There is a difference between playing politics with the debt ceiling and parsing it on its own separate from other economic issues regarding budgetary and fiscal matters of state. I'm not sure either is very helpful. However, if it's simply a matter of making the debt ceiling an automatic thing, that's another matter.

How rational would it be to pass a bill on the debt ceiling without addressing anything else? It would be like green-lighting new credit without stipulating how that credit is to be used. It woud be like a blank cheque...but debt.

No. How preposterous. Why is it that you come up with these silly ideas or stories whenever we talk about things you disagree with?

Do you ever see me going on about how it would be great if we could cut spending by replacing the military's munitions with purple glitter paintballs? :orly:

Why don't you address the real issue?

there are plenty of homeless cats and dogs for that matter. but homeless people can take care of the homeless pets. or maybe hunt them for food. homeless people forming tribes in the woods along side the interstate, hunting ferrel cats and dogs...sounds like "the hills have eyes"

why do taxes need to be thought of as this heinous punitive thing ? this forced handout to the lazy and well, the part of the herd that might as well be trimmed ?

why wouldn't you think of it as a yearly user fee for this cool club you get to live at ? a place with sweet roads and trains, nice parks, schools for your kids, you know, a cool place to be ? I mean this cool place you get to live doesn't stop at your driveway. it's just your door to the community, city state and country you get to live in. it was built mostly by previous generations who paid more "club fees" than we do now...
I love my city, I don't use alot of the parks, libraries or other public things I pay for in it but I'm glad it's there and I don't mind that I chip in on it.
now if I had alot more money I could afford the time to use and see alot more in my city.


why would you think you can shrink government while your population and economy is constantly growing ?

Obama cant negotiate/leverage with a group that says "no" to anything he proposes, even if it's what they want. Having a majority doesn't matter when the minority manipulates the rules to filibuster anything they don't like.

Mitch McConnell frankly stated that the Republican's number one priority was to make Obama a one term president. Think about that. Number one priority? So fuck the unemployed, fuck the uninsured, fuck the world economy....all we care about us getting this guy out if office.

Remember their 2010 campaign of job creation? Know how many job bills the House has authored since the midterms?

It's all games....party before country.

Today's GOP is the greatest threat to America in my lifetime

so it is of no consequence what tea party obstructionists claim for themselves, the fatuous arguments that they make. those arguments "from principle" enable the republicans to have a fall guy in case the polls continue to trend as they have been and the gop takes the hit for manufacturing this debt ceiling "crisis" and then using it to play chicken with the international standing of the united states at a period of economic crisis transnationally and fading imperial power insofar as the u.s. is concerned. it is of no consequence except to maybe the 10% of the population who is still able to confuse ayn rand with a philosopher and friedman with a viable economic theorist and neo-liberalism with something other than class warfare. so let them gibber to themselves.

i am one of those people on the left, such as it is, this fragmented places that talks alot but can't seem to organize and not the make-believe left that the neo-fascist set projects in order to normalize it's veer to the right by framing it as reactive, i am one of those people who is deeply disappointed in obama primarily because he has not offered a vision of what the state can and should be doing independently of the bilge that flows from the right. if job creation is a real priority, make it one--construct programs with actual concrete goals and put them into effect....fuck the right. they've had their day and that day is over.

The debt limit is totally meaningless.

1) If Congress commits to spending money, that commitment has been made regardless of some arbitrary debt ceiling.

2) The movement of actual debt based on spending commitments is not restrained by arbitrary debt ceilings or borrowing caps.

3) Is there any person on this planet that seriously believes that the US will actually default on debt or not pay social security benefits or not pay the military?

4) The President is Constitutionally obligated to pay the nation's obligations.

Given the above the whole debt ceiling issue is theater. The real fight is not the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is being used by both sides to press a political agenda. Yes, democrats and Obama have a political agenda. And yes they are as inflexible up to this point as Republicans.

Why is what I presented preposterous but singling out people who own a successful business is not? Seems to me it is simply a matter of perspective.

The real issue is spending not tax rates.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:48 PM ----------

In my view they don't have to be. Obama is the one who wants to use the tax code for things like redistribution, social engineering, and punishing certain types of behavior. Taxes should be reflective of the real costs to society, nothing more and nothing less in my view.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Hence, we are in the situation we are in. The Tea Party with no real power was able to obtain the leverage. Poll after poll allegedly shows the public supports Obama. Most of the media reports positively reflect Obama's view. It is obvious that people won't let the US default, they have said it. Yet it is the President who can not get a deal done. Sounds like incompetence to me. Obama is clearly in over his head. Democrats should have selected Clinton. We kind of know what she would do, at least through Bill he stated what he would do, press the issue by ignoring the debt limit and have Congress challenge him in court. And he has been there before.

How is it incompetence when the opposition SAYS NO TO EVERYTHING?

You don't negotiate with terrorists or traitors. The GOP is both

tea party rule one: never agree to anything not proposed by a conservative.

tea party rule two: never accept the slightest responsibility for your actions.

tea party rule three: talk alot about responsibility in your markety market fantasy scenarios, hedged round with arbitrary declarations

e.g. ("the real issue is spending"---horseshit. to the extent there is an issue here, it follows from rightwing lunatic views of taxation and ill-considered tax cuts that have produced NONE of the outcomes promised by the gospel of crackpot economics but no matter they still believe they still believe...)

tea party rule four: obstruct. derail.

tea party rule five: never accept responsibility for your own actions.

tea party rule six: never accept responsibility for incoherence in your own positions.

tea party rule seven: talk anyway. blah blah blah. anyone can do it. seriously. **anyone** can do it.

tea party rule eight: refuse to consider what democracy actually would entail. that's ike putting a gun in your mouth to see if it's loaded. learn not to like democracy very much. prefer feudalism. be a slave.

tea party rule nine: never accept responsibility.

tea party rule ten: never accept responsibility.

If the debt limit were totally meaningless, why don't they just drop the issue? What's with all the emergency meetings and talk of default and economic disaster?

I know what you think of the debt ceiling. But it's there. It can't be meaningless because it's there. If they don't raise it, they either default or break the law.

Maybe that's what Republicans really want: a lose-lose situation for Obama: break the law or violate the Constitution.

Classy.

First, the cat tax thing isn't an issue. Is it in the budget? Is it an idea put forth by members of Congress? Are they talking about purple glitter paint as well?

Why won't you comment on my purple glitter paint?

Second, what are you referring to exactly when you mentioned singling out people who own a successful business? Are you referring to something I posted earlier? Could you point this out to me?

So why are the Republicans adamantly against the tax changes when the spending cuts are where they're supposed to be? What's so wrong with closing loopholes, etc., if it will help make cutting spending that much easier? Are you a proponent of loopholes?

I suppose it's a matter of whether you are more willing to accept these things over, say, class warfare, plutocracy, and continued Republican-supported corporate welfare and nanny statism. What's the lesser of two "evils"? Maybe the one that costs more money whether through spending or lost revenue.

Who has historically been better at reducing deficits? Republicans? Democrats? Who should we be listening to?

The Republicans are strong-arming their wants and are unwilling to compromise. Obama has compromised to the point of alienating much of his own party, and yet it still isn't enough even though the cuts have gone beyond what Republicans wanted at first.

Tax reform isn't a communist tactic.

the tea party is ace on a national scale. a whole riot of them. when obama compromised they tried to change what they had been asking for. o wait---that's ok? we don't want that any more. we're ideologically pure. we have sophistries that "prove" the "real issue" is spending and not the consequences of exactly the approach to taxes that we still endorse. so what if tax cuts don't produce what's promised? so what if our theory has no predictive value? what is a theory? for us, a theory is a something that we like. we like it so we repeat it. we will continue to say the same thing over and over again as if by repeating it the lunacy of what we are saying will go away. because we believe. we believe. wait. that's ok? we didn't want that. we never wanted that. we wanted something else. this now. we want this now. we have always wanted this. the past? what past? we are here. we believe. we like believing. let us repeat.

Yes, comrade, that seems to be the way of it.

