But you do move $730B further towards balancing the budget and demonstrate to the public that you actually give a shit about the rampant taxpayer-funded waste in our government.

Just because it doesn't get you all the way to balancing the budget doesn't mean that it justifies the lame point being made by anyone who uses it as a rebuttal.

First, by keeping taxation where it is you're radically redefining the role of government. There's plenty, a majority in fact, that doesn't think that's the right thing for the country.

But let's say you find your favored 538. Those 538 will lose their next election and be replaced by people who vote closer to the will of the people. A current congress can't tie the hands of future congresses. Whatever the first 538 did will be overturned and the deficit will have barely been touched. You can't get a balanced budget without political buy-in.

One, I seriously doubt that level of waste and fraud, but even given that my point is that you still have a long way to go. Balancing the budget on cuts alone radically changes the role of government and there's no indication the populace will support that.

I dont think anybody suggested any of that. Again, all or nothing is not the only 2 options to a given problem.

The problem is the obfuscation of everything & accountability of nothing. Rather than have MY state legislature directly accountable for bad choices being made (and me having the ability to vote their asses out when unhappy with their performance), what we have today is (potentially) YOUR representatives making such decisions for me. Brings to mind "no taxation w/o representation" as I (and others) are being taxed by an entity that I (and others) cannot directly hold accountable. And no...voting out the voter of the voter is not a reasonable level of accountability.

So point being, there are some necessary federal government run programs & administration needed but continuing to expand their reach & authority will simply allow them to screw up more and obfuscate the consequences/accountability by pulling in more "revenue". I believe "checks & balances" has become so cliche that people ignore it now...but it is probably the most important component to our government functioning properly, imho. Government with no accountability is simply a dictatorship being masked.

I alluded to this in my previous response...but YOU can vote them out directly if they are that bad. You can also move if the community is that bad. I suppose you can leave the country and maybe the world eventually but I'd rather localize as much as practical/possible so that communities & states have the right balance of authority/accountability to their voters. And with less fed revenues, there cannot be massive bailouts of states without multiple states all agreeing to do so (and consequently being accountable to their voting base).

That is a load of crock. $2.2 trillion in revenue = Bush-era government size.

So where does the 1.5 trillion in cuts come from?

Sorry, I should have cut the last sentence from your post. I'm on record as agreeing we can raise revenue as long as we also make MAJOR spending cuts. I was arguing that we're back to FDR level government, but then again the government was pretty big back then. What exactly do we "lose" if we go back to FDR level government? The education department (no big loss)? What exactly do you mean by "pre-FDR size"? That's the part I think is a bunch of crock.

As long as we've built a culture where a huge chunk of the population is dependent on the government for their survival, we aren't going to get out of this without lots of people being pissed off. So apparently we're just going to drive the bus right off the cliff. "Efficiency in medicine" won't cut it, the problem is too many people have their hands out for freebies and will wail and scream and vote folks out of office if their handout gets cut at all.

Just because it goes along with something I alluded to a couple of pages ago...

My Way News - AP-GfK Poll: People divided on looming debt crisis

They're divided on whether to raise the limit, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that found 41 percent opposed to the idea and 38 percent in favor. People aren't exactly blase. A narrow majority in the poll expects an economic crisis to ensue if the U.S., maxed out on its borrowing capacity, starts missing interest payments to creditors. But even among that group, 37 percent say no dice to raising the limit. ... Republican leaders are insisting on huge spending cuts as a condition for raising the debt limit. This position finds solid support from Republicans in the poll and backing from a plurality of independents.

President Barack Obama is pushing for increased tax revenue to be part of the deal, and that insistence led House Republican leader Eric Cantor of Virginia to walk out of the negotiations this past week.

About half of Democrats in the poll said the debt limit should be raised regardless of whether it's paired with a deal to cut spending.

The survey found no significant differences by education, age, income, or even by party, in perceptions of whether a crisis is likely if the limit is not increased. There was widespread dissatisfaction with how Obama is dealing with the deficit - a new high of 63 percent disapproval on that subject - and an even harsher judgment of how both parties in Congress are doing on the issue.

37% have no idea of what the crisis would entail, that's for sure.

LOL.

It's simply not possible that 37% have decided enough is enough.

