In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 05 2013 08:19 oneofthem wrote: i thought some of you were talking about why they hate the u.s., and not about why the u.s. is interested in that region.
if we weren't there, because we were interested in the region, they wouldn't have any reason to dislike us. they don't care about how infidels run their society on the other side of the planet. that's just a jingoistic american fantasy
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
lol, that's actually pretty funny. I think reality shows it differently however, Boehner is normally quite the caver. That was just debate talk, as sad as it is to say. But, as I said, taxes WERE just raised the last time a fight came up. So it's time to cut, imo.
There have been cuts
Furthermore, President Obama has proposed and signed into law the elimination of 77 government programs and cut another 52 programs, saving more than $30 billion annually. This includes taking a hard look at areas he thinks are very important to see what programs are not working, duplicative or no longer needed—which is why the Administration has eliminated 16 programs in the Department of Education, 10 programs at Health and Human Services, and 4 programs at the Department of Labor.
In addition, President Obama has cut or eliminated entitlements including cutting out the middleman in the student loan program to save $19 billion, reducing payments for abandoned mine land reclamation by almost $1 billion and eliminating the Telecommunications Development Fund, and a range of other policies.
Under President Obama’s watch, spending—including the emergency measures in the Recovery Act—grew at the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than President Reagan’s first term. In the President’s time in office, federal spending has grown at 1.4 percent per year, the slowest pace since Eisenhower, and far lower than the 8.7 percent in President Reagan’s first term.
This analysis has been confirmed by other fact checkers. On May 22, 2012, responding to claims that spending under President Obama had accelerated rapidly, PolitiFact wrote that “Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation.”
Admittedly, though, the numbers you've given us in your post (I would like that PolitiFact link) give us percent increases. Spending was higher at the beginning of Obama's first term than it was at, say, Reagan's first OR second terms. So a growth of 500 billion dollars in spending under Obama would be a lower % increase than it would be under Reagan. He could have raised spending by more actual dollars than Reagan and still have a smaller % because the initial spending was higher.
Here is the politifact story make sure to read all of it or you may get the wrong impression
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."- Dick Cheney.... I forgot how Republicans were so quick to condemn deficits when they had the Presidency. Can't forget he was handed a deficit bigger than anyone has seen since WWII. And thankfully he didn't make it worse.
In fact he has been decreasing it at an impressive rate.
ah, one more thing before bed (I have work in the morning TT)
The budget adopted before he comes into office is the largest deficit in history at that time. (which he supported as a senator). So yes, you went from the largest increases in history to the smallest, because RIGHT BEFORE he got into office, it was MASSIVE.
There is a reason it was massive. Can you think of something pretty important that happened in 2008-2009? Here's a hint: it affected the economy.
Spending is spending. It hasn't payed off and and is still adding to the debt (that "stimulus"? Yea, we still pay that every year.) Combine that with the fact that Obama does NOT want to cut spending, and you can't blame this all on 2008. We are spending more than we take in with no plan to stop, and it CANNOT continue. Yet Obama wants it to continue. That is my point. It's just Obama spin when he says he cut it by such and such %. He OPPOSED the sequester, which was a (small) cut in increases (most of which came from military spending). It wasn't even a real cut, and it exempted mandatory spending. Obama doesn't give two you-know-whats about the deficit.
Because it's literally stupid to give any measurable attention to the debt or deficit at this time. Do you know what happens when you let the debt/deficit get out of control? You'd be a Nobel prize winning economist if you did.
However, we know what happens with prolonged periods of high unemployment and low inflation. It's not pretty, and government spending is the only known way to get out of it (unless you think world war is the REAL way to get out of it).
The only problem is, government spending is not really helping. We are still a normal country you know; it cannot happen forever, and must stop at some point. Let's not make an experiment out of it. Do you honestly think that we will be a-ok if the debt reaches 20+ trillion in the 2020s like it's supposed to do? We WILL go out of control. Maybe we don't know exactly the result, since we aren't exactly the same as the smaller countries that ARE out of money. But it should be enough warning that most (if not all) economists say that, somehow someway, the debt and deficit must be addressed. Yes, from here on out any course we take is going to hurt. But the longer we sit here, the more it's going to hurt. Moreover, Obama doesn't really have a plan for addressing it, which is my main point. At best he is driving forward with no look towards the future. A man in the fog.
Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
On October 05 2013 08:05 Introvert wrote: I don't know about Ted Cruz, but a quick search showed that he disapproved of how much was cut from military sections. Most conservatives were, but they still took the hit because it was a start, and Obama was acting like the sky would fall (until he backed off). My main point remains the same, cuts must be made. For all the Democrat's chatter about jobs, they (and their massive spending) have done little to help . But like I said, it was a decrease in the increase of spending, so it's really not that bad. If we can't even do that we are screwed.
Well according to the CBO we're screwed if we do. :D
As already said, now is probably not the time for that, and also note that I believe Cruz said that this was a "good first step" or something to that effect. How many jobs need to be sacrificed for ideology? Managing the debt needs to be done, but sensibly.
Who cares if jobs are lost? Government jobs are neither productive nor necessary, as a summation. You can lose them and all you will gain is prosperity and economic efficiency.
Is that what the right is calling it these days? Here I was thinking you guys hated expanding unemployment and safety net/welfare programs.
Somehow I dont expect middle class ex civil servants will sit on the welfare dole generationally. On the off chance they do, frankly, its an improvement.
Well, if you think throwing 1.6 million (and way more if Cruz had his way) more people into entitlement programs is an improvement, I really don't know what to say. No matter how productive or meaningful you or I deem someone's job to be, it still serves a purpose.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
What lack of spending? The government spends around what, 20+% of GDP? Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR in stimulus, and you want more? They promised the stimulus THEN would drastically reduce the unemployment rate, fix the economy, etc. It didn't work then! It's insane to drive us deeper into the hole. Like I said, we might not know the exact effects, but EVERYONE agrees the debt and deficit need to be addressed. Our situation is different, but it's not entirely divorced from reality. We MUST stop at some point. So let me phrase it this way: when do we stop? How are we going to pay it back?
We might as well wait it out! Apparently the amount of spending we need to get noticeable effects is astronomical and unsustainable. So just wait...
On another note, it would be awesome if we actually started cutting the amount of government jobs and adding significant, full time private jobs.
my main point is, this has to stop at some point. We are a large country and can do a lot of things other countries could only hope to do, but our abilities are not infinite.
On October 05 2013 10:57 screamingpalm wrote: Well, if you think throwing 1.6 million (and way more if Cruz had his way) more people into entitlement programs is an improvement, I really don't know what to say. No matter how productive or meaningful you or I deem someone's job to be, it still serves a purpose.
The purpose isnt necessarily a beneficial one. Thats what a job loss is in the market. Reallocating resources away from wasteful inefficient enterprises. The whole of the Government is just that, and we dont have a market pricing system to get rid of them. The regulatory state and the bureaucratic apparatus that enforces it is far more pernicious than the entitlement state, though the entitlement state requires a drastic cut as well to avoid insolvency. Obviously the best option is to cut Government size while reducing entitlements, but if i'm forced to choose between the two I'd say give the useless twats in Government a boot first.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
What lack of spending? The government spends around what, 20+% of GDP? Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR in stimulus, and you want more? They promised the stimulus THEN would drastically reduce the unemployment rate, fix the economy, etc. It didn't work then! It's insane to drive us deeper into the hole. Like I said, we might not know the exact effects, but EVERYONE agrees the debt and deficit need to be addressed. Our situation is different, but it's not entirely divorced from reality. We MUST stop at some point. So let me phrase it this way: when do we stop? How are we going to pay it back?
We might as well wait it out! Apparently the amount of spending we need to get noticeable effects is astronomical and unsustainable. So just wait...
On another note, it would be awesome if we actually started cutting the amount of government jobs and adding significant, full time private jobs.
my main point is, this has to stop at some point. We are a large country and can do a lot of things other countries could only hope to do, but our abilities are not infinite.