I think I'm with Derwood: The Republican Party coupled with Tea Party influence is the gravest threat facing American society today.

we have always been at war with Eastasia

Well, it looks like the Republicans are prepared to move back into their patented unilateral mode—so says Boehner to Fox:

House Republicans Prepared to Act Alone on Debt Plan, Boehner Says - FoxNews.com

the british business secretary today said that the "rightwing nutters" in the u.s. are a greater threat to the global economy that the problems with the euro:

Vince Cable attacks 'rightwing nutters' over US debt ceiling talks | Politics | guardian.co.uk

There those Republicans go, wrecking the world again.

Before they make any final decisions, they should at least ask: What would Reagan do?

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

How can one tell when a person(S) is talking sh*t? You call them on it. In context, the Tea Party people have not really said "no" to anything. Obama should have put a simple bill on the table to have the debt limit raised, and make everyone vote. If they vote "no" then it is easy to use that vote along with other things as leverage. If they vote "yes", Obama may have gotten what he wanted, assuming that is what he wanted.

That is just one of an infinite number of strategies Obama could have used to gain leverage.

In one of Obama's press conferences he used the word "Armageddon" to describe August 3, 2011. Think about that! On the most obvious level you have put your trust and faith in a leader who does not have a functional plan B. :shakehead:

Outside of that, let's assume I am the Tea Party and you are Obama.

You say, 8/3/11 is the drop dead date.
I say, I don't believe you.
Then what....?
Why wouldn't I take a hardline and wait??? It is you who thinks 8/3/11 is the end of the world not me. I think the sun will shine and the birds will sing, old people will get paid, China will get paid, and no one will die because the FDA has to "make some arrangements".

It is Obama who set the stage for where we are.

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 PM ----------

You left one out and actually it is number one.

Tea Party Rule #1: Make sure Obama is a one term President. It is Obama who is at the root of the biggest proportional increase in government and government spending in the history of this nation.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

Political theater. Republican have an agenda and the threat of default plays into their agenda. Democrats have an agenda and the threat of default plays into their agenda. Media has an agenda and the threat of default plays into their agenda.

When law is in conflict, break the law is inevitable. The role of our third branch of government is as important as the other two.

I doubt any member of Congress want to abdicate more power to the Executive branch of government. I think that is why they are working around the clock to meet this made up deadline.

Winning trumps class.

No they are talking about depreciating private jets over 7 years rather than 5. What that means is that the guy/corp. that owns a jet (rather than a cat) will face responding to dumb tax policy (again my view is taxes should be related to actual costs to society). For example all other things being equal the net result is that the government collects taxes sooner there will not be a net increase in "revenues". Then if the number of jets being put into service goes down because people/corp hold on to their jets longer (perhaps 2 years longer), the net revenues may actually go down.

The point of using cats in the analogy had nothing to do with cats. You could substitute any number of legitimate words for "cat" and meaning illustrated stays the same. I think you see that, yet you act like you don't...Why?

They might as well be talking about purple glitter paint, perhaps they are. In either case nothing has happened. I repeat, Obama and Democrats have not put anything specific up for a vote. Until they do, I think I will make the assumption that they are in fact talking about purple glitter paint.

Have you purchased a new car? At least in the US, there is this game that they play. At one point you make an offer, they make a counter, you make another offer, then the guy goes back to talk to is "sales manager" because you are really busting his b@lls on this...he goes back (takes about 15 minutes, because he has to really fight for you to get this deal) but he actually goes into the back office and he and his "sales manager" spend about a minute approving the deal and about 14 talking about "purple glitter paint".

I am referring to Obama's economic view of "taxing the rich" and eliminating loop holes like depreciating a jet over 5 years rather than 7. On the jet issue, the irony is that a jet may have a useful life measured in decades, and anything less than the jets actual depreciation is a subsidy. the subsidy doesn't actually go away, does it? Obama when he talks about this stuff is laughable, he might well be talking about cats because he comes across as clueless.

No, close the loopholes, but do it for real. We need to totally re-write our tax code. Thinking it can be done in a few weeks under the threat of 'Armageddon" is another joke. Perhaps we elected a comedian rather than a President.

I think we should ask better questions. Only then will we get the truth from anyone or any party.

For example, has anyone ever asked Obama if there is an alternative to simply not paying the nation's obligations starting on 8/2/11? There are alternatives. The key is asking the right questions.

I don't understand your point. If I say I don't support something, how do I compromise? I can my position be perceived as anything other than "strong-arming" if you disagree?

I say not tax increases. In context I primarily say that because I don't believe the other side will actually cut and control spending. I say cut and control spending and after you demonstrate that I can trust you on the issue the come back to me and I may be more open to tax increases.

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

What is the yeild on ten year treasuries this morning? Less than 3%? What was it a year ago? Less than 3%? What will it be next week? Less than 3%? What will it be 8/3/12? I am betting right around 3%, but no more than 5% - and any change won't have anything to do with what they do in Washington between now an 8/2/11 because at the end of the day they will have done nothing of any real significance.

---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Thanks for the compliment. I will gladly represent the Tea Party point of view on TFP.:thumbsup:

At this point I say, do nothing until after 8/2/11. Let's see what happens. At the very least the Fed could sell bonds on the open market (opposite of QE1 and QE2) and return the cash to the Treasury or just move the cash to member banks on behalf of the US government so they don't bounce any checks.

The Tea Party would have just loved for Obama to simply ask to raise the debt ceiling, no strings attached.

Obama is both the cause of and the impediment to remedying the financial crisis.

Winning is everything, compromise means losing.

The Democrats The Gang of Six Obama is wrong, the Republicans Tea Party is right.

Did I miss anything, ace?

ace, dear, that a sociopath can rationalize being a sociopath doesn't make the sociopath any less a sociopath.


no-one in their right mind points to the relative stability of bond yields right now to demonstrate anything beyond the fact that investors in the main expect that this sociopathic game of chicken the right is playing will ultimately resolve.

i assume that what we'll see, should this stupid, unnecessary game come undone, is a concerted offensive from the right media apparatus to reframe it as somehow obama's fault. but no-one is fooled. no-one at all. approval ratings for the republicans are hovering at about 20% now. this happens and the right is fucked.

there's a side of me that is looking forward to laughing as the tea party nutcases drive straight into a wall, saying all the way into it that there is no wall.


o, and trust me, ace, there was nothing complimentary in my saying that the tea party is ace on a national scale. nothing whatsoever.

The reason that there is stability in treasuries is this: nobody thinks the people in charge are stupid enough to let the US default. That will change if the tea party has its way. Nobody knows what will happen then. We can be pretty sure that yields will jump, though, because investors will likely no longer be willing to assume that there isn't default risk in treasuries. This will immediately reduce the value of a whole bunch of existing bonds and increase the cost of doing business for a whole lot of people.

Well you do have the likes of Ron Paul suggesting it's the better of two options to default.

Default Now, or Suffer a More Expensive Crisis Later: Ron Paul - Bloomberg

Ya, default now or keep putting it off until tomorrow when it will be catastrophic.

there is a debate to be had about this--what the meaning of the deficit is, what the causes, what the ways forward.

it'd be much easier were obama to get a spine implant and do some basic moves---like stand down on the lunatic (conservative-inspired) "war on terror" and put the outlandish expenditures lavished on its various institutional cancers on the table, and ignore the cretin tea party attempts to draw arbitrary brackets around the whole question of taxes in order in order to divert the debate in a direction that won't make grover norquist mad.

but this "debt ceiling" canard is lunacy. and it's not a debate.

Well, Ron Paul may be right. But he just as easily could be completely wrong. That's the thing about trying to predict what's going to happen a long ways off.

Either way, a default now could be a pretty bug fucking deal. And it isn't as if debt is really a concern of the tea party folk. They have had the opportunity to agree to a couple of plans which would have reduced the debt by trillions. They refused because they don't want to pay more taxes. They would rather the US be a deadbeat than pay a single dollar more in taxes.

Yeah, I thought it a bit weak to consider defaulting the bold disaster-averting decision.

The decision should be to uphold your commitments and agreements and then look at the useless spending that does little but make (some) Americans feel more comfortable about state security.

