DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Right, taking out 30 bill of a 200 + billion a month income is going to collapse the economy. Which come to think of it, is what the federal govt uses to keep the govt going. Stop scaring people slick.

not how it works. The income does not come in at a steady 233 billion per month. Further, chunks come at irregular payment schedules, and over 50% of it comes in Quarterly installments in April, July, Oct, and January. Thus, no large influx until Jan.15. Why do you have the arrogance to assure us that virtually every economist is wrong. Can you cite ONE reference to anyone of any repute who can go, weekly, through the schedule and come up with a different scenario? Also, you seem to fail to account for the fact that half of the 100 billion is fixed obligations, and that the debt service comes in uneven amounts, just like revenue, and the two aren't in sync. Me, scaring people? Sorry, but I am laying out the facts. Passing that deadline will kill our nation's economy, status in the world and our future. PERMANENTLY, more likely than no. Nice legacy to play chicken with for your grandkids. Mighty patriotic of you.

They will ultimately extend the debt ceiling and fund Obama care, they are just making political hay, trying to get the other guy to flinch and leave them something to hold up as a concession while damaging each other as best they can and building up momentum in their base support.

Same waste product, different delivery.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Right, taking out 30 bill of a 200 + billion a month income is going to collapse the economy. Which come to think of it, is what the federal govt uses to keep the govt going. Stop scaring people slick.

not how it works. The income does not come in at a steady 233 billion per month. Further, chunks come at irregular payment schedules, and over 50% of it comes in Quarterly installments in April, July, Oct, and January. Thus, no large influx until Jan.15. Why do you have the arrogance to assure us that virtually every economist is wrong. Can you cite ONE reference to anyone of any repute who can go, weekly, through the schedule and come up with a different scenario? Also, you seem to fail to account for the fact that half of the 100 billion is fixed obligations, and that the debt service comes in uneven amounts, just like revenue, and the two aren't in sync. Me, scaring people? Sorry, but I am laying out the facts. Passing that deadline will kill our nation's economy, status in the world and our future. PERMANENTLY, more likely than no. Nice legacy to play chicken with for your grandkids. Mighty patriotic of you.

Same scare tactics about sequester and not passing a budget. Yawn.

woodchip wrote:Same scare tactics about sequester and not passing a budget. Yawn.

This is actually a much bigger deal than many are admitting. The world economy is still shaky years after our recession rippled across the world. And now after the NSA revelation, the mistrust of the United States has never been higher. World leaders everywhere are shaking their head in disbelief that something as, in perspective, insignificant as the ACA is causing enough problems for the government to be shut down. We look like spoiled children and if we don't straighten up the world is pretty much going to ground us permanently to our room until we are mature enough to act civilized. Slick is right when he says an economic slowdown, stop, or reversal (take your pick) will permanently change how the United States is treated in the world market... and it wont be pretty.

didn't mention the sequester once, Woody, get your glasses cleaned.

Now, let me see if I understand your overall contention here:

After several years of you telling us that the Obama administration is the most incompetent in Western History, now you are convinced that they can pull off what every expert describes as the near-impossible act of juggling the incoming revenue and both paying all debts and avoiding economic collapse. Would that be correct?

It isn't scare tactics I am dealing in, it is hard facts. Frankly, I might survive the process better than most here, but even I would take a real hit. Most of you would be completely wiped out in under a year if ANYTHING goes remotely close to the predictions of virtually EVERY economic expert. Nice gamble, but I'll pass, thanks.

Man, this would be getting funny were it not such serious business. It starts to look, daily, as if the GOP is down to begging the Democrats to prevent them from complete humiliation......as if they didn't bring it on themselves. You have McCain today doing as much in an op-ed.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Same scare tactics about sequester and not passing a budget. Yawn.

