhic victory. The way our country is going with this political paralysis/sabotaging squandering everything, the Republicans won't preside over a recovering economy either, but rather over a crashed and burnt economy, and then the same lack of vision will prevail, and they'll be chased off with their tails between their legs in 2016. And then the whole sabotaging will kick in again... and so on... and so forth.

We'll keep playing the blame game and alternating parties in the White House. Meanwhile the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, and the Russians will eat us alive.

Soon enough the Republicans will be the proud leaders of... a Third World country. Bravo!


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

Alma - you didn't read my post where I say that I am for raising the debt ceiling and why. Re-read post #40. And I don't know what plan you are looking at from the Democrats, but the Reid plan is nowhere near $4 trillion. Try cutting that number in half.

Sorry - I don't buy the doom and gloom. Everybody said the exact same thing when Reagan was challenging Carter in 1980. Republicans lost their way since then, but if they get back to fiscal discipline, I think this economy can be turned around.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Alma, you are being deceptive here. The proposed spending cuts are to be done over a decade. They would only offset spending and reduce the deficit if they were set to go into effect next year. They aren't. And as I said before, most of the cuts are loaded into the out years - meaning most of the cuts won't happen until then end of the 10 years - IF future congresses decide to abide by the deal. And that is a huge IF. I will be surprised if the Reid plan even cuts as much as $20 billion in the first year. Reid himself has acknowledged that the amount he wants to raise the debt ceiling by will only get us through the end of 2012 - i.e. after the election. Make no mistake - whichever plan passes, we will be having another vote to raise the debt ceiling very soon - either next year, if the Boehner plan passes, or after the 2012 elections, if the Reid plan passes. Obviously Obama prefers the Reid plan, because he doesn't have to have this fight again before the election.
> 
> Ravellian is right - regardless whose plan wins the day, the debt is going to continue to increase.


It's because we *shouldn't* be starting the spending cuts while the economy is hurting, like most non-partisan economists will tell you. Like I said before, I'm for aiming for reductions in deficit/debt some five years from now.

Yes, it's long term. Because the only fix is a long term fix, and the economy needs to get moving again for any fix to succeed. Like I said, the Republicans are being short-sighted.

That's exactly what the stupid Tea Party ideologues haven't realized. CUT SPENDING NOW! FIRE ALL THESE LAZY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYES! STOP THESE HANDOUTS FOR THE LAZY PARASITES!.

OK, guys, let's do just that. Oops, there is just one problem: the economy will crash. All these guys who are shouting this to the top of their lungs will get poorer and in deep trouble (the fat cats, though, will continue to get richer). But no problem, they'll just blame Obama, so it's all good, right? As long as BAAAAAD Obama doesn't get re-elected, who cares if we destroy our economy? At least we'll remove that guy from office.

Great. Go just ahead guys, and you'll see the results.

What drives me crazy is how the masses of Republicans who AREN'T the fat cats always vote against their own interest, always vote for the corporations to screw them more and more. You know what? They deserve the crisis they'll be creating.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Alma - you didn't read my post where I say that I am for raising the debt ceiling and why. Re-read post #40. And I don't know what plan you are looking at from the Democrats, but the Reid plan is nowhere near $4 trillion. Try cutting that number in half.
> 
> Sorry - I don't buy the doom and gloom. Everybody said the exact same thing when Reagan was challenging Carter in 1980. Republicans lost their way since then, but if they get back to fiscal discipline, I think this economy can be turned around.


The dance of the numbers, like I said, it's the least important part now. The fact is that the Republicans will just continue to obstruct everything until our economy crashes, which is how they calculate they'll get the White House back (and they may very well succeed).

I buy the doom and gloom. It's already happening. We've never been in this much trouble since 1930, and this time we don't have a WWII to rescue us. This time the other countries aren't sleeping either, and are gobbling our means of production. This time oil is not abundant and cheap.

This is NOT the time to be gambling with our economy, and that's exactly what the Republicans are doing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

Alma - were you against tax breaks for fat cats when Obama originally put the private jet tax break in his stimulus package? Tell me, how exactly was that geared to stimulate the economy? Or were you not aware of that? That's right - that stimulus bill that nobody had the time to read before they voted on it. That stimulus bill that was sold as being able to keep unemployment no higher than 8%. That stimulus bill that was chock full of money for non-existent "shovel-ready" jobs. And what about the Obamacare waivers going to fat cat corporations that supported Obama?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

No, I wasn't aware that the private jet tax break was originally included in Obama's stimulus package, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did in order to get some votes from people who had been influenced by lobbyists, you know how politicians are. Obama is no saint. This whole thing of private jet tax break is a big smoke screen. You and I know that this is not what really matters. Politicians will use whatever talking points they can to be able to posture and get re-elected. 

