Woodward's new book on debt deal collapse puts the onus on Obama

[TakeYouToTasker]

No we're not. Lehman proved how cavalier attitudes about benign defaults can snowball into a global calamity. A US default would be a disaster because it will set off exogenous factors that have nothing to do with the US budget deliberations. US lawmakers should recognize the role the country plays on the geopolitical stage and what the dollar means to its stability.

 

You believe that a default will cause the Democrats to face up to the reality of unsustainability of the deficits. You couldn't be further from the truth. If the country defaults, and the debt ceiling isn't increased you'll set off a massive run on treasuries. But there's nothing in that equation that would force Democrats to stand off their position. So you will have a default, the massive reverberation of a default, and wil still need to deal with the budget, where the other side will tell you,"why should we cut spending, the US is no longer AAA, treasuries are getting whacked, dollar is in the dumps, so what's the downside of more deficits?"

You would prefer to watch the Gotterdammerung wind itself down to it's bitter, inescapable end. I would prefer a real soulution. Atleast we have honest disagreement.

 

There is nothing cavalier about my position. I'm simply stating that we're long past the point where our future has become politically inevitable.

Edited September 8, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[dayman]

You would prefer to watch the Gotterdammerung wind itself down to it's bitter, inescapable end. I would prefer a real soulution. Atleast we have honest disagreement.

 

There is nothing cavalier about my position. I'm simply stating that we're long past the point where our future has become politically inevitable.

 

Ahem

 

*puts on raspy, silky smooth, soothing voice*

 

"So far everyone who has bet against America has lost money"

 

*enjoys massive applause*

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ahem

 

*puts on raspy, silky smooth, soothing voice*

 

"So far everyone who has bet against America has lost money"

 

*enjoys massive applause*

Betting against the dollar, or the T-Bill, is not the same thing as betting against the American people.

 

Peddle your ugly, illusory populism elsewhere.

 

I know a good many "new money American multi-millionaires" who have built their wealth understanding America's economic decline.

Edited September 8, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Nanker]

Applying for more credit cards is not a way to pull oneself out of crushing debt. Spending must be curtailed. GG's correct that effectively refusing to pay our debt obligations will have calamitous effects on the global economy. It will further deteriorate our sorry state of internal political intercourse effectively to a level of gang warfare. We simply do not have the money to have the government pay for everyone to have everything that they expect government to provide them.

 

Republicans believe in large part that revenues will increase if measures are taken to give incentives to the private sector to create jobs, but they don't want to agree to more spending. Democrats seem to want to spend their way out of debt and are in the curious position of defending Social Security while trumpeting a reduction in the payroll tax which funds it thereby assuring its demise at an even earlier date.

 

Governmental revenues must increase, and governments must reduce their spending. That's a reality stated here previously by Magox/WT. There's no way out without those two things happening. I think the Republicans are philosophically closer to cracking that code than the Democrats are. Trouble is, the last time they were in charge, they got distracted and became full of themselves and began spending like drunken sailors. That's a slur against drunken sailors actually, because at least sailors spend their own money.

 

First off, we need to have a budget passed. It's a crime against The Constitution that our national government has been working under continuing resolutions for over three and a half years. No private enterprise in the world would behave in such a manner and likely would not survive if it tried living by endless applications for increasing their credit limit. The US government is able to survive because its currency is a world trading standard. We lose that status and the dollar will become as valuable as a Weimar Republic Mark. Abject chaos would result. Look to Greece for an example of a society broken and totally broke by unsustainable unbridled government spending.

[GG]

Greece is also the perfect example of what will happen in a US default. One would imagine that facing the dire straits of their fiscal position Greeks would have ironed out a solution. Yet here we are. So what makes you think that Dems and Reps would forge a solution after a calamitous default?

[WorldTraveller]

Greece is different. The grave to cradle mentality runs deep, the over promises they have made are hard to undo, and nearly politically impossible to follow through on. Not to mention that they have no sway and are at the mercy of other nations, primarily Germany, simply because they don't have control of their own destiny ie. central bank.

