The Debt Limit Debate

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

I could go on and on about why it is wrong to cut SS and Medicare, but that would make no more difference than you rattling on like this to me.

Regardless of what "facts" we think we have on our side, we are a democracy allows people to disagree with one another. We should act like responsible adults, agree to disagree, and trade concessions to fix what everyone agrees needs to be fixed.

Take a minute and read this article.


"The left’s real enemy isn’t Republicans, it is arithmetic."

[MSimon]

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Well OK. Does that mean I am being tyrannized to pay for prohibition?

No. Drugs are an existential threat. A government which cannot keep itself alive is dysfunctional by default.

Guns, drugs, 32 oz sodas. Don't matter to me. I don't believe in substance prohibitions.

Nukes, nerve gas, anthrax, dynamite, Rohypnol.

Let freedom ring!

Well nukes are an expensive proposition. But nerve gas isn't hard - if I wanted to. Anthrax? Again - small quantities are not too hard. Dynamite? I buy a farm and "require" stump removal. Don't even need to make the stuff. Or I could go into the mining/quarry business. Date rape drugs? Why bother when alcohol is available freely? It is the #1 date rape drug in America. By a factor of 20X.

BTW drugs were not a public enemy until outlawed. Same for alcohol.

And as I said - there are a LOT of folks who would join your fight against government - had you not declared them enemies.

Well I have resigned myself to the powers. If they prevail I will work with them. The rest of you may not be so fortunate. In fact I may not be fortunate. But I give the anti-government forces less than a 1% chance at this time. They are hopelessly divided. Just what the powers want.

So what do the powers depend on? That love is not your guiding principle - as Jesus advised. Your hate and fear have built the machinery that will crush you.

[Diogenes]

Well OK. Does that mean I am being tyrannized to pay for prohibition?

No. Drugs are an existential threat. A government which cannot keep itself alive is dysfunctional by default.

Guns, drugs, 32 oz sodas. Don't matter to me. I don't believe in substance prohibitions.

Nukes, nerve gas, anthrax, dynamite, Rohypnol.

Let freedom ring!

Well nukes are an expensive proposition. But nerve gas isn't hard - if I wanted to. Anthrax? Again - small quantities are not too hard. Dynamite? I buy a farm and "require" stump removal. Don't even need to make the stuff. Or I could go into the mining/quarry business. Date rape drugs? Why bother when alcohol is available freely? It is the #1 date rape drug in America. By a factor of 20X.

And you don't think anyone should regulate the supply of nerve gas? Or Anthrax? Or Dynamite? (All are currently regulated.)

BTW drugs were not a public enemy until outlawed. Same for alcohol.

A tiger cub is not a threat until it grows.

And as I said - there are a LOT of folks who would join your fight against government - had you not declared them enemies.

They aren't enemies, they are just misguided folk who cannot understand why drilling holes in the bottom of the boat is a bad idea. They seem to think that only the one who drills the hole gets wet.

Well I have resigned myself to the powers. If they prevail I will work with them. The rest of you may not be so fortunate.

In leftest takeovers of governments, no one is fortunate. They have a history of mass bloodshed.

In fact I may not be fortunate. But I give the anti-government forces less than a 1% chance at this time. They are hopelessly divided. Just what the powers want.

Well, you have about 45% conservatives on one side, and about 3 % libertarians on the other, so naturally the 45% needs to follow the rump.

So what do the powers depend on? That love is not your guiding principle - as Jesus advised. Your hate and fear have built the machinery that will crush you.

I hate the notion that they will attempt to enslave or kill me, and I fear the possibility that they might accomplish it. This isn't irrational, it's just common sense.

[williatw]

Diogenes,

I could go on and on about why it is wrong to cut SS and Medicare, but that would make no more difference than you rattling on like this to me.

Regardless of what "facts" we think we have on our side, we are a democracy allows people to disagree with one another. We should act like responsible adults, agree to disagree, and trade concessions to fix what everyone agrees needs to be fixed.

Take a minute and read this article.


"The left’s real enemy isn’t Republicans, it is arithmetic."