We've discussed this 8% thing to death. Yes, the stimulus predictions have miscalculated the job savings, but I bet we'd have had a lot worse than 9.5% without the stimulus - maybe we'd be seeing 12% unemployment by now. This thing of "the stimulus didn't work" is a talking point. The more accurate assessment is "the stimulus only worked partially." The wounds in the economy left by Bush were too deep to be fixed the next day.

That's precisely why we need long-term changes, not immediate cuts.

Any economist will tell you that if an economy is sputtering, it's not the time to reduce spending.

I'm mad every time I see a lying Republican say on the radio "we'll create jobs by reducing spending." Yeah, right, guys, make sure you borrow Harry Potter's wand to do that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> What drives me crazy is how the masses of Republicans who AREN'T the fat cats always vote against their own interest, always vote for the corporations to screw them more and more. You know what? They deserve the crisis they'll be creating.


It's a Southern culture thing. You don't find it in the Northeast; on the whole, you don't find it in the midwest or California. Although the element of slavery is gone, it is the alliance between the planters and the patrols, surviving until now.

I realize this is an incendiary analysis, but I'm persuaded that it is probably right, and when a truth is incendiary, it is better stated brazenly.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

This right in:

"Urgent efforts to avoid an unprecedented U.S. debt default suffered a new blow on Thursday when some fiscally hardline Republicans blocked a budget deficit plan proposed by their own congressional leaders."

Now the Tea Party is blocking even Boehner's plan. CLEARLY like I said these folks just want to screw the economy so that they get rid of Obama.

Pyrrhic victory... but they're probably too stupid to even know what this means.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

science said:


> It's a Southern culture thing. You don't find it in the Northeast; on the whole, you don't find it in the midwest or California. Although the element of slavery is gone, it is the alliance between the planters and the patrols, surviving until now.
> 
> I realize this is an incendiary analysis, but I'm persuaded that it is probably right, and when a truth is incendiary, it is better stated brazenly.


I see it as more generalized than this. I see it as the misguided lower middle class being resentful and trying to feel better about themselves by blaming some imaginary parasites who are supposedly lazy and milk governmental handouts, or the immigrants, or the "other" races, etc. These folks have no global vision of what the situation really is.

For me there are three kinds of Republicans:

1. Stupid masses who vote against their own interests
2. Educated fiscal conservatives who mean well (e.g., our good Dr. Mike and our good CTP)
3. The ultra-rich who want to conserve privileges

Unfortunately the bulk of them in numbers belong to category 1, and are easily mislead and manipulated by category 3. The wiser category 2 can't even be heard these days since the party has been hijacked by the extremists. Better proof, not even Boehner can rein in his barbaric hordes.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> What drives me crazy is how the masses of Republicans who AREN'T the fat cats always vote against their own interest, always vote for the corporations to screw them more and more. You know what? They deserve the crisis they'll be creating.


Well much of the mass offers their brains for washing on a silver platter because of their iron-clad moralistic views on civil rights like abortion, gay marriage, etc. which ties them to the Republican party and, because American "democracy" is completely asphyxiated by the Jesus oligarchy and the Satan oligarchy, they're forced to accept the corporate screwage, and do so unwittingly with applause and cheers. I mean what is this crap about small government, demanding fiscal freedom to manage their own healthcare and etc, these people don't give a hot ****** about personal freedom, their wet dream is nothing short of an authoritarian theocracy when it comes to civil liberty.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Well much of the mass offers their brains for washing on a silver platter because of their iron-clad moralistic views on civil rights like abortion, *gay marriage*, etc. which ties them to the Republican party and, because American "democracy" is completely asphyxiated by the Jesus oligarchy and the Satan oligarchy, they're forced to accept the corporate screwage, and do so unwittingly with applause and cheers. I mean what is this crap about small government, demanding fiscal freedom to manage their own healthcare and etc, these people don't give a hot ****** about personal freedom, their wet dream is nothing short of an authoritarian theocracy when it comes to civil liberty.


Butbutbutbut ... the BIBLE! Or something.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Aksel said:


> Butbutbutbut ... the BIBLE! Or something.


It has nothing to do with the Bible. We mustn't redefine marriage.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Couchie said:


> It has nothing to do with the Bible. We mustn't redefine marriage.