 

We need leadership, someone who will work tirelessly to forge relationships with their political adversaries, someone who will compromise, and that when all is said and done, gets results..

 

 

Unfortunately, that person doesn't live in the WH

Edited September 8, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[TakeYouToTasker]

My point is not that default wouldn't be calamitous. Of course it would. My point is that we've reached a point where default is a certainty unless we decide to starve our peeople and ruin our currency by monetizing our debt. I'd simply rather do it now while our debt is lesser, and the American people haven't had 100% of their wealth squandered.

[Nanker]

Greece is different. The grave to cradle mentality runs deep, the over promises they have made are hard to undo, and nearly politically impossible to follow through on. Not to mention that they have no sway and are at the mercy of other nations, primarily Germany, simply because they don't have control of their own destiny ie. central bank.

 

We need leadership, someone who will work tirelessly to forge relationships with their political adversaries, someone who will compromise, and that when all is said and done, gets results.

 

 

Unfortunately, that person doesn't live in the WH

 

Americans should think objectively and ask themselves who is better equipped to convene an economic task force, drive situational analysis, craft a To-Be state and develop action plans to achieve the goals set forth in it. BO has proven that he won't budge on his principles e.g., "fairness" (whatever that means) for a more pragmatic less dogmatic approach. Romney's has demonstrated multiple times (to his detriment and attacks by gainsayers and "flip-flopper" epithet branders) that he can reach across the isle, make tough choices, forge deals and produce results. He's also not afraid to make tough decisions.

 

To me, BO's goals are more like visions without substance, that after four years in office ring hollow and vapid. They are belied by his abysmal record of non-accomplishment and unceasing spiteful rhetoric against those who don't believe his lofty vision, and who are now beginning to point out the increasingly obvious fact: the emperor has no clothes.

[GG]

It may help to focus the discussion. There are two deficit concerns. One is the short term deficit that's due mostly to the recession the other is the long term structural one caused by exploding entitlements.

 

The problem is that people conflate the two in the discussion when the solution to each is different. The debt ceiling and current budget deliberations are short term in nature, and risking a default because there's a recession driven imbalance between revenues and expenses is unnecessarily suicidal.

 

The big discussion should be about the structural deficit caused by progressive nanny state policies. But that should be separate from the near term budget issues.

[DC Tom]

Comparing my financial situation to the US government? Are we going to actually talk seriously here?

 

 

Congressional Budget Office:

By itself, setting a limit on the debt is an ineffective means of controlling deficits because the decisions that necessitate borrowing are made through other legislative actions. By the time an increase in the debt ceiling comes up for approval, it is too late to avoid paying the government’s pending bills without incurring serious negative consequences.

 

 

Read more: http://business.time.../#ixzz25qHen3F7

 

 

Of course, that's a powerful argument for tying budget negotiations and debt ceiling negotiations together, which is a complete validation of the Tea Party's stupidity.

[John Adams]

Obama is a divisive hack and as a result, we have this ****ty economy.

[dayman]

Applying for more credit cards is not a way to pull oneself out of crushing debt. Spending must be curtailed. GG's correct that effectively refusing to pay our debt obligations will have calamitous effects on the global economy. It will further deteriorate our sorry state of internal political intercourse effectively to a level of gang warfare. We simply do not have the money to have the government pay for everyone to have everything that they expect government to provide them.

 

Republicans believe in large part that revenues will increase if measures are taken to give incentives to the private sector to create jobs, but they don't want to agree to more spending. Democrats seem to want to spend their way out of debt and are in the curious position of defending Social Security while trumpeting a reduction in the payroll tax which funds it thereby assuring its demise at an even earlier date.

 

Governmental revenues must increase, and governments must reduce their spending. That's a reality stated here previously by Magox/WT. There's no way out without those two things happening. I think the Republicans are philosophically closer to cracking that code than the Democrats are. Trouble is, the last time they were in charge, they got distracted and became full of themselves and began spending like drunken sailors. That's a slur against drunken sailors actually, because at least sailors spend their own money.