Does anyone want to explain to me why it makes sense to allocate over 50% of spending towards the Pentagon and Iraq/Afghanistan?

danny schechter in al jazzera on the farce being performed by the far right:

Kamikaze tactics used in US debt battle - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

no problemo.

the dollar is at an all-time low against the swiss franc because of this nonsense:

US debt impasse spooks markets - FT.com

there's no crisis. the ultra-rightwing sociopaths KNOW.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

here's a nice infographic.

the right's record is one of the main reasons the tea party exists: to provide an illusion of break with themselves and con the gullible into thinking that this right is not the right of the bush period. but it is. it is the same old shit.

Maybe Obama is kind of like a stepping stone back towards the fiscal conservatism of Bill Clinton.

The US is so far from a default (from an inability to pay, not a political game by the fringe nuts) it is not even funny.

i found this on an australian website on how the debt ceiling crisis will affect australia. i found this to be really interesting. it feels like im playing monopoly with fake money again...when we used to run out of money we would add zeros to the monopoly money or get some choc bars are put a value to them.

HOW?

assuming your premise that he was a fiscal conservative, obama has done nothing even close in regards to balancing a budget or reducing the deficit.

---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:46 PM ----------

obama 'the decider bush' wants to do things on his own

maybe he can just decide to raise the debt limit or change budgets like he decided to bomb libya. budgets, finances, and wars are mostly the congress's job (as outlined in section 8 of the constitution) not the president's who is supposed to execute their decisions.

A few points, at least:

1. No new wars (future course in Libya notwithstanding)
2. Fundamentally against the Bush tax cuts, at least for high income taxpayers
3. Much of new spending is in response to disaster, rather than creating it
4. Compared to Bush's ideas on deficit reduction, Obama's ideas make more sense

---------- Post added at 12:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

History will tell if he ever does. (I don't think it's likely at this point.)

he may be fundamentally against these ideas in rhetoric, but again his actions don't represent these ideas in the least. he is an empty suit.

The problem with Obama is that there are too many Republicans.

no, the problem with obama is that when there weren't too many republicans he did NOTHING to address our current financial problems, which were apparent towards the end of the bush administration.

His suggestions fall on deaf ears now.

Nothing? Are you saying he ignored the financial problems or did he at least acknowledge them before doing nothing?

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk

Obama said tonight the American People find all this BS offensive. and he is right.

I thought his speech was adult and even respectful of Speaker JB, but then when JB came out with his address, I found him snarky from the get go. I mean he may as well have come out and said "fuck you" fuck you America and fuck you Obama.

Obama seemed to have a framework that, as he said shared the grief (which is still an insane concept considering the wealth distribution in this country) and dig us out, and JB really just seemed to be saying...ahhh sorry, the rich don't want to contribute even after they huge economic crash they created, so again, fuck you all, we'd prefer to keep our money...

I don't know what to think but that's how it came off to me.

this is the worst shit storm overall I can remember seeing a President have to deal with. the wars, the overall global unrest, massive oil spills, storms, earthquakes and he's still holding it all together. add to that he got bin laden, the giant McGuffin of the 911 saga.

so to me the repugs still look like the guys that destroyed our economy, perpetrated horrendous pointless wars and now want to drive our economy off a cliff, with the rest of the global economy chained to it.

acknowledging them isn't really enough, any politician can fill that roll. his actions when he had the will of both houses and the american people was less than mediocre.

Were you around then? Were you paying attention? Just saying. Having majorities in both houses doesn't really mean much when you need 60 people to agree with you in the senate just to reach a vote.

Is there anything in here you want to address specifically?

Politifact.com - The Obameter: Campaign promises that are about the economy

Politifact.com - The Obameter: Campaign promises that are about taxes

That is it.

Obama pretty much saved Wall St with the QE1/QE2. Wall St and baby boomers 401k's are doing a lot better now than they were in 2008. Housing prices here and in a lot of the country have stabilized since 2008 (caused by deregulation and speculation).

Obama also put all of the budget on the books instead of using shifty accounting to hide the numbers...

Obama is doing a good job. He would be doing better if there were more Democrats\Greens.

Ace I didn't know Obama could introduce bills in the house and force the house to vote on it. Especially when it is controlled by the GOP. The fact is this bill has to originate in the house.

i read somewhere a pithy statement of something i've been saying for a while now: we cannot expect a crisis engendered by neo-liberalism to be solved using neo-liberal tools.

and we're watching that happen. the problem goes beyond the fact that not only are there too many republicans and, worse, that the republicans now find themselves squeezed between the sociopaths in the tea party and the evil grover norquist. the problem is that to maintain a centrist discourse is to stay within the cognitive and policy boxes particular to neo-liberal thinking. this thinking is **the** cause of the current fiasco. and from that viewpoint there is no way out. the right isn't even focused on presenting an coherent pathway forward---all they're about is damaging obama. it is a scortched earth policy---and were the corporate press in the united states not entirely and abjectly complicit in maintaining the idiotic lingua franca of neo-liberalism themselves (having committed to it early on in the game, shifting away could undermine their already quite precarious positions by raising questions about the supposedly neutral language of reporting) and so trapped in a position of taking the right far more seriously than they should be taken, the republicans could never get away with it.

la pensée unique it's called. intellectual monocropping. it's mutant chickens are coming home to roost.

Yes, roachboy, I agree. The problem certainly extends beyond the Republicans themselves. I'm constantly amazed at the political environment in the U.S. both inside and outside the House. A big part of that has to do with the majority of my media consumption originating outside of the U.S. if not outside of North America.

I can't wait to hear Ace's spin on how Obama's speech was weak and lacking leadership while Boehner's was the epitome of political guile and gumption

the new head of the imf joins the chorus of people around the world telling the united states to get its shit together:

IMF's Christine Lagarde warns Europe and US over debt crises | Business | guardian.co.uk

and the repercussions of this absurd game of chicken are at this point being taken mostly by the dollar:


Dollar takes brunt of Washington debt deal battle - FT.com

Yes.

from christine lagarde's statement.
the degenerate state of american political discourse has fallen behind even that of the imf.
well played.

but what this highlights is the obvious: the right does not want to see the state investing in programs that might ease the very considerable structural unemployment and begin to address the consequences of 40 years of neo-liberal enabled restructuring of the american economy not because it isn't needed, but rather because it would make a party with absolutely nothing to say, no programs to offer, no solutions---and no viable candidates---unable to continue to pretend to itself that if it just damages obama long enough that somehow people will take leave of their sense and vote for less-than-zero because it's not obama.

so the right would rather impose unnecessary austerity measures for no fucking reason in the middle of a crisis than address the crisis for reasons of petty partisan politics.

and the ultra-right imagines they will benefit by creating more difficulties for more people---including themselves.

First, I get the underlying point and won't pretend that I don't the way others do around here. So, I make it perfectly clear that I know what I am and I will proudly and honestly state it. I am an extremist. I have a big ego. I never compromise on issues of importance. I have strongly held biases. Etc. Etc. Etc. We have been through my ( and people like me) "issues" several times.

Your (and people like you) problem is that you are shocked that people like me exist, you wish we would go away and be quiet. However, you in fact , have to deal with and interact with us. But you are at a loss, you don't know what to do. So, I say that I will not support any tax increases and you spend 8 months trying to shame me, embarrass me, ridicule me, threaten me, etc., etc., into changing my view. It does not work. You waste time and get frustrated. You never stop and ask the question what would actually work. You never try to understand the differences. You will forever be a victim of your ignorance in these dealings.


That is what I have been saying from the beginning.

Obama is folding like a lawn chair. Like I said Obama presented a false crisis with a false deadline, I doubt there will be anything that his fault. In fact Republicans are pretty much getting what they wanted from the very beginning.

The ultimate game of chicken. Do you think I ever lost that game as a child even when the threat was real? There are some real risks in dealing with "crazy" people - what I have learned is to never challenge a person who is "crazier" than I am. Perhaps, I am not as "crazy" as I may appear to be, given the fact I really only take calculated risks. If I know you will fold first, I will play that game all day long.


The compliment is being associated with winning. A small number of Tea Party freshmen controlled the Washington agenda and will win. what does that say about the others?

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

What about your spin on it? Didn't he spend half the speech blaming others, and then saying we should have the "balanced" approach that is not even being currently considered! Then he lied about the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. The US will not default on debt. The US will make social security payments. To suggest otherwise is a lie. Why is this behavior from a President acceptable to you? Why would you want another 4 years of this crap?