I honestly think it would help you understand modern economic more if you understood what national debt actually is. No, its not like your household spending, and your ability to repay your personal debts are not a relevant example of how a modern economy should treat debts no matter how hard conservatives try to spin it. Everyone agrees that the debt and the deficit has to be addressed at some point, but as liberals rightly pointed out addressing the debt in 2010 was foolish, and the stated conservative reason for why it had to be addressed then -- because it is unsustainable *now* and would lead to a financial collapse *now* -- was flat out wrong. It was a convenient political weapon to attack Obama on in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Even the basic economic underpinning for it -- the Rogoff/Reinhart paper that claimed that debt/gdp at 90% means something horrible will happen to the economy was proven to be at best partially derived from a simple mistake in their excel calculations and at the very worst an outright intellectual fraud. And the conservative 'solution' to too much debt-- of gutting the state and slashing taxes -- is not the answer, it will simply reproduce the same problems that we see in the PIGS. massive un employment + rising debt.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
What lack of spending? The government spends around what, 20+% of GDP? Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR in stimulus, and you want more? They promised the stimulus THEN would drastically reduce the unemployment rate, fix the economy, etc. It didn't work then! It's insane to drive us deeper into the hole. Like I said, we might not know the exact effects, but EVERYONE agrees the debt and deficit need to be addressed. Our situation is different, but it's not entirely divorced from reality. We MUST stop at some point. So let me phrase it this way: when do we stop? How are we going to pay it back?
We might as well wait it out! Apparently the amount of spending we need to get noticeable effects is astronomical and unsustainable. So just wait...
On another note, it would be awesome if we actually started cutting the amount of government jobs and adding significant, full time private jobs.
my main point is, this has to stop at some point. We are a large country and can do a lot of things other countries could only hope to do, but our abilities are not infinite.
I honestly think it would help you understand modern economic more if you understood what national debt actually is. No, its not like your household spending, and your ability to repay your personal debts are not a relevant example of how a modern economy should treat debts no matter how hard conservatives try to spin it. Everyone agrees that the debt and the deficit has to be addressed at some point, but as liberals rightly pointed out addressing the debt in 2010 was foolish, and the stated conservative reason for why it had to be addressed then -- because it is unsustainable *now* and would lead to a financial collapse *now* -- was flat out wrong. It was a convenient political weapon to attack Obama on in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Even the basic economic underpinning for it -- the Rogoff/Reinhart paper that claimed that debt/gdp at 90% means something horrible will happen to the economy was proven to be at best partially derived from a simple mistake in their excel calculations and at the very worst an outright intellectual fraud. And the conservative 'solution' to too much debt-- of gutting the state and slashing taxes -- is not the answer, it will simply reproduce the same problems that we see in the PIGS. massive un employment + rising debt.
I am aware it is different. I am also aware that, in the end, it is money that should be repaid. The government is allowed to go into debt, that's not the issue. The issue is how much, and what are we getting for it. We are spending billions and getting nothing. As to claims of "now." I don't know of a single conservative that said "if we don't reduce it by X amount before October 2013, we are going to die!" (maybe Paul Ryan said that?) Problems will eventually arise, but it's not clear when. That's the issue. I certainly haven't said we are in danger in any particular time frame. But right now, the 10+ year outlook is nothing but more debt, with no solution in sight. THIS is the problem. You cannot just go on and on. Too many other things could happen.
Interestingly enough, I still don't see any proposed solution. most of the people here seem to be under the impression that it can continue on and on and they don't even want to worry about it all. "oh, it won't be a problem in the future." Well, economists agree that's not true. The basic argument is that we have to spend now to help now and figure the rest out later, essentially. It is NOT possible to spend into infinity. The left just has no idea when to stop. They don't WANT to stop.
Please show me what research says debt will no be a problem for us. What makes us that special? I'd lvoe to see some sources, btw. I fully admit that, when it comes to government, I've spent more time studying the Constitution, etc than strict economics.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
Maybe the point is that everything Democrats are willing to let go is an acceptable change. Everything they consider essential is essential by definition and everything to the contrary is stupid Republicans at it again. Everything Obama does with a stroke of the pen is necessary (and constitutional, since he's now in the business of changing laws by executive order, a power formerly held by Congress).
Democrats do want the healthy young people to partially subsidize the costs to keep premium increases lower. I do get that. Don't be worried. They've done an admirable job trying to convince them that this is compassion. If we force people to buy it, we're helping everyone!
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
What lack of spending? The government spends around what, 20+% of GDP? Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR in stimulus, and you want more? They promised the stimulus THEN would drastically reduce the unemployment rate, fix the economy, etc. It didn't work then! It's insane to drive us deeper into the hole. Like I said, we might not know the exact effects, but EVERYONE agrees the debt and deficit need to be addressed. Our situation is different, but it's not entirely divorced from reality. We MUST stop at some point. So let me phrase it this way: when do we stop? How are we going to pay it back?
We might as well wait it out! Apparently the amount of spending we need to get noticeable effects is astronomical and unsustainable. So just wait...