This is actually a much bigger deal than many are admitting. The world economy is still shaky years after our recession rippled across the world. And now after the NSA revelation, the mistrust of the United States has never been higher. World leaders everywhere are shaking their head in disbelief that something as, in perspective, insignificant as the ACA is causing enough problems for the government to be shut down. We look like spoiled children and if we don't straighten up the world is pretty much going to ground us permanently to our room until we are mature enough to act civilized. Slick is right when he says an economic slowdown, stop, or reversal (take your pick) will permanently change how the United States is treated in the world market... and it wont be pretty.

And at what point do you believe the national debt becomes a severe problem, because “the rest of the world” as you put it, is also very worried about that. In fact any sane person is worried about the national debt.

When does it become a problem?

20 trillion
50 trillion
100 trillion

Where?

If it weren’t for these little “crises” we would all just continue spending and borrowing as usual, and quite frankly with the Democrats utter denial that the debt is a problem…I see no end in sight.

Spidey wrote: And at what point do you believe the national debt becomes a severe problem, because “the rest of the world” as you put it, is also very worried about that. In fact any sane person is worried about the national debt.

actually, that is not true, at all. Most all of the worlds leading economists agree that in the past 3 years, the US has done an admirable job of getting it's deficit spending under control, and all it should take is a sensible approach, balancing spending and revenue(both of which need to address the changing population demographics) and a continuation of the economic recovery.

When does it become a problem?

20 trillion
50 trillion
100 trillion

Where?

not so much a number, but a trend and a plan to stabilize it. No, you can't ramp the debt up infinitely, but certainly no one in the world can be too alarmed if they still lend us money at less than 1%

If it weren’t for these little “crises” we would all just continue spending and borrowing as usual, and quite frankly with the Democrats utter denial that the debt is a problem…I see no end in sight.

like I said, read the writings of any major economic outlet: Moodys, S and P, International banks, etc. All have been praising the US for a year or more.

The post was directed at vision, I really wasn't interested in your take....as it is so predicable.

But, I do thank you for your denial…that was right on queue.

callmeslick wrote:Man, this would be getting funny were it not such serious business. It starts to look, daily, as if the GOP is down to begging the Democrats to prevent them from complete humiliation......as if they didn't bring it on themselves. You have McCain today doing as much in an op-ed.

All kidding aside, it has been a long time since McCain been anything but a solo act serving himself and people like you to hold up as a thorn in the side of a party he really hasn't represented for a number of years.
If he is asking to get cover, as you suggest, for something he help bring on himself he would have had to be on the side of the fight against Obama's agenda which he hasn't been...well...ever.

Spidey wrote:The post was directed at vision...

The national debt has always been a problem. Yes, it is extremely high. Yes, everyone sane is concerned about it. I am concerned about it. I'm a conservative (even though insane right-wingers here will call me otherwise). But we are in this position for a couple of reasons, speaking broadly, years and years of artificially low interest rates and tax cuts mixed with rampant banking fraud and two wars we couldn't afford. Both sides are to blame IMO, and even though it's been years since the recession began I think it's going to take many more to fully recover (if at all). One reason is, with every passing day our economy gets intertwined tighter with the global economy. Globalism has been achieved, sorry to inform all those afraid of 'globalists.' Every move we make causes ripples in the global market that come right back at us. Economic movement must be slow and precise. And this is the reason I think it's insane to risk default by not raising the debt ceiling. Our citizens, and especially our politicians, can no longer think we live in a vacuum. Imagining the consequences of this charade to defund the ACA as being isolated to simply Americans on the left and right is ignorant. We damage our economy, the world economy gets damaged, which then damages our economy ad infinitum. Congress as a whole is dysfunctional, but bullish tactics are manifestly irresponsible.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:What would have to happen to start decreasing numbers?

which numbers are you referring to, Flip?

What would have to happen so we wouldn't need to borrow anymore? What is going to prevent the National debt from ever-increasing?

flip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:What would have to happen to start decreasing numbers?

which numbers are you referring to, Flip?

What would have to happen so we wouldn't need to borrow anymore? What is going to prevent the National debt from ever-increasing?

that would require two things(neither easy to do, but both easy to define):
1. Establish a more consistent revenue stream, and adjust it to account for the massive amount of retirees in the populace.
2. Make the outlays more predictable(control rises) and quit zig-zagging between large investments and restrictions on investments in infrastructure. In other words, make ongoing infrastructure spending a constant.

