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

[ColdHeartonIce]

HeyYou

As I said, you ONLY have the rights government grants you.

Well so following your logic the people in North Korea and Cuba don't have any rights because the Government there said so.

 

The bill of rights is a fine example of the GOVERNMENT DETAILING just what rights you DO have. If it ain't in writing, guess what, you don't have it.

Why are you quoting the whole post when you don't even read it?!

They jotted down a few basic rights as securitization. They said people have way more rights than that, given by god(or nature) than this. All men are created equal by god, not by government. And they knewd, someday someone will show up and say "Oh these are the only rights you have and not one more". This is wrong and a sick philosophy which makes it total meaningless debating anything based on self-determination, because for you people doesn't exist such a thing as self-determination.

 

All men are created equal, not declared equal. You and me and everyone else still have these rights even the papers they were written on is long gone.

 

Back on topic:

The Topic is that people are in kin liability for debt they don't made because collectivist government decided they and their children and their children have to pay for others. You don't get that and thats why even with 2.700+ posts you are and will be dead wrong on any debate about that.

[Ghogiel]

HeyYou

As I said, you ONLY have the rights government grants you.

Well so following your logic the people in North Korea and Cuba don't have any rights because the Government there said so.

Which is a case in point, yes he is saying exactly that, because clearly, the indisputable fact of the matter is people in North Korea do not have the same rights as people in the US.

 

The bill of rights is a fine example of the GOVERNMENT DETAILING just what rights you DO have. If it ain't in writing, guess what, you don't have it.

Why are you quoting the whole post when you don't even read it?!

They jotted down a few basic rights as securitization. They said people have way more rights than that, given by god(or nature) than this. All men are created equal by god, not by government. And they knewd, someday someone will show up and say "Oh these are the only rights you have and not one more". This is wrong and a sick philosophy which makes it total meaningless debating anything based on self-determination, because for you people doesn't exist such a thing as self-determination.

 

All men are created equal, not declared equal. You and me and everyone else still have these rights even the papers they were written on is long gone.

 

Back on topic:

The Topic is that people are in kin liability for debt they don't made because collectivist government decided they and their children and their children have to pay for others. You don't get that and thats why even with 2.700+ posts you are and will be dead wrong on any debate about that.

Asserting that all men are created equal or there is a supernatural place where rights of man come from does not make it true.

 

In fact when the Bill of rights was penned, it didn't apply to all men at all. For slavery was still legal in most of the US at this time. Men are created equal, sure it sounds nice, but what does that really mean? It's a little ill defined. And even if they are, they still might not have any rights!

Edited January 11, 2013 by Ghogiel

[sukeban]

Arguing about rights in this day and age....

 

@coldheart

 

It should BE obvious, in concurrence with Ghogiel et al. that rights--even if somebody claims them as natural or God-given--are only in effect if they are recognized as such by a society or country, e.g. some manner of government or agreed upon order. They do not exist outside of this context. Rights can, in fact, only be defined in the context of competing interests--other people--for a man on a deserted island has every right--and no rights--as there is nothing save for coconuts and monkeys for him to define his "freedom" against. To claim a right is not to possess that right, let alone legitimately posses that right. Legitimacy (should) come(s) through laws, which are given by groups of people organized in governments.

 

Furthermore, the entire conception of "rights" is entirely a western european phenomenon. Ask an elderly Chinese person or a Russian what they think about "rights" (to say nothing of Africans, Egyptians, or Salvadoreans, etc.) and you will hear an entirely different story unless they have been educated and exposed to western political thought. I do not support Relativism in all cases, but this is a case of you attempting to ascribe rights to other people that they may or may not want. Most people likely do not desire to be oppressed, but there is that ancient Persian (I think) saying of "Better 1000 years of autocracy than 1 day of anarchy." The concept of rights are rooted in cultures and all cultures are obviously not the same. Asian cultures are more group-oriented, Russian culture is more paternalistic and resigned. Not all cultures desire "rugged individualism" as you do. To hold that all cultures aspire to the same rights is vehemently ethnocentric and, TBH, narcissistic.

