Debt Ceiling reached Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on May 16, 2011 at 10:58 am
from the WSJ: Web Link "The U.S. government is expected to hit the $14.294 trillion debt ceiling Monday, setting in motion an uncertain, 11-week political scramble to avoid a default. "
It is so sad to see the GOP playing these games just to pretend to satisfy the tea-baggers in their party. After all, almost the entire republican House already voted for a budget (the Ryan/GOP budget bill) that requires adding trillions to our debt. It possibly might balance the budget in 2031, and if they continue to back away from their privatizing Medicare vote, will never balance the budget.
So if they already voted on their own budget bill that adds debt and requires raising the debt ceiling multiple times, how do they expect voters to believe them when they say they can't raise the ceiling?
Before the fringies jump on here and talk about Senator Obama's symbolic protest in 2006, please look up how many times Boenher, Cantor and the GOPpers have voted to raise the ceiling in the past (here's a helpful hint: it's a lot!!)
The Chamber of Commerce (as much a pro-business and conservative a group as any,) has already warned of the deleterious effect of not doing the responsible act and saving our economy, our credit rating and our standing among nations. Web Link
What is the GOP doing, other than posturing?
I thought they told us in November that their mandate was simple: JOBS!
How do Americans feel about this shameful GOP ploy? Web Link
"22. Which of the following best describes the implications you believe will occur if Congress does NOT vote to
raise the debt limit: (ROTATE CHOICES)
It will be disastrous to the U.S. economy, OR
It will not have a serious impact on the U.S. economy
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 12:57 pm
> What would be the effect on my household were I to continue
> to spend far beyond my income and credit?
This discussion ... or argument, bickering, BS session ... whatever it is, should have moved past this point at least a decade probably more, a long time ago.
A government is not the same thing as a family.
A government ... our federal government basically allocates money where it wants to, or rather where it is "motivated" to. Money is a political tool.
We say the Fed is a private institution, but it is certainly out of the control and understanding of most Americans, and acts for the benefit of something, as well as has goals. These goals should be public, and there should be metrics that closely follow them and a press that closely reports on them. The government should print our money if we cannot get that from the Fed. It has never even been audited.
We have a system that virtually no one understands in a political system we call a democracy, or more accurately a representative democracy, a republic ... but how can we be represented by our so-called representatives when they do not understand the banking system for the most part ... proved by their stampede to pass the bailout, and then almost universal comments that they either did not understand what they did, were pushed to do it by fear, or comments that just plain do not correlate with reality proving they are either lying or they do not understand it either.
In any case, the public is not served, it is deceived, and over time tricks have been used to justify spending less on the public while more profit goes to the institutions that undercut them and then send money overseas to non-democratic countries that in turn send money back here to further disinvest and disenfranchise Americans.
The ultimate arbiter of money and wealth is military force - period, but that only happens when all the other hidden political deals break down, and there is plenty of hidden political dealings going on.
So ... can we get past saying that our country, state of city is a like a household, please?
Next question, if our system is not like a household, then how should we all look at it?
Why does every other interest group in the country ... read "corporation" "business entity", "money source", get representation with teeth, but the workers who do the work and make up the country get ganged up on by monied interests and beaten down and given less and less, and still we need to bring in illegal aliens to do the work cheaper?
How do we have the brass to trumpet our support of democracy all over the middle east when we do everything we can to ignore the needs of our people and disenfranchise and lie to them every day?
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on May 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Walter: can't help you with your family problems, but it does bring up a good question: why do conservatives (whom I otherwise assume are reasonably intellectually capable) always bring up the false meme of comparing a family with a government?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but they're not the same. One can declare wars, borrow and pay back as GDP increases and money is more plentiful; one can create revenue for the long term by policies that employ Americans, increase their value to the country through education, etc.. One get out of bad times by spending wisely in investments that build the country for greater prosperity.
Let's look at your odd analogy that a government is a family:
Ol' daddy dubya, presented with a balanced budget (surplus, actually) decides to voluntarily cut his income (tax cuts,) while increasing his spending on silly crusades, cutting his kids education, ignoring his home's maintenance and give away tons of money he decided not to make and doesn't have, to his rich uncle (the top 2%) who has already been doing phenomenally well for the past couple decades.
