RE: Raising the debt ceiling

RE: Raising the debt ceiling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 4:54:18 AM)
"If youre addressing me, I never said you could." 1. This mornings intelligence test - count the Fs in FR. 2. You gave defacto premission by clicking on the thread. T

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 8:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "If youre addressing me, I never said you could." 1. This mornings intelligence test - count the Fs in FR. 2. You gave defacto premission by clicking on the thread. T Posting on a thread is permission for someone to claim you said something you never did? Maybe in your world.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 9:04:15 AM)
quote: The federal reserve is a private bank and has nothing to do with the government in any way. Other than Congress created it and can uncreate it (or change it) in five minutes if they really want.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 9:08:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR PUT IT OUT HERE MATHEMATICALLY HOW WE GET OUT OF DEBT BY RAISING THE DEBT. PERIOD. T Sigh. Here's what you don't understand (along with some Tea folk now in Congress, who are getting an education from their more experienced colleagues). We are in the middle of a fiscal year. We already have financial commitments. Indeed, not to extend the ceiling would shut down the government--not cut spending, but shut down everything. Serious cutting is for the coming fiscal year.

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 9:39:38 AM)
Serious cutting is for the coming fiscal year. Serious cutting is for the coming fiscal year. Serious cutting is for the coming fiscal year. Serious cutting is for the coming fiscal year. Serious cutting is for the coming fiscal year........... See what I mean ? T

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 10:48:33 AM)
More like see what you want to ignore: quote: We are in the middle of a fiscal year. We already have financial commitments. Indeed, not to extend the ceiling would shut down the government--not cut spending, but shut down everything. Solving problems can't be done by ignoring reality. That's what created this mess.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 11:10:07 AM)
Look, Term--I agree with you that we need to pursue contractionary fiscal policy...just not that collapsing our economy is the way to do that. You want to change business as usual? Convince people that "throw the bums out" every two years is not in any way a strategy (we've been saying and doing that since the 18th century). Convince them that programs and tax cuts cost money. Insist on specific proposals over slogans. Support the candidates who say, "Look, honestly, we're going to have to cut some spending, and we're going to have to raise some taxes."

brokedickdog -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 11:38:07 AM)
I scrolled through the first page of responses and didn't see a copy of, or link to, the letter Geithner sent to Reid, et. al. So here it is: http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/letter.aspx

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 12:06:47 PM)
This post is not going to be very popular. "Support the candidates who say, "Look, honestly, we're going to have to cut some spending, and we're going to have to raise some taxes." " First of all I agree. Now I must make this a general statement, though it doesn't please me to be able. Cutting spending means less. Less benefits of whatever kind, whether it hits the SS checks or the infrastructure, people want more. That is how they will vote in the "ME" society. Scooter chairs for everybody, free daycare, food stamps, medical, everything. They will vote for more, for themselves. Raising taxes means they take more. That means less for "us". People without vested interest in social programs will vote against a tax hike nyway, in their own best interest, in the "ME" society. Taxpayers do not like paying for those who cost the system. Recipients of social services and support may even resent the rich taxpayers, which would drive the wedge between the two groups even deeper. They could be sworn enemies, but will vote the same, for the pie in the sky. Those who get money want to get more no matter what, and those who pay money want to pay less so no matter what, but you still might as well consider them a voting bloc. People who really want to fix this mess, and have the wisdom and foresight to make it as painless as possible have about the same chance as a baby possum in an alligator farm. It's a two fronted war. The war cries from the nearly diametrically opposed factions of the "ME" generation drown out the whisper of common sense. There are very few who would vote against their own enrichment, and be damnned those who it cost. I have dealt with alot of people in different businesses and ways. It is dog eat dog and it has become apparent that the majority actually is getting the representation it wants. They only care about themselves. It would be great if the right people came to power and did something, even something gradual to at least get headed the right direction, but foresight is not 20/20 to say the least. Hell, now even hindsight is not 20/20. That's why I seem to advocate the catastrophe, because otherwise people will never learn. Find a better way, I'm with you 100%. T

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 12:29:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or ... whether it hits the SS checks ... Do you realize this means slitting people's throats? You speak of the ME society as if you don't want to be party to the goodies. You seem willing to sacrifice others for what you regard to be in your best interest which you interpret as being in the best interest of society.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 4:02:41 PM)
quote: It is dog eat dog Only for the foolish. Any good business person knows looking after customers and employees and even suppliers is beneficial to the business in the long run. And while a government is NOT (nor should it be) a business, the concept applies similarly. Unfortunately, it's often thrown out as "a rising tide lifts all boats," fine as far as it goes, as an argument for the trickle down nonsense, or for the fantasy of growing our way out of structural deficits, technically possible but not likely, especially perpetually.

