Vote on the debt limit

[barfo]

Poll time!

If you had the sole vote, but the potential plans listed were your only choices, which one would you choose? There is no 'other' option in this poll, because, obviously, everyone would choose 'other'.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Where is the "Invade Canada" option where we give them our old people?

 

[MARIS61]

I choose "other candidates" next time I vote.

Until someone has the stones to end all business subsidies and tax the rich far heavier than they have been in the last 20 years, this country will continue to circle the drain.

 

[barfo]

I choose "other candidates" next time I vote.

Until someone has the stones to end all business subsidies and tax the rich far heavier than they have been in the last 20 years, this country will continue to circle the drain.

Not a valid vote in this poll. This decision has to be made before the next election.

barfo

 

[Klinky]

In the end Obama is probably going to have to lone-wolf it. There is no reason for the Republican's to cooperate, they can say he's a debt hungry liberal if he raises it on his own or that he let the country's credit rating fall if he defaults.

Agreeing on anything, even what they want, with Obama will only give him fodder he can use to parade around as bipartisanship during 2012. They are thinking that sacrificing lunch now will make dinner all the more tastier.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Let's just make it an unlimited debt ceiling forever, continue doubling it every 18 months and see what happens. I'm sure it'll be just fine. This is one area where there need not be any accountability in government.

 

[Denny Crane]

Don't raise limit, default is the closest to my choice. I'd not raise the limit and not default, which isn't an option in the poll. Neither is cut spending, period.

 

[Denny Crane]

If they all agree to cut $3T in spending in exchange for raising the limit, they should do it. The democrats are blocking it because there aren't $1T in tax increases. But the extension of the Bush tax cuts sunsets soon enough, so they're going to get the tax hikes they seem so desperate for anyway.

 

[maxiep]

Keith Hennessy has done the best writing on this subject, describing the issues at hand in layperson's terms: http://keithhennessey.com/

Donald Marron has an excellent blog post about how fungible the numbers are under the GoS proposal: http://dmarron.com/2011/07/20/does-the-gang-of-six-cut-taxes-or-raise-them/

John Podhoretz arrives at a scary conclusion: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...ally-trying-to-talk-the-markets-into-a-panic/

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Keith Hennessy has done the best writing on this subject, describing the issues at hand in layperson's terms: http://keithhennessey.com/

Donald Marron has an excellent blog post about how fungible the numbers are under the GoS proposal: http://dmarron.com/2011/07/20/does-the-gang-of-six-cut-taxes-or-raise-them/

John Podhoretz arrives at a scary conclusion: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...ally-trying-to-talk-the-markets-into-a-panic/

That Hennessy site is excellent. They get some good debate in the comments section as well.

 

[maxiep]

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/272257/democrat-downgrade-reality-and-repercussions

Terrifying.

 

[barfo]

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/272257/democrat-downgrade-reality-and-repercussions

Terrifying.

Is it? I notice a whole lot of your fellow teapartiers going around saying default is no big deal. Michele Bachmann has said she'll vote for default no matter what deal is offered. Ron Paul says we should default.

Are they the idiots they appear to be?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ron Paul says we should default.

barfo

Link.

 

[Klinky]

Link.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...r-a-more-expensive-crisis-later-ron-paul.html

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...r-a-more-expensive-crisis-later-ron-paul.html

"Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later."

That is what he's talking about. It isn't what I've seen people misrepresent him as saying.

He also wrote this:

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

And I agree with him.

 

[barfo]

"Unless major changes are made today, the U.S. will default on its debt sooner or later, and it is certainly preferable that it be sooner rather than later."

That is what he's talking about. It isn't what I've seen people misrepresent him as saying.

He also wrote this:

We have a choice: default now and take our medicine, or put it off as long as possible, when the effects will be much worse.

That's the concluding line of the piece. I can't see how you can make an argument that he's not calling for us to default now.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's the concluding line of the piece. I can't see how you can make an argument that he's not calling for us to default now.

barfo

It's out of context with the whole article he wrote. "If we don't get our shit together and quick, we'd be better off defaulting now when the pain will be a lot less."

He's clearly dubious that we'll get our shit together.

 

[barfo]

It's out of context with the whole article he wrote. "If we don't get our shit together and quick, we'd be better off defaulting now when the pain will be a lot less."

He's clearly dubious that we'll get our shit together.

As he should be. It obviously isn't going to happen in the next two weeks, any more than pink unicorns are going to arrive from Venus and pay off the debt.
The choice we are actually faced with doesn't involve pink unicorns or getting our shit together. The choice is raise the debt limit or default. And he's for default.

This isn't some slip of the tongue. He wrote it down and had it published.

And it fits with your own views, according to the poll, so I'm not sure why you are trying to pretend he didn't mean it.

barfo

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

laymen terms, are we fucked or not?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Is it? I notice a whole lot of your fellow teapartiers going around saying default is no big deal. Michele Bachmann has said she'll vote for default no matter what deal is offered. Ron Paul says we should default.