So the rich uncle, having been given tons more money by daddy dubya, has NO SHARED SACRIFICE, while dubya's kids suffer and the house infrastructure continues to fall apart.
Or maybe we can look at the cheating spouse analogy:
When the GOP talk about balancing the budget - they are like a cheating husband telling his wife and kids they have to live on less because he's spending it on his GF. (I stole that one, but it kind of rings true)
Maybe the typical Palo Alto family should cut their military spending in half for a couple years: (hope the formatting works!) Web Link
Rank↓ Country↓ Military expenditure, 2010 % of GDP, 2009↓
0 a 0 0
1 typical Palo Alto family 687,105,000,000 4.7%
2 People's Republic of China People's Republic of China 114,300,000,000 2.2%
3 United Kingdom United Kingdom 61,285,000,000 2.5%
4 France France 57,424,000,000 2.7%
5 Russia Russia 52,586,000,000 4.3%
6 Japan Japan 51,420,000,000 1.0%
7 Germany Germany 46,848,000,000 1.4%
8 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 42,917,000,000 11.2%
9 Italy Italy 38,198,000,000 1.8%
10 India India 34,816,000,000 2.8%
I think we've long since caught up with the Jones in arms spending (more than next 15 "families" combined!)
Yeah, Walter, let me know how that false family analogy is working out in Palo alto.
Posted by No, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Yes, a government runs on income and expenditures, like a family.
To believe otherwise is to deny reality.
Governments, like families, have to spend within their income, and if they borrow more than they can pay back, they go bankrupt.
Governments, like families, have to live in security. Families defend themselves against attacks by locking their doors, allowing only trusted individuals into the house, and being ready to defend themselves against intrusions. Government's job is to do this for our nation. I have no problem with us spending on military, except related to supplementing OTHER countries' military ..dont' like that.
No to raising the credit card limit to our governnment. Do what people have to do..spend less, pay down their debt, and regain solvency.
Cut our deficit spending BACK to the last time Repubs were in full charge of House, Senate and White House ( 167 billion per year). Better yet, cut our spending back to LESS than what we take in, and start paying down our debt. ( What a novel idea)
I hope the Repubs stand firm..no raising the debt ceiling. Cut our spending, pay down our debt. Hand the next generation a country that is not on the brink of bankruptcy.
Posted by No, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 1:38 pm
AEN: Your post is so absurd. You didn't know that ol Daddy Dubya, as you so fondly call him, brought in the most tax revenue in real income in the history of the USA in 2006? AFTER 2 wars and tax cuts?
The problem was we spent all of it, and borrowed yet more than we had, on expanding our government.
Oh well, keep demonizing Bush, Repubs etc. Most Americans understand this is WAY past parties, WAY past "big government" Repubs and "bigger government Dems", and into Americans versus the Parties.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on May 16, 2011 at 2:02 pm
your claim: "ol Daddy Dubya, ... brought in the most tax revenue in real income in the history of the USA in 2006?"
No link, and I'm not sure what you mean by "real income" relating to tax revenues.
It took five years of Bush reduced revenue and Bush deficit spending to get back to where we were in revenues. Your trickle down, Laffer curve, "cuts equal more money" theories are the joke. Actually, it's a joke that anyone seriously peddles them anymore. Bush doubled our debt. Tax cuts were part of destroying a surplus.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on May 17, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Awkward silence from the alleged fiscal "conservatives on these boards.
Here's a gem about anyone foolish enough to actually impede raising the debt ceiling:
"The full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets.
The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."
Oh dear, what nasty commie, socialist from Kenya said that?
Hint: his debt tripling, largest middle class tax hike in history, trade with the enemy, policies wouldn't get his butt a seat at a gop debate these days.
Posted by I'm confused, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 17, 2011 at 8:48 pm
AEN is either senile or an idiot or both. Time for a reality check. No one can spend what they don't have, not even the almighty Obama. It's over. It's the day of reckoning. The public won't allow their taxes to be raised. The government can't borrow any more unless elected officials approve it. At this point it's irrelevent where the debt came from, it needs to be paid off. The gov't isn't going to default. Start choosing the programs you can live without, keep the government from interfering with free enterprise so that employment and the tax base can increase and this might all work out. Gov't debt is how today's politician's look good at the expense of the next generation.