Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I swear to christ, it's like I'm the only one here who actually reads up on this ****.

Ahem.

(That said, I get your frustration.)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're missing the point; lines in the sand is extremism.

Tea Party: no taxes
Liberals: no cuts in social security or Medicare

Those lines were drawn early on in this debate on the debt ceiling.

Except, Obama has specifically offered to make some cuts in both Medicare and SS as part of the negotiation process, according to news reports. So I don't know how you can say that the Dems have made this their 'line in the sand.' It's simply untrue.

I swear to christ, it's like I'm the only one here who actually reads up on this ****.

Cycloptichorn

You equating "Dems" and my use of the word "extremists" on the liberal side. I said factions of both camps are creating a deadlock. A deadlock of our own doing by voting in cycles of a swinging pendulum.

Soz also invoked Obama as a counter example below your post. If you look back at my opinions of Obama running up to the '08 election you'll see that I've always pegged him as a centrist. He's in as much hot soup with the extremists of the liberal camp as he is with the extremists of the conservative camp.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well, yes? That's what we're saying pretty much. Obama is not extreme, and is willing to compromise. The Republican leadership, not so much.

However, in the face of increasing public pressure to reach a deal rather than default, the Republicans may be now coming around on that, finally. After some damage has already been done.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Even the president (and congress) has to listen to the seniors. It's not a matter of the percentage in the House who supported the "don't touch social security and Medicare."

Urging by the constituents is also important.

Quote:

AARP Not Happy With Latest Debt Ceiling Talk
Benjy Sarlin | July 7, 2011, 12:05PM

The top advocacy group for seniors, AARP, is sounding the alarm over reports that cuts to Social Security and Medicare may be included in a deficit deal.

CEO Barry Rand issued a lengthy statement on Thursday demanding that the White House and Republican leaders take the issue off the table and address any changes to the programs in separate negotiations.

"AARP is strongly opposed to any deficit reduction proposal that makes harmful cuts to vital Social Security and Medicare benefits," Rand said.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that the Republicans are far more extreme in their rhetoric and their politics than the Dems; and you know it's true, but don't want to admit it, because in your heart you're cheering for them to win this showdown. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

No. Actually I don't want either side to win this showdown. I wish we weren't in a showdown and we were being governed by adults who took their job seriously rather than power-hungry career politicians ON BOTH SIDES who are more concerned about the next election cycle and the impact that their votes have on their parties than on the people.

I've read through the synopsis of the "gang of six" proposals and don't disagree that we need to do much of what's in there. In addition, I'd roll back the GWB tax cuts entirely.

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

You equating "Dems" and my use of the word "extremists" on the liberal side. I said factions of both camps are creating a deadlock.

Yes, but you are completely wrong here. There is no faction on the liberal side creating deadlock - and if you think there is, I'd really like you to describe them to me, and what they've done and said that has created this deadlock.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JPB,

Good points; Obama got my vote, but he will never get it again. I don't mind the "centrist" label so much as how sloppy he was in getting ObamaCare and the bank bailouts.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Even the president (and congress) has to listen to the seniors. It's not a matter of the percentage in the House who supported the "don't touch social security and Medicare."

Urging by the constituents is also important

These are the same assholes who have all their lives shown a great willingness to support their standard of living on their kids chard card. **** them. What we need is for America's youth to stand up for their interests, be it through the vote or revolution. We are not there yet, so the old people will for the time being still be found sucking up everything they can find for themselves.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

What?

<throws up hands>

Never mind.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that the Republicans are far more extreme in their rhetoric and their politics than the Dems; and you know it's true, but don't want to admit it, because in your heart you're cheering for them to win this showdown. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

No. Actually I don't want either side to win this showdown. I wish we weren't in a showdown and we were being governed by adults who took their job seriously rather than power-hungry career politicians ON BOTH SIDES who are more concerned about the next election cycle and the impact that their votes have on their parties than on the people.

Okay, but I'll remind you that this showdown was created by House Republicans. It's not necessary in the slightest. They could pass a clean debt increase today if they wanted to, and turn their negotiations to the 2012 budget - where all this belongs.

Remember, what we are seeing here isn't 'new spending'; it's the Republicans refusing to pay for the spending they already authorized, without additional cuts.

This 'showdown' has nothing to do with the Democrats at all. It was conceived of and put into place by the House Republican leadership. So, pretenses of equivalence here are, as I said earlier, laughable.

Quote:

I've read through the synopsis of the "gang of six" proposals and don't disagree that we need to do much of what's in there. In addition, I'd roll back the GWB tax cuts entirely.

Much of their proposal is stupid, destructive, and poorly thought out. Many of the things listed there will save no money at all; it merely shifts the costs onto the poorest and oldest members of society instead of asking the gov't to pay them. So I can't agree with your assessment that we 'need' to do these things.

However, your willingness to sunset the Bush tax cuts for everyone signals to me that you are several degrees closer to sensible than the Republicans are, because they would never agree to that in a million years.