Are they the idiots they appear to be?




barfo

So we should raise the glass ceiling debt more. And more. And more. And more. Until finally it simply can't be raised again. At that time things will be much worse. Your idea barfo of zero accountability and just shoving the problem behind the dam until it bursts open is typical of lefties.The " Let's just blame and then soak the rich, create more multi trillion dollar entitlement programs like there's no more tomorrow" plan isn't going to work this time.


We don't need asinine sound bites anymore- we need solutions.

Real solutions.

 

[barfo]

So we should raise the glass ceiling debt more. And more. And more. And more. Until finally it simply can't be raised again. At that time things will be much worse. Your idea barfo of zero accountability and just shoving the problem behind the dam until it bursts open is typical of lefties.The " Let's just blame and then soak the rich, create more multi trillion dollar entitlement programs like there's no more tomorrow" plan isn't going to work this time.


We don't need asinine sound bites anymore- we need solutions.

Real solutions.

Apparently (given your vote above) you think defaulting on the debt is a "real solution"?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Your idea barfo of zero accountability

You're a little confused. Any spending the US government does has to be approved in Congress, which is accountable. Raising the debt limit isn't removal of accountability, it's paying for things that Congress approved and is accountable for. And anything in the future that Congress approves, they will be accountable for.

We don't need asinine sound bites anymore

I agree. The other day I heard one, I think it was "We need solutions. Real solutions." How trite and generic, right? Like you, I wish people could move beyond such silly slogans.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Apparently (given your vote above) you think defaulting on the debt is a "real solution"?

barfo

That's a tough question because there are solutions. But if given a straight choice between keeping raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes to pay for that and defaulting, I'd take the default. I think we've come to that. To more or less continue down the same path we're on just makes matters worse.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

You're a little confused. Any spending the US government does has to be approved in Congress, which is accountable. Raising the debt limit isn't removal of accountability, it's paying for things that Congress approved and is accountable for. And anything in the future that Congress approves, they will be accountable for.



I agree. The other day I heard one, I think it was "We need solutions. Real solutions." How trite and generic, right? Like you, I wish people could move beyond such silly slogans.

You're a fool.

 

[Minstrel]

You're a fool.

Enough with the asinine sound bites. Also, I'd suggest you look up the word "accountable." To (kinda) quote a fine film, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Denny Crane]

As he should be. It obviously isn't going to happen in the next two weeks, any more than pink unicorns are going to arrive from Venus and pay off the debt.
The choice we are actually faced with doesn't involve pink unicorns or getting our shit together. The choice is raise the debt limit or default. And he's for default.

This isn't some slip of the tongue. He wrote it down and had it published.

And it fits with your own views, according to the poll, so I'm not sure why you are trying to pretend he didn't mean it.

barfo

He offers an alternative:

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

He offers an alternative:

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling. Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

There are a lot of solutions (like yours), but they are sadly not on the table.

 

[barfo]

He offers an alternative:

It isn’t too late to return to fiscal sanity. We could start by canceling out the debt held by the Federal Reserve, which would clear $1.6 trillion under the debt ceiling.

That is, at best, an accounting trick which accomplishes nothing other than avoiding a vote on the debt ceiling.

Or we could cut trillions of dollars in spending by bringing our troops home from overseas, making gradual reforms to Social Security and Medicare, and bringing the federal government back within the limits envisioned by the Constitution. Yet no one is willing to step up to the plate and make the hard decisions that are necessary. Everyone wants to kick the can down the road and believe that deficit spending can continue unabated.

Well, he's a congressman. If he can't convince his brethren to consider his plan, perhaps he's just not all that persuasive.

Since what he wants to happen clearly isn't happening, maybe he should focus his efforts on finding a realistic solution. Y'know, doing the job we pay him to do.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

President Obama needs to stop the lie about Social Security payments. It's not only irresponsible, it's factually incorrect.

http://www.advancingafreesociety.or...ident-social-security-checks-are-not-at-risk/

 

[Denny Crane]

That is, at best, an accounting trick which accomplishes nothing other than avoiding a vote on the debt ceiling.



Well, he's a congressman. If he can't convince his brethren to consider his plan, perhaps he's just not all that persuasive.

Since what he wants to happen clearly isn't happening, maybe he should focus his efforts on finding a realistic solution. Y'know, doing the job we pay him to do.

barfo

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/91224/ron-paul-debt-ceiling-federal-reserve

Representative Ron Paul has hit upon a remarkably creative way to deal with the impasse over the debt ceiling: have the Federal Reserve Board destroy the $1.6 trillion in government bonds it now holds. While at first blush this idea may seem crazy, on more careful thought it is actually a very reasonable way to deal with the crisis. Furthermore, it provides a way to have lasting savings to the budget.

The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. However, the Fed is an agency of the government. Its assets are in fact assets of the government. Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn’t have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed’s destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again. President Obama and the Republican congressional leadership could have close to two years to talk about potential spending cuts or tax increases. Maybe they could even talk a little about jobs.

In addition, there’s a second reason why Representative Paul’s plan is such a good idea. As it stands now, the Fed plans to sell off its bond holdings over the next few years. This means that the interest paid on these bonds would go to banks, corporations, pension funds, and individual investors who purchase them from the Fed. In this case, the interest payments would be a burden to the Treasury since the Fed would no longer be collecting (and refunding) the interest.