Just an FYI, that 17 billion was not taxpayer money. :)

Yep. i have a father with cancer who in the last 7 months has easily used more money than he ever contributed. and when the baby boomers start getting serious but treatable illnesses it will be a monster. and there is nothing much to do, it's not like the government can ever take away medicare from the boomers. guess the gen y kids are screwed.

Or maybe 37% know that a crisis is coming one way or another and just want to get it over with now instead of passing it along to their kids or when they are older and much less likely to be able to adjust to it.

I honestly don't understand the mindset of forcing a crisis now to avert a possible crisis later. It's like cutting off your leg to make sure you won't get gangrene sometime later in life.

I don't get making deals to protect all the boomers who looted the country.

37% don't share your politics that’s for certain. Besides that I don't know how you don't see how you are doing the exact same thing those 37% are doing. Maybe you are right and maybe you aren't. The certainty that you have that you are right is as laughable as the people you make fun of for being certain the other way. Why exactly is this crisis certain and if that is the case than why is putting it off going to do anything but make it worse? I certainly realize that answering those questions is a lot tougher than making fun of someone with the exact opposite view.

Who knows I also may be wrong. Shit I don't know what will happen for certain but I know that continuing to raise the debt ceiling while making no cuts and/or increases in taxes is what will happen if the D's and R's have their way. Why? Because it has happened on basically every issue the past ten years. (That’s being generous but I don’t feel like getting into some nonsense about Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter or something. I am talking modern politics)

Fear. (either terror or environmental or economic)
Polarization.
More fear.
Compromise that helps nobody but corporate interests and the very rich.
Business as usual.
Repeat cycle.


Why do I know this is what will probably happen?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00054

2006 Roll Call Vote

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

If that were the case, the older people would be happy to reduce SS and Medicare benefits. Nobody is looking out for future generations no matter what they tell you.

It was about the troops and world wide war then. But the same idea. If we didn't let them keep spending we were headed to catastrophe. Good thing we let them keep spending! LOL.

Fair enough. I did take an easy crack there when it's true...I have no idea either. One thing's for certani though - the markets and the economists I've heard/read think that it would be a disaster.

And I'm pleased to see you acknowledge the need for spending cuts as well as revenue increases.

It's a definite crisis later until Washington shows some aptitude for fiscal responsibility. This IS the later crisis being talked about in the late '80s / early 90s, and no one has done anything about it. We have one side offering some piddling cuts to make it seem like they want compromise without actually proposing the kind of meaningful reign in of spending this is going to take, and the other side refusing to talk any sort of revenue increase whatsoever.

What I want to see is Repubs call the Dems bluff: agree to eliminate the Bush tax cuts and reduce defense spending, if the Dems agree to make meaningful cuts in "non-discretionary" spending that will keep them from continuing to spiral out of control. Heck, I'll even take it the other way around: Dems agree to meaningful cuts in non-discretionary spending if the Repubs will give on their side.

But if neither one happens, then we're heading for a crisis one way or another that they haven't fixed in the last 20 years, so why should I believe it's going to get fixed if only I agree to a tax hike? No tax hike = I have more money to prep for the oncoming storm.

There is that...

No doubt. If panerd were in charge I would cut the military and spy agencies down before anything else but I guess all of the empires and all of the totalitarian states that followed throughout the history of the world aren't enough evidence that things are out of control. I wouldn't be against other cuts and/or taxes but that is the starting point that people are scared about because of the fear instilled in us for the past 10 years. It is completely out of control.

But as has been pointed out those are the "easy" cuts because they are discretionary. Until we get to the root of the "non-discretionary" spending, we're screwed.

I don't recall a member of either party ever setting a hand on either of those though. Some Democrats and Republicans talk a big game on the campaign trail but the fact that Patriot Act continues to pass overwhelmingly shows that the military industrial complex aint going anywhere until this country is broke.

Agreed. I do think that this is one of the compromises Repubs need to make along with tax increases. I do agree with the Repubs that talking tax increases needs to come AFTER spending cuts, including Defense, since Congress has shown a willingness to increase taxes in the past, but never to cut spending (unless you call "lowering the increase from the year before" cutting spending like they usually do...)

Fixed that for you.

Most R's who did they would be dragged from their office & lynched ... and they should be.

I would argue that fixing government spending is going to require everybody in office to do something that will prevent them from getting re-elected, which either means a whole new crop of folks in there (I'll take that), or the same ones going back in since the other side pissed people off as well. MADD should keep both sides honest here.