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

Bush got his legislation introduced and passed. Other Presidents have been able to work with members of Congress to set a legislative agenda, why can't Obama?

Will you help me out?

Or, it is his view of Republicans.

I can honestly say that the way to get me to sit down and seriously talk is not by attacking my integrity, intellect, and concern for others. Then if the other party sets up some kind of false crisis and if I don't think there is any credibility I become like a stone wall of granite.

The most surprising things is when you tell them what the issue is, yet the persist in doing all the wrong things and then wonder why.:shakehead::shakehead::shakehead:

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

It starts with our different views on "compromise".

All I can do is give examples, take them for what they are worth I know that you normally miss the bigger points in my examples, but I will try.

My wife wanted a cat, I did not. There can be no compromise. We either get a cat or we don't. We got a cat. I did not compromise. My wife asked me about my concerns. I explained them. She responded to my concerns and we got a cat.

I wanted a motorcycle, my wife did not want me to get one. There can be no compromise. We either get one or we don't. We got the motorcycle. She did not compromise. I asked her about her concerns regarding the motorcycle. she explained them. I responded to her concerns and I got the motorcycle.

Oh, but you say compromise could have been her getting the cat and you getting the motorcycle. Wrong. With that, the underlying concerns never get addressed - and happiness turns to resentment or other problems.

So, I don't understand your view of compromise - you don't understand mine. Basically I do not believe in compromise, I don't think it works, it makes things worse over time. I believe in addressing the real underlying issues.

To make your example more relevant, I will make some adjustments:

• Your wife wants another cat; you think you already have too many (one). Your wife explains that adding a second cat will help reinforce the first one in terms of the dynamics of daily living. She also explains that although there will be an added cost, they will be somewhat shared due to there already being a system of owning a cat in place. She also explains that adding a second cat will make it easier to leave them alone, allowing you and your wife to go out more often and on more extended journeys. In addition, she explains to you how the second cat will add even more joy to your lives. You, on the other hand, state in no uncertain terms that you will absolutely not agree to a second cat and never will, as you are mildly allergic to them, you don't like cat hair and the smell of litterboxes, and you're more of a dog person.

Possible outcomes:

1. Your wife compromises and gets a toy stuffed cat and one of those virtual pet apps through the Apple app store, in addition to some catnip and a new toy to improve the playtime with her existing cat.
   
2. You compromise and suggest that she can get the cat as long as you don't have to care for it; you resent the cat for as long as it lives and your wife resents your coldness towards it.
   
3. No compromise: your wife gets a cat anyway and you argue about it for weeks if not months.
   
4. No compromise: nothing is done.

• You want to make repairs and improvements to your motorcycle. Your wife doesn't think it's a good idea, considering that you're still paying it off through financing. You explain to her that the repairs will make the motorcycle safer and the improvements will better the experience not only for you but for her as well whenever she decides to ride it. She's not convinced. She states that there isn't room in the budget for it and that she has no real need for it anyway because she has a bicycle that works just fine that she can repair and improve by herself. She goes on to say that the motorcycle should probably be sold off anyway, as she was never really a fan of it in the first place.

Possible outcomes:

1. You compromise by making do with superficial repairs and minimal performance adjustments, spending within your previously agreed discretionary amount; furthermore, you secretly hope that next month she doesn't bring up the subject of selling the motorcycle again.
   
2. Your wife compromises and suggests that you to pay for the repairs and improvements by getting a second job; you resent having to work more and you both resent spending less time together.
   
3. No compromise: you pay for the repairs and improvements anyway and you argue about it for weeks if not months.
   
4. No compromise: nothing is done.

tl;dr: your examples are oversimplistic binary choices that don't reflect the real-world topics we're discussing. My examples are a bit closer.

ace, dear, for what it's worth perhaps the most fundamental divergence i have with you is that i don't consider conceptual rigidity a virtue--quite the contrary is the case.

you approach politics as a religious believer. i think that's absurd.

you cannot argue effectively for the validity of your assumptions--they're articles of faith.

you have some tedious and bizarre notion of competition. i don't care about it.

you seem to imagine that if you are able to keep repeating the same things no matter what kind of arguments are leveled against what you're saying, that somehow you "win"--but that's only in a charlie sheen sense. you know, in a self-obsessed kinda way.

your socio-economic philosophy is demonstrably a failure if you look at it's implementations in the actually existing world and the consequences of those implementations---your position is that reality is just a variable, and what matters is your faith. i see that as childish. you see it as something else.

in the actually existing world, your socio-economic philosophy has enabled the dismantling of the american productive infrastructure. you live in a fantasy world of heroic entrepreneurs.

in the actually existing world, the modern state performs fundamental stabilizing functions that allow the capitalism that you worship in a genuinely abject manner to operate as a system. these functions came about gradually over the course of this history of late 19-th/20th century capitalism. you seem to know nothing about the history of capitalism and, worse, your ideology doesn't require that you know anything about it.

but if your ideology does not require that you know anything about history--and by extension know anything about the present---then what fucking good is it?

the main things your neo-liberal nonsense have accomplished are:

an unprecedented concentration of wealth
a financial crisis
a massive debt burden incurred largely through two unnecessary, stupid wars and through unnecessary, ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthy.
the pulverization of the lives of ordinary working people.
a radical intensification of class conflict.
a massive expansion of the prison system
an unprecedented percentage of the population in jail
a dominant discourse predicated on denial, on the substitution of simple-minded fantasies for complex and often problematic realities.

your socio-economic philosophy implemented has been an unmitigated disaster.

no wonder you have a reality-optional approach to things.

Then why is it widely reported that the August 2 date is so important? Why is it being reported that our credit rating may be downgraded? Why is assigning blame to those who are at fault a bad thing for a leader to do?

Because the Democrats under Bush didn't act like babies and stamp around shouting "NO!" about every single bill introduced by the opposition

I repeat I don't understand your view and you don't understand mine. I saw nothing in what you added that clarified anything. I am not being judgmental, am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I just don't get it. For example if my wife wants another cat, my buy-in is contingent on my issues being addressed to my satisfaction. And I don't suggest my wife or anyone is obligated to satisfy my issues or concerns, however getting my buy-in requires what I stated. If my wife got a second cat without my "real" (that term again) buy in, it would be pretense to believe those issues go away just because she acted without my buy-in.

In context of the debt issues. I can easily support closing loop-holes in the tax code. All that is needed is an honest discussion regarding my concerns and issues and "we" could get a deal done that includes tax reform. There is a reason this did not happen, and you don't understand the reason. You just think I (again not literally "you" and "I" but people who hold our views and share our personality type) am being unreasonable.

Ace, you don't know the broader consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. Your certainty that inaction by congress won't be problematic just makes it seem like you get your economic advice from Michelle Bachmann. She's the last person I'd use as a source of reliable prediction.

I think it would be more accurate to say that 1) I understand your view but that I can't seem to see how it applies to the real world, and 2) you understand my view but disagree with it.

If you need me to clarify my view, let me know. I'll try to keep it simple. Maybe I'll use an example with cats.

But you made it sound as though your buy-in was of absolutely no consequence. Do you care to elaborate?

Why didn't it happen? Because today's Republicans are more tax adverse than Reagan?

So explain to me how the above is not an illustration of rigidity???? Come on, let's get real. You call me ridged because I disagree with you and I am vocal about it, even to the point of being a smart-ass. Yes, I know when I am being a smart-ass. Your flaw is you don't know how to handle me, and it frustrates the hell out of you. On the other-hand, I have taken a step back and tried to understand who you are - hence you don't frustrate me, you don't make me angry, I don't dislike you - I simple have learned to know what to expect.

I have told you when I have what you call "religious" held type views. I have told you when my mind is closed on an issue. I have told you when I am biased. Gee. So, you think it absurd, so what. It is what it is. You either manage it or you don't. Red pill or green (Matrix reference) the choice is yours.

Some are and some are not.

Occasionally I am lazy and when I use pronouns, "you", "I", etc., it is in a generic sense. That is almost never the case with your (literal) posts. If you want to change me, you can't. I don't care what you think about me. Hell, ignore me - I don't care about that either. Do you realize this is an anonymous bulletin board?