On another note, it would be awesome if we actually started cutting the amount of government jobs and adding significant, full time private jobs.
my main point is, this has to stop at some point. We are a large country and can do a lot of things other countries could only hope to do, but our abilities are not infinite.
I honestly think it would help you understand modern economic more if you understood what national debt actually is. No, its not like your household spending, and your ability to repay your personal debts are not a relevant example of how a modern economy should treat debts no matter how hard conservatives try to spin it. Everyone agrees that the debt and the deficit has to be addressed at some point, but as liberals rightly pointed out addressing the debt in 2010 was foolish, and the stated conservative reason for why it had to be addressed then -- because it is unsustainable *now* and would lead to a financial collapse *now* -- was flat out wrong. It was a convenient political weapon to attack Obama on in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Even the basic economic underpinning for it -- the Rogoff/Reinhart paper that claimed that debt/gdp at 90% means something horrible will happen to the economy was proven to be at best partially derived from a simple mistake in their excel calculations and at the very worst an outright intellectual fraud. And the conservative 'solution' to too much debt-- of gutting the state and slashing taxes -- is not the answer, it will simply reproduce the same problems that we see in the PIGS. massive un employment + rising debt.
I am aware it is different. I am also aware that, in the end, it is money that should be repaid.
See, this is fundamentally wrong. The British government has issued debt since the 18th century, it has never paid it off. Government debt is someone else's investment/saving, and having somewhere that is viewed as nearly risk free as a place to park your cash into is a valuable commodity. We know this because at the height of the financial crisis the demand for US government debt from everyone, Americans, American corporations AND foreigners, all plowed into US government debt which is why interest rates collapsed.
The government is allowed to go into debt, that's not the issue. The issue is how much, and what are we getting for it. We are spending billions and getting nothing.
What are you talking about? You get things like highways, a big military, a safety net, the elderly dont just die in poverty and misery. The idea that the government doesnt provide you with nothing is just wrong.
As to claims of "now." I don't know of a single conservative that said "if we don't reduce it by X amount before October 2013, we are going to die!" (maybe Paul Ryan said that?)
John Cochrane of the University of Chicago, Craig Mankiw and Nial Ferguson of Harvard, the Hoover Center at Stanford, and a host of economists and other academics from more obscure universities.
Problems will eventually arise, but it's not clear when. That's the issue. I certainly haven't said we are in danger in any particular time frame. But right now, [i]the 10+ year outlook is nothing but more debt, with no solution in sight
As long as debt grows at the same rate as the economy then you can in fact go on forever.
Interestingly enough, I still don't see any proposed solution. most of the people here seem to be under the impression that it can continue on and on and they don't even want to worry about it all. "oh, it won't be a problem in the future." Well, economists agree that's not true. The basic argument is that we have to spend now to help now and figure the rest out later, essentially. It is NOT possible to spend into infinity. The left just has no idea when to stop. They don't WANT to stop.
Again, this is wrong. You can keep spending as long as the rate of growth is maintained. Most people are not under the impression you claim, liberal economists are simply saying: go into debt as a counter cyclical response to the worst recession since the 1930s and in the good times pay down the debt. But let me explain it another way, if we reach a point of unsustainable the bond market will let us know by raising interest rates on American debt.
Please show me what research says debt will no be a problem for us. What makes us that special? I'd lvoe to see some sources, btw. I fully admit that, when it comes to government, I've spent more time studying the Constitution, etc than strict economics.
What makes America special is that all its debt is denominated in American dollars and its a large modern economy. Japan had debt/gdp at over 100% for almost 20 years now. Germany debt/gdp reach 90%+ during its mid 2000s recessions, after world war 2 both the UK and the US had debt/gdp higher than it currently is. Again, the argument is, fix the economy now, deal with the debt later. Instead of trying to 'fix' the debt now by doing things that will make the recession and the debt both worse off.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
If we force people to buy it, we're helping everyone!
yea, thats how insurance works. otherwise too many free riders make it economically inefficient. Thats why everyone who gets on the road is required insurance too.
On October 05 2013 08:19 oneofthem wrote: i thought some of you were talking about why they hate the u.s., and not about why the u.s. is interested in that region.
if we weren't there, because we were interested in the region, they wouldn't have any reason to dislike us. they don't care about how infidels run their society on the other side of the planet. that's just a jingoistic american fantasy
you think americans are exceptional?