True. God forbid that people change marriage to include things like divorce. Or worse still, make it socially acceptable for two people to live together without being married. Or even worse: Live together unmarried with children.

Owait.

But THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Part of the reason I don't particularly LIKE political discourse is because it will be inevitably filled with pointless accusations and ad hominem. We have comments like these being made:

_You guys want to sink the Obama administration badly. Oh well, you may succeed. The problem is, you'll be throwing the baby down the drain with the bath water. You'll recover the White House, but said White House will be the executive government of a bankrupt, discredited country (you'll then lose the WH next because you won't be able to blame the Obama administration for the full four years you'll be in power while the country crumbles to pieces under your watch).

Have you stopped to think at least once, something like - "oops, I guess we *are* getting too far and letting ideologues and extremists hijack the Republican party, and the nation will suffer."

What drives me crazy is how the masses of Republicans who AREN'T the fat cats always vote against their own interest, always vote for the corporations to screw them more and more. You know what? They deserve the crisis they'll be creating._

I appreciate the arguments you put to the table Alma, but you really need to lay off these types of comments. And science, samurai... you guys really aren't contributing anything to the discussion with your biased comments and 'likes'. This type of bickering between sides really makes thing difficult for an impartial observer like me, who is trying to understand what is best for the country without the influence of either political party. We're all adults here. Can we start acting like it? Thanks.

Anyway, it seems that both sides are in agreement that Step 1, the debt ceiling should be raised, and that both sides may need to compromise in Step 2 (taxes, spending) somewhat in order to reach the agreement. Except, neither side wants to compromise too much. Dems still seem more willing to put our country's future at risk by not putting enough controls on spending, and those "spending decreases" you mentioned, Alma, if they are to take place over the long run, don't sound very persuasive to me. If we don't reach an agreement, it will be because BOTH parties failed to compromise to the extent necessary to fix the economy. And it sounds to me like the Republicans have the better idea on how to do it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

I see that this conversation has descended to a pathetic level, and so I will bow out, because it can only lead down from here. I thought we were debating the debt ceiling, but now we are discussing whether Republicans are evil, or ignorant, or both. Good to see we can have reasoned, cerebral debates here, guys.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

TANSTAAFL - unless you are in the top stratum of The New Feudalism. There, someone else pays for your lunch.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I agree with some comments on the civility of the debate. This thread looks much like our representatives in Congress.

Several here have asked how we can ever get out of this hole we're in. The debate has focused on spending cuts and tax increases. Economists view both of these as negative in the near term because they reduce demand and hurt the economy. Instead economists say we should focus on job creation - boosting economic output. Increasing economic output can have a much bigger effect than spending decreases. For example, using a very simple model I looked at increased revenue _just from increased GDP_. If our economic output increases by 4% a year for the next 10 years, we will decrease out debt by $6.6 trillion and start running a surplus. A 5% increase would raise $8.4 trillion with a bigger surplus. This is without increasing taxes or reducing spending _at all_. The proposals on the table don't come close to those reductions in debt. Now 4-5% a year is high by recent US standards, but the economy increased 6-7% during Reagan's and Clinton's tenures (after recessions).

This is why economists think it's _much_ more important to increase economic output and why they dislike spending cuts or tax increases in the short term.

Spending cuts don't have the power of increased economic output and tend to shrink the economy in the near term. We can reduce spending after we boost the economy, but almost all of our focus should be on economic output.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Part of the reason I don't particularly LIKE political discourse is because it will be inevitably filled with pointless accusations and ad hominem. We have comments like these being made:
> 
> _You guys want to sink the Obama administration badly. Oh well, you may succeed. The problem is, you'll be throwing the baby down the drain with the bath water. You'll recover the White House, but said White House will be the executive government of a bankrupt, discredited country (you'll then lose the WH next because you won't be able to blame the Obama administration for the full four years you'll be in power while the country crumbles to pieces under your watch).
> 
> ...


What? Where did you find any ad hominems (I wonder what the right Latin plural form for this word is) in my posts, pray tell? My use of "you guys" is intended to mean conservative Republicans in general - when I say "you guys will recover the White House" I hope you don't think I mean that anybody here will actually be running for president, right?. I have actually excluded present company in my posts (and didn't do it just to get out of ad hominems, I did it because I mean it, and have expressed in other posts - actually numerous times - my respect for Dr. Mike.