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

Right. I clearly stated what I thought about Obama's false 8/2 deadline and why. That as a given, to me it is obvious that the response to me would be to present information to change my view. Hence my example with my wife and her cat - we sat down and honestly discussed my issues and concerns, see had an answer for each, not a perfect answer but good enough to move me from a "no" to "yes". The irony is that I think I am pretty easy to live with because I am honest and direct and therefore I have a low tolerance for subterfuge and playing the dishonesty games that eventually lead to dis-trust. I am that way with my wife, in business, with my son, with everyone. I am often disappointed because it is what I expect of others.

again, ace, you dodge the main point. your ideology has been a failure. it's been implemented. so your positions are irrelevant. so it is of no real consequence what your relation to the assumptions particular to that framework are.

i'm not interested in changing you. i am sometimes interested in demolishing the stupid arguments you make because, at the time i write posts, it amuses me to do it. and it would be nice to demolish your arguments so thoroughly that you cannot continue. that would make me laugh.

but like i've said before, arguing with you is like playing chess with a six year old. there's no challenge and it's not interesting.

what might be interesting--for once--is a justification for your continued adherence to an ideology that's produced such fiasco where it's been implemented. and don't waste time getting all purist about it---"o it hasn't **really** been implemented"---the usual line of trotskyites who are as rigid about their orthodoxy as you are about yours.

as for the debt ceiling debacle--engineered by people who think as you do because they imagine there's some political benefit that can accrue to them if they can make people forget that the crisis is fake, really, and that such problems as there are and will come of it are the result of an entirely cynical political calculation---it's astonishing to me that given your seeming years of repeating exactly the same things--alternating from time to time with yet another stupid, homespun analogy notable only for the trigonometry that's required to connect them with whatever you imagine your point to be---is that you have the audacity to make pronouncements about compromise.

i know i know--blah blah blah leadership because really all you heroic individuals are submissives and just want a presidential daddy to take you over his knee and smack your ass until you say yes yes daddy yes.

You say #1 as if I don't live in the "real world", which is somewhat insulting. On #2, and I know the problem with the lack of precision in the definition of certain words, like "understanding" - but a person may understand how a bumble bee can fly, but not really understand it. I understand your words, I understand your intent but I do not understand why you think the way you do by making what is simple more complicated than it needs to be. From my point of view you never break an issue down to its most simple common denominator.

Perhaps you mean this to be condescending, I am not sure. Or, perhaps this means that you can not see the broader points in my examples, I am not sure. I normally with you assume the latter.

My wife has choice. My buy-in has consequence, but in her decision making process those consequence may or may not be important enough to sway her decision. It is my hope that she has concerns for my buy-in, but because she is a free independent person she makes her own decisions. The same is true for me with her. So, to say I am inflexible is not accurate. Again, I don't compromise on us having a cat - I support "us" having a cat. The cat is 100% part of our household. After going through our give and take, I am 100% on-board with the cat in our house. But, to add to you confusion, because I doubt you understand, I am not a cat person - I will never be a cat person.

If the left took time to understand the issue - the difference is in the level of trust. I simply do not believe the people in Washington today are serious about spending cuts. I believe that if they raise taxes, spending with still go up. That is my primary concern on the tax question in this debate - it boils down to the simple issue of trust - or as Roach would say it is a "religious" type issue - 100% emotion based. I tell you that, I have told you that, yet it is ignored. If I knew your issue with me was trust, the first think I do is address that. Real world stuff. Pretty simple stuff. It is how stuff gets done. Put issues on the table and work through them! Obama failed.

bullshit, ace. pure, unadulterated tea party bullshit.

look at the figures. you are bothered by deficits, start with repealing the bush tax cuts. stand down on the republican-friendly "war on terror"---which obama buys into---along with the whole of the national-security state apparatus.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

you aren't serious at all. this is nothing but cheap political posturing.


addendum.

here's an explanation for the tea party:

http://i.imgur.com/NoI5H.jpg

the american educational system is a catastrophe.
see in particular the stats about teacher recruitment.

it has everything to do with the low priority placed on education in the states.

it's way more important to manufacture systems that kill people in great number than it is to address class conflict as it is deployed through the american educational system.

priorities here are all fucked up. seriously.

My ideology has not been implemented. What we currently have is a hybrid system that I think is destine to fail. If you have been reading what I have written you would know that. Your pattern with me is to respond to what you think I am writing rather that responding to what is actually written. That is one reason I rarely interact with you on anything other than the most superficial level.

I was a pretty good chess player when I played - I doubt you would have a chance if we ever played. You are far too emotional and reactionary to be any good.

---------- Post added at 09:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------

See what I mean. What are you responding too? Certainly not that I don't trust the people in Washington. Did you notice I used the word "Washington". I did not use the words "liberal", "Democrats", "Neo-liberal", "socialist", "Keynesian" - I use the word "Washington" and I did it for a reason. Currently, Republicans are trying to respond to the trust issue, Democrats are not. Read what I write or stop wasting your time!

and now, a momentary break from the usual bickering....

ace----all the usual nonsense here aside, it'd be fun to see. human beings are different from sentences in a message board. in reality, i'm pretty zen. roachboy is more volatile. he's made of sentences.

but i'm pretty sure that i'd demolish you in chess. cold-blooded about the game.

you'd just end up having to buy a bunch of rounds.


and now, back to regularly scheduled bickering...

Debt talk damage has already been done - Business - Eye on the Economy - msnbc.com

Ace, the "nothing will happen" talking point is utterly false

a slight aside. if we assume good faith on the part of conservatives about their economic theory, much of the opposition to redistribution of wealth sits on an assumption that more cash in the hands of the wealthy will result in economic expansion to the benefit of all. of course, this is conceptually absurd because it brackets the actual motor of the american economy--consumer demand---and so ignores the consequences of transferring immense amounts of money away from most people. it is also demonstrably, empirically false. some data is here:

Why the Wealthiest Americans Are the Real 'Job-Killers' | Economy | AlterNet

this data is more interesting than the article itself, which has a single point to make and does it several times. the main point is: a significant--if not the primary--explanation for the jobless recovery--if you want to call it a recovery---is the effects of neo-liberal economic policy implemented, which has resulted in a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the top ten percent in terms of wealth---who have, in the main, not acted as conservative fantasy would have you believe, but who have held onto it. the results are not rocket science to figure out.

so even the utilitarian justification for the right's bogus economic thinking is out the window.

if that goes, then there's really nothing left---it takes out such ethical justification as conservative tend to adduce. that leaves them having to address the empirical consequences of their policies---which, as ace shows, they cannot and will not do.

it seems to me past time to go after a significant aspect of the right's power base--dismantle the national security state, repeal those stuid tax cuts, clamp down on the ability of transnational corporations to avoid paying taxes. there also has to be some kind of social-democratic style orientation toward making capital available for new businesses to start up--maybe something on the order of the jaanese model of funneling resources into areas of economic activity that are understood as beneficial socially and/or politically. there should also be some kind of instrument--perhaps a tax on maritime fuel---that would force a reconsideration of the kind of economies of scale that enable outcomes like the walmart model. a re-regionalization of production, a significant incentive to reduce distances between production and end users. a basic rethinking of the capitalist division of intellectual labor would be good as well--one can think big. for anything like this to work over the longer term, something has to be done about the shabby state of the american education system. decoupling school funding from local property taxes would be a start---make funding flat across states---eliminate the effects of class on the future horizons of kids. and increase the quality of teachers. pay them better. all this is entirely possible simply from the dismantling of the machinery of empire. and it does not in any way follow anything like a ron paul back-to-the-20s isolationism. the united state is imbricated with the wider world. but that imbrication does not require an american empire to happen. it's not that hard to think of concrete steps that could happen.

what's clear, however, is that the days of neo-liberalism have to end. and that will likely require breaking the back of the right as it is currently configured. the prospect is pleasing. they have nothing to say, nothing to offer and have backed themselves into a sociopathic politics based entirely on short-term expedients with the idea of getting back into power.

Read it again. You aren't the subject of point #1; you aren't even the object.

So you understand my view but don't understand how it works? It just works?