It is the right's enemy too. The Republicans were no more honest about what needs to be done about entitlements and profligate spending than the Democrats were. Your Romney's vague promises that he knew how to control spending were not reassuring enough to win him the election. To say nothing of his implied threat to go to war against Iran if need be, apparently we have plenty of money for that. The only one who was honest about where we are and what needs to be done was Gary Johnson, that's why I voted for him, although I knew he had no chance of winning. We will hit the wall the way these things usually sort out, that's when the creditors finally figure out that the borrowers won't be able to pay them back, and stop loaning them money. The only caveat is the power of the federal gov to in effect force banks/lenders/financial institutions even other countries to keep loaning them money. Charles Ponzi (or Bernie Maddoff) couldn't force people to keep buying in even after they figured out it was a scam, the feds can.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

I could go on and on about why it is wrong to cut SS and Medicare, but that would make no more difference than you rattling on like this to me.

Regardless of what "facts" we think we have on our side, we are a democracy allows people to disagree with one another. We should act like responsible adults, agree to disagree, and trade concessions to fix what everyone agrees needs to be fixed.

Take a minute and read this article.


"The left’s real enemy isn’t Republicans, it is arithmetic."

It is the right's enemy too. The Republicans were no more honest about what needs to be done about entitlements and profligate spending than the Democrats were.

That depends on to whom you are listening. There have been many organizations on the Republican/Libertarian side that have constantly churned out position papers on what needs to be done. Paul Ryan was picked in large part because he has been a constant deficit Hawk. Apart from that, you are conflating two different issues as being the same thing.

Not discussing what you would cut is not a mathematical issue, it is a political issue. Republicans agree with the math, they just are afraid to make it an issue with the voters who benefit from the financial excess.

Your Romney's vague promises that he knew how to control spending were not reassuring enough to win him the election.

I don't think that had anything to do with it. I personally think there is a good chance that it was fraud which cost him the election, and what parts of it that weren't fraud were the Massive Media headwind that the Liberal New York Democrat Union member Media unleashed on him. (And always release on every Republican candidate.)

It's hard to win anything when you are drowned out by everyone who runs the News and Entertainment industries. I have been telling others for decades, that till conservatives get their own network that is NOT based in New York and that does NOT hire from the pool of Liberal Democrat Union members, they are never going to win anything again.

To say nothing of his implied threat to go to war against Iran if need be, apparently we have plenty of money for that.

Going to war with Iran ought to be regarded as a dire necessity. We should have stomped them into the dirt in 1979, and we probably would have, had it been anyone else but Carter. But since we spent an extra four trillion dollars on Obama's bull$hit, you're right, we don't have much money left for it.


Iran is very likely going to nuke Israel. Israel is going to nuke Iran back, and before we know it, we might have Millions dead right in the run up to World War III. But yeah, Obama's four trillion dollars worth of crap and bribes was easily a good trade for the deaths of millions of people.

The only one who was honest about where we are and what needs to be done was Gary Johnson, that's why I voted for him, although I knew he had no chance of winning.

The most Honest thing he could have done was to tell everyone that a vote for him is a waste of time, and eventually may even be regarded as a horrible mistake.

We will hit the wall the way these things usually sort out, that's when the creditors finally figure out that the borrowers won't be able to pay them back, and stop loaning them money. The only caveat is the power of the federal gov to in effect force banks/lenders/financial institutions even other countries to keep loaning them money. Charles Ponzi (or Bernie Maddoff) couldn't force people to keep buying in even after they figured out it was a scam, the feds can.

I don't think "hit the wall" means what you think it means. I think Hyperinflation will cause food to become expensive, and the fear provoked from being unable to purchase food will turn into urban riots. I think urban riots will turn into efforts to control prices and attempts at governmental take over of farms, followed by armed conflict between rural areas and military units trying to seize food and assets from recalcitrant farmers.



I think you may have voted for mass death, though you do not know it yet.
I hope i'm wrong, but I see this as an all to plausible possibility.

[Maui]

Diogenes,

Since you know your constitutional history so well, you should know that the Founding Fathers were wise to understand that people would disagree on how the constitution should be interpreted and applied to various laws. They vested the power of settling such disagreements on an entity called the Supreme Court. It is they (not you, not Ron Paul) that decide once and for all what laws are constitutional.

So how all you wingnuts can spend all your day sitting around calling unconstitutional what has already been ruled to be constitutional is, well.... unconstitutional.