My comments reflect my political opinion, there aren't any ad hominems, and I stand behind what I said, sorry if they sound offensive to you, that wasn't my intention. I'm just frustrated with the other side's posturing and with the way the masses are easily mislead by talking points.

And what is this about trying to censor the "likes"? I thought people were free to grant "likes" to, well, whatever they like, no?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I see that this conversation has descended to a pathetic level, and so I will bow out, because it can only lead down from here. I thought we were debating the debt ceiling, but now we are discussing whether Republicans are evil, or ignorant, or both. Good to see we can have reasoned, cerebral debates here, guys.


Dr. Mike, I did propose a third category - my number 2 - of educated fiscal conservative Republicans who mean well (and included you and CTP there). Have you missed that part? I do believe the other two categories I have mentioned unfortunately exist. Sorry, it's my political opinion. Maybe I'm wrong about it, but it *is* what I think, therefore I candidly expressed it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

science said:


> *It's a Southern culture thing. You don't find it in the Northeast; on the whole, you don't find it in the midwest or California. Although the element of slavery is gone, it is the alliance between the planters and the patrols, surviving until now. *I realize this is an incendiary analysis, but I'm persuaded that it is probably right, and when a truth is incendiary, it is better stated brazenly.





Almaviva said:


> I see it as more generalized than this. I see it as the misguided lower middle class being resentful and trying to feel better about themselves by blaming some imaginary parasites who are supposedly lazy and milk governmental handouts, or the immigrants, or the "other" races, etc. These folks have no global vision of what the situation really is.
> 
> For me there are three kinds of Republicans:
> 
> ...





Couchie said:


> *Well much of the mass offers their brains for washing on a silver platter because of their iron-clad moralistic views on civil rights like abortion, gay marriage, etc. which ties them to the Republican party and, because American "democracy" is completely asphyxiated by the Jesus oligarchy and the Satan oligarchy*, they're forced to accept the corporate screwage, and do so unwittingly with applause and cheers. I mean what is this crap about small government, demanding fiscal freedom to manage their own healthcare and etc, *these people don't give a hot ****** about personal freedom, their wet dream is nothing short of an authoritarian theocracy when it comes to civil liberty*.





Aksel said:


> Butbutbutbut ... *the BIBLE!* Or something.





Aksel said:


> True. God forbid that people change marriage to include things like divorce. Or worse still, make it socially acceptable for two people to live together without being married. Or even worse: Live together unmarried with children.
> 
> Owait.
> 
> But THINK OF THE CHILDREN!





Couchie said:


> It has nothing to do with the Bible. We mustn't redefine marriage.


@Alma
This is why I have given up on this debate. I recognize these comments weren't directed at me, but it has devolved into mean-spirited demonizing of my viewpoint and opinions. Your own comments have been deceptive and contradictory. First you called it a lie that Republicans claimed that raising the debt ceiling would mean running up more debt because the rise in the ceiling would be accompanied by cuts. But when I pointed out that the cuts were spread out over 10 years, and that we would hit the debt ceiling again no later than the end of 2012, you completely contradicted yourself and said that was good, as you wouldn't want the cuts to take place for at least 5 years. So which is it? You cut loose with your visible hatred for the Tea Party, yet when I point out all the things your side has done that are shady, you dismiss it as harmless political posturing. At least the Republicans are writing plans and voting on them. You claim they won't compromise, but Democrats declare they won't support any Republican bills before they have even passed the House. So who is being intransigent? When was the last time Democrats put up any bill for a vote on the debt ceiling or the budget? If the August 2nd deadline is so critical, then why is it only the GOP we see actually scrambling to get a bill passed? What exactly are Democrats doing today as we are only 4 days away from that deadline?

And yet with these critical questions to discuss, I'm sorry, but your side in this debate on this thread has decided that it is important to ridicule the moral positions of Republicans and conservatives. What the hell does the issue of gay marriage have to do with the debt ceiling? Or then you have Science re-hashing his "Republicans are basically racist Southerners" argument. And then I am told that my "wet dream" is an authoritarian theocracy.

If the debate has descended to this level, then I have better ways to spend my time.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Here is an editorial senator McCain has just read out loud in Congress, giving his full agreement and endorsement to it while bashing the Tea Party members of his own party.
I guess I was right after all, huh?

"The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . . Barack Obama," McCain said, quoting the Journal article. "The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Here is an editorial senator McCain has just read out loud in Congress, giving his full agreement and endorsement to it while bashing the Tea Party members of his own party.
> I guess I was right after all, huh?
> 
> "The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against . . . . Barack Obama," McCain said, quoting the Journal article. "The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor."


