srellim234 wrote:and this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/china- ... ric,20913/

I love ONN.

Z

IBCoupe wrote:Both. Some Republicans are taking an ideological stand. Some are playing politics. I think I respect the politics more, because at the end of the day, I can still believe that they won't drive the nation to ruin.

I can't say the same for ideologues.

I guess I dont follow. You respect the guy playing chicken with the system instead of the guy that cares about this country and (at least in his own mind) wants to do the right thing for the country? Irrespective of Party Politics, I disrespect the guy that plays politics because at the end of the day, HE is the guy that is willing to ruin our country to prove a point. A point of it is more important to ‘win’ at any cost. I respect my Liberal Aunt a hell of a lot more because she sticks to her principles rather than my Left of Center Populist Cousin who spouts out the tired old White Rich Corporate Fat Cats not paying their share rhetoric and has ever changing Party principles.

Or do you respect the guy playing politics because at the end of the day, you think he will return back to the status quo… which is really the goal of both parties?

If you stick, unwavering, to your principles, then you must be willing to accept that you will not get what 100% of what you want.

Aside from that, do you really believe that the tea baggers' unflinching stance on not raising the debt ceiling has anything to do with their ideology? It's all politics. It's all about power.

I dont think that you necessarily have to stick 100% to your principles when negotiating in matters like this, to get what you want. There is always room for compromise. But with the ‘Party Politics’ mentality, one that I associate with ‘Playing Politics’ there is no room. It is a win at any cost mentality.
Also I don’t think that the TEA Party people (I resent your pejorative label) are necessarily against raising the National Debt Ceiling. They are against raising the ceiling, continuing the status quo and giving Congress free reign to keep on spending the money that we don’t have.

Encryptshun wrote:It's all about power.

Bingo!

Cold_Zero wrote:I dont think that you necessarily have to stick 100% to your principles when negotiating in matters like this, to get what you want. There is always room for compromise. But with the ‘Party Politics’ mentality, one that I associate with ‘Playing Politics’ there is no room. It is a win at any cost mentality.

2008 and 2009 proved to freshman Republicans (many of whom are part of the TP caucus) that obstructionist politics can be very effective. Thus engendering this new wave of ultra-conservatives to believe that all it takes to win is to remain resolute and unyielding. They are not experienced enough to understand that just because they won an election they aren't endowed with some inviolate authority to make whatever damned decision they want to make without listening to their constituency.

Cold_Zero wrote:Also I don’t think that the TEA Party people (I resent your pejorative label) are necessarily against raising the National Debt Ceiling. They are against raising the ceiling, continuing the status quo and giving Congress free reign to keep on spending the money that we don’t have.

They are overwhelmingly against raising the debt ceiling AT ALL and have stated so on many occasions, especially Ron Paul and Michele Bachman. And I apologize if you were offended by my pejorative label; I guess all the times I've heard Democrats referred to as "Liberal hand-wringers", "Libbies", or "Lefties" made me believe that it was okay to use pet names for political groups

Let me use a question that I ask to people wanting to secure Entitlement Spending and use the question for something you said. If anyone stands resolute/unyielding, doesn’t increase the Debt Ceiling and lets the United States go into default where we cannot pay our bills (float more debt,) then what good is the perceived political power when the institution or heaven forbid the government/country doesn’t exist? At a bare minimum you would be booted out of office for being a party to this catastrophe. That is why I think they have to yield. You are going to let the country go down the crapper on your watch? I can’t believe you or anyone is going to let that happen.

That's what I'm scared of. That these people are so myopic that they won't flinch until it's too late.

To quote Alpa Chino "What do *you* mean, 'you people?"

You do mean these people being both Democrat and Republican. I dont see the Dems working on some magic fix to the debt crisis other than raise the roof and keep spending (status quo).

I wonder what this will do in the next few days?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Z

szh wrote:I wonder what this will do in the next few days?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Z

The debt ceiling will be raised just as it was 18 times under Regan and seven times under Bush.

The young inexperienced children recently elected in the house still have a lot to learn about compromise.

Anyone who gets elected to represent the American people and then signs a pledge to refuse to vote for tax increases or anything else does not deserve to be in congress or any other elected position in my opinion.

Does anyone really want to see this huge waste of time reoccur in 6 months?

The republican party is one huge failure for the American people and has been since Eisenhower was president.

