26
   

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

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 11:58 am
@Thomas,
It's because without some standards, no economy can survive.

Bankruptcies are on the upswing with no end in sight. This will further impact our economy in negative ways - and unlimited excuse to let individuals or business to declare bankruptcy is not in the best interest for those who take their personal debts seriously.

The process for lending needs to be stringent enough to minimize losses for everybody. Lenders and borrowers need to take responsibility. It's not wise to lend anyone with a $25,000 income more loans. Simple rules and regulations can minimize bankruptcy problems for all.

However, many responsible people who had reasonable mortgages for their homes lost their jobs and homes. These are situations that cannot be predicted by anyone. Some of the uptick in bankruptcies are caused by this economic crisis, and trying to point fingers is futile.

I have never advocated for different rules for business and individuals.

Unfortunately, our government advocates first for business over individual consumers no matter who's in charge in Washington DC.

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 01:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's because without some standards, no economy can survive.

The standard is: Don't declare bankruptcy if you want to borrow money in the future, or if you want an intact reputation as a potential employee, tenant, and insurance client. On the creditor's side, the standard is: set your interest rate to a level consistent with the risk of nonpayment. But if your world collapses when that risk materializes, you shouldn't have lent out the money in the first place. Both of these standards sound reasonable and workable to me. The obligation to service ones debt needn't be absolute, and defaulting needn't be a mark of irresponsibility.

cicerone imposter wrote:
I have never advocated for different rules for business and individuals.

I take your point.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:10 pm
@Thomas,
You must no read my posts; I identified an example of why some responsible people have lost jobs and homes, and couldn't pay on their mortgage.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:24 pm
Quote:
The Democrats lost this debate, but that's not a surprise. The perception that the stimulus bill failed has given Republicans a slashing comeback for every spending plan: You guys tried it, it didn't work, let us try the opposite. Backed into a corner, Democratic senators and a Democratic president have agreed to discretionary spending cuts that they think will slow down economic growth.
It's not just Democrats who think this. As the latest, least-doomed version of the deal was hammered out, the New York Times' Binyamin Applebaum and Catherine Rampell were interviewing economists about the effects of looming cuts. "When you do fiscal adjustment in the near term," said IMF economist Paulo Mauro, "it does have an adverse impact on economic growth." An analyst at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Vatican of debt angst-mongering, sighed at the silliness of forcing cuts through now, in a weak economy, when they would have been better timed during a boom. Why? Because spending cuts drive down growth in the short-term with the promise of growth in the long term.
Republicans dispute this. When they took charge in the House, they labeled their agenda "cut and grow." The buzz phrase lacked one thing: evidence. Stimulus money has dried up. New Republican governors have lived the gospel of budget cuts. Coincidentally enough, GDP growth is way down from expectations for the year so far. Job creation is weak; back in March, Moody's Analytics and Goldman Sachs predicted that spending cuts could have that effect. The Commerce Department points to the spending cuts as the culprit

http://www.slate.com/id/2300528/

I think that the UK experience plays into this, where the expected destruction of the economy on the basis of huge government spending cut back has not happened yet.

But on another note we see the cost of Obama pushing what he claimed was a stimulus package which was in large part not that at all....it was a gravy train for projects and interests that he wanted to promote under the Rahm Emanuel doctrine of "never let a crisis go to waste". Had the Dems not lied to the people we would not be in this boat, so lets not take all of our anger out on the REBUB, the DEMS are very complicit in both the creation of the massive debt over decades and for the debt ceiling mess and for our poor response to the debt ceiling mess.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's easy to see the difference between the US and UK experience hawk

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_large.gif
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/192.gif
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:45 pm
@parados,
Your graphs also explains why the Bush tax cuts had a worsening effect on our deficit. With the economy showing negative growth for most of 2008, tax revenue dropped to a lower level and our debt grew.

The GOP-tea party doesn't want to take responsibility for this, and blame the current recession and high debt on Obama.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 02:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

I think that the UK experience plays into this, where the expected destruction of the economy on the basis of huge government spending cut back has not happened yet.


The cuts only started in April. Already we've had waves of industrial action. Growth is no way near what was predicted. Don't look to the UK for solutions, not with Osborne as chancellor.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:01 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The cuts only started in April. Already we've had waves of industrial action. Growth is no way near what was predicted. Don't look to the UK for solutions, not with Osborne as chancellor.
The doomsdayers expected things to be much worse by now, and that not happening I think opened Americans up to the idea that cutting government does not need lead to economic collapse. The doom might still happen, and in anycase the UK is not the US because you dont have the wealth so heavily concentrated in the top 2% of the population who are free to take that wealth out of the country with the click of a mouse so the UK experience does not predict the US experience I think.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
I never said it did.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawk, Just shows how ignorant you are about economics. The impact of the debt ceiling debacle is not felt immediately by any economy. Your choice at myopia about the trillions lost in the world's marketplace during this debate shows you have no idea what kind of impact the future slow-down in the US economy has on the rest of the world.