AnimusRex -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 4:36:59 PM)
"A rising tide lifts all boats"- interesting idea, isn't it? That when the general prosperity of a nation goes up, it benefits everyone. I wonder why it isn't used more often to argue that when the wages and living standardof the middle class goes up, the resulting rising tide lifts even the boats of the rich.

Musicmystery -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 4:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex "A rising tide lifts all boats"- interesting idea, isn't it? That when the general prosperity of a nation goes up, it benefits everyone. I wonder why it isn't used more often to argue that when the wages and living standardof the middle class goes up, the resulting rising tide lifts even the boats of the rich. I wonder that too. Henry Ford got it, insisting that his workers be able to afford the cars they made. Seemed to work for him. And it seemed to work for the U.S. during the post-war expansion of the middle class.

philosophy -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 5:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex "A rising tide lifts all boats"- interesting idea, isn't it? That when the general prosperity of a nation goes up, it benefits everyone. I wonder why it isn't used more often to argue that when the wages and living standardof the middle class goes up, the resulting rising tide lifts even the boats of the rich. I wonder that too. Henry Ford got it, insisting that his workers be able to afford the cars they made. Seemed to work for him. And it seemed to work for the U.S. during the post-war expansion of the middle class. ..it usually does work, as long as the water is poured in from the bottom. It's the attempts to pour the water in halfway up that usually fail.........

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/13/2011 9:46:08 PM)
"You speak of the ME society as if you don't want to be party to the goodies" Does anyone ? Realize that it was a general statement. It may not apply to all, but I think it does to most. And now I am trying to envision all those corpses with their throats slit before the establishment of the SSA. What would've happened without it ? What would've happened without alot of things ? It's coming time to pay for "alot of things". Which way to go ? Wrongway it seems. In some countries the tax rate is high but people get the services. For example income tax may be fifty percent, but you save on car insurance because there are less million dollar lawsuits. Companies pay the high tax, but are not saddled with a hundred different operating costs - per employee. Health care is a good piece of that, and forcing people to buy their own is not socialised medicine, far from it. It only strengthens an already gargantuan monopoly (of sorts). Perhaps the insurance industry should be nationalised at this point, make them somwhat like the federal reserve. Not quite the government so to speak. At least it'll give some people something to bitch about. And if you think such a plan would cost freedoms, pish posh, the legislators are already in the pocket anyway. Who do you think was behind seat belt laws ? Who would you imagine sponsored the trans fat law in NY ? Those "freedoms" are gone anyway. It's in or out, can't have it both ways. To spead the risk is to spread the cost. If I insure your car engine, I have every right to require that you keep oil in the crankcase. See how that works ? So riddle me this - Why can insurance companies make money insuring people while we would never even pretend to expect the government to simply break even doing the same thing ? But that is a separate issue. The only way it relates is that if the people were getting the benefits, higher taxes would not be a problem. What would be saved on these other costs could go for taxes. It would work so well if we just decided one way or the other. The insurance industry will deal with healthcare reform, as those who deem insurance unnecessary are forced into the pool, they will provide the revenue. The industry will not suffer, believe me. Incorporating it into the tax structure would accomplish pretty much the same thing. There would just be a different name for the deduction on your paycheck. One advantage of the government taking over the whole industry would be that at least they can be fought on Constitutional grounds - sometimes. With a corporation, your ability to contract can nullify any Constitutional rights that might impede further erosion of rights - usually. Call me full of shit if you want, but you can opt out. You can opt out of federal taxes, it has been done and I have seen it personally. Don't believe that if you choose, but less little known is that you can opt out of SS, that has also been done. In fact some who do it demand back all they have paid in previously, but that doesn't fly too well. They really don't have a big problem with that, but there is one problem. If people choose to opt out, there needs to be a database for them, and it made clear that they get nothing. Not even SSI. NOTHING. In or out. OK fine, but that decision must be made collectively. If only people who have car wrecks get insurance, there would be no insurance companies. The system cannot work that way. Same principle applies if only the sick get health insurance. It is a form of socialism, but people think that's a bad word. What they don't realize is that we already live in a socialistic society like it or not. Why ? Because there are too many people for the system to work any other way. But as I assert(ed), people will act in their own self(ish) interest almost universally. Whether the force of law acts directly, via elected officials, or by insurance company lobbyinsts indirectly, the result is the same. Socialism. Perhaps limited in scope in some ways, but socialism nonetheless. It's not a bad word, if you think about it. T