However, you don't think it's worth a modest tax increase and some defense cuts to get entitlement programs scaled back to something much more reasonable for the folks who NEED it rather than the buy-the-votes program it's turned into?

I definitely don't think Defense should be cut to the bone; heck, that's the one program we are talking about here that is actually handed to the Federal government in the Constitution, but I do think there is enough waste there that it could do the same job minus a chunk of the funding it gets.

We can stop right there, because there's NOTHING that you're going to finish the sentence with that I would believe justifies a tax increase of a single penny. Not one percent mind you, not a penny on the dollar, I'm referring to a single honest to goodness one cent coin, billed to the taxpayer at the rate of 1/365th per day.

Could I come up with something? Maybe (it'd be a damned short list even for me) but even that would be subject to the caveat that every effort was made to fund XYZ with existing money repurposed from lower priorities & you'd be hard pressed to convince me that had happened.


I'd argue that there's minimal "waste" but there's a notable misappropriation of the existing spending (i.e. too much of things we don't need as badly versus too little of things we need more of).

You've been around long enough to know that Jon doesn't believe in any compromise at all. :lol:

In general I agree, I'm just trying to figure out how to fix this mess. You are against tax increases, against cutting defense, and have noted that anyone who tries to cut social security and medicare is committing political suicide, so what IS your fix?

My hope is a modest tax increase to get rid of the debt we have already accumulated order to get long overdue spending cuts, then later once the debt is gone we can roll down taxes to match what we really needs to be spent. La la land, I know, but the whole conversation is la la land. I don't think either side is going to do it, which is why I don't really disagree with those that think we should just not increase the debt limit and FORCE some drastic changes in spending.

I doubt it as well. I think $730B is LOW if we're tallying up wastefulness. I've dealt with rewarding contracts in the federal government. The waste and corruption on most contracts is astronomical. If the general population saw what I've seen, they'd disband the current government and turn to anarchy as a reactionary response.

That last bit may turn out to be the most negotiable. Did you see today's poll showing that roughly 2/3rds agree that the programs can't continue at their current level w/out increased funding. Tie that to another recent poll showed that 61% preferred a (generically) smaller gov't with lower taxes. The two things could dovetail and lead to cuts, although not between now & August.

Let's note here, just for the record, that I'm not particularly concerned over the eventual raising of the debt limit, at least not nearly so much as I am almost violently opposed to tying any tax increase to it. I'm exponentially more of a spending hawk (specifically what it's spent on) than I am a deficit hawk.

The problem is though Jon, that you'll point to those two polls saying that people agree the program can't continue and 61% prefer a generically smaller government with lower taxes (well gee who doesn't...that sound great to me too!). But when it comes time to putting their proverbial money where their mouth is (ironic in this example) people don't want any of the programs that actually ya know...benefit them cut. Poll after poll shows that.

The problem is that you're dealing with a (on a macro level) unintelligent and uninformed electorate.

My city has been in the news the past few years regarding budget cuts. A lot did get cut (but most people didn't notice, tbh) when sales tax revenues fell over 25%. No tax increases during that time either. Cuts were made by lay offs, furloughs, early retirements (70% of the budget is for personnel), as well as cut in streets, parks and safety.

Anyway, sales tax revenues have been steadying going up the past 8-10 months and the city has been spending the extra revenues frugally and with a purposeful set of priorities. It's like real life, having to prioritize and justify every dollar.

The federal departments, on the other hand, seem to still be in a "use it or lose it" mentality. In other words, they basically get they got last plus a marginal increase (or decrease). That is the wrong way to go about it (beyond committed funds). Each department should justify each expenditures from zero (there's enough staff to handle all of that), not based on what you spent and wasted last year. Cities do that, states do that, and you and I do that.

There are federal whistleblower laws that award percentages of fraud to the exposure. If you can show that much you should turn it in.

Obviously, my experience is a sample of the overall mess. But I hadn't heard that there are awards. What's the percentage? I'm always interested in money.

I'd also note that some of my experience regarding wastefulness doesn't amount to fraud, but some of the people that would not have been employed in the private sector and would have been fired years ago are still employed in the government sector. That's just as big of a waste as fraud, yet it happens all the time in government jobs.