Elsewhere, Woody noting that as opposed to 'profit', a good government should run a surplus from time to time. He is right. But, government only works right when revenues are matched to spending, and sadly, our nation(read: the voters) don't like to do that. They want the services, they want the investment and they want a robust defense, but seem not to wish to pay for them via taxes. That has to end, and perhaps this little debacle will help, should we make it through unscathed.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:What would have to happen to start decreasing numbers?

which numbers are you referring to, Flip?

What would have to happen so we wouldn't need to borrow anymore? What is going to prevent the National debt from ever-increasing?

that would require two things(neither easy to do, but both easy to define):
1. Establish a more consistent revenue stream, and adjust it to account for the massive amount of retirees in the populace.
2. Make the outlays more predictable(control rises) and quit zig-zagging between large investments and restrictions on investments in infrastructure. In other words, make ongoing infrastructure spending a constant.

Elsewhere, Woody noting that as opposed to 'profit', a good government should run a surplus from time to time. He is right. But, government only works right when revenues are matched to spending, and sadly, our nation(read: the voters) don't like to do that. They want the services, they want the investment and they want a robust defense, but seem not to wish to pay for them via taxes. That has to end, and perhaps this little debacle will help, should we make it through unscathed.

All well and good but without a govt. being friendly to business, you'll never have the revenues you need. The last 5 years being a good example. Still 7.5% unemployment and middle class income falling instead of rising.

woodchip wrote:All well and good but without a govt. being friendly to business, you'll never have the revenues you need. The last 5 years being a good example. Still 7.5% unemployment and middle class income falling instead of rising.

nice partisan spin. But that unemployment is down from over 10%, middle class income has been falling(in real terms) for 20 years, and every economist on the planet feels that the US has made an exemplary recovery. Compared to the Western nations we clearly have. Now, would you care to explain how threatening default on US bonds is 'business friendly', because every businessman in the nation would laugh at the notion?

The person ultimately responsible for the looming default (if it happens) will be noted by historians as non other than Obama. He is the man leading the country. Or do you think someone else would get the blame?

woodchip wrote:The person ultimately responsible for the looming default (if it happens) will be noted by historians as non other than Obama. He is the man leading the country. Or do you think someone else would get the blame?

keep dancing. The GOP will be, and always has been, the obvious guilty party. In fact, history will likely include this debacle prominently in the party's obituary.

Fact is, this shutdown is a last ditch effort to kill the ACA. Dampen the atmosphere and see if the ACA can get enough people signed up to finance it. I'm still debating if people will even have the spare money to pay increased premiums and a great deal of the ACA is founded on 18-35 year olds signing up. If the people don't want the ACA, they will show it by their wallets and kill it right here.

EDIT: I think that's my biggest fear of the ACA. If you can't even identify and strengthen weaknesses in our current social safety nets, which have evolved and developed slowly with time. How can I have any confidence if you just rip the bandaid off? ACA is guaranteed to raise premiums across the board. Same people that are not covered now, will not be covered then. Hell, I know a lot of people that struggle to pay their lights every month. They are not just gonna magically go and purchase healthcare all of the sudden. As far as the rate increases, I'm not even sure if that is intended by the legislation, but it damn sure looks like the insurance companies are using the atmosphere and ignorance around the bill to justify the increases. I'm curious how that's gonna be handled.

regarding blame, it may be informative to look at the one time the US defaulted(actually paid late) on Treasury notes. 1979 was the year, and NO ONE considers Carter to be to blame. They don't even blame the Congress, which was Democrat controlled. The guilty party has always been held to be Sen. Rhodes, a GOP senator who kept tacking on a rider calling for a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment onto the debt ceiling, and the matter wasn't resolved until 1 day before the deadline(sound familiar). We ended up paying 3 straight 6-month T bill issues from 3-5 days late. Just that minor problem was enough to raise our T-bill interest rate by 0.8% and that adjustment lasted for nearly 15 years. Total cost to the nation ran into the billions.

callmeslick wrote:...
that would require two things(neither easy to do, but both easy to define):
1. Establish a more consistent revenue stream, and adjust it to account for the massive amount of retirees in the populace.
2. Make the outlays more predictable(control rises) and quit zig-zagging between large investments and restrictions on investments in infrastructure. In other words, make ongoing infrastructure spending a constant. ...