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 1:51:40 AM)
Much has been written that needs to be commented on, but for simplicity I'll pick out a couple to comment on in this post. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or That's why I seem to advocate the catastrophe, because otherwise people will never learn. Find a better way, I'm with you 100%. This notion that one has to get back to basics, restart the economy, has been done many times before and it has not shown itself to ever create a golden age. We sent over economic advisors to the former Soviet Union. Especially in hind sight they should never have followed what our Western economists advocated which was shock therapy. The communist revolution was all about shock therapy. Just kill the people who stood in the way of progress. Pol Pot did it in a big way. '[In] his time as the leader of Cambodia, ... he attempted to "cleanse" the country, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot This sort of thinking I fear has infected American conservative politics. Apparently, not having learned a lesson from what we managed to do to the former Soviet Union after the fall of communism we did the same thing to Iraq. We gave them shock therapy. The track record of these ideas are not good. I am sensitive to what you wrote "Find a better way, I'm with you 100%." because these words express a tactic I have found is used by people who railroad viable alternatives by simply proclaiming that there are none and committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Solution: Just walk over the points made by the other person as if no points were raised. This sort of stone walling has become a hallmark of American conservatives. Stone walling is where someone shuts themselves off from reason and they stick to their guns no matter how insane their position is.

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 2:17:19 AM)
"Only for the foolish. Any good business person knows looking after customers and employees and even suppliers is beneficial to the business in the long run." Now you made my day. I don't disagree, and have run/owned business(es) that relied strictly on word of mouth advertising. I am not disputing it. But you have set me up for a punchline. "Only for the foolish. Any good business person knows looking after customers and employees and even suppliers is beneficial to the business in the long run." You have obviously not been on the phone with the phone company. T

Termyn8or -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 3:03:49 AM)
"I am sensitive to what you wrote "Find a better way, I'm with you 100%." because these words express a tactic I have found is used by people who railroad viable alternatives by simply proclaiming that there are none and committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. " OK, and you have any idea how to fix this without the catastophe ? Perhaps it could be done, but people don't do things until they are under the gun. What is it now $11 trillion or something like that ? If you want to assert that I railroad viable alternatives, offer some. Perhaps you did and I missed them somewhere in the thread. The current crop of idiots we have in power don't have a clue, maybe you do. I don't mean that sarcastically. Maybe I shouldn't ask that without giving some ideas. OK, many are against reneging on the interest and the debt. That would be $400 billion a year. A nice chunk of change of course. But for now let's take that off the table due to it's ramifications, the fact that we are dependant on imports. What else can we live without ? Well we got the half tril the government needs to keep the lights on. How about that ? Surely there are cuts that could be made, but just how far do you think it can go ? The military. Bases in 130 some odd countries. How about we close them down ? Which ones ? Doing so would be seen as a sign of weakness and might precipitate what we avoid by not reneging on the current debt. International confidence would drop, and the effect would be similar. Plus we lose control over the countries we occupy. So we'll have a bunch of people against that. Plus the fact that there may be other ramifications, not the least of which is the addition of former soldiers to the vast ranks of the unemployed. What's left, SS ? There's a winner. Just hope the AARP and similar groups never find out until they are too dead to vote in the next election. And it doesn't matter if they are getting $400 or $2,000 per month. Refer to my other post for clarification on that. Ok we're down to medicare. Just try it and see what happens. You'll see more wheelchair ramps at the polls than ever before. What's left now ? If indeed the current spending was some sort of an investment, that would lower costs in the long run, I could understand. But that never was and never will be. The healthcare reform is totally wrong, it does nothing and really I don't even see where the tax money is going if we all have to pay. Building a bridge, well cars get better gas mileage than boats, but in the end that lowers the revenue raised by gas taxes. I have thought this out for a long time and have come to the conclusion that there is no easy answer. What's more it is still morally wrong to put the debt on our progeny. This is the proverbial rock and the hard place. One or the other must be broken. Just like they have to rip you apart to do open heart surgery, and it hurts, you might never fully recover. So would you rather die from yet another heart attack ? A heart attack is a good analogy IMO to the depressions in our economy. We have been warned. Perhaps a good path would be to cut everything across the board. At least the load is distributed equally, well sort of. If we continue to pay the interest, the entitlements, everything, so that nobody gets cut off, just cut everything period, fairly and equally across the board, and leave the taxes alone, what would happen ? The budget is say around three tril, we take in about two tril. That is a 33% cut. EVERYTHING. That means federal workers, soldiers (not in pay but number), SS recipients who are just barely getting by, and I mean those who need it, not abuse it. Medicare, oh boy, take some of the profit out of medicine ? How dare we ? People have boat payments you know. So do bankers. The government panders to the votes of the "ME" generation and have no problem wrecking this economy to stay in that cushy chair. What are the options ? Do you see something I don't see ? I doubt it. So what's the answer ? Hope the whole fucking thing doesn't fall down on us rather than waiting for it to fall on our offspring ? That's been tried, and it's iminent failure is becoming apparent. Any ideas ? At all ? I am an INTP classed problem solver by nature and profession, and I don't see any easy way out. I have thought it out omnidirectionally, backwards and forwards, inside and out, left and right and up and down. I see nothing people will accept. You can't please everyone, might as well please yourself because soon nobody will be pleased. I yield the floor. T