That's been the conventional wisdom, I've argued it myself plenty of times. What I was suggesting is that, at least more than I can recall in my lifetime, that perhaps the third rail of politics isn't carrying quite as much juice as it used to. Still enough to be (politically) fatal in most cases I imagine, but perhaps not quite as deadly as it once was.

Addendum to the city budget quip above:

From the city's budget manager:

In previous years, “our revenue (from fines) wasn’t coming in close to what we had budgeted, so we lowered our budget number significantly. Now they’re tracking higher,” she said.

I know for Medicare fraud, it's 10%. The whistleblower in this case walked away with $2.64 million.

This press conference is an absolute snoozer. More of the same rhetoric that got us in this predicament.

He's calling for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts?

Seriously? I missed the press conference...did he really?? :eek:

Oh wait - my sarcasm meter was broken.

link

Yawn: Same bs. It's all politics. Thats all it is.

Spending cuts: Need to be done but probably won't. Ha ha ha, It's Washington DC! Ho hum what can we do?

Raise debt limit: No choice but to raise it. Terrorism, invoke 14th amendment. WMD. :confused:

Lol. Isn't this what happened the past 8 years with the exact opposite sides and exact opposite arguments? Raising the debt limit was because of terrorists and WMD. God damn some people sure don't think for themselves to continue to fall for this bullshit...


By the way they are going to raise the debt limit. Why? It's all a show, neither side gives a fuck about finanicial responsibility. Just the illusion of responsibility. Just like the Democrats didn't give a shit about our soldiers dying in Iraq during this vote where the D's and R's really thought on their own outside of party lines.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00054

2006 Roll Call Vote

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

So basically another liberal hack (who likes to pretend he's conservative simply because he occasionally gets something right in spite of himself) doesn't like the current GOP. Damn, I'm shocked.

You left out raising revenues. Until you accept that that will need to be done too you're not a part of the serious, adult conversation.

We all get the vote in 2006. Can you please stop posting it with every reply?

:lol:

I don't mind raising taxes along with serious cuts to the military, corporate welfare state, and handout welfare state. My family has to live within a budget, my city does, most businesses (outside of Washington DC most favored status) do, and most (I think all?) states do. Tired of giving them "just one more chance". It really is symbolic of an abusive relationship. Maybe if we raise the debt ceiling without taxes or spending cuts they will change? Because we know neither side is capable of doing it on their own. What a load of horse shit! Why are any of these guys on either side of the aisle going to get reelected if they end up doing nothing?

Apperently you don't. Obama is selling you the same load of shit that Bush sold in 2006 and he and Biden and Clinton all stood against. But somehow you think its different. Or I assume you do when you post the same articles with some variation of why we just need DC to continue business as usual. They will find religion after this debt ceiling vote.

No, I get that posturing on the debt limit is political. There is a difference, though, between posturing and actually refusing to raise the debt limit. I don't give a shit about the posturing, but I'm terrified when so many in the GOP say they're willing to force a default.

Hopefully it's all just politics, but if it isn't we're screwed.

@5 weeks now and less than that if you believe the ratings agencies that say they'll start downgrading U.S. treasuries in mid to late uly if no deal is reached.

Fixed that for you.

Listen I think I have established plenty of times that I hate them both so don't look at this is taking sides. With that said the Republicans are much better at playing the game than the Democrats. They will go right up until 11:59 and then a couple will come out of nowhere and vote the other way. (Probably solid ones that have no fear of not being reelcted) The Democrats in my 2006 example could have stood their ground longer and maybe forced the hand on some of these wars. It doesn't make the Republicans better, it fact it definitely makes them worse people IMO. However seeing this as anything but a political game is getting worked up over nothing.

I would love it if they actually did something about the out of control spending and out of control military but unfortunatly people will still keep voting for both parties as long as facebook and the mass media says thats how you perform your civic duty. And I also don't think the world would spin out of control if we actually showed some signs of caring about fiscal responsability and actually did more than just talk. But outside of a few guys (on both sides) out of 535 I don't think I have to worry much about that.

But in that case, the Democrats weren't holding the debt ceiling hostage. If they wanted to do that, then they would have filibustered. They clearly had the votes to do so. But this was before the "use the filibuster on every single vote that won't go your way" tactic.

But I know in your world that anyone who doesn't attack Democrats and Republicans equally is obviously a partisan hack.