That may be because the world doesn't work all in common denominators, and metaphors demonstrating this only cloud the issue. How about talking more about the issue? Point out some of my points that you get caught up on and I will try breaking them down further. I'm more than willing to do this. I even insist on it.

No, I merely suggest that your broader points miss the mark and I'm willing to demonstrate how you can simplify something and still make sense, rather than tell a tenuously allegorical story.

So what's wrong with the Republicans? Why are they so unwilling to have a cat around?

Are you suggesting that the Republicans will only trust their own plan? Or that Obama needs to simply talk at them more until they have some comfort in his words?

I'm not so much concerned with convincing you of anything. You're pretty steadfast. My aim is more to convince anyone who may be reading the things you write and finding themselves persuaded by your logic that you are wrong.

Here's what might happen on 8/2:

No raised debt ceiling + no long term debt management plan = likely ratings downgrade for the US, plus likely default.

A ratings downgrade tarnishes US treasury bonds as an investment instrument by putting very serious question to the notion that they are risk free (whether they are or not doesn't matter, as far as the market is concerned, they are). This risk-free assumption is important, because it gives investors a datum, a point of comparison. Say you want to know how much to pay for an annuity that pays x for y years. You get to your price by figuring out the present value of a set of treasuries that pay out at the same time as your annuity then you fine tune for risk. The idea is to ask yourself this question "How much would I pay for a set of treasuries that paid out like this annuity?" Since this annuity is at the very least as risky as a treasury (but very likely more risky), if I pay more than the present value of this hypothetical set of treasuries, I'm paying more for more risk, which is generally a bad idea.

If treasuries are no longer free of credit risk then there will likely be a fair amount of volatility while the market figures out how to price things. You yourself have lamented the effects of market uncertainty (mainly as a cover for the obvious monumental failures of supply side economics) so I know that you know that uncertainty is no good.

If the treasury defaults, well, then the shit has really hit the fan. Treasuries are nice because of their superior liquidity. This liquidity will likely be substantially reduced if the US defaults. Another likely consequence will be seen in 401ks. The ones which are heavily invested in treasuries and agencies lose even more value than they would for just a ratings downgrade. This will eventually put more strain on the social safety net as people's retirement funds rapidly lose value, which will end up costing us either more money or quality of life down the road.

Raised debt ceiling + no long term debt management plan = word on the street is that the US credit rating will get a downgrade even if the debt ceiling is raised if there isn't a long term debt management strategy included in the plan.

Raised debt ceiling + long term debt management plan = probably the best scenario (unless you're Ron Paul). Probably no one gets what they want, but we can avert some pretty large problems in doing so.

Across the globe, there is growing astonishment that the world's biggest economy is on the brink of a technical default because its elected leaders cannot hammer out a deal. Nouriel Roubini, the leading economics professor, said there was disbelief in China. "Biggest concern in meetings in Hong Kong: will the US default on its debt? Folks here are shocked by the dysfunctional US political system," he tweeted from Shanghai.


Debt crisis: Republicans scramble to rewrite plan following figures bungle | Business | guardian.co.uk

what i think eludes the sociopaths on the right above all is the profound damage done to the american empire by the bush administration, from the iraq war fiasco to the exploding of the housing bubble/derivatives trade (which blossomed under the aegis of american neo-liberal philosophy & it's pollyanna assumptions about markets and self-interests). what eludes the sociopaths on the right is the damage this theater of dysfunction is doing at a point of teetering weakness. but they don't care. all that matters is getting back into power. it's remarkable.

A US default would be so catastrophic as to suggest a new depression looming.

The US can keep the spending and taxes the way it currently does simply because treasury bonds are considered a very safe investment, so in a flight to safety the US receives a good chunk of financing to keep things going.

With a default, the US is not the safe haven for investments anymore.
This would mean tax hikes and benefit cuts right now. As is, people currently retired getting their income cut by half or more, and people's taxes going up by some 10% at least. Not to mention, of course, the mounting uncertainty. Which is why this whole thing is so ridiculous. Supply side economics are all about economic stability fostering certainty and therefore investment. That is the most basic tenet of it. So in the name of supply side economics, Republicans decided to introduce that which is normally only applicable to poor 3rd world nations: political risk.

If only American media had the balls to:
- point out how catastrophic this would be
- point out that the ceiling increase is in order to pay for the budget that the Republicans already passed

things might be different.

CNN just had some Tea B guy on. They asked him a bunch of questions none of which dealt with the fact that this is money the US already spent going to war and handing out tax cuts. The reporter tried to point out that tax rates are lower then they've been in 50 years or so and he avoided answering that point and went off on another "We spend more then we bring in" rant. Yeah, tell me something I don't know. He said spending more money then you bring in is just crazy. Which it is.. so is the idea that part of the solution shouldn't be to bring in more money. In 1980 the top tax rate for people earning over 250K was 70%. Today it's 35%. Cutting taxes and spending at the same time has been a big part of this problem. Shouting "Taxed Enough!" over and over after having been in favor of going to war(s) is just another form of the rights BS.

Anyone, the Tea Partiers included, who advocates maintaining the Bush tax cuts while suggesting that spending should be drastically reduced to balance the budget should fall under one or more of the following categories:

1) They want to end operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to reducing the military budget and "discretionary spending" in proportion to the Bush tax cuts.

2) They're comfortable with fundamentally and likely disruptively changing America both socially and economically to the point of it being unrecognizable from a historical standpoint.

3) They failed at or struggled with math.

4) They're libertarians and misanthropes.

5) They are independently wealthy.


Who are these people who understand what's really going on and who say "no new revenues/taxes" and "cut spending to eliminate the deficit"?

What Were They Thinking? by Elizabeth Drew | The New York Review of Books

this is a good, detailed summary of the adventures of this confederacy of dunces leading up to this entirely unnecessary dive onto a sword.

the tea party is unhinged.
the republicans are weak organizationally.
the obama administration has continuously capitulated to the right, allowing it to frame issues with disastrous outcomes.

the idiocy of all this is mind-boggling.

It is completely mind boggling. I have a friend who still lives in Oregon he's retired from the local paper mill (if you've bought Costco TP 10 yrs ago chances are he had a hand in making it) Anyway he retired a few years back and began listening to Rush, Hannity and Beck daily. Last time I went to check on my rental I stopped in to see him and he had a yard full of Tea B crap in front of his house. I just let it go in one ear and out the other and changed the subject to fishing, hunting or the local HS basketball team. Well about a week ago I ended up on the phone with his adult son (happens to live next door to dad) and he said "Dad's out tearing all the TEA B signs out of his yard." "Why what happened?" "He said the Tea B'ers wanted to cut his SS and medicare." What the hell did he think was going to happen? Did he not understand the term "entitlement programs?"

Ya gotta hand it to the Koch brother et el. They managed to get a bunch of folks to shout and scream they wanted their benefits cut. I mean the GOP has been doing that for years but the Koch brothers et el have really raised the bar on getting people to vote against their own interests.

I think, as well, that a lot of people have been convinced that it's liberals who are destroying America.

conservative identity politics is built around projections like that.

Modern day robber barons with a fully functioning propaganda machine=death of US the middle class.

Tully had the right idea going south of the border. And I'm not talking about Taco Bell.

/brb, going to Taco Bell.

Interesting analogy, but it doesn't address the reality that forcing a crack addict to stop cold-turkey can, and often does, kill the person. If that's the analogy you want to draw I think you should consider the full ramifications of the position you're advocating.

Bottom line here is many US voters had no problem spending and spending under Bush Jr, happy to see that $3-600 check, completely on board with going to war and welcomed the tax cuts. Now that the bill has come due they want the money they spent to come from anywhere but their own pocket. But what many are finding out is it will come out of their pocket. That's going to happen by reduced benefits for some, increased fees and tolls, increased interest rates on their loans, the devaluation of the dollar. None of this will affect the truly wealthy in the US, hell the increase interest rates will benefit them greatly.

Many average Joe's, yep even "Joe the plumber," has once again been conned into advocating against his own interest. This can easily be tracked. Historically the middle class loses ground every time the GOP has the WH or a significant amount of power in the the congress.

To think we could spend trillions on wars and tax cuts and then after 10 years make up the difference by solely cutting spending (mainly in social programs) rather raising any revenue is just mathematically false.