I'm pretty sure he thinks the exact opposite. I would restate his point this way.\
Americans like to think that insurgents in the middle east hate us because of our culture. This view comes from a very US-centric view where we think that our views are necessarily propagated throughout the globe such that american culture is always spreading and that's what they want to combat. In reality they don't care about the effect that american culture has on their society because its next to nothing. The real reason they hate us is because of the several occasions on which we have invaded their countries and displaced/killed their people.
On October 05 2013 08:19 oneofthem wrote: i thought some of you were talking about why they hate the u.s., and not about why the u.s. is interested in that region.
if we weren't there, because we were interested in the region, they wouldn't have any reason to dislike us. they don't care about how infidels run their society on the other side of the planet. that's just a jingoistic american fantasy
you think americans are exceptional?
I'm pretty sure he thinks the exact opposite. I would restate his point this way.\
Americans like to think that insurgents in the middle east hate us because of our culture. This view comes from a very US-centric view where we think that our views are necessarily propagated throughout the globe such that american culture is always spreading and that's what they want to combat. In reality they don't care about the effect that american culture has on their society because its next to nothing. The real reason they hate us is because of the several occasions on which we have invaded their countries and displaced/killed their people.
i got the impression he thought only americans could be jingoistic/expansionist (hey, it's a new civ4 combo!) when in reality we've seen enough people who have an imperialist ideology over there.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
I wanted to respond to this bit in particular.
A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law
B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
Maybe the point is that everything Democrats are willing to let go is an acceptable change. Everything they consider essential is essential by definition and everything to the contrary is stupid Republicans at it again. Everything Obama does with a stroke of the pen is necessary (and constitutional, since he's now in the business of changing laws by executive order, a power formerly held by Congress).
Democrats do want the healthy young people to partially subsidize the costs to keep premium increases lower. I do get that. Don't be worried. They've done an admirable job trying to convince them that this is compassion. If we force people to buy it, we're helping everyone!
I don't agree with every part of the law, and I see a lot of room for modifying it to work even better, but you can't just ask to delay/strip out a KEY provision and expect people to not call you an imbecile.
And I like how you believe that everybody thinks like you do. Just because you and your side follow the lead of talk radio and Fox News doesn't mean everybody else does. There's a lot of people out there that synthesize their own opinions from multiple news sources and study, and not from "gut feelings" and cheerleaders shouting from the airwaves.
If you still want to go around with an attitude that you don't want a Muslim Kenyan Socialist ruining American Exceptionalism, by all means, but I guarantee people are going to look at you like a dumbass.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
I wanted to respond to this bit in particular.
A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law
B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get.
Well, it's legal when they're not in session, and they pulled out a huge technical move to stay in session. What he did was possibly illegal, but to push him on it would likely end in Senate rule changes and not any serious reprimand for Obama.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
I wanted to respond to this bit in particular.
A: There is a very sound precedent for the president using executive orders and such to dely or alter the enforcement of a law
B: The constitution SPECIFICALLY provides for appointments during a Senate recess. Its as legal as you can get.
Well, it's legal when they're not in session, and they pulled out a huge technical move to stay in session. What he did was possibly illegal, but to push him on it would likely end in Senate rule changes and not any serious reprimand for Obama.
Its legal when they're in recess which is different from not being in session. The senate scheduled pro forma sessions every few days so that the prez can't call a special session (I believe its 4) during the days between pro forma sessions they are technically in recess. This precedent has worked according to wikipedia since like WWII.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or "the joint speaker of the House" as Harry Reid calls him, argued Friday that Republicans have already offered Democrats a concession in their stand against reopening the government by demanding not a full repeal of Obamacare, but merely the defunding of President Barack Obama signature health law.
“The House of Representatives has repeatedly compromised already," said Cruz, who already who spoke against funding the law on the Senate floor for 21 hours earlier this month. "The House began -- it is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying not repealing Obamacare but simply that it should be defunded.”
The White House and Democrats have so far moved in lockstep by refusing to negotiate with Republicans on any bill to fund the government or raise the debt limit that also includes language defunding Obamacare. House Republicans have offered to enter conference committee negotiations, but Democrats say any negotiation must come after the government is funded.
"Shutting down the government and threatening to not pay our nation’s bills when you don’t get everything you want isn’t ‘compromise’- it’s extortion," said Michael Czin, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.
