Debt Ceiling and the threat of The U.S. Defaulting

[sukeban]

I would have to disagree if you think that Democrates don't care about the debt. If you look at history Under obama the debt has actually decreased by 100's of billions of dollars since Bush almost crashed our economey from de-regulation of buisnesses and cutting taxes we couldn't afford to do paying off for 2 wars on a credit card. Obama had to borrow trillions in the begining of his presidency because of the damage the Republican policies left... Republican are no better about caring about the debt other than their rhetoric talking points with no real good plan than cutting social security and medicare and medicaid and defunding other programs that the country can not do without.

 

Democrates seems to have this weird brand about spending too much when in my opinion it's not really spending when you are trying to rebuild the country as one would in an investment.

 

If you notice recently GDP has fallen for the 1st time since obama took office back in 2009 by 0.1% . If Republicans keep blocking legislation in the house because they think its "spending" the GDP is only going to be falling more.

 

Maybe people might not like big government but we have already had big government even before obama took office and to try to reverse a government by trying to shrink it is more dangerous IMO than trying to reinforce what already exist.

 

You cant just get into a car accident then get reconstructive surgery then decide to have all the reconstruction removed because you figured you can't afford it right now.... And this is what the Republican party is trying to do with our government....

 

Democrats get that wrap because they don't spend money on the "right" people. Defense spending that benefits big military contractors and their employees = good because it's a) macho and b) keeps a certain politically powerful class of people employed. Spending on things such as welfare isn't perceived as patriotic or even desirable because it benefits people (or is perceived to...) who are easily tossed into the category of "other" (non-whites) and who have little political clout due to their economic standing. For sure there is abuse and waste going on there, but I'm pretty sure that goes (probably 10-fold) for military spending as well. What is worse from a fiscal point of view, the "welfare queen" (who is almost automatically conceptualized as black even though there are more poor whites on welfare) or the pallets full of cash that we shipped to Iraq and never heard from again (or the Joint Strike Fighter program x_x).

 

And TBH, it is FAR better for our economy to have a more even dispersal of income (welfare) than having enormous concentrations of wealth in one place and zero income in another. Wealthy people don't spend their money like poor people do; they save it and it chills out in a bank (probably foreign) earning them interest whereas a poor person spends nearly all that they make in the local economy. Not to lionize welfare--as working should always be incentivized and superior--but I would much prefer to help out my fellow citizens than shovel more cash into some bloated executive's coffers paying for wars and equipment that we really don't need.

 

There's also that sort of personal blindness where people somehow carve out exceptions for themselves, while punishing others more harshly for the same action. What I mean is that an Iowa farmer might condemn welfare recipient as a scurrilous freeloader yet in the same breath defend his Farm Bill subsidy that also comes from the government. Ditto for the defense industry employee or, to a certain extent, to some hypocritical seniors on things like Medicare. To a conservative retiree say, in Florida, their Medicare coverage is "justified" and sacrosanct, but unemployment insurance for a displaced worker or funding for the Head Start program for a child is dismissed as largesse. In other words, spending on you and people like you is good, spending on others and people who aren't like you is bad. Basic tribalism and/or self-interest. But rationalizing the irrational is key to maintaining a balanced psyche, meaning that it is imperative that such contradictions are left unquestioned.

[HeyYou]

And mixing politics with money is NEVER a good plan...... The V-22 Osprey is a fine example of a project that should have been killed, as it was NOT going to meet design criteria that was finalized while still in the design stage..... Folks TRIED to kill the project several times, as yet another 'design change' came along, and STILL it wouldn't meet the original criteria. But, since some congressman wanted to keep his job, and killing the project would mean a loss of jobs in his state...... the project lived on, and now they are in service. Granted, some folks still like it, but, they haven't had to auto-rotate below 1500 feet yet either. (the osprey can't. which was one of the criteria it failed to meet.....) Not to mention the loss of any forward firing ordinance.... (again, it went away because it compromised the cargo capacity......)

 

One thing I am sure we can count on though, our government, taken collectively, is stupid. It isn't THEIR money, so they spend it freely. Even when they don't HAVE any. Not like they are going to get hurt when the bottom falls out, they will just move to their vacation house in the cayman islands, and watch the fireworks, as society slowly (quickly?) collapses.

[colourwheel]

A new problem for the GOP...

 

Ted cruz today advised the House Republicans to stop reading the New York Times. Seems The message is to keep the Republicans in the dark and only read things that do not criticize the GOP on what they are doing on capital hill. This seems as an attempt to rally house Republicans to block more democratic legislation despite national popularity.

[rizon72]

I would have to disagree if you think that Democrates don't care about the debt.

Sorry, but I see Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Biden telling us things like 'we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem', getting ride of the debt ceiling, and we need to spend more. That's, to me, not caring about it. It seems that whoever is in power, doesn't care. I see democrats on TV telling we need to spend more, so please, don't tell me that democrats think it's important, I'm not seeing it by their own words.

[colourwheel]

 

I would have to disagree if you think that Democrates don't care about the debt.

Sorry, but I see Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Biden telling us things like 'we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem', getting ride of the debt ceiling, and we need to spend more. That's, to me, not caring about it. It seems that whoever is in power, doesn't care. I see democrats on TV telling we need to spend more, so please, don't tell me that democrats think it's important, I'm not seeing it by their own words.