 

@colourwheel

 

Republicans won't run out of money anytime soon. Though their base of small donors is dwindling, in the era of Super-PACs you don't need that anymore. Sheldon Adelson alone could probably finance their entire campaign in 2014 as his Macau casinos enable him to essentially mint his own money (I thought of him when watching Skyfall, actually). The only saving grace is that money doesn't ensure victory. Is a necessary precondition but it is not in itself sufficient for victory.

 

I would also caution against thinking Democrats will pick up the House in 2014. The gerrymander is still too fresh, and the PVIs are too stacked against Democrats for anything less than a 2006 wave to sweep them aside. I think that Democrats will pick up seats, yes, but not anywhere close to enough for a majority. Democrats need to win the popular vote something like 54-46% in order to secure a majority. In 2012, they only won 51-49. I would say 2016 would be the best, earliest hope for unified government.

[colourwheel]

@colourwheel

 

Republicans won't run out of money anytime soon. Though their base of small donors is dwindling, in the era of Super-PACs you don't need that anymore. Sheldon Adelson alone could probably finance their entire campaign in 2014 as his Macau casinos enable him to essentially mint his own money (I thought of him when watching Skyfall, actually). The only saving grace is that money doesn't ensure victory. Is a necessary precondition but it is not in itself sufficient for victory.

 

I would also caution against thinking Democrats will pick up the House in 2014. The gerrymander is still too fresh, and the PVIs are too stacked against Democrats for anything less than a 2006 wave to sweep them aside. I think that Democrats will pick up seats, yes, but not anywhere close to enough for a majority. Democrats need to win the popular vote something like 54-46% in order to secure a majority. In 2012, they only won 51-49. I would say 2016 would be the best, earliest hope for unified government.

 

Yes the republican party won't run out of money yet by shrinking their political funding vastly from the New Egland area will have a dramatic effect on how the party tries to evenly distribute where they will try to invest in. Sheldon Adelson isn't dumb and wouldn't spend every dime he has just to get polititian's in office just for one cycle. Even with Super-PACs and other funding a majority of the nations wealth actually comes from the New Englad area. When political contributers are not funding one party they vastly shift to fund the other party or use it for another agenda.

 

I am a little more optimistic that the Democrates will control the house, senate, as well as the White house next cycle reguardless of gerrymandering districts. When the most popular person in your party is Chris Christie for several reasons as well as Republican party already being divided internally, I don't see the Republicans very organized even when 2014 comes around. You have to think despite any plans the Republicans might have to still maintain control of the house they have wasted and still are wasting time arguing amongst their own party, the democratics have had plenty of time organizing and planning since the 2012 elections ended.

 

Recently if you have analyzed how the past elections have unfolded, Most campaigns start the moment after the elections end. Politics have changed in a big way since Super-PACs were allowed. And looking at the current state in American politics the Democrates have already had a 2 month head start without any of them doing anything politically damaging unlike the republicans currently in office are doing...

Edited January 11, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

 

The Topic is that people are in kin liability for debt they don't made because collectivist government decided they and their children and their children have to pay for others. You don't get that and thats why even with 2.700+ posts you are and will be dead wrong on any debate about that.

 

Erm, what ever gave you the impression that I "don't get that"? And you complain about me not reading YOUR posts?????? Seriously?

 

Our government spends more money than it takes in. That is indeed a fact. Our government doesn't seem to recognize the fact that they can't do that forever.... There is going to come a time when folks start wondering when/if they are going to get repaid. China has already brought it up once, in the not-so-distant past. If you or I tried to run a household budget in the same manner, we would be in prison in short order. The fed keeps talking that they are reducing the deficit. That's just political-speak for "We are still spending more than we get, just not quite as much." The national debt continues to go up, and the percentage of the national budget that goes toward servicing that debt (JUST paying the interest, doing NOTHING toward the principle) also continues to increase.