Oddly missing from the piece (okay, not so odd considering the source is talkingpointsmemo) is the actual compromise. Boehner quickly moved from defunding it all to delaying it for a year the individual mandate, similar to what Obama did with a stroke of his pen in the one-year delay in the employer mandate. Boehner also vowed to cut the medical device tax. If you compare an entire defunding with one delay and one tax cut, that's pretty much giving away the barn on day two. It's Democrats refusing to compromise that far, not refusing to negotiate on language defunding Obamacare ... language not present in the latest compromise submitted. It's such a slanted piece.
Reid makes his rare entry into the world of making good points by calling Reid the joint speaker of the House. It's been clear for a while that the House lacks a real leader; Cruz's push for action is a breath of fresh air in the GOP's leadership vacuum.
When will you rubes get it from your ridiculously thick skulls (that I'm almost convinced that this point lacks room for a brain at all) that the employer mandate is NOT the same thing as the individual? The individual mandate is one of the pillars that keeps the law working. It's on the same level as the stipulations on preexisting conditions insurance providers face.
I'm more angry that he simply changed it, he had no authority to do that. The law, as it was passed had that date. Statutory law, and he just said "eh, how about we wait until later?" It's almost as bad as his unconstitutional board appointments.
Since a lack of government spending is actually hurting us, I'm going to make the wild jump to say that more of it would help. In fact, we have some pretty solid evidence that, during the current economic climate, the multiplier on (sensible) government spending is greater than 1. What that means is that for every $1 cut from government spending, we're subtracting more than $1 from the economy, while $1 in additional spending expands the economy by more than $1.
Also, there's not much difference in scale when it comes to stuff like monetary theory. There are some subtleties that come into play when your size gets large enough, but the issue with those "smaller countries that ran out of money" is that they ran out of money. Since we print/issue our own currency, that is not an issue. The same can be said for the UK, Japan, Australia, and Canada.
What lack of spending? The government spends around what, 20+% of GDP? Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars EVERY YEAR in stimulus, and you want more? They promised the stimulus THEN would drastically reduce the unemployment rate, fix the economy, etc. It didn't work then! It's insane to drive us deeper into the hole. Like I said, we might not know the exact effects, but EVERYONE agrees the debt and deficit need to be addressed. Our situation is different, but it's not entirely divorced from reality. We MUST stop at some point. So let me phrase it this way: when do we stop? How are we going to pay it back?
We might as well wait it out! Apparently the amount of spending we need to get noticeable effects is astronomical and unsustainable. So just wait...
On another note, it would be awesome if we actually started cutting the amount of government jobs and adding significant, full time private jobs.
my main point is, this has to stop at some point. We are a large country and can do a lot of things other countries could only hope to do, but our abilities are not infinite.
I honestly think it would help you understand modern economic more if you understood what national debt actually is. No, its not like your household spending, and your ability to repay your personal debts are not a relevant example of how a modern economy should treat debts no matter how hard conservatives try to spin it. Everyone agrees that the debt and the deficit has to be addressed at some point, but as liberals rightly pointed out addressing the debt in 2010 was foolish, and the stated conservative reason for why it had to be addressed then -- because it is unsustainable *now* and would lead to a financial collapse *now* -- was flat out wrong. It was a convenient political weapon to attack Obama on in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Even the basic economic underpinning for it -- the Rogoff/Reinhart paper that claimed that debt/gdp at 90% means something horrible will happen to the economy was proven to be at best partially derived from a simple mistake in their excel calculations and at the very worst an outright intellectual fraud. And the conservative 'solution' to too much debt-- of gutting the state and slashing taxes -- is not the answer, it will simply reproduce the same problems that we see in the PIGS. massive un employment + rising debt.
I am aware it is different. I am also aware that, in the end, it is money that should be repaid.
See, this is fundamentally wrong. The British government has issued debt since the 18th century, it has never paid it off. Government debt is someone else's investment/saving, and having somewhere that is viewed as nearly risk free as a place to park your cash into is a valuable commodity. We know this because at the height of the financial crisis the demand for US government debt from everyone, Americans, American corporations AND foreigners, all plowed into US government debt which is why interest rates collapsed.
The government is allowed to go into debt, that's not the issue. The issue is how much, and what are we getting for it. We are spending billions and getting nothing.