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 4:04:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "You speak of the ME society as if you don't want to be party to the goodies" Does anyone ? Realize that it was a general statement. It may not apply to all, but I think it does to most. The point was everyone wants to be party to the goodies. I was piercing your ME argument. The complaint concerns how the goodies are acquired, not that they are desired, but you were arguing that what was central to the problem was desire, too much me. This is a red herring because I see no evidence that the conservatives have no such appetites. They just figure that the people are on welfare are standing in the way of paradise. On the contrary the conservative seem obsessed with all for me, as little as possible for you. As I see it, the problem is the free market system has boxed itself into a corner. It was possible to ignore health care when companies were able to provide people with stable employment with benefits. When they moved away from this, they created the need for universal health care. When most people were employed with stable jobs with benefits it was possible to marginalize the few who fell through the cracks by say calling them lazy. Today, there is no such a thing as stable employment. One day you are worthy of healthcare and the next you aren't. In this regard the free market system is not especially sane. Today, the only people who are not falling through the cracks are predators, those who are "wise" enough to know better and realize that ME is more important than everyone and anything else. quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And now I am trying to envision all those corpses with their throats slit before the establishment of the SSA. What would've happened without it ? What would've happened without alot of things ? A better analogy is why it is important to go to your dentist periodically for a teeth cleaning. Surely, there is such a thing as plaque that needs to be removed from time to time. As such upheaval is necessary. What stands in the way is a Jewish argument, interestingly enough. It concerns wisdom. There are things we must refrain from doing even though the matter seems plain because we are not wise. The sort of wisdom needed is attributed to God and a thing that resides in his domain exclusively. Though it is surely the case that such a thing as plaque exists, a teeth cleaning does not usually involve tooth extraction. The Nazi SSA argued that certain teeth simply needed to be extracted and the problem would go away which is not so. If you follow their logic to its puritanical conclusion, there is only one way out, namely put a bullet in your own head because no matter what you do, the problem is going to remain. Though such a conclusion might appear rational to the obsessed, it is clearly silly. Tooth extraction is not a general solution. What would have happened if we never had a Social Security Administration (SSA)? Haven't you noticed that there were beggars on the street at the time of Christ? Though we have them now, there aren't as many. The Social Security Administration keeps grandma off the streets. If you don't think putting grandma on the street isn't slitting her throat and you can't connect the dots on this one, I'm not sure there is anything I can say that will get the point across. Modern society isn't like ancient Jerusalem where family was the welfare provider. The number of people who will fall through the cracks due to our mobility which is enforced by our economic system would be larger. Something has to replace what we have taken away. Our economic system has made a welfare state a necessity. The argument is similar to that was used to abolish slavery. It was never wholesome to begin with. If we can be rid of it, all the better. If we can keep grandma off the street, we should. Slavery was very good to some, not so good to others. If you were on the end that benefited from slavery, you might not be inclined to believe that it was such a bad thing, all the more for ME.

BenevolentM -> RE: Raising the debt ceiling (1/14/2011 5:18:04 AM)
What the Republicans have been trying to do is corner the Democrats by destroying the economy. If you destroy the economy, they reason there will be no money to run the government and the government will have to give up social security. It won't give up national defense, because its all too easy to cook up something especially when the people are already frightened of their own shadows.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875