Sounds good. Now stop blaming only half of the culprits and dogmatically championing the other half or else change your name to slick-working-to-protect-the-status-quo.

actually, Will, most of us in the pragmatic(centrist) camp in the Dem party are both aware of, and willing to address, the need to make outlays as predictable as possible. Now, note, I don't advocate for slashing government spending, as we desperately need same to rebuild the infrastructure and continue the recovery. We DO, however, have to continue working to get a bit of stability in cost inflation, and that seems do-able. But, those of us in this camp realize that taxation has to start becoming realistic in terms of relation to outlays. Thus, we HAVE to raise the top end limit on Social Security taxation and extend it to all income. We have to raise taxes(preferably, by a wholesale overhaul of the tax code for both individuals and businesses) in such a way that revenues approach forseeable outlays.

callmeslick wrote:... But, those of us in this camp realize that taxation has to start becoming realistic in terms of relation to outlays. ....

I'd prefer following the lead of someone who would have said:
"outlays need to start becoming realistic in terms of relation to sustainable taxation levels."

It's a perspective thing.
Like a Captain with instincts that keep his men out of excessive trouble instead of one who goes charging forward and then burning up reserves to bail him out when he finds out he drove right into the middle of the ★■◆● to far, too fast

but our outlays are NOT excessive. In fact, since I support Single-Payer healthcare, I feel they should be far greater. The wealthy in this nation have the most generous tax schedule in the Western World and that has to end.

Tell me something slick, do you really believe a single payer system would be anymore solvent that social security? Do you think any excess money collect would not wind up in the general fund and be used to pay for pork barrel schemes either party would come up with. Is there anything in Obamacare that mandates all funds collected go into a "Lock Box" to be used only for health coverage. If not, the politicians will just use the money for their own personnel gratification.

woodchip wrote:Tell me something slick, do you really believe a single payer system would be anymore solvent that social security?

well, given that SS is perfectly solvent, and will be forever with a realistic taxation cap, sure.

Do you think any excess money collect would not wind up in the general fund and be used to pay for pork barrel schemes either party would come up with.

that is where a vigilant electorate comes in. Frankly, more people have to stay aware of the details and NOT listen only to coverage that makes them feel justified in their ideology.

Is there anything in Obamacare that mandates all funds collected go into a "Lock Box" to be used only for health coverage. If not, the politicians will just use the money for their own personnel gratification.

see above.

callmeslick wrote:but our outlays are NOT excessive. In fact, since I support Single-Payer healthcare, I feel they should be far greater. The wealthy in this nation have the most generous tax schedule in the Western World and that has to end.

But in the moment we are running up huge deficits. Therefore spending should be restrained until revenue is high enough to pay the bills we have already run up. Not create gigantic new mounds of debt and use it to justify the call for more revenue when you know the answer to that call isn't automatically the one you want to hear.
Right or wrong you have to budget according to the answer you anticipate, not the one you want to hear! Having a printing press to make new money has been the way they covered that mistake in the past but the world is getting leery of the stuff you are printing.

Win the argument to increase taxes based on the merit of the argument. Not based on the emergency you create by ignoring the situation trying to force the answer to change.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:but our outlays are NOT excessive. In fact, since I support Single-Payer healthcare, I feel they should be far greater. The wealthy in this nation have the most generous tax schedule in the Western World and that has to end.