But again, why go round and round on a debate that will never end and focus on fixing what we agree needs to be fixed by having each side chip in? It's like two people failing to put out a fire because they can't agree on whether to use a blanket or a bucket. Use both for chrissakes!

[hanelyp]

4 persons sitting on the supreme court are treasonous scum, and a 5th is apparently ready to bend over backwards and interpret law as "congress meant it" in order to not overrule said congress.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

Since you know your constitutional history so well, you should know that the Founding Fathers were wise to understand that people would disagree on how the constitution should be interpreted and applied to various laws. They vested the power of settling such disagreements on an entity called the Supreme Court. It is they (not you, not Ron Paul) that decide once and for all what laws are constitutional.

I know my 20th century history pretty well too. Roosevelt attacked the court for continuously ruling against him , and he concocted plans to increase the court size and stack it with his Liberal Robots.

He DID eventually stack (with the help of Truman) the courts with left wing loons for 20 years to the point where he basically transformed the entire structure of the Federal Judiciary. (And as a result, the Law schools and practicing lawyers as well.)


After Roosevelt played hard ball with the court a few times, the court started relenting on some of his goofy schemes. Judiciary decisions by intimidation are not the stuff of good jurisprudence. In fact, it's dictatorial.


One of the most ridiculous decisions of the Roosevelt stacked/intimidated supreme court is Wickard v Fillburn. The Court expanded the interstate commerce clause to the extent that they decided a farmer could not grow wheat to feed his own cows because to do so would be interfering with interstate commerce!!!!

Of the following Judges that rendered this decision, only one was NOT nominated by Franklin D Roosevelt.

Owen J. Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
James F. Byrnes · Robert H. Jackson


This decision is still widely regarded as one of the most cockamamie bits of nonsense ever concocted by the court.

So how all you wingnuts can spend all your day sitting around calling unconstitutional what has already been ruled to be constitutional is, well.... unconstitutional.

Two bits of Wisdom from Abraham Lincoln.

bit 1.
Lincoln once asked of a witness "Suppose you call a tail a leg, how many legs would a sheep have?" The Witness replied "Five." Lincoln said "No. Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it so."


bit 2.
Lincoln said " When I took the oath of office, I swore to defend the US Constitution as I understand it. Not as Chief Justice Tanney Understands it!"

(commentary regarding the Dred Scot decision)

But again, why go round and round on a debate that will never end and focus on fixing what we agree needs to be fixed by having each side chip in?

Because one side caused the debt, and wants the other side to pay for the debt they caused.

It's like two people failing to put out a fire because they can't agree on whether to use a blanket or a bucket. Use both for chrissakes!

No, it's like one side lighting a fire, then asking the other side "Are you going to put that out? "

[williatw]

We will hit the wall the way these things usually sort out, that's when the creditors finally figure out that the borrowers won't be able to pay them back, and stop loaning them money. The only caveat is the power of the federal gov to in effect force banks/lenders/financial institutions even other countries to keep loaning them money. Charles Ponzi (or Bernie Maddoff) couldn't force people to keep buying in even after they figured out it was a scam, the feds can.

I don't think "hit the wall" means what you think it means. I think Hyperinflation will cause food to become expensive, and the fear provoked from being unable to purchase food will turn into urban riots. I think urban riots will turn into efforts to control prices and attempts at governmental take over of farms, followed by armed conflict between rural areas and military units trying to seize food and assets from recalcitrant farmers.

I think you may have voted for mass death, though you do not know it yet.
I hope i'm wrong, but I see this as an all to plausible possibility.

I am sorry but agreeing in principal about the math, but lacking the willingness to act to massively reduce/reform entitlement spending because of political reality (your party the Republicans), is little better than somewhat/vaguely agreeing in principal about the math (the Democrats) but lacking the willingness to act to reduce significantly entitlement spending because of either ideology or the aforementioned political reality. The end results the same, nothing much is done. Romney's budget if I recall would only have slightly reduced deficit/debt from Obama's projected budgets, Ryan's presence notwithstanding. I don't consider my Gary Johnson vote a waste of time, though I hoped the Libertarians would reach the 5% figure giving them federal matching funds, they didn't. Romney was/is a lying Plutocrat, he wouldn't have saved us, the economic meltdown would/will happen if it’s going to happen, little difference between the two clowns Obama and Romney.