 

In all reality, the republicans might be doing us a FAVOR by not expanding the debt ceiling, putting us into default, and shutting off the foreign money pipeline. It IS going to happen at some point, (pipeline being shut off.) I suspect the crash would be more bearable now, than it will be in 10 or 20 years. Quite frankly, I don't think we are even going to last that long. My guess is, that within ten years, we are going to experience economic collapse, when the various countries we owe money to want it back. Japan is already devaluing their currency (again) in order to increase exports/draw more business. China has been doing that trick since Nixon. (you remember him, don't you?) One of the side effects of them doing so is, Japan buys less american debt.... I.E. we can't borrow as much money from them.....

 

As it stands right now, China could destroy us without firing a single shot, simply saying "We are calling your loans due." and it would be all over. America, as it stands now, would cease to exist. Now, China doesn't have any real motivation to do that at the moment, because we are their number one customer..... that isn't going to stay the case forever either. They are expanding their markets EVERYWHERE. When they decide they don't need us any more, they can sink us at their whim. Then THEY will OWN US. If you are considering studying a foreign language, I am thinkin' Mandarin might not be such a bad plan.

 

The worst part is, the folks in Washington are very much aware of all of this. But, do they do anything about it? (aside from whine and bellyache....) Nope. They make too much money from things just the way they are. THEY are doing fine. It's the rest of us that will take it up the nether regions. And they don't care about that either.

 

Corporate American runs the US government. They have the money, they have the lobbyists, they can speak the loudest, and make threats that the good folks in washington listen to. (vote for this bill, or next election cycle, we will be supporting your opponent.) The average citizen has no power. They have no voice. Soon, you will have no rights, as the government of the incorporated states of america will legislate them away.

 

Perhaps it's time for a good revolution? Seems most countries are forgiving debts of nations that dramatically change governments......

[sukeban]

@colourwheel

 

Republicans won't run out of money anytime soon. Though their base of small donors is dwindling, in the era of Super-PACs you don't need that anymore. Sheldon Adelson alone could probably finance their entire campaign in 2014 as his Macau casinos enable him to essentially mint his own money (I thought of him when watching Skyfall, actually). The only saving grace is that money doesn't ensure victory. Is a necessary precondition but it is not in itself sufficient for victory.

 

I would also caution against thinking Democrats will pick up the House in 2014. The gerrymander is still too fresh, and the PVIs are too stacked against Democrats for anything less than a 2006 wave to sweep them aside. I think that Democrats will pick up seats, yes, but not anywhere close to enough for a majority. Democrats need to win the popular vote something like 54-46% in order to secure a majority. In 2012, they only won 51-49. I would say 2016 would be the best, earliest hope for unified government.

 

Yes the republican party won't run out of money yet by shrinking their political funding vastly from the New Egland area will have a dramatic effect on how the party tries to evenly distribute where they will try to invest in. Sheldon Adelson isn't dumb and wouldn't spend every dime he has just to get polititian's in office just for one cycle. Even with Super-PACs and other funding a majority of the nations wealth actually comes from the New Englad area. When political contributers are not funding one party they vastly shift to fund the other party or use it for another agenda.

 

I am a little more optimistic that the Democrates will control the house, senate, as well as the White house next cycle reguardless of gerrymandering districts. When the most popular person in your party is Chris Christie for several reasons as well as Republican party already being divided internally, I don't see the Republicans very organized even when 2014 comes around. You have to think despite any plans the Republicans might have to still maintain control of the house they have wasted and still are wasting time arguing amongst their own party, the democratics have had plenty of time organizing and planning since the 2012 elections ended.

 

Recently if you have analyzed how the past elections have unfolded, Most campaigns start the moment after the elections end. Politics have changed in a big way since Super-PACs were allowed. And looking at the current state in American politics the Democrates have already had a 2 month head start without any of them doing anything politically damaging unlike the republicans currently in office are doing...