I went to HS in the late 70's, yep I'm old I know. Back then if I wanted to play football or any sport it was free. My brother's kid is a senior this coming year and to play football it's going to cost him $500 at the very same HS. He can add track, baseball and basketball and max out at playing 1K for all sports. I remember camping a lot when I was younger. The cost of camping at a state park back then was nada. The last time I spent a day, not over night, at a state park the fee was $15. I think an overnight spot was $30, $45 if you wanted RV hook-ups. These are just a couple examples of things that tax dollars use to pay for but are now "user fee" funded. Fees such as these have little to no effect on wealthy families but place a heavy burden on those just getting by and living pay check to pay check.

Since Reagan started with the huge tax breaks for the wealthy the middle class has taken one hit after another and now many average Joe's have been convinced we should no only continue down this path but double down and squeeze more money out of their own pocket. P.T. Barnum was right- there's one born every minute.

McCain erupts: Conservatives are deceiving America
 

McCain erupts: Conservatives are lying to America - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------

I was thinking about this yesterday. It's as though Bush Jr. decided it was good policy to boost spending and reduce revenues. So when you couple that with the practically unmitigated disaster of the financial system, Obama's spending decisions shouldn't come as much of a surprise. More specifically, the federal spending shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

I think even Reagan would have done something similar.*

Oh, wait, he actually did. How soon we forget the Reagan bailouts and tax increases. All we think about are his deregulation and tax cut policies. Though he did mark the beginning of the Republican standard model of governance: tax cut and spend.

*Didn't Reagan add more to the debt in one year than Carter did his entire presidency?

what made this middle class what it was during the fordist period (1945-sometimes in the 1970s)? the manufacturing base. relatively high wages won through collective bargaining arrangements that altered the political situation that shaped wages. this enabled a rational extension of consumer credit, a vast expansion of home ownership.

what has happened since the 1970s? the internationalization of stock trade, the internationalization of manufacturing by way of the net and supply-pool management technologies, the breakdown of the political framework that enabled relatively high-wage jobs for many people, the atomization of the manufacturing base geographically---and of ownership (a major reason why nation-states are finished)...a radical transfer of power to the holders of capital---what amounts to an ideological offensive waged over many years to conceal the fact of this transfer of power---a happy-face simple-minded economic ideology that has NEVER delivered on what people promised by referring to it for most people---a culture of debt---endless war as a way to prop up the economy---and so on.

the problem with jobs goes beyond unemployment. the problem is the entire geography of production that was developed while people were waiting to be trickled down on from above. you know, the good serfs waiting for the lords to do their thing.

this is a major reason why it is obvious to almost everyone (outside the dissociative spaces of the american right) that (a) the present crisis is of neo-liberalism itself and (b) it cannot and will not be addressed using neo-liberal tools, neo-liberal thinking, or neo-liberal policies.

doing that now will accelerate the decline of the american empire considerably.
but it seems characteristic of declining empires that people cannot face the fact of decline.
there seems a vicious circle at the center of it.
i wouldn't have known that but for living through the decline of an empire.

I can't think of any other net effect of neoliberalism besides the evisceration of federal power and the trickling up of the majority of wealth to the top 10%, if not the top 1%.

Since Reagan, America has been conducting a significant experiments from a neoliberal perspective. Now that the net effect is kicking into high gear and is essentially embedded in the nation, there is little now that can be done to maintain what Americans have come to expect to be an American way of life.

It might help explain such American problems regarding crime and education. It might also help explain why much of America is beginning to look like Latin America if it doesn't already.

you'd think that people would be able to look around, see something of what's going on even without Magickal and Secret Information, and say---ok we tried that, it's not worked out, now we have to do something else. if there's anything to this bullshit that has accompanied the fog of neo-liberalism about "american pragmatism" and all that, you'd expect most people to be already thinking in one or another version of this direction. but seemingly they aren't. seemingly, the sales job has convinced many people that the problem cannot be captialism itself, cannot be its geography or that power (and wealth) are now distributed in entirely dysfunctional ways, and that the problem has to be the state.

this flies in the face of over 100 years of the history of actually existing capitalism.

the sales job presupposes a profound ignorance of the history of the existing order.

marx was right about the nature of ideology--statements generated in the interest of the dominant faction of the dominant class that tends to erase the history of that dominant faction and in so doing erases conflict in order to present the statements made in the interest of the dominant faction of the dominant class as if they reflected the state of the world, and as if the world has always been that way.

drudge is reporting the speaker still doesn't have the votes for the budget bill due to the tea party members holding their ground. so he's still waiting to bring it to a vote...

Krugman here illuminates succinctly what exactly is happening on a macro level—namely, the extortion tactics of the Republicans, the capitulation of the Democrats, the failure of centrism, and the myth of the American left (emphases mine):
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/op...R_HP_LO_MST_FB

This is the first sentence from the article you cite:

There are many different types of investors. Most serious investors simply factor in certain assumptions regarding what governments may or may not do. Then they allocate capital accordingly. They do that with "confidence".

First sentence from the 11th paragraph:

Investors still look at US debt as the virtual risk free investment that it is. The rates and demand for US debt has not changed as a result of this alleged crisis.

Additionally, people are generally misusing the term "default". At this point when ever two or more people use the term, odds are they are thinking of different possible outcomes. The President has suggested that there is a possibility that the US won't pay interest on debt, that the US government won't pay Social Security - both things will not happen. There is no reason not to pay US obligations, and I believe the President has no choice. Shutting down some government services is not "default" in my book. This "crisis" is manageable, even given the worse case scenario.

---------- Post added at 04:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

Republicans and specifically the Tea Party faction of the Party has been trying to articulate what there concerns and issues are, the President, Democrats, and some Republicans are not responding to these issues. If I say Mr. President I don't trust you - I don't think you are serious about spending cuts and the response is something like - you don't care about people in need...no progress is made.

But the Tea Party faction in the House is only about 90 people. An alternative to getting Tea Party buy in is to propose a plan that will get moderate Democrat and moderate Republican support. Pelosi and Obama have yet to seriously try this option. They have not presented a plan for a vote that would force moderates to say "yes". Boehner is a moderate who is treated like he is in the Tea Party, he has no where to go other than to the far right because moderate Democrats are not willing to stand and fight with him. Obama is obsessed with fighting all Republicans. It is Obama who has set this tone.

No. In order to earn trust from people like me, it takes action. Words have no meaning from a person like Obama. I stated many times that I think he is the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. In context, I would need a two step process. One, cut spending. Two, look at the revenue side. Obama wants to combine steps one and two - if I don't believe Obama is serious about step one, I would be a fool to agree to a combination of the two steps.

"We" have been saying the above since the inception of the Tea Party movement. No-one is listening.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

I bet you are cold-blooded with the 6 year-old crowd.:thumbsup:

Couldn't resist that one, I did try.:oogle:

What are the Tea Party's concerns and issues? Let me guess: no debt ceiling raise, no revenue increase, further tax cuts, extensive spending cuts.

Are they merely not responding, or are they not taking them seriously?

Are you sure about that? It's not what I've been reading...from multiple sources.

Obama has done little recently but work towards giving Republicans what they want without alienating his entire party. He's already aliented much of it as it is.

Why don't you believe Obama is serious about cutting spending? He's been addressing the deficit issue since 2009. However, reducing deficits while creating jobs is a tough thing to do simultaneously during a deep recession.

You don't think Obama wants to reduce deficits? Why?

the tea party, present company included, is not advancing an agenda that makes any sense outside a particular, pathological framework.

the tea party, present company included, refuses to participate in political discussion.

their premises, which are eminently falsifiable in the world that exists outside the shared imaginary construction that makes tea party people what they are. but they proceed as if this were not the case, and hedge their lunatic discourse round with rhetorical moves that are designed to prevent critique from registering. they are in these ways **profoundly** anti-democratic.



in a democratic context, it is not only possible but desirable---necessary---for incoherent/obsolete/pathological claims to be demolished and their partisans to be marginalized from discussion.

if this was a democratic context, there would be no space for the sociopaths of the tea party to talk from. that their positions exist as a vaguely legitimate option is a demonstration in and of itself of the soft-authoritarian situation under which we all operate.