The two positions you hold here are slightly contradictory, btw - if we roll back the Bush tax cuts, we don't need to cut spending anywhere near the level that the Gang of 6 proposal calls for.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

One more thing before I move on to less crazy-making pursuits -- a good collection of information about why default would actually be a big deal.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/07/20/sane-conservatives-and-the-debt-ceiling/

Will include this quote from that known pinko liberal, Richard Posner:

Quote:

“No doubt before the political and economic damage becomes too severe, the Republican radicals in the House of Representatives will relent and the ceiling on borrowing will be raised. Before that happens interest rates may rise, and stay higher, because of doubts about the basic competence of American government. Those doubts, plus the higher interest rates they engender, may deepen the current economic downturn, which in turn will reduce tax collections, increase transfer payments, and in both respects increase the federal deficit… Why Republicans prefer flirting with failing to raise the debt ceiling by the August 2 deadline to accepting the deal tentatively worked out between President Obama and Speaker Bohner…is a deep mystery.”

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And you're the one who thinks you're the only one who reads up on these things? Christ, you're arrogant!

ci just posted one of many headlines stating unequivocally that Dems in Congress have stipulated that entitlement programs must be off the table.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

And you're the one who thinks you're the only one who reads up on these things? Christ, you're arrogant!

What else am I supposed to think, when people continually write things that are factually untrue? And are unable to respond when I point that out?

Quote:

ci just posted one of many headlines stating unequivocally that Dems in Congress have stipulated that entitlement programs must be off the table.

Who gives a **** what a minority of House Democrats think? Or that they sent a letter to Obama? It's not an important part of the negotiations at this point. It never was. It's a minority of the minority party in the House.

The point is that Dem Leadership, including the top negotiator, have indeed agreed to consider the cuts that the Republicans are asking for. The Republican leadership, on the other hand, has made any number of radical statements or demands, and refuses to compromise in the slightest. With the notable exception of Mitch McConnell, who is now being pilloried by the Right for trying to compromise.

There simply is no equivalence between the two positions.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The two positions you hold here are slightly contradictory, btw - if we roll back the Bush tax cuts, we don't need to cut spending anywhere near the level that the Gang of 6 proposal calls for.

Cycloptichorn

No, not really. That's where my small government libertarianism kicks in and I start looking for things we don't need from the government at all.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The two positions you hold here are slightly contradictory, btw - if we roll back the Bush tax cuts, we don't need to cut spending anywhere near the level that the Gang of 6 proposal calls for.

Cycloptichorn

No, not really. That's where my small government libertarianism kicks in and I start looking for things we don't need from the government at all.

The biggest problem with this position is that, as a small-government libertarian, you are in the minority here in America. The smaller problem is that the problems that are currently addressed by the programs that Libertarians like to see cut, are real problems, and will have to be addressed in some other fashion. There's not much way around that.

For all that Republicans trumpet that Americans want smaller government, which costs less and does less, when attempts are made to actually shrink the functions and size of government, the people of the country hate it and they punish those who try to do it, from either party.

Even majorities of Republicans, for example, don't want entitlement programs cut. Consistently, across many different polls. What are the politicians supp0sed to do?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JPB,

I'd start with cutting our defense budget. We don't need to be spending more than the top six countries combined on defense.

We represent only five percent of the world population; we don't need to be the police of the world.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

People want a lot of things they don't need. They also generally don't want to think about what those things cost. And, yes, that's a majority of the people and a majority of our government. Until 2008 we were a debtor nation in all aspects. Spend, spend, spend, buy, buy, buy, borrow, borrow, borrow - both in our private lives and our public policy. Somebody is going to pay the piper or get caught holding the bag. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't buy things we can't pay for other than in extreme circumstances and with a plan on funding the payback down the road.

I remember US Savings bonds programs in grade school where you brought in a dime or a quarter each week until you'd contributed enough to purchase a bond. The American people were invested in paying off their debts. I don't see that very much any more.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I'd start with cutting our defense budget. We don't need to be spending more than the top six countries combined on defense.

A tiny but useful step. However, we dont solve this problem till we get SS and the medical programs costs under control. If Obama had understood what ails America he would have spent his year trying to get the medical system to be more efficient with its consumption of dollars rather than trying to get more people insured. History will judge him poorly for playing around with the deck chairs as the ship sank.

You can go around blaming the Reds all you want but it will not change the fact that it is entitlements and a broken medical system that are the major problems, and that the Blues refuse to deal with the entitlement programs problem and they are just as guilty as the Reds for failure to deal with the broken medical system problem.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawk, It's evident you haven't been reading my posts on social security, Medicare, and Obamacare. I'll not bother to update you; that's your problem.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The price of gold can go up more, but there isn't enough cash to buy it at current prices. The US currency in circulation can buy about 50% of the gold at today's prices. It doesn't matter how much gold prices increase, because the cash supply prohibits those prices....

You don't know the numbers for any of the quantities you refer to - so no wonder you come up with such hilarious statements. Here are the numbers:
1. Amount of gold owned by the US: 8,133 metric tons
2. Current price of gold, dollars per troy ounce: $1,600.- /oz
3. Ounces per kilo conversion: 35.27396194958041 oz/kg
4. Kilograms per ton conversion: 1,000 kg/ton
5. Ounces of gold owned by the US: 286,883,133 oz
6. Multiplying ounces by current price we get: $459,013,012,058

So the total value of all our gold is under half a trillion dollars - a drop in the ocean of our debt. You also have no clue as to total dollars in circulation: they just crossed one trillion - the St Louis Fed tracks that: see graph. So - do the calculation yourself - there are enough dollars to buy all our gold twice over.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/WCURCIR_Max_630_378.png

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WCURCIR

1 Reply

Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know