Telcoman

Cold_Zero wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Both. Some Republicans are taking an ideological stand. Some are playing politics. I think I respect the politics more, because at the end of the day, I can still believe that they won't drive the nation to ruin.

I can't say the same for ideologues.

I guess I dont follow. You respect the guy playing chicken with the system instead of the guy that cares about this country and (at least in his own mind) wants to do the right thing for the country? Irrespective of Party Politics, I disrespect the guy that plays politics because at the end of the day, HE is the guy that is willing to ruin our country to prove a point. A point of it is more important to ‘win’ at any cost. I respect my Liberal Aunt a hell of a lot more because she sticks to her principles rather than my Left of Center Populist Cousin who spouts out the tired old White Rich Corporate Fat Cats not paying their share rhetoric and has ever changing Party principles.

Or do you respect the guy playing politics because at the end of the day, you think he will return back to the status quo… which is really the goal of both parties?

Okay: we have what appears to be a "fundamental disagreement." There are some trying to play it up for political gain, and there are those who really are so committed to their position that they refuse to compromise.

At the end of the day, we're going to have to raise the debt ceiling, regardless of what you think about the budgetary status quo. At the end of the day, there is no doubt in my mind that those disagreeing for political reasons will do what is necessary. I can't say the same about ideologues.

Your aunt is probably a wonderful, smart, kind and liberal lady, but I don't want her running government. There is little room in governing for hardliners, and unfortunately, there's too much hardlining in the Republican Party. If there is anything you're willing to destroy the nation for, I'm opposed to your candidacy for office. This is why the TEA Party is bad. They take an adolescent tempter tantrum and whip it up into a dervish frenzy.

At the end of the day, the government, whatever else it does, must function.

Cold_Zero wrote:To quote Alpa Chino "What do *you* mean, 'you people?"

You do mean these people being both Democrat and Republican. I dont see the Dems working on some magic fix to the debt crisis other than raise the roof and keep spending (status quo).

My concern is directed at those who will vote for NO plan which involves raising the debt ceiling (such as Michele Bachman and Ron Paul), because regardless of any partisan or bi-partisan plan's ability to balance revenues and spending to draw down the debt we can't get around the fact that it will need to be raised. The best case scenario is that we raise the debt ceiling and the debt begins a gradual downward trend and ends with a year-over-year balanced budget as the status quo. But I'll gladly LIVE with a state where we raise the debt ceiling and then just never actually get back up to it again.

And to tack on to what Isaac said, we have lost a fundamental principle of our country -- government of the people, for the people, by the people. If you get elected to office because you have 51% of the vote, you are doing a disservice to half your constituency if you only support the ideology of those who elected you. Pleasing all the people all the time is impossible, sure, but I pay the taxes that pay my legislators' salaries whether I voted for them or not. So they should not simply pander to one side or the other once they are in office.

Encryptshun wrote:The best case scenario is that we raise the debt ceiling and the debt begins a gradual downward trend and ends with a year-over-year balanced budget as the status quo.

Agreed!

Encryptshun wrote:But I'll gladly LIVE with a state where we raise the debt ceiling and then just never actually get back up to it again.

Unfortunately, this is where I fear things go awry. Some politicians in our system spend because they can. Until real limits and real curbs are put on them (like with personal credit limits), we will continue to hit the debt ceiling - without justified cause.

The only good thing that might come out of this current crisis (after the debt ceiling is raised - I agree it needs to be done right now) is a greatly heightened awareness of the issue. And, perhaps, a general consensus that we should not do this to ourselves again!

I have, in the past, (in posts here in this forum too) always said that among the worst things I see facing young kids growing up in this country is the crushing debt burden that our generation is leaving them - society will be poorer in the future as a result. But, it seemed like I was a loner whistling in the wind ... till now!

Z

I look at the accrual of debt a bit differently than what seems to be the popular way. Right now we have an economic headwind which results in decreased tax revenue with increased spending burdens. I don't favor the "hack and slash" budget approach that seems to be the political solution -- I'd rather implement a fiscally-responsible project management discipline for all agencies and funded projects. I think we can do the same amount of good and fund the same number of projects to attain even better results at decreased cost.