Be patient; you will be rewarded by what you think won't happen.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
you have no idea what kind of impact the slow-down in the US economy has on the rest of the world.
The days of the free spending US consumer propping up the US economy and bringing along the global exporters was over long before the debt ceiling problem hit. You keep missing the forest for the trees CI, the global economic system is on its last legs, it no longer works, these individual problems like the EU debt crisis and the American debt crisis are symptoms of the death of the current economic world order, they are not the disease itself. I no longer think that the collapse of the global economy can be prevented so I dont get too excited about the process of getting there, one is as good as another. Just as I was calling for bankruptcies to take place in 2008 so we could clear away the dead wood and start building something that could carry us (which we mostly refused to do) I also call for allowing the current failed economic world order to fail so that we can get on with the business of building something that works, something that we can believe in. Nobody believes in what we have now, so it can not possibly work, and it is now clear that we can not come up with the instestinal fortitude that would be required for an 11th hour attempt at reforming what we have enough so that it would work.

Lies and self deception bother me...they always have.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
There are two ideas here. If you believe in perpetual deficit spending, and also believe in defaulting on your debts when convenient, you do have a certain internal logic. No integrity and no credit rating, but internal logic.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:28 pm
@roger,
heh!

From the "as thing get close" front...

Dems are pushing Boehner to come up with at least 150 votes on the R side and will supplement the vote from there. Dems are not whipping their members but counting votes via an email survey.

Protesters were expelled/arrested after carrying a large banner and chanting, "Hey Boehner, get a clue, it's about revenue" and "Boehner, get off it, it's time to tax corporate profits." One of the protesters was slightly injured after falling over a row of seats in the gallery.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:34 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
Dems are pushing Boehner to come up with at least 150 votes on the R side and will supplement the vote from there. Dems are not whipping their members but counting votes via an email survey
the leader of the progressive caucus said that most of his members will vote no, according to a report I noticed.....
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:36 pm
uh? uh? uh?

What's this? Have the boys on the bus started to break ranks?

Quote:
Cantor pushback to Reid: I can tell you flat out he is wrong -- I did not open the door to tax increases...now is not the time
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:38 pm
@roger,
I do not believe in "perpetual deficit spending." When the economy is strong, and the government takes in sufficient tax revenue, they should learn to pay down the debt rather than spending on more programs.

Like any household, they must have savings for a rainy day. Otherwise, they will continue to increase the debt and the payments to service the debt to a point where all other programs will need to be cut.

The worst times to consider debt is during times of war and recessions/depressions. Recessions/depressions are periods when our government must increase spending to keep people in jobs, create jobs, and help the people without jobs with the necessary benefits to survive. The security of Americans during recessions/depressions is just as important or more important than fighting wars half way across this planet that doesn't threaten our security.

Our government has never learned to prioritize spending properly.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:38 pm
This I like, from Cafferty

Quote:
The government is selling snake oil - again.

Look closely and this so-called "deal" on the debt ceiling crisis is a triumph of sleight-of-hand over substance.

Sunday night it was, "We will cut a trillion dollars in the first 10 years." By this morning a trillion had become $917 billion, which means we lost $83 billion in cuts overnight. Makes you afraid to go to bed.

In the first three years of the Obama presidency, the deficits will total about $4.2 trillion. Cutting $917 billion over 10 years, or $91 billion a year, is chump change.

Then there's the commission, another one. Remember the commission President Obama ordered to come up with answers to this stuff last year?

They did. Their report was full of a lot of good ideas. It was ignored by the president and Congress. But they want us to believe this commission will be different.

Baloney. There has been no attempt to address tax reform or entitlement reform. That will be left for "The Commission." My guess is they won't touch it anymore than the current crop of folks tackled it. And without those two things, we are doomed.

Supposedly there will be triggers in the legislation that will require additional cuts totaling $1.4 trillion across the board if the committee and Congress cannot agree. Color me skeptical.

We are facing more than $61 trillion of unfunded liabilities from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other obligations - $61 trillion.

There is no money to meet those obligations and our government knows it. But they have the unmitigated gall to march out Sunday night as though they had found a cure for cancer and expect us to break down in uncontrolled adulation. They make me ill.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/01/do-you-buy-the-governments-so-called-solution-to-the-debt-ceiling-crisis/?hpt=hp_t1
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:39 pm
Quote:
They haven't even been appointed yet, but 'super committee' already tagged by K St as "Dirty Dozen"
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I don't think he was referring to you.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2011 03:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Cafferty is looking at the current crisis ass-backwards. Now is not the time to cut spending. Most of these guys identify issues from the "cut cost" and "no new taxes" position that ignores the macro-economic needs of stabilizing the Great Recession. That calls for more spending, not less.

More cuts will result in more government job losses that will also impact commerce because of reduced demand for everything. That also results in less tax revenue.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 05:58:27