[williatw]

To say nothing of his implied threat to go to war against Iran if need be, apparently we have plenty of money for that.

Going to war with Iran ought to be regarded as a dire necessity. We should have stomped them into the dirt in 1979, and we probably would have, had it been anyone else but Carter. But since we spent an extra four trillion dollars on Obama's bull$hit, you're right, we don't have much money left for it.


Iran is very likely going to nuke Israel. Israel is going to nuke Iran back, and before we know it, we might have Millions dead right in the run up to World War III. But yeah, Obama's four trillion dollars worth of crap and bribes was easily a good trade for the deaths of millions of people.

Don't know about that...the Obama policy of sabotage (computer virus or otherwise), economic sanctions (& sabotage), might keep delaying and preventing Iran from getting the bomb. Also supposedly the Supreme Leader in Iran hasn't decided yet to pursue nuclear weapons, for whatever that is worth. To say nothing of Israel's own sabotage and assassination program. I also would lay money on Israel hitting Iran before they were able to nuke Israel. Don't think Romney is/was facing reality thinking that we, teetering on the brink of economic collapse, could afford a sustained conventional war with Iran, population 80 million, several times larger than Iraq. I simply strongly agree with Gary Johnson's statements that our principal foreign policy(and domestic) problem is our deficit/debt problem. Europe, east and west, Israel, Japan, Turkey, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, and Taiwan & all the rest we have pledged to protect militarily seemingly in perpetuity will simply have to manage for itself for a while until we get our economic house in order. After all if in the next few years we collapse economically, that would be on their own anyway.

[MSimon]

Diogenes,

Since you know your constitutional history so well, you should know that the Founding Fathers were wise to understand that people would disagree on how the constitution should be interpreted and applied to various laws. They vested the power of settling such disagreements on an entity called the Supreme Court. It is they (not you, not Ron Paul) that decide once and for all what laws are constitutional.

So how all you wingnuts can spend all your day sitting around calling unconstitutional what has already been ruled to be constitutional is, well.... unconstitutional.

But again, why go round and round on a debate that will never end and focus on fixing what we agree needs to be fixed by having each side chip in? It's like two people failing to put out a fire because they can't agree on whether to use a blanket or a bucket. Use both for chrissakes!

Uh. And the Supremes never get it wrong?

BTW the ultimate decider of what is Constitutional is the people.

And the people are doing what they did to Alcohol Prohibition. Ending it on a State by State basis until the Feds decided to give it up:

http://www.theweedblog.com/the-united-s ... merijuana/

The anti-Prohibition folks are the natural allies of the Smaller Government folks. But the Smaller Government folks don't want them. Good strategy. For losing on the big issues. Alliances could be made. (Think USA - USSR - WW2). But they are not. In fact the left is wooing those people while the right reviles them. Smart politics. If you want lefties in power.

======

Maui,

We can't tax our way out of the current mess. So what are the current options

1. Reduce spending - entitlements - people will be hungry/on the street/dying from lack of medical care
2. Reduce spending - defense - invites a world war (it was done in the 30s)
3. Raise taxes and kill the remaining growth - it won't fix it
4. Inflate the debt away - in progress

This is what I think is really going on:
5. Debt slavery - the government incurs the debt - you are the slave that will be required to pay it off. The whole gun grab thing is misdirection. It is important. It is not central. As long as you keep paying your taxes they have you. Me? I pay mine. Every last cent. I'm not interested in trouble and will align with the winners. Who ever they are - they will need engineers. I would prefer a libertarian victory. But I will not do as badly as some under the communists/fascists.

And the Prohibition thing? Classic divide and conquer. I see a 1932 in the Republican future.

So how high do taxes have to get before high end individuals beat feet? Pretty high if you take France as an example. The folks on the lower end are stuck.

[Teahive]

IMO, the best way to control spending is to dispense with having taxes rates be decided by politicians and instead have them determined by the previous years spending. Next year we get the bill for this year's spending. That's that. Yes, you heard me-- balanced budget amendment (but one that's unpolluted with partisan requirements such as 2/3rds vote requirement to raise taxes).