What gets tiresome for me is the view some have that spending on certain projects is wasteful, when they themselves sponsor or champion projects that, to others, are just as wasteful. But if your $2 Billion project that get into 300% cost overruns and is half a decade behind schedule could actually have been done for $1.5 Billion and finish early, then THAT in my view, is where the opportunity to see some significant and meaninful change to happen. Then no one has to "win" or "lose" -- we just stop the gravy train from spilling so much of the gravy. The government procurement office is outmoded and mired in beaurocratic protectionism, and most government-funded projects get farmed out to companies who have a record of poor management and being able to come back to the well as often as they want so long as they have the right connections.

Encryptshun wrote:And to tack on to what Isaac said, we have lost a fundamental principle of our country -- government of the people, for the people, by the people. If you get elected to office because you have 51% of the vote, you are doing a disservice to half your constituency if you only support the ideology of those who elected you. Pleasing all the people all the time is impossible, sure, but I pay the taxes that pay my legislators' salaries whether I voted for them or not. So they should not simply pander to one side or the other once they are in office.

Your point (as I interpret it in my words) is that compromise in certain situations is a basic requirement of politicians - no matter which party.

And, yes, I can agree with you when the outcome of a vote is not a seriously bad result for one side or the other on any given issue.

The difficulty arises when the outcome of a vote can/could affect one side adversely. Then, somebody gets hurt.

And, there is also where things get tough to get to an outcome. We could negotiate compromise solutions that (a) nobody likes but everybody could live with and (b) don't affect anybody enough to be a Really Bad Thing.

But, this also means that we might not make the tough decisions ... when that might be exactly what is needed for the long term good of all!

To me, the long-term total debt of the country belongs in that category.

Although I totally agree that an an increase in the limit is needed right now, as long as there is a clear plan - over some realistic period of time - to (a) not grow it too much and (b) begin to reduce it soon and (c) eliminate it in a few generations (or, more practically, bring it down to the point where it does not impact life and society in our country).

I am, and have always been, a personal fiscal conservative and would love for my country to be the same. I don't know the specifics of how we got into mess in the first place of our government spending more than it takes in in any given year, but this is simply not a good thing to continue to do for generations.

Z

I'm a fiscal conservative in that I want us to pay for the services we buy. But I'm also looking at a more long-term payment plan that is fostered by counter-cyclical policies that support more stable economies.

Right now, ideally, we would cut taxes and we go crazy with stimulus. That's what you do in a recession. That's what we have always done. Then, as the economy improves, we cut spending as it is less needed and we increase taxes as they are better supported by the strength of the economy.

This leads me to say that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a monumentally bad idea. Because of the scale of the federal government, because the States ultimately look to the federal government as a final backstop, because of the impacts at home and abroad and because all of that requires a great deal of flexibility, we should be balancing our budget not year-to-year, but decade to decade. And that's where Bush went wrong. And that's where the TEA party, good intentioned as they may be, are going wronger.

Fiscal responsibility means being able to look beynod your nose when planning your budget.

telcoman wrote:

szh wrote:I wonder what this will do in the next few days?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Z

The debt ceiling will be raised just as it was 18 times under Regan and seven times under Bush.

Looking at things with a one-sided view to foment one-sided rage is not a good thing to do.

Let's look at the debt ceiling history: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -limit.php

As the info at the link says pretty clearly (my bolding to point out that both sides are equally "guilty" in this arena: "The Democrats like to point out that the ceiling was raised 18 times during the Reagan administration. That’s right, an average of about once every six months. In other words, those increases were small and highly temporary, as you can see from the chart. It is also noteworthy that the total increase in the debt ceiling during the Reagan years was almost exactly equal to the increase in the debt ceiling during the Clinton administration. Neither, however, is in the same universe with the spiraling debt the Democrats have racked up since they took control of Congress in 2007."

Another interesting read: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ok/238061/

In the Democrat-controlled years in Congress (from 2007 to 2010), the gross debt went from 62% of our GDP to 92% because of massive increases in spending and economic downturns. This is a long-term issue that is simply not good for us. Some words are interesting: "But the history does help show the need for longer-term fiscal reform. The U.S. isn't fighting a world war, but the nation's government is borrowing like it is. U.S. debt shouldn't be anywhere near 100% of GDP. Congress needs to either cut its spending, raise taxes, or both to cure its addiction to debt."

By the way, if the debt ceiliing can be raised 18 times in the Reagan years, why is President Obama so opposed to raising more than a few times in his term in office? Is it because the people finally realize how badly spending beyond our means is going to be a truly bad thing for our country? And might vote out any politician who does not follow rational financial policies?