But in the moment we are running up huge deficits

actually, they are much lower than just a few years ago. Lower than during Bush, even. We did run up massive deficits to stimulate a desperately bad economy from 2008-2010, but that is done with. Deficits have been dropping, and revenue rebounding nicely for 3 years now. Now, the rest of what you lay out is a recipe for disaster. Your revenues should be set so that they approach spending, as opposed to slashing spending, which is a proven economy-killer.
.

Another way to render your party obsolete. Hold up a Confederate Flag right in front of the White House that houses our first Black president to harken back to the Civil War and the fight over slavery to solve all our problems. Neither Ted Cruz nor Sarah Palin has ever been in the military or fought in a war, but they sure do like using our vets to rile the masses to send their bigoted message to the White House. No principles, no honor. The tea party is the Republican's poison pill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... ite-house/



Anyone can come up with all sorts of reasons to not like Obama's presidency, many quite valid, like the spying by the NSA and the lack of solid leadership. But the theater of the absurd that is the tea party has become just plain nasty, insipid and disrespectful. They need to craw into a hole and vanish with their racist drivel and bullying tactics. Tea partiers like to say: "Take back our country"? Take back from whom? The black guy running things? Stand on principle, not utter, bald face bigotry and stupidity. Sick.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... isrespect/

Glad to see you fell into the uniformed voter bloc TC. There was just one idiot there with the Johnny Reb flag and for all you know he was nothing more than a Democratic operative. Also glad to see you picked up how this was a tea party thing when in fact it was a veterans thing. Sad to see you too are attempting to besmirch what the guys who really served this country by saying it was a tea party organised event. Maybe you should of watched the Kelly Files last night when she interviewed the guy who was making a documentary about it. Sadly you continue to get your view points from leftist news sources.

Ya and ONE person makes a movement.

CUDA wrote:Ya and ONE person makes a movement.

gotta agree with CUDA on this one.....as far as I can tell, this goofus was the only person in the smallish crowd with the Stars and Bars. Still, makes for a piss-poor photo op and someone there should've told him to lose the flag or leave.

Now, on the other hand, when speakers addressing the same group in a nearby location say stuff like, "we demand the President to put down his Koran, get up off his knees and leave the White House" , you DO have a BIG problem with most all of us in the nation. That kind of disrespect, and outright ignorance has been both tolerated and egged-on by too many in the GOP, which in turn makes the party look like a storehouse for nutcases.

Yes, because the left has never made ignorant comments in public... Not once...

Isaac wrote:Yes, because the left has never made ignorant comments in public... Not once...

nowhere close, nor without immediate repudiation by their fellow party members. There is a HUGE difference. In fact, most of the really rash stuff I've ever read or heard from the 'left' has come from folks far outside the Party, whereas the GOP has been suckered into embracing these fools.

callmeslick wrote:

Isaac wrote:Yes, because the left has never made ignorant comments in public... Not once...

nowhere close, nor without immediate repudiation by their fellow party members. There is a HUGE difference. In fact, most of the really rash stuff I've ever read or heard from the 'left' has come from folks far outside the Party, whereas the GOP has been suckered into embracing these fools.

Lol!

callmeslick wrote:

Isaac wrote:Yes, because the left has never made ignorant comments in public... Not once...

nowhere close, nor without immediate repudiation by their fellow party members. There is a HUGE difference. In fact, most of the really rash stuff I've ever read or heard from the 'left' has come from folks far outside the Party, whereas the GOP has been suckered into embracing these fools.

I guess you forgot the Wellstone memorial service. Real classy there.

CUDA wrote:Ya and ONE person makes a movement.

And yet, no one took this jackass to task. Tacit approval? I might have gotten in his face, told him where to stuff that damn symbol of racism flag and dared him to strike me for it.

Honestly I'll never understand why the federal government didn't ban that flag right after the Civil War concluded.

Interesting. I just have to jump in and ask: So you feel that the First Amendment should not extend to this guy's tasteless display?

Of course not.

Top Gun wrote:Honestly I'll never understand why the federal government didn't ban that flag right after the Civil War concluded.

Because marines didn't exist yet.