 

First off, we need to have a budget passed. It's a crime against The Constitution that our national government has been working under continuing resolutions for over three and a half years. No private enterprise in the world would behave in such a manner and likely would not survive if it tried living by endless applications for increasing their credit limit. The US government is able to survive because its currency is a world trading standard. We lose that status and the dollar will become as valuable as a Weimar Republic Mark. Abject chaos would result. Look to Greece for an example of a society broken and totally broke by unsustainable unbridled government spending.

 

I'm not sure how $5 trillion in tax cuts puts us "closer to cracking the code"

 

http://www.bloomberg...ses-table-.html

 

I know you guys hate Obama and think the Liberals are just insane, but the truth is the GOP philosophy really is the thing keeping some sort of a deal from happening. The fiscal cliff is there to force a "grand bargain" of sorts...and one side basically still going with "all my stuff" (massive tax cuts)...that's not a bargain and it doesn't add up. You guys can call Romney a bold leader w/ a plan, or Ryan some wonk-genius boy...but it is what it is. If Obama gets a second term we're going to get something close to Simpson-Bowles...that is going to work a lot better than this madness the GOP is trumpeting...all that assumes of course the GOP agrees to *gasp* some revenue increases...so here's hoping they take it to heart when they lose this election.

Edited September 8, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Nanker]

What that MSNBC analyst refuses to account for are the taxes the government will gain by putting millions of Americans back to work and by growing the economy. 90% of $1mm < 40% of $10mm. 100% of nothing is nothing. It's not a zero sum game. We have to stop the government from overspending. First that, then let's grow the economy. The rest will take care of itself.

[dayman]

What that MSNBC analyst refuses to account for are the taxes the government will gain by putting millions of Americans back to work and by growing the economy. 90% of $1mm < 40% of $10mm. 100% of nothing is nothing. It's not a zero sum game. We have to stop the government from overspending. First that, then let's grow the economy. The rest will take care of itself.

 

And tell me why you can say that w/ a straight face. What evidence do you have that will happen. B/c there is plenty of evidence it won't happen, and hasn't happened. We've done nothing but cut cut cut for over a decade....we should be awash in jobs and should have been for the last decade...your thinking is just a fantasy. It's not a plan. It's a hope. A hope that hasn't come true...obviously we can't "balance the budget" to grow the economy which grows b/c we balance the budget...there needs to be an actual plan...and the government spending doesn't match up w/ the growing economy over the last few years of stagnation...we really could have used a little more gas in 2010/11 (linked w/ a compromise kicking in around 2013/14 to provide stability and giving us time to get things under control)

 

Edited September 8, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Nanker]

You're looking in the micro economic field of state spending when our Federal government has us swimming in a cesspool.

Brilliant!

[dayman]

You're looking in the micro economic field of state spending when our Federal government has us swimming in a cesspool.

Brilliant!

 

Just accept that you are slowly realizing your candidate is full of **** and knows it himself.

[/dev/null]

Obama is a divisive hack and as a result, we have this ****ty economy.

True, Obama is a divisive hack. But he is not the reason we have this ****ty economy. Neither is George W Bush

 

70 years of freebies, handouts, and redistribution of wealth paired with a century of the Federal Reserve manipulating the economy has more to do with it than who sits in the big chair

[Doc]

Just accept that you are slowly realizing your candidate is full of **** and knows it himself.

Romney may be full of ****. Barry is definitely full of ****. We've got to let him go.

 

And we have this ****ty economy thanks to Clinton and his "National Homeownership Strategy."

[dayman]

Romney may be full of ****. Barry is definitely full of ****. We've got to let him go.

 

And we have this ****ty economy thanks to Clinton and his "National Homeownership Strategy."

 

Romney is full of **** for sure. In what way is Obama full of ****?

[3rdnlng]

Romney is full of **** for sure. In what way is Obama full of ****?

 

Haven't you noticed, it's easing out his pores.