Well, clearly the Tea Party knows that America isn't a democracy; it's a republic.[؟]

the idea of a republic retained the features of democratic deliberation within a wider political context that protected social class. because some animals are more equal than others, of course. but that changes nothing about the centrality of information in deliberation, nor does it change anything about the problems that are posed for democratic deliberation by pathological arguments. it's why plato used to get all snippy about the sophists, for example. but i digress.

Three trillion dollars added to the federal debt and evidently no concern about getting the annual deficit under $1 trillion let alone back to the levels it was in 2007 speaks for itself.

Yes, let us return to those modern-day Sophists: the Tea Party.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------

I don't think it does. It doesn't say anything about taxes. It doesn't say anything about the recession.

It has no context. The only thing it speaks for is political myopia and the absence of context and history.

Obama has expressed more than once moving away from George W. Bush's ideas of "reducing the deficit." That Republicans are addicted to tax cuts is a huge part of the problem. That Obama is acting less and less like a Democrat and more like a Republican is another huge part of the problem.

For example, what part of "tax cuts expiring" doesn't help reduce the deficit?

Again, I ask why people don't think he wants to reduce deficits. Don't people read or watch the news anymore?

These plan proposals have included spending cuts. From what I've read, the Republicans should be fine with the proposed cuts. The problem is the Republicans' tax aversion. God forbid taxes go any higher. They've never been higher, right? America has never prospered with a higher tax rate. Ever. Right?

dogzilla...such things only "speak for themselves" in bullshitland.

The Chart That Should Accompany All Discussions of the Debt Ceiling - James Fallows - Politics - The Atlantic

Oh, yes. Pertinent facts.

No one wants to talk about those.

They're pesky things at the best of times.


Obama: I'm fixing the problems created mainly by you Republicans.

Republicans: Wait, no! Don't fix the problems! You'll make it worse! Let them sort themselves out. Just step out of the way; it'll be fine!

Obama: Isn't that the fundamental cause of what's gone wrong?

Republicans: (mumbled) ...no....

Obama: (cups a hand to his ear) Hm...?

Republicans: It'll be fine...!

The simplest way to put it is:

Government spending.

Obama has not had legislation or a budget presented in either the House or the Senate that appeals to moderate Republicans or Democrats. He may have talked about it in generalities behind the scenes, I simply suggest that his most simple and direct way of handling this problem would be to appeal directly to moderates and force moderates on both sides of the aisle to formally vote on moderate legislation. I am not a moderate and probably should not be advising moderates, but they actually still control Washington. I argue that Obama has created a divide that has actually forced moderates to the more extreme wings of either party. If Obama can't work with Boehner I doubt there is any Republican he could work with.

McConnell in the Senate offered a plan that shifted the authority and the whole issue away from the Tea Party and put it directly in Obama's control. Obama hasn't supported that either.

Because of, one, the history of spending in Washington before Obama. Two, the accelerated spending that has occurred since Obama. Three, Obama's obsession with increasing taxes. Four, his words having no value.

Example regarding point four. Today, Obama says a rating down grade will lead to higher interest rates (true), and that it will be like a tax (kinda true) affecting every American in a negative manner (paraphrasing his words but not true at all). True, some US debt is held by foreigners - but for every dollar one person, corporation or government pays in higher interest, another person, corporation government receives in interest income - theoretically the net is zero. Or, in simple terms borrowers (specifically new borrower or those with variable rates) pay more and lenders earn more. And guess what, most of that interest is taxable income.

Obama knows better or at least those Phd. economists on his team know better - he either lies, tells half truths, etc. to support his political messaging. I don't like it and I will never take his word on anything. If you and others trust him without question, that is up to you, but understand that I have closely listen to his words over the past several years and there are definite patterns in what he does that supports my distrust of his words.

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

Taxes collected by government or "revenues" went up under Bush. Those "revenues" have gone down under Obama. Today they announced Q2 GDP growth, 1.3% and adjusted Q1 GDP growth 0.4%.

Turning back the clock I remember people tripping over themselves trying to say the US was in a recession long before GDP growth rates went negative under Bush. Today, not a word - yet alone the persistent and under stated unemployment rates.

ace, I understand, as do most, that spending is a problem. It really is a matter of degrees in terms of how people want the problem addressed. What the moderates are "negotiating" over is a balanced approach to the issue. This is a long-term issue that deserves a long-term solution, as it's a problem a long time coming.

The Tea Party's ideas are extremist ideas. If a Tea Party–approved plan went forth, it would likely come down hard on more Americans than even they realize. More specifically, it will come down hard on those who can't really take the burden.

Below is another opinion piece that I think helps shed light on what's going on:

Bernie Sanders: Why Americans Are So Angry - WSJ.com

Simple question with a simple answer. Did the federal debt increase or decrease in the past couple years?

With the federal debt in the range of 100% of annual GDP it's time to start cutting, not raising the debt ceiling.

And yes, that includes military as well as entitlement programs.

And right now, there is decreasing confidence that the US is going to come out of this without at the very least suffering a hit to its credit rating.

Bullshit. Investors are already skittish about T-bills. If anything, the market shows that investors have faith in the solvency of the US ten years from now. Next month, not so much.

Wait, so people are misusing the term "default", because they aren't using it with respect to your personal definition? Seriously, that's dumb. I'm not saying that you're dumb, just that your propensity to define words that are already in wide use in ways that diverge from the commonly accepted definition and then call people out for not using your definition is dumb. It makes discussion impossible. It also allows you a convenient means of backing out of the flawed arguments you present by deflecting with some form of "well that's not what I meant because I was using a different definition of that word". It's like some Bill Clinton "well, that depends on what you're definition of 'is' is" bullshit.

The "crisis" that would result from letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be magnitudes more manageable than the one that will result from failing to raise the debt ceiling or failing to take a balanced approach to controlling the national debt in the long term.

Why is it what the tea party solution always favors the wealthy and always asks the common person to sacrifice? Here's the answer: implicit in the tea party philosophy is the idea that the common man is scum, not fit to lick the boots of the average wealthy entrepreneur. Anyone who hasn't made their mark on the world by earning millions is a sap, a sucker, a leech, selfishly suckling at the resources provided by the put-upon class of wealthy economic elites.

That's the funny thing about the anti-elitism endemic to certain right-ward folks: their fundamental philosophy is wholly focused on the deification of elites at the expense of the common person. Rich people are better than poor people. Us leeches from the poor and the middle classes should just shut the fuck up and be happy for the fact that the wealthy elites who make everything possible are willing to let us live off more than just their refuse. How dare we expect them to contribute to society via taxes proportionally to the amount of benefit they've derived from society? Don't we understand that without them we'd be nothing?

There's a pretty fundamental disconnect between this way of looking at the world and how it actually works. Though I could see how it might be psychologically beneficial if one is exorbitantly wealthy (or if one sympathizes more with the exorbitantly wealthy than with one's peers) to convince oneself that wealth is created in a vacuum. It can help stave off those pesky pangs of conscience that arise when one accidentally bumps into evidence of the widespread inequity produced by an economic system such as ours.

The federal debt increased mostly due to a shortfall in revenues and an increase in safety net spending.

Cutting spending in the mid of a recession will only deepen that recession. There are no two ways about it. In the real world, balancing the budget right now would lead to higher unemployment and lower GDP.

The apparently too complex point being that it is possible to have a plan that doesn't cut spending in the short run but balances the budget in the long run. And the long run is all that matters, because republican gamesmanship aside, the US is nowhere near a default.

I guess I paid a few thousand in new 'taxes' in the past week because the stock market went down and I lost money that I had on paper two weeks ago. Now the government will let me pay less in taxes on my return... I would have rather sold for higher than I bought the stocks at and paid the government a higher percentage in taxes...

That wouldn't of happened had the Teapublicans compromised a little on tax loopholes for their friends...

Get you Stop Loss orders in for next week...

I've been completely out for weeks. Totally liquid at the moment.

The debt ceiling battle has several individuals worried about how much the United States has to pay. Several wonder if the common pick for who owns The United States - China - will leave the U.S. in its wake. Yet as an enlightening report by Business Insider points out, conventional wisdom concerning the country that owns America is wrong.