 

Democrats have an distinct advantage in terms of their media targeting and get-out-the-vote operation. A large component of this is due to the "brain drain" of highly educated professionals in the high-tech fields as well as academics, inclusive of: statisticians, psychologists, political scientists, behavioral economists, software engineers, network engineers, communications strategists, etc.) from the Republican party, largely due to their retrograde social stances and their general "resistance" to empiricism and scientific thought. These folks have now, almost as a bloc, joined the Democratic coalition and have volunteered their services in working on Democratic campaign endeavors. To Obama's credit, he has been open to accepting their aid. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, your have pseudo-scientific "gurus" like Rove, whose apprehension of modern politics is based largely on historical precedent and their "gut instinct" regarding how elections will break. 2012 proved that the scientists were correct, and presaged the Maya 2012 of the right-wing gurus. Politics will henceforth be fought with data, with precise media targets and messaging. Republicans a) realized this trend too late, and b) have a far more shallow "bench" of professionals from which to draw upon. Likely, they will be able to close the gap somewhat by throwing money at the problem, but the most innovative work will--for the foreseeable future--continue to be done by Democratic campaigns simply because of who their coalition represents.

 

Be that as it may--district lines are district lines. Democrats live in high-density and easily "quarantinable" districts. And due to the increased geographic divergence between "red" and "blue" America, they are not likely to ever move back to the countryside. There's lots of data and analysis out there of just how high the hurdle is for a Democratic takeover of the house under the 2010 gerrymandered districts. Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular stand out as eye-popping examples of anti-democratic (small "d") districting, with Democrats winning both of those states yet receiving small minorities of their House seats--all due to teh gerrymander. Given the "pwnd by scope" nature of Republican demographics, more and more of those elderly, rural dwellers will leave the voting pool (euphemism) each year, whereas new Democratic voters are being minted each and every day. At a certain point though, even those high red walls will be breached. But the question is when, and I don't see 2014 as that time--unless Republicans do something truly insane like actually cause us to default or a right-wing militia goes crazy in some deep red state.

 

But don't fool yourself in the meantime. Wall Street is going to continue to donate to Republicans (and Democrats to a lesser extent). They have money enough to rebuild after Sandy and don't need FEMA. I don't think that those people in New Jersey STILL without power were donating big dollars to the GOP in the first place.

[rizon72]

My biggest concern about the US debt is the way democrats care about it, they don't seem to. I've been concerned about it since Reagan. I watch people on TV as these 'experts' from the demoratic party on MSNBC tell us there is no problem, and we should spend more. I want to know at what point will they be concerned about it? 20 trillion, 30, 59, 100?

 

We pay millions each day just on the interest of our debt. Think about how much we could do without that debt? For example, our debt is growing by about $2 million a minute! Think about that? A minute! We spend billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, into paying off interest, not the debt, interest on the debt. We coul use that money and put into our education, roads, etc but instead we're paying interest. And I hear democrat leaders saying there is no problem? I'm not buying it. There will come a time when out debt will be too much and I will say, I told you so.

[HeyYou]

Dick Cheney was the one that said "deficits don't matter".... and there are folks that flatly state that debt is a GOOD thing....

 

I agree though, that the scale of the national debt is getting (has gotten) seriously out of hand. There is going to come a time when our creditors are going to start wondering not "when" we are going to pay them back, but "if we CAN pay them back". China has already made motions in this direction, though that was a few years ago, and I haven't heard a peep about it since then.

 

I see the US going the way of Greece..... coming to a point where no one will give them any more money, as they can't afford to service the debt they already have. At that point...... I suspect economic collapse is going to be the end result, making the recession of 2008 look like a walk in the park. LOTS of bad things will happen..... As I depend on the government or a majority of my income, (disability) I will be screwed.

[colourwheel]

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....

Edited February 1, 2013 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

Both parties are responsible for where we are today. For the longest time, the dem police was "tax and spend", and the republican party was "borrow and spend", the commonality there being "spend".... Our government wastes billions every year, there are billions more in fraud. Obama had the bright idea he could finance part of his health care plan with 'savings' from decreased medicare fraud. The mere concept of the government being able to reduce fraud is laughable. That is a pipe dream, that will never be realized. So, more in debt we go.

 

Even as it stands, the federal budget is operating with a deficit of over 1 TRILLION dollars per year. That is a fair chunk of change, and is going to be difficult to excise. One thing is for sure, it's gonna be painful for everyone.