Z

IBCoupe wrote:This leads me to say that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a monumentally bad idea.

Agreed - for right now. I hope that I was clear that I believe some rational period of time needed to elapse before we can get there. To your point about balancing over decades rather than year-to-year, I understand what you are saying, but am not entirely sure that I can agree with it.

The government needs, over time, to generate positive revenue ... to have a hope of being able to reduce the total debt. That means a more short term balanced view than decades long views.

IBCoupe wrote:Fiscal responsibility means being able to look beynod your nose when planning your budget.

Yup.

Z

The problem with implementing that theory, Isaac, is that government spending is like the price of oil -- it goes up but doesn't come down.

If you could solve that problem you'd solve all of them.

That sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy, but are you operating from a stand point that the US Federal government is an institution that is "too big to fail" in the global market?

I'm all for the Balanced Budget Amendment. The scale of the US Government should not dictate fiscal policy. Finite fiscal reality should dictate the scale of the US Government. Government is merely an extension of individuality. We handle things in our personal lives to a point that we start to intersect with someone else's personal life, and another level is required to sort it out, and so on up the chain. But its all an extension of the base. We as individuals have to live within our means, and that requires each of our governmental entities to do the same. If our Government is not living within its means, it means only that some segment of individuals are not living within their means. We cant reward individual irresponsibility by extending our government beyond its means. Every dollar that goes out, or is projected to go out MUST be met with projected revenue, or those outbound dollars have to be held up. The choice should not be whether to overextend our government, but rather, what expenditures to we discontinue until the revenue returns.

IBCoupe wrote:I'm a fiscal conservative in that I want us to pay for the services we buy. But I'm also looking at a more long-term payment plan that is fostered by counter-cyclical policies that support more stable economies.

Right now, ideally, we would cut taxes and we go crazy with stimulus. That's what you do in a recession. That's what we have always done. Then, as the economy improves, we cut spending as it is less needed and we increase taxes as they are better supported by the strength of the economy.

This leads me to say that a Balanced Budget Amendment is a monumentally bad idea. Because of the scale of the federal government, because the States ultimately look to the federal government as a final backstop, because of the impacts at home and abroad and because all of that requires a great deal of flexibility, we should be balancing our budget not year-to-year, but decade to decade. And that's where Bush went wrong. And that's where the TEA party, good intentioned as they may be, are going wronger.

Fiscal responsibility means being able to look beynod your nose when planning your budget.

In theory, great. In actual practice, not so much.

That requires a more stable government than we have now. Sure, the actual institution is stable, but the actual governing is not. Every couple of years the electorate in this country fashions the next few years of governing with a knee-jerk emotional reaction to one or two issues of the last two years. Your idea requires a long term quiet focus on future goals that our "sound bite" life and society in this country simply will not tolerate.

We did get this way by doing exactly as you suggest. The flexibility allowed Congress and administrations to propose balance by instituting programs now and forcing future congresses and administrations to pay for it in their budgets. Make others responsible for putting out the hard cash.

I'm fine with the occasional deficit spending you propose, but a balanced budget amendment that addresses declared wars, worldwide recession and high unemployment as reasons for allowing deficit spending are in order in my opinion. Too much freedom to spend now while kicking the credit card bill down the road for someone else to pay has to stop.

Actually, the US *is* too big to fail. For example, China owns about $3 Trillion of us. They bought that in good old USD. If our credit gets downgraded, the value of the dollar will fall. The more the dollar falls, the less China's $3 Trillion is worth and ditto the worth of the interest payments we make to them (which are also in USD). There is no way for a country to foreclose on another country -- the T-Bill is solely backed by the full faith and trust of the U.S. Goverment. Which means it's only as good as our word to pay it back. They can't trade it for land or resources or military secrets. It's worth bupkis.

It is in their best interest to keep our economy stable and our debt rating high. Why do you think that Germany scrambled to bail out Greece twice? It's not because there's anything in Greece they want (although I'm sure they like gyros, man, those are sweet) -- it's because if Greece defaults then their ability to trade Greece's debt with other countries (and the interest payments they get on it now) would suffer.

I wouldnt say that makes the US too big to fail. It just means our continued survival is still beneficial to others. At the point that benefit diminishes, where does that leave us? Sure maybe we have a superior military, and could just "enforce" our survival and squelch on our international debts at some point. But is that the type of nation we want to be? And who would want to do business with us after that? Back to isolationism? Can we survive that way?