That requires an accurate prediction of tax revenue to get it right, though.

Alternatively, you could force government to fund any budget shortfall with newly created, debt-free fiat money and ban any new federal debt creation. The government directly printing money would be pretty much like a tax on currency-denoted assets. (And like a tax, there's also a limit to revenue generated that way before everyone avoids the tax by avoiding the currency altogether).

Yes, this would obviously increase inflation. Perhaps massively so. But there would now be an immediate feedback effect from government spending, and those in power could no longer leave the tab to the next generation in the form of debt. That way the government is more effectively limited: too much inflation and you'll get voted out.

It would also mean you get rid of the illusionary "safe haven" that are government bonds. All investments bear risk. Investors simply have to deal with it.

[Maui]

Diogenes,

So on the one hand you bemoan the fact that a democratically elected president, via the powers granted him by the constitution, had too much influence on the court, but on the other suggest that a president knows better than the court? I think what are trying to say is the constitution is right when it works out to your benefit, but otherwise its wrong. That's a little too convenient.

Look, I could also bemoan the fact that W. Bush became president despite getting fewer votes. Despite the fact that I feel like the constitution's rules produced a "wrong" result here, I understand that doesn't mean all others automatically understand it to be "wrong" as well.

But this is straying from my original point which is that there is no way to objectively claim you are right and I am wrong. After all, you have pointed out that even when a disagreement is settled by the process dictated by the Constitution (which you otherwise claim as the true definition of right and wrong), that still doesn't prove the decision "right".

So, again, I call for people to act like the adults we are and accept that we all have different idea of what is "right" and to not sabotage the ability to solve a problem until they get their way.

Because one side caused the debt, and wants the other side to pay for the debt they caused.

I would very much rather not have to pay for the Iraq war I vehemently opposed, but I'm not going to ask for my kids to pay for it (with interest) because I didn't want to.

No, it's like one side lighting a fire, then asking the other side "Are you going to put that out? "

If I play along with that, do you mean you would respond by refusing to put out the fire while the building burned around you until the other side agreed not to start any more fires? This absurd stubbornness leaves everybody dead.

[Maui]

Uh. And the Supremes never get it wrong?

BTW the ultimate decider of what is Constitutional is the people.

Yes, yes my point exactly. The people decided that SS and Medicare are constitutional just as the people elected those that put in place all the spending many abhor.

Democracy is a messy thing, and certainly doesn't always produce the "right" results. If there was anything you could argue should be the ultimate bearer of right and wrong, it would be the constitution. Since we are all in agreement that it doesn't always produce the "right" results, can we all just give up on this pretense that anyone is in the absolute right? *stares at Diogenes.*

There is no absolute right, and as such we can't go around threatening to pull the pin on the grenade until the other side agrees the first is in the absolute right.

1. Reduce spending - entitlements - people will be hungry/on the street/dying from lack of medical care
2. Reduce spending - defense - invites a world war (it was done in the 30s)
3. Raise taxes and kill the remaining growth - it won't fix it
4. Inflate the debt away - in progress

Well, I disagree with #4. The deficit is doing way more damage than inflation can drown out right now. (Perhaps a $1T coin could help?)

But I agree with the other three. Fixing this is going to hurt and I hate those that pretend there is a way to do so without the hurt.

But if we just do some of:
#1 people will suffer but most will survive.
#2 we may be more at risk, but will probably be able to avoid WW3.
#3 economy will suffer... though don't forget the economy did much better with the higher tax rates of Clinton, Reagan, etc than it did with the low tax rates Bush put in place. They'll hurt, but we're obligated... and we'll survive.

[ladajo]

As long as you keep paying your taxes they have you. Me? I pay mine. Every last cent.

Simon,
Do you actually pay taxes? Or are you a net receiver? Based on some of your previous posts about your income levels it would seem that you are in the net kickback brackets. So you "pay", but then you file, and get back more than what you paid, you know like a whole bunch of other folks that do not contribute. Wealth redistribution at its finest.
Should this category have the right to vote? Or should it be that choosing not to contribute or accepting tax funded monies (entitlement) bring with it an agreement that you give up eligiability to vote while you are taking the aide?
I really think we need to break the cycle of "buying" votes with entitlements.