Except that the "tea-party Hobbits" more closely resemble Mordor's minions, and they have to stick around; they may be needed as serf supervisors.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> @Alma
> This is why I have given up on this debate. I recognize these comments weren't directed at me, but it has devolved into mean-spirited demonizing of my viewpoint and opinions. Your own comments have been deceptive and contradictory. First you called it a lie that Republicans claimed that raising the debt ceiling would mean running up more debt because the rise in the ceiling would be accompanied by cuts. But when I pointed out that the cuts were spread out over 10 years, and that we would hit the debt ceiling again no later than the end of 2012, you completely contradicted yourself and said that was good, as you wouldn't want the cuts to take place for at least 5 years. So which is it? You cut loose with your visible hatred for the Tea Party, yet when I point out all the things your side has done that are shady, you dismiss it as harmless political posturing. At least the Republicans are writing plans and voting on them. You claim they won't compromise, but Democrats declare they won't support any Republican bills before they have even passed the House. So who is being intransigent? When was the last time Democrats put up any bill for a vote on the debt ceiling or the budget? If the August 2nd deadline is so critical, then why is it only the GOP we see actually scrambling to get a bill passed? What exactly are Democrats doing today as we are only 4 days away from that deadline?
> 
> And yet with these critical questions to discuss, I'm sorry, but your side in this debate on this thread has decided that it is important to ridicule the moral positions of Republicans and conservatives. What the hell does the issue of gay marriage have to do with the debt ceiling? Or then you have Science re-hashing his "Republicans are basically racist Southerners" argument. And then I am told that my "wet dream" is an authoritarian theocracy.
> ...


I think you're right about a lot of what you say above. I haven't endorsed any of the attempts to make of this anything else than what I think it is, but I *do* stand behind what I said about the mislead masses. It is clearly something that does happen, and it is something that Republicans do use to manipulate their voters (e.g., the Death Panels).

No, I wasn't contradictory. I said, spending cuts have been proposed but in my opinion (and that of most non-partisan economists) they shouldn't kick in now. I said, as long as spending cuts offset increased borrowing limits (now or later), raising the ceiling doesn't mean increased spending. We just disagree on the timeline. I don't see where I was being deceptive.

No, I did blame Obama for his posturing, said it was wrong. But then I said some posturing will always occur and most of the time it is relative harmless (like Obama opposing the debt ceiling increase in 2006 knowing very well that it would pass) because a compromise up to this point would always ensue. It's a different matter when you're actually active working for it to NOT pass and to exclude a compromise so that the economy crashes and you score political points (even John McCain is saying that this is what the Tea Party is doing, not just me).

About voting for a plan - the Democrats have proposed numerous agreements, plans, and compromises during these negotiations. The Republicans shoot them all down (your Speaker has walked out of talks twice), and go for symbolic, posturing, grand-standing floor votes that they know very well won't pass (because they shot down the compromise and they don't have the votes in the Senate). What the Democrats are doing is that they aren't aiding and abetting the Republicans with these useless, posturing-laden floor votes. Either the parties reach a compromise and swiftly pass a plan with both parties voting massively for it, or these votes are a waste of everybody's time.

Dr. Mike, you're always quitting these debates. In my humble opinion, it's not an efficient way to have your voice heard.

People here have been expressing their views, right or wrong, but I haven't seen any personal attack so far (you know that when there is one, I act on it, and you know that I often do it to curb attacks on *you* in spite of our profound ideological differences, which don't stop me from respecting you or from doing my job of enforcing the Terms of Service).

Politics do bring about strong views and strong-worded statements.

It's not that I like the direction these threads often take (I should rather say always take), but we know from experience that it's not possible to expect that these threads won't be started (if you noticed, I have stopped starting them myself - but I do still participate because I like politics although I'm no expert). Either we prohibit them completely (which is a position I have defended at times although not always - I've been ambivalent about it) or we put up with them (and close them when they get out of hand). A decision has been made - so far - to continue to allow these threads to exist. So, you know, I go with the flow.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

We seem to have reached another slippery slope and it may be prudent to close the thread temporarily until things cool off - at which point I may reopen it for a while to see if things have improved and if there is still interest. The latter not being the case, then the thread will be permanently closed.*

Oh well, it's the common fate of ALL these political threads, isn't it?

*The thread was reopened for 24 hours, no posts, no more interest which is just fine and probably for the best, so, now it's been permanently closed.


----------