What are you talking about? You get things like highways, a big military, a safety net, the elderly dont just die in poverty and misery. The idea that the government doesnt provide you with nothing is just wrong.
As to claims of "now." I don't know of a single conservative that said "if we don't reduce it by X amount before October 2013, we are going to die!" (maybe Paul Ryan said that?)
John Cochrane of the University of Chicago, Craig Mankiw and Nial Ferguson of Harvard, the Hoover Center at Stanford, and a host of economists and other academics from more obscure universities.
Problems will eventually arise, but it's not clear when. That's the issue. I certainly haven't said we are in danger in any particular time frame. But right now, [i]the 10+ year outlook is nothing but more debt, with no solution in sight
As long as debt grows at the same rate as the economy then you can in fact go on forever.
Interestingly enough, I still don't see any proposed solution. most of the people here seem to be under the impression that it can continue on and on and they don't even want to worry about it all. "oh, it won't be a problem in the future." Well, economists agree that's not true. The basic argument is that we have to spend now to help now and figure the rest out later, essentially. It is NOT possible to spend into infinity. The left just has no idea when to stop. They don't WANT to stop.
Again, this is wrong. You can keep spending as long as the rate of growth is maintained. Most people are not under the impression you claim, liberal economists are simply saying: go into debt as a counter cyclical response to the worst recession since the 1930s and in the good times pay down the debt. But let me explain it another way, if we reach a point of unsustainable the bond market will let us know by raising interest rates on American debt.
Please show me what research says debt will no be a problem for us. What makes us that special? I'd lvoe to see some sources, btw. I fully admit that, when it comes to government, I've spent more time studying the Constitution, etc than strict economics.
What makes America special is that all its debt is denominated in American dollars and its a large modern economy. Japan had debt/gdp at over 100% for almost 20 years now. Germany debt/gdp reach 90%+ during its mid 2000s recessions, after world war 2 both the UK and the US had debt/gdp higher than it currently is. Again, the argument is, fix the economy now, deal with the debt later. Instead of trying to 'fix' the debt now by doing things that will make the recession and the debt both worse off.
Again, not my area, so I'm trying to learn something. But so far I'm not convinced that when everyone says we have a problem to address, that we don't have a problem. I guess it goes to show ideology in economics. This money pump is ineffective, yet so far the worst hasn't happened. Doesn't mean it won't. I mean, even the Chinese toned down the borrowing.
Also in the 18th century, the English had such bad debt they increased taxes on Americans and were in a risky financial shape. But they pulled through. And the money is repaid, just at a manageable rate, while newer debts are taken on. Do they have large debts that they owe to someone from the 17th century? Listen, I know we can do this for a long time, and I know we can do ok as long as the economy keeps up... but it's not. We have entitlements that the government itself says are going to go under. We will not be able to spend enough to keep up, that IS the problem. When I mentioned getting nothing, I was referring to the stimulus. it's done jack all.
At some point the Fed is going to have to raise interests rates. It seems that many economists (when do read such things), say interest rates will have to go up, at some point. And the system has already shown it doesn't like that idea. We are taking on more debt then we can keep up with. I'm sure it looks better because the government is using much of the money it's printing, which, while increasing the debt, also increases the size of the economy, but it's not the result of something actually happening, it's the result of large injections into the system. It's money from nowhere, and it's going to have to come back in and be done away with.
ok, why do so many economists seem alarmed by the debt and deficit? if it's all hunky dory why even talk about it at all?
Also, I'm not seeing the result of this increased spending. Jobs are flat, incomes are flat, etc. We are getting precious little from this it appears.
Also, why did the 80s recession not require massive spending on this scale (or in "stimulus")? The economy came back just a few years after the rate hike. Are these same economists embracing this spending now the same ones that yelled at Reagan for the debt he helped rack up? I'd love to see some sources, not abstract TL threads, since you seem to be quite confident. I would love to check the records of these economists.
Thing is, this is very clearly divided around ideological lines. So, both sides have failures. The stimulus is a failure, but the whole system hasn't crashed yet. But it simply seems like what is going on cannot be fixed. The liberal economist's "pay it back later" is never slated to happen! (if you look at CBO estimates). So yes, fix it now, get it over with. Because getting it back is going to hurt. Or, if those economists are wrong (very much a possibility) then we have a huge issue on our hands. This nation is not immune from the workings of economics, and it seems like it is leaving an awful lot to chance to spend now with no plan for the future.
EPT