Yes the 2006 vote (That JPhillips is tired of me posting) and the current debate are the epitome of partisan hackery. Both political parties have completely flip-flopped their stance on a single issue due to who is the president. The quotes from '06 are exactly the same substance as the quotes from '11. I don't single out FOFC members as partisan hacks but the entire process as nothing but political theatre at its finest. The debt ceiling debate is a good one to have and there are interesting arguments on both sides but ultimately the debt ceiling will pass. Why? Because it is a game, they have been playing it for years. Sorry if you haven't figured that out yet. (I think you probably have but if not I think you are subject to ridicule for falling for the same bullshit over and over and over. Jphillips and DT are pretty big dems but they realize the game. I hope you do as well)

Not to pull a MBBF here but I would be willing to setup a paypal bet with anyone on whether this passes or not. (Me being on the side of it passing) I don't agree with it but I also wasn't born yesterday.

But this time 11:59 will be too late. We don't have to stop paying the bills to reach a point where the markets get jittery and ratings on treasuries start falling. Nobody knows when, exactly, that will happen. We're already a month and a half past the date when the Fed had to start taking extraordinary actions to keep us from default.

If the Democrats had any balls they would demand a one-for-one deal. A dollar in spending cuts for every dollar of new revenue. With both dollars going towards deficit reduction.

Well, CNN is already floating the "maybe the President can tell Treasury to pay bills because the debt ceiling is unconstitutional" trial balloon, which is going to give the Repubs an out on this ("if it was really that catastrophic, he could have done it himself!").

I realize the game. I'm way to the left of any elected official. I attack Republicans way more than Democrats because I think they're worse, not because I'm caught up in some partisan game. The Democrats roll over like cowards all the time (aside from a few that I truly admire like Howard Dean and Russ Feingold).

Anyways, I've explained before why I think the 2006 vote is different than the current situation (and so has JPhillips). You're free to disagree with us, but posting that vote over and over again is a pointless exercise. We know that vote exists. We don't care.

I actually saw something on this yesterday I think it was - referencing the cluase in the 14th Amendment that says "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned" and trying to use that to say that the "debt ceiling" in and of itself was unconstitutional, because there's therefore no way for the government to default under the constitution.

Would be interesting from a constitutional law standpoint, and is an interesting hypothetical discussion, but honestly I'd rather it didn't get to that point.

JPhillips is right again - the problem with this is that the ratings agencies can downgrade whenever they want...there's nothing stopping them practically-speaking from doing it right now. Playing chicken and waiting till 11:59 could very well be too late...the damage could have already started by then if people (even aside from the ratings agencies) start getting jittery, or they start thinking this sets a precedent and flee from the dollar as the reserve currency of choice.

But the President could decide tomorrow to ignore the debt ceiling if that was that big a deal.

He may have already decided that's the avenue he wants to pursue...but frankly I doubt it. Because if he were to do so you'd likely have immediate legal challenges from the Republicans and then all sorts of injunctions and legal wrangling and the end result would probably be a ratings downgrade anyways.

Personally I think if that's the way they were going to go they would have started to move on it months ago. It's almost too late for that now IMO...but it's an interesting idea.

I don't understand that mentality. There is really no way around adding to the national debt over the next year. Even if you cut whatever the projected deficit is it would almost certainly lower tax receipts in the short term. And even if you found a way to be balanced by the end of the year the budget wouldn't be balanced on a day to day basis. The national debt will go up even with a default.

Sure there is. Heck, you could disband the government tomorrow and they'd stop spending a dime right now. That's obviously extreme, but you could make drastic cuts that would balance the budget.

However, the Repubs aren't asking for a balanced budget right now, they are willing to raise the debt ceiling. They just want promises of drastic cuts with no increase in taxes to agree to it.

But I believe panerd was saying he doesn't agree with raising the limit at all.

Well, the point still stands: yes they could in fact cut the budget enough to not have to raise the debt limit. It's probably more than the politicians could stomach, but then if they had fixed this a decade or two ago we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of this right now.

14 TRILLION dollars. 6+ years of revenue (current revenue) in money we owe. Spending has to be cut bigtime. B I G T I M E.

Not in any politically viable way. The deficit has to be cut with public buy-in or it won't last past the next Congress.

Yeah, the debt ceiling will be raised, but Repubs will (halfheartedly) show their "base" that they are serious about not raising taxes.

But the real problem as I see it is still a deeper problem of having wasted too much political capital & too much public willingness to implement a massive government-mandated initiative.