 

It might seem to you the Democrates don't care about the debt but they are not the party who threatens to put our country into defualt just to get things they want. That to me is totally not caring about the debt, threatening to not pay the bills. When you are in a financial bind, you don't just threaten to stop paying your bills you would most likely go get another loan and/or refinance.

[JimboUK]

Anyone who has to take out a loan to pay off another loan is in serious trouble, when you can't pay your debts you cut what you spend. The US cannot keep spending at the rate it is, debasing your currency to inflate the debt away will only work for so long, sooner or later the markets will get spooked, yields will rise, repayments will soar and then it'll be default time.

[colourwheel]

Anyone who has to take out a loan to pay off another loan is in serious trouble, when you can't pay your debts you cut what you spend. The US cannot keep spending at the rate it is, debasing your currency to inflate the debt away will only work for so long, sooner or later the markets will get spooked, yields will rise, repayments will soar and then it'll be default time.

 

Sure that sounds nice to cut your spending, and was never saying the U.S. should spend more. The problem lies in what to actually cut. There isn't really an easy answer but The democratic party has an upper hand on this issue because it has been republican policies that happen to get our country into such debt to begin with...

[HeyYou]

It used to be the republicans were all about 'borrow and spend', and the dems were 'tax and spend', commonality there being "spend"..... Now, both parties are 'borrow and spend', as the revenue base from taxation has declined dramatically with the loss of millions of jobs in 08, (and the decline began even before that...) and the disappearance of the middle class. Currently, we have a revenue problem, AND a spending problem. Both need to be addressed, in order to prevent a major economic collapse when the current system finally breaks down, as it must..

 

As I see it, Tax Reform is going to have to be a BIG part of the solution. Going to a graduated flat tax would even the playing field for everyone, and eliminate all the loopholes that have accumulated over the decades. Starting with a clean slate is about the only way I see to rectify a fair few of the current issues.

 

Spending is a whole 'nother barrel o' fish.... Currently, "health and unemployment" is almost 24% of our budget...... Followed by Social Security at 22%, and Defense at just over 19%..... we can see where the lions share of our money is going..... what can we do about it?

 

The BEST thing I can see to do would be Get America BACK TO WORK. That would go a long way toward reducing costs of unemployment, and health care... provided we can start getting back some of those jobs that disappeared in the last decade...... part of that due to Tax laws that make it more profitiable to build factories anywhere else BUT here. Second thing I would seriously consider doing is SIGNIFICANTLY reduce our military presence overseas. We are NOT the World Police. No one appointed us to that task, and quite frankly, we can't afford it. (not to mention that our mere presence is a selection of countries actually inflames the residents there against us..... self-defeating policy there...)

 

I have a long list of reforms/changes that could be made to help this country..... but, given that the folks that have the power to make the changes, have zero motivation to do so, and EVERY motivation NOT to..... I am fully expecting our country to continue on its road to collapse, and third-world nation status.

[JimboUK]

 

Anyone who has to take out a loan to pay off another loan is in serious trouble, when you can't pay your debts you cut what you spend. The US cannot keep spending at the rate it is, debasing your currency to inflate the debt away will only work for so long, sooner or later the markets will get spooked, yields will rise, repayments will soar and then it'll be default time.

 

Sure that sounds nice to cut your spending, and was never saying the U.S. should spend more. The problem lies in what to actually cut. There isn't really an easy answer but The democratic party has an upper hand on this issue because it has been republican policies that happen to get our country into such debt to begin with...

You either find stuff to cut or in the end cuts will be forced by the markets because you will no longer be able to borrow, a default means you have to balance the budget overnight and guess who suffers the most when that has to happen? it's not the 1%, as usual left wing policies will end up hurting the very people they're supposed to benefit. Parties should stop blaming each other and get on with solving the problem, if a fire starts in your kitchen you don't stand there arguing about who is to blame, you deal with it and then worry about who was at fault.

[colourwheel]

 

Anyone who has to take out a loan to pay off another loan is in serious trouble, when you can't pay your debts you cut what you spend. The US cannot keep spending at the rate it is, debasing your currency to inflate the debt away will only work for so long, sooner or later the markets will get spooked, yields will rise, repayments will soar and then it'll be default time.

 

Sure that sounds nice to cut your spending, and was never saying the U.S. should spend more. The problem lies in what to actually cut. There isn't really an easy answer but The democratic party has an upper hand on this issue because it has been republican policies that happen to get our country into such debt to begin with...

You either find stuff to cut or in the end cuts will be forced by the markets because you will no longer be able to borrow, a default means you have to balance the budget overnight and guess who suffers the most when that has to happen? it's not the 1%, as usual left wing policies will end up hurting the very people they're supposed to benefit. Parties should stop blaming each other and get on with solving the problem, if a fire starts in your kitchen you don't stand there arguing about who is to blame, you deal with it and then worry about who was at fault.

 

If you have the "ability" to borrow more money despite how much you borrow I think the reality would be a family would borrow more money then to dramatically cut spending on buying food, clothing, medicine, school, etc... or anything a family would need at the time.

 

Defaulting in this political situation is referring to not paying bills.

 

Defaulting - Fail to fulfill an obligation, esp. to repay a loan or to appear in a court of law: "some had defaulted on student loans".

 

Blame is only being put on the Republican party because they always try to put the country into an economic threat just to get things they want. You really don't ever see the democratic party doing this...

Edited February 14, 2013 by colourwheel