The U.S. is not too big to fail if the nimrods in Congress force it to. The failure will be internally inflicted. In the end it doesn't matter whether China, Germany, the U.K., Canada or Bangladesh wants to do something to help. The ideologues in Congress have to vote to accept that help or actually DO something to keep the U.S. from failing.

I'm starting to think that they also don't care. They put their investments in international companies and Kruggerands a long time ago. I honestly think that they all believe this will not impact them on a personal level that will be devastating. They all believe they are poised to capitalize on what's left in the aftermath.

It's the same as what's happened in the housing market and the stock market. The money and markets are not being driven by small investors. The money is coming from big money people investing in rental properties and speculating they will get a nice return if we return to prosperity. The middle class has been decimated to the point that they are worried about day-to-day living and don't have the income/savings to put huge chunks into the markets any more.

Encryptshun,
I thought 'Cut, Cap and Balance' included an increase in the Debt Ceiling which passed in the House but is DOA in the Senate thanks to Harry Reid. His measures if I undrstand is Raise the Ceiling, raise tax rates and Punt until 2013 (after elections). An increase or continuance of spending remains to be seen.

Cold_Zero wrote:Encryptshun,
I thought 'Cut, Cap and Balance' included an increase in the Debt Ceiling which passed in the House but is DOA in the Senate thanks to Harry Reid. His measures if I undrstand is Raise the Ceiling, raise tax rates and Punt until 2013 (after elections). An increase or continuance of spending remains to be seen.

Cut/Cap/Balance did indeed contain a heavily-conditioned provision to raise the debt ceiling, but was an unfeasible bill and would have made the situation worse. It was DOA in the Senate thanks to the fact that people actually READ the bill and saw it required any future tax increases to pass both houses with a 2/3 majority (unworkable) and cap future spending at 19.9% of GDP (also unworkable). It would have put a law into effect that would have brought fiscal management of the country to a virtual standstill untill it was repealed.

Besides, my point earlier was that some legistators have said they'd not vote on any bill if it raised the debt ceiling. I cited Bachmann and Paul specifically. Both voted no to CC&B.

Cold_Zero wrote:Encryptshun,
I thought 'Cut, Cap and Balance' included an increase in the Debt Ceiling which passed in the House but is DOA in the Senate thanks to Harry Reid. His measures if I undrstand is Raise the Ceiling, raise tax rates and Punt until 2013 (after elections). An increase or continuance of spending remains to be seen.

Reid's plan includes no tax increases, about $4 trillion in cuts over the next decade (the economy can't afford them now), and a debt ceiling that pushes us past the next election, because, face it: Republicans were keen to push us to the brink of oblivion a year and a half out. Think that in March of next year they're going to be happier to compromise?

stebo0728 wrote:That sounds all nice and warm and fuzzy, but are you operating from a stand point that the US Federal government is an institution that is "too big to fail" in the global market?

No, I'm operating from the standpoint that the impact of binding the hands of the United States Government is huge because the United States Government is huge, and necessarily so.

stebo0728 wrote:I'm all for the Balanced Budget Amendment. The scale of the US Government should not dictate fiscal policy.

Why not? The Feds backstop the States who almost all have balanced budget requirements. The Feds run a national defense. The Feds respond to national emergencies and natural disasters. The Feds are in the best position to smooth out economic ripples as they come, and we need to be able to temporarily spend more than we collect in order to do all of those things.

stebo0728 wrote:Finite fiscal reality should dictate the scale of the US Government.

What does "finite fiscal reality" mean?

stebo0728 wrote:Government is merely an extension of individuality. We handle things in our personal lives to a point that we start to intersect with someone else's personal life, and another level is required to sort it out, and so on up the chain. But its all an extension of the base. We as individuals have to live within our means, and that requires each of our governmental entities to do the same.

Well, then it's a good thing that no individual or corporation ever borrows in order to increase future earnings, right?

stebo0728 wrote:If our Government is not living within its means, it means only that some segment of individuals are not living within their means. We cant reward individual irresponsibility by extending our government beyond its means. Every dollar that goes out, or is projected to go out MUST be met with projected revenue, or those outbound dollars have to be held up. The choice should not be whether to overextend our government, but rather, what expenditures to we discontinue until the revenue returns.

You're operating from a zero-sum perspective.