I know I am a broken record on energy independence, but it really is the only thing that can probably bail us out. Its a bit like deciding to mow your own lawn instead of continuing to use a credit card to pay the lawn guy. You may have to buy a lawn mower & gas in the short term...but you will reduce your outgoing funds over time.

But what's better is...energy independence not only reduces our debt and allows us to cut military costs of occupying half the Middle East...but the multiplicative effect of using US-created energy sources would strengthen the dollar and allow us to more easily fund social programs in the future. Instead...we went straight for the social programs without figuring out how "best" to secure the country's economic engines.

Sigh...I'll shut up now.

Game of chicken is coming to an end one way or another. I'm surprised at how well the stock market is doing right now, I'm nervous.

Common consensus is that even if a deal was struck now, the official verbiage etc. won't be done by early Aug which is when we technically default. Hope we have plan B to address this.

Obama: Working through weekend on 'painful' deal - politics - White House - msnbc.com

This happens on so many issues that it's just sad. I used to follow and get into politics much more but realized it's just a game. No one cares about the issues, what's best for people, just trying to get their team to win. This isn't about the issues anymore, it's just choosing the opposite of the other side and arguing. High school debate team running our country.

Yeah. People like Harry Reid (D-MGM & Harrahs) goes on a rant about people who make way too much money. (actually had the gull to specifically target people who make over one million dollars) This guy is worth millions of dollars even though his whole life has been spent in public service making around $100,000-$150,000. I know plenty of people who make that who aren't worth millions of dollars.

Then you have Jim DeMint actually writing a book about how he has re-found himself. This guy is one of my bolds in the 2006 roll call vote that JPhillips is getting tired of. He is so against this debt ceiling because of out of control spending (I think he is sometimes called the "most conservative" Republican.) But somehow this "fiscal conservative" guy didn't understand any of this 5 years ago when he greenlighted Bush's out of control military mess? OK...

There are stories like this about every one of them. Some are better than others. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich being two that come to mind. I think Ron Paul is better than most of what we have but he continually votes for his district to get federal money to guarentee re-election. He aint really representing Libertarian values either.

But in the end somehow people from both sides think these guys really care about their parties "values" and aren't just playing a big reelection game. I don't understand this game, probably never will, but don't see why this debt limit issue has become such a big deal. It is obviously going to pass. Just rewind to 2006. (Obama/Biden/Clinton and McCain/Demint/Santorum are on the EXACT opposite sides. How is this not just a political game?)

Hasn't Harry Reid gone on record basically saying that he's fine with paying more in taxes if tax rates get raised though? Or am I confusing him with someone else on that?

Thought I kinda recalled that...I dunno.

I agree with you, RainMaker. I have seen this since Carter's Administration. One of the greatest needs in fueling this game is not only partisan politics but the innate desire to get re-elected (thus, needing the muscle of the party in order to do so). Except for a few cushy CEOs, there is not a job that has greater perks than being a congressperson. That's the motivation to play the game.

The funniest part of all? There is actually someone on trial for lying to them. Forget what you feel about Roger Clemens. They decided to grandstand on steriods to please the voters and then when someone lies (like both sides of Congress do every fucking day) he gets put on trial? Sure about our system being one of the best? It may quite simply (outside of third world countries) be the most corrupt. I am not even sure the propaganda we are fed about China and the old USSR are quite as bad as what some of these guys have been getting away with lately.

Isn't that fucking sweet of him. All that means is that he'll have to find some more deductions, which is easy knowing how much being a Senator can be written off. They don't play by the same rules as you and I.

I am just saying that he has a populist message of "Eat the Rich" which is fine if you stick to your pinciples. But somehow this guy has been a public servant his whole life (for a state known for Casinos) and is somehow worth $4-6 million? Really? He is going to talk about rich people driving speedboats with a shady background like that? He is full of shit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they aren't under oath in the general performance of their duties. Right?

True.

Any GOP'er who caves on this & allows a tax increase definitely isn't playing to get re-elected.

If Broun votes for anything that includes one in any form then he's dead to me from that point forward. And he's probably got a lot more good will built up with me than most have with their constituents, I've certainly never been more accurately represented in D.C. in my life as I've been with him over the past few years.

