The GOP eats itself on fiscal mattersFollow

Why is it the Republicans as the "party of NO"? They've so far passed a budget bill and a debt ceiling raise bill that have been killed in the Senate with no up or down vote. The Democrats are being just as ideologically rigid across the board. The President himself is acting like a spoiled brat on national television, demanding tax increases, debt ceiling relief large enough to take future conversation past the 2012 election and instant relief with "savings", not budget cuts, but "savings" (slowing the rate of growth & accounting shifts) over a decade, the majority of which neither he or this current congress will have any impact on.

It's easy to see where your leanings are with your willingness to brand one side, but try fairness on for size just to see how it feels.

******** about Democrats aside, the story seems to be more about the internal issues with the GOP. I've said it before: John Boehner is the weakest and most ineffectual Speaker of the House we've had in decades and it shows.

That's my favourite thing about my government. They're generally useless at everything else.

Congress with a two drink minimum. We really should look into it here. Already know Kennedy would be all for it.

Which is, I'm guessing, miles worse than putting out a plan, after denying votes on already House passed bills, that you know won't be agreed to, refusing to compromise like Reid is doing, but in the light of day.

I wasn't being insulting. Sorry you got a little sandy crotched thinking I was.

Do you get the fact that 14.7 trillion dollars in debt is a big f'ucking number? That the net result of a raise in the debt ceiling that the Democrats are proposing and the President is demanding will have the same net result on our bond ratings as a theoretical default (which is legally prohibited, and realistically avoidable with the revenue coming to the government on a monthly basis)?

Which is, again, miles different from the Democrats holding rigidly to ideology for the sake of holding rigidly to ideology.

Boehner is the mushy middle. The conservatives bucking the word from on high are doing what they were elected to do: fix the problem. Leadership Republicans don't believe the lessons that history teaches about principled positions and Democrats don't believe anyone should have to feel pain except "rich" people. They're both parties of no, you just happen to prefer the position you're being sold by liberals.

Beck is so mainstream now.

Just checking, your opinion then is that the debt ceiling should NOT be raised, causing the US to default?

'Cause that's pretty freaking retarded.

Better. That was more along the lines of what I was looking for

Just checking, you know what default means, right? Because having this conversation without you understanding what it means would be pretty freaking retarded. Especially since I just told you there's plenty of money coming in every month to cover our obligations without borrowing.

Yes, it is freaking retarded. It's retarded because Moe already told you that failing to increase the debt ceiling does not mean that we default on our loans.

What Moe was saying is that increasing the debt ceiling without any legislative mandate to decrease spending included is worse for our credit rating then not increasing the debt ceiling at all. Let's put this in order of "bad" in terms of credit rating:

1. Worst scenario: We default on our debt. This can only happen if we fail to raise the debt ceiling *and* for some unexplained reason Congress chooses to continue to fund things like research into whether blue whales get erections if we play Barry White music underwater instead of paying off T-bills that are cached in. Since our revenue intake per month is more than sufficient to pay our debt obligations per month and still have enough left over to cut social security checks, medicare payouts, military pay, and quite honestly about 80% of the other stuff our government does, this wont happen unless some stubborn liberals, seeking to create a disaster to blame on the GOP, make it happen.

2. Second worst: We raise the debt ceiling without any legislated spending cuts. This is the equivalent of someone already spending more per month than they take in, and who's already maxed out the credit card, simply getting his creditor to up his limit without doing anything to prevent just maxing it out again down the road. Most sane people can see immediately that this is a failed concept, and the credit rating firms around the world have chimed in saying that doing this would adversely affect the US credit rating.

3. Least worst: We don't raise the debt ceiling and don't default on our debt. Under this scenario, by law congress will have to balance the budget immediately. They will be forced to cut government spending to just what it can afford based on monthly revenues. Assuming they prioritize the spending in a semi intelligent manner, they can still pay our debt obligations, and keep the necessary parts of government running, while cutting spending to things that aren't really necessary.


The reason the GOP has the leverage here is that if we pass a debt ceiling increase with a spending reduction plan, the GOP gets their spending cuts. If we fail to pass a debt ceiling increase at all, barring monumental stupidity the GOP gets their spending cuts. There is literally zero reason for the GOP to compromise here. Giving any tax increases at all is just giving something away for free. The only factor at all in play in the Dems favor is that the press overwhelmingly does make the same false equivalence you do, and does tend to make this out as the GOP holding default over the countries head. For that reason, and only that reason, the GOP is going to be willing to give something up just so that they don't give the largely liberal-leaning media more fuel to burn them with down the line.


It's unfortunate that one side has such an unfair advantage in terms of press coverage, but that's what the GOP has to work with. And it's pretty much the only card the Left has to play here at all. If we lived in a fair and equitable world, there wouldn't even be a debate about this. We'd all know that we just have to cut spending to match our revenue. But we don't live in that fair world.

"False." by itself does not an argument make.

Hope that helps.

And dogs aren't cats either. But if I put either one in a bag and toss them in a lake, they'll drown, right? You get that just because a professor you didn't understand back in school told you that one isn't identical to the other does not mean that there are not common factors in play.

Debt and deficit at the macroeconomic level are different only because there are more methods to manage them. You can run deficits every single year but still not ever "run out of money". However, that does not mean that high levels of debt are harmless. You still want to keep total debt levels manageable, or you will suffer negative economic effects.


Are you honestly trying to suggest that our current debt level isn't a major reason for why our employment rate is still hovering over 9%? There are consequences to debt Smash. The argument that since debt works differently does not mean that it's irrelevant. It's not.





No one's making an equivalent argument though. Saying "gee, our debt ratio is higher than it's been since WW2. Maybe we should do something about that." is a rational response to current economic conditions. Dismissing that debt with some lame argument about how macro and micro economics aren't the same is a huge mistake.

I know. Reading the post you're trying to comment on is beyond you, so getting the argument is probably just an unrealistic expectation.

It's ok, you're still loved and that's the important thing. Not being smart enough to argue on the interwebs shouldn't diminish your over-inflated sense of self worth.