:lol:

{was legitimately asking to make sure I wasn't crazy or something}

So you will vote Democrat, third party, or won't vote right? You won't cave and vote Republican because "he is the less of two evils" because then you are just encouraging the game.

Yeah but look no farthur than Charley Rangel. My guess is they told him to leave and he told them to fuck themselves he would expose the whole game if they tried to kick him out of Congress. They don't give two shits about policing themselves.

I'd vote (and likely campaign) against him if there was (acceptable) primary opposition, it's extremely unlikely that I'd ever cast another vote for him in any election, primary or general. I've sat out races on several occasions for the lack of an acceptable candidate, he wouldn't be first, he'd only be next.

Show me a D that at least promises to hit the hot buttons right & I'll give them due consideration (except that's somewhere right beneath a combination dragon/unicorn in likelihood to find).

edit to add: Almost certainly lost to the ravages of time is any FOFC memory of the pro bono media work I did for the campaign of a black female D who ran against then-Rep. Charlie Norwood not all that many moons ago. When I'm on genuinely on the outs with a candidate, I'm really not bashful about it.

What I am saying is suppose he votes to increase the debt ceiling. Then he has an opponent for the Republican nomination. I completely understand you would be against him. However he still wins the nomination and ends up against a Democrat that actually has a good shot at winning. You are still not going to vote for him on principle? If so congratulations, you aren't like most! Otherwise the game continues.

I won't lie & say that there's much chance of him seeing either serious primary opposition nor general election opposition any time soon, so the question may be largely moot.

But what theoretical principle would I be voting for if I cast a ballot for someone who crossed a significantly uncrossable line? If he's going to behave like a Republicrat then I'll treat him like one, he can go hang at that point.

Probably no surprise that I'm a fairly unforgiving voter, especially considering how realistic I am about the value of a single vote in something the size of a Congressional district.

edit to add/clarify: I'm okay with him voting to raise the debt ceiling this time around after exacting as many cuts as are reasonably available to be had. It's any tax increase at all (under the current tax system) that would put him on my shit list

If they were under oath on the senate floor, they'd all be in jail. About 10% of what they say on the floor is the truth.

I like TMQ's take on this: if there are rich folks (like all these politicians and media personalities) who are all for raising taxes, they are more than welcome to start by adding money on their tax returns to help pay down the debt. Nothing stops them right now from voluntarily paying more taxes and putting their money where their mouth is.

How is that any different from saying those in support of war should enlist or enlist their children? Or those in favor of funding X federal program should just send money there?

Federal policy requires collective action to be effective.

Terrible jobs report. Unemployment up to 9.2%. Government jobs on the decrease and private jobs nearing zero growth. Good thing we're focused on how to take more money out of the economy.

It would sure be nice if someone in Washington gave a crap about the current crisis rather than a future maybe crisis.

Always worrying about the short term first is what got us into this mess. Sometimes you just have to take your medicine.

I understand, I was just pointing out that that's a way to get the ball rolling. Many of those who do support the war send children or do enlist, for example. Not saying they should be the only ones to fund it, just saying that maybe if they put their money where the mouth was instead of crying about how evil the deductions are while taking every single possible one they can might make the rest of us listen to them a bit more.

Kind of like if you're going to have a conference on climate control, don't fly there in private jets...

According to CNN (refuting the Romney claims about Obama being responsible for the slow recovery), everything is fine, the recession ended back in 2009.

Technically the recession did end in 2009. I wouldn't say Obama is responsible for the slow recovery, but it would sure be nice if he or someone else would start talking about what can be done to create jobs.

Between infrastructure and clean energy there are things the government can do.

The millions of unemployed have been taking their medicine for years now.

And, without fixing unemployment there's little chance of solving the deficit. We're @500 billion lower in tax revenues due to the recession than we would be without the recession.

How do you find people jobs though for jobs that are never coming back? There has to be a massive shift for these people to get retrained. If these people aren't learning new skill sets by now or see the writing on the walls that they need to learn something different, there's nothing any government can do to help them in my opinion.

There isn't much evidence that there's been a huge technological shift in employment or a mass migration of jobs over the past two to three years. Unemployment is high in a lot of sectors, not limited to some sectors where change may have occurred. Add to that a huge increase in excess industrial capacity and it seems more likely that the major problem is a lack of demand causing companies to stop hiring.

I don't believe that we're at a new normal where 9% unemployment is just the way of things. That will only be true if the political class decides to make it true.